http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/05/06/eels-directors-right-to-challenge-bans/
Two former Parramatta directors have backed their successors’ move in taking legal action against the NRL.
Gary Morris and Chris Jurd, both long-time administrators with the Eels, left the Parramatta board in 2009.
The duo were interested onlookers in the NSW Supreme Court on Friday as Eels chairman Steve Sharp, chief executive John Boulous, head of football Daniel Anderson, deputy chairman Tom Issa and director Peter Serrao challenged the legality of their provision suspensions by the NRL.
Jurd said the quintet were entitled to have their cases heard and entitled to the presumption of innocence.
“I am quite prepared to let them put their case forward and judge afterwards and I am prepared to do that for the whole case,” Jurd said.
“I have a lot of sympathy for them. I think their hearts are in the right place. I don’t know where their brains are.
“In their commitment to their club they may well have made some mistakes and those mistakes may or may not have been big ones but I am happy to wait until the end (of the investigation).”
Morris added: “We are not privy to everything that has happened and I just feel for them.
“I don’t know what the evidence is. There could have been a lot of things done unintentionally.”
Morris said it was the five club officials’ right to challenge their provisional suspensions.
“That is a personal decision of theirs,” he said.
“If they feel that strongly that what they are doing is right they should continue on but if what they are doing is wrong they should step down.”
The quintet were initially given a week to respond to the NRL’s move to deregister them.
That time frame has now been extended until June 3.
A final decision on the NRL’s move to deregister the quintet, dock the Eels points and fine them $1 million is expected to be made two weeks after that date.
Replies
1) are they using this time behind the scenes to negotiate with the NRL to come up with an outcome that works for all?
Or
2) do they know 100% that the accusations leveled against them are completely false and they can prove this to satisfy a court? And I don't mean loopholes, I mean are they actually false?
If either of the two above are true, I think court action could turn into a positive. If either aren't true I wonder why they didn't just step aside temporarily and then pursue court action (like politicians or police do). That way they still get their chance at justice but they don't take down everyone else in the meantime.
Only time will tell if either 1 or 2 are fact.
If there's any one criticism of the NRL strategy , I have, is they could of mounted more pressure on the gang of 5, to go, by allowing them to stay there until the final determination of the process - and held the points gun to our heads.
I think the NRL were keen to remove them from office as quickly as possible, isolating the heirachy as the real problem , not the team or fans (thus game) but they probably didn't expect the gang of 5 to actually believe they are right in the face of the allegations.
Still if you analyse the responses from various parts of our hierachy so far - they have been.confusing, contradictory & would cause a 'WTF#@ drugs are they on' response from the NRL.
Just bear in mind that action is NOT disputing the NRL's findings, per se, it's only to keep them from being immediately degistered & booted out of their roles at the helm - for now. So while the courts are right to decide in the plaintiffs favour, I think NRL's counsel was also right in his assessment it's only the "sideshow" to main event.
Ultimately it might prove a very hollow small fries victory against the interests of 'us', the Club, Arthur, the team, fans & wider game.
Who persues the nrls findings on our clubs behalf if they were immediately booted out.?
I wouldn't expect that those that step in immediately (as the NRL first wished) would have any desire to contest or challenge the allegations against us & the outgoing admin.
Isn't it a case the allegations brought against them is also the allegations against us as a club?
Are we absolutely sure that we in 2016 or this administration tenure for that matter, are really entitled to be labelled the biggest rorters of all times?
Yes it maybe considered a hollow victory in the big picture but this "sideshow" need not have taken place at all if the NRL was fair dinkum instead of looking for cheap kudos in pouncing and stopping our 'cheating' lol.
The NRL effectively imposied no right of reply on the club re the allegations along with titles they imposed on us.
That's the way I see it.
I often imagine how I'd react if I was on said Board and my name had been absolutely massacred in the media. Given the enormous damage to my reputation all this would bring I would want very very specific evidence pointing to my wrongdoings otherwise I'd want my name cleared completely.
As it stands these 5 people are beng painted as the architects of years of systemic rorting. In my opinion that's not good enough as the damage that does may be grossly disproportionate to the crime theyre being accused of.
It's only fair that the NRL say what each individual has specifically done and the evidence of those instances. Not merely saying "you cheated blah blah blah".
Let's get specific.
Hadley and his racsist side kick Fulton are on 2GB abdolutely tearing them all apart - no defence, no right of reply. Let them have their sayin court if found guilty - the goodbye! But until then we should support them the same way we support our team !
The key to the whole debacle, is the claim by the 5, is DUE PROCESS. That is not just the minimum legal requirement, but as I mentioned in another thread, the Moral, or ethical way that this has been carried out. Greenburg was not CEO or acting during the investigation, & all the media allegations, but once he is appointed CEO, the item at the top of the agenda is the Eels, & he said as much in his election speech & questioning.
He would have been handed the integrity mobs report & reccomendations, so, here is the whole thing in a cracked peanut shell. The decision was then reacted on by Greenburg rather than responded, in other words it was a knee jerk decision, had they including Greenburg sat down & analised the report & realized they had a lot of allegations, & paperwork, what was the figure quoted? 7, 700, 7000, or 70000 docuements, some good homework there. Did the eels get those copies with notations etc, so they have the chance to go over them? Simple answer is NO.
That is where the NRL as a whole has failed, those criticizing the NRL now with a backdown likely are many who helped in the leaks for whatever gain, now they look foolish owing to their stupidity, by not seeing the NRL had actually got it wrong through the simple aspect of due process.
No reasonable time for the eels to mount a defence with access to the paper work that the NRL used.
What has come out this morning is the likes of Toovey blowing up over it, likewise Lockyer, there are reports also saying other coaches are not happy either. Why is that so? They likely fear their squads may end up under the same microscope, & again as I suggested elsewhere new computers & hard drive upgrades are likely taking place with selective transferring of records to the new drives????? that would not be the case but no doubt all the clubs & officials will be looking back over their books & shoulders.
More thoughts.
The challenge has perhaps brought on the prospect of compromise, perhaps that compromise may end up purely as a recommendation from the courts, & the residing magistrate telling the 2 parties to reach common ground. Not unusual as it has happened with my compo case & what I have heard relating to many others as well, where the barristers & respective counselors acting for the clients come to a common agreement which the court then generally will endorse.
The idea is that both sides save face, up to a point & both are seen as winners & not totally losers.
For the NRL, I would think they want the 5 gone, some point reductions & fine.
Eels not happy, but they may offer & agree to early elections where they can either stand or not, likely those who are elected wont. Leaves DA with decisions & negotiate with the new board, depending on the charges wrought against him.
The points may end up, if there is clear signs of cap/tpa breaches in the past & they are new ones found, then the reintroduction of the 4 suspended points. The fine likely to be reduced to the same as the last one $450K.
One thing that neither side should really want is that it drags on, & resolved AQAP. The one big outcome is likely that a whole new set of rules will be drawn up regarding player payments, with the NRL taking a more responsible role it the registration of it.
I would say also that part of the reason may also be that as board members & directors of the leagues club they must be basically clean skinned, also any hint of rorts, misuse of money or the like, would instantly have them listed as not being able to be in charge of a business, its pretty much the same, but in a different way as becoming bankrupt. Likewise they cannot work again & especially in government held jobs.
There will no doubt many detractors in this or any sort of agreement that is seen as a downgrade but it will end up working well for the future, the NRL needs to also ensure that no challenges can be made by other clubs such as being talked about by the Storm management, but that is unlikely as this eels challenge will rightfully show that we were not doing it the same as Storm.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next