Like I said you are a f*cken idiot and a broken record. I was never a sharp supporter in fact I have emailed sharp on more than 1 occasion with complaints. The last time was a couple of years ago when it was time to renew mine, my wife's and my three kids membership. I told him I would not be renewing until he turned things around or f*cked off completely. Made next to no difference to anything I'm sure but it was me having my say where it mattered. Unlike you who does nothing but complain and carry on, on a forum where you definitely won't make any difference. So it seems quite obvious that what is important to you is that you let everyone know you were right about sharp over and over again all while showing that your main gripe is that your good mate 'I was as bad as sharp for the eels spagnolo' was that bad he got outed by an absolute fool in sharp. It's also very convenient if you to ignore the fact I did lay the blame at sharp's feet and say I'm blaming everyone else but sharp when quite obviously that is not what I said. Are you that wrong in everything you do in the real world that you have to relentlessly pursue the one thing you have been right with on an Internet forum? You make fanbase look like Stephen f*cking hawking when it comes to the brain department
I called it, didn't I?is English your second language Jake?
only you could make that conclusion
What can you do? He is obviously a sad little man who gets enjoyment out of coming across as an embicile. In fact it is people like him that is wrong with this club. I've argued with plenty of people on here but everyone of them (even fanbase) come across as people who argue because they love the eels. It is obvious by the way he completely ignores what people say and spin it his own way that jake is a troll not a fan and just loves to shit stir. I'm taking phantoms advice and putting him on ignore because he has nothing of value to add except that sharpe must have done a shit job on plunging his plumbing. It would be funny if everyone put him on ignore than he would only be ranting to himself about sharpe and not even realising it.I called it, didn't I?
This is the problem that needs to be overcome. Could a motion be passed at the EGM to waive the requirement of the 3 years voting membership? It needs to go.
So the current board needs to get the f**k out, and all previous board members need to stay the f**k out. A completely new board with none of the cancers of the past being anywhere near it. Not even associated. I'm guessing the NRL could refuse to register them?
Oh and by the way, the PNRL P/L constitution now allows for a total of 9 board members comprising no less than 4 and no more than 6 from the PLC. This allows for 3 independently selected board members and those 3 are NOT required to be 3 year PLC members.
Oh and by the way, the PNRL P/L constitution now allows for a total of 9 board members comprising no less than 4 and no more than 6 from the PLC. This allows for 3 independently selected board members and those 3 are NOT required to be 3 year PLC members.
Re Those three independently selected board members that are not PLC members.... So who selects those? The board or the members?
Oh and by the way, the PNRL P/L constitution now allows for a total of 9 board members comprising no less than 4 and no more than 6 from the PLC. This allows for 3 independently selected board members and those 3 are NOT required to be 3 year PLC members.
Re Those three independently selected board members that are not PLC members.... So who selects those? The board or the members?
The NRL if I am not mistaken.
Which if the club fills 6 would mean those 3 NRL appointees are nothing more than supervisors to the board, they can't take control of the club, and the club would still be a members club.
They can ensure Good Governance.
And this is what we as members want - good governance, maintain the PNRL as a members team/club and no outside control. Right MITS?
Correction: Clause 35 of PNRL Constitution
"... and up to 3 non-Parramatta Leagues Club Directors who MUST not be members of the
Clause 34.
A Parramatta National Rugby League Board Nominations Committee shall exist for the purpose of selecting non Parramatta Leagues Club directors for consideration by the Parramatta National Rugby Leagues Club board. Such committee will consist of:
a) an independent chairperson (who is not on the Board of the PLC or PNRL)
b) a non-Parramatta Leagues Club Director
c) the Chairman of the PLC and a further 2 directors from the PNRL Board
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...e/news-story/c2948786b99d7a8ca24cedef0014b538Former Parramatta head of football Daniel Anderson described Anthony Watmough’s contract as a disgrace and said in talks with NRL investigators that the club’s policy of deliberately exceeding the salary cap was a “horrendously stressful situation”.
Anderson, one of five key Eels officials deregistered by the NRL after being found culpable in the club’s salary cap scandal, also revealed during talks with the NRL’s head of integrity Nick Weeks and lead investigator Karyn Murphy that the club would have been “ridiculously” exposed had Jarryd Hayne not left the Eels for the NFL at the end of 2014.
At the time, Anderson understood Hayne was earning about $1.2 million a year from the club, some of that money allegedly through dodgy third-party payments. There is no suggestion Hayne was aware of any wrongdoing.
“So I never looked at his (salary) cap number,” Anderson said. “I just was told, ‘Yeah, he’s on about $1.2 million’ and went, ‘Oh, well, that’s what he is — he’s the best player in the game’.”
