Parramatta Leagues Club board sacked, administrator appointed

[ash411]

I wish I had gotten a PLC membership 3 years ago like I was planning to..

Factions aside, that doesn't look like a well thought out team of professionals to me..

I mean, Ray Price? really?

 

[phantom eel]

OK, so now I am confused.

Andrew Eagleston has just advised of his "team to lead the club into the future" but I am not sure if he realises that the Board is the PLC Board and not the Footy Club Board (although there are some Directors that would be on both).

Apart from himself, he has included on his 'ticket' the following:
- Ray Price (and selected him as Chairman)
- Ian Sekuloski
- Paul Barber
- Two Directors to be appointed by the NRL
- One Director to be selected from Parramatta membership


Here are my personal concerns.

Agree with your concerns. Ray Price as a replacement for Steve Sharp? :lol:

After what we've experienced since late 2008, someone needs to tell these ex-footballers to stay the f**k away from Club administration.

Plus three candidates who have run (unsuccessfully) previously in the factional elections? No thanks.

And then only three other appointed/elected directors? So those four clowns can have an automatic majority? No thanks.

At least the other option doesn't pretend to pick the 'best people' from previous failed candidates.

Very true. People need to stay away from this Eagleston petition/vote down his EGM motions. As an ex-ParraMount candidate, it is highly likely his ticket is just a wolf in sheep's clothing for you know who....

 

[Stagger eel]

so has Eagleston actually handed in his EGM proposal to the board or is this for next May's election? ....either way there's a serious LOL factor to it al

 

[phantom eel]

Emjayce's final sentence refers to Eagleston's petition with 26 motions on it, so I'm guessing yes?

The question I have is does that mean we have the one EGM to deal with matters raised in the two petitions (once vetted, to ensure all are signed only by valid members etc)? What a shit fight that will be... :crazy:

 

[Bigfella]

Good to see the factions out in force to shoot down the possibility that this group might be a faction.

 

[ash411]

Good to see the factions out in force to shoot down the possibility that this group might be a faction.

So, you think Eagleston's ticket is a good idea?

Being so impartial and all..

I have no allegiance to any faction, All I needed to read was RAY PRICE to know it was a bad idea.

 

[emjaycee]

so has Eagleston actually handed in his EGM proposal to the board or is this for next May's election? ....either way there's a serious LOL factor to it al

He has started collecting signatures so doesn't have his 101 yet to call an EGM.

 

[emjaycee]

Emjayce's final sentence refers to Eagleston's petition with 26 motions on it, so I'm guessing yes?

Actually no. It seems he is raising his required signatures now.

The question I have is does that mean we have the one EGM to deal with matters raised in the two petitions (once vetted, to ensure all are signed only by valid members etc)? What a shit fight that will be... :crazy:

My understanding is that an EGM can only deal with the motion(s) raised as part of the request for the EGM. Nothing additional can be tabled from the floor or otherwise. If this is true then the EGM will deal only with the issues of the Losco petition if that is the trigger for calling the EGM.

 

[emjaycee]

'Factions' should not be confused with 'Tickets'.

Ticket: A ticket refers to a single election choice which fills more than one political office or seat.

Faction: A small organised dissenting group within a larger one, especially in politics.

Eagleston's petition effectively produces a "ticket" although each motion could be passed/rejected on its own and thus not all named replacements be selected.

 

[ash411]

So, we can assume that the losco EGM runs on it's own, and the Eagleston petition doesn't piggy back on that same EGM, right?

Does this mean there will be two separate EGM's?

Scenario: The Losco petition is already submitted, so the Losco EGM will be sometime soon. Let's say in 2 weeks, Eagleston gets the required signatures to submit his petition and does so. They have the Losco EGM first (let's say it's successful) then the Eagleston petition triggers another EGM at least 2 weeks following that? Is that what would happen?

 

[Gary Gutful]

Ray Price as Chairman. That's f**ken ridiculous.

 

[Johnny88]

Ray Price? strange choice. Didn't Andrew go on triple m weeks ago and say he had 600 signatures?

 

[emjaycee]

So, we can assume that the losco EGM runs on it's own, and the Eagleston petition doesn't piggy back on that same EGM, right?

Does this mean there will be two separate EGM's?

Scenario: The Losco petition is already submitted, so the Losco EGM will be sometime soon. Let's say in 2 weeks, Eagleston gets the required signatures to submit his petition and does so. They have the Losco EGM first (let's say it's successful) then the Eagleston petition triggers another EGM at least 2 weeks following that? Is that what would happen?

Unchartered waters but I think not.
The focus of Eagleston's motions are the removal of named directors and the replacement with other names. And although he does cover the likelihood that a current director steps down and is replaced, I don't think this covers the replacement of a Director by due process (in the Losco motion).

 

[carson]

Has Ray relocated back to Sydney? Thought he was driving a bus up the coast...maybe they mean the statue will be the new chairman...

 

[Gronk]

Does Ray know that the Chairman gig is pretty much a part time job and gets paid a honorarium of f**k all ?

 

[emjaycee]

And now a third petition has reached the shores of Parraland and is seeking signatures with the backing of Joe Saad.

Only 22 motions this time and most worded the same except the nominated 'ticket' is:
- Brendan Noney
- David Ciantar
- Martin Zaiter
- John Hugh
- Rony Warden

No indication of the other 2 (maybe leaving them for the NRL to appoint) all though this resolution scares me:

Twenty-Second Ordinary Resolution
That in the event a vacancy, or vacancies, on the Board of Directors remains unfilled after
the determination of the previous resolutions as set out above, that this meeting appoint
such person, or if more than one, such persons as are nominated from the eligible members
present at this meeting and who consent to fill any remaining vacancy or vacancies on the
Board of Directors, as remain unfilled.

 

[emjaycee]

Apologies guys - just realised that because the petition has Ray Price replacing Steven Sharp as a Director, doesn't automatically mean he will be Chairman.
Sorry for the confusion.

Actually, no I am not sorry for the confusion - I didn't write a petition with 26 motions so I am not the reason for the confusion.

Yes I am.
No I am not.

**Gollum**

 

[eel01s]

Obviously some people won't give up. The beauty of Losco's proposal is that any 3 year member can apply but only the best credentialed will make it. That doesn't stop Eagleston or Price from trying. Interested to hear from them why their proposal is better.

 

[phantom eel]

Good to see the factions out in force to shoot down the possibility that this group might be a faction.

Good to see... oh never mind.

 

[phantom eel]

He has started collecting signatures so doesn't have his 101 yet to call an EGM.

Actually no. It seems he is raising his required signatures now.

Excellent news.

Can't believe he claimed 600 signatures on radio... and hasn't even got 100 yet :lol:

My understanding is that an EGM can only deal with the motion(s) raised as part of the request for the EGM. Nothing additional can be tabled from the floor or otherwise. If this is true then the EGM will deal only with the issues of the Losco petition if that is the trigger for calling the EGM.

Separate EGMs for each separate petition? If true/confirmed, even further excellent news.

Well done to all involved for getting the petition for the Losco Merit-Based Proposal in first under these very strange circumstances. :thumn: