Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Chris wow, Townsend and Pivac get £300,000 and £500,000 respectively for World Cup Qualification?
Surely thats more than just qualifying for the RWC, more likely quarter finals?
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Nepia said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 I think if he said we have started the process, would be more than sufficient, instead, he danced around like a politician.
It aint like Fozzie doesnt know he has to reapply, win or not, so putting the feelers out signalling those who think they are a shot, thier time is coming, it certainly aint gonna hurt anyones feelings...who knows, Fozzie may have already indicated he wont even reapply...
Instead, like last time, most of the applicants felt it was a closed shop and done deal (whether it was or not is irrelevant if several potential candidates think it is)
Like he said himself, other unions are already making moves, instead he's focussed on other stuff, when in reality, this next 12 months is quite important for NZR given the relative cluster fuck the last 18 months has been on the coaching front, he needs to get this right.
Yep totally agree just more incompetence,Puss footing around and backing themselves into another corner post WC.
They are one very incompetent board that lot.The majority of the board have no rugby nous or background.This post prompted me to look at the Board makeup and I don't think this is true at all. There's three former province Chairs including from the two most recently successful provinces (hmmm, I see the problem, too many Crusaders region reps
) and the others all have decent CVs with pretty long term involvement in rugby.Would you like to name the board with their rugby nous next to their names
Sorry I should have added High Performance experience.Would you like to name them and tell me why you don't think have rugby nous?
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris wow, Townsend and Pivac get £300,000 and £500,000 respectively for World Cup Qualification?
Surely thats more than just qualifying for the RWC, more likely quarter finals?
You would think so it’s a big business in Europe now.
It shows how much Money flows through those 6 nations sides . -
@Nepia said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Nepia said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 I think if he said we have started the process, would be more than sufficient, instead, he danced around like a politician.
It aint like Fozzie doesnt know he has to reapply, win or not, so putting the feelers out signalling those who think they are a shot, thier time is coming, it certainly aint gonna hurt anyones feelings...who knows, Fozzie may have already indicated he wont even reapply...
Instead, like last time, most of the applicants felt it was a closed shop and done deal (whether it was or not is irrelevant if several potential candidates think it is)
Like he said himself, other unions are already making moves, instead he's focussed on other stuff, when in reality, this next 12 months is quite important for NZR given the relative cluster fuck the last 18 months has been on the coaching front, he needs to get this right.
Yep totally agree just more incompetence,Puss footing around and backing themselves into another corner post WC.
They are one very incompetent board that lot.The majority of the board have no rugby nous or background.This post prompted me to look at the Board makeup and I don't think this is true at all. There's three former province Chairs including from the two most recently successful provinces (hmmm, I see the problem, too many Crusaders region reps
) and the others all have decent CVs with pretty long term involvement in rugby.Would you like to name the board with their rugby nous next to their names
Sorry I should have added High Performance experience.Would you like to name them and tell me why you don't think have rugby nous?
Most of them because they have proved it.
One I have had many a dealings with at lower levels and he has no idea. -
@Chris So basically you don't have answer, just having a moan. And not even getting things quite right. When were Aussie told they could only have 3 teams by NZR? Thay let actually asked all coaches who wanted to apply a few months before, I think they one they wanted Schmidt needed a break, only really Jamie Joseph was tied up to a test team (and he's who I wanted). You are guessing the stuff about Razor etc is true, and have seen where it was fairly catergorically wrong, and was mainly rumours .I personally don't know of anyone who is better to run NZR, if I had suggestions I would make them.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@canefan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@voodoo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Anyone have a sense of what these guys get paid for Crusaders HC, AB HC, and England HC?
This for England coach
https://www.totalsportal.com/rugby/six-nations-championship-head-coaches-salaries/I don't think the money is primarily important for Razor. Give him the job and he will gladly accept, for the honour and glory of coaching the ABs
Yep Totally agree Its a job if the NZR don't want him.
Well why have NZR contracted him then?
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 not saying something didnt make sense, just all the incompetence in the past 18 months or so from Robinson, he now has the chance to stand up and show some leadership as the CEO of NZR, rather than acting like a politician.
