NZR review
-
and here's some more from Wikipedia
Moffett's roles in sports administration have included:
An administrator at the International Rugby Board;[1]
One of the chief architects of SANZAR (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia Rugby) in 1996;[7]
Executive director of the New South Wales Rugby Union, starting in 1992;[1]
Chief executive at the New Zealand Rugby Union from 1996 to 2000,[8][7] being the first non-New Zealander to hold the role;[1]
Chief executive at Australia's National Rugby League, starting in 1999. The appointment of a rugby union executive to oversee rugby league led to speculation that he was there to merge the two sports,[7][9] but this did not eventuate. He held this position until 2001;[citation needed]
Chief executive of Sport England: Moffett left Sport England acrimoniously in 2002 after only 10 months in the job, and complained that he was restricted "by too many committees run by too many blazers".[4] He earned £140,000 a year in the role;[citation needed]
Chef executive officer of the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) from 2002 to 2005.[5]
Moffett was offered the role of chief executive for the English Football Association in 2003, but turned the position down.[4] -
@Winger said in NZR review:
and here's some more from Wikipedia
Moffett's roles in sports administration have included:
An administrator at the International Rugby Board;[1]
One of the chief architects of SANZAR (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia Rugby) in 1996;[7]
Executive director of the New South Wales Rugby Union, starting in 1992;[1]
Chief executive at the New Zealand Rugby Union from 1996 to 2000,[8][7] being the first non-New Zealander to hold the role;[1]
Chief executive at Australia's National Rugby League, starting in 1999. The appointment of a rugby union executive to oversee rugby league led to speculation that he was there to merge the two sports,[7][9] but this did not eventuate. He held this position until 2001;[citation needed]
Chief executive of Sport England: Moffett left Sport England acrimoniously in 2002 after only 10 months in the job, and complained that he was restricted "by too many committees run by too many blazers".[4] He earned £140,000 a year in the role;[citation needed]
Chef executive officer of the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) from 2002 to 2005.[5]
Moffett was offered the role of chief executive for the English Football Association in 2003, but turned the position down.[4]Is this to demonstrate he is supposed to have some expertise to speak of and hence we should listen to his opinion?
-
In today's Sunday Star-Times.
Peter Winchester is the Chair of Canterbury Rugby
Opinion: This weekend Southern RFC and Green Island RFC mark their 140th year in Dunedin, and the Blues in Invercargill celebrate their 150th. Community rugby annuals are always a tremendous occasion, with old friends, old rivalries, and exceptional sportsmanship.
These are the people and the values I voted for on Thursday when at the Rugby Union headquarters in Wellington.
My vote, along with 75% of the provincial unions, was for what was called “Proposal 2” – a new system for recruiting, appointing, and advising the New Zealand Rugby Board. This proposal had been created by a core of unions in response to the New Zealand Rugby Board’s own “Proposal 1”.
The proposals were almost identical, except for two main sticking points.
Firstly, we believed it untenable that a Board of New Zealand Rugby could have no members that had spent any time in management of regional rugby.
It is fair, reasonable and logical that some members of the Board know how their decisions impact management of provincial rugby. No other organisation, business or community, would stand to have Board members that had no experience of the field they were governing.
We had already agreed to the biggest shift ever: that no members will be elected by the Provincial Unions. After about 150 years we have handed over control to a process that will identify and appoint the very best people that can be found. We have no influence on that panel and no control of the outcome.
We wanted to ensure the Board would understand and appreciate the impact of their work and decisions on community rugby. We determined that the best way was for three of the members to have served on a Provincial Board at some point. It didn’t matter when, or for how long.
The second sticking point was an appreciation of the impact and role of Māori and Pasifika, who contribute significantly to the game without formal recognition at a board level. Our proposal requires one of the Board members to be grounded in Māori rugby, and one in Pasifika.
The independent selection, appointment and backgrounds of Board members is the modernisation of the Board that almost everyone has wanted – including provincial unions.
