NZR review
-
@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.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
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.
PUs are propped up with coin.
Clubs are grassroots.I don't see how that changes with implementing key aspects of the Pilkington Review.
edit - keep in mind that provincial unions don't appear to be losing vast sums of money organising amateur leagues - it's spending sums on trying to win the NPC. Hence why their input into running a professional organisation is less than desired. Generally speaking they don't have the skills so what use are they at the highest level?
-
@kev said in NZR review:
@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….
But he did a lot of good for NZ rugby at a difficult time
-
@Dan54 After reading up from the last few months info, there does look to possibly be a fear from the PUs when things are all being analyzed that Super Rugby Unions will takeover the running of rugby i.e the secondary schools, club comps etc over the 5 areas or even expanded to 8 or 9. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but there has been talk from Super CEOs about a 24 week comp which can only be done with NPC out of the way.
-
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
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.
PUs are propped up with coin.
Clubs are grassroots.I don't see how that changes with implementing key aspects of the Pilkington Review.
edit - keep in mind that provincial unions don't appear to be losing vast sums of money organising amateur leagues - it's spending sums on trying to win the NPC. Hence why their input into running a professional organisation is less than desired. Generally speaking they don't have the skills so what use are they at the highest level?
Disagree, but been on PU and know how much we spent on junior leagues , all the age grade teams etc. I know some spend too much on NPC teams, but take my word for it best way to get rugby on a high in your area? Get your rep team winning unfortunately, it all relates. NZ rugby goes well when ABs going well and what also happens it goes down to grassroots. As I say I think in end Pilkington isn't bad, but don't ever be under any impression that not putting money into age grade doesn't help make NZ rugby what it is!
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
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.
PUs are propped up with coin.
Clubs are grassroots.I don't see how that changes with implementing key aspects of the Pilkington Review.
edit - keep in mind that provincial unions don't appear to be losing vast sums of money organising amateur leagues - it's spending sums on trying to win the NPC. Hence why their input into running a professional organisation is less than desired. Generally speaking they don't have the skills so what use are they at the highest level?
Disagree, but been on PU and know how much we spent on junior leagues , all the age grade teams etc. I know some spend too much on NPC teams, but take my word for it best way to get rugby on a high in your area? Get your rep team winning unfortunately, it all relates. NZ rugby goes well when ABs going well and what also happens it goes down to grassroots. As I say I think in end Pilkington isn't bad, but don't ever be under any impression that not putting money into age grade doesn't help make NZ rugby what it is!
Pilkington isn't preventing money being put into age grades.
-
@BorderJB said in NZR review:
@Dan54 After reading up from the last few months info, there does look to possibly be a fear from the PUs when things are all being analyzed that Super Rugby Unions will takeover the running of rugby i.e the secondary schools, club comps etc over the 5 areas or even expanded to 8 or 9. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but there has been talk from Super CEOs about a 24 week comp which can only be done with NPC out of the way.
I know , like you I don't know who is right or wrong, but super rugby taking over club rugby etc will never ever work unless we want to kill grassroots. All that system would do is turn Super clubs into PUs so really no difference.
-
The GOAT clears his throat
PLUS: Eliza McCartney vaults into The Week That Was and a foulmouthed Weekend That Will Be
Apparently the Chiefs' unions are aligned against proposal 2.
Taranaki particularly strident about the need to reject Proposal 2, which was tabled for vote at the Special General Meeting next week. It is understood that Waikato, Counties and Bay of Plenty are all backers of Proposal 1, the (nearly) full implementation of the Pilkington Report’s recommendations.
Rehashing some important points:
On that subject, we are long overdue for hard, potentially combustible, discussions about what the role of the PUs really is.
As one who has operated on a provincial board said (under the protection of anonymity), the PUs should be more worried about the make-up of their own boards than that of NZR. They’re “owned” by the clubs, the source said, but too many PU “boards are made up of men who want to [spend] their cash on the performance of the NPC team”.
The source continued: “It’s not the NZR’s job to get kids playing rugby in Stratford; that’s Taranaki’s job.” Which brings to mind David Gibson and North Harbour. There was a guy, I thought, who recognised the demographic challenges rugby faced and had to work harder and more innovatively to engage the population in rugby. The community responded well, the traditionalists didn’t.
Gibson is now doing something else.
New Zealand has, in effect, 20 professional high-performance units (and that’s not including the elite schools that serve as proxy academies). Most of those units run academies and offer services that are replicated, sometimes within the same city. This is not what efficiency or effectiveness looks like.
-
@Winger The review also received comments/feedback that regionalism is an issue, that PU board members can't always agree with a good proposal because they may be removed from the board or not be re-elected, and that the threat of replacing the board via SGM is used to avoid addressing more controversial issues.
-
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
-
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
Is Mils a bit stupid? As his summary was really poor.
If the only difference is three board members (out of 9) need a PU background (along with the other qualities) who cares
This discussion is poor. And that is maybe NZRs biggest issue. The quality of our rugby top minds discussing these issues. I doubt if many would even know a good proposal if it was presented to them
Kirwan seems about as clueless as Mils. Jeff might be a bit smarter but his comment on the increase in spending seemed to lack any depth
If you have got stomach issues don't watch this segment.