Dont expect him to show all his cards, but at least be straight about it, instead of the vague politician answers, people dont trust our politicians, yet we have the CEO of NZR behaving like one
Understand what you saying, but I like the idea of saying bugger all.
I get pissed with jokers like the RA chairman McLennan, who is making statement seemingly every few weeks that are basically shit ie; NZR and RA are discussing a Baabaas team for when Lions are in Aus, NZR say hang on we already making plans with France, he mentioned something in last 30 seconds of a meeting, when the Super discussions were on saying we are going to go alone (too bad they got no money etc) etc, hell he even told us all Marinos wan't on shortlist for CEO job, a couple of weeks before he got job. Sometimes it pays to stay stum, and personally I prefer that.
I can assure you all that RU in England , Welsh Rugby union, SA rugby union are all seemingly doing a poor job , mainly because they haven't got coaches etc a few people on the net don't want. -
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris So basically you don't have answer, just having a moan. And not even getting things quite right. When were Aussie told they could only have 3 teams by NZR? Thay let actually asked all coaches who wanted to apply a few months before, I think they one they wanted Schmidt needed a break, only really Jamie Joseph was tied up to a test team (and he's who I wanted). You are guessing the stuff about Razor etc is true, and have seen where it was fairly catergorically wrong, and was mainly rumours .I personally don't know of anyone who is better to run NZR, if I had suggestions I would make them.
I do know about the Razor situation because a mate of mine was sounded out for the Crusaders asst coaching job at the time because Scott Hansen was going with him.
I also have a relative in the Strength and conditions set up at the Crusaders.
Fuck me it was well documented the spat with Australia about telling them they only could have 3 teams when SA and Argentina were dumped where have you been it was all over the media Google it. -
@Chris Mate I heard the release of all the Aritipu report, where the report said the ideal number they reckoned was 8-10 teams, with all teams showing they had the playing ability and financial abilty to compete ( and I thought that made huge sense), and they were hoping for at least 1 PI team. Anyone who wasn't hysterical would of know when it was done (and by super franchises mainly) that Australia had only 4 teams in Super rugby and there was a lot of discussion in Aus about the need to drop one as they were broke ( surviving on advance from WR on moneys to be paid for next WC) plus struggling for player depth. But even without that, 5 NZ teams and 4 existing Aus teams plus a PI team equalled 10 teams when I went to school, but when I heard Robinson announce it on tv he said clearly 8-10 team was considered ideal, but not set in stone.
I doubt whether Force would of ever been invited back in without covid coming about so the comp had to split, and Force boss binned the Asian comp they were starting.
But anyway that neither here nor there, NZR's main job is to run rugby in NZ anyway, I actually wonder id there should be a seperate board to run ABs. -
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris Mate I heard the release of all the Aritipu report, where the report said the ideal number they reckoned was 8-10 teams, with all teams showing they had the playing ability and financial abilty to compete, and they were hoping for at least 1 PI team. Anyone who wasn't hysterical would of know when it was done (and by super franchises mainly) that Australia had only 4 teams in Super rugby and there was a lot of discussion in Aus about the need to drop one as they were broke and struggling for player depth. But even without that, 5 NZ teams and 4 existing Aus teams plus a PI team equalled 10 teams when I went to school, but when I heard Robinson announce it on tv he said clearly 8-10 team was considered ideal, but not set in stone.
I doubt whether Force would of ever been invited back in without covid coming about so the comp had to split, and Force boss binned the Asian comp they were starting.This from the article below he chairman of RA, Hamish McLennan, has told his New Zealand counterpart that next season's Super Rugby Pacific could be the last, with RA considering a domestic competition in its place.
The relationship between the two nations has been strained since 2020, when New Zealand argued an eight team competition should include just two Australian franchises.And this from another Article
Back in 2020, when New Zealand Rugby tried to pull off a Super Rugby heist, unilaterally declaring ownership of the competition and telling Australia they could apply for a maximum of three licenses,https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/gregor-paul-the-team-that-must-be-chopped-to-save-super-
rugby/52NZUBBX7X6BWV3OA2B7PQ7TYU/ -
@Chris haha Chris how many times had McLennan supposedly said RA would be having a domestic comp, it seemed every 2 weeks, they were never going to do it, they need NZR money to run the 5 teams they got now, no way were they going to have a so called expanded domestic comp on a $25-30 mill tv deal(and even that deal wasn't signed by Stan until the super pacific comp was agreed) no matter how much they charged kids to play game in Aus.. As I said you do remember that RA had to go cap in hand to WR to get an advance of WC money to survive in 2020.
