NZR review
-
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
It is a tough pill for PUs to swallow. For decades they have been the big swinging dicks. Now, broadly being told to go home, sort out their own backyards and leave the big decisions to the adults. They know that this will have an impact on the long-term future of their shop window product (men's domestic rugby), and don't want to lose their relevance in the NZ Rugby landscape. We will never have a fit for purpose product when there are so many self serving cooks in the kitchen
I worry it is the NZPA making a play to say amateur rugby shouldn't have a say in how the game is organised or run. As I say, I don't think they are looking to change board except to drop of PU reps. I also think NZR board is pretty keen on the changes. I am a little confused, I like it, but don't want us to get a big seperation between the grassroots and pro game.
-
@canefan said in NZR review:
@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?
I agree, so it almost seems the NZRPA is saying we will destroy game in NZ if you don't do what we say. I am sure they not, and as you say if they walk away who would play for ABs, and just as intriguing who would they play? And so earn money? And it can't happen in next couple of years anyway as a lot of players already signed to NZR until 2026 anyway.
Interesting it's only 3-4 big PUs are against it strongly anyway, I think it's Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury? -
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
Interesting it's only 3-4 big PUs are against it strongly anyway, I think it's Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury?
Haven't seen a definitive breakdown
Taranaki supports Pilkington. I think Southland does too. There will be others but most unions are keeping their mouths shut
-
@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 does, but it also tells me that the Pro Players are self interested and have no interest in rugby beyond what they can make out of it.
-
@booboo 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 does, but it also tells me that the Pro Players are self interested and have no interest in rugby beyond what they can make out of it.
of course that's true. They are employees with a very limited working life (and not high enough wages to set themselves up for life), their job is to put together arguments for their benefit.
The Governing Body are the ones who are supposed to balance things out.
-
@kev said in NZR review:
The Silver Lake deal was a mistake - made lesser by the intervention of the players association. It may develop into something over time but no news todate? But it seems like Rob Nichols has let power go to his head. The threats are poor form. Talk about a swinging dick?
The trouble with the professional era is greed. Everyone thinks the game can grow forever, that players are entitled to massive contracts from billionaire owners and corporates…so we have to screw over provincial rugby.
Agree đź’Ż
-
-
-
It's 15 years since the NZRU tried to do something to rationalize the professional game.
It's been apparent for some time that we can't have this many pro / semi pro teams across multiple levels of rugby.
As Gifford wrote in 2009
Since when have rugby provinces in this country ever put the nation first, the province second?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/3155247/NZRU-out-of-touch
-
@kev said in NZR review:
The Silver Lake deal was a mistake - made lesser by the intervention of the players association. It may develop into something over time but no news todate? But it seems like Rob Nichols has let power go to his head. The threats are poor form. Talk about a swinging dick?
The trouble with the professional era is greed. Everyone thinks the game can grow forever, that players are entitled to massive contracts from billionaire owners and corporates…so we have to screw over provincial rugby.
Agree on going to his head. It's like a Union boss who thinks he should be the overall boss who has unlimited powers to call the shots. As Mr infallible.
Regarding the Silver Lake deal. Didn't Nichols and his association support the final deal? If so, so much for their decision-making skills. If it is a bad deal he was wrong then (to support it) and may be wrong again.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
I find it strange that a request for an independent board in line with the Pilkington report is being selfish.
It's the PUs who want to maintain their power here.
Isn't it only 3 seats?
NZR is still doing OK. Not great but OK. And with super rugby this year its heading in the right direction
My concern is the belief that an independent Board will somehow lead to the promised land. It might in fact make things worse without some (3 out of 9) grounded Provincial rugby input.
And why should the PU's give it all up? It's them who have got us to where we are today. Not great but not terrible either.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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
You seem a bit confused
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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
You seem a bit confused
Why? (the comment you referenced was 19 days back)
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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
You seem a bit confused
Why? (the comment you referenced was 19 days back)
Nothing has changed about the proposals in 19 days
You support and oppose one proposal. You support and haven't read the other
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
And why should the PU's give it all up?
Because they organised an expert independent review whose findings clearly outline the changes that are needed and why.
Are they (the experts) right though? Honest question - I think a lot of people have seen well meaning but fundamentally wrong reviews come back. I have some sympathy for the PU - it's their game after all, but they have made a right mess of it recently.
NZR governance has also been utterly woeful over the last few years.
-
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
And why should the PU's give it all up?
Because they organised an expert independent review whose findings clearly outline the changes that are needed and why.
Everyone agreed that there would be a review and it's recommendation would be voted on
The review came back and all stakeholders said they agreed with the findings
Then there was 6 months of silence, then there was counter recommendations floated. Everything since the review has been about sabotaging the process. I would have more time for the PU's if they promptly voted it down in 2023
The fact this wasn't voted on last year is proof that the admin of the game in NZ is incompetent and self serving
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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
You seem a bit confused
Why? (the comment you referenced was 19 days back)
Nothing has changed about the proposals in 19 days
You support and oppose one proposal. You support and haven't read the other
But I'm referring to the process of the people making this decision. I might agree with Rob. But I'm not and he's not some God like infallible superman.
Let the vote take place. And trust the process and see it out. Without these childish threats. And accept that sometimes you win. And sometimes not. And sometimes you get only a % of what you won't. That's life.
Rob Nichol: NZ Rugby Players' Association CEO on the potential split from NZ Rugby over the governance change - Early Edition with Ryan Bridge | iHeart
