Salary Cap

[Suitman]

Well said. And while the NRL are checking the full records in proper context maybe the media might wish to grab a few more headlines by in depth interviews with Fitzgerald and Spags -- provided they swear on the bible to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[emjaycee]

I stated early on that I'm in favour of the club adopting the NRL Governance recommendations, and avoiding the 4 point penalty for breaches that occurred as a result of previous administrtations. I'm hardly a Sharp/Issa fanatic. I welcome NRL-appointed independent directors as part of that - but think the most sustainable way for our Club to move forward is for those independent directors to be introduced gradually, while changing our Board's election cycles as per the NRL recommendations.

For example, installing 2 NRL-appointed independent directors to join the current PNRL Board at (as asap after) our May 2016 AGM. I'd be actually surprised if something like this wasn't part of the already agreed governance changes, just awaiting constitutional amendments. Any resignation/vacancies between now and the elections due in 2017 would also be replaced by NRL-appointees (rather than the current process).

That would make for a 9 person board, which lends itself easily to the annual elections of one third of directors, for terms staggered across three years (mooted to be the best practice governance recommendation). That just leaves the matter of how to elect directors in May 2017 to serve for three years, two years, and one year terms (to acheive the future staggered elections), without the May 2017 election istelf becoming the almighty once an for all shit fight :lol:

Hey, IMHO you are missing one important point... the NRL doesn't want Board members on the PLC and the PNRL Board is not elected. Therefore, there is little/no chance of getting to a 9 person electable Board under the scenario you proposed.

To achieve the NRL's objective there would need to be some minor changes to the PLC Constitution and more in fact to the PNRL Constitution which actually doesn't require an AGM to effect. I can't be assed detailing them all here, but I have passed onto the Club some ideas on how to achieve this outcome.

 

[phantom eel]

Yep, I mentioned the independent directors joining the PNRL board, but wasn't clear about this being after the May PLC AGM (for the constitutional changes).

It would be great if we had a PNRL Board was iniially totally free of election chaos, but I think the compromise governance arrangements will see some nominations of (some) currently elected PLC Directors over to a new PNRL Board - kind of similar to the old "special consideration (?)" rule?

But yeah, I think we'd probably be saying similar things - I'd hope the NRL goal is only to have say four of 9 person PNRL board (or three of a 7 person PNRL board) elected in some way. If "control" is not available through elections, the factions might f**k off once and for all?

 

[emjaycee]

Yep, I mentioned the independent directors joining the PNRL board, but wasn't clear about this being after the May PLC AGM (for the constitutional changes).

It would be great if we had a PNRL Board was iniially totally free of election chaos, but I think the compromise governance arrangements will see some nominations of (some) currently elected PLC Directors over to a new PNRL Board - kind of similar to the old "special consideration (?)" rule?

But yeah, I think we'd probably be saying similar things - I'd hope the NRL goal is only to have say four of 9 person PNRL board (or three of a 7 person PNRL board) elected in some way. If "control" is not available through elections, the factions might f**k off once and for all?

Yeah, your 2nd paragraph in essence captures the model I proposed as to HOW to implement it.
My proposal was a 7 man board with 3/3/1. 3 PLC elected, 3 independent appointments and 1 special nomination from the Parra Districrt Juniors Clubs. Faction removal would be easy as the 3 PLC nominees would need to be re-endorsed by the PLC Members annually at the AGM and would have fixed terms for the cross-over.

 

[Obscene Assassin]

If the NRL think that these practices or similar are not taking place at other clubs, then they are basically f..ked in th head

The NRL have only ever investigated clubs when there's been a whistle-blower. Maybe they don't really care if clubs are cheating the cap as long as it isn't in the media?

 

[phantom eel]

Yeah, your 2nd paragraph in essence captures the model I proposed as to HOW to implement it.
My proposal was a 7 man board with 3/3/1. 3 PLC elected, 3 independent appointments and 1 special nomination from the Parra Districrt Juniors Clubs. Faction removal would be easy as the 3 PLC nominees would need to be re-endorsed by the PLC Members annually at the AGM and would have fixed terms for the cross-over.

Fantastic - I like the idea of the "1" being endorsed by the juniors district clubs. The 3 independent NRL appointees would be taken care of with staggered terms, leaving only staggered member elections for 1 rep per year (on 3 year terms), with no "control" in the balance.

