Discussion re: Parra Future/3P

[WallyG]

eels81236, parra pete and MITS, some thoughts to consider...

Firstly, common business based thinking dictates that when you are choosing staff or leaders for that matter, you choose strong values with low accumen over, high accumen/low values. It's widely considered that, if the values are high, the accumen will come with the right leadership. Something to consider when speaking of the legends lack of business skill.

Secondly, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. So you keep voting for more of the same mediocrity and expect things will improve??

The old saying, "if it aint broke don't fix it", only applies if it aint broke in the first place. It seems the vast majority of Parra supporters would argue it is broke and has been for some time...

 

[eels81236]

If that's the case, vote for the other 4 on the ticket

i would, but as i have stated previously that i dont think they ave put enough thought into the fact that they wont get all 7 in.
how will the members elected off the 3p ticket perform, especially as a minority, with their obvious (unwritten:lol dislike for DF?
if they dont get majority on either board, could they morally sit on a board that re appoints DF potentially? or will they make like pricey in years passed and quit for "time restraints"?
too big a risk for ME and MY club

 

[parra pete]

No dramas suity. i would love to vote out the incumbents. i really would.
i will get shot down for this i know but...
OK, OK. its the 3 footy players. I morally cant put the future of MY club in their hands.
pricey has taken every opportunity to bag DF and the club, (through the media mind you), in the past. in my opinion, you dont talk ill of your family in public and you certainly dont scream it to your neighbours. in my opinion, a better man than he would keep his obviously damaging thoughts to himself. my opinion of him as a footy player will never change. i also dont want a guy with financial history as one of my directors.
guru is nothing but a marketable face in this campaign. you have even stated yourself suity that he has dropped the ball when parra future passed it on to him. he told us nothing. he has stated that he has no idea how the wenty and junior systems work, yet wants to be on the footy club board? he wants to advise on player recruitment but didnt realise that it was the coaches job not DF. he just wants to "do my little bit to help. I think we can do better than little bits to help.
kenny has never had any intention to return to parra other than in a coaching role. he stated that he didnt have enough time (whilst bagging us in the paper). then when the professionalism of the 3p ticket discovered that leabetter wasnt even a member :lol:, kenny suddenly found enough time. daylight savings perhaps?

maybe i'm an idiot suity, but i would much prefer 7 businessmen on the board than the footy players. they definately have a place in the club, but its just not on the board right now. the economic climate, the rugby league climate, the registered clubs climate etc all tell me that it is too great a risk with these 3 guys. i will repeat....if they hadnt played for parra we would all be laughing at their credentials and resumes.

get me 7 real alternatives and i vote the incumbents out tomorrow

Well said....

 

[bartman]

They only need 4 in this election to be a majority. 4 out of 7. I am sure that 3P are aware of this, but simply haven't wanted to complicate the message, instead trying to convince the average people to vote for a clean sweep of 7.

DF is believed to already be re-appointed for the next two years, regardless of the outcome of this or April's elections. So I think your fears are irrelevant. He will most likely leave at a time of his own choosing in the next two years. Who knows, the outcome of these elections in the next six month may hasten his choosing rather than the other way around, but that's by the by.

To me it's not about Denis, it's about taking a step for the club to move forward in a different direction to what it has in the past (at least) 4 years, when on any number of dimensions there has been a decline - in areas where staff that come just as much under the FC operationally can hold responsibility (sponsorship, fan relations to name but two).

I don't see the risk in voting for the remaining 4 and making the majority you seem to fear they may not get.

 

[mickdo]

i would, but as i have stated previously that i dont think they ave put enough thought into the fact that they wont get all 7 in.
how will the members elected off the 3p ticket perform, especially as a minority, with their obvious (unwritten:lol dislike for DF?
if they dont get majority on either board, could they morally sit on a board that re appoints DF potentially? or will they make like pricey in years passed and quit for "time restraints"?
too big a risk for ME and MY club

Well personally I think that's crazy logic, or just a convenient excuse. You might as well ask the existing board members if they can work in minority positions should they lose. You say it's a risk... what do you think the current board is given their track record?

