It's now been four years since Parramatta had to suffer an election. Do you remember those? Rival factions campaigning and bickering. Twitter and social media turning into cauldrons of hate and division. Watching former players opposing each other and taking sides. It's easy to forget what it was like, because we've barely had to hear a pop about the Eels boardroom since the administration and subsequent Eels reforms.
I was reminded of all this, when I read this piece in the Telegraph yesterday.
It was an acute reminder that tying the running of a professional sports club to the politics of board elections is a recipe for disaster. The story is blatant pitch for the current board to Bulldogs voters. If you're like me, you'll cringe as you read about tickets and elections and remember our bad old days. You'll remember these stories used to be commonplace for our club. A highly visible Chairman promising the world in the hope that you'll forgive a disastrous season. As is generally a case, side-by-side a CEO, who is keen to see the status quo maintained, in case a change in board results in the new mob wanting to bring in their own people. Indeed, that flows through the entire organisation - the reality is nobody knows what the next election might throw up.
It's near impossible to build a strong culture in this environment - too much change, too much paranoia and reactive behaviour. All of the thinking around how a club is run turns into thinking about the timing of the next election, rather than what's actually good for the club. When you don't have to worry about this crap - people at the club can put their heads down, work hard and know their futures are only tied to their performance. That's a necessary starting point to begin to develop any performance-based culture.
Of course, for us, this is in the context of the upcoming Leagues Club reform vote. These work side-by-side the Football Club reforms, and are the last planks of our entire club - both the Eels and the Leagues Club that funds it - having a modern, professional governance regime.
Those against the current reforms are doing so because their end game is to wind back the reforms that have already gone through at the Football Club level. They've previously taken control of the club via these ugly elections and they know that's the only way to have it again. Once the Leagues Club reforms go through, it's pretty much shut the gate. With every member able to vote, plus triennials and the chance for a merit-based board to prove their credentials, the small, organised minorities will no longer be able to exert the undue pressure of the past.
So another reminder - September 10 @ Bankwest. If you'd like to never hear me banging on about constitutional reform ever again, then encourage every Leagues Club member you know to put that date down in their diary, and get this process completed.
Replies
Hopefully the reforms get passed and it finally puts an end of all picks that care more about power than what's best for the club
As I said in the post, there is a definite desire to return to the pre-reform environment. Elections for a board that control both the Leagues Club and the Football Club.
I also mentioned in another thread, I think its always good process to shake the tree and see what drops when it comes to recruitment. Unless you have specifically had a long-held succession plan, never hurts to see who else is out there.
You make a good point , the dogs are seemingly becoming the new us, elections and power struggles seem to dominate the front office these days , and there results on the field have suffered. When Fitzy had full control we didn't have the issues that plagued us since he got ousted and it became a shit fight . I think the email sent to members this past week by the PLC really demonstrated that noting the number of CEOs and coaches we have had in the past decade.
It is perhaps the biggest lesson I've learnt from what is nearly a decade-long obsession with our constitution - my original motivation was all about structural separation so that the Football Club was voted upon by Football membership.
What I came to realise is that allowing the membership to have too much of an influence over operations does the organisation no good. Ideally, you want to give the membership if it is by a significant majority united the right to oust a corrupt/broken board - but for the most part you want to set up a structure that promotes stability, because its really difficult to have success without stability.
I was involved directly in a Leagues Club election once. It was a horrific experience. From being physically accosted on Election Day, being called out on Social media by former players the whole process was a complete circus from start to finish. Meanwhile the club was just spiralling.
We have chance to set us up for the future and have stability forever.
There is a time limit but I can’t recall what it is
Huh?
The elections are tri-annual so an entire Board can’t just be turfed out. Only 2-3 Directors at a time in each election.
From memory the time limit is significant like 10 years. And I think a Director that has done his limit can put themselves up for re-election.
As to your point imagine if we had a disaster of a Director who was popular and never left the Board.
I can’t recall all the exact details but I’m sure you could find them
No they won’t be because any candidates will have to be vetted by the nominations committee which itself will be in a constant state of renewal.
There is no perfect infallible system, but this is pretty darn close.
Brett if you are saying that people among the factions won't be able to put up people who would pass the vetting process then you have no idea.
If they are good enough, then that’s fine. The point is that the factions won’t be able to overthrow the board en masse, at worst they will have 3 out of 7 board seats, and they would only be able to have 2 seats on the football club board.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next