Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Fibroman, May 21, 2015.
So which teams besides the cheating storm weren't, as you say 'making up the numbers' in 2009?
Probably none of them. The Storm were unbeatable that year.
Yet finished the season only 2 wins ahead of the 8th place eels
Just saving themselves for the finals...
Yep. They beat Manly and Brisbane by a combined 80 to 22 in their two finals matches. They obviously took us lightly, still led at halftime, and then put their cue in the rack. It would have been exciting if we'd pantsed them like we hoped, but as soon as it got close they switched back on.
Anyway they were cheats so it's all academic.
While I agree they were a lot better then us in the GF, they never "switched back on" during our comeback. They got bloody luck that slater got that penalty from Fui. If it wasn't for that penalty there is a good chance we score again ( but we will never know)
Even Cameron Smith is quoted as saying he was "shitting himself" during our comeback.
The only time he was more nervous was when he had a visit from the Taxman.
That's what should happen in a situation where the board decide to hire a consultant purely 'off their own bat', to offer advice on reform.
But that is not what is going on here. This consultant has been hired under the terms of an offer by the NRL that allows us to avoid a suspended penalty becoming a real one. We were told in advance that we would be expected to implement the recommended reforms. If we didn't like that, we could just say 'we will take the 4 point penalty'.
Yeh, but these are the guys that our board insisted undertake the review.......
I doubt very much it's quite that simple. Given neither the NRL nor the club could know the exact recommendations the audit would come to.
If you put the shoe on the other foot, had PWC found all was sweet and the only recommendations they made were centred around a lack of transparency in the draw of the chook raffle, would the NRL have accepted that as adequate?
Indeed I see a rather large issue in terms of procedural fairness in making that kind of demand.
For a start I would imagine any change to election and tenure of the board would require constitutional change, which the board could not do without the support of members. Then of course the board have the obligation to act in the best interests of the club and it's members, ( good governance and stuff ) should they form the opinion that any recommendation is not in the best interests of the club and / or it's members, they have a duty to oppose it.
I'm not making a comment either way as to whether or not these recommendations are valid, just saying I don't believe it is as cut and dried as you make out.
I'm not saying it's cut and dried at all (have a look at my previous posts in this thread). What I'm saying is that it is not as simple as our board making a decision on the recommendations. In this situation, if we believe that some of the recommendations can't / shouldn't be implemented, there is another interested party.....the NRL. So (assuming we wish to avoid the points penalty), they need to agree to whatever approach we take. And they may well agree that some of the recommendations are not workable (or workable in the short-term). What I disagree with is all the posts suggesting that we just tell the NRL to get stuffed, and that we are being 'picked on'. We are in this situation because of our own historical incompetence.
Of course, if we can't come to an agreement, we can just cop the 4 points.
well they were a million dollars over the cap, you would hope they won well. geniused analogy.
The lads at TCT have a good analysis here.
I agree, I just wanted an excuse to lay the boot into auditors.......
There's very little on that site that isn't well written.
Yes, very sensibly written.
Trienniel elections are not the sticking point IMHO.
I think they made their position known.
Separate names with a comma.