NZR review
-
Staff numbers at NZRFU headquarters could looked at given some of them are probably doing a lot of the same work as the provincial unions. It would not be surprising if a lot of the work getting done in the Heartland Championship Unions is being done by what are essentially rugby enthusiastic "volunteers" on a shoestring budget anyway.
-
Can't see the smaller heartland unions being much different to my local union. And that is 100% local volunteers (mainly guys already helping to keep clubs running) shit even I was the treasurer one year.
Not a lot of help from the state anywaySo the cost aspect will 100% be aimed at the bigger "provinces"
-
I have got half way through the report and all the alarm bells are ringing. It reads like a takeover of rugby by its executives. To me paid executives provide professional expertise and the board are the owners or their nominated representatives. In this case from player to club to provincial unions, the PUs are the games nominated representatives. Instead they want “independent” board members. Democracy can be messy but the PUs are NZ rugby not privately run SR boards and big secondary schools. The report reads like a hit job on PUs. I hope it gets tossed.
-
I have got half way through the report and all the alarm bells are ringing. It reads like a takeover of rugby by its executives. To me paid executives provide professional expertise and the board are the owners or their nominated representatives. In this case from player to club to provincial unions, the PUs are the games nominated representatives. Instead they want “independent” board members. Democracy can be messy but the PUs are NZ rugby not privately run SR boards and big secondary schools. The report reads like a hit job on PUs. I hope it gets tossed.
@kev said in NZR review:
I have got half way through the report and all the alarm bells are ringing. It reads like a takeover of rugby by its executives. To me paid executives provide professional expertise and the board are the owners or their nominated representatives. In this case from player to club to provincial unions, the PUs are the games nominated representatives. Instead they want “independent” board members. Democracy can be messy but the PUs are NZ rugby not privately run SR boards and big secondary schools. The report reads like a hit job on PUs. I hope it gets tossed.
I think it sounded surprisingly realistic as they understand that there are professional parts of the game and amateur parts of the game. I think that they want professionals for the professional parts and amateurs for the amateur parts.
-
@kev said in NZR review:
I have got half way through the report and all the alarm bells are ringing. It reads like a takeover of rugby by its executives. To me paid executives provide professional expertise and the board are the owners or their nominated representatives. In this case from player to club to provincial unions, the PUs are the games nominated representatives. Instead they want “independent” board members. Democracy can be messy but the PUs are NZ rugby not privately run SR boards and big secondary schools. The report reads like a hit job on PUs. I hope it gets tossed.
I think it sounded surprisingly realistic as they understand that there are professional parts of the game and amateur parts of the game. I think that they want professionals for the professional parts and amateurs for the amateur parts.
-
@gt12 we have that already. What they want is “independent directors” to take over governance.
-
Can't see the smaller heartland unions being much different to my local union. And that is 100% local volunteers (mainly guys already helping to keep clubs running) shit even I was the treasurer one year.
Not a lot of help from the state anywaySo the cost aspect will 100% be aimed at the bigger "provinces"
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
Can't see the smaller heartland unions being much different to my local union. And that is 100% local volunteers (mainly guys already helping to keep clubs running) shit even I was the treasurer one year.
Not a lot of help from the state anywaySo the cost aspect will 100% be aimed at the bigger "provinces"
Even Heartland unions have a CEO and a Director of rugby etc, so no not 100% volunteers as it basically used to be when I was on a provincial union board.
-
While I'm sure the report is blisteringly effective form an economics point of view I'm not sure it's the right thing to do.
Basically it removes the provinces completely from saying how NZR is run - considering all the players come from the provinces it would seem somewhat unwise for you to completely neglect your nursery in the saying how the game is run.
If we look at the proposed make-up of the board again the provinces have been removed and they've been replaced entirely by interest groups. These interest group's have no way of generating players themselves, again they will get them all from clubs and provinces - that again will have no say in how the game is run.
If the NPC is canned then we have rough math some 420 players being put out of a job overnight. And what will they do? Vast majority will probably say "Fuck you" and move overseas.
The report seems hell-bent on turing NZ rugby into the haves (professionals) and the have nots (unprofessional) and nary shall those cursed amateur's interfere with the cash generating machine the professionals are...
Any system set-up to produce the have and the have not's never ends well.
Yes NZR needs to make some tough decisions, I don't think a recommendation to leave the clubs and provinces behind is quite the way to go however.
-
I think where this will end up is a fully professional NPC of 10 teams. There will be some merging, maybe some different names and boundries, but we will end up where we want to be.
The Super franchises will turn into clubs and we'll have a structure that we can afford and sustain.
If we continue where the way we are we'll go broke.
-
I think where this will end up is a fully professional NPC of 10 teams. There will be some merging, maybe some different names and boundries, but we will end up where we want to be.
The Super franchises will turn into clubs and we'll have a structure that we can afford and sustain.
If we continue where the way we are we'll go broke.
@Kirwan I certainly hope that's the case, there needs to still be a link from Club - province - NPC/Super - AB's.
Not just club (junior rugby) - school - NPC/Super - AB's.
The system needs to ensure that all rugby talent has a pathway to higher honors/AB's - not just via the schools.
-
I think where this will end up is a fully professional NPC of 10 teams. There will be some merging, maybe some different names and boundries, but we will end up where we want to be.
The Super franchises will turn into clubs and we'll have a structure that we can afford and sustain.
If we continue where the way we are we'll go broke.
@Kirwan be interesting if the 10 team merger concept came to fruition. What sort ideas would people have of potential mergers?
