Salary Cap

[strider]

so what is a "modern governance structure"? ... honestly - serious question


my take on why we got into trouble was cos we had people who don't really know what they are doing completely put their trust in a very small number of people (one person for much of it, if you believe it :sarcasm to do things the right way

I think the amateur merkins learnt from their own naivety .... they had no idea that they should make an effort to keep an eye on what was going on

I know there's probably a f**kload more to it than meets the eye .... but at the end of the day, if you have people who are out of their depth doing stuff, they will probably f**k it up in some way even if a multi-national company come in and write a report about it ...... so I'm not convinced all problems will go away just cos of the PWC report .... we've had a whole bunch of merkins who haven't known what they are doing

oh and I don't believe PWC know everything about running a NRL club either ..... and every NRL club is different

 

[Noise]

but my point in all this being, I am perfectly happy with our management to oppose it to the last minute if they truly believe its not in the club's best interests

was it a forgone conclusion going into the review that EVERY single point made by it was to be adhered to? ..... seriously? as if PWC merkin know every f**kin thing - as if they might not get something a bit wrong ...... i'm sure some f**ker who's worked for PWC has made a boo-boo at some point in the company's existence

Well if PWC don't know what they are talking about we only have ourselves to blame (again!) because we begged the NRL to let us use them.

so I'm not convinced all problems will go away just cos of the PWC report .... we've had a whole bunch of merkins who haven't known what they are doing

oh and I don't believe PWC know everything about running a NRL club either ..... and every NRL club is different

No club is going to 100% problem free. The idea is we have significant improvement following the review

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If it came to a decision between losing 4 points or changing the election process what would you choose?

Is it really such a massive penalty? Of finals teams over the past ten years, this is how many of them would have missed the finals with a four point penalty:

2015: 2
2014: 3
2013: 2
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 2
2009: 3
2008: 3
2007: 3
2006: 2 (and of course the Warriors did miss the finals due to a points deduction)

 

[strider]

Well if PWC don't know what they are talking about we only have ourselves to blame (again!) because we begged the NRL to let us use them.



No club is going to 100% problem free. The idea is we have significant improvement following the review

PWC - KPMG - [insert whatever rich merkin company name here] ... i'm sure they all make mistakes at times and aren't experts on EVERYTHING .... my point being, who says the 119 things they come up with are all correct?

I reckon adopting the majority of the things in the review will make a significant improvement

 

[Noise]

Is it really such a massive penalty? Of finals teams over the past ten years, this is how many of them would have missed the finals with a four point penalty:

2015: 2
2014: 3
2013: 2
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 2
2009: 3
2008: 3
2007: 3
2006: 2 (and of course the Warriors did miss the finals due to a points deduction)

Yes it is. So if we go by recent history, finishing on the same amount of wins as 5th place would still guarantee us a top 8 finish. Personally i think we are a fringe top 8 side eg. 7th or 8th if we are lucky. The 4 points would more than likely see us miss the 8.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes it is. So if we go by recent history, finishing on the same amount of wins as 5th place would still guarantee us a top 8 finish. Personally i think we are a fringe top 8 side eg. 7th or 8th if we are lucky. The 4 points would more than likely see us miss the 8.

Well if you're only good enough to finish in the bottom two or three you're only making up the numbers anyway.

 

[Gary Gutful]

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?

You automatically assume that we are 'risking' the loss of four points. Do you know what the actual risk profile looks like or what actions might be required to mitigate the risk?

I'm not sure that you do which means that everything after your first sentence is possibly built on a foundation of soggy poop.

 

[Noise]

Well if you're only good enough to finish in the bottom two or three you're only making up the numbers anyway.

Like 2009?

 

[strider]

id be happy to be making up the numbers these days

 

[Kornstar]

My experiences with said auditor and others have been severely disappointing.

They use graduates in critical situations and then their management make recommendations on their graduates lack of understanding of their jobs.

We have proven them wrong on so many of their recommendations because it goes against ATO rulings.

