NZR review
-
if the overall result of the Silver Lake deal is the return of the central vikings then frankly the entire thing will have 100% been worth it
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Windows97 i think he's saying, correct me if im wrong, that some PU will still exit but not have teams representing them in a national comp, so just running the local grass roots and providing players to a "central vikings" type team
Which means the NPC will be consolidated into SR.
Which brings us full circle into the rebuttal in my previous post.
-
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
if the overall result of the Silver Lake deal is the return of the central vikings then frankly the entire thing will have 100% been worth it
You're an evil man.
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
-
Basically the report says "consolidate your professional teams (we don't care how)" and take all PU's out of having a say in NZR and replace them with independents and interest groups.
There - I've saved you all having to read 634 pages of text - you can thank me later
-
@Duluth unsure what other unions are like, but I think there are a handful of sub unions within Northland, although tbf we have about a 4 hour drive from the southern most team to the northern most, so probably need a bit more local flavour to run them, although know some could do with guidance.
Reads a bit like another issue with merging entities in another thread...
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
Basically the report says "consolidate your professional teams (we don't care how)" and take all PU's out of having a say in NZR and replace them with independents and interest groups.
There - I've saved you all having to read 634 pages of text - you can thank me later
The report does not say that at all
It's a governance report. It talks in detail about governance and makes a few references to competition structures but doesn't flesh them out as that is not what the report is about
That conversation can't really happen until any governance changes are implemented
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
Uunsure what other unions are like, but I think there are a handful of sub unions within Northland, although tbf we have about a 4 hour drive from the southern most team to the northern most, so probably need a bit more local flavour to run them, although know some could do with guidance.
Sure. But they don't need a full board, voting rights at a national level and to duplicate basic admin
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
Yes because after all it's the admin, appointments, payroll and comms staff of the near amateur heartland unions which is drowning the corporate profitability of NZR as a whole and must be urgently dealt with...
This is almost parody...
This isn't against you or your interpretation BTW (which I think is accurate) however given I work for a corporate I'm well versed in corporate BS and this report is corporate BS.
All care - no responsibility, highlight problems - give vague recommendations open to interpretation (so that it can't come back to you that your recommendations were wrong).
Consolidation I agree with - but needs to be managed very carefully and how much is even possible given SR contracts and such?
Cutting out the PU's in having a say in how NZR is run is just plain wrong - it's the nursey that ID's and develops all the players - you can't cut them out of the decision making.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?
-
@Stargazer said in NZR review:
@Duluth I don't think sub-unions have voting rights at national level. If that was the case, there would be a lot more.
I know. I think they are suggesting some heartland sides become sub unions to stop duplication of effort
-
I don't think you understand what has been said in the report and what hasn't.
You seem to be arguing about points not made in the report and pretending minor points are the key findings
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
-
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
You think though, how many employees does Wairarapa Bush RFU employ, vs how many they actually need. They have 5 employees + the two coaches + a board (presumably the latter two unpaid)
Does Wairarapa Bush really need a board, a CEO, a Community Rugby Manager & Events, a Game Development Manager, a JAB Rugby/Women's Rugby and a Community Liason Officer?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
Yeah, Wellington is one of the examples of a union that is overspending a lot on its NPC team and has been in the red year after year. They're really poor at financial management and pr/comms. If they'd also become responsible for grassroots rugby in say, Wairarapa or Horowhenua-Kapiti, I can only see that go wrong. It's even a bigger worry if you realise that Wellington and the Hurricanes share some key personnel.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
I don't think you understand what has been said in the report and what hasn't.
You seem to be arguing about points not made in the report and pretending minor points are the key findings
Well I don't agree with the governance changes either, removing PU's completely and replacing them with interest groups and independents doesn't seem wise.
And governance is chicken and egg in it's effectiveness depending on the structure that lies beneath that governance.
It recommends changes to "the structure" but doesn't say what they are.
I guess it assumes that if we get the governance right at the top it will all flow down throughout the organization and things will work swimmingly.
Unfortunately I've been through enough corporate change to know the above assumption isn't wise either.
