Why bother with a review??

I thought it would be interesting to look at the recommendations that were made after the review into the Parramatta Eels Leagues Club and Football Club after their salary cap scandal.

Dear Members

As communicated in July 2016, the NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (ILGA) appointed me as the Temporary Administrator of the Parramatta Leagues Club (PLC) and subsequently I was appointed the Chairman of the Parramatta National Rugby League (PNRL) Club.

A key area of focus since my appointment has been a review of the long-term governance arrangements for both the PNRL and the PLC.

The first part of the process has focused on reviewing the current governance provisions within the PNRL constitution. This has involved extensive consultation with key stakeholders including ILGA, Clubs NSW, the National Rugby League, current senior management, a variety of Eels supporter groups and individual members.

I have now identified a number of improvements to the PNRL constitution intended to ensure that the Parramatta Eels has a strong governance platform from which to build from over the coming years.

Key Reforms​

Attached to this correspondence is a paper that outlines the proposed changes and then compares them to the existing governance arrangements currently within the PNRL constitution.

While there are a number of areas covered in the document, the key changes that I would like to highlight include: -

· Former Parramatta District Rugby League (PDRL) life members will become life members of PNRL. This ensures their status is officially recognized by the constitution.

· All directors of the PNRL Board must be independent and cannot be appointed without satisfying the independence criteria specified through the constitution.

· There will be two PLC nominated directors and five external directors who will be nominated and appointed by the PNRL Board. This will be following a merit based selection process using the skills matrix set out to the schedule at the end of the paper.


· Director candidates will be reviewed by a nominations committee that will be chaired by a person with recruitment and remuneration experience who is not a board member.

· The performance of the directors will be the subject of an annual review to ensure accountability. Directors to have 3-year terms of office with one third of Directors retiring each year (2,3,2). Retiring directors can stand for re-election to a maximum term of 9 years.

· PNRL Directors will not receive remuneration for their service on the Board or any committee.

· Future amendments to the PNRL constitution must be approved through three separate stages:

o Recommended by a majority of the external Directors of the PNRL

o Approval by postal ballot of 75 per cent of PLC members who are entitled to vote and who cast a valid vote in the ballot

o A majority of the PLC Board exercising voting rights as sole shareholder.
 
cochise said:
Key Reforms

· ......... There will be two PLC nominated directors and five external directors who will be nominated and appointed by the PNRL Board. This will be following a merit based selection process using the skills matrix set out to the schedule at the end of the paper.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see what this "skills' matrix" is.
 
TIGERS said:
"Inability to set and maintain a strategic direction / 5 year plan" = Tim Sheens resigned mate. It wasn't the Board. The 5 year plan simply meant 2 years with Sheens as our interim-coach and then a 3 year contract for Benji. It was a 5 year succession plan. It was never this Phil Gould style magical penrith-esq roadmap thing that the hack journos have cracked it up to be. Tim Sheens will be succeeded by Benji. The main end result of said plan was Benji Marshall becoming our Head Coach and that is precisley what has ended up happening. Its been the least tulmutious or acrimonious change of head coach this club has ever gone through.

"What do a local real estate agent, a painter and a former musician have to add to the running of a modern professional sporting organisation?" = They dont ''run'' the professional sporting organisation. Thats the executive and the football department's Job. Board members represent club members and other stakeholders, vote on who is CEO and Coach, and approve key exec decisions. (A somewhat well known actor owns South Sydney FYI and they don't do so bad.)

''Off the field we go from one blunder to another,'"
Like what specifically?? Beyond News Corp windups and hack jobslike Anzac Jerseys.

"There is something fundamentally wrong in our club"
Look, the fundimental problem often shifts. Its hasn't always been the same people at the helm. The problems that has inhibited our clubs success have not been a consistent thread. There have really been 3 development cycles where different coaches and regimes have either got it wrong or have been unlucky.


If the external reviewers know so much, why aren't they running football clubs?
Click to expand...
Lots of excuses.
 
