NZR review
-
@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.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@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 “lived experience, knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori in a complex organisational context”, and likewise, at least one member “must 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 context”Also 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, it’s unclear how much support it will have.No, the Pilkington report is not being voted on at the EGM on the 30th.
It is the NZR counter proposal v the Provincial Union's counter proposal.
-
You still have to convert what is in the Pilkington report to a proposal, so more correctly NZR are offering a proposal that is what is recommended in the report - you can't dump a report on the table and say this is it. It's a report that has a recommended course of action, NZR proposal now follows that course of action
-
-
-
@Tim Just read that, and can't quite get my head around how much of it is a bluff etc, as without the NZRU there is no test matches or indeed even Super rugby as these matches come ubder the jurisdiction of WR, that NZR is affiliated to, not pro rugby players.
-
There is no bluff, IMO, NZR bullshitted us (or allowed themselves to be bullshitted) with the upsides of silver lake. The pro players were always against it, managed to force a better deal, but we're still saddled with that debt and so far no upsides in income. They think their jobs will be gone, same NZR collapse like Ozzie is doing, without this change.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
There is no bluff, IMO, NZR bullshitted us (or allowed themselves to be bullshitted) with the upsides of silver lake. The pro players were always against it, managed to force a better deal, but we're still saddled with that debt and so far no upsides in income. They think their jobs will be gone, same NZR collapse like Ozzie is doing, without this change.
So fair enough, so real question, All Blacks is a NZR brand, and I believe owned by NZR, so will no longer play for them. This reminds me of 96 where rebel pro thing was starting, only way it will work if all the other unions do same , or who will they play? Genuinely surprised to hear that you think NZR are going to collapse anyway. Though to be fair if this shit happens the game will collapse in NZ, as the NZPA seem to be saying we want the money side of it and the rest of you can worry how grassroots etc will be run.
I sure there is more to this than we reading. So they will end up with rugby being run for the 150-200 pro players in NZ? -
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
-
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
The other way to look at it is, if all the pro players walk, who will play for the ABs? And when they get flogged, what damage will that do to the brand?
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I was just reading that article. It does clarify that the NZRPA only represents the SR players (professional) as they state that NZR would have control over community and provincial rugby.
I'm all for supporting a union, however, there's a lot of pro players (players that make income from playing rugby) in NZ that don't fall under the SR banner so I am genuinely surprised that they don't represent them all.
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
so will no longer play for them.
Cavaliers is probably available.
Damn it, we'll be starting with a losing record against the Boks though. -
@canefan Agree will be the end of rugby as we know it in NZ.
This is what NZPA wrote in letter that they couldn't play in Rugby Championship, Blediskoe and WC. So basically they won't play international rugby, so where will they get money from.
The letter also said the players had the ability to effectively bring the professional game to its knees.“You will be aware that the professional players and NZRU share the assets needed to operate professional rugby,” it said.
“For instance, NZRU owns the silver fern logo, the names of our great teams and the right to enter competitions such as the Rugby Championship, Bledisloe Cup and Rugby World Cup.
The Post
The Post
