What to do with Level 3 - Parramatta Leagues Club

[strider]

can i just say (don't know if it has already been said - probably) - in regards to the LC controlling the NRL team and the LC potentially having a whole heap of members who don't give a toss about footy - how f'n nuts is it to have a bunch of ppl who don't give a toss about footy able to vote for a board that will control an NRL team!!! :crazy:

 

[Parra Future]

oh man - we just had a blackout for almost an hour ... what did I miss?

Nothing...... I think.

 

[Suitman]

:lol: I'm not a Leagues Club member anyway, so it doesn't matter to me one way or another.
Anyone would think that by getting a majority on this forum is enough to make the necessary changes to the PLC..

Don't get too carried away. Joh thought he was a good chance of becoming PM too when he issued his challenge, the same with Pauline and the One Nation Party...
Reality bites sometimes...

Maybe that's your view pete but I've never thought that. :?

I was just wondering what was was so mind blowing about Colins revelations of Terry's business history, which was pretty much nothing?

Suity

 

[Suitman]

can i just say (don't know if it has already been said - probably) - in regards to the LC controlling the NRL team and the LC potentially having a whole heap of members who don't give a toss about footy - how f'n nuts is it to have a bunch of ppl who don't give a toss about footy able to vote for a board that will control an NRL team!!! :crazy:

Maybe it was instigated that way on purpose?
Just a thought, because that's a very good question.

Suity

 

[bartman]

oh man - we just had a blackout for almost an hour ... what did I miss?

Some really poor cricket, from the Australian perspective anyway.

 

[bartman]

can i just say (don't know if it has already been said - probably) - in regards to the LC controlling the NRL team and the LC potentially having a whole heap of members who don't give a toss about footy - how f'n nuts is it to have a bunch of ppl who don't give a toss about footy able to vote for a board that will control an NRL team!!! :crazy:

Exactly. I think the future of footy is safer with the NRL/First grade team back under FC responsibility. Sure, the FC has to go cap in hand to the LC, and that's how the LC gets to ensure it's say and the accountability for how it's spent.

A lot better than in happening behind closed doors with the same 7+1 people holding all the positions. And a lot better than the future risk that a bunch of gaming oriented LC voting members could vote to squash the NRL out, without an alternate footy-focussed (And hopefully growing) FC membership having their say.

 

[Suitman]

And a lot better than the future risk that a bunch of gaming oriented LC voting members could vote to squash the NRL out, without an alternate footy-focussed (And hopefully growing) FC membership having their say.

And that my friends, is probably the greatest fear of all, if control of the NRL team is left in the hands of the voting Leagues Club members, and as good a reason as I've seen to revert control to the FC.


Suity

 

[Gronk]

And that my friends, is probably the greatest fear of all, if control of the NRL team is left in the hands of the voting Leagues Club members, and as good a reason as I've seen to revert control to the FC.


Suity

They'll still control the show. Without the annual grant we're up sh*t creek.

 

[Twizzle]

He had a trucking business selling spuds. What difference does it make if he was carting sh*t, milk, gold, chickens or building equipment..or whatever,

makes no difference whatsoever

the point that I made, which may have been lost in my sarcasm, is that the fact he was an ex League player that got him the job, not because of what he sold

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

They'll still control the show. Without the annual grant we're up sh*t creek.

Exactly. So they're supposed to fork out the millions each year but have no say in anything?

I understand exactly why 3P want to switch the NRL team back (thanks for that long post, Col) but I see this is a very valid reason to keep it at the LC. If LC members are being forced to fork out millions each year (due to the constitution) and if they could lose their LC in order to continue to fund the footy (in theory, anyways, due to the constitution) then they deserve the right to have a say, don't they?

 

[bartman]

But those people will get a say... in keeping the directors of the LC accountable for what they do.

What they won't do under a change of structure is be able to have a say on football matters when they have no knowledge or interest in them, as those matters will all again fall under the FC, who are accountable to their members.

Nothing to stop those LC members who want to have more of a say than they'll get (for whatever reason) forking out a modest annual sum to be FC voting members, as many of us on here also are.

But I'd trust two Boards of people, with two sets of active memberships keeping them accountable to handle like adults the reality that one organsiation's activity is reliant on the other organisation for funding - more than I'd trust the future of that activity (that may not matter to a growing number of members of one organisation) to the current, secretive and one pronged structure.

But hey, if I continue any more discussion points on this issue, I might be accused of all sorts of irrational things as a result... :roll:

 

[Stagger eel]

Exactly. So they're supposed to fork out the millions each year but have no say in anything?

