What to do with Level 3 - Parramatta Leagues Club

[strider]

If you are worried about the board being two entities, maybe that says more about the incumbant members, than the new ones.
Aren't they ALL supposed to be working as a team of 7?
It wouldn't hurt Johnson, Hilditch and Gerard to actually hear what the people want to say for a change.

Suity

are you AGAIN saying they should turn up to a 3P organised meeting to which they were never invited?

 

[mickdo]

I really don't think I am being that confusing. I have no problem with the board taking advice from others - all boards do. It is in the same way that a board appoints an accountancy firm for financial advice for example. BUT - it should be the whole board taking the advice as one common entity - not as 2 groups.

Well, as we have seen from the LC current board, it isn't necessarily a good thing to have a board that is homogeneous. If there are 2 'groups', then so be it. At least we might get some new ideas.

I know that is not going to happen in this instance - and that is what concerns me. I wont call them puppets - yet.....................!

Calling them puppets before they have even run for election would be quite amusing IMO, especially when you look at who we currently have running the LC board.

 

[mickdo]

are you AGAIN saying they should turn up to a 3P organised meeting to which they were never invited?

They could have their own meeting if they wanted to. Nothing stopping them.

 

[Suitman]

are you AGAIN saying they should turn up to a 3P organised meeting to which they were never invited?

No, I'm saying that it would be good if they could hear what WE have to say, through the voices of the 3P board members.

Suity

 

[forward pass]

Calling them puppets before they have even run for election would be quite amusing IMO, especially when you look at who we currently have running the LC board.

ffs - I am talking about the footy club board - not the LC board !:roll:

Am I posting in Chinese or something ?

 

[mickdo]

ffs - I am talking about the footy club board - not the LC board !:roll:

Am I posting in Chinese or something ?

Well be specific, there is another election coming you know! ;-)

Anyhow, my original point still applies to the old FC board as well

 

[MarkInTheStands]

So I take it we won't be seeing you on this board again?
Such a shame, considering the hard work you put in, not to see it through, but your health always comes first.

Suity

That will depend completely on the outcome of my treatment and how time consuming or will zapping the adjustments to life are after the operation. I could very well be back in May or even earlier if things go exceptionally well and I have everything under control. But I don't want to make fan relations matters or discussing them on this site my priority at this time. I am quite confident, people like Hellsy, emjaycee and indeed Parra Future, can raise these points without me for the next few months at least and I will be keeping my eye on things as well.

Having said that I am still going to football games, as it is part of who I am, and something I will most certainly will be continuing with into the future after my treatment so I may well be commenting on those issues, I will also be competing with Bartman in the F7's this year representing The Parramatta Eels.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

HJ, I don't believe that Bartman is a 3P groupie. I have caught up with him at the get-together and he has asked the tough questions himself and has never come out and said 3P all the way. From what I have read of his posts, he actually has to be admired for taking a neutral stance and just posting his views. As is logic and commonsense, everyone is entitled to that and that is the way it should be.

I must disagree with the nuetral stance. I was there on Friday and although I was not a part of any small groups that bartman was, in the general discussion I did not hear him ask one tough question. Actually, I'm not even sure he asked any questions as my memory seems to be of him simply spouting anti-Denis quotes and generally making supportive statements of 3P.

Now this is all well and good, and I certainly do not expect him to be nuetral if he does not want to be (and I could even be very wrong), but I just wanted to point out why I do not believe he is holding a nuetral stance nor asking tough questions as you have claimed, Col.

My issue is purely that Fishy was asking pertinent questions (for the first time during any election ever!) and subsequently stating that he was not satisfied with the answers.

This is his right and actually a very positive thing during an election. We should seek more of it. However, every time he tried to ask a question, seek further clarification or state that he was not satisfied with the response given, bart would be all over him, talking down to him as he questioned why fishy wasn't just accepting what had been given as satisfactory.

How dare fishy not fall into line!

It's as if this is what is happening:

Are you going to paint me as a supporter of the current board because I ask questions on here of 3P?

As has already been pointed out, even Terry has made the mistake of assuming that fishy is a Denis supporter.

You are both supporters of Denis,

I do not think this is true, but instead fishy just feels that hard questions must be asked and that the answers should be clear and thorough. There is nothing wrong with this at all. I wish more people were like this.

If our group did not put forward this challenge then these issues would not even be discussed and the same old company spiel would be jammed down the supporters' and members' throats AGAIN for another 2 years.

In appreciation for how true this is (and it is VERY true), I have corrected the spelling, grammatical and punctuational errors in the above quote.

don't you get the feeling that we're slightly moving away from what the REAL issue is about...seriously guys.

Not in the least. I feel that Gronk and FP have both made good points regarding this. Perhaps also strider?

 

[Gronk]

I must disagree with the neutral stance. I was there on Friday and although I was not a part of any small groups that bartman was, in the general discussion I did not hear him ask one tough question. Actually, I'm not even sure he asked any questions as my memory seems to be of him simply spouting anti-Denis quotes and generally making supportive statements of 3P.

Now this is all well and good, and I certainly do not expect him to be neutral if he does not want to be (and I could even be very wrong), but I just wanted to point out why I do not believe he is holding a neutral stance nor asking tough questions as you have claimed, Col.

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

 

[Suitman]

As has already been pointed out, even Terry has made the mistake of assuming that fishy is a Denis supporter.



I do not think this is true, but instead fishy just feels that hard questions must be asked and that the answers should be clear and thorough. There is nothing wrong with this at all. I wish more people were like this.