I heard Robinson announce the idea of super and there was no mention of Aus having to only have 3 teams, also said there it was thought that 8-10 team comp was optimum, and wanted to set up a seperate board with RA to run it. I didn't get it from a Gregor Paul write up, but actually was watching as it was released. All the super coaches were cringing at the thought of a domestic 5 team comp. knowing they wouldn't hold players etc. -
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris haha Chris how many times had McLennan supposedly said RA would be having a domestic comp, it seemed every 2 weeks, they were never going to do it, they need NZR money to run the 5 teams they got now, no way were they going to have a so called expanded domestic comp on a $25-30 mill tv deal(and even that deal wasn't signed by Stan until the super pacific comp was agreed) no matter how much they charged kids to play game in Aus.. As I said you do remember that RA had to go cap in hand to WR to get an advance of WC money to survive in 2020.
I heard Robinson announce the idea of super and there was no mention of Aus having to only have 3 teams, also said there it was thought that 8-10 team comp was optimum, and wanted to set up a seperate board with RA to run it. I didn't get it from a Gregor Paul write up, but actually was watching as it was released. All the super coaches were cringing at the thought of a domestic 5 team comp. knowing they wouldn't hold players etc.That release was after the shit that went on before when NZR tried to tell Australia could only have 3 teams that backfired badly and they had to about face.
You are just bleating on about the aftermath of the original BS and the make up to save the comp.More utter incompetence from the NZR on top of all the other incompetence.
But you keep living in fairy land that NZR are wonderful and everything is wonderful and ignore the mess created by people who are stuffing up time and time again.
Your attitude is why the whole NZR structure is a mess because they can do no wrong. -
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris haha Chris how many times had McLennan supposedly said RA would be having a domestic comp, it seemed every 2 weeks, they were never going to do it, they need NZR money to run the 5 teams they got now, no way were they going to have a so called expanded domestic comp on a $25-30 mill tv deal(and even that deal wasn't signed by Stan until the super pacific comp was agreed) no matter how much they charged kids to play game in Aus.. As I said you do remember that RA had to go cap in hand to WR to get an advance of WC money to survive in 2020.
I heard Robinson announce the idea of super and there was no mention of Aus having to only have 3 teams, also said there it was thought that 8-10 team comp was optimum, and wanted to set up a seperate board with RA to run it. I didn't get it from a Gregor Paul write up, but actually was watching as it was released. All the super coaches were cringing at the thought of a domestic 5 team comp. knowing they wouldn't hold players etc.That release was after the shit that went on before when NZR tried to tell Australia could only have 3 teams that backfired badly and they had to about face.
You are just bleating on about the aftermath of the original BS and the make up to save the comp.More utter incompetence from the NZR on top of all the other incompetence.
But you keep living in fairy land that NZR are wonderful and everything is wonderful and ignore the mess created by people who are stuffing up time and time again.
Your attitude is why the whole NZR structure is a mess because they can do no wrong.No need to paint posts at the extreme opposite end to your view. I doubt that anyone here thinks that NZR are anywhere near unblameworthy for anything.
IIRC the 3 teams for Oz thing was taking the worst outcome and blowing it up in indignation. On the other hand 3 Oz teams was probably the other end start point for NZ desires.
We all want a competitive competition to get viewers hooked and the plain fact is that unless RA sorts out getting the quality up they don't have enough good players to have 5 good teams. We can't manage it but have let the Highlanders be be the whipping boy.
