What to do with Level 3 - Parramatta Leagues Club

[fish eel]

I have not as yet received the years final fgures but I beleive the licenced club will show a slight loss prior to the leagues cost .
The smoking regulations and the additional poker machine tax has realy cost us..OVO

Thanks for the answer. Much appreciated.

Given the smoking regulations and pokie tax regime arent going anywhere (as state revenues have bottomed out due to property downturn), it really is a concern if there is even a slight loss prior to the football grant.

On a related note (and not directed at you Ovo)

This is part of the reason why I said the other night the Leagues Club election had very little to do with fan relations, thats because we have a bigger ball in play now, the viability of our club.

While I may not be happy with the performance of the current board, the onus really is on 3P, not just to put forward a case for change, but to position themselves as a real and geuine ticket that can turn the club around.

When I read suggestions like moving the pokies to Dundas, it really does concern me that the choice will be between the failed and the well intentioned but poorly thought out.

Seeing as Col is asking questions, I've got one for him (with some preamble), which to me, is pretty central.

It's well known 3P want to move the NRL operations back to the footy club.

The reasoning I've heard is that is where it belongs.

The other argument I've heard is accountability. Seems to me people were held quite accountable at the last FC elections.

Neither argument cuts it for me. The onus is on 3P to demonstrate the need to change it back from the current structure.

The core question is:
How will moving the NRL operations back to the football club guarantee the long term future of a stand alone Parramatta Eels more than the current structure?

Because, if it doesnt provide a stronger guarantee than the current structure, then what is the point?

Isnt that what this is all about? Ensuring the Eels future?

The other line trotted out on this is that it is the first item in the leagues clubs constitution, meaning if the NRL side is with the FC, then big deal, the leagues club would still fund it.

My understanding is that is only partially correct.

The first item is that the club is there for the benefit of members (which means both footy fans and others). That, I believe, is the same for any registered club.

The second item is football, and it says yes, the club has a duty to foster football in the district. It does not say fund an NRL side, it says foster football. This could mean many things. It could mean fund an NRL side. It could mean provide funds direct to junior clubs in leui of an NRL side. Happy to be proved mistaken on these two points.

Given the Leagues Club pretty much fund the football operations, it would seem to me appropriate they have a big say in football operations.

 

[Sangreal 86]

To all,

Knock yourselves out. Lets see what ideas we can come up with for better things the Leagues Club could be doing better than currently. I don't really care if 3P introduce it or the incumbants get it happening straight away. The sooner the better in my eyes. Apart from re-utilising the auditorium much better, lets get some ideas rolling. Bring back the TAB, more areas for Keno ?, Nightclub ?, More family orientated activities for the little ones to be welcomed in ?, you guys and gals tell us all what you reckon needs to be done. Whatever is posted prior to this Tuesday 5pm, I will take to the 3P team meeting with me. Anything after that, I will present to some of the guys on Saturday before our catch up at Sterlos with everyone.

 

[parra pete]

I know this might surprise some Suity, but fair dinkum mate, whoever implements it, the better. If the current board want to do it, good on em. If not and they win the leagues club election, well then they would want to get it done, or potentially bye bye in 2 years more time. If they do it and we win, then well good on them for getting the ball rolling. If they don't do it and we get in, then we need to get it done or otherwise we are just as bad and potentially bye bye to us.

In all reality, I am the same as everyone else. I want change and I want it now. It would please me no end, if the people currently in power would at least start to listen and act. We are not going to just wait to get into power before trying to get things implemented now.

On another note, I'm not really that worried Suity. I believe the current boards response to whatever is posted here is the following.
1) They won't even know about it, apart from Ovo who is the only one that actually does care.
2) I don't believe that Ovo could possibly get it approved at board level because the Leagues Club board already seems to have a lot of inhouse fighting issues preventing them from doing anything at this point in time it seems.
3) If it did get to board level, a majority would rule against it anyway and say that if it does not include pokies, chinese fortune cookies or dim sims, then they are not interested. The attitude will be to tell the Crown and Rose about it and keep away from the casino.
4) They are not going to cater for individuals that they believe currently cripple their business whenever they attend the club. It scares people away don't forget.

If they do act, good on them. If they don't. WE WILL.

And by the way Parra Pete since you love sayings so much. Heres one from Elvis for you.

" A LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE".

Ovo..

Is the assertion made in point two of the above post true and a fair reflection of the current situation. If so what is the infighting about, who is the cause, and can it be overcome. Surely the current Board Directors were elected to act as a team for the benefit of the Club, its success, both financially and socially.
Is the negative statement made in (3) correct.

 

[Suitman]

We have just opened the new RENO room with 76 machines in a new smoking area things are improving.
Things are tough at the moment with a lot of good people having financal problems.
OVO

Thankyou for replying Alan.

This is just more machines though. Are there any other avenues at which the board is searching for alternate revenue streams? We know about the real estate venture across the road from the club, which in itself, seems to be struggling during these difficult times, and apparantly, the old Two Blues club has been sold.

Suity

 

[strider]

...

My understanding is that is only partially correct.

The first item is that the club is there for the benefit of members (which means both footy fans and others). That, I believe, is the same for any registered club.

The second item is football, and it says yes, the club has a duty to foster football in the district. It does not say fund an NRL side, it says foster football. This could mean many things. It could mean fund an NRL side. It could mean provide funds direct to junior clubs in leui of an NRL side. Happy to be proved mistaken on these two points.

Given the Leagues Club pretty much fund the football operations, it would seem to me appropriate they have a big say in football operations.