I understand exactly why 3P want to switch the NRL team back (thanks for that long post, Col) but I see this is a very valid reason to keep it at the LC. If LC members are being forced to fork out millions each year (due to the constitution) and if they could lose their LC in order to continue to fund the footy (in theory, anyways, due to the constitution) then they deserve the right to have a say, don't they?

whilst you make a valid point John, however the 3P group have made it known that their potential ticket for the upcoming ellections will comprise of candidates with a business oriented backround who's focus is to increase the interest and patronage of the club while supporting the football team(s) and it's fellow board members.

 

[strider]

They'll still control the show. Without the annual grant we're up sh*t creek.

of course .... but I see a difference between them having control of the money and control of the board members - what happens if they vote is a board who doesn't know/does care about footy at all? - they might still recognise that being a leagues club means forking out $8m a year, but if they put ppl control at the top level who are totally non-football, would our NRL league structure collapse?

Exactly. So they're supposed to fork out the millions each year but have no say in anything?

I understand exactly why 3P want to switch the NRL team back (thanks for that long post, Col) but I see this is a very valid reason to keep it at the LC. If LC members are being forced to fork out millions each year (due to the constitution) and if they could lose their LC in order to continue to fund the footy (in theory, anyways, due to the constitution) then they deserve the right to have a say, don't they?

the LC members pay what $10 a year to be a member ... then ALL the rest of the money they "fork out" gets them something in return - drink, food, a chance at winning money .... ppl go there to get something they want - they aren't just there to throw money at a footy team

 

[parra pete]

makes no difference whatsoever

the point that I made, which may have been lost in my sarcasm, is that the fact he was an ex League player that got him the job, not because of what he sold

I can't STAND sarcasm!!!. When Denis was appointed to the position it was a LOT different to what is required now. Let's just say he grew into the job, rather than it growing into to him. He learned the Football administration business with 'on the job' experience, so much so that he is now the longest serving official in the NRL.
Much the same as John O'Toole with the CRL..People thought that John was past his use by date before he retired. They (CRL) hasn't been able to find anyone as good to replace him since.
The point I am making in regard to Denis..The devil you know( especially in times of financial crisis) is better than the 'new bloke' who could come in like a bull in a China Shop.
As regards to the voting. the people who actually use the Club (PLC) should be the people to decide its future direction..He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If the Leagues Club is to continue to pump money into the NRL, don't you think that is correct. After all, the Club belongs to the members, not vice versa....

 

[mickdo]

so much so that he is now the longest serving official in the NRL.

Again pete you come back to longevity. Surely performance is more important?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I agree that Fitzy's 30 years could be as much a sign of "thanks, but it's time to go" as it could be of "he has the experience to stay in place".

As such, any new CEO candidate should be looked at purely on what experience they have and what potential they display and not automatically cast aside because they do not have 30 years experience.

Sooner or later the guard has to be changed. Fitzy should retain the position based on a combination of experience and vision, not purely on the past.

 

[parra pete]

Mick, the point I am trying to make is do you replace someone who knows the ropes with a 'new kid' untested in Football administration.
What is it about Denis Fitzgerald's performance as CEO that YOU don't like...?

 

[Suitman]

What is it about Denis Fitzgerald's performance as CEO that YOU don't like...?

Sooner or later the guard has to be changed. Fitzy should retain the position based on a combination of experience and vision, not purely on the past.

That pete. We have no idea what the current boards vision is, even though Ovo has been asked many times.

Suity

 

[parra pete]

I agree that Fitzy's 30 years could be as much a sign of "thanks, but it's time to go" as it could be of "he has the experience to stay in place".

As such, any new CEO candidate should be looked at purely on what experience they have and what potential they display and not automatically cast aside because they do not have 30 years experience.

Sooner or later the guard has to be changed. Fitzy should retain the position based on a combination of experience and vision, not purely on the past.

I agree HJ..Fitzy is coming to retirement age anyway. He should go out on his terms..

 

[Twizzle]

I can't STAND sarcasm!!!.

thanks for the ammunition

When Denis was appointed to the position it was a LOT different to what is required now. Let's just say he grew into the job, rather than it growing into to him. He learned the Football administration business with 'on the job' experience, so much so that he is now the longest serving official in the NRL.
Much the same as John O'Toole with the CRL..People thought that John was past his use by date before he retired. They (CRL) hasn't been able to find anyone as good to replace him since.
The point I am making in regard to Denis..The devil you know( especially in times of financial crisis) is better than the 'new bloke' who could come in like a bull in a China Shop.
As regards to the voting. the people who actually use the Club (PLC) should be the people to decide its future direction..He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If the Leagues Club is to continue to pump money into the NRL, don't you think that is correct. After all, the Club belongs to the members, not vice versa....

he is the devil we know, thats why some people want him gone

who has bitched about the piokie tax and smokng rules more than Denis the menace ?

in fact, has anyone made more excuses than Denis ?

who said we would be broke in 5 years ?

No one is disputing that it belongs to the members but is this the type of comment you would want from the CEO of your local club ?