Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Apr 29, 2015.
The thing is BF, Eagleston and anyone else for that matter, are more than welcome to be considered under the losco plan. If they are qualified, there's no reason why they wouldn't have a fair chance to be selected on the board.
Ticket systems need to go, groups of candidates (i.e. factions) are a thing of the past, and we need to move past this system, as it is destructive.
Selecting candidates individually based on the merits of each candidate is the best way to go, and this method doesn't exclude Eagleston, or anyone was applying for consideration.
Doesn't that sound like the best way to go? Tickets haven't worked for us in the past, there's no reason to think that they'll work now. Let them all put their names into the pool of candidates and if they are the most qualified for the job, they'll happily be appointed.
I can give you more of my views on the other group in a PM if you like, however what I will say here is that the other group (if by that you mean the one proposed by Andrew Eagleston) appears for all intents to be a pre-selected ticket, where one person (Andrew) has decided he wants to get on the board and has/is selecting 6 other people.
His petition is not a single motion for the members to vote on, but rather 7 separate motions, each one calling for the resignation of Director "X" and replacement with person "Y". If anyone of those 7 motions does not get carried, then Director "X" remains on the Board. This remains a popularity contest effectively and there is no alternate options for the members to vote on - you vote for the motion which names the replacement.
To my way of thinking this is simply replacing the ParraFirst ticket with the Andrew Eagleston ticket and introducing yet another faction into the mix for the future (Fitz/Spags/Sharp/Eagleston).
The proposal by Losco is for a Merit based selection where the role of deciding who deserves the place on the Board is done by an independent team of assessors/professionals who will recommend 6 people to Geoff Gerard (he would be the only remaining director). Geoff will 'select' these 6 (he needs to form a quorum of at least 4) before stepping down himself at which time the 6 will select the 7th recommended.
The constitution allows for the remaining directors to select any eligible member to fill a vacancy on the Board until the next election so this is a fully legal way of replacing the Board.
#Edit: there are not that many restrictions on who can be on the Board. Must be a financial member, not an employee, not de-registered in the past and that's about it from memory.
So where do we post it to?
Nevermind found it-
I posted a long winded post earlier about the Losco petition.
The thread was then closed before I posted.
The Losco petition is ok and one I would support.
I've been dubious about all factions since all this shit went down and trust very few people now.
I know Chris through previous unrelated football business. He's not a mate, but a friend. I've had limited dealings with him, but enough to know who he is and his genuine motivation.
I haven't spoken to him for more than two years and he wouldn't know who I was on this forum.
I'll be signing the petition.
Hopefully Suity's "esteemed" testimony will be enough to convince Bigfella to finally get behind the idea of merit based replacement for Board vacancies, rather than a motion to install a new factional mystery ticket...? :sarcasm:
The only thing I would be concerned with is does the current proposal from Chris L, work with what the NRL are planing.
We have been bent to the will of the NRL so far, what makes us think this will be any difference.
MITS, what does the NRL want from the Parra Leagues Club Board?
You as well as anyone knows that they (the NRL) have no power over the PLC Board and membership as it is a separate entity.
The PNRL Constitution handed out at the PLC AGM has the changes in it the NRL want for the PNRL Board. Unfortunately it appears the current PNRL Board is just not keen to implement them.
The model you proposed sounds pretty appealing MJC, what chance of it crystallizing ?
If you mean the model of the PNRL Board that I mentioned last week - not sure.
Personally I think we still need some more tweaks to the PNRL constitution and there is a solid push for this to happen once we have a Board at the PLC level that don't ALL expect to run a footy club.
I think the initial changes will see 4-5 PLC Board members go onto the PNRL Board and 2-3 Independents with the backing of the NRL. Personally I will be pushing for further changes once there is a new Board to work with cause the current mob don't want anything to change.
Am so glad they are putting Club First, Team Second, Individual Third - :roll:
(am I still allowed to use this smiley icon thing with rolling eyes)
I mean, yes, but we're allowed to crucify you afterwards.
Yet PLC owns PNRL so no matter who you put on the PNRL board, they will report to the PLC board unless you separate the two as an organisation.
Actually i might be wrong but i think they would technically report to the PNRL P/L shareholder(s) which is effectively the Secretary and CEO of the PLC and not the Board, but I take your point.
Regardless, there doesn't need to be 2 separate organisations to achieve the level of separation the NRL is asking for from the PNRL. Just separation of the Boards in part, addition of independent directors (i.e independent from an election process) and trienniel elections for any electible directors.
