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.
@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.
-
@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.
@Winger whats idiotic about it?
hes just saying they paid for some advice...and now they have to implement the advice
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
They say that they believe the leadership is too focused on the elite level of the game
They go hand in hand, but if you don't foster the grassroots, the other will naturally weaken.
more effort into getting people involved in local/club/npc would go a long way
-
@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.
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
I've seen all sorts from org design consultants - some exceptional work, some horrific. You have to test it, not just roll over and implement it.
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
I've seen all sorts from org design consultants - some exceptional work, some horrific. You have to test it, not just roll over and implement it.
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
I've seen all sorts from org design consultants - some exceptional work, some horrific. You have to test it, not just roll over and implement it.
I'm sure they've done their due diligence having received the report. Even if there are shit consultants (and there are), that doesn't support @Winger's default denunciation of anyone with recognised expertise.
This doesn't look like a organisational refresh for the sake of one. It's clear that the structure of rugby in New Zealand requires rethinking and a refresh to account for the fact what worked pre-professionalism is not fit for purpose now. No amount of hand wringing or misty eyed recollection of bygone eras counters that stark realism.
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
I've seen all sorts from org design consultants - some exceptional work, some horrific. You have to test it, not just roll over and implement it.
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
I've seen all sorts from org design consultants - some exceptional work, some horrific. You have to test it, not just roll over and implement it.
there arent too many ways to FULLY test these things though other than giving it a go and closely evaluating
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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.
Would you rather implement recommendations from people with no demonstrated knowledge or competence?
I've seen all sorts from org design consultants - some exceptional work, some horrific. You have to test it, not just roll over and implement it.
I'm sure they've done their due diligence having received the report. Even if there are shit consultants (and there are), that doesn't support @Winger's default denunciation of anyone with recognised expertise.
This doesn't look like a organisational refresh for the sake of one. It's clear that the structure of rugby in New Zealand requires rethinking and a refresh to account for the fact what worked pre-professionalism is not fit for purpose now. No amount of hand wringing or misty eyed recollection of bygone eras counters that stark realism.
@antipodean said in NZR review:
I'm sure they've done their due diligence having received the report. Even if there are shit consultants (and there are), that doesn't support @Winger's default denunciation of anyone with recognized expertise.
The West has been infected by a mind virus. Maybe due to religion (where it likely started). Where we have been collectively brainwashed to not think for ourselves. And instead, just trust the often bought and paid for (so-called) experts. Whether it's a religious leader or a science expert. Or a hired NZR 'expert'.
And I'm always cautious of anyone who advises to just trust the expert. It suggests their case is not very strong. Also it insulting to anyone who has a different viewpoint.