I know personally I'd rather go to the bottom of the heartland and compete for the wooden spoon each year than merge with Harbour.
Would we be bringing back pre 1985 Auckland?
-
I think where this will end up is a fully professional NPC of 10 teams. There will be some merging, maybe some different names and boundries, but we will end up where we want to be.
The Super franchises will turn into clubs and we'll have a structure that we can afford and sustain.
If we continue where the way we are we'll go broke.
@Kirwan you're probably right....but 10 team npc is too similar to the super rugby in lots of ways from me....a Otago and southland merged NPC for example...is just the highlanders with a different logo
-
While I'm sure the report is blisteringly effective form an economics point of view I'm not sure it's the right thing to do.
Basically it removes the provinces completely from saying how NZR is run - considering all the players come from the provinces it would seem somewhat unwise for you to completely neglect your nursery in the saying how the game is run.
If we look at the proposed make-up of the board again the provinces have been removed and they've been replaced entirely by interest groups. These interest group's have no way of generating players themselves, again they will get them all from clubs and provinces - that again will have no say in how the game is run.
If the NPC is canned then we have rough math some 420 players being put out of a job overnight. And what will they do? Vast majority will probably say "Fuck you" and move overseas.
The report seems hell-bent on turing NZ rugby into the haves (professionals) and the have nots (unprofessional) and nary shall those cursed amateur's interfere with the cash generating machine the professionals are...
Any system set-up to produce the have and the have not's never ends well.
Yes NZR needs to make some tough decisions, I don't think a recommendation to leave the clubs and provinces behind is quite the way to go however.
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
If the NPC is canned then we have rough math some 420 players being put out of a job overnight. And what will they do? Vast majority will probably say "Fuck you" and move overseas.
First point worth making is that this report doesn't talk about new competition structures
It hints about consolidation and the PU's concentrating on the amateur side of the game
But lets do some rough numbers
NPC - lets pretend the squads are 36 and there's no injuries: 504 players
SR - Lets use 36 again (in reality it's slightly higher) and ignore MP: 180 playersRemove the 33 AB's and there are 147 SR players in NPC.
NPC only players 357
Has anyone suggested an amateur NPC with zero changes to Pro rugby? That's not in the report. They mention a 'consolidation' of NPC and SR and removal of duplication
There was a report ~3 years ago that suggested NZ could handle 8-10 and that the number I keep using (again ignoring MP)
If you increase the pro teams by 3: 108 more pro players
If you increase the pro teams by 5: 180 more pro playersSo the number of NPC only part timers affected is between 177 and 249.
They would lose their token money for 3 months of work. However that would be offset by a large increase in the full time professionals.
The fringe SR players that we lose every year would have more reason to stay. A decent salary and more opportunities for game time. More chances to judge themselves/compete against current All Blacks. NZ would have a wider base of pros to pick from
Yes before the nit picking, 36 is not the real number. I'm only using the numbers as very broad approximations
-
@Kirwan be interesting if the 10 team merger concept came to fruition. What sort ideas would people have of potential mergers?
I know personally I'd rather go to the bottom of the heartland and compete for the wooden spoon each year than merge with Harbour.
Would we be bringing back pre 1985 Auckland?
-
26 PUs in a country of 5 million is ludicrous, especially when you consider removing Auckland and Canterbury, which makes it more like 24 PUs to roughly 3.5m...
I don't quite know how you'd execute it, but for example, North Otago should be part of the ORFU, not a separate entity.
On a wider note, this is very similar to issue English Cricket faces with the Hundred competition. They have way too many professional counties, we have too many NPC sides.
Here is my Idea:
Add Two More Pro Teams from NZ to SR. Both would be based in the North Island, probably Bay of Plenty/Taranaki and Hawke's Bay/Manawatu?- This would mean contracting 76 more SR players, taking the to 266.
- Below this, teams would then contract another 7 players + having an unlimited amount of U20s on development contracts - would be up to each team to decide how they want to approach that. That would give 308 contracted professional players + the development guys... I'd guess roughly 340 contracted players.
The season can't be much longer than it already is unless they fix the calendar to run at a different time, so you can work out a rough format for yourself, ending at the end of June.
At the same time, club rugby would progress as normal, and there would be no issue with club players being taken out of teams for finals + the extended squads would mean players could be released more regularly, and hopefully more mid level players are sticking around for SR and not going to MLR.
Then the NPC. My idea would be as @Duluth suggests, an amateur/semi pro format, where pay is minimal/non-existant. You could boost the contracts of Super Rugby players to get around this for sure.
Even if you kept all 26 PUs, I'd propose more of a World Cup style format. Teams would choose to enter Tier 1 or Tier 2.
It would be played in a centralised location, with midweek games, lasting no more than 25 days. If you did it like this, players wouldn't need to be truly contracted, and all going well, players could actually play for their home provinces... e.g Jamie Booth wouldn't go to North Harbour, he'd stay proud and represent Manawatu, as squads would be picked after SR and the All Blacks have been decided.
I could elaborate more if anyone has any questions...
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@J77 said in NZR review:
potential mergers
Not PU mergers. New pro teams
So what's our thoughts, just personally, on what that may look like?
-
i think the only fair thing to do
is kick Hawkes Bay and Waikato out of the comp
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
i think the only fair thing to do
is kick Hawkes Bay and Waikato out of the comp
Good call - both can be amalgamated into the BOP giving the desperately needed consolidation this report recommends!!
