One Club. One Badge. But Do Members Have a Voice?

“One Club. One Badge. The Badge Connects Us All. Parra Proud.”

It is a message our football club promotes, and one I strongly believe in.

The Parramatta badge connects generations of supporters. It connects those who stood on the Cumberland Oval hill, those who watched our great premiership teams of the 1980s, and those who fill CommBank Stadium today. It connects our NRL and NRLW teams, our pathways players, our Leagues Club members and Eels supporters around Australia and beyond.

But if the badge truly connects us all, I believe that connection should extend beyond game day.

Independence Should Not Mean Disconnection

Today, five of the seven directors of Parramatta National Rugby League Club are External Directors.

They are not elected by Parramatta Leagues Club members and have no direct democratic accountability to the thousands of supporters who purchase Eels Memberships.

An Eels Member does not have the right to elect a PNRL director, attend or vote at a PNRL general meeting, or participate directly in the corporate governance of the football club — regardless of whether they have been an Eels Member for three years or thirty.

Under the current PNRL Constitution, membership is tied to shareholding. The Constitution provides mechanisms for general meetings, but an Eels supporters membership does not provide a right to participate in them.

I have also been unable to identify a general meeting under the current PNRL governance structure at which ordinary Eels Members have been entitled to attend and participate. Discussions of the Eels have been reserved for a small section of the Leagues Clubs Annual General Meeting.

That sits uneasily with the idea of One Club. One Badge.

I strongly support having professional expertise and independence around the Board table. But independence should not mean disconnection from the people whose passion, loyalty and support sustain the football club.

I Supported the Governance Reforms

I think it is important that members understand my position on this history.

I supported stronger governance at Parramatta. I voted for those measures when they were introduced.

Following the turmoil surrounding previous Boards and the problems that ultimately engulfed our Club, I believed stronger governance, greater independence and higher standards for directors were necessary.

I still believe in those principles.

I do not want Parramatta to return to the factionalism and governance failures of the past. We need appropriately skilled directors, proper oversight, accountability and safeguards that protect both the Leagues Club and our football operations.

But those reforms were introduced because of the failures of previous Boards and administrators — not because ordinary Parramatta members failed their Club.

After almost a decade under the present structure, I believe Parramatta’s members have served more than enough penance for mistakes they did not make.

It Is Time to Talk About Member Democracy Again

I believe it is time for Parramatta to have a serious conversation about returning meaningful democratic rights to Eels Members.

That does not mean abandoning the governance safeguards introduced after the problems of the past.

Strong governance and member democracy are not mutually exclusive.

We should examine how long-standing Eels Members could earn meaningful rights within their football club while maintaining appropriate eligibility, independence, skills and governance requirements.

That conversation should include the opportunity for members to participate in an Annual General Meeting, hear directly from those responsible for governing their football club, ask questions and have a meaningful voice.

Other rugby league clubs have found ways of combining professional governance with member participation. Parramatta should be capable of doing the same.

And What About Our Life Members?

There is one aspect of the present arrangements that I find particularly difficult to reconcile with the traditions of our Club.

Life Membership is one of the greatest honours a football club can bestow upon a person.

Yet under the current PNRL Constitution, being made a Life Members itself provides no entitlements apart from their name on a wall in the clubs Centre of Excellence.

That deserves reconsideration.

If Parramatta considers someone worthy of the honour of Life Membership surely, they are worthy of a voice in their football club.

This is particularly significant given our history. The current Constitution recognises people who were Life Members of the former Parramatta District Rugby League Club as PNRL Life Members, while at the same time excluding all members including Life Members general-meeting rights that other NRL clubs continue to sustain

We can respect modern governance without losing sight of what Life Membership is supposed to represent.

Parra Proud Should Mean Something

Parramatta Leagues Club owns our NRL club.

As a candidate for the Leagues Club Board, I believe that creates a responsibility to maintain a strong connection between the members who elect the Leagues Club Board, the people appointed to govern our football operations, and the Eels Members and supporters who give the football club its identity.

I am not suggesting that a Leagues Club director should interfere with team selections, recruitment decisions or the day-to-day operation of the football department.

Nor am I proposing that we simply dismantle the governance reforms of the past.

I am asking whether, after almost a decade, we can retain the protections those reforms gave us while returning something that was lost along the way — a meaningful democratic connection between Parramatta and its members.

Our Club tells us:

One Club. One Badge. The Badge Connects Us All. Parra Proud.

I agree.

Now I believe our governance should live up to those words.

If the badge connects us all, our members should never be kept at arm’s length from the Club that badge represents.