I look forward to the Spags, Fitzys, Grothes, Prices, Kennys, Riddells, and Ben Smiths etc of the world remaining interested in serving the Board, when there is only one elected spot per year and no chance of sweeping to majority power through a ticket.

 

[Kornstar]

The NRL have only ever investigated clubs when there's been a whistle-blower. Maybe they don't really care if clubs are cheating the cap as long as it isn't in the media?

History points to this being the case tbh.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The NRL have only ever investigated clubs when there's been a whistle-blower. Maybe they don't really care if clubs are cheating the cap as long as it isn't in the media?

Possibly, but given the nature of the major scandals, it's unlikely that a normal audit will discover them. If stuff is being done 'off the books', looking at the club's books doesn't help too much, and the NRL have no right to see player's personal financial info. So the main chance of discovery is that not everybody keeps their mouth shut.

 

[emjaycee]

Fantastic - I like the idea of the "1" being endorsed by the juniors district clubs. The 3 independent NRL appointees would be taken care of with staggered terms, leaving only staggered member elections for 1 rep per year (on 3 year terms), with no "control" in the balance.

I look forward to the Spags, Fitzys, Grothes, Prices, Kennys, Riddells, and Ben Smiths etc of the world remaining interested in serving the Board, when there is only one elected spot per year and no chance of sweeping to majority power through a ticket.

Re the bolded bit, these would not be public elections... the only eligible candidate to go over would be from the 7 PLC Board members at the time of the AGM.

 

[phantom eel]

....

 

[phantom eel]

Ah, so a return of a version of the "special consideration", but without any ability for direct elections in return for ticketed Eels (football) members.

Should still keep the factions away somewhat - they'd have to hold control of the PLC Board for three consecutive years to eventually nominate 3 PNRL directors, to a Board of 7. The usual suspects will probably still contest the PLC elections year in year out for the sake of it though :lol:.

We'd better hope that the Constitutional basis for the new PNRL going forward is sound and not able to be tampered with on whim by the PLC, and that the PNRL does a good job of getting information out there (and to media) that it has the football responsibility (not the PLC, with its high=publicity elections).

 

[emjaycee]

Ah, so a full return of a version of the "special consideration".

Should still keep the factions away from seeking to be on the PNRL Board, as they would need to hold power of the PLC Board for three consecutive years to eventually gain three nominees on a 7 person PRNL.

The factions will probably still fight over the PLC elections every year for the sake of it though :lol:. So I hope the constitutional base for the PNRL Board going forward is very very tight, to avoid tampering by whoever comes to power in the LC year on year...

Hence my thoughts about amending the "special condition"... the scenario I proposed is:
a) at the AGM, the 7 member PLC board nominate 3 cross-over directors of their choosing and seek the endorsement of the attendees via 3 separate motions - one for each nominee. Each motion must be passed for that individual to cross-over.
b) at every AGM, there is a re-endorsement motion for each cross-over director or if someone is no longer eligible (withdraws or reaches say a 3 year cross-over tenure), then a endorsement is sought for a new nominee. Again, each motion has to pass to be effective.

Implementing this needs some minor changes to the PLC Constitution which could be done in May easily. There also needs to be some changes to the PNRL Constitution however that just takes a Board meeting of the PNRL to implement.

The other option someone spoke to me about for director #7 (of the PNRL) was publicly elected from the B&G Army membership and could include on-line voting, etc as it is not governed by the Registered Clubs Act. Would mean Peter Wynn, Sterlo, Vince Sorrenti, etc. could stand and become the 7th Director.

 

[phantom eel]

Those PLC AGMs will be a shit fight then!

Asking members to vote (for PLC) and then attend the AGM to effectively vote on the 3 annual nominations may create different results - i.e. the "majority" ticket elected to the PLC Board that year may not have the same member support on the floor on a given day/night of the AGM meeting. It could be possible that < 3 people are passed by members present at that meeting to cross over?

Apart from that I think it's all ok. The online voting for 7th sounds like it might result in different range of director candidate, but I still fear we'd end up with a drongo (and a lot of vicious public campaigning, media coverage etc) as a result of a popular, online vote?

 

[Johnny88]

sorry mistake post.

 

[Gronk]

Parramatta Lord Mayor and Eels board member says we're squeaky clean.

