NZR review
-
@Tim Just read that, and can't quite get my head around how much of it is a bluff etc, as without the NZRU there is no test matches or indeed even Super rugby as these matches come ubder the jurisdiction of WR, that NZR is affiliated to, not pro rugby players.
-
There is no bluff, IMO, NZR bullshitted us (or allowed themselves to be bullshitted) with the upsides of silver lake. The pro players were always against it, managed to force a better deal, but we're still saddled with that debt and so far no upsides in income. They think their jobs will be gone, same NZR collapse like Ozzie is doing, without this change.
-
There is no bluff, IMO, NZR bullshitted us (or allowed themselves to be bullshitted) with the upsides of silver lake. The pro players were always against it, managed to force a better deal, but we're still saddled with that debt and so far no upsides in income. They think their jobs will be gone, same NZR collapse like Ozzie is doing, without this change.
@Machpants said in NZR review:
There is no bluff, IMO, NZR bullshitted us (or allowed themselves to be bullshitted) with the upsides of silver lake. The pro players were always against it, managed to force a better deal, but we're still saddled with that debt and so far no upsides in income. They think their jobs will be gone, same NZR collapse like Ozzie is doing, without this change.
So fair enough, so real question, All Blacks is a NZR brand, and I believe owned by NZR, so will no longer play for them. This reminds me of 96 where rebel pro thing was starting, only way it will work if all the other unions do same , or who will they play? Genuinely surprised to hear that you think NZR are going to collapse anyway. Though to be fair if this shit happens the game will collapse in NZ, as the NZPA seem to be saying we want the money side of it and the rest of you can worry how grassroots etc will be run.
I sure there is more to this than we reading. So they will end up with rugby being run for the 150-200 pro players in NZ? -
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
-
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
-
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
The other way to look at it is, if all the pro players walk, who will play for the ABs? And when they get flogged, what damage will that do to the brand?
-
I was just reading that article. It does clarify that the NZRPA only represents the SR players (professional) as they state that NZR would have control over community and provincial rugby.
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I was just reading that article. It does clarify that the NZRPA only represents the SR players (professional) as they state that NZR would have control over community and provincial rugby.
I'm all for supporting a union, however, there's a lot of pro players (players that make income from playing rugby) in NZ that don't fall under the SR banner so I am genuinely surprised that they don't represent them all.
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
so will no longer play for them.
Cavaliers is probably available.
Damn it, we'll be starting with a losing record against the Boks though. -
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
The other way to look at it is, if all the pro players walk, who will play for the ABs? And when they get flogged, what damage will that do to the brand?
@canefan Agree will be the end of rugby as we know it in NZ.
This is what NZPA wrote in letter that they couldn't play in Rugby Championship, Blediskoe and WC. So basically they won't play international rugby, so where will they get money from.
The letter also said the players had the ability to effectively bring the professional game to its knees.“You will be aware that the professional players and NZRU share the assets needed to operate professional rugby,” it said.
“For instance, NZRU owns the silver fern logo, the names of our great teams and the right to enter competitions such as the Rugby Championship, Bledisloe Cup and Rugby World Cup.
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I was just reading that article. It does clarify that the NZRPA only represents the SR players (professional) as they state that NZR would have control over community and provincial rugby.
I'm all for supporting a union, however, there's a lot of pro players (players that make income from playing rugby) in NZ that don't fall under the SR banner so I am genuinely surprised that they don't represent them all.
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
so will no longer play for them.
Cavaliers is probably available.
Damn it, we'll be starting with a losing record against the Boks though.@Nepia said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I was just reading that article. It does clarify that the NZRPA only represents the SR players (professional) as they state that NZR would have control over community and provincial rugby.
I'm all for supporting a union, however, there's a lot of pro players (players that make income from playing rugby) in NZ that don't fall under the SR banner so I am genuinely surprised that they don't represent them all.
That's what has got me confused, they basically saying we only representing top players who will play invitational teams?
-
You've got it mixed up, they are not threatening pulling out of rugby. They are threatening, as allowed under their PGA, to change their governorship. So instead of being governed by just NZR, they would set up some other board that NZR (basically PU amateur game) would be one part of.
They can strike, but the only thing that NZR can't use it they withdraw is player image rights
-
You've got it mixed up, they are not threatening pulling out of rugby. They are threatening, as allowed under their PGA, to change their governorship. So instead of being governed by just NZR, they would set up some other board that NZR (basically PU amateur game) would be one part of.
They can strike, but the only thing that NZR can't use it they withdraw is player image rights
@Machpants Realise what they saying, but they saying they will set up a board to run the pro game. I actually see what they saying, but bottom line is they still have to do it through NZR or they got noone to play in tests etc. Basically I don't even see them trying roll board as some saying, we will still have basically same board etc, just no PU input into it. They trying to seperate the pro and amateur game (and basically shrinking the pro game numbers?)
