NZR review

Duluth

The people emphasising the difference are the independent review panel.

Yes, I made that clear in my post

Frankly, the review should be convincing by itself. It could be too simplistic to accuse the PU of being selfish if they (the owners of the sport) aren't convinced by the proposal.

Basically agree. That is why the review should've been voted up or down a long time ago

I think the whole process has been about trying to create a deadlock to kill any reform

nzzp

@Duluth said in NZR review:

I think the whole process has been about trying to create a deadlock to kill any reform

And here's the thing - the PU need to let go of some elements of their sport in order to survive. I think they still need the ultimate backstop to break it all up if it goes AWOL - some 'independent' organsations self-capture and become about serving themselves, rather than their members.

This feels like a monkey trap for the PU. They have to let go to live, but they may not be able to ...

Winger

Thankfully someone has done a comparison

But this sort of comment doesn't help

The logic behind the requirement is unclear.

Then read the article from the WRU Chair for example

And the MAIN difference seems to be to have 3 board members with PU experience.

Analysis of Proposal Two
The board

Best possible candidates
All positions are open to application by any person. However, there is a requirement for at least three directors to have previously served on provincial union boards. It may be that this is the case for some successful candidates but mandating the requirement is a limiting factor on the potential pool of candidates. The logic behind the requirement is unclear.
This is not consistent with the report
Independence
All members will be independent. However, noting the comments above the panel would view this proposal as not reflecting full independence.
This is partially consistent with the report
Governance background
Again, the requirement for service on provincial union boards potentially limits the search for relevant governance skills. As noted, this service alone is not guaranteed to deliver the required skills.
This is partially consistent with the report
Rugby knowledge
Appointment is with reference to the skills and competencies framework. That makes clear the requirement for relevant rugby knowledge. However, this proposal gives strong weight to knowledge of provincial union governance.
This is partially consistent with the report
Diversity
This proposal suggest no change to the skills and competencies framework in this regard. However, again, the stipulation of three directors with provincial union governance service has the potential to limit the divert of thought around the NZR
board table
This is broadly consistent with the report
Tangata whenua
The skills and competencies framework and the proposed constitutional amendments make the commitment clear. This proposal adds further specificity. However, in A2 it
retains reference that the NZR Board will be able to continue to appoint one of its Board members as an NZR representative on the NZMRB.
This is partially consistent with the report
Pasifika
The skills and competencies makes clear the need for a collective understanding at the board table. This proposal adds further specificity
This is consistent with the report

Winger

@Duluth said in NZR review:

@pakman said in NZR review:

If the key benefit of proposal 1 is that it is In accord with the review, I’m afraid my suspicion is that the review itself may be the problem.

The claim from many supporting for Proposal 2 was that it was the same as the Proposal 1 with one small change

For The BOARD. This comparison has taken ONE difference (PU experience) and used this one difference to make it seem as if proposal 2 is completely and utterly different

SouthernMann

Paul Cully from Stuff talks to SENZ Scotty Stevenson about the upcoming vote and the implications https://open.spotify.com/episode/70Sq3NJj6Cx8DFalPZuUHW?si=95rAmhYPTyOwsIrs_4sgqQ

gt12

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

pakman

@Winger said in NZR review:

Thankfully someone has done a comparison

But this sort of comment doesn't help

The logic behind the requirement is unclear.

Then read the article from the WRU Chair for example

And the MAIN difference seems to be to have 3 board members with PU experience.

Analysis of Proposal Two
The board

Best possible candidates
All positions are open to application by any person. However, there is a requirement for at least three directors to have previously served on provincial union boards. It may be that this is the case for some successful candidates but mandating the requirement is a limiting factor on the potential pool of candidates. The logic behind the requirement is unclear.
This is not consistent with the report
Independence
All members will be independent. However, noting the comments above the panel would view this proposal as not reflecting full independence.
This is partially consistent with the report
Governance background
Again, the requirement for service on provincial union boards potentially limits the search for relevant governance skills. As noted, this service alone is not guaranteed to deliver the required skills.
This is partially consistent with the report
Rugby knowledge
Appointment is with reference to the skills and competencies framework. That makes clear the requirement for relevant rugby knowledge. However, this proposal gives strong weight to knowledge of provincial union governance.
This is partially consistent with the report
Diversity
This proposal suggest no change to the skills and competencies framework in this regard. However, again, the stipulation of three directors with provincial union governance service has the potential to limit the divert of thought around the NZR
board table
This is broadly consistent with the report
Tangata whenua
The skills and competencies framework and the proposed constitutional amendments make the commitment clear. This proposal adds further specificity. However, in A2 it
retains reference that the NZR Board will be able to continue to appoint one of its Board members as an NZR representative on the NZMRB.
This is partially consistent with the report
Pasifika
The skills and competencies makes clear the need for a collective understanding at the board table. This proposal adds further specificity
This is consistent with the report

I know the players (and others) are hacked off at PUs but having a baked in input at Board level is useful and the 'concerns' about the 'impact' on 'independence' is a bit like the Catholic church insisting priests can't be married.

