Firstly, let me say that for the most part I've been satisfied with the performance of our administration over the course of 2011. I've spoken, or at least, met with most of the directors and with Paul Osborne and I've found them to be passionate about the club and generally I've found the club has been moving in the direction I would like it to go, even if the pace of change hasn't quite been to my liking. But I've seen genuine effort to make the supporter base more of a priority and I like the direction that we've moved in terms of improving our sustainable on-field performance.
However, I also have and have had some fairly fundamental misgivings that have arisen, mostly surrounding conflicts of interest and flawed structural issues.
1. The Parramatta Eels must be run by the Parramatta Football Board
If you're sick of me beating this drum, you should stop reading now. This club will never be fixed until this issue is addressed. Right now, in my view this board is almost immovable. Based on the last election, it appears to have stacked sufficient numbers within the Leagues club membership to make it virtually impossible to remove the current board. The number of voting Leagues club member is pitifully low, and on average cares very little about our football club. The current administration took a step in the right direction by making every STH a member of the Football Club but it has refused to take the next step and move the running of the Football Club underneath the Football Ball. Clearly, this is because it enjoys a position where it will be very difficult to remove and it's not about to give up that position. It was a 3P promise to make this change. At first I was told it was because the club was losing money and that had to be addressed. That was addressed and then I was told it was too difficult to change the constitution. In my view, it's just not good enough. Until Parramatta Eels fans decide who is running the Parramatta Eels, this club will always be structurally broken and no real change can take place.
2. No conflicts of interest. Ever
There should be zero tolerance for any potential conflict of interest. It is not good enough for one director to stand down from a vote, because there is a conflict of interest and leave it up to the rest of the board to make a decision when this is a united ticket that is going to make a joint decision anyway. That means things like:
a. Glenn Duncan should never have been allowed to join the board in the first place. As soon as a sponsor joins the board of a football club it raises all manner of conflict issues. What if a bigger offer comes along, does the board ignore the bigger offer for sponsorship to keep the director happy. Secondly, do you really want to expose all of your foibles to your biggest financial supporter. What happens to the sponsorship if there is a problem at board level. Clearly, these things are playing out right now. I opposed Glenn Duncan joining the board in the first place and I think I've been shown why it was a stupid decision to begin with.
b. When your a director of the board, you don't make personal decisions that affect your ability to make objective decisions like lending money to your employees. That clearly makes it difficult to fire someone and is an obvious conflict of interest.
c. Family members, friends and associates should not be bidding for tenders or contracts related to the club. When you join the board, you automatically disqualify anyone you are associated with from gaining financially from decisions about the running of the club.
d. Lack of external auditing/opinion. Again, in a united board what can we really expect when there is a problem and two of the directors go off to investigate it and report back and make recommendations. How can we expect that it will be objective or make any recommendation other than the one that is best suited to maintaining the status quo. When there are issues that need to be investigated, external parties need to be brought in and there needs to be more transparency about what is reported.
I want this current drama to be a wake-up call for our club. I do believe we're getting things together in matters related to football, but the same professionalism I'm seeing applied at that level needs to flow into the board, office and administration. A club's culture is a sum of every working mechanism that comes together to make a whole and if the playing group sees disharmony, discord and chaos at an administrative level, it's very difficult to create a culture removed from that in a particular area of the club. I want some leadership in relating to putting in place professional, meaningful structures and that starts with a separation of the footballing operations from the Leagues club.
Replies
Excellent blog Phil and its good to see someone bring facts and sense into this debate.
The football/ Leagues club structure has always been tricky. Muttman makes a good point. The other point is that the Leagues club has the financial control. If the boards are separate whats to stop the Leagues club from saying ' we can't afford to maintain a team in the nrl?' There obviously would need to be legal contracts drawn up surrounding this. I understand this is why the constitution stands as it currently does?
Your point about family and friends is also pertinent. I would also include affiliated businesses.....
I'd make the same argument, in reverse as a reason for separation. What if the Leagues club went into administration. The football club goes with it. If there was separation with a clause to connect the two, and then the Leagues Club couldn't meet its objectives then the Football Club would then have the option of getting a private investor or teaming up with another club.
I've been given all of the excuses in the world, as to why it is difficult to change but as McClymont stated the club has spent nearly a million dollars in lawyers and investigators. I'd rather see that money channeled into legal fees and so forth to get the promised separation take place.
And if the football club members want to put ex-footballers there, then I agree with Tony. That's their perogative. But by that logic we'd have a pop-star politician. People aren't stupid, they understand we need directors with business experience but I'd argue that a well-balanced board would have former players on it as well.
Yeh think we saw that a couple of years ago.
As we know, less than 5% of members vote so its pretty easy to see why some people question 'democracy'.