NZR review
-
@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. -
Ian Kirkpatrick encouraging the PU's to vote for Pilkington
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350288291/ex-all-blacks-captain-ian-kirkpatrick-issues-plea-new-zealand-provincial-rugby -
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Ian Kirkpatrick encouraging the PU's to vote for Pilkington
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350288291/ex-all-blacks-captain-ian-kirkpatrick-issues-plea-new-zealand-provincial-rugbyYeah he signed the letter, along with McCaw, Tui, Cane (I think) and many others
The point of the PU losses, is pertinent - everyone agreed on the report, and everyone agreed with the proposals, but when it comes to giving up power it seems some just can't.
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
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?
So, instead of having 66.6% of the Board appointed suddenly as if by magic 100% appointed will make it fit for purpose
People are living in a dream land.
And the attitude of the people supporting Pilkinton has me more concerned than having three Board members with some PU experience. One is a won't-a-be dictator who seems unwilling to talk to people or compromise. Another threatens to take her toys and play elsewhere. And no-one has given a reason why the PU should give it all up. or why 3 out of 9 with some PU experience is such a bad thing.
It's all about trusting the 'experts' without question. IMO a risky path to take
-
Riskier than PUs having to be propped up after losing millions of dollars?
It's pretty reasonable to ensure that you get the best people on the board, not just from PU unions where the requirements are different. A robust, merit based, appointment process is not magic, it's how you run a business and ensure it's sustainable.
Jobs for the boys and endless bailouts have to stop.
-
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
Jobs for the boys and
It will (likely) still occur. But just a different group of boys. And girls. And also, likely all sorts of diversity appointments. Without the grounded PU men (and women) to stop any crap.
And in general, from what I've seen Pilkinton seems OK. But I can understand why some PUs are making a stand on this
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
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?
So, instead of having 66.6% of the Board appointed suddenly as if by magic 100% appointed will make it fit for purpose
If you ignore everything else that's pertinent as is your want, then sure.
People are living in a dream land.
And the attitude of the people supporting Pilkinton has me more concerned than having three Board members with some PU experience. One is a won't-a-be dictator who seems unwilling to talk to people or compromise. Another threatens to take her toys and play elsewhere. And no-one has given a reason why the PU should give it all up. or why 3 out of 9 with some PU experience is such a bad thing.
It's all about trusting the 'experts' without question. IMO a risky path to take
Should we instead replace the board with the sound commercial skills and financial acumen of the WRFU?
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
Jobs for the boys and
It will (likely) still occur. But just a different group of boys. And girls. And also, likely all sorts of diversity appointments. Without the grounded PU men (and women) to stop any crap.
The only thing grounded about them is the anchor that's their debt. A bunch of PUs have demonstrated they've no business running a commercial operation.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
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.
It's easy to read between the lines here, this will confirm that Super rugby is the premier product and put the PUs likely on a lower level.
This feels very 2008-2009, the PUs contribute and may even agree with proposals until they realise that they will also be the ones to lose their spots and importance. In 2008-2009 it was the weak provinces, now it is the powerhouses (at least at the NPC level).
-
@canefan said in NZR review:
@Machpants McGod seems to be talking a lot of sense. Jock Hobbs would be proud
Jock Hobbs had some business failures from memory….
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
Jobs for the boys and
It will (likely) still occur. But just a different group of boys. And girls. And also, likely all sorts of diversity appointments. Without the grounded PU men (and women) to stop any crap.
And in general, from what I've seen Pilkinton seems OK. But I can understand why some PUs are making a stand on this
One of the disasters of the last 30/ 40 years has been the privatisation of public infrastructure assets. Most often because short term outcomes are prioritised over longer term ones, for profit by Boards full of commercial acumen. Remember also that a high % of leaders are narcissistic
Yes some PUs should pull their horns in re salaries but giving up their positions on the board would lose a fundamental connection between grassroots rugby and the running of our game. A huge mistake.
I note that all the comentators mentioned are ex players.
-
-
@kev said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
Yes some PUs should pull their horns in re salaries but giving up their positions on the board would lose a fundamental connection between grassroots rugby and the running of our game. A huge mistake.
That connection still exists with the Stakeholder Council, who can influence or sit on the Appointments Panel for the Board.
-
The only way I think this is really going to work is if the PU's become fully amatuer focusing on the grass roots of the game - i.e all ther $ goes into rugby development in the region. There are no professional i.e. NPC teams.
It would appear that a lot of the financial mis-management at the PU's is that they spend far too much trying to win the NPC - this then has to be removed.
Provinces then only play as trials for the SR side - or as friendly match's without a competition ladder.
Professional rugby then starts at the super rugby level and not lower than that.
Of course this wouldn't work out perfectly either, we could just lose a whole lot of NPC players oversea's, club rugby could fall to pieces as without the lure of a rep team lots of people don't want to play.
It would sure be efficient, wheter it's the best for the game, or just the people at the top making the $ who knows, but I suspect the latter.
-
@Frank said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
Jobs for the boys
That's exactly what it is.
I can just imagine the appointment process - honest as the day is long, a good hard man, a true stalwart of the game, and no fuckin idea how to run a business properly.Like Sam Cane and Ritchie McCaw for example?
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Frank said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
Jobs for the boys
That's exactly what it is.
I can just imagine the appointment process - honest as the day is long, a good hard man, a true stalwart of the game, and no fuckin idea how to run a business properly.Like Sam Cane and Ritchie McCaw for example?
They're not the ones who ran up the big debts mate. Proven idiots gotta go.
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
Riskier than PUs having to be propped up after losing millions of dollars?
It's pretty reasonable to ensure that you get the best people on the board, not just from PU unions where the requirements are different. A robust, merit based, appointment process is not magic, it's how you run a business and ensure it's sustainable.
Jobs for the boys and endless bailouts have to stop.
PUs are expected to lose money up to a point, there main job it to run and promotr the grassroots game, and unless you want them to start charging kids etc to play the game like they do in Aus etc?
We have seen that really in the main PUs do what they can to run and promote the game on a shoestring.I not against the Pilkington report, but suggesting PUs shouldn't be propped up with coin is to suggest that our grassroots game isn't the most important part of our game, and in general have least way of hauling money in.
Richie McCaw speaks for first time on rugby's civil war
