Jarryd Hayne's payment trail leads to former Parramatta Eels boss Roy Spagnolo's Abdu

[Chipmunk]

So, if we've got Foran on $1.2 million a season and Hopoate on $800k a season, that's 2 million of almost 1/3rd of the salary cap on 2 players...

Awesome.

 

[Twizzle]

Who offered him the 800k? The NRL? Casper? Bigfella?

No. It was the club's duly appointed representative.

I dont believe anyone did.

I believe he is on about half that and atm even that maybe a bit too much.

We are obviously renegotiating with him but I'm not sure too many other clubs will be knocking the door down for his serves.

 

[Bigfella]

Who offered him the 800k? The NRL? Casper? Bigfella?

No. It was the club's duly appointed representative.

Who is now the duly appointed Club Scapegoat.

If they didn't know he was doing this - they should have.

They are either lying, or admitting gross incompetence.

Not great options.

 

[Bigfella]

I dont believe anyone did.

I believe he is on about half that and atm even that maybe a bit too much.

We are obviously renegotiating with him but I'm not sure too many other clubs will be knocking the door down for his serves.

So because you refuse to believe media stories you don't like, you just make a figure up in your own head and believe that.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Don't agree. If your CEO has gone rogue then you take steps to fix it in the club's favour. You explore all avenues to avoid the worst outcome.

And who was responsible for a system under which the CEO could sign such contracts and potentially bind the club without anyone on the Board knowing about the terms?

I still don't get why people can't understand that key strategic investments (i.e. the signing of basically every Top 25 player...certainly those on more than $200k) should not be able to be executed without the Chair or other Board rep signing off. It's not rocket science.

PS: I understand the club wanting to get out of it.....this doesn't change the fact that it is collectively the club's (Board and CEO) fault and responsibility (which is the issue my OP was addressing) . It sure as hell is not the NRL's fault. And it is not the player's fault.

 

[Gronk]

:lol: What a suprise, did the NRL hire the muppet CEO and then let him do as he pleased???

Surely with such an inexperienced CEO you would have steps in place just incase things got to much for him??? Not at our club, it's everyones fault but ours.

You seem to be focused on who's fault it is. Fine do that and insert all the :lol: emoticons you like.

Bottom line is that we have a contract that disadvantages the club and you would expect the Board to take steps to rectify the problem.

Let's be serious here - do you don't want the club to "do the right thing" ? Or do you want the club to renegotiate the deal to achieve an acceptable outcome for the club ?

 

[Suitman]

And who was responsible for a system under which the CEO could sign such contracts and potentially bind the club without anyone on the Board knowing about the terms?

I still don't get why people can't understand that key strategic investments (i.e. the signing of basically every Top 25 player...certainly those on more than $200k) should not be able to be executed without the Chair or other Board rep signing off. It's not rocket science.

Either can I.
As Bigfella says, Seward has become the clubs convenient scapegoat.
You won't see any current management putting their hand up and taking any responsibility.

Suity

 

[Bigfella]

You seem to be focused on who's fault it is. Fine do that and insert all the :lol: emoticons you like.

Bottom line is that we have a contract that disadvantages the club and you would expect the Board to take steps to rectify the problem.

Let's be serious here - do you don't want the club to "do the right thing" ? Or do you want the club to renegotiate the deal to achieve an acceptable outcome for the club ?

With Foran we were able to renegotiate because we were still happy to pay him a bucketload of money.

I don't see this being as easily fixed.

Firstly, the NRL won't refuse to register a contract just because we now think we paid too much. The Foran situation was different, where they expressed concern about the unnecessary degree of protection afforded to the player and the disadvantage it gave to the club.

The obvious solution is that he signs elsewhere for close to his true market value and we top up the difference.

That is just as bad as keeping him for the original amount - we would still be paying the overs amount.

Plus the whole thing will just cruel his attitude. He didn't perform like the happiest bloke in the world last night.

 

[Bigfella]

Then the door will be open for Ryan the backup Morgan to have a full time slot for the next few years while we pay hoppa to play elsewhere.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It's very unlucky that Seward appears to have signed an NDA.

 

[ash411]

So to those of you who are on the conspiracy/evil board/Seward is a scapegoat side of things...

You're saying that you'd prefer to believe that the board are LYING to their membership purposely, intending on misleading us about the goings on at the club at board level

Rather than believing that they hired a CEO whose job it is to negotiate and sign players, and they trusted that guy to do his job properly without having to be hand held the entire way.

Why? Why is it a better option to believe that a group of people (led by the "Super Villian" Sharp, apparently) intentionally chose to make a huge mess of the club, then lie about it to everyone.

