Crisis rocks Parramatta club as director quits

[Bigfella]

I don't see why this has to be current board vs previous board, recruitment vs recruitment, coach vs coach or 2009 vs 2011.
As far as I can see there appears to be a bad egg. Get rid of the bad egg when required, hope he doesn't cause too much carnage and/or bring others down with him then get on with life as normal. It happens in every organisation. How it is dealt with is the important issue.

Great post.

The discussion on this has just degenerated down two lines.

OMC has made some good points about what has been achieved.

By the same token, if there's a problem, let's fix it and move on.

He's entitled to be tested properly, and not through the media.

The other issue too is whether there is a bad egg (or more than one) cooperating with the press on this stuff. That needs to be sorted.

Anyone who uses our club to feather their own nest, establish their own business and influence networks, should be eliminated.

 

[Gronk]

Great post.

The discussion on this has just degenerated down two lines.

OMC has made some good points about what has been achieved.

By the same token, if there's a problem, let's fix it and move on.

He's entitled to be tested properly, and not through the media.

The other issue too is whether there is a bad egg (or more than one) cooperating with the press on this stuff. That needs to be sorted.

Anyone who uses our club to feather their own nest, establish their own business and influence networks, should be eliminated.

I agree with that, however the question must be asked: If the media had said nothing, would the board have done anything about it ?

 

[HevyDevy]

Great post.

The discussion on this has just degenerated down two lines.

OMC has made some good points about what has been achieved.

By the same token, if there's a problem, let's fix it and move on.

He's entitled to be tested properly, and not through the media.

The other issue too is whether there is a bad egg (or more than one) cooperating with the press on this stuff. That needs to be sorted.

Anyone who uses our club to feather their own nest, establish their own business and influence networks, should be eliminated.

If you get rid of the people doing this the hierarchy of the club would look considerably different.

 

[Bigfella]

No, Abbott & Costello, that was during the elections. I was specifically talking about before the elections. There was zero controversy from the back office.

Again, I don't want Fitzy within a 100km of the club these days. You can try all you like to paint a positive picture of 3P, but the bottom line is that we are not seen as a highly professional outfit compared to some clubs.

Does 3P even exist any more?

I'm not a fan of the tactic either. Eventually you have to pay the price for favours like that.

But it is absolute fantasy to say Fitzy didn't speak to the press.

But it's pretty obvious that what is giving us bad press at the moment is not 3P's connection to Massoud, or Fitzgerald's relationship with Ritchie - but someone trying to bring down Osborne and/or Spagnolo who is feeding the Herald stories.

If that is someone within the club, or recently involved with it, I will be very dirty on them.

I don't think the ends always justify the means.

It really does seem to be a power struggle being played out in the press, and that the people responsible for it don't give a f**k how it affects the club.

Somehow our club seems to have become a big trough with lots of different pigs jostling to get their snout in it.

That's what we need to put an end to. It just feels like some of the people trying to control the club are in it for selfish reasons more than say, wanting the club to succeed in the way that us fans do.

 

[Bigfella]

If you get rid of the people doing this the hierarchy of the club would look considerably different.

Are you saying you know who they are?

 

[HevyDevy]

Are you saying you know who they are?

It's not a secret among some circles. That's not to say it is my place to mention it on LU.

 

[Bigfella]

I agree with that, however the question must be asked: If the media had said nothing, would the board have done anything about it ?

That's true. It may still be the case that the action they had taken to date was appropriate.

It may very well turn out that there was more that should have been done.

The next question then would be - does the end justify the means? That would depend a lot on the motivation of the person who fed the stories I reckon.

If it was because they had a genuine conviction that the wrong thing had been done - fair enough. But if they did it for other selfish reasons the ends wouldn't justify the means for me.



.

 

[Bigfella]

It's not a secret among some circles. That's not to say it is my place to mention it on LU.

I'm not having a go at you - but that doesn't mean that the information is correct. Or complete.