Parramatta lord mayor Paul Garrard, one of the highest-profile directors on the club's embattled board, claims their playing roster has been assembled with "squeaky clean" compliance to the salary cap.
The NRL is investigating the Eels on a number of fronts, ranging from allegations that third-party payments were not properly disclosed to claims player sponsors were illegally rewarded with free corporate hospitality.

The ongoing scandal has heaped pressure on senior figures, most notably chairman Steve Sharp and his deputy Tom Issa, to stand down while a forensic audit is conducted. However, the pair has no intention of doing so as long-suffering fans wait to learn whether the Eels will be docked competition points over the debacle.
Garrard claimed every contract or TPA fully complied with the salary cap since he came onto the board following the last elections. "At this point in time, with the team we've got on the field, we're squeaky clean on the matter," Garrard said.
"Not only are we at arm's distance [to TPAs], we're at two-arms' distance away from any of that nonsense. I've personally witnessed that in the board where the most stringent protocols are being maintained around that.
"As a result we've purchased well, we've maintained the salary cap this year, we've been able to do a governance review, we've been able to satisfy the NRL. That's been my brief since coming onto the board. I'm very satisfied we've been able to do that."
Garrard welcomed the NRL's latest audit of Parramatta's books, believing the current board would be cleared of any impropriety.
"From the last meeting we had, everything I saw had answers to it," said Garrard, who believed previous administrations were behind Parramatta's problems. "I'm very keen to have forensic people look through the accounts because it will highlight some some of the stories beaten up in the press, they can only be determined by a forensic investigation, so I'm keen for that to happen. I'm pleased the club is working with the NRL.
"From what I've seen in my observations and everything I've witnessed across the table, I haven't seen a problem."
Asked specifically about whether current directors were aware of potential conflicts of interest relating to a TPA for Anthony Watmough that is at the centre of NRL investigations, Garrard said: "Those circumstances may involve some people on the board now but not during the term of this board. That's up to better people than I to determine if these issues occurred.
"That's why we need to look at bank accounts. Where did the money come from?"
The NRL is believed to be considering suspending key Eels officials for their roles in the scandal. However, Sharp won't be stepping down willingly. "To the best of my knowledge, we haven't rorted the salary cap," Sharp told Fox Sports. He added: "No, I shouldn't resign at the moment.
"I'm the person and the board I'm working with that's driving the change in our organisation.
"When we got involved two-and-a-half years ago we self-reported to the Office of Liquor and Gaming and the other half of our business because we didn't think things were right. We worked systematically with the NRL throughout this whole process and we're continuing to drive the change."

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...s95?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Gronk]

Josh is muckraking this morning

Tackle Five &#8211; Eric gives Eels the slip after turfing
How toxic are the Parramatta Eels? This lamentable anecdote illustrates just how poisonous the politics within the club have become.

Each season, on the weekend of the team&#8217;s final home game, Parramatta greats gather at the Leagues Club for their annual reunion.

Last year&#8217;s event was held in early September on the night before the Round 26 clash against Canberra. Four-time premiership winner and former board member Eric Grothe Snr went along.

Earlier in the year, Grothe was barred in controversial circumstances after an internal investigation found the sale of meat trays from his personal business potentially conflicted his duties as a director.

However, Grothe was given the green light to attend because the function was held in a private auditorium.

But it was a different story when he set foot in the adjacent bar immediately afterwards. After trying to purchase a beer, the club legend was asked to leave by security and escorted from the premises.

He has vowed never to return while the current board remain in power. Grothe has since been cleared of wrongdoing by the Government watchdog.

His membership has since been restored, but the current board won&#8217;t let him contest an election until 2020.

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/sp...ke-brooks-mitchell-moses-and-mitchell-pearce/

 

[The EELiminator]

Josh is muckraking this morning

josh is muckraking EVERY morning

 

[strider]

It might be muck raking but it also shows that the current board carries on the same shit that the merkins before them did

Part of our problem is we have a never ending procession of twits carrying on tit for tat shenanigans

 

[Gronk]

To be fair Josh seems to have omitted detail. His story hangs it's hat on Guru being refused service. Was Guru sober or were the bar staff doing what the law requires of them ? These minor details are missing which suggests that the truth might have spoilt the piece.

If a sober Guru was refused service because of Board instructions to bar staff then these details should have been clearer. Otherwise merkins will think that Josh is being manipulate yet again for his mates.

 

[Bigfella]

Come back to planet earth for a while Gronk, it's nice down here