Tom Shines said:
our mate Lee is a club donor and fan as well Todd
Click to expand...
DONOR and SPONSOR are very different words!!

DONATION is without obligation or direct return for your outlay!!

SPONSORSHIP is for branded signage on jerseys etc (it is a marketing cost - NOT a donation)!!

Lee has corruptly leveraged BRYDENS sponsorship into a plumb high profile governance role unlike any other club (spare me Politis in the 70s).....

If he wants to review/revoke BRYDENS sponsorship if he is ousted and no longer personally benefits .... just proves what a grifter he has always been!
 
Last edited:
All the questions and statements made in the opening thread are the very reason we needed this review. No improvement or stability for 10 years. No direction or ability to stick to a plan. I think the difference with this review is that it was advocated for by the fans. Not an internal committee in control of the terms of reference. No review means more of the same which was the original point being made. The key action to come from this review is to take action and to seriously commit to adopting the recommendations with a timeline for implementation and do better at keeping the fans informed.
 
Last edited:
cochise said:
I thought it would be interesting to look at the recommendations that were made after the review into the Parramatta Eels Leagues Club and Football Club after their salary cap scandal.

Dear Members

As communicated in July 2016, the NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority (ILGA) appointed me as the Temporary Administrator of the Parramatta Leagues Club (PLC) and subsequently I was appointed the Chairman of the Parramatta National Rugby League (PNRL) Club.

A key area of focus since my appointment has been a review of the long-term governance arrangements for both the PNRL and the PLC.

The first part of the process has focused on reviewing the current governance provisions within the PNRL constitution. This has involved extensive consultation with key stakeholders including ILGA, Clubs NSW, the National Rugby League, current senior management, a variety of Eels supporter groups and individual members.

I have now identified a number of improvements to the PNRL constitution intended to ensure that the Parramatta Eels has a strong governance platform from which to build from over the coming years.

Key Reforms​

Attached to this correspondence is a paper that outlines the proposed changes and then compares them to the existing governance arrangements currently within the PNRL constitution.

While there are a number of areas covered in the document, the key changes that I would like to highlight include: -

· Former Parramatta District Rugby League (PDRL) life members will become life members of PNRL. This ensures their status is officially recognized by the constitution.

· All directors of the PNRL Board must be independent and cannot be appointed without satisfying the independence criteria specified through the constitution.

· There will be two PLC nominated directors and five external directors who will be nominated and appointed by the PNRL Board. This will be following a merit based selection process using the skills matrix set out to the schedule at the end of the paper.


· Director candidates will be reviewed by a nominations committee that will be chaired by a person with recruitment and remuneration experience who is not a board member.

· The performance of the directors will be the subject of an annual review to ensure accountability. Directors to have 3-year terms of office with one third of Directors retiring each year (2,3,2). Retiring directors can stand for re-election to a maximum term of 9 years.

· PNRL Directors will not receive remuneration for their service on the Board or any committee.

· Future amendments to the PNRL constitution must be approved through three separate stages:

o Recommended by a majority of the external Directors of the PNRL

o Approval by postal ballot of 75 per cent of PLC members who are entitled to vote and who cast a valid vote in the ballot

o A majority of the PLC Board exercising voting rights as sole shareholder.
Click to expand...

This is really cool. Thanks for a specific reply to my original question that was asking for evidence on reviews making a positive impact. I like to get into the nitty gritty, and I'm quite contrarian by nature.

As far as I can recall, we were forced into essentially doing the same thing with our board in 2014. (We added more independent directors to our board and the ARLC/NRL insisted upon rules upon which people could be elected as directors, and more representation was setup for Wests to reflect their financial contribution in comparison to Balmain. Someone chime in here if this is incorrect.

Max Donnelly, who implemented the changes for the eels in 2016 even said "its a set-up not far removed from the likes of Newcastle, Wests Tigers and Gold Coast, all of whom have had to be rescued by the NRL in recent seasons"...

