NZR review
-
Auckland and Canterbury aren't happy with the lack of promotion of the NPC and some previous damaging public comments by NZR, which is a fair criticism. NZR have pointed the finger back at the big three PUs about participation numbers.
This doesn't appear to be behind a paywall.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/sport/350290767/heavyweight-provincial-unions-opposed-nz-rugby-changes
-
"We have more than 34 'Rugby' Boards, 350 Board Members (more Board members than our full-time professional player base)"
@Duluth said in NZR review:
"We have more than 34 'Rugby' Boards, 350 Board Members (more Board members than our full-time professional player base)"
are those board members all full time?
-
If the Pilkington report is voted in indications are the NPC will then become mainly a amateur competition,Which probably it has to happen in the long run.Not enough money to sustain all these teams.
It is going to be really hard to implement the Pilkington recommendations the Provincial unions will not want to relinquish the NPC as a professional competition.
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition reads of the Cavaliers all over again a complete mess. -
It seems there is a fair bit of talking by stealth around what the future of the different competitions will be, and how these two options will impact them. I think the public and the rugby communities would benefit if some of the future operational options could be outlined, albeit by commentators instead of those directly involved. The fact that there is a lot of talking in code, means people's views can be skewed. Of course a lot of people want their provinces to have a voice, and for their teams to maintain some strength. If there were statements out there such as; provincial unions are struggling financially and their biggest costs areplaying contracting, and operational delivery during the NPC. We need a competition that reflects modern challenges and to consolidate our high performance units. Having an independent board allows us to listen to all stakeholders and do the best thing for NZ rugby right from community rugby to our high performance and commercial arms. It is just from a lay persons perspective it can be difficult for some to understand. Expect the i.portsnt people want to take the decision making and tell all the regions what to do. Whereas it is clear rugby is a very different model to what it was when the regions had more control over the ship
-
If the Pilkington report is voted in indications are the NPC will then become mainly a amateur competition,Which probably it has to happen in the long run.Not enough money to sustain all these teams.
It is going to be really hard to implement the Pilkington recommendations the Provincial unions will not want to relinquish the NPC as a professional competition.
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition reads of the Cavaliers all over again a complete mess.@Chris said in NZR review:
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition
It wouldn't be a new competition. Just a new body to run the professional game
Initially at least SR wouldn't change. Pro players could still play NPC. The new body would negotiate with NZR
-
@Chris said in NZR review:
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition
It wouldn't be a new competition. Just a new body to run the professional game
Initially at least SR wouldn't change. Pro players could still play NPC. The new body would negotiate with NZR
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition
It wouldn't be a new competition. Just a new body to run the professional game
Initially at least SR wouldn't change. Pro players could still play NPC. The new body would negotiate with NZR
I wonder how that would go ? looks a mess to me,To many people wanting to hold on to power.
edit
so still PU's on the board ? -
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition
It wouldn't be a new competition. Just a new body to run the professional game
Initially at least SR wouldn't change. Pro players could still play NPC. The new body would negotiate with NZR
I wonder how that would go ? looks a mess to me,To many people wanting to hold on to power.
edit
so still PU's on the board ?@Chris said in NZR review:
so still PU's on the board ?
But largely irrelevant
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players. NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC. Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent". "This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities." -
@Chris said in NZR review:
so still PU's on the board ?
But largely irrelevant
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players. NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC. Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent". "This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities."@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
so still PU's on the board ?
But largely irrelevant
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players. NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC. Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent". "This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities."Ok, will this impact the NPC it looks like it will as won't the PRT want to filter the majority of the money in to the high end professionals and the elite pathways under Npc, then the NPC will most probably drift away to an amateur comp.
-
as it should. make it a rep comp for club players. it will have genuine meaning again
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
"We have more than 34 'Rugby' Boards, 350 Board Members (more Board members than our full-time professional player base)"
are those board members all full time?
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
"We have more than 34 'Rugby' Boards, 350 Board Members (more Board members than our full-time professional player base)"
are those board members all full time?
I doubt if many (or any) would be full time. And the majority wouldn't get paid very much
I don't think the issue is Board Members of PU's. It's mainly the salaries of the NPC players I assume. And the PU's are in a tough position. NPC crowds have fallen away especially for many big unions and if the team is crap they certainly won't improve. So, they pay money to try and keep a good side hoping the rest will fall into place (sponsorship and crowds)
It hasn't really worked though
Some think the solution in independent Board members. I have doubts. It might lead to just a lot of diversity appointments who are worse than the current lot.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
so still PU's on the board ?
But largely irrelevant
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players. NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC. Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent". "This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities."Ok, will this impact the NPC it looks like it will as won't the PRT want to filter the majority of the money in to the high end professionals and the elite pathways under Npc, then the NPC will most probably drift away to an amateur comp.
@Chris said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
so still PU's on the board ?
