Foster, Robertson etc
-
@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.
-
-
Quite a lot of unfair bs in the postings today in my view. A lot of people go on committees to give back to the game they love - after their playing days are over. There are also those that want a career in governance - and get experience via sports they have a passion for. They are there to do a job to the best of their ability - and don't usually make it without ability.
Good board members will not discuss the debates/arguments/choices unless it is in the best interest of everyone. Same with any good CEO who is working with a Board. They all have obligations in respect to risk management. And they have some very tough choices in what they do or do not say. There are lots of experienced and capable staff at NZRU too. Do you really imagine that none of them are consulted and it is all the fault of the CEO, Head Coach or the Board?
The folk at NZRU have a hell of a job to do in my view, and do it pretty well. You can't please everyone. And in the sport I have been most involved in, disgruntled coaches are the hardest to please - all thinking the wrong people are chosen and they would do better. I have seen numerous rumours and negative gossip that put a slant on what really happened - either for personal gain - or to knock others down out of spite or jealousy.
I don't agree with some of the decisions made, but it would be really interesting to be a fly on the wall when the decisions are being debated and to know what factors were weighed up before the decisions. Hopefully it stays inside the room...
The numerous 'insider rumours' of what was decided or was going to happen, would appear to have come from people embellishing the snippets they knew first hand - and possibly using them for their own agendas. It is easy enough to work out where most come from too.
That said, everyone is entitled to post their opinion, especially here. My opinion is that people easily disrespect the intentions and abilities of those who have to make the tough decisions - if they go against their wishes - and maybe need to think harder about the circumstances surrounding the decisions. It is the same in practically every sport I expect. -
@ARHS Nail on head exactly!!
I will add anyone who wants change has to do something instead of whinging on the net.
A: get on your local rugby/soccer.cricket etc club board.
B : Get the club to make presentations to board above to get changes made you require and they take it higher.
If you can't be arsed doing A, you need to think on it and see if you care enough, and if B can't be done it probably means you are in minority anyway?
But as you say, there is always the net to say how you could or would do it better.
And mo reason you can't give opinion, just namecalling and etc aren't really positive.
Lol maybe I just getting to old to read all the anti stuff and like seeing positives in life. -
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ARHS Nail on head exactly!!
I will add anyone who wants change has to do something instead of whinging on the net.
A: get on your local rugby/soccer.cricket etc club board.
B : Get the club to make presentations to board above to get changes made you require and they take it higher.
If you can't be arsed doing A, you need to think on it and see if you care enough, and if B can't be done it probably means you are in minority anyway?
But as you say, there is always the net to say how you could or would do it better.
And mo reason you can't give opinion, just namecalling and etc aren't really positive.
Lol maybe I just getting to old to read all the anti stuff and like seeing positives in life.Maybe people have all ready done all of the above and more and are sick of seeing the fuck ups.
You are judging people without knowing them doing exactly what you are moaning about.Negative stuff is because people care and people stuff up it’s life.
Everyone can not live life wearing rose tinted glasses.Nothing gets fixed or challenged so nothing gets better. -
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
I will add anyone who wants change has to do something instead of whinging on the net.
A: get on your local rugby/soccer.cricket etc club board.
B : Get the club to make presentations to board above to get changes made you require and they take it higher.
If you can't be arsed doing A, you need to think on it and see if you care enough, and if B can't be done it probably means you are in minority anyway?Agree with all of that.
The only issue is when you're in the minority and the majority don't want to change because they fear the unknown.
I'd also add that the professional game is a completely different kettle of fish once the paymasters are no longer the constituents.
-
I've sat on Boards (not sports). Well-intentioned but inexperienced members are a nightmare; especially if they are 'self-made men' and can't understand why they can't just get on and do things like they do in their own businesses.
An effective Chair who can work with and control the CEO is key IMO.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ARHS Nail on head exactly!!
I will add anyone who wants change has to do something instead of whinging on the net.
A: get on your local rugby/soccer.cricket etc club board.
B : Get the club to make presentations to board above to get changes made you require and they take it higher.
If you can't be arsed doing A, you need to think on it and see if you care enough, and if B can't be done it probably means you are in minority anyway?
But as you say, there is always the net to say how you could or would do it better.
And mo reason you can't give opinion, just namecalling and etc aren't really positive.
Lol maybe I just getting to old to read all the anti stuff and like seeing positives in life.Maybe people have all ready done all of the above and more and are sick of seeing the fuck ups.
You are judging people without knowing them doing exactly what you are moaning about.Negative stuff is because people care and people stuff up it’s life.
Everyone can not live life wearing rose tinted glasses.Nothing gets fixed or challenged so nothing gets better.Yep Chris , I guess people have done the above, and proves my point, a lot more of the people who actually are involved, do the work etc know what skills they want and need running the organisation. As I keep saying there seem to be a few who think NZR's main job is to run the ABs etc. I got news for them, it's to run the game for all from 5yo Johnny/Jenny to old Trev playing his last year or two in presidents game and everyone in between.
I believe the game is run badly when I can't go and stand on sidelines, watch and enjoy it with other likeminded people, and then have perhaps a drink after and a natter about the game etc. You know I do this almost every week in the season, and all the people I spend time with there , most have opinions of what they want done better, but none that I can recall are as bitter as the ones who seem to get carried away on the net.
RA boss warned after throwing 'hand grenade' at NZ
