NZR review
-
Unless I'm mistaken, the NZRPA represents professional players on NZ, Super, Provincial, and U20s contracts.
The most recent available agreement is here.
I'd be interested in a lawyer's interpretation of the NZRPA's position as I can't see how it aligns with the text of the contract.
-
More of that Taranaki letter
..we do not believe this proposal is adequate to form a board structure for what is a $3.5 billion organisation. This proposal requires three Provincial Union members to have seats on the NZ Rugby board. While this is good in theory, this structure is not serving us well as a Provincial Union, as the calibre of the candidates we are putting forward as provincial unions, is simply not high enough. Because of this, we are struggling to attract high calibre independents to work alongside the PU reps, and the board is not performing at the level that is required. As a result, the whole organisation is performing well below where it should be and the game at all levels is suffering. -
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
The last thing we need is a NZR board full of the latter
oi!
nah, wait, fair
-
am i the only one that is starting to feel "hurry up and burn it to the ground so something better can be reborn"?
The long slow death is getting old and im not sure a million bandaids and some duct tape is going to actually fix everything
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
am i the only one that is starting to feel "hurry up and burn it to the ground so something better can be reborn"?
The long slow death is getting old and im not sure a million bandaids and some duct tape is going to actually fix everything
It's called the Pilkington Report
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
Surely there's a Karl Pilkington joke just waiting to be used given how things are tracking.
Well, Karl did love to talk about when things go "tits up".
-
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
Surely there's a Karl Pilkington joke just waiting to be used given how things are tracking.
An Idiot (On) A-board?
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Because of this, we are struggling to attract high calibre independents to work alongside the PU reps, and the board is not performing at the level that is required. As a result, the whole organisation is performing well below where it should be and the game at all levels is suffering.
So, there are currently 6 out of 9 independent board members. The result. A Board not fit for purpose
The solution. Make it 9 out of 9 and somehow magically dud board appointments will somehow turn into great ones.
The Taranaki union (or chair Dan Radcliffe) seems to have these independents on high chairs that are in the clouds. And even though it hasn't worked it doesn't deter them. Of course, there's a reason. The three other board members stink the place out. And are stopping great independents from jumping on Board
FFS.
This comment is insulting to just about everyone involved with NZR.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Because of this, we are struggling to attract high calibre independents to work alongside the PU reps, and the board is not performing at the level that is required. As a result, the whole organisation is performing well below where it should be and the game at all levels is suffering.
So, there are currently 6 out of 9 independent board members. The result. A Board not fit for purpose
The solution. Make it 9 out of 9 and somehow magically dud board appointments will somehow turn into great ones.
The Taranaki union (or chair Dan Radcliffe) seems to have these independents on high chairs that are in the clouds. And even though it hasn't worked it doesn't deter them. Of course, there's a reason. The three other board members stink the place out. And are stopping great independents from jumping on Board
FFS.
This comment is insulting to just about everyone involved with NZR.
That is, unsurprisingly, a selective version of what the Pilkington Review actually says. NZR is a professional organisation and hence requires professional expertise in running and managing it. As such 'NZR Board members should have the following:
• Sound commercial skills
• Financial acumen (all directors need a level of competency)
• Deep knowledge of rugby from the community level through to the professional game
• Experienced leadership capability.'As noted by @Tim that kinda rules out Kevin Poole's input...
The ability for the PUs specifically to have a say still exists in the Stakeholder Council, who can influence or sit on the Appointments Panel for the Board. Also none of them are precluded from doing something else and then seeking appointment to the NZR board anyway...
-
This was the number of votes each provincial union had at last year's NZR AGM. It should be pretty close, if not exactly the same, to the number of votes each provincial union will have at the EGM on the 30th.
If there are 90 votes as last year, then 60 will be needed to pass either proposal.
-
The GOAT speaks
“It is not like we are trying to push our own agenda. This is something that people who have heard from all of the game – every stakeholder – have come up with and is what they think is best.
“That’s the bit people have to remember – all the feedback from everyone is put into this [Pilkington Review report] and they have come back with their findings.
This point is very pertinent, why only PU board experience
“But you start eliminating people who might have had different experiences. People who might have been on the board of a Super Rugby club or done other things who might add just as much expertise as someone who has provincial union experience.
And indeed
“And at the end of the day, the provincial unions still have the ultimate say. They can remove the board if they are not happy. They still have that right.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
This point is very pertinent, why only PU board experience
it isn't. The PU want 3 out of 9 to have PU experience. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me
McCaw comes across as being a bit naive. Give up their direct seats on the board and they effectively give away their power. Why should they do this.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
This point is very pertinent, why only PU board experience
it isn't. The PU want 3 out of 9 to have PU experience. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me
McCaw comes across as being a bit naive. Give up their direct seats on the board and they effectively give away their power. Why should they do this.
Because having 33% of the seats on the board doesn't make the constitution and governance structure of the New Zealand Rugby Union fit for purpose.
Next question?
-
Just been researching different articles and info off the NZ Rugby websites.
The difference of having 3 representatives of PU experience on Proposal 2, the Appointments Panel would surely see having that experience on the board as necessary and do it anyway, there are PU rugby board members that have had highly successful business careers or in governance.
Richie McCaw speaks for first time on rugby's civil war