If Oz were happy for Force and Rebels to be weak/development teams it may work but that does throw the draw into sharp relief and places the other 3 Oz teams unrealistically high up the overall tble. -
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris haha Chris how many times had McLennan supposedly said RA would be having a domestic comp, it seemed every 2 weeks, they were never going to do it, they need NZR money to run the 5 teams they got now, no way were they going to have a so called expanded domestic comp on a $25-30 mill tv deal(and even that deal wasn't signed by Stan until the super pacific comp was agreed) no matter how much they charged kids to play game in Aus.. As I said you do remember that RA had to go cap in hand to WR to get an advance of WC money to survive in 2020.
I heard Robinson announce the idea of super and there was no mention of Aus having to only have 3 teams, also said there it was thought that 8-10 team comp was optimum, and wanted to set up a seperate board with RA to run it. I didn't get it from a Gregor Paul write up, but actually was watching as it was released. All the super coaches were cringing at the thought of a domestic 5 team comp. knowing they wouldn't hold players etc.That release was after the shit that went on before when NZR tried to tell Australia could only have 3 teams that backfired badly and they had to about face.
You are just bleating on about the aftermath of the original BS and the make up to save the comp.More utter incompetence from the NZR on top of all the other incompetence.
But you keep living in fairy land that NZR are wonderful and everything is wonderful and ignore the mess created by people who are stuffing up time and time again.
Your attitude is why the whole NZR structure is a mess because they can do no wrong.No need to paint posts at the extreme opposite end to your view. I doubt that anyone here thinks that NZR are anywhere near unblameworthy for anything.
IIRC the 3 teams for Oz thing was taking the worst outcome and blowing it up in indignation. On the other hand 3 Oz teams was probably the other end start point for NZ desires.
We all want a competitive competition to get viewers hooked and the plain fact is that unless RA sorts out getting the quality up they don't have enough good players to have 5 good teams. We can't manage it but have let the Highlanders be be the whipping boy.
If Oz were happy for Force and Rebels to be weak/development teams it may work but that does throw the draw into sharp relief and places the other 3 Oz teams unrealistically high up the overall tble.I am not cheer leading for ,3,4,5 or how many Australian teams should be in the comp.
As I do not care.
But people who virtually call me out for talking BS about NZR trying to push for that a couple of years ago can get a realty check.That is the problem some people have no idea as what really goes on as they are not really in the know as they are not as connected as others.
They read a report and believe that nothing went on behind the scenes before the report was released. -
@Chris Look mate, I not suggeting NZR are right or wrong, I don't have a solution to all answers either, what I say is they are neither as good as some say or as bad as some say. All we seeing is the negatives, and some think their primary job is too look after ABs, it's not it's too look after rugby in NZ, and I been pretty involved with admin etc of rugby in both NZ and Aus, so only places I can really compre (I don't take my info from net/press etc) and I can tell you we have it a mile better in NZ, though I been out of Aus for a couple of years , so it may have improved a lot since I left, it really needed to. As I say, you find me almost any sport, in almost any country and see how many people are unhappy with admiistration. The best I have seen is AFL in Aus, but was never part of it so don't know that for sure.
But on the Aussie having 3 teams thing, you seem to not realise there was a push for Aus to have a 3 team comp from within Australia as they couldn't either afford or have the talent for 4 teams, which was number they actually had up until covid forced them to let Force back in.
Anyway we will agree to disagree. I think improvements can be made (and say same about all sports) but I think in general the NZR board is doing what I would expect. Boy lucky you don't live in Wales etc you would be having heart attacks mate, they getting beaten by Georgia, have cut teams in comp, and are still broke. -
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Machpants said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Stargazer said in Foster, Robertson etc:
What a pile of waffle
No problems we still have Fozzie to reappoint after the WC,For another 4 years.
that term hasn't been so offensive since greegan
-
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris Look mate, I not suggeting NZR are right or wrong, I don't have a solution to all answers either, what I say is they are neither as good as some say or as bad as some say. All we seeing is the negatives, and some think their primary job is too look after ABs, it's not it's too look after rugby in NZ, and I been pretty involved with admin etc of rugby in both NZ and Aus, so only places I can really compre (I don't take my info from net/press etc) and I can tell you we have it a mile better in NZ, though I been out of Aus for a couple of years , so it may have improved a lot since I left, it really needed to. As I say, you find me almost any sport, in almost any country and see how many people are unhappy with admiistration. The best I have seen is AFL in Aus, but was never part of it so don't know that for sure.
