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'.
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.
