NZR review
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The report outlined that as NZ voting structures stand, a minority of unions can block change (9/27) due to voting share being determined by club numbers. @Duluth I didn't see this mentioned in proposal 1 or 2, have you seen anything about it?
Interestingly, it looks like proposal 2 has some less direct ways that the PUs continue to exert influence beyond the 3 seat requirement on the board.
They have increased their role on the stakeholder council to 50% meaning they can effectively stop that functioning if they are consolidated in their actions.
They have also increased their role on the appointments board to 50%, meaning they can block anything that doesn't pass muster with the PUs.
I can know start to see why the NZRPA is acting this way - the board will look less PU heavy but to get there, you will still have to be heavily political and directly endorsed by the PUs to get there.
But this
CRFU's Winchester said PUs had a "genuine desire'' to have one proposal but everyone couldn't get on the same page. If Proposal 2 is endorsed "history will be created''. He reflects on history and the PUs always having a voice on the NZ Rugby board. He is now stating that under 2 all directors on the board would be scrutinised by a recruitment company, followed by scrutiny by an advisory panel. Followed by an appointments panel, which will be a mix of independents and advisors - he says the PUs won't influence it.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The report outlined that as NZ voting structures stand, a minority of unions can block change (9/27) due to voting share being determined by club numbers. @Duluth I didn't see this mentioned in proposal 1 or 2, have you seen anything about it?
Interestingly, it looks like proposal 2 has some less direct ways that the PUs continue to exert influence beyond the 3 seat requirement on the board.
Edit:
They have increased their role on the stakeholder council to 50% meaning they can effectively stop that functioning if they are consolidated in their actions.can't find exact numbers of how many people will be on this.They have also increased their role on the appointments board to 50%, meaning they can block anything that doesn't pass muster with the PUs. Edit: The chair does not have a casting vote.
I can know start to see why the NZRPA is acting this way - the board will look less PU heavy but to get there, you will still have to be heavily political and directly endorsed by the PUs to get there.
OK, I think I worked it out - the appointments panel (6 members) is where they maintain power a lot of behind the throne. It deals with recruitment and payment of board members, making suggestions to the NZRU board. By increasing their stake to 50% and with no casting vote, the PUs do have outsized control over the composition of the 'independent' board.
Is there a full version of Proposal 2 anywhere? Going off the explanation from here, it's unclear what the PU representation on the stakeholder council will be.
It seems that the appointments panel will have 6, but three of those come from the stakeholder council (so not necessarily PUs?), but it's unclear to me whether the PUs have control of the stakeholder council.
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
I can know start to see why the NZRPA is acting this way - the board will look less PU heavy but to get there, you will still have to be heavily political and directly endorsed by the PUs to get there.
3/9 on the board now must have PU experience, so 6/9 are independent.
But the selections panel should appoint the other 6. Is the panel makeup different in Proposals 1 and 2? I didn't think it was - open to be corrected though.
yes, for the appointment panel, who are very important in this process see page 99:
Proposal 1 has 5 members: Two independents, one appointed by the NZR board and two by the Stakeholder Council.
Proposal 2 has 6 members: Two independents, one appointed by the NZR board and three by the Council. There is no casting vote.
Edit: As I understand it, the appointments panel recommends to the NZRU board, who recommend to the members (PUs), then the members vote. So, either way, the PUs still have the power to allow people on or not.
-
What is the definition of PU experience. Does it have to be a former or current board member? Or can it be someone who has worked in a PU, a former club delegate with high-level business experience? Where is the bar?
-
Reflecting on this, the requirement for PU involvement in the past seems to indicate the PU don't trust the external board appointments. Possibly summed up that they didn't trust the conclusions of the Pilkington review.
Proposal 1 was clearly rejected by the PU, and Proposal 2 clearly adopted.
It's done now. I think a step forward; time will tell how good or bad it is.
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Reflecting on this, the requirement for PU involvement in the past seems to indicate the PU don't trust the external board appointments. Possibly summed up that they didn't trust the conclusions of the Pilkington review.
Proposal 1 was clearly rejected by the PU, and Proposal 2 clearly adopted.
It's done now. I think a step forward; time will tell how good or bad it is.
Now we see whether the NZRPA have the balls to follow through.
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Reflecting on this, the requirement for PU involvement in the past seems to indicate the PU don't trust the external board appointments. Possibly summed up that they didn't trust the conclusions of the Pilkington review.
Proposal 1 was clearly rejected by the PU, and Proposal 2 clearly adopted.
It's done now. I think a step forward; time will tell how good or bad it is.
