Salary Cap

[Poupou Escobar]

how can you have stability with yearly elections?

Because control of the board is unlikely to change in any given election. At the moment it is possible to have a completely new board after an election.

 

[El Diablo]

well if that's so good how many boards work like that?

 

[Noise]

well if that's so good how many boards work like that?

I don't know the ins and outs of other boards election processes but I do know that our setup is unique in that we have waring factions all trying to get in every 3 years as rival tickets. And if/when they do get in they end up with majority of control of the board.

Why do you think guys who run as independents at out leagues club elections have far less chance of getting in than guys on tickets? With the model the NRL want it would be more like independents running for the board, which is better than a whole group (ticket) unseating the board gaining control

 

[IFR33K]

Hang on. When has the NRL ever interfered with the way other clubs are run? And we as fans arent entirely sure what the NRL is asking of us. Did the NRL want to dictate terms at the storm when they weren't playing for no points???

 

[Noise]

Hang on. When has the NRL ever interfered with the way other clubs are run? And we as fans arent entirely sure what the NRL is asking of us. Did the NRL want to dictate terms at the storm when they weren't playing for no points???

They weren't given a suspended sentence on the condition that they hold a governance review and implement recommendations by the auditors that they themselves chose.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Hang on. When has the NRL ever interfered with the way other clubs are run? And we as fans arent entirely sure what the NRL is asking of us. Did the NRL want to dictate terms at the storm when they weren't playing for no points???

Are you serious?

 

[IFR33K]

Are you serious?

Do u recall the drama out of manly a few years ago?

Were they threatened with starting minus four?

 

[Noise]

Do u recall the drama out of manly a few years ago?

Were they threatened with starting minus four?

Did they bust all 3 caps in 1 year? I dont think so.

And they actually changed their board structure following all their turmoil so that only 2 football members of the 7 member board can be voted in every 2 years. The other 5 remain the same. Now they have stability. Which produces a similar result to what the NRL want us to do :crazy:

 

[strider]

I dont think factions will go away with yearly elections. They will just plan their assaults over a series of elections -exactly like was done when there were split FC and LC elections, they tried to get control of both over a period of time

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Do u recall the drama out of manly a few years ago?

Were they threatened with starting minus four?

We were found to have broken the cap by half a million dollars in 2014. We got a suspended penalty of 4 points, and a fine. We were given the option of avoiding that points penalty by agreeing to a set of reforms. If we don't want to agree to the reforms, we can take the penalty and continue on our merry cycle of destruction. How is that in any way similar to what happened at Manly?

The NRL have taken over the running of clubs in the past, and they've had more to do with changing the governance at Wests / Balmain than they have done to us thus far.

Would you rather the NRL just slapped us with the 4 point penalty and said 'that's it'?

 

[Noise]

I dont think factions will go away with yearly elections. They will just plan their assaults over a series of elections -exactly like was done when there were split FC and LC elections, they tried to get control of both over a period of time

They won't go away but it will certainly be harder for them to get in if they aren't on a ticket at the same time as other high profile people. And if a couple got in there is way less chance they will have control of the board. It's about minimising the chances of tickets getting in, gaining control and causing sudden and major disruption.

 

[strider]

They won't go away but it will certainly be harder for them to get in if they aren't on a ticket at the same time as other high profile people. And if a couple got in there is way less chance they will have control of the board. It's about minimising the chances of tickets getting in, gaining control and causing sudden and major disruption.

They will get 2 or 3 in this election. 2 or 3 in next election. etc etc

The bitch fight wont go away. It will just come on a yearly basis.

 

[Jake the snake]

We as members haven't had much communication from the club regarding the audit report other than Sharp saying we would be compliant by the due date and that we would not be losing 4 points.

If the club was open with the members from the start (regarding the report) maybe there would not be so much confusion. We are all guessing at the moment. The only thing we do know from
Media reports is that PwC said we need to change how we elect the board etc.

If the current board were open and educating members as to what was being demanded by the NRL and why the parra board are against it ....then maybe they'll win some support from
Members. Nobody wants to be dictated unfairly especially by the NRL. But the only we are hearing is our dopey plumber saying he will take legal action even before the penalty has been handed down. Tell us what's in the report, put it to the members for a vote and we will live and die by our decisions.

Maybe -4 point start would be accepted by the members if we the members deem the NRL are asking for too much... But we don't f**king know because these dickheads on our board would not know how to manage a freakn brothel.

 

[Noise]

They will get 2 or 3 in this election. 2 or 3 in next election. etc etc

The bitch fight wont go away. It will just come on a yearly basis.

