NZR review
-
@ACT-Crusader said in NZR review:
Some candid observations
That was a surprise. Things like this:
Everything the PUs (provincial unions) complain about is a direct or indirect result of their own actions. Arguably, regular international success, even when not particularly convincing, has enabled the decline in rugby to be glossed over. As a result, vital changes needed to address the game’s fundamental challenges have routinely been parked until the need for the next review becomes unavoidable. -
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
question, If the NPC was no more, Unions MIGHT put together Rep teams but say no formal NPC comp...do the Super franchises have the infrastructure to scout club comps? is that what we'd expect them to go looking for talent in club comps?
They are generally scouting out of schools rugby. Club rugby and to a certain extent provincial rugby are missed steps. Very few guys come through who have not previously been identified and ear marked. Lio-Willie and Moorby are a couple from the last few years. But, most are earmarked as Super potential players by the time they are 17 or 18. The steps of prem colts, provincial colts, prem rugby, provincial rugby and then super are long gone.
-
“The NZR board needs directors with skills, knowledge and experience relevant to the level its challenges demand,” it said. “However, many of those who spoke with us from the perspective of provincial union affiliations are convinced the formation of the New Zealand Rugby Commercial (NZRC) subsidiary means that the NZR board can now, in a sense, be ‘slimmed down’ and make a fundamental shift to being a more ‘PU-oriented’ or ‘rugby’ board. One, it seems, that would be drawn largely from current and past Provincial Union directors. In our view, this would be highly irresponsible.”
“The assumption that ‘non-rugby’ matters have been transferred to NZRC reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure and process of corporate governance in the organisation. While legally structured as a limited partnership, NZRC is a subsidiary of NZR. As the ‘parent’ entity, NZR remains accountable for the performance of its commercial offspring and signs off on many of its important decisions. NZRC is no more than a tool for NZR to use to achieve certain objectives. NZRC is not independent. Its strategy is a subset of, and a way to achieve, the NZR strategy.
“For that reason, the NZR board continues to need directors who are competent to oversee the relationship, provide strategic input, ensure that the subsidiary performs as required, and manage the challenges and risks accompanying the partnership with private equity and, perhaps ultimately, other external investors.”
-
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
question, If the NPC was no more, Unions MIGHT put together Rep teams but say no formal NPC comp...do the Super franchises have the infrastructure to scout club comps? is that what we'd expect them to go looking for talent in club comps?
They are generally scouting out of schools rugby. Club rugby and to a certain extent provincial rugby are missed steps. Very few guys come through who have not previously been identified and ear marked. Lio-Willie and Moorby are a couple from the last few years. But, most are earmarked as Super potential players by the time they are 17 or 18. The steps of prem colts, provincial colts, prem rugby, provincial rugby and then super are long gone.
I disagree Southern, they are certainly scouted at schools but the vast majority learn their rugby at provincial rugby. I not saying there couldn't be a few less provincial teams, but I firmly believe if we want to kill depth in NZ rugby cutting provincial rugby is first place to start.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
question, If the NPC was no more, Unions MIGHT put together Rep teams but say no formal NPC comp...do the Super franchises have the infrastructure to scout club comps? is that what we'd expect them to go looking for talent in club comps?
They are generally scouting out of schools rugby. Club rugby and to a certain extent provincial rugby are missed steps. Very few guys come through who have not previously been identified and ear marked. Lio-Willie and Moorby are a couple from the last few years. But, most are earmarked as Super potential players by the time they are 17 or 18. The steps of prem colts, provincial colts, prem rugby, provincial rugby and then super are long gone.
I disagree Southern, they are certainly scouted at schools but the vast majority learn their rugby at provincial rugby. I not saying there couldn't be a few less provincial teams, but I firmly believe if we want to kill depth in NZ rugby cutting provincial rugby is first place to start.
Nah, @SouthernMann is correct. I've been told that by a former SR coach not four years ago.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Windows97 or ditch super and find a way to fund the top 7-8 NPC team each year, get promoted get extra funding, drop down and loose it
Promotion relegation doesn't work when there's such a discrepancy in funding. I agree with the premise that most unions should focus on community rugby. It would be nice to have a 10 union professional NPC, but is that likely to be financially viable in such a small market?