Agree. And maybe for good reason
It's a shame our media is so poor. I haven't got time to look into all of this in depth but who do you trust to do a good impartial comparison
Is this right
Do people actually read and understand the report and the two proposals - or do they just rely on self-interested misinformation from particular parties? The two proposals were and are virtually identical in all material ways - the differences are minor. Proposal #2 represents a major step away and forward from the existing structure. We should all be embracing it and ignoring the self-interested detractors.Or this
A sad day for NZ Rugby, unfortunately the PU's are fighting for survival, and banding together to make a stand. The future of the game looked dire before this decision, and now it's even worse, if that's possible. -
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
What is the definition of PU experience. Does it have to be a former or current board member? Or can it be someone who has worked in a PU, a former club delegate with high-level business experience? Where is the bar?
Reading proposal 2 now:
d. That the NZRB must collectively have sufficient rugby knowledge and expertise relating to rugby at all levels of the game in New Zealand, including specific knowledge relating to the governance of community/provincial rugby. In order to satisfy this criterion, as it relates to community and provincial rugby at least three members of the NZRB who have served on the Board of a New Zealand Provincial Rugby Union.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Reflecting on this, the requirement for PU involvement in the past seems to indicate the PU don't trust the external board appointments. Possibly summed up that they didn't trust the conclusions of the Pilkington review.
Proposal 1 was clearly rejected by the PU, and Proposal 2 clearly adopted.
It's done now. I think a step forward; time will tell how good or bad it is.
Now we see whether the NZRPA have the balls to follow through.
I've been unimpressed with RN. He really should consider his position. So the NZRPA can find a better leader. Who, rather than reverting to threats talks to people etc. Rob seem to belong to a different era
-
No Stakeholder council, but a GAP with a non-voting external chair. The PUs will have 3/7 votes so they only need one more person to block or control this panel (edit: for example, assuming they can influence the Maori rugby board appointment, they could control this panel). This body appoints 3/6 members of the appointments panel.
A new body named the Governance Advisory Panel (GAP) will be established.
The GAP will be formed annually, and will be made up of representatives of the following stakeholder groups:
a. Three representatives of Provincial Unions, being one Heartland Championship representative, and two NPC Union representatives, with the Provincial Unions to run their own process to determine their representatives.
b. One representative of the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board.
c. One representative of the foundation New Zealand Super Rugby Clubs (Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders), with NZR to call for nominations and, if more than 1 is received, to undertake a postal ballot to select the successful nominee. Nominees can be a Super Rugby Club Board member or senior manager.
d. One representative of the body representing professional rugby players in New Zealand (currently the NZ Rugby Players Association).
e. One representative of Tausoa Fa’atasi NZR Pasifika Advisory Group (or independent Pasifika Rugby entity recognised by NZR and the Affiliated Bodies, if one is formally established in future).
f. One independent Chair who will be appointed by the members of the GAP in conjunction with NZR, who will be remunerated by NZR, and who will be non-voting.
g. The GAP may agree by way of a majority to add other stakeholders to the GAP.The GAP will:
b. select 3 members of the ARP for the AGM NZRB appointment process. For the avoidance of doubt, the 3 members selected for the ARP are not required to be members of the GAP.
-
Hold on, here is a interesting one too. What the below could mean is that the GAP could revise the skills and competencies framework for the board so that more (or less) of them need certain experiences (i.e., we could go to needing 6/9 with PU experience or 1/9). This body will be incredibly powerful so think about how it could be captured if the PUs can get one more person to join them.
The 3/7 PU GAP will also:
a. review annually the updates to the Skills and Competencies Framework and the Needs and Priorities Statement (the SCF documents) proposed by the NZRB. NZRB will present the SCF documents to the GAP for discussion. The GAP will review the SCF documents, and make additional or alternative suggestions if necessary. Any updates required to be made to the SCF documents, proposed by the GAP, requires agreement by way of a majority of the GAP. For clarity, the GAP will have the final approval and sign off of the SCF documents, being the Skills and Competences Framework and the Needs and Priorities statement.
-
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I hope the voting details are released/leaked.
Some of it has - Taranaki, Waikato, Otago and Manawatu for proposal 1. Auckland voted for both
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I hope the voting details are released/leaked.
Some of it has - Taranaki, Waikato, Otago and Manawatu for proposal 1. Auckland voted for both
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
Prop 1 was Pilkington
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
Now there's a loaded question
-
@Donsteppa said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
Now there's a loaded question
no idea what you mean
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I hope the voting details are released/leaked.
Some of it has - Taranaki, Waikato, Otago and Manawatu for proposal 1. Auckland voted for both
It will be interesting to see if there is a bit of a divide between the provinces that supported different proposals.
-
As reported the the NZHerald live feed. Nice to see some constructive talk from a leading player that's not essentially Rob Nichol taking the NZRPA ball and going home.
Blues captain Patrick Tuipulotu responds to Proposal 2 being voted in
“I’m a bit disappointed,” he said.“But it’s for the future of rugby, whatever we decide, we have to do it together.
“From here on out, the conversation has to be open. Although Proposal 1 didn’t go through, we have to work together to try and get to where we want to.”