We came a long way this week in updating oversight of the New Zealand game, both professional and amateur.
The new Board will be capable of overseeing NZR’s international and commercial activity, and its management of the domestic game.
Proposal two was supported because the heart of the game must remain anchored in the players and volunteers across Aotearoa.
A new Board will soon be selected. We expect plenty of applications from the hundreds of talented professionals with current or previous experience running rugby Boards and clubs across the nation.
Much has been made about the decision this week. There have been some wild claims in the heat of the discussion. Everyone who cares about rugby will commit to this democratically chosen proposal.
This weekend 150,000 people played rugby, aided by 30,000 volunteers, and watched by tens of thousands more.
Those are the people the Board serves, as do provincial unions.
We’re pleased to say that their game continues. -
Good PR move.
A few small omissions in there - they have outsized influence on the GAP panel (totally omitted) and the last part about experience on rugby clubs is misleading - it specifically states experience on a PU board - not rugby club president, not Super experience, just experience on a PU board.
-
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
Good PR move.
A few small omissions in there - they have outsized influence on the GAP panel (totally omitted) and the last part about experience on rugby clubs is misleading - it specifically states experience on a PU board - not rugby club president, not Super experience, just experience on a PU board.
Only three members need to have this experience. Not the other 6. Even the three can have other experience.
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
Good PR move.
I just posted it for those interested. I don't take Nichol's word as gospel either. He's looking out for his professional members, not all of the rugby community.
Of course, you're right.
I think it's worth pointing out that there appears to be a heavy PR aspect to this that glosses over some of the other points of proposal 2.
-
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
Democratically voted is funny, when the franchise is not universal.
Especially as even now I believe (due to the number differing for each union), a minority of PUs can push through things ahead of the majority.
As far as I understand, that hasn’t changed either, so I think 7 or 9 unions of the bigger unions can still block anyone getting on the board or anything they don’t like at an AGM.
-
Yeah, all of this looks to me like everyone trying to keep their jobs (players and administrators). Only one rugby team in New Zealand actually makes money and all others are just trying to get a slice of the profit. Even the Super teams lose money and i'm thinking that if they kept separate accounts for the Highlanders franchise, their losses over the last 25 years would be astronimical!
-
I can't say I'm surprised - it's not common for legacy structures to cede their own power. In the good ol' days, people would set up new competing structures if they were sufficiently ticked off - will be interesting to see if the RPA actually end up doing that.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
Democratically voted is funny, when the franchise is not universal.
Especially as even now I believe (due to the number differing for each union), a minority of PUs can push through things ahead of the majority.
As far as I understand, that hasn’t changed either, so I think 7 or 9 unions of the bigger unions can still block anyone getting on the board or anything they don’t like at an AGM.
This is the salient point people appear to not understand or are wilfully ignoring: You don't need to be on the board to determine its decision making if you control who can sit on the board.
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
Democratically voted is funny, when the franchise is not universal.
Especially as even now I believe (due to the number differing for each union), a minority of PUs can push through things ahead of the majority.
As far as I understand, that hasn’t changed either, so I think 7 or 9 unions of the bigger unions can still block anyone getting on the board or anything they don’t like at an AGM.
This is the salient point people appear to not understand or are wilfully ignoring: You don't need to be on the board to determine its decision making if you control who can sit on the board.
I think I also saw that the NZRPA has indicated that they won't sit on the GAP board (I'm actually not sure why tbh), so the PUS will have the ability to block anything as that committee has immense power and it will now only have 6 members (unless they add one).
-
Interesting blurb from Wellington rugby about the appointment of Daryl Gibson to its board. The union, being one of the ones pushing option two, focusing on the community aspect. Yet, here it is promoting the 'high performance' experience of its newly appointed director. This looks like a clearly confused union. Publicly fighting for the unions on a national stage. Then saying an experience high performance appointment will be great for the union...
WRFU CEO Tony Giles is pleased to advise of the appointment of Daryl Gibson to the Board of Directors.
