Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Apr 29, 2015.
Eagleston on triple m Spoke about having 600 signatures for a egm.
Great. A ticket based replacement of current ticket.
At least the other option doesnt give us a ticket in advance.
I heard the Eagleston merkin on Triple M.
There is no way I will vote for him.
Sounded like more of the same sadly.
What did he say that was so bad?
I heard him, didn't think it was that bad....
Be careful about the Eagleston ticket, which looks like it will contain the ex footy players
Just heard Raaaay support him with a 5 minute spray , suggests that the emperor may have a hand in the ticket which is disastrous for a club trying to move forward.The idea of independent board members who are chosen for their expertise seems the best way to go, despite their good intentions, seems the ticket faction method should be dead and buried
Some of the names I have heard that are prepared to go before a review process seem substantially better than the ticket method . Their background should bring a more professional standard, and no doubt they don't want to stand in front of the usual slanging match we see in the ticket election method.
Personally will go,down this afternoon and deliver support to the that method of moving to a new board
This Eagleston ticket is very very bad news, the naive will go along with it, anybody who has done some research will see straight away that it would be exactly what we don't need, the worst type of factions coming back to the club, theres no doubt a secret plan going on here, thats why they are keeping the other candidates hush.
Isn't it funny, all the leaks and destabilisation and now this mob pop up with clear links to all the drama,
After all of the darkness we've been through if fans want these guys in we are doomed
sign here please
The biggest problem is, Eagleston isn't independent. He's part of one of the old factions. That should immediately disqualify him from running for the board.
If a fresh start is what we need, then that is exactly what we should have. Our board needs to be 1 of two things.
a) not have one single member that has been aligned with a previous faction (no one that has been on the board, or run for the board before)
b) and equal amount of members from ALL previous factions, chaired by a purely independent chairperson.
have just one faction in opens us to whiteanting, if there are none there, it's possible it could happen, but if they aren't against the old factions, it might work.
If every faction is equally represented, but none has full control, that may work, everyone gets a chance to get their opinion across, and the chair gets to decide on the best course of action, maybe that could work?
Probably not, but I can't think of any other way to put an end to this.
no wonder Jake likes him
Serraro think he's get off from his penalty, but is also offering to step down once it's over.
Gerard is offering to remain so that a committee can be formed (with independent panel e.g. PWC) to select new (independent?) Directors to fill the vacancies, and then he will step down also.
Our club has agreed with the NRL that we would have independent directors from August. And it would seem that Gerrard (and Serraro) are doing what they need to do to make this happen... what about Garrard, Gadiel and the other one that's left?
This simply needs to happen - and Eagleston's silly EGM petition/motion is likely an agenda-driven push to snatch power for one of the warlords that we don't want near our club going forward.
1. Find a new Leagues Club Board that has a strong focus on the Leagues Club
2. Change the Constitution so that the PLC Board are not automatically wholly on the PNRL Board
3. Select some independent Board members for the PNRL, including 2 NRL recommended placements
The one thing we don't need to do is allow another faction to take control of the PLC in order to actually control the footy club with have no ability to direct the PLC itself. Whether this faction is selected by a motion for an EGM (aka the one that Eagleston guy wants) or by an election in 11 months, we need to stop selection based on factions and popularity or we will never get a quality PLC Board and subsequently a quality PNRL Board.
Have been saying that since Roy and 3P first promised it back in late 2008. They didn't deliver on their promise despite two terms in charge.
I think Sharp's mob promised it as well in late 2012 (?), and they too didn't deliver in their two terms in charge
After eight years of shit it's now 2016, and with the NRL's governance review at the start of the year recommending the PNRL board have some independent members - and the NRL broadcast deal meaning NRL grants to the clubs will cover at least the salary cap cost of running an NRL side - surely we can move a little bit closer to finally separating the two Boards properly?
Sadly it looks like we'll need to NRL to do it for us, because of the factions.... we simply must keep Eagleston and his secret team away from PLC power.
So what's your solution Bigfella, instead of simply sitting back and blasting about posts that tell things how they are?
3P = f**ked up. Sharp's mob = f**ked up. Eagleston's mob = more of the same. Calling for NRL independent directors on PLC Board, and a separation of teh two Boards (and reconfiguration of election timetabling, as per NRL governance review).
Where's the agenda in that? :crazy: And where's your solution?
My understanding was that the independent board members (from the off-season governance review) were to be recommended by the Club to the NRL for endorsement, rather than nominated by the NRL? Not sure where I read that though, or whether it's correct...
Just having a quick search, this article (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-as-independent-director-20160506-goob15.html) from May quotes Peter Wynn as having been approached by Sharp - i.e. the Club - to be one of the independent directors, but declining the offer.
The same article also contains details re the NRL's recent condition of the fast tracking of independent appointments to August, and the $250K portion of the suspended $1mil fine:
"Parramatta officials had earlier this year agreed to stagger the appointment of three independent directors but the NRL has made it a condition of the penalties handed down on Tuesday that the changes take place by August or the Eels lose $250,000 of the $1 million fine that has been suspended if they accelerate the governance reforms.
The independent directors could not have any association with either Parramatta Football Club or the powerful Parramatta Leagues Club which controls the NRL team."
I agree with you the EGM initially seemed a bit of a farce... but I'm not sure the NRL get to nominate the new independent directors, and by my reading we need the Club (in some form, by some process) to recommend names to the NRL. If Gerard and Garrard and co as remaining Directors cannot get on the same page about a process for this, then perhaps the non-Eagleston EGM proposal is the only option?
Has anybody heard anymore about the names that Andrew Eagleston has on his petition? On the MMM on Sunday he said they would be coming out this week but I haven't heard anything as yet. In fact, Andrew himself has been quiet since Sunday - maybe his petition is running out of puff.
Hey Stagger, have you seen the petition from Andrew Eagleston yet?
Apart from Brendan Noney and Eagleston himself do you know who the others are that he has selected for his ticket? As I recall from his MMM interview last weekend, the others are all CEO's who were going to 'reveal' themselves during the week but no one I have spoken to has seen this petition with its 600 signatures or heard of any other named replacements.
The other petition is at least available to download and read so obviously not as guarded a secret about their plans.
None at all and as much as I've been scratching away for further info the less forthcoming the info is...
Chris Losco project is the only viable option at the moment
Separate names with a comma.