So do you see the Independent directors as being part of the PLC board?
While the PNRLC board are facing charges in relation to the NRL's salary cap, what has the board done on the PLC side that would cause us to appoint independent directors?
From what I understand, cash flow is good, revenue is up and the expansion procedures are continuing as planed, as evidence by the Northcott centre (Football Office Premises) being demolished.
The AGM plan sees all directors removed with Geoff Gerard to appoint a selection committee for the club. Why should the members allow our club to have independent directors? It is our club, it has been working for over 60 years, growing and giving back to the community, and now because the NRL has thrown some allegations our way we are going to give them a messure of control?
The Ti-annual elections for a 3rd of the board sound good, but just like the current senate voting, there will always be room for factions.
People attached to this club have been jumping at the spectre of Denis Fitzgerald for years now. That will never end. Nor will people like Ray Price, Brett Kenney, or Roy Spagnolo having their say about the club they are so passionate for.
The only way to solve this problem, effectively it at an egm to remove the Eels licence as a core, then re-start the football club and get things moving again by granting them the licence. Allow special qualification, like before and then have the NRL appoint people to sit in on our Board Meetings and vote, but still allow the members their 7 representatives. Only elected officials can be Chair and Vice. The 3 NRL appointees can then run back to the NRL if they think anything inappropriate is happening, but they can't start of coup d'etat to wrestle control away from the members.
I would also love to see those big money people put a large sum into a trust investment account that the eels could pull on to make up differences in operating budget vs income.
Those big money people would also get to appoint a number of board members, each year any profits after football expenditure would go to ensuring the club had its own investment account and once equal to the some of the investment, the investors can start tohave their money back (plus maybe a small gratuity) and as such those board members are removed and the club could be entirely self sufficient and divorced from the PLC.
No independent directors on the PLC board - just the PNRL Board.
Edit: I should have qualified.
The PLC Board is still 7 electable Directors however no less than 4 of these and no more than 6 of these carry-over to the PNRL Board.
The total number of the PNRL Board is now allowed to be 9 which means if the maximum of 6 come over there is room for 3 non-elected Directors (i.e. independent). This is what the NRL wanted.
This is all in the revised PNRL Constitution.
Then why an EGM, isn't the EGM to remove the directors from the PLC ? If it is only the PNRLC then the members have no say in the running of that club.
Yes, the EGM is to remove the Directors of the PLC and by virtue of that, the PNRLC.
The reasons for that are personal to the people signing and supporting the petition and I cannot speak for others, only myself.
The reasons I have are that I believe that while the Directors currently have dual roles (PLC and PNRLC) the sins of one affect the other. Do I want people on the board of the PLC who have caused one of their key assets (the PNRLC) to face the embarrassment, shame and impact of their actions that we have seen this year? Do I want directors of the PLC who by their actions in another capacity have allegedly invoked an environment of cheating, potential fraud and possible misappropriation of funds to occur? Do I want directors whose actions have resulted in yet another OLGA investigation into the running of the Club? Do I want Directors who have approved legal expenses of over $400k trying a case that in all honesty most people could see was doomed to fail?
To all of these questions I say "no" and therefore I want the PLC Board removed and ideally a non-factional, merit based one appointed.
You missed a word there that you have added in the next question which should be there for all of them baring the last.
I am actually quite happy they tried that case, it is interesting that by signing a contract and obtaining an NRL licence, the NRL can do what ever they want to our club without any due-process before announcing sanctions.
I feel that is wrong and something the clubs should work to change in the licence agreements in the future, now that they have that ruling.
Now while I am sure the truth of all of this is somewhere in the middle, I will still wait to hear what our directors have to say after the ruling from the NRL before signing on to any action. Because doing it before is acting on allegations and not on facts.
Our club has done so much in the last few years on emotions and not based on results or facts, we need to keep this as an option but for now we need to wait and see.
and I am not taking a personal swipe at you mate, but Non-factional, merit based board sounds like Santa Claus, the Tooth fairy, Unicorns and trickle down economics, fictional.
I left allegedly out of the first and third questions on purpose. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Board has caused embarrassment, etc. to the club this year and there is no doubt that these actions have triggered an OLGA investigation. Even if cleared of all alleged cheating, their actions in handling this entire process has been embarrassing to say the least.
So please enlighten me how they could have not caused "embarrassment, shame and impact" if they are not guilty ?
Or Stopped another OLGA investigation ?
Separate names with a comma.