Salary Cap

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yes with second tier but not with the 1st tier cap.
If you f**k with the 1st tier you pay a heavy price - no excuses accepted,
Injuries can easily effect the 2nd tier, hence club punishment due to 2nd tier blowous should not have anything to do with point reductions or hefty fines/penalties, etc.

It's not just the 2nd tier. There can be payments / benefits (e.g. Fui's mum's airfare) to top tier players for which it is uncertain as to whether they are cap rated.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

True but it's all about the members and fans and what they want. Not the power hungry merkins on the board.

Agreed

 

[Casper The Ghost]

It's not just the 2nd tier. There can be payments / benefits (e.g. Fui's mum's airfare) to top tier players for which it is uncertain as to whether they are cap rated.

No excuses - check first before signing off. Simple.

 

[strider]

I don't get our management:

We fought the NRL to get PWC an independent auditor to make the recommendations for change and the NRL Relented.

Now we are telling the NRL we won't be implementing the recommendations that our auditor has recommended ??

IMO all recommendations that the PWC have found should be available to the members. We need to know what the hell is going on!! It seems a little secretive from the board tbh.

IMO it should be put to the members by vote to decide if they accept change to the constitution and therefore starting on -4 points or not.

By rejecting the auditors recommendations and Not communicating with members, it seems as though this board is not immune to the lures of being power hungry.

I dont think any of us can pass judgement on this. We dont know the detail of any of the 92 recommendations. But i would imagine surely some of the 92 things are questionable.

As for specifically having elections every year, i said in the other thread this was posted in, it seems ludicrus to me. It wont stop factionalism, it will just draw it out and make it prominent EVERY single year.

 

[Twizzle]

The Ram needs to weigh in on this, after all its his thread.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

I dont think any of us can pass judgement on this. We dont know the detail of any of the 92 recommendations. But i would imagine surely some of the 92 things are questionable.

As for specifically having elections every year, i said in the other thread this was posted in, it seems ludicrus to me. It wont stop factionalism, it will just draw it out and make it prominent EVERY single year.

Exactly and to think otherwise comes with prescripted medication.

 

[Twizzle]

no sir I dont like it

 

[Casper The Ghost]

The Freemasons NRL and News Limited control of Storms 2 books should never have been allowed to be played out the way it did.
How the f**k Storm was allowed to keep Smith, Slater, Cronk, etc, together and without a huge penalty reduction to their cap/salary
for at least three years shows how weak footy fans were.
They should have taken matters into their own hands and be seen to be doing something powerful about it.
A dark cloud of doubt, uncertainty, pessimism, etc, still lingers over the NRL

 

[hineyrulz]

I dont think any of us can pass judgement on this. We dont know the detail of any of the 92 recommendations. But i would imagine surely some of the 92 things are questionable.

As for specifically having elections every year, i said in the other thread this was posted in, it seems ludicrus to me. It wont stop factionalism, it will just draw it out and make it prominent EVERY single year.

Agreed, more elections just seems like more trouble. Something we don need after the last 5 years of shit.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

what a ridiculous idea from the NRL

Um, it's not the NRL's idea. It is the idea of the firm that we insisted conduct our governance review.

 

[Gronk]

What's ridiculous is the inference by the Telecrap that we must effect constitutional change within the next 6 weeks to avoid starting the comp at -4.

It may well be the right thing to do from a management analyst's POV, but it shows a lack of understanding of our club's recent history.

Elections once a year will make things worse, not better for our club.

If the NRL really want to control how things roll with our club, then they'll need to control who nominates for elections. Perhaps they could consult with China as they have done this with Hong Kong elections.

 

[natheel]

Could you imagine how many shit fights would happen and finger pointing would happen from the likes of f**king Ray Price YEARLY if the NRL get their way? Seriously Sharp is right in standing up on this issue.

 

[Avenger]

f**k this situation shits me.

 

[oldmancraigy]

What are the 9 things they don't want to implement (out of 119)?

Would be good to know what the list is before going off half-cocked....
Sometimes these things get into splitting hairs territory

 

[Gronk]

If we start on minus 4 points there should be an EGM and the whole board should be sacked. It is not acceptable in any way shape or form.

Knee jerk reactions are not helpful. Members should be provided with a detailed timeline to determine the cause of the mismanagement of the 2nd tier cap. The NRL should not be deducting points for matters outside this issue. Forcing change at Board level just because they think they can is opportunistic by control freak Smith. Who is in control there anyway ?

 

[Avenger]

Knee jerk reactions are not helpful. Members should be provided with a detailed timeline to determine the cause of the mismanagement of the 2nd tier cap. The NRL should not be deducting points for matters outside this issue. Forcing change at Board level just because they think they can is opportunistic by control freak Smith. Who is in control there anyway ?

What I'm trying to say is it should not even get to that stage. Minus 4? Are they f**king serious? The NRL I mean.

 

[Bigfella]

I don't think we should be getting on our high horse about this.

Dumb interview. It's antagonistic and he sounds like a dope.

Calling the controlling body a dictator is especially stupid when they have regulation and control of the sport. Especially when an external governance review recommends 119 changes. It's not like we were perfect. Or even competent.

 

[Bigfella]

Control freak lol.

Gronk has borrowed el diablo's tin hat and favourite sayings.

 

[Bigfella]

This interview is a dumb piece of politics. Sharp thinks he's on a roll with the new Ceo appointed and some big name signings.

Don't get too cute for f**ks sake.

 

[phantom eel]

We're absolutely crazy if we don't adopt the recommendation for three year board terms, with a third of directors up for election each year.

Why?

1. We'd lose 4 competition points

2. We used to have annual elections anyway, until recently (Leagues club one year, footy club the next year)

3. With only one third of spots up for grabs each year any "ticket" would have to work hard to establish credentials over several years (at least two) to get power

4. Similarly, any Board incumbents would have to work hard continually for the members to retain their control each year

5. With only a third of spots available each year, the elections are likely to be seen as less of a "prize", and hence be contested in a more gentlemanly manner - in the media (via Price etc), and on candidate-registered websites (some of which were pretty feral last time - hello ParraMount)

6. The only people who would object to moving to three year terms are current Directors (some of whom might end up with a slightly shortened current term), and puppet masters of alternate tickets (who might back themselves to win a clean sweep under the old method). Career politicians - like those who regularly fight for spots on our boards - hate to see anything get in the way of their "games".

The membership shouldn't be conned by cases against supporting the review recommendation about improving our goverance. Our Board election cycles are shit, and need this adjustment to establish (more) stability and bring us into the modern club governance age!