NZR review
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing :man_shrugging:
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing :man_shrugging:
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
Except your version of less staff seems to be telling Mrs Miggins that her sausage rolls are not required at NORU anymore and someone from ORU will deliver subway instead...
Honestly to think that driving cost out of the heartland unions is going to be the transformation of NZR is ridiculous.
All the paid roles at the now sub unions will have to be culled in order for this to work.
However even to operate as a sub union some paid roles will still have to exist i.e. CEO, director, you're not going to cull a great amount of roles down from what currently exists.
Or will we simply expect people at the sub unions to do it for free??
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing :man_shrugging:
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
Except your version of less staff seems to be telling Mrs Miggins that her sausage rolls are not required at NORU anymore and someone from ORU will deliver subway instead...
Honestly to think that driving cost out of the heartland unions is going to be the transformation of NZR is ridiculous.
All the paid roles at the now sub unions will have to be culled in order for this to work.
However even to operate as a sub union some paid roles will still have to exist i.e. CEO, director, you're not going to cull a great amount of roles down from what currently exists.
Or will we simply expect people at the sub unions to do it for free??
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing :man_shrugging:
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
Except your version of less staff seems to be telling Mrs Miggins that her sausage rolls are not required at NORU anymore and someone from ORU will deliver subway instead...
Honestly to think that driving cost out of the heartland unions is going to be the transformation of NZR is ridiculous.
All the paid roles at the now sub unions will have to be culled in order for this to work.
However even to operate as a sub union some paid roles will still have to exist i.e. CEO, director, you're not going to cull a great amount of roles down from what currently exists.
Or will be simply expect people at the sub unions to do it for free??
I'm not just culling sub-unions. These are wannabe pro organisations who employee way too many people. If you really want the focus to be on the community, you'd have fewer paid positions and more volunteers/people on wages rather than salary.
If the NPC wasn't professional, and you left that to Super Rugby, you could get rid of so much wasted money. Like why does Otago need a High Performance Coach? If you have any chance of making it pro in NZ (Super Rugby) you'd be involved with the Highlanders U20s.
-
Building out on my previous point, imagine if you took the professional element out of the NPC, and made it like a three-week tournament played at a different location each year, with players going back to play for their local team.
Imagine if say, Counties hosted the 2024 Tier One NPC, and they won it in front of their own fans with a bunch of local players. Focus it in properly, make it a bit of a festival.
Say Tier One has 12 teams enter, you could have three pools of four, play Wednesday, Saturday, Tuesday.
With finals to follow: Saturday, Wednesday and Sunday. Teams would play off right until the end, so the bottom four teams could say play a round-robin for 9th-12th placings.More of the classic junior style rep tournaments, which kids enjoyed when they were younger. Imagine the influx of income for some of the local businesses, with squads of 30 + I'd say really strip it back, a Head Coach, a Manager, Two Assistants and a Physio.
Could you offer some kind of pay? Perhaps a little bit where necessary, but we are talking no more than 1k a week. Sponsors money could be put to better use for paying the accommodation, I really think the model could work. Would it perhaps cut out some of your older players? Possibly, but if that is the price you have to pay for financial sustainability, so be it.
-
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
-
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
I think that is quite likely if the provinces become fully amateur. A West Auckland sub union with it's own rep team etc. Also, maybe places like the Far North would rather have a team than compete with Whangarei based players in a Northland side?
That sort of thing might be an improvement for club/community level.
-
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
-
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
I think that is quite likely if the provinces become fully amateur. A West Auckland sub union with it's own rep team etc. Also, maybe places like the Far North would rather have a team than compete with Whangarei based players in a Northland side?
That sort of thing might be an improvement for club/community level.
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
I think that is quite likely if the provinces become fully amateur. A West Auckland sub union with it's own rep team etc. Also, maybe places like the Far North would rather have a team than compete with Whangarei based players in a Northland side?
That sort of thing might be an improvement for club/community level.
That was actually mooted several years back by a radical Mangonui sub union member.. terrible idea in my humble opinion. North Zone rugby in Northland isnt particularly strong currently and wouldnt compete. We do get players good enough for Northland teams but the majority head to bigger clubs futher down the line. Could only really do concepts like that in city unions.. Auckland West and East. Wellington City, Hutt Valley/Western Bays etc etc..