As for limiting the supply of candidates, sounds just like ideological bleating.

Whoever's driving this fairy tale ought to get a grip (on reality).

pakman

@gt12 said in NZR review:

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

Unless the three have special blocking powers that seems an unproven assertion. In fact it's clear that the PUs have gone to considerable trouble to adopt much of the framework of Proposal 1.

I challenge the fairy story tellers to outline one example where the PU proposal would block otherwise agreed on changes.

Duluth

@gt12 said in NZR review:

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

It's predictable what will happen. The interesting part will be NZRPA's next step

Bovidae

Is Northland also in the PU Proposal 2 bloc?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350293789/cheat-sheet-new-zealand-rugbys-big-special-general-meeting-showdown

gt12

@Duluth said in NZR review:

@gt12 said in NZR review:

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

It's predictable what will happen. The interesting part will be NZRPA's next step

I'm fascinated to see.

This has been coming.

The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).

Edit: BTW, if you haven't read the selected comments from the surveys (e.g., page 130-132 of the appendices), have a look.

Being a long-term president of a struggling club was hard and intense... higher up administrators, who were all promise and no delivery

Too much power by Provincial Unions

NZR is widely criticised for being an old boys club who gives jobs to mates and ex-players

Too much focus on rugby credentials ahead of governance capability

PUs need to stop seeing themselves as 'owners' and start behaving as gardeners of community rugby, ensuring the best conditions to grow and thrive

pakman

@gt12 said in NZR review:

@Duluth said in NZR review:

@gt12 said in NZR review:

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

It's predictable what will happen. The interesting part will be NZRPA's next step

I'm fascinated to see.

This has been coming.

The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).

Edit: BTW, if you haven't read the selected comments from the surveys (e.g., page 130-132 of the appendices), have a look.

Being a long-term president of a struggling club was hard and intense... higher up administrators, who were all promise and no delivery

Too much power by Provincial Unions

NZR is widely criticised for being an old boys club who gives jobs to mates and ex-players

Too much focus on rugby credentials ahead of governance capability

PUs need to stop seeing themselves as 'owners' and start behaving as gardeners of community rugby, ensuring the best conditions to grow and thrive

Is anyone able to explain exactly how the PUs would control the Board with three of nine directors? Absent special conditions in the Constitution, with a decent Chair any well merited proposal will be voted through.

If there ARE such special conditions, the ACTUAL solution is to vote to remove such conditions.

gt12

@pakman said in NZR review:

@gt12 said in NZR review:

@Duluth said in NZR review:

@gt12 said in NZR review:

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

It's predictable what will happen. The interesting part will be NZRPA's next step

I'm fascinated to see.

This has been coming.

The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).

Edit: BTW, if you haven't read the selected comments from the surveys (e.g., page 130-132 of the appendices), have a look.

Being a long-term president of a struggling club was hard and intense... higher up administrators, who were all promise and no delivery

Too much power by Provincial Unions

NZR is widely criticised for being an old boys club who gives jobs to mates and ex-players

Too much focus on rugby credentials ahead of governance capability

PUs need to stop seeing themselves as 'owners' and start behaving as gardeners of community rugby, ensuring the best conditions to grow and thrive

Is anyone able to explain exactly how the PUs would control the Board with three of nine directors? Absent special conditions in the Constitution, with a decent Chair any well merited proposal will be voted through.

If there ARE such special conditions, the ACTUAL solution is to vote to remove such conditions.

It's a good question.

Based on the current board membership situation, it looks like the PUs are the power behind the throne for many candidates, as they can directly nominate 3 (must be seconded by another PU) and are required as nominators (and seconders) for those wishing to get elected (i.e., 3 further members). Those people must say that they will be 'independent' but they get there via support from the PUs and these people are elected by the affiliates (i.e., PUs).