You do realise what you're saying is that they saw all this coming, but chose not to do anything until it was too late. This was YEARS in the making, but they knew about it all along, but waited until now to start doing anything about it?

I mean, come on... help me understand how that makes more sense to you.

don't use the word "should" either, hindsight is a great thing, but it's useless.

We all know what "should" happen, but it didn't. So shut up about it.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

So to those of you who are on the conspiracy/evil board/Seward is a scapegoat side of things...

You're saying that you'd prefer to believe that the board are LYING to their membership purposely, intending on misleading us about the goings on at the club at board level

Rather than believing that they hired a CEO whose job it is to negotiate and sign players, and they trusted that guy to do his job properly without having to be hand held the entire way.

Why? Why is it a better option to believe that a group of people (led by the "Super Villian" Sharp, apparently) intentionally chose to make a huge mess of the club, then lie about it to everyone.

You do realise what you're saying is that they saw all this coming, but chose not to do anything until it was too late. This was YEARS in the making, but they knew about it all along, but waited until now to start doing anything about it?

I mean, come on... help me understand how that makes more sense to you.

don't use the word "should" either, hindsight is a great thing, but it's useless.

We all know what "should" happen, but it didn't. So shut up about it.

Well, you've conflated about 6 different arguments into one there.

I don't believe there's a conspiracy. I believe that the Board have failed to discharge their duties in a competent manner, nothing more, nothing less. And they may be now trying to cover their tracks in the sense of lumping as much on the bloke who is no longer there, but who knows?

This stuff about 'hand holding' of the CEO is, with respect, way off the mark. Do you think that CEOs of listed corporations are able to do whatever they like without Board oversight? It is true that Boards of competent organisations delegate some decisions in their entirety to the CEO, and just subject these to distant oversight. But, for key decisions, upon which the future of the organisation hangs, they do not let their CEO do what he/she likes. They let the CEO initiate / organise the terms of deals, but they subject them to ratification by at least one member of the Board (or their delegates).

 

[84 Baby]

Well, you've conflated about 6 different arguments into one there.

I don't believe there's a conspiracy. I believe that the Board have failed to discharge their duties in a competent manner, nothing more, nothing less. And they may be now trying to cover their tracks in the sense of lumping as much on the bloke who is no longer there, but who knows?

This stuff about 'hand holding' of the CEO is, with respect, way off the mark. Do you think that CEOs of listed corporations are able to do whatever they like without Board oversight? It is true that Boards of competent organisations delegate some decisions in their entirety to the CEO, and just subject these to distant oversight. But, for key decisions, upon which the future of the organisation hangs, they do not let their CEO do what he/she likes. They let the CEO initiate / organise the terms of deals, but they subject them to ratification by at least one member of the Board (or their delegates).

Do they have anyone with any degree of accounting knowledge on the board? f**king budgets, people! You ask the CEO to prepare you some detailed budgets, especially about the core business of paying your players and then give them tolerances from there.
I'm not as negative as Statler & Waldorf but god I hope the board learn massively from this. How many years do you need to be a member before you can nominate for the board?

 

[ash411]

Well, you've conflated about 6 different arguments into one there.

I don't believe there's a conspiracy. I believe that the Board have failed to discharge their duties in a competent manner, nothing more, nothing less. And they may be now trying to cover their tracks in the sense of lumping as much on the bloke who is no longer there, but who knows?

This stuff about 'hand holding' of the CEO is, with respect, way off the mark. Do you think that CEOs of listed corporations are able to do whatever they like without Board oversight? It is true that Boards of competent organisations delegate some decisions in their entirety to the CEO, and just subject these to distant oversight. But, for key decisions, upon which the future of the organisation hangs, they do not let their CEO do what he/she likes. They let the CEO initiate / organise the terms of deals, but they subject them to ratification by at least one member of the Board (or their delegates).

Not really, no.

Either the board knew, and lied, or they didn't. it's pretty simple.

They often do, and it has brought more than one corporation unstuck before, It's not uncommon for CEO's to be given operational authority for most things, without needing board approval for each transaction, as that is the main responsibility of a CEO, to carry out the boards direction and manage the day to day operations of a company.

Boards don't get as involved in a companies operations as much as you believe they do. Many companies boards only meet on a monthly/quarterly basis, unless they are called to an emergency meeting when something demands their attention.

Don't pass this off as me trying to absolve the board of wrong-doing, or scapegoating Seward either,

I'm just saying that I don't believe that the board had prior knowledge of all the rabble, cause if they had, they would have taken steps to fix it much earlier than this

or,

they were in on it, and only started fixing it cause they got caught.