All well and good HJ, as long as the same questions are asked of the incumbants. This is where the debate went off on a tangant.

Not in the least. I feel that Gronk and FP have both made good points regarding this. Perhaps also strider?

As did Juinor009. The relevance of this debate is still beyond me. No one has explained why it is such a terrible, terrible thing to have a spokesperson. FP came close, but didn't quite get there.

Suity

 

[Suitman]

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

:lol: Typo can't be the excuse for three repetitive mistakes. :lol:

Suity

 

[mickdo]

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

:lol::lol::lol: Owned!

 

[The Colonel]

With all the space that exists upstairs do you reckon you could turn it into a paintball centre?

 

[bartman]

I don't understand why 3P still exists? 3P was a group of individuals who succesfully got some of their members voted onto the PDJRL board.

Now that the elections have completed, I don't understand why the 3P group would still exist. We have a board - thats it. Having 3P indicates that we have a split board - 4 of whom are taking advice from and an external 'group' and 3 that aren't. I personally find this very odd.

Do we have 2 boards - sitting in the same room? Please feel free to clarify this PF.

Um, I think it exists because there are two electable Boards in relation to rugby league in parra - the FC and the LC (since the NRL team was been positioned under the LC for some reason in the last 8 years or thereabouts).

3P exists because it was always intending to run for (and gain control of) both Boards, I gathered that much from reading on here. The LC election is in April, so hasn't happened yet.

After that, then I expect whichever people are elected onto the Boards to all be working together in the best interests of the club. But in the meantime 3P are the only ones who are openly inviting suggestions and making themselves available - elected people and people potential standing for the April elections - for face-to-face discussions with members.

 

[Hellsy]

That is how I would see it too Bart

 

[Delboy]

Whilst it is interesting to read ideas and observations relating to Level 3 at the Leagues Club, it is really not facing the facts that the NRL club need to confront.

Whatever we do, it still won't replace the funding hole that the attacks on the club industry by the State Govt has left. I think we are all for returning some attachment to the fans, but as I have said before, this will not produce the $5 to $6 million poer annum that we need to replace the Leagues Club grant to the NRL and junior league.

That is where we need the real ideas, no doubt this is the crux of our and the other Sydney clubs survival, is there enough corporate support and alternate revenue streams available to replace that grant.

 

[Suitman]

That is how I would see it too Bart

Agreed Bart and Hellsy.

I'm happy for people to question their motives, as I'm sure they are.
That's why it's imperative for as many people on here (and others, if you know anyone else who would like information) to get to the meeting on Saturday, or any other meeting thereafter.

Put your concerns to them personally, and then make a decision.

But, I can't cop people who just sit on here and question for the sake of questioning.
Some people need to show some nuts.
(Don't ask me what the female equivilent is to this statement). :lol:

Suity

PS. I look forward to the first open question session that the current Leagues Club Board plan to hold. Afterall, it's only fair that we can ask of both contenders all the same questions.

 

[mickdo]

Whilst it is interesting to read ideas and observations relating to Level 3 at the Leagues Club, it is really not facing the facts that the NRL club need to confront.

Whatever we do, it still won't replace the funding hole that the attacks on the club industry by the State Govt has left. I think we are all for returning some attachment to the fans, but as I have said before, this will not produce the $5 to $6 million poer annum that we need to replace the Leagues Club grant to the NRL and junior league.

That is where we need the real ideas, no doubt this is the crux of our and the other Sydney clubs survival, is there enough corporate support and alternate revenue streams available to replace that grant.

It may not replace that funding on its own, but it is a step in the right direction and shouldn't be dismissed just because it isn't a silver bullet

 

[carson]

Firstly Carson, journo's were backing up for a shot at Denis, so you push that barrow anyway you please. Charles Manson was getting more fan mail during that period than poor ol' Fitzi.

Secondly mate, come down the club at 12 noon Saturday and pat the "DROVERS DOGS" head, as you so succinctly put it. Come and put your views to us , as it does not matter who support, your imput is important.

Whats going on is not a personal vendetta....this is the future of OUR club. All of us.

Come for a mag Saturday.
Terry Leabeater.

"My enemy's enemy is my friend" (I'd say this is Josh's only means of finding a friend)

Would love to come down to have a chat but the commute from Perth is a bitch.

Like I said a change had to happen as the previous board had become tired and stale. The apathy of the board seemed to be rubbing off on the players or was it the other way around?

On a personal level, last year when I made my annual pilgrimage to Parramatta stadium to see the team I've supported for over 30 years play, I stopped by the leagues club while I was in town for a look around. After finally figuring out how to get to the 3rd floor I promptly turned around and left as I thought I was in a restricted area. There was not a single person up there except for 2 staff members who gave me a look that seemed to say what are you doing here. I thought it particualarly disturbing that there was no sign anywhere in the club that a home game was only a few hours away from kick off.

It would be nice to have a league club that in some way made an effort to support the team.

All I want is a succesful and well run team and aren't really fused who is on the board that achieves it.

 

[bartman]

are you AGAIN saying they should turn up to a 3P organised meeting to which they were never invited?

It's an open invitation... Ovo read it on here, other current Board members could have done themselves a favour to find out what some of the members opinions are by reading here too.

Are we again saying the current Directors need to receive gilt-edged personal invitations to come to an open meeting being held in a public part of the club that they are elected to direct? In my view - Ovo aside - a main reason why people voted for a change at the FC elections was the invisibility of the Board members... will we give them excuses to continue that behaviour toward their members?