NZR review
-
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!!
-
i don't want them, they can join Taranaki and Manawatu.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@J77 said in NZR review:
potential mergers
Not PU mergers. New pro teams
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
Then the only consolidation left is NPC with SR...
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@J77 said in NZR review:
potential mergers
Not PU mergers. New pro teams
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
Then the only consolidation left is NPC with SR...
@Windows97 i think he's saying, correct me if im wrong, that some PU will still exit but not have teams representing them in a national comp, so just running the local grass roots and providing players to a "central vikings" type team
-
@Windows97 i think he's saying, correct me if im wrong, that some PU will still exit but not have teams representing them in a national comp, so just running the local grass roots and providing players to a "central vikings" type team
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Windows97 i think he's saying, correct me if im wrong, that some PU will still exit but not have teams representing them in a national comp, so just running the local grass roots and providing players to a "central vikings" type team
Which means the NPC will be consolidated into SR.
Which brings us full circle into the rebuttal in my previous post.
-
if the overall result of the Silver Lake deal is the return of the central vikings then frankly the entire thing will have 100% been worth it
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
if the overall result of the Silver Lake deal is the return of the central vikings then frankly the entire thing will have 100% been worth it
You're an evil man.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@J77 said in NZR review:
potential mergers
Not PU mergers. New pro teams
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
Then the only consolidation left is NPC with SR...
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
-
Basically the report says "consolidate your professional teams (we don't care how)" and take all PU's out of having a say in NZR and replace them with independents and interest groups.
There - I've saved you all having to read 634 pages of text - you can thank me later
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
@Duluth unsure what other unions are like, but I think there are a handful of sub unions within Northland, although tbf we have about a 4 hour drive from the southern most team to the northern most, so probably need a bit more local flavour to run them, although know some could do with guidance.
Reads a bit like another issue with merging entities in another thread...
-
@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?
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
Basically the report says "consolidate your professional teams (we don't care how)" and take all PU's out of having a say in NZR and replace them with independents and interest groups.
There - I've saved you all having to read 634 pages of text - you can thank me later
The report does not say that at all
It's a governance report. It talks in detail about governance and makes a few references to competition structures but doesn't flesh them out as that is not what the report is about
That conversation can't really happen until any governance changes are implemented
-
@Duluth unsure what other unions are like, but I think there are a handful of sub unions within Northland, although tbf we have about a 4 hour drive from the southern most team to the northern most, so probably need a bit more local flavour to run them, although know some could do with guidance.
Reads a bit like another issue with merging entities in another thread...
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
Uunsure what other unions are like, but I think there are a handful of sub unions within Northland, although tbf we have about a 4 hour drive from the southern most team to the northern most, so probably need a bit more local flavour to run them, although know some could do with guidance.
Sure. But they don't need a full board, voting rights at a national level and to duplicate basic admin
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
Uunsure what other unions are like, but I think there are a handful of sub unions within Northland, although tbf we have about a 4 hour drive from the southern most team to the northern most, so probably need a bit more local flavour to run them, although know some could do with guidance.
Sure. But they don't need a full board, voting rights at a national level and to duplicate basic admin
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
Yes because after all it's the admin, appointments, payroll and comms staff of the near amateur heartland unions which is drowning the corporate profitability of NZR as a whole and must be urgently dealt with...
This is almost parody...
This isn't against you or your interpretation BTW (which I think is accurate) however given I work for a corporate I'm well versed in corporate BS and this report is corporate BS.
All care - no responsibility, highlight problems - give vague recommendations open to interpretation (so that it can't come back to you that your recommendations were wrong).
Consolidation I agree with - but needs to be managed very carefully and how much is even possible given SR contracts and such?
Cutting out the PU's in having a say in how NZR is run is just plain wrong - it's the nursey that ID's and develops all the players - you can't cut them out of the decision making.
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?