-
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
They are generally scouting out of schools rugby. Club rugby and to a certain extent provincial rugby are missed steps.
Yes, the best 1st XV players are usually signed to a PU's academy while still at school, and that feeds into the SR academies. They are mostly still participating in club rugby, whether the U21s or premiership teams.
The average age of an NPC player is much younger than it was a decade ago, and one of the consequences of that is that these players aren't learning from experienced veterans as much as they used to, even at club level.
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Windows97 or ditch super and find a way to fund the top 7-8 NPC team each year, get promoted get extra funding, drop down and loose it
Promotion relegation doesn't work when there's such a discrepancy in funding. I agree with the premise that most unions should focus on community rugby. It would be nice to have a 10 union professional NPC, but is that likely to be financially viable in such a small market?
10 sounds reasonable compared to the 20 we have now. It could be that 8 is a better number especially if MP get kept.
On the players, Super teams can still have try-outs / scouts looking for those who were missed, so the amateur game can still find anyone who missed out.
We should separate the amateur / community provinces and professional (Super) franchises. Like many have suggested, somewhere around 10 seems a reasonable number: Blues split to two/three (Whangarei, Harbour, Auckland), Chiefs split to two (Hamilton, Tauranga), Canes split to two/three (Wellington, Hawkes bay, Taranaki), Saders split to two (Christchurch, Nelson), Landers stay as one.
-
Rugby: Crusaders, Canterbury stalwart Luke Romano implores NPC must be saved after damning review into NZ Rugby | Newshub
Thursday's review into New Zealand Rugby found the provincial game to be financially unsustainable in its current model.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
question, If the NPC was no more, Unions MIGHT put together Rep teams but say no formal NPC comp...do the Super franchises have the infrastructure to scout club comps? is that what we'd expect them to go looking for talent in club comps?
They are generally scouting out of schools rugby. Club rugby and to a certain extent provincial rugby are missed steps. Very few guys come through who have not previously been identified and ear marked. Lio-Willie and Moorby are a couple from the last few years. But, most are earmarked as Super potential players by the time they are 17 or 18. The steps of prem colts, provincial colts, prem rugby, provincial rugby and then super are long gone.
I disagree Southern, they are certainly scouted at schools but the vast majority learn their rugby at provincial rugby. I not saying there couldn't be a few less provincial teams, but I firmly believe if we want to kill depth in NZ rugby cutting provincial rugby is first place to start.
Provincial rugby may play a key part in their development, but player's paths are already mapped out by the time they are running around in the NPC come August/September.
When Southland played Otago over the weekend. The best halfback on display was Jay Renton. The 25-year-old from Southland. He isn't moving up in the professional ranks here. The Highlanders have already gone all in on Arscott and Hastie. Hastie played Super Rugby before he did NPC. AJ Faleafaga and Jack Taylor had signed professional contracts before playing NPC.
For the guys who have storming provincial seasons there might be a contract or two available. Or an injury replacement spot waiting for them. Is it worth it for them? Are they better off going overseas for six months, coming back and giving it another crack?
Is NPC high performance rugby? Do we have the money to ensure these guys are training to the level required of high performance rugby?
What happens to the guys who are late developers? The lads who are involved in the Schools camps, the U19 squads and don't quite make it?
