What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Salary Cap

Status
Not open for further replies.

Noise

Coach
Messages
17,106
Mate we got smashed in that grand final. The scoreline was a lot closer than the relative performances of the two teams and the game was over at halftime, despite the 'comeback'.

So which teams besides the cheating storm weren't, as you say 'making up the numbers' in 2009?
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
84,160
Yep. They beat Manly and Brisbane by a combined 80 to 22 in their two finals matches. They obviously took us lightly, still led at halftime, and then put their cue in the rack. It would have been exciting if we'd pantsed them like we hoped, but as soon as it got close they switched back on.

Anyway they were cheats so it's all academic.
 

Joshuatheeel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
19,581
Yep. They beat Manly and Brisbane by a combined 80 to 22 in their two finals matches. They obviously took us lightly, still led at halftime, and then put their cue in the rack. It would have been exciting if we'd pantsed them like we hoped, but as soon as it got close they switched back on.

Anyway they were cheats so it's all academic.

While I agree they were a lot better then us in the GF, they never "switched back on" during our comeback. They got bloody luck that slater got that penalty from Fui. If it wasn't for that penalty there is a good chance we score again ( but we will never know)

Even Cameron Smith is quoted as saying he was "shitting himself" during our comeback.
 
Messages
19,102
Yep.

A competent executive and board would question every point and how it relates to their business. Then adopt what they believe works, and reject what they do not.

That's what should happen in a situation where the board decide to hire a consultant purely 'off their own bat', to offer advice on reform.

But that is not what is going on here. This consultant has been hired under the terms of an offer by the NRL that allows us to avoid a suspended penalty becoming a real one. We were told in advance that we would be expected to implement the recommended reforms. If we didn't like that, we could just say 'we will take the 4 point penalty'.
 
Messages
19,102
My experiences with said auditor and others have been severely disappointing.

They use graduates in critical situations and then their management make recommendations on their graduates lack of understanding of their jobs.

We have proven them wrong on so many of their recommendations because it goes against ATO rulings.

Just because some dude out of college writes in a book how an ideal world business should be run without any real life experience it doesn't mean it is right.

Their lack of knowledge in their jobs is astounding to be honest. They make shit loads of money off businesses to give impractical solutions to problems based on lack of understanding on what they are reviewing.

What's worse is that due to their lack of knowledge certain people can get them to suggest certain practices. I am looking at recommendations at the moment that are blowing my mind and I know exactly how they got what they have recommended and who they sat with to be swayed that way.

In saying all of that, unless our board has very strong legal advice in what they are saying, I really hope we are not f**king up any chances to keep our points because it may affect their seat on the board if there are yearly elections.

Yeh, but these are the guys that our board insisted undertake the review.......
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
That's what should happen in a situation where the board decide to hire a consultant purely 'off their own bat', to offer advice on reform.

But that is not what is going on here. This consultant has been hired under the terms of an offer by the NRL that allows us to avoid a suspended penalty becoming a real one. We were told in advance that we would be expected to implement the recommended reforms. If we didn't like that, we could just say 'we will take the 4 point penalty'.


I doubt very much it's quite that simple. Given neither the NRL nor the club could know the exact recommendations the audit would come to.

If you put the shoe on the other foot, had PWC found all was sweet and the only recommendations they made were centred around a lack of transparency in the draw of the chook raffle, would the NRL have accepted that as adequate?

Indeed I see a rather large issue in terms of procedural fairness in making that kind of demand.

For a start I would imagine any change to election and tenure of the board would require constitutional change, which the board could not do without the support of members. Then of course the board have the obligation to act in the best interests of the club and it's members, ( good governance and stuff ) should they form the opinion that any recommendation is not in the best interests of the club and / or it's members, they have a duty to oppose it.

I'm not making a comment either way as to whether or not these recommendations are valid, just saying I don't believe it is as cut and dried as you make out.
 
Messages
19,102
I doubt very much it's quite that simple. Given neither the NRL nor the club could know the exact recommendations the audit would come to.

If you put the shoe on the other foot, had PWC found all was sweet and the only recommendations they made were centred around a lack of transparency in the draw of the chook raffle, would the NRL have accepted that as adequate?

Indeed I see a rather large issue in terms of procedural fairness in making that kind of demand.

For a start I would imagine any change to election and tenure of the board would require constitutional change, which the board could not do without the support of members. Then of course the board have the obligation to act in the best interests of the club and it's members, ( good governance and stuff ) should they form the opinion that any recommendation is not in the best interests of the club and / or it's members, they have a duty to oppose it.

I'm not making a comment either way as to whether or not these recommendations are valid, just saying I don't believe it is as cut and dried as you make out.


I'm not saying it's cut and dried at all (have a look at my previous posts in this thread). What I'm saying is that it is not as simple as our board making a decision on the recommendations. In this situation, if we believe that some of the recommendations can't / shouldn't be implemented, there is another interested party.....the NRL. So (assuming we wish to avoid the points penalty), they need to agree to whatever approach we take. And they may well agree that some of the recommendations are not workable (or workable in the short-term). What I disagree with is all the posts suggesting that we just tell the NRL to get stuffed, and that we are being 'picked on'. We are in this situation because of our own historical incompetence.

Of course, if we can't come to an agreement, we can just cop the 4 points.
 

hineyrulz

Post Whore
Messages
148,287
Mate we got smashed in that grand final. The scoreline was a lot closer than the relative performances of the two teams and the game was over at halftime, despite the 'comeback'.
well they were a million dollars over the cap, you would hope they won well. geniused analogy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top