It's not a secret in some circles who killed JFK either.

From the outside I'd need a lot more than that.to be convinced.

 

[eels81236]

I'm not having a go at you - but that doesn't mean that the information is correct. Or complete.

It's not a secret in some circles who killed JFK either.

From the outside I'd need a lot more than that.to be convinced.

Oh Christ... here comes Casper and his Onassis conspiracy theory.

 

[mickdo]

what i find funny is how they pulled the bit about being in danger of losing the sponsorship out of thin air. There was absolutely no word from Pirtek regarding reviewing the sponsorship or waiting on the outcome of the investigation. They just threw in a complete assumption that Pirtek would review the partnership with absolutely nothing to back it up.

The media making stuff up? Colour me pink...

 

[HevyDevy]

I'm not having a go at you - but that doesn't mean that the information is correct. Or complete.

It's not a secret in some circles who killed JFK either.

From the outside I'd need a lot more than that.to be convinced.

Fair enough mate.

 

[ParraAds]

what i find funny is how they pulled the bit about being in danger of losing the sponsorship out of thin air. There was absolutely no word from Pirtek regarding reviewing the sponsorship or waiting on the outcome of the investigation. They just threw in a complete assumption that Pirtek would review the partnership with absolutely nothing to back it up.

I think it's a fair assumption given Duncan's stance regarding how the place is run, especially if there's hard evidence to back up the 'dodgy' vibes that are currently surfacing.

 

[mickdo]

I think it's a fair assumption given Duncan's stance regarding how the place is run

No it's not. Unless he lied when he said this:

While the Sydney businessman was refusing to discuss the shock departure yesterday, he confirmed Pirtek would honour a sponsorship contract that continues until the end of 2013: "I never joined the board as managing director of Pirtek," Duncan told The Daily Telegraph. "The company was a sponsor before I joined the board, while I was on the board and will now continue."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/board-drama-wont-deter-parramatta-eels-sponsor-pirtek/story-e6frexnr-1226164258914

 

[parra pete]

Where's Ray Price???
What is his take on the schmozzle the joint has become?

 

[ParraAds]

No it's not. Unless he lied when he said this:



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-sponsor-pirtek/story-e6frexnr-1226164258914

The reality is that any sponsor, whether or not they had a member on the board of cirectors, has serious doubts over their ongoing association when claims of this nature are made and then proven.

And it wouldn't mean Duncan was lying, it just means that opinions can change depending on the circumstances.

 

[mickdo]

The reality is that any sponsor, whether or not they had a member on the board of cirectors, has serious doubts over their ongoing association when claims of this nature are made and then proven.

And it wouldn't mean Duncan was lying, it just means that opinions can change depending on the circumstances.

So what evidence do you have of that? Or are you just speculating like the media?

 

[born an eel]

what i find funny is how they pulled the bit about being in danger of losing the sponsorship out of thin air. There was absolutely no word from Pirtek regarding reviewing the sponsorship or waiting on the outcome of the investigation. They just threw in a complete assumption that Pirtek would review the partnership with absolutely nothing to back it up.

what I find funny is how you just assumed they pulled the bit about being in danger of losing the sponsorship out of thin air. You had absolutely no word from the journalist regarding the source or lack there of. You just threw in a complete assumption that the journalist made it up with absolutely nothing to back it up.

 

[Jake the snake]

I thinks its fair to say that when Pirteks deal is up they'll not be renewing unless Ozzy gets the flick and Duncan is reinstated.

 

[born an eel]

I thinks its fair to say that when Pirteks deal is up they'll not be renewing unless Ozzy gets the flick and Duncan is reinstated.

there will be sponsors lining up to join us, all relying on the sacking of the CEO. I hear there may even be a major bank :sarcasm:

 

[ParraAds]

So what evidence do you have of that? Or are you just speculating like the media?

You worry about what you know, I'll worry about what I know.