http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...n/news-story/975fba7149373d49bf34d4c44f822a65
Besieged Parramatta Eels fear privatisation
Beleaguered Parramatta directors spent yesterday firming up moves to future-proof the club against privatisation amid fears from the boardroom that the NRL may use the appointment of an administrator to sell a stake in the Eels.
Eels directors, who lodged their application to the NRL to seek leave to appeal their sanctions for salary cap rorts late yesterday, are bracing for the state government to remove them from power later today, the latest instalment in a saga which has dragged on for months.
The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority will meet this afternoon to decide whether the Eels board remains an effective governing body, the precursor to deputy premier Troy Grant potentially acting against the directors and appointing an administrator in their place.
ILGA has the ability to act under section 41A of the Registered Clubs Act, which gives them the power to appoint a person to administer the affairs of the club in the event that they deem it necessary.
While ILGA only has the power to remove directors of the powerful Parramatta Leagues Club, the same directors — barring the three who were deregistered by the NRL — are also at the helm of the football club.
It creates the potential for yet more legal wrangling between the Eels and the NRL. The parties have been at odds for months, the relationship souring further yesterday when the NRL cancelled a planned meeting with the four directors who remain in charge of the football club.
It is understood Eels directors were also frustrated by what they viewed as deliberate moves by the NRL to prevent the club lodging their application to seek leave to appeal their sanctions by yesterday’s deadline.
Regardless, the application has now been lodged and even the appointment of an administrator is unlikely to prevent a decision being reached by appeals tribunal chairman Ian Callinan QC.
The administrator will then decide on whether to press ahead with the appeal, although the board believes a positive response from Callinan would heap pressure on any appointment to follow through on what they started by attempting to mitigate the sanctions resulting from the cap rorts.
It is understood the club’s legal advice suggests they have a case to reduce the $1 million fine as well as chief executive Todd Greenberg’s decision to strip the Eels of the points differential they earned over the opening nine weeks of the season.
However, a reduction in the $1 million fine would help compensate for some of the legal costs which have been incurred thus far — it is understood an appeal would cost the club just under $100,000.
Director Tanya Gadiel last night claimed there had been attempts to thwart the process and she was optimistic the club would get a fair hearing.
“Today was a tough day,” Gadiel wrote on social media.
“The months have been hard. I’ve gutted it out, as has our club and team. Despite the media, the threats, the disgusting commentary about me and fellow board directors on social media and everything that has followed — due process is here and an independent revision of the NRL’s decision will occur. There have been numerous attempts to thwart this appeal and it begs the question — why is the NRL afraid of its own process? I’ve only ever asked — as has our club — for a fair hearing. I hope that former High Court justice Callinan can provide that. I believe he can.
“Even if the Eels are not your team, this is your code, this is your NRL — defend its integrity — the right to a fair process.”
Of as much concern to the directors yesterday was ensuring the members would be empowered to prevent the club being privatised down the track. The club discussed moves to give members the power to prevent privatisation earlier this year but it was decided the proposal needed finetuning.
It was set to be sent to the members at the extraordinary general meeting next month but that meeting is now in jeopardy as the club awaits the likely appointment of an administrator.
Rather than call an EGM, an administrator is expected to push for a period of stability, meaning the club would remain at the mercy of an appointment from ILGA when it comes to the vexing issue of privatisation.
“The current board is keen regardless of what happens in terms of an administrator to make sure that this (privatisation) is a decision that is for the membership, not a board in the future,” a source close to the board said.
It is understood the NRL would like to be consulted in the appointment of a person to oversee the club’s affairs and their preference is for someone who is astute in the area of corporate governance rather than football operations.