Just because some dude out of college writes in a book how an ideal world business should be run without any real life experience it doesn't mean it is right.

Their lack of knowledge in their jobs is astounding to be honest. They make shit loads of money off businesses to give impractical solutions to problems based on lack of understanding on what they are reviewing.

What's worse is that due to their lack of knowledge certain people can get them to suggest certain practices. I am looking at recommendations at the moment that are blowing my mind and I know exactly how they got what they have recommended and who they sat with to be swayed that way.

In saying all of that, unless our board has very strong legal advice in what they are saying, I really hope we are not f**king up any chances to keep our points because it may affect their seat on the board if there are yearly elections.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Does anyone on here really know whether we are at risk or whether we are on safe ground?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Does anyone on here really know whether we are at risk or whether we are on safe ground?

Yes. We are definitely in one of those camps.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I reckon there is at least a 94% chance of us being in one of those camps.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Nah, f**k it. Make it 97%.

 

[Bandwagon]

My experiences with said auditor and others have been severely disappointing.

They use graduates in critical situations and then their management make recommendations on their graduates lack of understanding of their jobs.

We have proven them wrong on so many of their recommendations because it goes against ATO rulings.

Just because some dude out of college writes in a book how an ideal world business should be run without any real life experience it doesn't mean it is right.

Their lack of knowledge in their jobs is astounding to be honest. They make shit loads of money off businesses to give impractical solutions to problems based on lack of understanding on what they are reviewing.

What's worse is that due to their lack of knowledge certain people can get them to suggest certain practices. I am looking at recommendations at the moment that are blowing my mind and I know exactly how they got what they have recommended and who they sat with to be swayed that way.

In saying all of that, unless our board has very strong legal advice in what they are saying, I really hope we are not f**king up any chances to keep our points because it may affect their seat on the board if there are yearly elections.

Yep.

A competent executive and board would question every point and how it relates to their business. Then adopt what they believe works, and reject what they do not.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I thought PWC's recommendation to remove all apples from the vending machines was a little uncalled for.

 

[Bigfella]

You automatically assume that we are 'risking' the loss of four points. Do you know what the actual risk profile looks like or what actions might be required to mitigate the risk?

I'm not sure that you do which means that everything after your first sentence is possibly built on a foundation of soggy poop.

You are struggling now.

You've filled this thread with shot because you've taken a position based on who was on the other side of it, no any actual analysis.

The whole reason this situation is f**ked is that there should be an absolute zero chance of us having minus four.

Any "risk profile" over 1% is unnecessary.

But it's clearly higher than that based on the following reported facts:

1. Sharp asking for an earlier decision so his players can adjust;
2. The simple fact that it hasn't been taken off the table
3. Sharp stating publicly that the club will take legal action if the penalty happens;
4. The nrl publicly reconfirming the deadline amd declining the request for an earlier decision.

 

[Gary Gutful]

You are struggling now.

You've filled this thread with shot because you've taken a position based on who was on the other side of it, no any actual analysis.

The whole reason this situation is f**ked is that there should be an absolute zero chance of us having minus four.

Any "risk profile" over 1% is unnecessary.

But it's clearly higher than that based on the following reported facts:

1. Sharp asking for an earlier decision so his players can adjust;
2. The simple fact that it hasn't been taken off the table
3. Sharp stating publicly that the club will take legal action if the penalty happens;
4. The nrl publicly reconfirming the deadline amd declining the request for an earlier decision.

Struggling? Please.

So if some of the recommendations prove untenable, you think we should just roll over so that we have absolutely zero chance of starting with minus 4.

Yay, we didn't start with minus 4 but we have agreed to a range of recommendations that will cripple us for a decade.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Like 2009?

Mate we got smashed in that grand final. The scoreline was a lot closer than the relative performances of the two teams and the game was over at halftime, despite the 'comeback'.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Nah, f**k it. Make it 97%.

I believe your margin of error is about 4%, give or take a percent.