NZR review
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
I not sure who right or wrong, don't NZRPA supposedly represent the players? Players should have a say, but as employees should they run the whole thing? I fully admit to not knowing the best way of doing iy, torn between PUs having a say and it being run by independant board.
RPA is professional players only I think. Technically they are contractors not employees I believe.
To me, utlimately it is the PU. I think splitting off the professional side is the way to go - with a dedicated board and org structure that gets the best for the pro game. Then you can have the PU focussing on clubs.unions and developing the game.
-
@nzzp professional players are employees employed by NZR under a collective agreement and loaned back to the relevant professional team(s).
I have been following this closely as a lot of it was highly relevant to other sports, particularly trying to balance the professional and amateur games. I can see the attraction of splitting off the professional game, but one issue is that profits of any separate entity would be taxed before distribution of dividends, whereas currently they are exempt because national sports bodies are usually organisations that promote amateur sport and the professional side is used to fund that.
-
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
If it's a separate for-profit entity, the surplus would be taxable. Imputation credits on the dividends would be refunded after filing a tax return, but to avoid all tax, the entity would not be able to retain any amount from the surplus. Possibly there are other options around licensing and/or management fees but that's a good way to attract IRD's attention for an avoidance arrangement.
Appointing a separate arms-length board to run the professional game within the NZRU is fine.
-
NZR sets date for special general meeting to decide governance structure
The end of May will hopefully see a resolution to the ongoing conflict.
So that sounds like the NZR boards alternate proposal isnât being voted on?
A few weeks ago it was the boards proposal vs the PU proposal without the actual review recommendation
-
No I don't think they've got it right, other articles mention NZR proposal, PU proposal, and NZRPA saying they want the pilkington in full.
NZ Rugby governance reform: Board and provincial unions to go head-to-head
A vote on what has been labelled a generational change to the governance structure of New Zealand Rugby will take place at the end of the month.
-
Yeah that sounds right, that's what was reported earlier.
If the original proposal was voted on as well there would be 3 options
What a mess. It should've been an up/down vote on Pilkington before any counter proposals were put forward.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
No I don't think they've got it right, other articles mention NZR proposal, PU proposal, and NZRPA saying they want the pilkington in full.
Apparently not. NZR ditched their plan and are putting up the Pilkington proposal for a vote
From a paywalled NZH article:
That was until now, and the surprise announcement that the board has effectively given up trying to push its own strangely concocted and confused transitional plan to change its governance structure, and has instead decided to ask the unions to vote in favour of adopting the key recommendations of the independent review.So it will be Pilkington vs the PU proposal
Here's some of the language for the PU proposal (@Winger this is the one you support right?)
that at least one board member has âlived experience, knowledge and understanding of te ao MÄori in a complex organisational contextâ, and likewise, at least one member âmust identify and have lived experience as Pasifika with ancestral and authentic cultural connections and an ability to apply a Pasifika world view in a complex organisational contextâAlso the PU proposal will be finalised next week.. they are still writing it
As for support for the PU proposal?
Wellington chair Russell Poole says there is not universal support among the unions for their own proposal, but that until more detail is released about the alternative, itâs unclear how much support it will have. -
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Here's some of the language for the PU proposal (@Winger this is the one you support right?)
Its looks VG to me. A professional proposal. Whereas I thought the NZR was poor so thankfully it's been dropped.
My view is the Unions should accept Pilkington and fight for one change only. That is the 3 Board members suggestion. But even here maybe it's not necessary with the "deep knowledge of the game" section.
But it looks like NZR will end up with Pilkington with maybe just a few changes. And hopefully a different chair and lots of new Board members.
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
A professional proposal
They haven't finished writing it yet. Very professional.
Ops. I was referring to Pilkington. I don't know about the PU proposal (I haven't seen it). I was just comparing the 2 that have been published
Pilkington seems VG to me. Esp compared to NZR
-
Seems to be some difficulty working out which entities are the high performance pathways. Everyone probably agrees that the international teams are the pinnacles, starting with the ABs and working down from there.
Everyone probably also agrees that clubs and schools are the engine rooms of amateur rugby.
Deciding whether to have one or two layers of pro rugby and one or two layers of high performance pathways between the two seems to be much harder since even agreement that there should be one of each doesn't automatically lead to agreement on which one of each to retain.
My hunch is that if the provincial unions didn't have the votes, this would be a lot easier to decide, and there would be one pro layer below the All Blacks.
The Post
The Post