The above is from Andrew Webster's article in the Herald this week.
Did Crawford lead a review at the Eels? If so, when did he do this and what were the reforms that were implemented? Has anyone got any info about this?
In regards to Crawford's recommendations for WT, I really question why is the information not being leaked? Our club leaks like a sieve so what has changed this time?
I can only assume that Crawford and Barnier have suggested that the board be moved on and that has come as a shock to the old fossils who are now scurrying for cover.
I must admit I always said that the review would not lead to meaningful change because Turkeys dont vote for Xmas. If I have to stand corrected I will do it gladly!
Before I get too carried away, I recall that the whole purpose behind the setup of the Holman Barnes Group was to tighten Wests Ashfield's grip on power? They will not stand aside without a fight.
The above is from Andrew Webster's article in the Herald this week.
Did Crawford lead a review at the Eels? If so, when did he do this and what were the reforms that were implemented? Has anyone got any info about this?
In regards to Crawford's recommendations for WT, I really question why is the information not being leaked? Our club leaks like a sieve so what has changed this time?
I can only assume that Crawford and Barnier have suggested that the board be moved on and that has come as a shock to the old fossils who are now scurrying for cover.
I must admit I always said that the review would not lead to meaningful change because Turkeys dont vote for Xmas. If I have to stand corrected I will do it gladly!
Before I get too carried away, I recall that the whole purpose behind the setup of the Holman Barnes Group was to tighten Wests Ashfield's grip on power? They will not stand aside without a fight.
I don't know if Tony Crawford was involved but here are the recommendations from the Parramatta independent review.
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.
According to the 2022 Annual Report, Holman Barnes had about $18m in cash. The club (and its majority owner) are certainly not cash strapped.
That is not as much as you think. Wests Ashfield (HB) are a licensed club and that comes with a LOT of restrictions on what the money can be spent on in consideration of massive tax breaks. HB must show each year that their spending is in accordance with their charters and the rules of licensed club which (paraphrasing) is to provide grants to local community groups. Professional Rugby League companies may not tick all of the boxes required and regardless HB has to be able to justify grants to not licensing board, ATO and also members.
The above is from Andrew Webster's article in the Herald this week.
Did Crawford lead a review at the Eels? If so, when did he do this and what were the reforms that were implemented? Has anyone got any info about this?
In regards to Crawford's recommendations for WT, I really question why is the information not being leaked? Our club leaks like a sieve so what has changed this time?
I can only assume that Crawford and Barnier have suggested that the board be moved on and that has come as a shock to the old fossils who are now scurrying for cover.
I must admit I always said that the review would not lead to meaningful change because Turkeys dont vote for Xmas. If I have to stand corrected I will do it gladly!
Before I get too carried away, I recall that the whole purpose behind the setup of the Holman Barnes Group was to tighten Wests Ashfield's grip on power? They will not stand aside without a fight.
I don't know if Tony Crawford was involved but here are the recommendations from the Parramatta independent review.
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.
They look like they were pretty sensible suggestions and they appear to have give the Eels some stability.
@garry if a condition of Lee’s sponsor is a seat on the board, it just proves he shouldn’t be on the board.
footnote: I’m sure any such condition exist solely In Lee’s imagination
If he does take his sponsorship elsewhere it just shows that he doesn’t really love the club as he says he does but was in it for the exposure and notoriety. I suspect that is the case. I also suspect he thinks he is the next Nick Politis type, which of course he isn’t. He is clueless when it comes to what it takes to win in Rugby League.
@garry if a condition of Lee’s sponsor is a seat on the board, it just proves he shouldn’t be on the board.
footnote: I’m sure any such condition exist solely In Lee’s imagination
If he does take his sponsorship elsewhere it just shows that he doesn’t really love the club as he says he does but was in it for the exposure and notoriety. I suspect that is the case. I also suspect he thinks he is the next Nick Politis type, which of course he isn’t. He is clueless when it comes to what it takes to win in Rugby League.
His sponsorship is almost everywhere now. Knights, Souffs, Dogs, Blues, Kangaroos, Wenty Leagues, probably a heap of others Ive missed.
we have 2 spoons and are one if the most talked about clubs, we get media coverage without trying. A sponsor will be keen if Brayden's does go. Imagine when we start making the semis ... sponsorship well spent.
@garry if a condition of Lee’s sponsor is a seat on the board, it just proves he shouldn’t be on the board.
footnote: I’m sure any such condition exist solely In Lee’s imagination
If he does take his sponsorship elsewhere it just shows that he doesn’t really love the club as he says he does but was in it for the exposure and notoriety. I suspect that is the case. I also suspect he thinks he is the next Nick Politis type, which of course he isn’t. He is clueless when it comes to what it takes to win in Rugby League.
Difference is one is a car salesman and the other is a lawyer. You can umm get away with a lot more if you’re just a businessman. Same if you run pubs.
This post was modified 6 months ago by Joel Helmes
