Hi Guys, Just a few questions and comments I have regarding the merit proposal. My first question is who would apply for the position? The board of directors are not remunerated significantly and therefore is not exactly a lucrative position. The CEO position is remunerated substantially but the board of directors is not. So how is this proposal going to attract the type of people we need to run the club. Most people that run for these boards, do so for their love of the club, or they have a vested interest in doing so. Say what you will about Steve Sharp, I genuinely believe he felt he was doing the right thing by the club however misplaced this may have been. In order for a professional administrator to take on a role like this, he would have to give up time that could be better served focusing on his full time employment or spending time with his family. Therefore the remuneration package would have to be attractive to attract a certain type of administrator.
Secondly, you could assemble a committee of well qualified people but still have factions within the board of directors. Every director would be keen to push their own agenda, and therefore could wind up being a bigger circus than what we have already have.
In my opinion what Parramatta needs is a strong leader/dictator, that listens to his board, but sets the tone and direction of where the club needs to go. He has absolute power but commands the respect of his colleagues and overseas his board implementing the necessary changes. These people are not always easy to come by. I'm not saying the merit proposal doesn't have merit, i just think we should start at the top and work our way down from there. In this instance the chairman needs to be hand selected before the CEO. The chairman is the key figure that needs a 6 figure minimum salary to get the right person in the role. From that point to merit proposal takes over with attractive packages to recruit the right people.
Replies
I'll take a stab at these from my opinion...
>My first question is who would apply for the position? The board of directors are not remunerated significantly and therefore is not exactly a lucrative position.
Board positions aren't meant to be lucrative. If they were too lucrative there'd be too much of a conflict of interest. A board member is a representative of the members with the experience and insight to help set the strategic direction of the organisation. Why do people take these positions? Well, as a member (and therefore essentially a shareholder) you have a vested interest in the continued success of the club. The main driver is of course the want for the overall success of the organisation/club. But that's all quite altruistic.
Selfishly why do people take these positions? Career advancement. Board experience is highly sought after and most executives looking to take the next step in their careers will want to operate on one or more boards to prove their credentials and build their profile. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing as long as they have the right skills to offer.
A good comparison would be people who sit on Not For Profit boards. They make no money but these positions are highly competitive and sought after. It's a mix of "giving back", of career advancement and of working towards overall organisational success.
>Say what you will about Steve Sharp, I genuinely believe he felt he was doing the right thing by the club
I don't think anyone would disagree with you. The problem is he wasn't equipped with the skills to do it well. It would be the same as me building a house for charity. I could have the best of intentions and all the passion in the world, but without experience building a house it's probably going to fall down. And you can't get by on good intentions.
>Therefore the remuneration package would have to be attractive to attract a certain type of administrator.
Board roles cannot be taken for money. It doesn't work and creates massive conflicts of interest. You spend your money on C-level Execs as they administer the business, the board sets the strategic direction, governance parameters and helps guide when asked. A good board knows when they're over-reaching.
>Secondly, you could assemble a committee of well qualified people but still have factions within the board of directors
Thus the push for triennial elections. To structurally stop the ability of factions taking and maintaining control over and over again.
>In my opinion what Parramatta needs is a strong leader/dictator, that listens to his board, but sets the tone and direction of where the club needs to go.
A strong leader is not a dictator. A weak leader dictates, a strong leader leads. Absolute power is what got us into this mess - governance, transparency and proven talent will get us out. A leader knows their strengths and hires and delegates responsibilities because s/he realises multiple heads are always better than one.
> In this instance the chairman needs to be hand selected before the CEO.
The first duty of the new board will be to interview for the CEO. The board definitely comes first, that's why we're looking for an interim CEO to keep the ship running in the meantime. Who's hand would you propose to select a chairman??
>The chairman is the key figure that needs a 6 figure minimum salary to get the right person in the role.
100% wrong and completely against industry standard and years of proven methods. The chairman is a representative of the board who are a representative of the members. Competent board members are out there, there are boards left right and centre that run incredibly well. A large salary will only further attract empire builders and cash grabbers as opposed to people doing this for the right reason.
2. I'm not sure you could get a bigger circus than we have had. If they are professional, I don't see why there would be "factions".
The CEO is responsible for the day to day running of things. You are paying a chairman a 6 figure sum for meeting once a month? I think you have confused the roles.
Keep in mind we have (or should have) two boards. One for the Leagues club, and one for NRL/football club. The leagues club side of things has been making a profit.
Just to add to my wall of text, I think some of the confusion has come from exactly how "involved" boards are meant to be vs how "involved" the typical Parra boards have been.
Boards are meant to operate from a healthy distance from the organisation. They shouldn't be in the media, the shouldn't be empire building, they shouldn't be scheming, they shouldn't be undermining the executives. Heck most companies you'll know who the CEO is but won't have heard of anyone on the board.
This is how it should be. The board shouldn't need exorbitant salaries because they shouldn't need to do that much work. Sure, it'll ebb and flow like when they need to install a new Executive team. But once the strategic direction is set, and the exec is installed, they should take their hands off and monitor from afar.
This is the problem! Eels boards have been way too hands on, acting like they're the CEO or COO or CFO. Adding more money into the mix only encourages this kind of behaviour, and it's the exact opposite of what we need. We need board members who identify the critical problems with the club, and install the right people to fix them.
A good board member has very little to do. They can be called upon for advice, otherwise the CEO will only come to them with updates once every other month or if they feel a large strategic decision needs to be make and should have their endorsement.
This has always been our problem.
This new Board when selected need to appoint a CEO of the highest calibre. This CEO will have the authority and importantly the strong leadership skills to run the club as it should. The CEO is the real leader and we need that person more than ever.
But absolutely the Board should stay well clear of the day to day mangement of the club.
Absolutely, I look at my own board for our not-for-profit early childhood organisation and they are seen and not heard really except for when they are needed, presenting at conferences , putting out the Annual Report etc. They fly totally under the radar and my organisation has been around since 1896.....that's probably why- the CEO runs the organisation!!!!- NOT THE BOARD
You guys make some good points, but I think you understate the role of the board. The board does a lot more than meet once a month.The board sets the direction of the club, then employs people eg the CEO and the coach to implement that direction. We need a good mix of people on the board. People with marketing knowledge, football knowledge, financial knowledge etc We don't need people on the board that are trying to boost their resume or are looking for experience, we need professionals.
There is not much point having a board that doesn't understand what the organisation is or is not achieving. We have not had a functioning board for some time which is why I believe the chairman is our most important move next. If we have to pay than so be it.
In the corporate world the board of directors can move for financial bonuses based on performance. So you are wrong, board members can and are remunerated well. Don't understate the role of the board of directors. Parramatta have the potential to be anything provided we get the right people involved. Spending 1million dollars on board members that succeed is far better than spending 1 million on fines to the NRL and not making the top 8
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next