• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

NZR review

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
776 Posts 54 Posters 48.5k Views
NZR review
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • DuluthD Offline
    DuluthD Offline
    Duluth
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #128

    @taniwharugby said in NZR review:

    Uunsure what other unions are like, but I think there are a handful of sub unions within Northland, although tbf we have about a 4 hour drive from the southern most team to the northern most, so probably need a bit more local flavour to run them, although know some could do with guidance.

    Sure. But they don't need a full board, voting rights at a national level and to duplicate basic admin

    StargazerS 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to Duluth on last edited by
    #129

    @Duluth I don't think sub-unions have voting rights at national level. If that was the case, there would be a lot more.

    DuluthD 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • Windows97W Offline
    Windows97W Offline
    Windows97
    replied to Duluth on last edited by
    #130

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Windows97 said in NZR review:

    So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?

    It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications

    Yes because after all it's the admin, appointments, payroll and comms staff of the near amateur heartland unions which is drowning the corporate profitability of NZR as a whole and must be urgently dealt with...

    This is almost parody...

    This isn't against you or your interpretation BTW (which I think is accurate) however given I work for a corporate I'm well versed in corporate BS and this report is corporate BS.

    All care - no responsibility, highlight problems - give vague recommendations open to interpretation (so that it can't come back to you that your recommendations were wrong).

    Consolidation I agree with - but needs to be managed very carefully and how much is even possible given SR contracts and such?

    Cutting out the PU's in having a say in how NZR is run is just plain wrong - it's the nursey that ID's and develops all the players - you can't cut them out of the decision making.

    DuluthD 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble Banned
    replied to Duluth on last edited by
    #131

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Windows97 said in NZR review:

    So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?

    It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?

    DuluthD StargazerS 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • DuluthD Offline
    DuluthD Offline
    Duluth
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #132

    @Stargazer said in NZR review:

    @Duluth I don't think sub-unions have voting rights at national level. If that was the case, there would be a lot more.

    I know. I think they are suggesting some heartland sides become sub unions to stop duplication of effort

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • DuluthD Offline
    DuluthD Offline
    Duluth
    replied to Windows97 on last edited by
    #133

    @Windows97

    I don't think you understand what has been said in the report and what hasn't.

    You seem to be arguing about points not made in the report and pretending minor points are the key findings

    Windows97W 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • DuluthD Offline
    DuluthD Offline
    Duluth
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #134

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    frugby
    replied to Duluth on last edited by
    #135

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    KiwiwombleK gt12G 2 Replies Last reply
    2
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble Banned
    wrote on last edited by
    #136

    i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble Banned
    replied to frugby on last edited by
    #137

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    frugby
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #138

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account

    You think though, how many employees does Wairarapa Bush RFU employ, vs how many they actually need. They have 5 employees + the two coaches + a board (presumably the latter two unpaid)

    Does Wairarapa Bush really need a board, a CEO, a Community Rugby Manager & Events, a Game Development Manager, a JAB Rugby/Women's Rugby and a Community Liason Officer?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #139

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account

    Yeah, Wellington is one of the examples of a union that is overspending a lot on its NPC team and has been in the red year after year. They're really poor at financial management and pr/comms. If they'd also become responsible for grassroots rugby in say, Wairarapa or Horowhenua-Kapiti, I can only see that go wrong. It's even a bigger worry if you realise that Wellington and the Hurricanes share some key personnel.

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • Windows97W Offline
    Windows97W Offline
    Windows97
    replied to Duluth on last edited by
    #140

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Windows97

    I don't think you understand what has been said in the report and what hasn't.

    You seem to be arguing about points not made in the report and pretending minor points are the key findings

    Well I don't agree with the governance changes either, removing PU's completely and replacing them with interest groups and independents doesn't seem wise.

    And governance is chicken and egg in it's effectiveness depending on the structure that lies beneath that governance.

    It recommends changes to "the structure" but doesn't say what they are.

    I guess it assumes that if we get the governance right at the top it will all flow down throughout the organization and things will work swimmingly.

    Unfortunately I've been through enough corporate change to know the above assumption isn't wise either.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    frugby
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #141

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them

    How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.

    F KiwiwombleK 2 Replies Last reply
    2
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    frugby
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #142

    @Stargazer said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account

    Yeah, Wellington is one of the examples of a union that is overspending a lot on its NPC team and has been in the red year after year. They're really poor at financial management and pr/comms. If they'd also become responsible for grassroots rugby in say, Wairarapa or Horowhenua-Kapiti, I can only see that go wrong. It's even a bigger worry if you realise that Wellington and the Hurricanes share some key personnel.

    I agree it would be a disaster if you merged some of these unions whilst maintaining the current NPC format, but I think the general consensus is that there is not enough money for a 14 'pro' comp (It is essentially pro for the 13 weeks it is on, these guys don't work).

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    frugby
    replied to frugby on last edited by
    #143

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them

    How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.

    Look at the way football is governed in this country. There is six organisations who care for the grassroots level across the country, and can't lie, it seems to be in a great place. You don't ned TWENTY-SIX unions. It is absurd.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble Banned
    replied to frugby on last edited by
    #144

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them

    How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.

    you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is

    we need to think about how people will actually respond, not just what is abjectly "best"

    some of the suggestions do feel like "rugby" can survive as its own entity without the fans or wider rugby community, i kind of feel a report on how better to engage with fans both new and old would be a good step

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    frugby
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by frugby
    #145

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them

    How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.

    you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is

    Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.

    You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.

    For example, North Otago cricket has a board, an administrator, and a, 'community development manager'.

    KiwiwombleK 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble Banned
    replied to frugby on last edited by
    #146

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them

    How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.

    you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is

    Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.

    You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.

    the fact you can put that down and not think some people might take that as a bit of a insult means we're just going to have to agree to disagree on how people might react

    but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others

    F Windows97W 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • gt12G Offline
    gt12G Offline
    gt12
    replied to frugby on last edited by
    #147

    @frugby said in NZR review:

    @Duluth said in NZR review:

    @Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:

    my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run

    Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc

    Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.

    With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?

    In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.

    How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.

    DuluthD 1 Reply Last reply
    2

NZR review
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.