NZR review
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
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
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
-
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
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.
They want to narrow the focus of unions towards community rugby, amateur rep, club etc
Also made it clear that the top down approach of NZR doesn't work and that the unions should have more ability to decide what works for them in those areas (the difference needs between city unions and rural ones for instance)
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
Grow Super Rugby not the NPC. A country of 5m, spread across a huge area of land is not big enough to support 14 professional organisations.
Look at the NBA, they have 30 teams for a country of 600m.
The NPC is so far away from financially sustainable in a pro model. If you wound the clock back to 1996, and never created Super Rugby, and kept the promotion + relegation but made it pro, could it have worked? Maybe, but I'm not convinced due to the amount of money that would cost, and the lack of people there to support it.
And I do actually think the Super Rugby teams are attempting to become bigger/better organisations. The step towards the U20s, HP programmes, increased social media presence and the new kit deal allowing for greater freedom I think does show a shift.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
not big enough to support 14 professional organisations
I know you know this, but it's 20 pro organisations across 2 pro competitions
It's insane. No one would design this. SR is a mess and NPC is in terminal decline
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
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.
They want to narrow the focus of unions towards community rugby, amateur rep, club etc
Also made it clear that the top down approach of NZR doesn't work and that the unions should have more ability to decide what works for them in those areas (the difference needs between city unions and rural ones for instance)
Apologies, I don't think the sarcasm of the last part of my post was strong enough.
I think the report is really clear about suggesting that there is just too much admin and focus on professionalism to the bottom of grassroots rugby. Better governance (and structures) focused on the two integrated aspects of rugby (professional teams, amateur grassroots) seems pretty sensible to me.
-
If they get it right, and it may well be that the horse has bolted, but if they get it right, the Blues could play in front of minimum crowds of 15k, and crowds of closer to 30k+ for the bigger games if they got Super Rugby going. The key with that, will be leaving the competition without changing the format for a sustained period.
The current format is getting close to where it needs to be, but it isn't quite there yet. I think MP are still going to fail, and when that occurs, I think you'd add one, if not two teams in the central north island. Hawke's Bay in particular is not really close to Wellington or Hamilton, and I think would be big enough to support a SR franchise.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
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
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
Except your version of less staff seems to be telling Mrs Miggins that her sausage rolls are not required at NORU anymore and someone from ORU will deliver subway instead...
Honestly to think that driving cost out of the heartland unions is going to be the transformation of NZR is ridiculous.
All the paid roles at the now sub unions will have to be culled in order for this to work.
However even to operate as a sub union some paid roles will still have to exist i.e. CEO, director, you're not going to cull a great amount of roles down from what currently exists.
Or will we simply expect people at the sub unions to do it for free??
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
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
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
Except your version of less staff seems to be telling Mrs Miggins that her sausage rolls are not required at NORU anymore and someone from ORU will deliver subway instead...
Honestly to think that driving cost out of the heartland unions is going to be the transformation of NZR is ridiculous.
All the paid roles at the now sub unions will have to be culled in order for this to work.
However even to operate as a sub union some paid roles will still have to exist i.e. CEO, director, you're not going to cull a great amount of roles down from what currently exists.
Or will be simply expect people at the sub unions to do it for free??
I'm not just culling sub-unions. These are wannabe pro organisations who employee way too many people. If you really want the focus to be on the community, you'd have fewer paid positions and more volunteers/people on wages rather than salary.
If the NPC wasn't professional, and you left that to Super Rugby, you could get rid of so much wasted money. Like why does Otago need a High Performance Coach? If you have any chance of making it pro in NZ (Super Rugby) you'd be involved with the Highlanders U20s.
-
Building out on my previous point, imagine if you took the professional element out of the NPC, and made it like a three-week tournament played at a different location each year, with players going back to play for their local team.
Imagine if say, Counties hosted the 2024 Tier One NPC, and they won it in front of their own fans with a bunch of local players. Focus it in properly, make it a bit of a festival.
Say Tier One has 12 teams enter, you could have three pools of four, play Wednesday, Saturday, Tuesday.
With finals to follow: Saturday, Wednesday and Sunday. Teams would play off right until the end, so the bottom four teams could say play a round-robin for 9th-12th placings.More of the classic junior style rep tournaments, which kids enjoyed when they were younger. Imagine the influx of income for some of the local businesses, with squads of 30 + I'd say really strip it back, a Head Coach, a Manager, Two Assistants and a Physio.
Could you offer some kind of pay? Perhaps a little bit where necessary, but we are talking no more than 1k a week. Sponsors money could be put to better use for paying the accommodation, I really think the model could work. Would it perhaps cut out some of your older players? Possibly, but if that is the price you have to pay for financial sustainability, so be it.
-
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
-
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
I think that is quite likely if the provinces become fully amateur. A West Auckland sub union with it's own rep team etc. Also, maybe places like the Far North would rather have a team than compete with Whangarei based players in a Northland side?
That sort of thing might be an improvement for club/community level.
-
@mikedogz Auckland split up at u18 and below I believe.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
I think that is quite likely if the provinces become fully amateur. A West Auckland sub union with it's own rep team etc. Also, maybe places like the Far North would rather have a team than compete with Whangarei based players in a Northland side?
That sort of thing might be an improvement for club/community level.
That was actually mooted several years back by a radical Mangonui sub union member.. terrible idea in my humble opinion. North Zone rugby in Northland isnt particularly strong currently and wouldnt compete. We do get players good enough for Northland teams but the majority head to bigger clubs futher down the line. Could only really do concepts like that in city unions.. Auckland West and East. Wellington City, Hutt Valley/Western Bays etc etc..
-
The Auckland U18 women are split as Central/West and South/East.
-
-
@Tim said in NZR review:
So the Players Association and the NZR board have accepted the findings (and contrary to some coverage the NZR board was also heavily criticised)
Now things will get nasty as the administrators of Provincial Unions will not cede power without a fight. 'For the good of the game' of course.
-
NZ on the brink of biggest leadership upheaval in rugby history
Provincial unions believe the current governance structure is not fit for purpose.
-
@Tim I found this bit interesting:
They say that they believe the leadership is too focused on the elite level of the game, while others told the Herald that they were concerned by the damaged relationship between NZR and Rugby Australia and that whatever governance change is agreed, they expect the board to have better processes and ability to monitor and judge the performance of senior staff.
Surely they've read the review and have undertaken some introspection as a result? I'd also presume they've taken a good look at McLennan and weighed up who was majorly responsible for a fractious Trans- Ta$man relationship.