The NRL aren't as concerned with the 'bitch fight' at election time, more so the board who gets in and the control they have. The PWC recommendation (the company WE chose to complete the audit) recommended this new election process as the best course of action to minimise control of the board changing so quickly. I would imagine PWC would have some idea what they are talking about, otherwise why would we have chose them?

With your example of 2 or 3 getting in each year you are assuming that the voting members want a change in board make up every year. The only way that would happen is if the board was performing extremely shithouse....

 

[IFR33K]

They will get 2 or 3 in this election. 2 or 3 in next election. etc etc

The bitch fight wont go away. It will just come on a yearly basis.

Yep. The interesting thing is what if we don't conform to the NRL? They going to threaten us with another deduction in 2017?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yep. The interesting thing is what if we don't conform to the NRL? They going to threaten us with another deduction in 2017?

No. Why would they (unless we breach the cap again)? How hard is it to understand that they hit us a with a 4 point penalty, which we can avoid by complying with their reform requirements. The 4 point penalty is for breaching the cap. The reason that they gave us a chance to avoid it by improving our governance system is that our governance system (or lack thereof) contributed to our breaking the cap in the first place. So, again, the 4 point penalty is not for 'poor governance'. It is for breaking the cap by half a million dollars.

 

[Noise]

No. Why would they (unless we breach the cap again)? How hard is it to understand that they hit us a with a 4 point penalty, which we can avoid by complying with their reform requirements. The 4 point penalty is for breaching the cap. The reason that they gave us a chance to avoid it by improving our governance system is that our governance system (or lack thereof) contributed to our breaking the cap in the first place. So, again, the 4 point penalty is not for 'poor governance'. It is for breaking the cap by half a million dollars.

Exactly. We busted the cap. As a result we copped a fine and copped a points penalty.It is up to us if we want to avoid the cap penalty. We don't have to do anything. I certainly hope we do because I am not happy with the way our club is run and I'm certainly not happy with starting on -4.

 

[hineyrulz]

No. Why would they (unless we breach the cap again)? How hard is it to understand that they hit us a with a 4 point penalty, which we can avoid by complying with their reform requirements. The 4 point penalty is for breaching the cap. The reason that they gave us a chance to avoid it by improving our governance system is that our governance system (or lack thereof) contributed to our breaking the cap in the first place. So, again, the 4 point penalty is not for 'poor governance'. It is for breaking the cap by half a million dollars.

spot on Baz, not sure why this is so hard to understand???

We have already fined and the club and board could of avoided the 4 point fine but are unwillingly to do so for their own self interests. As I said yesterday if we lose the 4 points they are gone anyway.

 

[Bigfella]

There is a very surprising level of support in here for the position where we are risking four points.

There seem to be two arguments being trotted out. These are appallingly weak. I believe that people on here get conned into following the majority of the harsher critics.

The two apparently hopeless arguments for are:

1. That we shouldn't kowtow to the control freaks at the nrl.

Hmmmm - they run the game. They are the regulator. You play by the rules.

And in any case, their decision comes after countless f**kups. They are giving us every chanc in the world to avoid it.

2. Annual elections won't stop factionalism.

Maybe it won't. I think it will , and it's a common technique used in public boards and particularly ones with important issues of public policy or which could attract corruption. I think there's a good analogy with a footy club which handles millions of dollars and attracts massive public support.

But it sure as shit won't make it worse.

And there's the rub. No one has presented a single point to suggest there is some
Actual disadvantage to the proposal which makes it so unpalatable that it is worth losing two points over.

And of course there are none. Our own governance review recommended it. We fought tooth and nail to have these people do it and it was borderline conflict of interest in the first place.

So the overwhelming inference left is that the current board and chairman don't want to implement the change because they think it will hurt their chances of retaining their faction in future.

And more importantly, that they are prepared to risk four premiership points - for a team whose best season in ten years saw us scrape in to eighth spot - to do so.

Some of you people should seriously look at how you have been conned into thinking this is defensible.

So how are either of those two issues even CLOSE to justifying risking four
Points?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

spot on Baz, not sure why this is so hard to understand???

We have already fined and the club and board could of avoided the 4 point fine but are unwillingly to do so for their own self interests. As I said yesterday if we lose the 4 points they are gone anyway.

Yeh. I don't know what is going to happen....it may well be that the NRL look at our response to PWC report and agree that some recommendations either can't be implemented, or can't be implemented right now. There is bugger all info coming out of either side, and that doesn't surprise me. Some of what is being said in the media is likely just posturing. That's just how it is. It's just the fact that people can't seem to get past the idea that our penalty is because of cap breaches, and all the other stuff is just an option that has been presented to us, and we can either take or leave it.

Instinct (and not much else) suggests to me that this will actually pan out ok.