Anderson said the club maintained a deliberate policy of exceeding the cap and then working their way back under it by offloading players.
Much of the investigation into the Eels focused on the axing of players, with concerns over termination payments made to Daniel Harrison and Reni Maitua.
Former chief executive Scott Seward alleged Maitua was paid $25,000 cash to leave, in the form of two payments — one for $10,000 and another for $15,000.
He also claimed Harrison was given $20,000 to walk away. Seward claimed that after the payment was made to Harrison, Anderson told him: “I am not doing that ever again. We’re not getting ourselves into this position and doing that ever again.”
In his interview with Weeks and Murphy, Anderson was asked whether he remembered the conversation. “That’s not correct,” he replied. “Who — who’s said — can I ask who said this?”
Told the NRL would not disclose who had informed them of the conversation, Anderson replied: “No, that’s not correct. I have no knowledge of that.”
Seward’s testimony, along with that of former football manager Jason Irvine, played a key role in the findings that led to the club being stripped of 12 premiership points and fined $1 million.
Anderson did acknowledge there were issues with the cap during his time at the Eels.
“So there was a lack of understanding on the cap,” Anderson said. “So the other repercussion was we were recruiting players and the philosophy we wanted to use — the CEO (Seward) was comfortable with this — was to go over the cap.
“You can do that at any stage anyway ... you can be over the cap before an audit. So they were on the philosophy that, ‘just go over by 2,300 (000) and then work your way backwards by selling players. It was a horrendously stressful philosophy.”
Anderson said he and the club’s former financial controller Ed Farish spoke regularly about the salary cap position.
“As I said ... if Jarryd Hayne hadn’t left the club we were exposed salary-cap-wise ridiculously ...” Anderson said.
“It was certainly loose in 2014. The CEO, Scott Seward ... advised that he was going to do the top five contracts. I basically did every other contract other than that.
“He didn’t go through a loop of any consultation in negotiation. The Anthony Watmough contract is a disgrace.
“l’ve got numbers that were, I think, half what we actually paid, so we were always sort of recovering from bad positions. We thought we were in an OK position salary-cap-wise and then we get the contract and we’d be in a hole again ... ”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...y/news-story/28a513b60b16184473dd552c0d147e11Eels deals under cop task force inquiry
Nick Tabakoff & Michael Carayannis, The Daily Telegraph
July 14, 2016 12:00am
NSW Police have established a taskforce to examine Parramatta’s dodgy deals, with fraud squad detectives escalating their investigation to cover a range of serious criminal matters, including money laundering, that potentially carry lengthy jail terms.
Strike Force Rhodium has been set up by the State Crime Command’s Fraud and Cyber Squad to investigate whether any fraud was committed against Parramatta Leagues Club and its members.
It is understood police are also examining possible charges of fraud and perhaps conspiracy in the wake of revelations of multiple deceptions at the Eels, even involving the liquid papering of key documents at the club, as revealed by The Daily Telegraph.
The basis of the police interest in the Eels is understood to be the allegedly fraudulent use of club money to organise lucrative, under-the-table, third party agreements for key players by altering invoices and contracts to mislead both the Eels and its rich parent company, the $82 million-a-year Parramatta Leagues Club.
“Investigations are complex and are anticipated to be protracted,” a police spokeswoman said.
“Investigators are in possession of a large quantity of financial documents which will undergo detailed forensic accounting analysis.”
She said “a number of people who may be able to assist police in the investigations” would be interviewed “in due course”.
A police source said it is viewed as a “very, very interesting case”. “Some of the crimes we are looking at are very serious,” the source said.
“Multiple people” are understood to be under investigation but not any players. No charges have yet been laid.
The club’s HQ has been crowded with law enforcement authorities in recent weeks, with the fraud squad an ongoing presence, along with NSW Liquor and Gaming and tax office investigators.
It is understood the most interesting line of inquiry is to investigate whether the conduct of some officials could constitute money laundering, which is dealing “with the proceeds of crime … knowing that it is proceeds of crime, and intending to conceal it is proceeds of crime”.
In the Eels’ case, clubs had effectively been deceived into making payments on the basis of false invoices. Money may be considered “laundered” when it is used for a purpose other than what is listed in the invoice.
There also appear to be issues of a possible cover-up that police are likely to investigate, with the liquid papering of invoices and other financial records after the NRL started a forensic investigation into the club, and the erasure of crucial boardroom tapes that talked about the club’s plans to rort the NRL’s salary cap, according to minutes.
It is a criminal offence to render documents and other records “false or misleading in a material particular” if it results in a “financial disadvantage”.