Well if the members are the first concern, above any football matter - then shouldn't the members be pissed that the LC runs (ie spends so much money on) a NRL team .... shouldn't they want that money waster gone so the club can spend more on comfy chairs and nice carpet, etc etc?

I think the footy operations is 1st priority and keeping the members happy to produce enough revenue to support the footy team should be the order of priority. ... I guess I'm saying they go hand-in-hand and are both top priority.


PS: I think that was a damn fine post fishy :thumn

 

[fish eel]

Well if the members are the first concern, above any football matter - then shouldn't the members be pissed that the LC runs (ie spends so much money on) a NRL team .... shouldn't they want that money waster gone so the club can spend more on comfy chairs and nice carpet, etc etc?

I guess only those members who dont have an interest in football would be.

I think the footy operations is 1st priority and keeping the members happy to produce enough revenue to support the footy team should be the order of priority.

Yeah, I guess that priority order of members then football is just the way I understand the constitution, but I could be mistaken. Whichever order the priority in the constitution, I'm pretty sure it doesnt commit the leagues club to funding an NRL side - just footy in general, which could be a number of things.

PS: I think that was a damn fine post fishy :thumn

Sometimes I can make a good post if I think before typing :lol:

 

[Suitman]

I'm pretty sure it doesnt commit the leagues club to funding an NRL side - just footy in general, which could be a number of things.

But, what do you have if you don't have an NRL side?

Suity

 

[mickdo]

But, what do you have if you don't have an NRL side?

Suity

The Bears?

 

[Gronk]

Good post Fish. Looking forward to PF's detailed response.

 

[fish eel]

But, what do you have if you don't have an NRL side?

Suity

I'm just saying whats in the constitution.

The club has an obligation to foster league. That could mean several things. It could mean funding an NRL side. It could mean pumping money direct to junior clubs and grassroots development. It's not a given the leagues club funds an NRL side.

 

[strider]

what came first the first grade league side or the club? ... not that it matters - i am just interested to know

 

[strider]

I'm just saying whats in the constitution.

The club has an obligation to foster league. That could mean several things. It could mean funding an NRL side. It could mean pumping money direct to junior clubs and grassroots development. It's not a given the leagues club funds an NRL side.

so what we are saying is that our constitution is an ambiguous pile of nothing :lol: :lol:

 

[Suitman]

Good post Fish. Looking forward to PF's detailed response.

So are you going to go to one of the meetings?

Perfect opportunity for you to grill them yourself.

Suity

 

[Suitman]

I'm just saying whats in the constitution.

The club has an obligation to foster league. That could mean several things. It could mean funding an NRL side. It could mean pumping money direct to junior clubs and grassroots development. It's not a given the leagues club funds an NRL side.

so what we are saying is that our constitution is an ambiguous pile of nothing :lol: :lol:

Fish, if you want to take the constitution to the letter of the law, it could be construed several different ways, which is fine if you want to raise the question.
However, we all know that the NRL team should be the primary function of the Leagues Club, otherwise, why have it? It was established that way originally, so what's changed?
Not much in my books.
Let's just go about the best way we all can of making both the Leagues Club and Football club as financially viable as possible.

Suity

 

[Suitman]

Just a further question to no one in particular.

It is probably the case that Panthers has the biggest club conglomerate of any NRL team. I know I've been to a Panthers Club in Port Macquarie, and I know they own several others.

I'm curious to find out how Panthers are coping with the financial problems that continually get raised by Ovo - ie. the change to smoking laws and the increase in the pokies tax.
Does anyone know?

Suity

 

[Gronk]

So are you going to go to one of the meetings?

Perfect opportunity for you to grill them yourself.

Suity

Nah, I don't go that far for my holidays. ;-) If they scheduled a meet for game day I'll try and fit it in though.

 

[strider]

So are you going to go to one of the meetings?

Perfect opportunity for you to grill them yourself.

Suity

tbh I actually agree with Gronk a bit ..... it'd be nice to have a short, direct write-up of 3Ps plan - just point form ..... there's bits been posted here and there all over teh forum and yeah its possible to go to the meetings and listen a bit, but you only take in a remember so much spoken stuff at a meeting cos there's so much going on

 

[The Colonel]

Not sure about 2008

http://www.panthers.com.au/ContentFiles/Portal/Documents/PRLCLtd 07.pdf

2007, according to the above, was a net loss of $10,483,000.

Page 6.

 

[fish eel]

Fish, if you want to take the constitution to the letter of the law, it could be construed several different ways, which is fine if you want to raise the question.
However, we all know that the NRL team should be the primary function of the Leagues Club, otherwise, why have it? It was established that way originally, so what's changed?
Not much in my books.
Let's just go about the best way we all can of making both the Leagues Club and Football club as financially viable as possible.

Suity

Thats right, I agree, and thats how it should be and how it has been since god knows when.

I only raise what is in the constitution, because it has been taken as a given and spoken to as if the constitution means the leagues club has to fund an NRL side - which is doesnt.

What's changed? Well, 3P want to change the current structure, so I think questions like this, like what is the leagues club obliged to do is an important part of the discussion as to how putting the NRL operations in the hands of the FC provides a more guaranteed future for the Parramatta Eels as a stand alone entity.

 

[Gronk]

Not sure about 2008

http://www.panthers.com.au/ContentFiles/Portal/Documents/PRLCLtd 07.pdf

2007, according to the above, was a net loss of $10,483,000.

Page 6.

Looks like there was a heap of abnormals though. They spent $8M on renos for the smokers and had a heap of disruption during construction which attributed to the drop in revenue.