So, it could be fair to make your argument. I guess the players have had enough of the PUs control, and things have got to the point now where the players want the PUs only on the stakeholder council.

pakman

@gt12 said in NZR review:

@pakman said in NZR review:

@gt12 said in NZR review:

@Duluth said in NZR review:

@gt12 said in NZR review:

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

It's predictable what will happen. The interesting part will be NZRPA's next step

I'm fascinated to see.

This has been coming.

The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).

Edit: BTW, if you haven't read the selected comments from the surveys (e.g., page 130-132 of the appendices), have a look.

Being a long-term president of a struggling club was hard and intense... higher up administrators, who were all promise and no delivery

Too much power by Provincial Unions

NZR is widely criticised for being an old boys club who gives jobs to mates and ex-players

Too much focus on rugby credentials ahead of governance capability

PUs need to stop seeing themselves as 'owners' and start behaving as gardeners of community rugby, ensuring the best conditions to grow and thrive

Is anyone able to explain exactly how the PUs would control the Board with three of nine directors? Absent special conditions in the Constitution, with a decent Chair any well merited proposal will be voted through.

If there ARE such special conditions, the ACTUAL solution is to vote to remove such conditions.

It's a good question.

Based on the current board membership situation, it looks like the PUs are the power behind the throne for many candidates, as they can directly nominate 3 (must be seconded by another PU) and are required as nominators (and seconders) for those wishing to get elected (i.e., 3 further members). Those people must say that they will be 'independent' but they get there via support from the PUs and these people are elected by the affiliates (i.e., PUs).

So, it could be fair to make your argument. I guess the players have had enough of the PUs control, and things have got to the point now where the players want the PUs only on the stakeholder council.

I see merit in PUs having embedded right to nominate three directors. However, in respect of all other appointments they ought not to have any special rights.

Three of nine is fine. Six of nine most certainly is not.

Winger

@pakman said in NZR review:

Is anyone able to explain exactly how the PUs would control the Board with three of nine directors?

Do they have three with their proposal 2?

All they seem to be asking for is 3 members to have PU experience

They want to implement a model called Proposal 2 which would mean three of the nine directors have experience of being on a provincial board.

Winger

@Duluth said in NZR review:

@gt12 said in NZR review:

Cully said the quiet part out aloud:

We can't really have both a (professional) PU and Super rugby competition in such a small country. It's been coming since 1996.

Jamie Wall outlined the crux of the issue too, here:

The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

It's predictable what will happen. The interesting part will be NZRPA's next step

But has Jamie got things right? Do they want to retain their 3 seats? Or just have three members with PU experience?

Is this just more lies that the WRU Chair mentioned

What's this really about?
The Pilkington Report's finding essentially recommended a loosening of provincial union (PU) grip on NZR governance. Proposal One, which is backed by the RPA, recommends that happening. Unsurprisingly, the PUs are not too keen on that and their Proposal Two comes down to them retaining their three automatic seats on the NZR board. So, it is pretty easy to see Proposal One as being for change and Proposal Two as being for maintaining the status quo.

And this from Pilkington. He must know the proposal 2 unions have disputed this. So why say it?

David Pilkington, author of the original report, made his prediction: "The votes are apportioned across the provincial unions based on how many affiliated teams they have, and therefore the bigger unions have a bigger say in the final outcome - and it is those bigger unions that have signalled that they don't want change, they want to preserve the status quo."

If this statement is not right it really badly undermines Pilkington. And the proposal 2 unions dispute this

I have little faith in the NZR Board to get to the bottom of these issues before the vote though

maxwell

Canes4life

Proposal 1 has been rejected - https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350293746/live-new-zealand-rugby-special-general-meeting

As Mils put it on the Breakdown, NZ Rugby will be dead in four years because of this.

SouthernMann

From the Canterbury Chair It's not something we have dreamed up for our own interests,'' says Winchester. He says dairy giant Fonterra wouldn't have someone on their board who doesn't know about how to run a farm. what a terrible analogy. Boards are packed full of people who offer specific skills. Most people on the Fonterra board would have no idea how to operationally run a farm.

Kiwiwomble

@gt12 said in NZR review:

The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).

i think its a bit harsh to say that spending on high performance is misusing funds, until NZR has the balls to come out and say the NPC is no longer a important competition then i think trying to do well in it (short of overspending which some have)....doing well raises interest, attracts more sponsors and new players, more money in the door etc

The Silver Fern

NZR review