But on the Aussie having 3 teams thing, you seem to not realise there was a push for Aus to have a 3 team comp from within Australia as they couldn't either afford or have the talent for 4 teams, which was number they actually had up until covid forced them to let Force back in.
Anyway we will agree to disagree. I think improvements can be made (and say same about all sports) but I think in general the NZR board is doing what I would expect. Boy lucky you don't live in Wales etc you would be having heart attacks mate, they getting beaten by Georgia, have cut teams in comp, and are still broke.I have and also been involved for many years playing Coaching and admins and still have relatives and friends involved at all levels.
We have been a Rugby and Cricket family and extended family for a few generations..
I do not take my info from press cuttings or Reports but from people involved at all levels of Rugby.
And from meeting up with other coaches at coaching forums seminars etc we network all the time.This administration at all levels are not doing a great job there are some awesome people involved in Rugby that could do a better job.
But we are talking about an Old Boys network at the top who are inclined to give jobs to the boy's. -
Rugby Boards are generally the outcome you get at any level of rugby i.e. the people who want to do a certain role will fill that role, and generally speaking that doesn't mean the administration.
Think about any local club you've been involved in at senior level - players don't lift a finger unless they're cajoled/threatened and then you have to make them feel special about it. They just want to show up and play.
Coaches are busy coaching. Team Managers are busy managing. Volunteers are there to run the BBQ or help out on the day and that's about it.
The people left behind are the ones who will end up on your Committee and might move onto the Board of your local Union if it is structured that way.
Once you get to a certain level after that - particularly where money is involved, you end up with 4 general types of people - using examples from the NZR Board @booboo posted above:
-
Specialists whose roles are advantageous to have inside the tent e.g. Bailey Mackey who has experience in Broadcast; Bart Campbell with his marketing experience.
-
Notable figures who give the Board political weight and know how to deal with the political landscape e.g. Rt Hon Dame Patsy Reddy the former GG
-
People from the constituency who might have one eye on their own province/club as they govern for all
-
Others who I call counterweights to ensure the whole thing doesn't go completely off the rails. These should be "rugby people"
There is a political layer to this once serious money gets seriously involved, and that's where any disconnect has its origins.
This can take the form of the professional game losing sight of the base, but also the team inside the tent failing to grasp the true scale of issues, because the layer around them is filtering out the worst of the messaging.
Example: Foster throwing an assistant under the bus and retaining his spot rather than a complete revamp of the coaching team.
-
-
@NTA said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Rugby Boards are generally the outcome you get at any level of rugby i.e. the people who want to do a certain role will fill that role, and generally speaking that doesn't mean the administration.
Think about any local club you've been involved in at senior level - players don't lift a finger unless they're cajoled/threatened and then you have to make them feel special about it. They just want to show up and play.
Coaches are busy coaching. Team Managers are busy managing. Volunteers are there to run the BBQ or help out on the day and that's about it.
The people left behind are the ones who will end up on your Committee and might move onto the Board of your local Union if it is structured that way.
Once you get to a certain level after that - particularly where money is involved, you end up with 4 general types of people - using examples from the NZR Board @booboo posted above:
-
Specialists whose roles are advantageous to have inside the tent e.g. Bailey Mackey who has experience in Broadcast; Bart Campbell with his marketing experience.
-
Notable figures who give the Board political weight and know how to deal with the political landscape e.g. Rt Hon Dame Patsy Reddy the former GG
-
People from the constituency who might have one eye on their own province/club as they govern for all
-
Others who I call counterweights to ensure the whole thing doesn't go completely off the rails. These should be "rugby people"
There is a political layer to this once serious money gets seriously involved, and that's where any disconnect has its origins.
This can take the form of the professional game losing sight of the base, but also the team inside the tent failing to grasp the true scale of issues, because the layer around them is filtering out the worst of the messaging.
Example: Foster throwing an assistant under the bus and retaining his spot rather than a complete revamp of the coaching team.
Good post nailed most commitees.
-
RA boss warned after throwing 'hand grenade' at NZ
