Parramatta Eels director Tanya Gadiel lashed out at fellow board member Matt Hollier. Picture: Peter Kelly
PARRAMATTA Eels director Tanya Gadiel has lashed out at a member of chairman Steve Sharp’s original ticket for the Parramatta board in an extraordinary Facebook exchange.
At one point, Gadiel claimed in the exchange on Facebook Messenger that the former Sharp ally, senior Eels member Matt Hollier, had “defamed” her on a popular Eels forum, dubbed the member “a disgrace”, and told the member: “You have a lot to worry about, mate”.
The comments have come as senior members of the Eels have increasingly been agitating for an extraordinary general meeting to be called at the club to overthrow the board.
Mr Hollier was a member of chairman Steve Sharp’s (pictured) original ticket for the Parramatta board. Picture: Gregg Porteous
Hollier, who is a member of the 20-person Eels Members Advisory Council, had this week opened by offering support to both Gadiel and another Parramatta director, Andrew Cordwell, over the week’s explosive revelations at the club.
He then asked her to “reconsider” her reluctance to appoint a permanent group CEO, as a first step towards “cleaning up this mess so we can all move forward”.
It prompted Gadiel to respond with a salvo against Hollier and longstanding former Eels chief executive Denis Fitzgerald.
Gadiel told Hollier there wouldn’t be ‘another (former Eels CEO Denis) Fitzgerald’ under her watch. Picture: John Grainger
Gadiel said to Hollier: “You want another FitzGerald? Not on my watch mate. Thanks for your feed back (sic).”
Hollier replied: “I don’t get your point. The Board can’t run the business, you need a CEO to do that.”
When contacted about the exchange last night, Gadiel said: “I’m deeply disappointed that a private conversation with Matt Hollier was published in a public forum.
“I made comments which reflect that a Group CEO is not the right solution, as it is a return to the old days.’’
Replies
If you've leaked a private conversation whether you believed it to be in the clubs best interests or not , it's not a dissimilar concept to the leaks that've been destroying our club over the last few months , theses guys also may believe they're doing it for the good of the club , if it was private you've pretty much leaked private information for the sake of assisting your agenda . For the record I'm of the opinion she's a grub , however leaking personal messages is outside the rules in my humble opinion .
I totally disagree with Wiz. If you're in any position of authority or in the public sphere, the first thing you are taught is that you are ALWAYS on record. When a member approaches you with concerns and particularly when it is not a one-to-one conversation, as a director you are representing you club. I've done the same when I've relayed parts of conversations I've had with Steve Sharp and other directors when I've felt their relevant. At the same time, when anyone says to me upfront that this is a private conversation not for publication, I respect that. Any dialogue that anyone in a public position has with anyone is "on record" until you specify that it's not, and particularly when it's written down. She's from the political sphere, she should know that better than anyone.
Phil,
Interesting position you have taken. You and Chris have taken "leadership" positions in the anti Eels Board regime.
You told me in a phone conversation that a member of the Board has been providing Board emails to you and Chris as proof of the Board not functioning. I asked you to forward them to me for honesty. You didn't.
I requested them of you again. You didn't reply nor provide.
So is your position that a leaking of a private conversation between Ms Gadiel and some one else is open game because of her position. Well why then have you not circulated the emails you received from the Board member.
Could it be that is the reason why under your proposal only one director was to remain, and surely we are not wrong in presuming that director is the one who has been undermining the board by providing board emails to you.
You guys are Johnny come Latelys as Eels supporters but you are bringing down the foundations of a club I joined 42 years ago.
It's also hard not to laugh at the irony that her most public moment in parliament came after she decided to go public with comments made in private between her Eddie Obeid. And that was a converation between two peers, that you would actually expect to have inherent confidentiality.
If enough of the members disagree with her, then she's not being a very good representative of the members (which, after all, is what a board is meant to be).
If the discussions were about her private life, that's a completely different issue. But when she's speaking to a member about club matters, it is absolutely fair game and shouldn't be kept private.
I've never repeated anything from a members council meeting. But just on that there has never been anything said in those meetings that couldn't be repeated. It's not that kind of group. We don't get access to anything sensitive at all.
Love the "Hitler grin"
For the record , Mutts is a great contributor and obviously a very successful businessman who've I've alway thought to have the clubs best interests at heart . I might take the piss regularly but I respect him on here immensely . BUT ... Using the same techniques that have put us where we are today , I unfortunately can't support.
I'm sure if a member on here posted private inboxes you'd sent them about things going on within the club , or about board members you may one day work along side , you'd be a little peeved . Private messages are exactly that mate . As I said , I think she's a grub , I actually agree with Mutts , but PM's are private , that's why Theyre call "Private messages" and not " Pricate Messages Unless you're an Eels Board-member in which Private Messages are actually not private "
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 10 Next