 

[Parra Future]

honest question....
hypothetical.......
if voting does not go the way of 3p on sunday and grothe, kenny and price are not elected.

considering the members have had their say....will grothe kenny and price refrain from making comments in the media re DF and the board? the comments in the media made by these 3 in the past have proven to be unstabling for the orgonisation as a whole. will they ask massoud et al to take them off speed dial and refuse to continue to parra's standard "rent a quotes"?

will they decide...we have put up, members didnt want us so now we will shuttup?

All,

I know all the 3P guys are going to go into the other thread and continually monitor it to answer any questions. I doubt they may have seen the ones in this post. Everyone has current work roles to fill so it makes life easy when they have five minutes to go to the one thread, start from where they left off and start reading. However, I floated over to here for a sec. I'll try my best to answer all in this thread, then I'm heading back over to the other one for ease so all the guys know what has and hasn't been answered.

Hypothetically, if Guru, Pricey & Bert are not elected, members of 3P can not guarantee who will or won't say anything. I am not an expert on the guys past lives apart from the same as everyone in the fact they were all great players during the best years of the clubs history and that should stand for something. In regards to whatever comments have been made after their careers, I am not an encyclopedia of every comment that may have been made. What I do know however is that I have had the luxury to spend alot of time with them over the prior months, and I also realise that sometimes what you read in the paper is not what has really been said by the individual supposedly making the comment. Things get taken out of context. Things get twisted. I don't know Brett as well as the other guys, but he seems like a nice bloke, now going off every other post, thats enough to get Ovo voted on, so go figure. Pricey, I have dealt with a bit more. Extremely passionate individual. He wants change. So do we. He is not as stupid as what some people may think he is. He is actually a very intelligent individual. This is not a get rid of DF campaign like the Daily Tele promotes. This is a "we want change campaign and we want Parramatta to become the club that it was when these guys played for us". Who better to instill some culture within the lower grades than these three individuals. Some of the threads talk about current directors not going to lower grade games. Can you imagine the effect of a Ray Price, Eric Grothe and Brett Kenny in attendance at lower grade games where parents are in awe and telling their little ones about these guys and the kids are going wow and the effect that that would have. Lucky last is Guru. This whole post is not supposed to come across as nasty by the way either. I'm speaking from the heart here so please don't read it like its a dig. Guru is a gentleman. He came on this website so that he could talk to people about what issues they may have. He didn't come on here all egotistical and say I am Guru, I am the Greatest, I am the most knowledgeable person on earth and I have all the answers that will solve all the problems from now to the end of the earth. Guru is an honest bloke that does not stuff people around. He is not running for the board because he has nothing to do. He actually cares. He cares about the top down to the bottom. He even acknowledged on his post that was unsure about something but he would try to find more out. I'd rather an answer like that coming from one of my staff at my work instead of yes boss, your right, I know how to fix it dont worry. Guru admits when he may not know something and then goes and finds out. That deserves Kudos. One last thing about Guru. The current board were given the opportunity to respond to their own thread but clearly they do not know that this internet site exists, ( I know Alan does, so please lets not all start another war), or clearly they don't care. I think it is more point 2 just so you know. They have not responded to your requests to come online during this election. FACT. I am also smart enough to no doubt know that others have informed them of what is going on within these threads or they even log on as guests and read them. Theres my point. The current board does not have to entertain the thought of live questions. They can read all the questions. Not respond. Then maybe answer some and bring them up at the AGM and look like nice guys and expect to get voted in again. At least Guru took the ultimate risk and came online during LIVE questions being thrown at him where he had to respond straight away and gave it his best. 10 out of 10 from me no matter what. That takes balls from someone who does not visit this site and no all the other users and who isn't used to using this system.

Again back to the question, would they go quietly. I can't answer that question. It would be crap if I did. Maybe they will be upset if they lose and will express it. That would only be human if that happened. Hell, I get upset on here all the time. I'll tell you another pointer, at no point since June this year, have I heard Ray, Eric or Bert say one bad thing about DF to Josh Massoud. Fact be known, Josh Massoud has been in the same room as us once in all of this period of time. I could say in a meeting that the sky is blue and read in tomorrows paper that the sky has gone dark red, by Colin Green. I acknowledge there have been issues between Ray and Df in the past. The next 6 days is not about that. Its about what the current board is going to do to take us forward or what is 3P going to do to make things better. You guys all know where I stand on this issue. 3P 3P 3P 3P.

