NZR review
-
@Kiwiwomble I understand that a few PUs have struggled a bit over the years, hell I was on a PU board in the 90s, and we were always on borderline then. But to say NZ rugby has tanked etcis a bit of a stretch. I know the trendy thing on forums is to make everything be end of the world, but wanna know something it's not. Same as posters suggesting that NPC is to be scrapped, just finding anything negative and using that.
And according to Rapido the game is unwatchable, yet here we are on a rugby based forum, why be on it if you don't watch the game?@Dan54 you may no more than i if you've been involved personally....but looking for the outside, a couple of gone into administration or gone very close and my understanding is their finances are heavily dependant on NZR...a business that cant operate on its own...well...."tanked" might be a bit of an exaggeration...but i dont think a huge one
-
The New Zealand Rugby (NZR) Board has today publicly released a proposal to change the sport’s leadership structure and create generational change for the game.
Board Chair Dame Patsy Reddy has presented the Board’s Governance model to NZR’s voting members, the 26 Provincial Unions and the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board (NZMRB).
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
The New Zealand Rugby (NZR) Board has today publicly released a proposal to change the sport’s leadership structure and create generational change for the game.
Board Chair Dame Patsy Reddy has presented the Board’s Governance model to NZR’s voting members, the 26 Provincial Unions and the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board (NZMRB).
thanks for that.
Reads like a classic consulting document. Basically the words are 'deep knowledge of rugby' but the process screams non-rugby people all the way.
Made me think about who owns NZR. I think it's the PU - all 27 (26?) of them. There's a strong argument for a split between pro and non-pro; leave pro to do what they want with Super, ABs, etc, make a call on NPC one way or another, and then administer most of the game for the benefit of the players and unions.
Professional should be there as the shop window generating funds for the rest of the participants. NPC is literally there to facilitate PU putting teams together and playing each other.
Really not super impressed (pun not intended)
-
@Tim said in NZR review:
Let her go ahead and do it. Would she be a big loss? Although these quota's might be a factor
And this doesn't seem unreasonable. 3 out of 9. Why is this such a big issue
The Herald understands that Reddy, not for the first time, told the provincial unions that if they continue to push alternative proposals that seek to maintain at least three New Zealand Rugby board members with at least two years’ experience on a provincial board, she could not support it and would, therefore, resign from her post.
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Tim said in NZR review:
Let her go ahead and do it. Would she be a big loss? Although these quota's might be a factor
And this doesn't seem unreasonable. 3 out of 9. Why is this such a big issue
The Herald understands that Reddy, not for the first time, told the provincial unions that if they continue to push alternative proposals that seek to maintain at least three New Zealand Rugby board members with at least two years’ experience on a provincial board, she could not support it and would, therefore, resign from her post.
Agree. What is this independence BS? Why would you ever expect Provinces to step away from being on the board of the NZRFU? It’s not like they are the executives running the day to day. It would be like asking your major shareholders not to be on the board.
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
The New Zealand Rugby (NZR) Board has today publicly released a proposal to change the sport’s leadership structure and create generational change for the game.
Board Chair Dame Patsy Reddy has presented the Board’s Governance model to NZR’s voting members, the 26 Provincial Unions and the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board (NZMRB).
thanks for that.
Reads like a classic consulting document. Basically the words are 'deep knowledge of rugby' but the process screams non-rugby people all the way.
Made me think about who owns NZR. I think it's the PU - all 27 (26?) of them. There's a strong argument for a split between pro and non-pro; leave pro to do what they want with Super, ABs, etc, make a call on NPC one way or another, and then administer most of the game for the benefit of the players and unions.
Professional should be there as the shop window generating funds for the rest of the participants. NPC is literally there to facilitate PU putting teams together and playing each other.
Really not super impressed (pun not intended)
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
The New Zealand Rugby (NZR) Board has today publicly released a proposal to change the sport’s leadership structure and create generational change for the game.
Board Chair Dame Patsy Reddy has presented the Board’s Governance model to NZR’s voting members, the 26 Provincial Unions and the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board (NZMRB).
thanks for that.
Reads like a classic consulting document. Basically the words are 'deep knowledge of rugby' but the process screams non-rugby people all the way.
Made me think about who owns NZR. I think it's the PU - all 27 (26?) of them. There's a strong argument for a split between pro and non-pro; leave pro to do what they want with Super, ABs, etc, make a call on NPC one way or another, and then administer most of the game for the benefit of the players and unions.
Professional should be there as the shop window generating funds for the rest of the participants. NPC is literally there to facilitate PU putting teams together and playing each other.
Really not super impressed (pun not intended)
I fully understand employing specialists but you never give up your spot on the board.
