This is currently in both constitutions and is referred to as the "Special Condition".
In and of itself, this isn't a bad condition to include in a constitution where one party financially supports another - the problem we have is that it is 2-way.
Historically, having PDRL directors on the PLC board meant that they could ensure the interests of the football side was maintained by the PLC, valid given that the PLC was formed by the PDRL as MITS mentioned.
More recently, with the transfer of the NRL licence to the PLC and its subsequent group company on the PNRL P/L the role of the PDRL has been diluted to the point that they no longer have any say in the running of the first grade (and NYC) franchise. At this point the PDRL to PLC condition could have been removed but in reality that would have resulted in the PLC potentially not caring about representative junior football.
The solution isn't that hard to design, but knowing the egos involved will be nigh impossible to implement.
Simply move the responsibilites of the PDRL to the PNRL company and separate the PNRL board from the PLC board, with the following changes:
2 directors appointed from the Junior League (not elected)
2 directors appointed from the PLC board (not elected)
3 directors elected by the members every 3 years
2 directors appointed by the board
Set maximum terms for each director for both continual service and overall (lifetime) service.
This would allow the Junior District to have an input into the footy side, would allow the money (PLC) to keep an eye on their expense, would allow the members to have a say in who is on their board and would allow the board to bring in expertise they needed to strengthen the board.
See, easy.
:lol:
There would still be 2 elections, PLC and the 3 spots for PNRL but it would be less contentious and less likely to be factional as we have seen for the last 6 years or so.