 

[Parra Future]

Question for 3P:

Can anyone from the team confirm - or deny - that due to the structure of the NRL partnership Board (that was created to not have direct elections, and is comprised of reps from the LC and FC Boards), the maximum number of Directors that 3P can structurally/constitutionally achieve at this election is 5 out of 7?

That is to say is there the possibility/likelihood that two of the incumbent directors must be declared re-elected, regardless of the outcome of the votes, because the FC must retain two current nominees on the above-mentioned NRL Board at all times?

I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. And I don't agree with the structure of the NRL Board thing being at arms length from direct election or member (LC or FC) input. Just trying to get some facts about the implications of voting in the members hands...

Bartman,

MITS would know more but I am led to believe that 5 is what we could get at best as I have written on another site. If I am wrong, MITS will tell us..... Someone else mentioned that we would be crazy to say vote for 5 of us because of that. In another technicality, that would have meant that we would have had to put two current directors on our ticket to make up our seven. Which that would then mean that we basically were strengthening those two individuals and basically guaranteeing them a position if everyone was following our ticket to the letter and the boards ticket to the letter. We would rather the supporters decide who they think are the best two from the current board to survive. Hope that answers your question.

 

[Suitman]

To me it's not about Denis,

bullsh*t. :lol:

Come on. ;-)

Lets all be honest now.

I know there are some, but seriously, MOST of this IS about Denis.
Denis and his cronies.

Not all, but a lot of us have had a gutful tbh.

It's as simple as that



Suity

 

[Parra Future]

Question: Under 3P leadership can the football club financially survive without any support from the Leagues Club?
Is it incorrect to think the Leagues club may not support the PDRLC with the demise of the current board members? (Noting that 2 must be on both boards)?

Freak2,

This I honestly can not answer at this point in time. Not due to conspiracy's or not wanting the other team to know (by the way I don't know if I started that or someone else did. We haven't said some things because of privacy things that we shouldn't state yet), but we would need to gain full access to all of the football clubs details to make an informed decision about that. If the 1st grade side were to come back to the football club eventually, yes, I honestly believe, the leagues club funding will be still very very very needed. Without it, it would be possible to continue on with more sponsorships, but with it, it makes life alot easier.

 

[Parra Future]

Question: If elected, will 3P directors (regardless of how many get elected) GUARANTEE to send all PDRLFC members (voting and non-voting) a plain and simple EELS sticker for our cars so we can show our passion for our club and stop seeing only pesky little rabbits around Sydney?

This should have nothing to do with the NRL team, the Leagues club or anything other than "Proud to support the EELS" because at the end of the day whether we like the current scenario of 2 clubs or not, we are proud to support the EELS.

Emjaycee,

I'm going to take a punt on this one due to thinking the costs are relatively small to do what you are asking and I will say without confirming with the others that the answer to that question will be YES. You can also hold me accountable for that one. By the way, I am not running for the board. If the board gets elected and there is a 3P majority and this doesn't happen instantaneously, send me a PM and then I will organise it for you straight away.

 

[eels81236]

eels81236, parra pete and MITS, some thoughts to consider...

Firstly, common business based thinking dictates that when you are choosing staff or leaders for that matter, you choose strong values with low accumen over, high accumen/low values. It's widely considered that, if the values are high, the accumen will come with the right leadership. Something to consider when speaking of the legends lack of business skill.

Secondly, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. So you keep voting for more of the same mediocrity and expect things will improve??

The old saying, "if it aint broke don't fix it", only applies if it aint broke in the first place. It seems the vast majority of Parra supporters would argue it is broke and has been for some time...

trust me wally, i know a little about business. i agree, given the choice i would take values/accumen over accumen/values everytime. this also asumes that we have to make a choice. i dont think we have to. in parra's instance, i think think these current proceedings will open doors and enlighten many people of the possibilities at board level now. next year we may get more candidates with the high accumen and high values that would be truly desirable.



would you really call it mediocrity? things certainly arent great but mediocre?



ok so it is broke as many claim. if my car gets a scratch on it, i get it fixed, or atleast that part or area gets fixed or resprayed. it would want to be a bloody good spray job for me to get my whole car redone. metallic paint, clear laquered in a pearl colour should do it. i dont think the 3p ticket can give me that paint job, especially with the 3 "visual arts" students working on the back end. especially when one of them has already painted a car red that should have been blue.

