Eels Blogs

When I first got involved in Parramatta politics, it was on the basis that I thought the football operation and board should be separated from the Leagues Club.

It’s fair to say after seeing first hand the crap that comes with every Parramatta election, I became almost evangelical about constitutional reform. It was very clear to me, that it wasn’t just the structural separation that was required, but the entire board composition and voting process had to be radically overhauled to end the divisiveness, infighting and politicking that put the club through the wringer every two years.

And such was the beauty of the merit-based proposal, which would allow our club to install a new board, that you genuinely knew represented the best possible candidates and without any of the baggage that you have to go through to get elected.

So the board is now proposing a new election as a way forward, to ensure all member’s voices are heard. Let’s leave aside the fact that every member had the right to attend the EGM and voice their opinion, and let’s discuss the multitude of reasons that this will cause further harm to our club.

No stability: First and foremost, this means the club won’t have a CEO and football director until December. Or even worse, a board that is almost certainly on the way out, will make decisions that leave the next board with no control, and therefore no accountability, over their executives. THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. As we read this week, Brad Arthur was crying out for leadership month's again, and we’ve now drifted through months with no CEO, no football director. The board refused to give the club interim leadership, by putting Bevan Paul in charge as Group CEO. The club simply cannot afford the leadership vacuum this course of action will take.

More factionalism: Even via the EGM process, we’ve witnessed new groups and factions arising. This factionalism and competing tickets will devolve into another bitter election, with supporters from all sides battling the case of their preferred candidates. It will drag us through the headlines again, as it always does, and whoever wins will then go into their next term.

No constitutional reform: What has stopped basic constitutional reform changes like structural separation in the past, is the unwillingness of any elected PLC director not to be on the NRL board. Also, a new board would have no obligation to follow through on the simple constitutional changes agreed to with the NRL like triennial elections or independent directors. This potentially puts us, after all the club has been through, back at square one on the constitutional reform front.

Lower-calibre candidates: My biggest fear is some of the exceptional candidates I know were willing to put themselves forward under the merit process, won’t put their hand up and put their reputations through an election, with no guarantee of the type of people they are going to end up sitting on a board with. Again, that’s why we have to pull down the circus and start erecting something solid if we want the best possible candidates for the job.

I’ll note a finding for ILGA when they investigated the Roy Spagnolo board. [Doc here]

“The Authority’s findings provide cause to question the level of knowledge and ability that has been demonstrated by the Ex-Officers during the relevant period. The Club and its membership may consider the wisdom of electing directors for sentimental reasons, rather than a demonstrated capacity to run an enterprise of this scale. “

This is what you get from our elections in their current form.

Chris has informed us all, that he is waiting for the Club to inform him of the legal reasons for knocking back the resolution. I’m sure he’ll talk with some of the legal guys who helped put together the resolution and decide on whether to fight it, but as far as I’m concerned enough is enough. The NSW government must come in and appoint an administrator and instigate a merit-based process for the immediate appointment of a new NRL board so that healing process can begin, and then it needs to take charge of the constitutional reform agenda, which members so clearly voted for at the last election. Only once those reforms have been agreed upon, should we go back into the election pool. And let me tell, for someone who has so passionately fought for member’s rights in the past, it’s a big thing for me to advocate for that.

By way of disclosure, if it comes down to an election, and I genuinely hope it doesn’t, and assuming I don’t get rubbed out by a disciplinary committee, I will put together a group based on pursuing constitutional reform. I’ve worked too hard on this cause to give it up now. So by way of transparency, you can view all of the future comments I make on these topics on that basis.