Is Your Club Project Ready for Board Approval? A 12-Point Test

A polished concept is not the same thing as a board-ready project.

When a club board votes on a refurbishment or redevelopment, it is not simply approving a design. It is deciding whether the club can afford the full commitment, keep operating through the works, appoint the right team and govern the risks that follow.

That decision needs more than enthusiasm and a headline construction figure. It needs an evidence pack that tells directors what is known, what is still assumed, who owns each unresolved issue and what must happen before the next commitment is made.

This 12-point test is a practical way to pressure-test that pack. It is not a legal or financial compliance test, and it does not replace advice specific to the club. It helps a board see whether the project is ready for a decision—or whether important questions are being carried forward as assumptions.

Why project readiness is a current governance issue

The Registered Clubs Regulation 2025 took effect on 1 September 2025. ClubsNSW says its current Governance Code is being updated to reflect that regulation and other amendments. The existing Club Governance Code of Practice covers procurement, major capital works and board operations, but legislation and regulation prevail where there is any inconsistency.

Recent enforcement activity also makes the practical lesson clear. In July 2026, Liquor & Gaming NSW reported an action involving building-work invoices connected to a club official where tenders or quotes had not been provided to the board for approval. The point is not to turn every project into a compliance exercise. It is to make conflicts, procurement decisions and approval pathways visible before money is committed.

Good governance is not a thicker board paper. It is a clearer decision.

AI-generated editorial visualisation; not a photograph of a specific club or project.

How to use the 12-point test

Score each point before the board meeting:

2 — Documented: the answer is current, supported by evidence and included in the decision pack.
1 — In progress: the answer is partly known, but evidence, ownership or verification is incomplete.
0 — Unanswered: the issue is unclear, unowned or based on an assumption that has not been tested.

The score is a prompt, not an approval formula. A single zero on funding, safety, approvals or procurement may matter more than a high total elsewhere. For every incomplete item, record the owner, the evidence required, the due date and whether it is a condition of the current decision or a gate for the next one.

1. Is the decision itself clear?

The board paper should state exactly what directors are being asked to approve.

Is it approval to investigate an option, proceed to concept design, lodge an application, start a tender, appoint a contractor or enter a construction contract? These are different commitments with different risk profiles.

If the resolution is vague, the club can leave the meeting with different interpretations of what was authorised.

2. Is there a clear strategic and member case?

The project should solve a defined club problem or create a defined member and business outcome.

That may be an ageing asset, an operational bottleneck, insufficient dining capacity, poor accessibility, a maintenance burden or a need to renew the member experience. The board should be able to explain why this project, why this scope and why now.

A design preference is not yet a business case.

3. Is the scope defined at the right level?

Directors need to know what is included, what is excluded and how mature the design is.

An early concept can support an early decision, but it should not be presented with the certainty of tender documentation. The decision pack should identify the current design stage, unresolved brief items, assumptions, interfaces with existing facilities and the process for controlling changes.

4. Does the board have a total project budget?

The builder's price is only one part of the commitment.

The board needs a total project budget that addresses design and consultant fees, approvals, surveys and investigations, authority costs, furniture and equipment, technology, temporary works, escalation, contingency, finance costs, commissioning, relocation and opening requirements where relevant.

The cost plan should also say who prepared it, what information it is based on, when it was reviewed and what remains outside it.

5. Is funding resilient under a downside case?

Funding should be tested against more than the expected case.

What happens if the programme takes longer, trade is disrupted more than planned, interest costs change or the tender comes back above the cost plan? The board should see the funding source, conditions, cash-flow timing, headroom and the decisions available if the downside case begins to emerge.

The question is not only “Can we fund the approved amount?” It is “Can the club remain in control if the assumptions move?”

AI-generated editorial visualisation; not a photograph of a specific club or project.

6. Is the approvals and property pathway understood?

Planning, certification, title, access, heritage, services and authority requirements can reshape the project.