 

[bartman]

Bartman,

MITS would know more but I am led to believe that 5 is what we could get at best as I have written on another site. If I am wrong, MITS will tell us..... Someone else mentioned that we would be crazy to say vote for 5 of us because of that. In another technicality, that would have meant that we would have had to put two current directors on our ticket to make up our seven. Which that would then mean that we basically were strengthening those two individuals and basically guaranteeing them a position if everyone was following our ticket to the letter and the boards ticket to the letter. We would rather the supporters decide who they think are the best two from the current board to survive. Hope that answers your question.

Thanks Col. Answers it perfectly, cheers.

 

[Parra Future]

3P,

by changing footy club elections to every 12 months, does this allow you, or any other tickets elected in future, enough time to implement your strategic plans? Especially when we see an entirely new board and economic/financial structures implemented thereafter?
is a 12 month term long enough for a board to be "given a fair run" in implementing changes in structure? more importantly, is it enough time to see the tangible fruits of such restructures or changes. is 12 months long enough for a new board to take effect and begin to see tangible results?
financial and business plans, as you know, dont last just 12 months. Is it beneficial for our sponsors etc to have a longer association with a particular board than to potentially swap none, some or all them once a year?

To be honest, I would like to think that since the current board has received well over 10 years (20 years some of them) to deliver what ever it is, that they are supposed to be delivering, that when 3P were to get on, they could at least have 2 years to see things through as a minimum. I think the toughest part will be if the FC goes over to 3P majority, then trying to get the LC. Without that, things may not go that well. We won't be able to tell until we are there. If we were to get both, then we would have the opportunity to see the full picture and start making changes unapposed and swiftly. I'd say within the first year, their still could be a bit of infighting from the incumbents, but if total power was taken you would also see changes happening straight away. After two years, you would have a real good picture of things. If four years were granted, a hell of alot of things can happen in four years and there would be no excuses whatsoever, financially for not turning things around.

To wrap this one up, I think more would be seen in year two after a settling down period and all bitterness will hopefully have been evaporated and everyone will be concentrating on moving together as one unit, which is the ultimate goal.

 

[Parra Future]

To all,

I'm going to head back over to the other thread. I know all the other guys will be looking at posts, questions & if they have already been answered over there. I don't want to leave them in the dark. If I don't get back to any more over here, I am not ignoring anyone.

Thanks.

 

[Suitman]

Question for 3P:

Can anyone from the team confirm - or deny - that due to the structure of the NRL partnership Board (that was created to not have direct elections, and is comprised of reps from the LC and FC Boards), the maximum number of Directors that 3P can structurally/constitutionally achieve at this election is 5 out of 7?

That is to say is there the possibility/likelihood that two of the incumbent directors must be declared re-elected, regardless of the outcome of the votes, because the FC must retain two current nominees on the above-mentioned NRL Board at all times?

I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. And I don't agree with the structure of the NRL Board thing being at arms length from direct election or member (LC or FC) input. Just trying to get some facts about the implications of voting in the members hands...

I'D also suggest that regardless of the 5/2 ratio, the greatest way to send the strongest possible message to the current board would be to have the 3P ticket take out the top 7 voting positions.
Obviously, 2 of them would miss out, but fair dinkum, the two incumbants would be on notice to tow the party line, not the DF line.

Suity

 

[bartman]

bullsh*t. :lol:

Come on. ;-)

Lets all be honest now.

I know there are some, but seriously, MOST of this IS about Denis.
Denis and his cronies.

Not all, but a lot of us have had a gutful tbh.

It's as simple as that



Suity

Seriously Suity. When have I ever said this need for change is about Denis? Are you claiming I am being dishonest :?

Denis is the least of anyone's worries imo, because under a Board structure it's the thing that people can actually do the least about, regardless of how the elctions go. I have served on Boards where there is a CEO/Head employee that everyone wanted to shift, but still couldn't. It's called a contract, and Denis has his in the bag until late 2010 (but will choose to leave earlier imo).

I'm not trying to talk for anyone else. I said "to me". Everyone else's motivation is their own.

