Loved Leabeater's contribution as a player.![]()
Parramatta Eels facing questions over payment to Terry Leabeater as part of harassment investigation
Current and former directors will be asked next week whether grand final hero Terry Leabeater was paid by the club to harass officials during Roy Spagnolo’s four-year reign at the Eels.www.smh.com.au
There was also this. I remember quite well what happened with Terry. Reasonably sure that he also apologised at some stage for his involvement with 3P.
Sevens ?he was a member here during his last coup attempt, didn't last long though
Sevens ?
I remember that well. What a flop.he was a member here during his last coup attempt, didn't last long though
Yep Sangreal86Didn't he go by username Sangreal on here?
He signed his name as Sevens at the bottom of posts
He's got it all worked out eh.So as I understand it the EGM has 4 motions, each to dismiss a particular Director of the PLC, with no named replacements. Each motion needs 75%+1 vote to pass I believe.
At next year's AGM, these 4 spots will need to filled so candidates will be running from this group, with the aim of taking a majority position on the Board of the PLC.
If successfull, the idea is to remove the 2 PLC nominated Directors to the PNRL Board and replace them with their own people from the elected 4.
Once there are 2 on the PNRL board, the plan is then to convince 2 existing PNRL Directors to vote to wind back the PNRL constitution so that PLC board has total control of PNRL and suddenly, Spags has control of the footy team again.
Well he has a plan.He's got it all worked out eh.
FW!
I'm a believer that there should be at least one board member who has an NRL background. Not necessarily a player. Could be a coach, administrator etc preferably with an Eels history. Probably a tall order for our club though.Well he has a plan.
Whether it eventuates is another matter because the likelihood of each step actually succeeding is very limited.
When the same people were trying to block some of the changes Max was trying to introduce to the consitution, they had just over 25% of voters at the meetings, so enough to block the change. Once postal voting was introduced, that number dropped to approx 10% and the motions Max wanted got passed.
So a couple of hundred people that want the change might not be enough for even step 1, IF sufficient numbers turn up at the EGM and/or postal voting is allowed at the EGM (I do not know whether it is or not).
I also think the likelihood of our current professional PNRL board of bankers and accountants suddenly agreeing to take us back to the dark old days where a $20M+ business was run by ex-footballers and dodgy business people is very, very low, so I don't believe step 4 will ever happen if it got that far.