One month and counting

So with less than a month to go before the governance review is completed, I thought it timely to revisit where we seem to be at, and what's taken place since my last blog on this issue.

I must admit I'm still nervous on a number of counts. One, I want to see the board progressing on constitutional reform but equally I don't want a structure pushed down the necks of members without a proper period of review. It's important to remember that PWC had little more than a month to complete its review and that the board has really only had two months to properly execute it.

So on that front I'm concerned that we still have had basically zero transparency on this issue, outside of the leaked report that appeared in the SMH which seemed to indicate a general reluctance by the board to consider constitution reform, and at the same time, a desire by the NRL to push its preferred version of constitutional reform ahead. I sincerely hope both parties realise that the Leagues Club and NRL boards are member-owned and that members must be involved and consulted. What I would have liked the board to have done is provided members with more information and preferably at least a precis of the recommendations especially as it relates to constitutional reform. 

Right now, the only word we have from the club is Steve Sharp maintaining that everything is golden, and that the Club and the NRL are working well to reach an end outcome. (Mind you, that was the same issue where he allegedly denied Pauli Pauli was leaving). However, I guess the question is what is that outcome going to be. For me, not losing four points is a minimum consideration, what I really want to see is the type of changes put in place that are going to help ensure we have the best possible administration a couple of decades into the future.

On that note, over the past couple of years, I've been compiling a document about all of my thoughts and research on constitutional reform, which I have been preparing as the basis for a submission to any kind of constitutional reform review. However, given at this stage I'm not confident we're ever going to get that kind of review, I'm going to drop it on this blog as a PDF attachment. Be warned, it is more than 3000 words and it's not exactly light reading and hasn't been properly edited, but I thought those of you who recognise this is an important issue might find it worthwhile reading. Really interested in other's thoughts on the document so don't be shy.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • *Slides on the patent-pending Sim Shades with 100 per cent guaranteed sarcasm-deflecting capabilities*

    Great idea Horo! I think it would be really useful to have all of the constitutions, annual financial reports, etc stored on the site as they conveniently tend to get removed from official sites. I'm even willing to name it the Horo Library in your honour. Top work, champ.

    *removes Sim Shades*

  • Great read Phil and thanks for posting. Some exceptional thoughts and clearly something you're very passionate about.
    With good boards comes good governance. Many industries are heavily regulated with rules in place re minimum qualifications to be held, minimum cpd hours each year, remuneration disclosures and a diverse range of skillsets that result in the board being confident to challenge the CEO and Exec Management in a well informed manner.
    Such industries and associated regulations specifically outlaw "tickets" per se and I can't believe we still allow this at NRL level. Without wanting to bore all members on this site it is specifically noted the impact APRA-the finance industry regulator has on good governance. In fact, the importance recognised by the regulator is evidenced by prudential standards dedicated to good governance.
    Anyways, I agree with you re triennial elections. Going one step further I believe the concept of maximum terms could also be introduced to ensure continual rotation and new and fresh thinking. What the magical figure is I don't know but the US adopts this with the president's role and many organisations do the same.
    In summary I think that the point re a diverse range of skillsets at board level is absolutely essential. That's not to say there shouldn't be ex players on the board, in fact a number of ex players have been quite successful outside of the game-mick buettner comes to mind. Strategic planning, short and long term KPIS, and above all accountability are critical to success of any organisation/team and parra is no different. Whilst I know this isn't s typical footy blog I do believe that the overall theme of your paper is core to our long term success
    • Thanks for taking the time to read Alfred! Maximum terms is another one I should probably include in their actually (and I would like to update this doc with any further thoughts so please throw them out there). It was brought up at the last AGM by a lady, in fact,. It's another one, I'm torn on, though.

      On one hand, if you have minimum terms you get rid of empire building, which I think might actually be the deep-suited psychological cause to why our boards don't carry through with elections promises. Perhaps, once your in there, the thinking shifts to how do we stay in there, rather than thinking how much good can we achieve in the time we're here.

      On the flipside of that, if you've got a really good solid board doing an awesome job do you want to move them on? Maybe two ways you get around that:
      1) A related issue, is I've always argued that the club should make use of Advisory Boards or working parties on particular issues, and bring in people with particular skillsets and experience. At one point, I was asked if I'd have been interested in participating in a Digital Business working party and I'd of gladly contributed, but it never happened. If you have these around then even if you lose a talented person off the board they can still contribute positively to the club (and on the flipside it is a nice way for aspiring board members to demonstrate their abilities as well).

      2) Maybe, if a board member serves their term, they need to wait a full rotation, and then they're able to put themselves up again. You get the chance to bring in some fresh talent and ideas, but you're proven performers aren't shoe-boxed into retirement.

      And totally concur on the footballer comment. In fact, I'd say on a NRL board, it's just as imperative to have directors with NRL-level experience to provide that inside knowledge, as much as it is to have legal, finance, media, marketing skills. But that's the key right, you've got to have that mix.

      P.S. If anyone has examples of best practice feel free to point me to them, so I can include them as an index, because quite often when I talk to people about these I get told "Oh, that's too hard" or "that's not practical", so would be nice to get a collection of organisations that have successfully put in place these kinds of reforms.

  • I don't understand why this all has to be done before the season starts. Why doesn't the NRL give the club until, say August, to implement constitutional reform. If it's not satisfied, then deduct the points. We would still lose out so I don't see the difference. The most important thing here, and I would think that the NRL would agree on this, is that the club gets this right. Reform is important and it should be done properly.

    But I get the feeling that the NRL wants to wield it's big stick and be made to look like it's taking action against disobedient clubs. We've all seen that the NRL is sensitive to media criticism and it won't want to look weak by giving the Eels more time. This is all political BS in my view.

    • If this won't work, then deduct the points now and give the club the season to implement reform and show that it deserves the points back. That would be fair. The bottom line is that the club shouldn't be rushed into making changes with a gun to its head.

    • Regardless of the NRL wielding a big stick it is powerless to drive reform without the support of the members. The Registered Clubs Act is the only law the club has to comply with so the NRLs only stick relates to the competition, including I presume, kicking Parra out of the NRL.

      What if the board puts up the proposal and the members reject it. What then? Also I don't think the NRL has given Parra any favours by only giving a short period of time to implement change, most which would have to be approved by members.

  • On another note entirely.
    The new stadium upgrade will take the capacity from 24k to 30k?
    Two thousand of the extra six thousand are corporate seats are they not?

    So then, the stadium will hold an extra 4K average fans.
    Is this correct because if it is, why the hell would they bother?

    I must have it wrong...
This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

MeelK replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"I'd sign for that."
5 hours ago
LB replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"Look i think it is more than just being put on the Wing. I think Flanno is a reason. Wanting to play semi's is another.
I think a move away will be an awakening for Lomax. He was on with Fltech and Hindy with Lawrie in 2022 and he mimicked Griffin.…"
6 hours ago
AlShaw replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"600k is OK for the right winger. The Panthers sets are built on what their back 3 do on tackle one. The more momentum at the start of a set the more expansive a team can play but if our back three are getting smashed on tackle one and two it puts…"
6 hours ago
Uncle Wizards Sleeve indigenous elder He/Him replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"Agree , need to keep him. "
6 hours ago
More…