The board pack should identify the approvals pathway, current status, critical dependencies, responsible adviser and issues that could change scope, programme or cost. Any reliance on third-party access, easements, licences, landlord approval or authority upgrades should be visible.

An approvals list without owners and dates is not yet a pathway.

7. Can the club operate safely through the works?

For a live club, staging is part of the business case—not a construction detail to solve later.

The board should understand temporary access, fire egress, amenities, noise and dust controls, member circulation, staff areas, deliveries, gaming and hospitality interfaces, shutdown windows and the expected impact on revenue and member experience.

The design, cost plan and programme should all describe the same staging strategy.

AI-generated editorial visualisation; not a photograph of a specific club or project.

8. Is the procurement process defensible?

The board should know what is being procured, how the market will be approached and how submissions will be evaluated.

That includes consultant appointments as well as the builder. Selection criteria should consider capability, methodology, relevant experience, team, programme, exclusions and commercial risk—not price alone. Conflicts of interest and declarations should be addressed before the evaluation begins, with a clear record of the recommendation and decision.

9. Does the proposed contract match the project?

Contract choice changes who carries design, cost, programme and interface risk.

Before entering a contract, the board should understand the delivery model, design responsibility, latent-condition treatment, security, insurance, delay provisions, variation process, payment assessment, handover obligations and any departures from the proposed terms.

The contract should reflect the project the club is actually delivering, including live operations and staged access.

10. Are governance and decision rights documented?

The project needs a working line between the board, management, the project steering group and the consultant team.

The board pack should show delegations, variation thresholds, reporting frequency, escalation triggers, decision owners and how conflicts or unresolved recommendations are handled. Directors should know which decisions remain with the board and which can be made within an approved mandate.

Clear delegation speeds up a project. Ambiguous delegation creates delay and retrospective approval.

11. Are risk and contingency connected?

A risk register should change decisions, not sit as an appendix.

The board should see the most material risks, their potential cost and programme effect, the mitigation, the owner and the trigger that would require escalation. Contingency should be linked to uncertainty and governed separately from discretionary scope additions.

If contingency is simply the difference between the budget and the current estimate, it is not yet a risk strategy.

12. Is the club ready to deliver, open and close the project?

Project readiness includes the people and systems needed after approval.

Does the club have sufficient internal capacity? Are the architect, quantity surveyor, client-side project manager and specialist advisers appointed at the right stage? Is there a plan for commissioning, staff training, licences, defects, warranties, asset information, reopening and post-project review?

Construction completion and operational readiness are related, but they are not the same milestone.

Interpreting the result

20–24: the evidence base is strong. Confirm any conditions, delegations and next-stage gates in the resolution.
13–19: the project may be suitable for a limited or conditional decision, but the gaps need named owners, evidence and dates.
0–12: the brief is not yet mature enough for an irreversible commitment. Resolve the critical items before asking the board to carry the uncertainty.

Whatever the total, look first at the weakest answer. Funding, procurement, approvals, staging or decision authority can each undermine an otherwise well-developed project.

Five questions for the next board meeting

What exactly are we approving today—and what are we not approving?
Which assumption would cause the greatest damage if it proves wrong?
Where is that assumption tested in the board pack?
Who is independently advising the club on cost, programme, procurement and risk?
What must be true before the next commitment is made?

UpScale applies this discipline in practice across design coordination, certification, tender, procurement and construction-phase representation. Our current Granville Diggers engagement shows why continuity between those stages matters: decisions made during final design flow directly into procurement and delivery.

For a deeper governance checklist, download 15 Questions Every Director Should Ask Before Approving a Project. If your club is planning or already delivering a refurbishment valued at A$2 million or more within 60 km of Sydney CBD, book a free 30-minute project discussion with Noel to identify the next decision your board needs to make.

Reviewed 9 August 2026. This article is general project-governance information, not legal, financial or regulatory advice. Confirm current obligations and obtain advice appropriate to your club and project.