-
@mikedogz Auckland split up at u18 and below I believe.
The Auckland U18 women are split as Central/West and South/East.
-
@Tim said in NZR review:
So the Players Association and the NZR board have accepted the findings (and contrary to some coverage the NZR board was also heavily criticised)
Now things will get nasty as the administrators of Provincial Unions will not cede power without a fight. 'For the good of the game' of course.
-
@Tim I found this bit interesting:
They say that they believe the leadership is too focused on the elite level of the game, while others told the Herald that they were concerned by the damaged relationship between NZR and Rugby Australia and that whatever governance change is agreed, they expect the board to have better processes and ability to monitor and judge the performance of senior staff.
Surely they've read the review and have undertaken some introspection as a result? I'd also presume they've taken a good look at McLennan and weighed up who was majorly responsible for a fractious Trans- Ta$man relationship.
-
Quite impressed by Rob Nichol here.
“Just to be very clear, some of the most crucial aspects of the recommendations are that we end up with an independent board,” Nichol said. “To get an independent board, you need a robust and independent appointments panel to make those appointments. “And so the moment you change the makeup of that appointments panel to be made up of stakeholders, then you're compromising the independence of the process by which the board is getting elected.“ “The game is owned by the people of New Zealand,” Nichol said. “We owe it to the country and we owe it to the New Zealanders to get this right. “The experts have told us what right looks like, so it's really just about getting on and implementing those recommendations.” -
@Tim I found this bit interesting:
They say that they believe the leadership is too focused on the elite level of the game, while others told the Herald that they were concerned by the damaged relationship between NZR and Rugby Australia and that whatever governance change is agreed, they expect the board to have better processes and ability to monitor and judge the performance of senior staff.
Surely they've read the review and have undertaken some introspection as a result? I'd also presume they've taken a good look at McLennan and weighed up who was majorly responsible for a fractious Trans- Ta$man relationship.
@antipodean said in NZR review:
They say that they believe the leadership is too focused on the elite level of the game
That's the crux of the problem right...bit of a chicken egg scenario.
Without our elite game, we don't get the $$$ to keep the grassroots strong, but on the other side, we absolutely need strong grassroots to continue to grow players to become elite...
They go hand in hand, but if you don't foster the grassroots, the other will naturally weaken.
Obviously another talking point lately is selection of off shore players, this will just speed the process of our grassroots being weaker.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
Hopefully Robinson follows Hamish out the door, another bullshit talking toss pot
Gotta be honest don't mind Robertson, generally as a CEO he does as board wants which is exactly his job. He cops shit for making statements about NPC etc, but they aren't his opinion, but the board etc anyway, and get changed by posters etc on forums who perhaps read what they want. Not saying he is bee knees or anything, just he doesn't in my opinion seem to make bad decisions etc?
And taking inti account that I don't know exactly what he does in his role, and there maybe some on here who are quite a bit more knowlegdeable than me. -
Quite impressed by Rob Nichol here.
“Just to be very clear, some of the most crucial aspects of the recommendations are that we end up with an independent board,” Nichol said. “To get an independent board, you need a robust and independent appointments panel to make those appointments. “And so the moment you change the makeup of that appointments panel to be made up of stakeholders, then you're compromising the independence of the process by which the board is getting elected.“ “The game is owned by the people of New Zealand,” Nichol said. “We owe it to the country and we owe it to the New Zealanders to get this right. “The experts have told us what right looks like, so it's really just about getting on and implementing those recommendations.”@KiwiMurph No Board is independent and expertise is subjective. The bias of the independent Board will be determined by its makeup. If I was the Provincial Unions I would be all over this as well. This is power battle between interest groups.
-
Quite impressed by Rob Nichol here.
“Just to be very clear, some of the most crucial aspects of the recommendations are that we end up with an independent board,” Nichol said. “To get an independent board, you need a robust and independent appointments panel to make those appointments. “And so the moment you change the makeup of that appointments panel to be made up of stakeholders, then you're compromising the independence of the process by which the board is getting elected.“ “The game is owned by the people of New Zealand,” Nichol said. “We owe it to the country and we owe it to the New Zealanders to get this right. “The experts have told us what right looks like, so it's really just about getting on and implementing those recommendations.”@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
“The experts have told us what right looks like, so it's really just about getting on and implementing those recommendations.”
What an idiotic comment by someone who should have more sense.