But largely irrelevant
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players. NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC. Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent". "This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities."Ok, will this impact the NPC it looks like it will as won't the PRT want to filter the majority of the money in to the high end professionals and the elite pathways under Npc, then the NPC will most probably drift away to an amateur comp.
The PU's would have to work with the new body to get the pro players. Hows that professional relationship going?
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition
It wouldn't be a new competition. Just a new body to run the professional game
Initially at least SR wouldn't change. Pro players could still play NPC. The new body would negotiate with NZR
I wonder how that would go ? looks a mess to me,To many people wanting to hold on to power.
edit
so still PU's on the board ?@Chris said in NZR review:
To many people wanting to hold on to power.
I'm sure most wouldn't give up power if they had it. And they aren't I think pushing for elected member (maybe Im wrong - I haven't seen details on the PUs proposal) just having some PU experience
But maybe this is in fact in the game's best interest. To keep a voice at the top table to people who at least have some PU experience (only 3 out of 9). Davenport could be 1 for example (even though she was appointed not elected)
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
Is Mils a bit stupid? As his summary was really poor.
If the only difference is three board members (out of 9) need a PU background (along with the other qualities) who cares
This discussion is poor. And that is maybe NZRs biggest issue. The quality of our rugby top minds discussing these issues. I doubt if many would even know a good proposal if it was presented to them
Kirwan seems about as clueless as Mils. Jeff might be a bit smarter but his comment on the increase in spending seemed to lack any depth
If you have got stomach issues don't watch this segment.
@Winger said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
Is Mils a bit stupid? As his summary was really poor.
If the only difference is three board members (out of 9) need a PU background (along with the other qualities) who cares
This discussion is poor. And that is maybe NZRs biggest issue. The quality of our rugby top minds discussing these issues. I doubt if many would even know a good proposal if it was presented to them
Kirwan seems about as clueless as Mils. Jeff might be a bit smarter but his comment on the increase in spending seemed to lack any depth
If you have got stomach issues don't watch this segment.
I don't think you realised how that discussion was being run. One panelist each had to take one of the suggetions and run with it. Not sure they were actually arguibfg for what they actually believed or wanted. It was trying to show the 3 options basically.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
Is Mils a bit stupid? As his summary was really poor.
If the only difference is three board members (out of 9) need a PU background (along with the other qualities) who cares
This discussion is poor. And that is maybe NZRs biggest issue. The quality of our rugby top minds discussing these issues. I doubt if many would even know a good proposal if it was presented to them
Kirwan seems about as clueless as Mils. Jeff might be a bit smarter but his comment on the increase in spending seemed to lack any depth
If you have got stomach issues don't watch this segment.
I don't think you realised how that discussion was being run. One panelist each had to take one of the suggetions and run with it. Not sure they were actually arguibfg for what they actually believed or wanted. It was trying to show the 3 options basically.
-
@Dan54 was it? thats not how i took it at all, dont feel any of them was even playing devils advocate
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Dan54 was it? thats not how i took it at all, dont feel any of them was even playing devils advocate
Yep, they said at beginning of show they were going to explain the options in a simple way. Not sure they succeeded in making it simple .
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
Is Mils a bit stupid? As his summary was really poor.
If the only difference is three board members (out of 9) need a PU background (along with the other qualities) who cares
This discussion is poor. And that is maybe NZRs biggest issue. The quality of our rugby top minds discussing these issues. I doubt if many would even know a good proposal if it was presented to them
Kirwan seems about as clueless as Mils. Jeff might be a bit smarter but his comment on the increase in spending seemed to lack any depth
If you have got stomach issues don't watch this segment.
I'm a corporate person, but, having admittedly not delved into the detail, am bemused as to why the PU's three of nine proposal is such an issue.
The usual situation on boards is that majority rules, apart from any 'reserved matters' where a super majority, typically 75% is required. The PU proposal seems a reasonable balance in that regard.
A board entirely consisting of independents will often lose sight of the interests of constituents, in particular in the name of 'best practice', which typically nowadays has a heavy PC element.
The most important thing is how board members can be removed. If they are genuinely accountable and can be removed by a majority of the underlying voters (not sure who those are) then there is a limit to the damage which can be done.
Whatever the decision, the appointments ought to be for two years, meaning each and everyone has to stand for re-election based on their record in the two years.
Is anyone here able to confirm the proposed details in these areas?
-
This pdf has a comparison of the proposals
At the request of the governance review commissioning parties (NZR and New Zealand Rugby Players Association), the independent review panel has reviewed the two proposals being presented to the SGM on 30 May. The independent review panel have considered whether each proposal aligns to the principles and recommendations of the governance report and if one or both proposals reflect the intent of the review.
Panel-commentary-on-the-NZRU-SGM-proposals-15-May-.pdf
I see proposal 2 differs in many ways.
-
Lets keep this thread about the governance review
The discussion about possible SR formats is over here:
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/6616/super-rugby-the-future/232