What I am hearing now is the desire to have a NRL type Super rugby season - presumably with teams from Japan, America etc and maybe another NZ team - removing our tiered competition structure, and paying the elite rugby players more ( John Kirwan, Jeff Wilson ) At that point the game would truely be over for Provincial rugby. It’s a dangerous game. I am not sure that NZRL is better off now than before the NRL took over the running of their game.
-
Now it seems that everyone is unhappy, the PUs, the players, and even the panel.
Among other groups unhappy with today’s proposal is the panel who put forward last year's recommendations. They are reportedly insulted and hugely disappointed that many of their recommendations haven’t been adopted, to the point that they refuse to publicly support NZR, despite Dame Patsy's requests.
-
Now it seems that everyone is unhappy, the PUs, the players, and even the panel.
Among other groups unhappy with today’s proposal is the panel who put forward last year's recommendations. They are reportedly insulted and hugely disappointed that many of their recommendations haven’t been adopted, to the point that they refuse to publicly support NZR, despite Dame Patsy's requests.
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
Now it seems that everyone is unhappy, the PUs, the players, and even the panel.
Among other groups unhappy with today’s proposal is the panel who put forward last year's recommendations. They are reportedly insulted and hugely disappointed that many of their recommendations haven’t been adopted, to the point that they refuse to publicly support NZR, despite Dame Patsy's requests.
Well if they did support NZR as it stands , it would make their recommendations pointless, as they are the ones who recommend change!. Samr as Nichols suggesting board resigns, he suggested that on tv, because then they would force the changes they want because a new board would be required etc, and he hoped it would be under new system.
-
Reflecting again on this, it feels like there's a fundamental mismatch of objectives. The PU have been sticking their fingers into the professional game, and honestly I don't think they are right to do so. But the board you need to run a pro comp is not the board you need to foster the growth of the game across the amateur. This feels like the pro/amateur split really daylighting.
The control from NZR philosophically is horrific. They won't let franchises do too much, control everything, but don't have a separate board or operational arm actually making good decisions. Super has gone backwards since it was created.
I think I'm coming around to splitting; any downsides I am missing?
-
The problem with splitting and making the NPC purely amatuer is that the quaility of it - on and off the field will decrease noticably.
Players wont get paid and will go elsewhese, admin, coach's etc wont get paid and will go elsewhere also.
The quality of rugby will decrease across the board, across all aspects.
It's sad we can't make the current model work as it's a really good pathway for players and admin, coach's alike to get to the top level.
But as I say - we can't make enough money to make it work and have to cut the NPC. The beast is slowly dying.
-
The Players Association has been good throughout this
NZR board agreeing to one thing and then backing away is no surprise. They are spineless
Certain PU's fighting in personal self interest is no surprise either. I would note that there's been comments that a few PU's are pretending to speak on behalf of all PU's. However there are PU's who fully support the recommendations
Here's a short Rob Nichol interview from this morning:
-
The Players Association has been good throughout this
NZR board agreeing to one thing and then backing away is no surprise. They are spineless
Certain PU's fighting in personal self interest is no surprise either. I would note that there's been comments that a few PU's are pretending to speak on behalf of all PU's. However there are PU's who fully support the recommendations
Here's a short Rob Nichol interview from this morning:
@Duluth interesting.. so very high level summary of audio
Point 1: some (not all unions ) holding out
Point 2: board members who want to ignore the part of the reform themselves and serve out their term as opposed to reapply
Wonder if it is possible to allow an ex (not current) PU board member to temporarily consult on the set up, thus nullifying PU hold out concerns that an independent board member won't be able to understand the nuances of PU level activity. Seems plausible to fix point one, not perfect but gets things moving.
To fix point 2, perhaps if point 1 resolved, they can not longer point fingers and just have to get on with it. This one not so easy to resolve unless they're told this is it
-
The Players Association has been good throughout this
NZR board agreeing to one thing and then backing away is no surprise. They are spineless
Certain PU's fighting in personal self interest is no surprise either. I would note that there's been comments that a few PU's are pretending to speak on behalf of all PU's. However there are PU's who fully support the recommendations
Here's a short Rob Nichol interview from this morning:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
The Players Association has been good throughout this
NZR board agreeing to one thing and then backing away is no surprise. They are spineless
Certain PU's fighting in personal self interest is no surprise either. I would note that there's been comments that a few PU's are pretending to speak on behalf of all PU's. However there are PU's who fully support the recommendations
Here's a short Rob Nichol interview from this morning:
Is Rob being a bit naive
This 'good appointment panel' will lead to great times. It doesn't always happen this way. I still think 3 board member is not only unreasonable but maybe also desirable
Dame Patsy as Chair might not the best person to lead this process
-
I think the concern of the PUs is that the balance will go too far in the other direction. We don't want to board full of accountants and career directors either. "Deep knowledge of the game" is very subjective.
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I think the concern of the PUs is that the balance will go too far in the other direction. We don't want to board full of accountants and career directors either. "Deep knowledge of the game" is very subjective.
