Parra board

[eelinfo]

I don't care who is right and who is wrong. It's way PAST TIME both Parramatta boards to step down or be sacked. Just sack everyone on both boards and start again. Clubs nsw could put a new leagues club board in. It's past time the NRL stepped in and put a new football club board in.i would shut down the fan website. And have the NRL in charge of the lot. I'm tired of all the goings on of both boards. SACK both boards now and start again.

 

[hindmarshisgod]

I agree.

Bring back Fitzy

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It doesn't really matter who is on the board. What we need are better governance structures. The demise of the PDRLC is a good start. The constitution needs a massive overhaul too, and this is probably the only way it could have happened.

 

[Twizzle]

Have you read our constitution Pou ?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Are there hidden good bits that make up for all the messed up shit with two boards and election bullshit every two years?

 

[emjaycee]

Neither constitution needs a massive overhaul - however they both need some adjustment predominately around the areas of election, term and number of directors. The purpose of the PLC which is stated in the constitution is relatively accurate and most of the constitution is based on meeting the requirements of the Licenced Clubs Act, with some specific derivations from the Act where allowed.

The PDRL constitution on the other hand has more need of rework, again in the area of directors but also in better defining the purpose of the PDRL. There could also be some rework to the types and definitions of memberships and the obligations on members.

Hopefully the PDRL board will agree to work with the PLC which is currently undertaking a constitutional reform review with the aim of recommending changes for members approval at the next PLC AGM in April/May 2015.

**Yes, I have read both and also the Licenced Clubs Act

 

[strider]

Are there hidden good bits that make up for all the messed up shit with two boards and election bullshit every two years?

no - its all shit mate

 

[not graham olling]

Neither constitution needs a massive overhaul - however they both need some adjustment predominately around the areas of election, term and number of directors. The purpose of the PLC which is stated in the constitution is relatively accurate and most of the constitution is based on meeting the requirements of the Licenced Clubs Act, with some specific derivations from the Act where allowed.

The PDRL constitution on the other hand has more need of rework, again in the area of directors but also in better defining the purpose of the PDRL. There could also be some rework to the types and definitions of memberships and the obligations on members.

Hopefully the PDRL board will agree to work with the PLC which is currently undertaking a constitutional reform review with the aim of recommending changes for members approval at the next PLCAGM in April/May 2015.

**Yes, I have read both and also the Licenced Clubs Act

Good analysis. Lets hope it can get sorted before round 1

 

[Twizzle]

Are there hidden good bits that make up for all the messed up shit with two boards and election bullshit every two years?

dunno mate, I have not read it but I just wondered why you made such a comment and if you had read it

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Sorry mate, I assumed all the rules that keep our governance structures awkward and out of date and on a near constant election footing were contained in the constitution.

They must be written somewhere else though hey? Cheers for setting me straight. I know you've been trying hard for a while.

 

[Twizzle]

lol, I gave up on that a long time go

 

[not graham olling]

Sorry mate, I assumed all the rules that keep our governance structures awkward and out of date and on a near constant election footing were contained in the constitution.

They must be written somewhere else though hey? Cheers for setting me straight. I know you've been trying hard for a while.

Constitutions need to be updated to reflect the times we live in now. Allow members the opportunity to vote the for the NRL team not the juniors. A sub committee can look after the juniors. Allow the main funder,the PlC, to have the most say on how the NRL club should be run

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Sounds good to me. If we can't get smart blokes on the board then the less dopes trying to come to an agreement the better.

But what they really need is to allow online or even postal voting. Not all of us live in f**ken Sydney.

 

[emjaycee]

Sounds good to me. If we can't get smart blokes on the board then the less dopes trying to come to an agreement the better.

But what they really need is to allow online or even postal voting. Not all of us live in f**ken Sydney.

The issue of the allowable methods of voting is definitely a contentious one and one that is not easily solved.
The registered clubs act does not allow for proxy voting and for a licenced club such as PLC which would have the majority of members living within a close physical proximity to the club, this makes sense to extend to not having postal or on-line voting (not that I agree just stating the logic behind it).

Membership of the Blue and Gold Army (the memberships sold on the Parra Eels website whether with or without a ticket) provide membership to the PDRL, even though this group does not manage the NRL team. And who will care to vote for a board that doesnt control the function for which you purchase membership?

This is the issue that needs to be resolved before consideration to the methods of voting IMHO.

 

[Western_Eel]

A private sale would go down well

 

[not graham olling]

A private sale would go down well

A private sale is not the panacea to solve the perceived problems. Just look at the Knights and how long that lasted. Manly have had some issues too. While Souths have had success this year they did take 7 years of private ownership to get that success.

 

[Western_Eel]

A private sale is not the panacea to solve the perceived problems. Just look at the Knights and how long that lasted. Manly have had some issues too. While Souths have had success this year they did take 7 years of private ownership to get that success.

and do you think they would of won a premiership last season if they were not privately owned?

 

[strider]

i just don't see australia as a place that private ownership has a good chance of success - not enough money to be made, so less likely owners will stick it out for the long haul - and changing ownership constantly would be just as bad as the crappy rotating board situation we have been going through

even rusty wanted out of souths a while back, he just couldn't find anyone to offer up enough $$$s to get out

 

[phantom eel]

i would shut down the fan website.

The club's fan website was shut down over 11 years ago - that's why we're all here.

Neither constitution needs a massive overhaul - however they both need some adjustment predominately around the areas of election, term and number of directors. The purpose of the PLC which is stated in the constitution is relatively accurate and most of the constitution is based on meeting the requirements of the Licenced Clubs Act, with some specific derivations from the Act where allowed.

The PDRL constitution on the other hand has more need of rework, again in the area of directors but also in better defining the purpose of the PDRL. There could also be some rework to the types and definitions of memberships and the obligations on members.

Hopefully the PDRL board will agree to work with the PLC which is currently undertaking a constitutional reform review with the aim of recommending changes for members approval at the next PLC AGM in April/May 2015.

**Yes, I have read both and also the Licenced Clubs Act

Agree with Emjaycee re the constitutions just needing tweaks to get us up to date for the future.

dunno mate, I have not read it but I just wondered why you made such a comment and if you had read it

He's not even bothered to become a member, so he wouldn't f**king know... pity it doesn't stop him commenting though.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So you're saying the club's constitution hasn't hampered reform of our governance structures?

If so what has?