I chose to believe they didn't know, because the other makes me ashamed to be associated with the club at all.

You wanna know why we should be ashamed if it is true? because WE ARE RESPONSIBLE. yep, no ones really said this much before. but it's true.

 

[forward pass]

Then the door will be open for Ryan the backup Morgan to have a full time slot for the next few years while we pay hoppa to play elsewhere.

Ha - even in the Salary cap/management/boardroom thread you slip it into Morgs ! You are a strange man BF.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Not really, no.

Either the board knew, and lied, or they didn't. it's pretty simple.

They often do, and it has brought more than one corporation unstuck before, It's not uncommon for CEO's to be given operational authority for most things, without needing board approval for each transaction, as that is the main responsibility of a CEO, to carry out the boards direction and manage the day to day operations of a company.

Boards don't get as involved in a companies operations as much as you believe they do. Many companies boards only meet on a monthly/quarterly basis, unless they are called to an emergency meeting when something demands their attention.

Don't pass this off as me trying to absolve the board of wrong-doing, or scapegoating Seward either,

I'm just saying that I don't believe that the board had prior knowledge of all the rabble, cause if they had, they would have taken steps to fix it much earlier than this

or,

they were in on it, and only started fixing it cause they got caught.

I chose to believe they didn't know, because the other makes me ashamed to be associated with the club at all.

You wanna know why we should be ashamed if it is true? because WE ARE RESPONSIBLE. yep, no ones really said this much before. but it's true.

I'm well aware of that (I've sat on them). We are not talking about day-to-day operations here. We are talking about decisions of major strategic importance to the organisation (an NRL CEO could conceivably commit 90% of the NRL club budget...not on one player obviously). It doesn't require the whole board to ratify a draft contract. It simply requires that either the Chair or a the head of a recruitment sub-committee sign-off. And guess what? At least someone at the club seems to realise that oversight is required:

Parramatta's communications manager Josh Drayton said the Eels were looking into all contracts that were Seward's responsibility.
"The club has been reviewing the small number of player contracts directly handled by the former chief executive to ensure they were approved as per our internal governance processes," he said.
"If procedural issues are identified then the club is working with the relevant stakeholders to ensure we meet all regulatory and governance requirements."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...poate-deal-20150709-gi906p.html#ixzz3h8oykmph

 

[ash411]

I'm well aware of that (I've sat on them). We are not talking about day-to-day operations here. We are talking about decisions of major strategic importance to the organisation (an NRL CEO could conceivably commit 90% of the NRL club budget...not on one player obviously). It doesn't require the whole board to ratify a draft contract. It simply requires that either the Chair or a the head of a recruitment sub-committee sign-off. And guess what? At least someone at the club seems to realise that oversight is required:




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...poate-deal-20150709-gi906p.html#ixzz3h8oykmph

Absolutely, it is needed for sure, no disagreement on that here..

So what I'm asking is do you believe that they knew about all this, but chose to do nothing about it until the s**t hit the fan? Then lied to us about it? Cause that's what we're talking about here, that's the situation as you're putting it forward.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Absolutely, it is needed for sure, no disagreement on that here..

So what I'm asking is do you believe that they knew about all this, but chose to do nothing about it until the s**t hit the fan? Then lied to us about it? Cause that's what we're talking about here, that's the situation as you're putting it forward.

Where did I say any of that?

I said that the have been incompetent, and that they may have tried to push as much of the blame onto Seward as possible. That's it. I started my 2nd last post saying that I don't think it is a conspiracy....not sure how to be clearer than that.

Show me where I've said anything like what you are suggesting, and I'll gladly correct the record.

 

[Bigfella]

But mate - it is cap management and hopeless club governance that forces us to sign and play plodders like this.

It's not irrelevant to the thread.

This is why we have a lot of sub par players running around - constantly behind the eight ball because each year management mortgage the farm to impress fans and consolidate their power.

 

[ash411]

Where did I say any of that?

I said that the have been incompetent, and that they may have tried to push as much of the blame onto Seward as possible. That's it. I started my 2nd last post saying that I don't think it is a conspiracy....not sure how to be clearer than that.

Show me where I've said anything like what you are suggesting, and I'll gladly correct the record.

ffs... I wasn't quoting you.

Either they knew, or they didn't.

I'm asking which you believe. Not quoting you verbatim.

So you're saying they didn't know, but are pushing blame? but if they didn't know, why are they to blame? why would they need to push blame if they didn't it was going on?

It has to be one or the other. Either they knew, and did nothing, or they didn't know.

p.s. you DID say that one, right up there in the quote in my post.