Whats my point? To summarize, I would advise caution before thinking that ripping our the current structure based on a review is going to change the sense of turmoil that makes every tough decision that our club needs to make seem like a scandal. I feel it's just going to be the same problems and constraints within a new framework.
 
Would I be correct or incorrect in saying marina Go is the architect of the current board structure?


If that is wrong who's to blame for the current terrible set up?
 
No improvement or stability for 10 years. No direction or ability to stick to a plan
Click to expand...

I don't mean any offence. But I find this "we have been bad for 10 years" and therefore whoever is in charge now is therefore culpable for every one of those 10 years, is a flawed and lazy analysis.

The Tigers have had at least 3 separate administrations / regimes that have each subsequently failed to accomplish transformational change at the Wests Tigers. Each 'regime' buggered up for separate and completely different reasons.

No other club fanbase ruminates and obsesses over the last 10 years as we do and that is part of our problem. Are we going to import yet another regime in and when nothing changes after 2.5 years later are we going to say "This mob has been awful for 14 years!! lets kick them out??" Whats happening right now is crazy to me.

In terms of sticking to a plan, we bloody stuck with Luke Brooks for 10 years didn't we? Ivan Cleary knifed us and after that we stuck with Michael Maguire for 3 full seasons. We kicked out Mick Potter because an "External Review" advised us to do so!! The less said about Jason Taylor the better.

One way or another, there has to be some kind of rapprochement between the fans and the club that is built on trust, respect and belief. Maybe that happens with the individuals there now, maybe its with the next mob. But just beware that if we bay for blood without thinking carefully about just why we are doing it, we are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
 
TIGERS said:
I don't mean any offence. But I find this "we have been bad for 10 years" and therefore whoever is in charge now is therefore culpable for every one of those 10 years, is a flawed and lazy analysis.

The Tigers have had at least 3 separate administrations / regimes that have each subsequently failed to accomplish transformational change at the Wests Tigers. Each 'regime' buggered up for separate and completely different reasons.

No other club fanbase ruminates and obsesses over the last 10 years as we do and that is part of our problem. Are we going to import yet another regime in and when nothing changes after 2.5 years later are we going to say "This mob has been awful for 14 years!! lets kick them out??" Whats happening right now is crazy to me.

In terms of sticking to a plan, we bloody stuck with Luke Brooks for 10 years didn't we? Ivan Cleary knifed us and after that we stuck with Michael Maguire for 3 full seasons. We kicked out Mick Potter because an "External Review" advised us to do so!! The less said about Jason Taylor the better.

One way or another, there has to be some kind of rapprochement between the fans and the club that is built on trust, respect and belief. Maybe that happens with the individuals there now, maybe its with the next mob. But just beware that if we bay for blood without thinking carefully about just why we are doing it, we are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
Click to expand...
The head coach does not run a club.
 
BAGNF05 said:
More at WT than anywhere else because that’s who they continually throw under the “bus”
Click to expand...

The coach is always the first person to get thrown under the bus… at any poorly performing sporting team …it’s easier to change the coach then to change the players…
 
  • Like
Reactions: BZN
Tom Shines said:
The coach is always the first person to get thrown under the bus… at any poorly performing sporting team …it’s easier to change the coach then to change the players…
Click to expand...
Generally if you’re talking about big leagues a GM of football sits above the coach and his responsibility is to ensure those coaches have a roster capable of success. Not having that, or just not giving the coach a competitive roster (but still sacking him) is just administrators scapegoating to save their arse.classic Pascoe.
 
twentyforty said:
Yes, Hands up those who feel more confident the Blues can win more games now?
Click to expand...
The bloke can coach given the cattle. He’s won in the two biggest leagues in the world and just put a record thumping on the best team in the world. How is Pascoe’s record? What’s he done again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 287 (members: 8, guests: 279)
Forever online: Tigergran, Geo
Back
Top