Gibson, current Head of High-Performance Coaching at High-Performance Sport NZ (HPSNZ), joins the Board as an Aspiring Director.
As a former All Black, Māori All Black, and NSW Waratahs Super Rugby Head Coach, Gibson offers a high-performance skillset of considerable value to the board. Holding double master’s degrees in his chosen fields of education, and sports; Gibson was previously a principal advisor for Māori Education at the Ministry of Education where he championed initiatives that empower Māori learners and fostered cultural understanding underscoring his commitment to inclusivity and equity.
In his current HPSNZ role, Gibson is responsible for leading the coordination and delivery of the monitoring and evaluation of HPSNZ’s Strategic HP Coaching Pathway programme initiatives that provide targeted coach education courses to 46 National Sporting Organisations.
Gibson says “This is such a fantastic opportunity to contribute to the Wellington rugby community and give back to the game, while also gaining valuable governance experience and mentoring from the current board members.*
Read more here:
DARYL GIBSON APPOINTED TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Gibson, current Head of High-Performance Coaching at High-Performance Sport NZ (HPSNZ), joins the Board as an Aspiring Director.
-
I've been avoiding contributing to this thread as some if feels too much like my actual work and it's actually quite depressing seeing the shitfight play out. (Shitfight in general, not saying the thread is a shitfight like a Hammettuer thread
). Also this is just rambling of points I can remember and my general thoughts so don't expect any structure.The three directors with PU experience need not be associated with a PU, they just need experience. That doesn't automatically mean they will only put PU interests first. Furthermore, if proposal 1 is designed to exclude these types of directors then that is also a problem itself as NZ rugby is an entity in and of itself (i.e. looking at the NRL and copying that wont work because it's apples and oranges). If it isn't designed to do that then why have an issue with the PU one?
Furthermore, if the remaining 6 directors can't sway three who have PU experience then that's on them and maybe they're not up to it as members.
I find the somewhat demonising of ownership contribution to the board to be a bit perplexing, especially from those pushing the corporatisation of comps. The majority of boards have ownership influence.
On the discussions for a new professional setup of franchises I'm not onboard with some obviously. IIRC some discussed include having a reserve grade under the franchises. All that does is redistribute money (to reserve grade squads from NPC squads) and removes any attachment to those teams that currently exist.
I have no issue with anyone preferring different solutions, each to their own, I don't agree with anyone who wants to throw away the NPC, I think it will be detrimental to the sport in the provinces (I got into rugby through playing and going to NPC, first took my little cousins to NPC games, now when I'm back home we take their kids to NPC games - can't see those same opportunities under a franchise system considering our supposed franchise partner) and I think I'll be done as an active financial contributor to the game if that happens. Currently I don't directly contribute to NZ rugby (outside of going to matches on trips home) but I contribute to our partner via Stan and attending games here. If the NPC goes I don't think I bother with the subscription anymore. I'll become a watch odd highlights on internet of the franchise comp and watching AB tests. That may sound dramatic but it's the way I feel, and I know a few others who have the same mindset.
Well that's all for now, need to go and do some actual work - which is on point to this discussion as it's figuring out a plan to dump a poor performing Chair.
-
Robinson clearly knows he is on thin ice with the PUs and is too much of a pussy to just say the quiet part out aloud.
His comments of the Breakdown show that he isn't the man to push things forward - he will go so it would be better to be brave and say that we can't have afford to run this many professional teams.
It's good to see the Breakdown team actually pushing a bit - both Wilson and Mils were good in pushing a bit. JK asked the simple question whether the two parts of the game need splitting. Robinson was just dodging and weaving though. Terrible.
Interestingly enough, I saw an article questioning the investment in women's rugby. It would be interesting if the PUs would sell that out to keep their NPC.
Edit: This might be the first time I've been really impressed with the breakdown in actually doing their job. I loved it how JK directly asked him how 5 of the PUs can control things, so how will they avoid the horse trading that has characterized previous activities? Dodge.
David Moffett - Wikipedia