-
I see a few people suggesting a stricter and enforced salary cap as some sort of magic fix for the NPC
For non-AB SR rugby players the NPC makes up a small percentage of their earnings. For an NPC only player it makes up all of their rugby earnings (ignoring those supplementing with MLR)
So a 500k salary cap, strictly enforced, would not have positive result for the competition. A squad like Canterbury who have the most SR players (~30), their players would receive a small percentage pay cut. For a side without many SR players the percentage pay cut would be much larger. While the competition would be cheaper the gap between remuneration of the squads would increase
There's more fundamental problems with the structure. Tweaking a single variable is just delaying real reform
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Windows97 or ditch super and find a way to fund the top 7-8 NPC team each year, get promoted get extra funding, drop down and loose it
Promotion relegation doesn't work when there's such a discrepancy in funding. I agree with the premise that most unions should focus on community rugby. It would be nice to have a 10 union professional NPC, but is that likely to be financially viable in such a small market?
please take this as just discussing and not arguing, is there not some middle ground to be found. If NZR still largely funds these top 10 teams (basically the funding currently going to super teams) then whoever gets promoted receives the funding the team that was relegated was receiving (a parachute payment put aside for relegated teams so they can ease into the level below)
Thats effectively how british football works below the premier league
I just truly believe things like promotion add so much passion to the levels below, gives teams something very tageable to work towards, something for the crowds to really get behind, and to a certain extent it adds something to the teams that just miss relegation, parties in the street for coming second last
-
I think you can give up on promotion relegation. The report made it clear the number of pro teams is way too high. You are trying to suggest ways of keeping a similar number of teams.
-
@Duluth similar number might be existence but not all funded the same at the same time. im just not convinced the same teams being locked in paying the same comp every years will save rugby in NZ, i just kind of feel the more regional unions will slowly die above running their club comp and the smaller "big unions" like otago (yes im bias) will always prop up the ladder...i think i would honestly be a yoyo team getting relegated but then celebrating when you get promoted again
please ignore me, really just venting, completely understand this is a minority view and zero chance of happening
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
I see a few people suggesting a stricter and enforced salary cap as some sort of magic fix for the NPC
For non-AB SR rugby players the NPC makes up a small percentage of their earnings. For an NPC only player it makes up all of their rugby earnings (ignoring those supplementing with MLR)
I've made the same comment about the SR salary cap. It's largely irrelevant if the best players (i.e., the ABs) have a separate NZR contract which is closer to $1M than the maximum SR contract.
-
-
@Stargazer this has all been a vicious circle for so many years with NZR bailing Provinces when they are in the hole, who therefore have no real incentive to live within thier means.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
how british football works below the premier league
The British football model is an interesting comparison. London has a population of 10 million people, plus or minus some loose change. It has seven Premier League teams and three Championship teams. That's 10 teams for twice the population of New Zealand. It is also one of the most international cities in the world. Due to the sheer number of people promotion relegation can be managed reasonably well. Being in the promotion relegation zone is also highly disruptive to sponsors and fans.
The geographic spread of New Zealand would likely make it quite difficult. You'd see players drift to the safer sides (similar to what they already do now, but to a more enhanced degree). Guys would need to up sticks regularly. It wouldn't be fair to expect guys to constantly move around with the fear that their wages will be cut.
Certain locations will also have the correct level of academies set up. It will jut cement Canterbury and Auckland at the top. Those sides in the promotion/relegation zone will also try to work around the salary cap and spend more to save themselves. Creating a cycle of over spending, potentially under delivering to save themselves from being relegated.
-
@taniwharugby They should do something similar to what the French do: set financial and administrative standards, and if a club doesn't meet them, relegate that club to a lower division. They usually get a preliminary decision first and get the chance to fix things; if they don't, the decision becomes final. It has happened to several French clubs over the years, especially Pro D2 clubs. The highest ranked team in the lower division that meets those standards is allowed to move to the higher division to take the relegated club's place.
Players contracted to the club relegated for these reasons have the right to break their contract if they don't want to play in the lower division and try to get a contract elsewhere.
-
The report made it clear that 20 pro teams in NZ is impossible. There's some terrible ways you could reduce that number
I think the starting point should be working out how many pro sides NZ can support and what sort of population base is required. I suspect it's 8-10.
One point worth remembering is that the Drua is also a NZ licensed team. The Drua should be able to generate enough support and sponsorship in Fiji to be viable without competing against NZ franchises for resources. So that would be 8 to 10 + 1
Moana Pasifika is more complex. Perhaps an extension of world rugby money is needed and they should really play their home games in the islands. Can they ever be self funding?
