PETITION LINK External Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
bbobb said:
I agree that a charade or status quo won’t be acceptable.

The reviews I have been involved with have an overarching goal in mind prior the review. In these instances it confirmed suspicions and was a lever to make changes. There purpose is to provide the necessary evidence to pursue the change.

As a guide, the review normally results in significant change…why have a review unless there are issues? Are Penrith reviewing their roster, management, results, governance etc as they are hugely successful?

The notion of “independence” is that the review is not conducted internally. The review appears not to be bound by any political affiliation but in the end from my experience - those who commission the review tend to end up with the result they want.

Change seem to be afoot. They just need the evidence to confirm their suspicions.

If I was conducting the review, I think I would primarily look at our corporate structure (Board representation, corporate structure - having a a chairman who is the major sponsor seems to be a conflict of interest) football management and CEO/ off field performance.
Click to expand...
Would you like to do the review? Report to Concord first thing Monday morning...
 
Tom Shines said:
And then he got into Lee and Pascoe on 360 for not doing their “due diligence“ checking out Sheens properly after following his advice …😆
Click to expand...
That’s NRL media in a nutshell. Campaign for something and then when it happens turn on it for clicks.
#Narrative
 
Lee & Pascoe's #1 Hater said:
Wasn't it Buzz who pitched the idea of Sheens/Benji while the WT higher ups were drunk at an official event? And they legit felt it was a good idea.
Click to expand...
Nothing like adding a bit of fluff to make your story a bit more interesting

I'm sure we've only heard buzz sprout this

It was a small lunch not official event

No intoxication mentioned the fee times I've heard it
 
Tom Shines said:
Who would you like to do the review?
Click to expand...
People who aren’t financial number crunchers and have only a basic knowledge of the NRL’s influence on clubs. People who can question things like individual workloads, capacity for unbiased decision making, flow of information/communication, policies and procedures. People who can make a valuable contribution to the organisation‘s development.
Who knows what they could find during the review’s discovery stage? Perhaps WT need for it’s own seperate board?
The choice of a financial controller and an aged care provider to review/critique the Club’s behaviour gives us some insight already. 😂
 
twentyforty said:
People who aren’t financial number crunchers and have only a basic knowledge of the NRL’s influence on clubs. People who can question things like individual workloads, capacity for unbiased decision making, flow of information/communication, policies and procedures. People who can make a valuable contribution to the organisation‘s development.
Who knows what they could find during the review’s discovery stage? Perhaps WT need for it’s own seperate board?
The choice of a financial controller and an aged care provider to review/critique the Club’s behaviour gives us some insight already. 😂
Click to expand...

can you think of someone specifically that would fit your criteria? And are they available ?

The guy hasn’t even done anything yet and already he is being shit canned
 
jadtiger said:
The queue would reach town hall station for applicants to do that job
Click to expand...
I had a boss where the queue was out our meeting room door for applicants.
People turned up in Thongs (for the American posters here, which there are too many.. that means things on your feet), Flannelette, Singlets, 2 dollar shop stuff...
He interviewed over 45 people.

Selected 2x people. one was Okay, the other crap. We hired neither.

Positive the Wests Tigers can do this.
 
Tom Shines said:
the ‘financial number cruncher’ you are complaining about…
Click to expand...
I can understand how you would have misinterpreted my first sentence. I could have worded it differently.
To be clear, I don’t have a problem with either of those two. I was being critical of the WA board for its hasty decision of contracting people who may not be suitably capable of delivering on the full scope.
Considering that the owners are only having the review because of pressure from 2,000 signatures, wouldnt you have more trust in the process if the club had outlined the relative education, training and experience of Barnier and Crawford?
Have they done many of these reviews?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 356 (members: 35, guests: 321)
Back
Top