-
It is a tough pill for PUs to swallow. For decades they have been the big swinging dicks. Now, broadly being told to go home, sort out their own backyards and leave the big decisions to the adults. They know that this will have an impact on the long-term future of their shop window product (men's domestic rugby), and don't want to lose their relevance in the NZ Rugby landscape. We will never have a fit for purpose product when there are so many self serving cooks in the kitchen
-
The Silver Lake deal was a mistake - made lesser by the intervention of the players association. It may develop into something over time but no news todate? But it seems like Rob Nichols has let power go to his head. The threats are poor form. Talk about a swinging dick?
The trouble with the professional era is greed. Everyone thinks the game can grow forever, that players are entitled to massive contracts from billionaire owners and corporates…so we have to screw over provincial rugby.
-
The Silver Lake deal was a mistake - made lesser by the intervention of the players association. It may develop into something over time but no news todate? But it seems like Rob Nichols has let power go to his head. The threats are poor form. Talk about a swinging dick?
The trouble with the professional era is greed. Everyone thinks the game can grow forever, that players are entitled to massive contracts from billionaire owners and corporates…so we have to screw over provincial rugby.
@kev said in NZR review:
The Silver Lake deal was a mistake - made lesser by the intervention of the players association. It may develop into something over time but no news todate? But it seems like Rob Nichols has let power go to his head. The threats are poor form. Talk about a swinging dick?
The trouble with the professional era is greed. Everyone thinks the game can grow forever, that players are entitled to massive contracts from billionaire owners and corporates…so we have to screw over provincial rugby.
Didn't the players association effectively just push NZR to go for a better deal, which they eventually got?
-
@kev said in NZR review:
The Silver Lake deal was a mistake - made lesser by the intervention of the players association. It may develop into something over time but no news todate? But it seems like Rob Nichols has let power go to his head. The threats are poor form. Talk about a swinging dick?
The trouble with the professional era is greed. Everyone thinks the game can grow forever, that players are entitled to massive contracts from billionaire owners and corporates…so we have to screw over provincial rugby.
Didn't the players association effectively just push NZR to go for a better deal, which they eventually got?
-
It is a tough pill for PUs to swallow. For decades they have been the big swinging dicks. Now, broadly being told to go home, sort out their own backyards and leave the big decisions to the adults. They know that this will have an impact on the long-term future of their shop window product (men's domestic rugby), and don't want to lose their relevance in the NZ Rugby landscape. We will never have a fit for purpose product when there are so many self serving cooks in the kitchen
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
It is a tough pill for PUs to swallow. For decades they have been the big swinging dicks. Now, broadly being told to go home, sort out their own backyards and leave the big decisions to the adults. They know that this will have an impact on the long-term future of their shop window product (men's domestic rugby), and don't want to lose their relevance in the NZ Rugby landscape. We will never have a fit for purpose product when there are so many self serving cooks in the kitchen
I worry it is the NZPA making a play to say amateur rugby shouldn't have a say in how the game is organised or run. As I say, I don't think they are looking to change board except to drop of PU reps. I also think NZR board is pretty keen on the changes. I am a little confused, I like it, but don't want us to get a big seperation between the grassroots and pro game.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
The other way to look at it is, if all the pro players walk, who will play for the ABs? And when they get flogged, what damage will that do to the brand?
@canefan said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
The other way to look at it is, if all the pro players walk, who will play for the ABs? And when they get flogged, what damage will that do to the brand?
I agree, so it almost seems the NZRPA is saying we will destroy game in NZ if you don't do what we say. I am sure they not, and as you say if they walk away who would play for ABs, and just as intriguing who would they play? And so earn money? And it can't happen in next couple of years anyway as a lot of players already signed to NZR until 2026 anyway.
Interesting it's only 3-4 big PUs are against it strongly anyway, I think it's Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury? -
@canefan said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
The other way to look at it is, if all the pro players walk, who will play for the ABs? And when they get flogged, what damage will that do to the brand?
I agree, so it almost seems the NZRPA is saying we will destroy game in NZ if you don't do what we say. I am sure they not, and as you say if they walk away who would play for ABs, and just as intriguing who would they play? And so earn money? And it can't happen in next couple of years anyway as a lot of players already signed to NZR until 2026 anyway.
Interesting it's only 3-4 big PUs are against it strongly anyway, I think it's Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury?@Dan54 said in NZR review:
Interesting it's only 3-4 big PUs are against it strongly anyway, I think it's Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury?
Haven't seen a definitive breakdown
Taranaki supports Pilkington. I think Southland does too. There will be others but most unions are keeping their mouths shut