To me it's about the Board, it's performance, it's promotion (or lack of) Footy Club memberships, it's lack of embracing the resource that is the fan base. Our willingness to participate has been delivered to them on a platter through the energy of Hellsy's membership drive. But still nothing.

To me it's about the structure that has been put in place around the NRL operations, this weird NRL Board that can't be directly voted, holds no AGM, and has no membership. Perhpas members voted for that in the past for certain reasons, but I am yet to see any coherent reasoning as to why that structure should be maintained as time changes.

I've said that getting rid of Denis alone doesn't automatically equal a first grade premiership - how can it, if none of the other things change? Hindy said Denis doesn't really get involved anyway these days (too busy at overseas poker machine conferences perhaps?). No-one can get rid of Denis... so why focus on it? Focus on each step of getting the NRL operations back into a structure where the Board that controls them is accountable to some members.

If Denis personally doesn't like that as a concept, then us as members voting and taking those steps in each election might hasten his choice to leave (for those who think that actually is the main game).

 

[eels81236]

To be honest, I would like to think that since the current board has received well over 10 years (20 years some of them) to deliver what ever it is, that they are supposed to be delivering, that when 3P were to get on, they could at least have 2 years to see things through as a minimum. I think the toughest part will be if the FC goes over to 3P majority, then trying to get the LC. Without that, things may not go that well. We won't be able to tell until we are there. If we were to get both, then we would have the opportunity to see the full picture and start making changes unapposed and swiftly. I'd say within the first year, their still could be a bit of infighting from the incumbents, but if total power was taken you would also see changes happening straight away. After two years, you would have a real good picture of things. If four years were granted, a hell of alot of things can happen in four years and there would be no excuses whatsoever, financially for not turning things around.

To wrap this one up, I think more would be seen in year two after a settling down period and all bitterness will hopefully have been evaporated and everyone will be concentrating on moving together as one unit, which is the ultimate goal.

Thanks very much. I do hope that 3p would leav it at 2 years. Even may the rule may not have come about with the best intentions :sarcasm:, i do feel that a 12 month period is too short of time to have REAL effects.
please do not even consider 4 year terms...see nsw state govt...

 

[eels81236]

I'D also suggest that regardless of the 5/2 ratio, the greatest way to send the strongest possible message to the current board would be to have the 3P ticket take out the top 7 voting positions.
Obviously, 2 of them would miss out, but fair dinkum, the two incumbants would be on notice to tow the party line, not the DF line.

Suity

should they have run only 5 candidates?the votes that 3p receive to their 6 and 7 ranked candidates are really just wasted votes. the incumbents dont get them but neither really does 3p. does that make sense?

 

[bartman]

No offence meant Colonel, but I guess that the below opens this thread back up for discussion (or merging), since the 3P reps are planning to use the other one as the main question thread, and trawl through all of the discussions...

All,

I know all the 3P guys are going to go into the other thread and continually monitor it to answer any questions. I doubt they may have seen the ones in this post. Everyone has current work roles to fill so it makes life easy when they have five minutes to go to the one thread, start from where they left off and start reading. However, I floated over to here for a sec. I'll try my best to answer all in this thread, then I'm heading back over to the other one for ease so all the guys know what has and hasn't been answered.

To all,

I'm going to head back over to the other thread. I know all the other guys will be looking at posts, questions & if they have already been answered over there. I don't want to leave them in the dark. If I don't get back to any more over here, I am not ignoring anyone.

Thanks.

 

[bartman]

I'D also suggest that regardless of the 5/2 ratio, the greatest way to send the strongest possible message to the current board would be to have the 3P ticket take out the top 7 voting positions.
Obviously, 2 of them would miss out, but fair dinkum, the two incumbants would be on notice to tow the party line, not the DF line.

Suity

That's a valid point.

But given the above statement by Col, I personally would rather express my two "spare" votes to choose who of the incumbents I believe should get those spots. The message of 5-0 for the top five spots is just as strong as votes for 7-0 imo, when the final two of those candidates can play no part in the actual outcome.

I don't expect everyone to want to use their votes the same way as me, but given that you and I (for example, along with many others who post here) seem to have as much to contribute to the Board as 3P candidates 6 & 7 (Sassen & Lawless), then I think personally I'll use mine strategically in finding the best of the incumbents that have to take those two spots.