I reckon it must be about five years since Matt Hollier and I sat down with the Emperor - Denis Fitzgerald - at the Epping Club to try and get an insight into the Eels constitution. I left that meeting convinced that a document that had been draw up to deal with the advent of professional Rugby League would undermine the foundation of the club in the modern era of football, and I started what would prove to be a long campaign for constitutional reform.
Last week, I got pretty much everything I’d ever hoped for. Structural separation from the Leagues Club, merit-based board selection and a constitution that maximised the opportunity for stability and professional governance. I felt we got their the right way, with a process that was inclusive of member feedback, and I got the opportunity to sit down with Max Donnelly and work through my areas of concern, most of which were resolved prior to the final drafting.
With good people on the board, and a solid constitution, the front office and the on-field staff and players will now have the opportunity to do their jobs without distraction or interference. Finally, the football foundations are solid.
That said, there is still work to be done. The major problem that exists for the Eels right now from a structural point of view is that separation has taken place without any funding guarantees existing for football. Right now, it is feasible that a new Leagues Club board could refuse to fund the footballing operation. We also have a situation where if a football club board did go bad, the members really have little opportunity to rally together to eject them. That was one of my biggest concerns I expressed to Max, and he said it was something that he’d look at via the Leagues Club constitution.
Anyway, I haven’t been able to say much about this whole process for a while because of my involvement in the board-selection process, so I wanted to get this out before the football season starts properly tomorrow. We need to see this process all the way through to the end and get the same levels of governance and expertise in at the Leagues Club as well. I always said the Football side of constitutional reform was simple if any board had the will, but getting the right balance between member’s democratic rights and effective governance and board constitution is going to be even more challenging. Max has said that is his next priority, and I just wanted to flag it as something we should continue to be interested in, because while we’re nearly there, it’s important we drive these reforms all the way home.
That is all. Bring on 2017's team list Tuesday!
Replies
I mostly agree with what you've said here Phil, but your statement "We also have a situation where if a football club board did go bad, the members really have little opportunity to rally together to eject them" implies that the members even know what it would mean for the board to 'go bad'. The board members are selected based on merit, while the members are not. Therefore should they even have the right to decide? The leagues club members have proven beyond a doubt that they've got no idea (as a collective, I am not talking about individual members) so why would NRL club members have any better idea on whether or not the board is doing a good job?
Agree with Pou. The members as a group are idiots.
It's actually going to be the Leagues Club members that need to have that "eject" option at hand. RIght now, the Leagues Club members own the NRL club, but as owners can't decide five of the seven board spots. Now, central to the constitutional reform I wanted was a level of separation from the Leagues Club election process, but at the same time you don't want to have zero ability or accountable back to the members. Just go and ask St George supporters about their frustrations whereby the Doust board is all but immovable. I don't want the membership to be able to remove a board, bar for all but outright mutiny (which is what we pretty much got this time last in). WIthout that option and the ability for the membership to put pressure on the board, none of the reforms we have got could have been achieved. It needs to be a VERY high bar, that can basically only be enacted in case of emergency, but there must still be some outlet for the owners of the club to toss a board. Every corporate has that option (the 5 per cent rule) and it should be the same with our organisation. Accountability is after all a central objective of all good governance.
Here here!!
I'm not usually one to get involved or have an opinion on the governance of our great club, or the politics of our club if you will?
Bring on team list Tuesday and GO YOU EELS!This is a great blog and puts a couple of important issues up front. A couple of things to see through as you have mentioned, but geez it's good to head into a new season so far ahead of previous years.
The only position or question remaining is who will be Head of Football Operations? This doesn't seem to be getting much interest, but it seems to be the final hurdle in a brand new start for the club and BA?
I'd also like to thank Phil and the others involved on what has been achieved.
Totally agree Phil. And make no mistake the usual suspects would already be working out how they can get into the Leagues Club Board and effectively control the Football Club via financial pressure or other means.
For this reason I feel the Leagues Club constitutional reforms are the most important of all. I do however have faith that Max will get the right constitution in place so we never ever return to the dark ages.
Exciting times ahead.
Bet there was a bit of leg rubbing going on under the table with you three!
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next