NZR review
-
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@canefan said in NZR review:
Mils looked particularly unimpressed with Robinson's answers
I think the NZ rugby community as a whole has been unimpressed with Robinson's answers for 4 years plus now...
And SARU and AR...
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@canefan said in NZR review:
Mils looked particularly unimpressed with Robinson's answers
I think the NZ rugby community as a whole has been unimpressed with Robinson's answers for 4 years plus now...
TSF definitely
-
“The NZRU is incorporated for the purpose of promoting amateur rugby for the recreation or entertainment of the general public. The capacity of the NZRU to carry on any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction, is restricted to any business, activity, act or transaction carried on, undertaken, done or entered into in accordance with, or seeking to achieve, this purpose.”
Scotty Stevenson: Is anyone else over rugby's 'not fit for purpose' phrase?
Rugby union has a love affair with the phrase “not fit for purpose” but no one seems able to articulate what the actual purpose is.
-
-
It's interesting that what you take from that article is likely to depend on your perspective, as I think his article entirely matches with the view of many (including myself), that the amateur and pro games need to be split. As he writes:
Given the primary focus in the professional rugby era is to develop high performance, along with profit, maybe less than 1% of people involved in rugby become “successful’’ and reach a professional level.
This begs the question what about the other 99%, the ones who do not quite make it? Or the vast majority involved for enjoyment and passion.
In my view, it not enough any more just to be part of a team, a club or even a community. These relationships and connections have the potential to impact and support our lives on a much deeper level
What we have at the moment is that some unions - who should be focused on the 99%, spending roughly 59% of their funding on trying to develop the 1% and 21% on the other 99%.
-
The point of sport is to play it. All of these structures are created to give sport meaning beyond playing with family and/or mates in someone's back yard. Given that, my general view is that the most important metrics are numbers of players and numbers of games, basically. Other metrics still have importance for other good reasons like sustainability, but those are the top 2.
For organised competition of some sort, the main reason to create clubs is to organise that competition. If there are enough clubs within travelling distance, those clubs start to want inter-club competition (especially in team sports), so bodies are created to organise those. Then people think bigger and start organising rep sports nationally as a national championship, and now you need a national body.
For tax purposes, the point of most pro sport in NZ is to fund amateur sport. The main reason to charge bigger fees is to pay staff/contractors when your club/PU etc is too big for volunteers to be willing to do the work, or they aren't up to it.
-
-
@sparky said in NZR review:
@gt12 Robinson was asked some very simple questions. He preferred to waffle rather than give answers.
I actually thought Robinson handled questions exactly as he should. It is not up to any CEO or any employees to make statements about the board that is basically his boss. The one thing I thought he did say when he indicated he was surprised that Rob Nichols has been so vocal. Nichols is also a CEO of players association, and it should of been left to chairman to make staements about how game is run.
Is David Kirk still chairman of NZPRPA? He made some statements about Silverlake deal when that was going on, but when you read them, he wasn't against the idea of selling stake (nobody actually was), just wanted it to be sold to someone like Forsyth Barr that he is chairman of? -
I think there is a difference between not bagging the board / PUs and not giving a direct answer to questions about a proposal you and your entity supported.
On Nicols, if he has the support of the board, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't explain what they plan to do, given it is an operational decision of the organization. Perhaps it is an organization with clear alignment between the stakeholders and the exectiuve?
-
One thing that's abundantly clear is that under Robinson there's a real lack of leadership. He's displayed a complete lack of ability to introduce change (which is needed in the game) without getting the required people on side and making a mess of it.
Silverlake, the Fozzie will we or wont we fire him saga and this recent one.
In part this vacum has been filled by Rob Nicol and we have to give him credit for that, however I can't help but feel that it's gone to Robs head somewhat, with his erregous claims and blatent lies that the NZRPA will take care of a amatuer and grassroots game in NZ.
- It's not his job to do so
- There's no way he or his organisation could possibly do that
It could only have possibly been said to get some good PR and play politics (which apparently we all don't like).
It's sadly a long way from the days of Jock Hobbs where everyone in NZ rugby seemed aligned on what was good for the game and for the AB's, this current bunch appear to be acting purely out of self interest.
In sayign that I still cirles this back mainly to be the fault of Robinson - in the absence of leadership and direction people simly fend and try and get the best for themesles as they can't rely on anyone else. This appears to be what's playing out now in NZ rugby.
-
@Windows97 You do know Robinson doesn't make these decisions. A CEO is really just there carrying out (or should be) the will of the board. I was always amused when people bagged him when the Fozzie thing was happening, he didn't appoint him, the board did, and he certainly couldn't fire him. Have a sneaky peek what happened in Aus with Eddie Jones, he was emplyed by the chaiman and board, and CEO didn't want a lot to do with it.
On NZR Robinson and Razor are mates who played together etc, and I always had impression he would rather have Razor. But as board wanted Foaster he rightfully backed him. Same as things now I have feeling he is for Pilkington report, but he should do as he did shut up, it's not his decision.
Same as whether the PUs are right or worng thing, he should never crticise them in public, he couldn't do job if he did!
The Post