It's also a bit of a check (and insulting) to ask the PUs to give up control in this way. It's like saying they are too stupid to make good decision and so let a wise (diverse and all that entails) group make the decision instead
But the wise (diverse) group might in fact be incompetent or corrupt. What then?
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350229260/counties-manukau-clubs-remove-junior-rugby-fees-revive-game
:thumbs_up:
This is what the Silverlake money that was allocated to the provinces should be used for, rather than increasing salary caps or upgrading 14 different stadiums for NPC games.
-
I really not arguing one way or other on board make up, can see both sides. I know the PUs want a say rightly, but to say we need reps who have experience on boards and so hopefully experience on ground running community game, is perhaps like saying big companies that own grocery chains etc should have people on their board that have managed store or worked on tills etc. Really there are completely different needs to all different jobs etc.
I will give example one of best rugby club admins I saw I think was when club I was involved in in Aus got a committee (who basically decided how club spent money etc etc) was made up of jokers who were all businessmen (Lawyer was Pres, there were 2 accountants, mangers of businesses etc) and had nothing to do with senior or junior committees or teams etc. Were incredibly efficient, and while I didn't agree with every decision, they did nothing but good for club, seemed to be removed from petty things that go on in club. We had a senior committee and junior club committees below them, I was on senior committee and just had to say to myself how bloody good it was removing admin from actual playing/team probs.
I have been on a few rugby committees , PU, Jabs etc etc in my life , but when I stop and think that was probably best system I saw. -
I really not arguing one way or other on board make up, can see both sides. I know the PUs want a say rightly, but to say we need reps who have experience on boards and so hopefully experience on ground running community game, is perhaps like saying big companies that own grocery chains etc should have people on their board that have managed store or worked on tills etc. Really there are completely different needs to all different jobs etc.
I will give example one of best rugby club admins I saw I think was when club I was involved in in Aus got a committee (who basically decided how club spent money etc etc) was made up of jokers who were all businessmen (Lawyer was Pres, there were 2 accountants, mangers of businesses etc) and had nothing to do with senior or junior committees or teams etc. Were incredibly efficient, and while I didn't agree with every decision, they did nothing but good for club, seemed to be removed from petty things that go on in club. We had a senior committee and junior club committees below them, I was on senior committee and just had to say to myself how bloody good it was removing admin from actual playing/team probs.
I have been on a few rugby committees , PU, Jabs etc etc in my life , but when I stop and think that was probably best system I saw.@Dan54 said in NZR review:
I really not arguing one way or other on board make up, can see both sides. I know the PUs want a say rightly, but to say we need reps who have experience on boards and so hopefully experience on ground running community game,
I think they are only asking for 3 out of 9 board positions.
And surely there are some people involved at this level who have good accounting or business skills etc.
I really don't see what the issue is. This year it all seems to be, with super rugby, heading in the right direction. With the current board
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
I really not arguing one way or other on board make up, can see both sides. I know the PUs want a say rightly, but to say we need reps who have experience on boards and so hopefully experience on ground running community game,
I think they are only asking for 3 out of 9 board positions.
And surely there are some people involved at this level who have good accounting or business skills etc.
I really don't see what the issue is. This year it all seems to be, with super rugby, heading in the right direction. With the current board
@Winger yep as I said I not arguing one way or other, just it's not clear cut and can see both sides. It's not about accountants etc as such, but the right skills to manage what needs to be managed, I haven't really seen how other sports run their top bodies.
-
@Winger yep as I said I not arguing one way or other, just it's not clear cut and can see both sides. It's not about accountants etc as such, but the right skills to manage what needs to be managed, I haven't really seen how other sports run their top bodies.
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@Winger yep as I said I not arguing one way or other, just it's not clear cut and can see both sides. It's not about accountants etc as such, but the right skills to manage what needs to be managed, I haven't really seen how other sports run their top bodies.
Corruptly?
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
The New Zealand Rugby (NZR) Board has today publicly released a proposal to change the sport’s leadership structure and create generational change for the game.
Board Chair Dame Patsy Reddy has presented the Board’s Governance model to NZR’s voting members, the 26 Provincial Unions and the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board (NZMRB).
thanks for that.
Reads like a classic consulting document. Basically the words are 'deep knowledge of rugby' but the process screams non-rugby people all the way.
Made me think about who owns NZR. I think it's the PU - all 27 (26?) of them. There's a strong argument for a split between pro and non-pro; leave pro to do what they want with Super, ABs, etc, make a call on NPC one way or another, and then administer most of the game for the benefit of the players and unions.
Professional should be there as the shop window generating funds for the rest of the participants. NPC is literally there to facilitate PU putting teams together and playing each other.
Really not super impressed (pun not intended)
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Made me think about who owns NZR
I think this is important. From my understanding of the review there was no place for anyone representing the owners of the game.
