NZR review
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@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
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
Look at the way football is governed in this country. There is six organisations who care for the grassroots level across the country, and can't lie, it seems to be in a great place. You don't ned TWENTY-SIX unions. It is absurd.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@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
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
we need to think about how people will actually respond, not just what is abjectly "best"
some of the suggestions do feel like "rugby" can survive as its own entity without the fans or wider rugby community, i kind of feel a report on how better to engage with fans both new and old would be a good step
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@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
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
For example, North Otago cricket has a board, an administrator, and a, 'community development manager'.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@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
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
the fact you can put that down and not think some people might take that as a bit of a insult means we're just going to have to agree to disagree on how people might react
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
-
@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.
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@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
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Because it is all about money. These are organisations run like professional sporting franchises, despite the fact they are not that. I wouldn't just be downsizing the amount of staff in these smaller unions, you could clean the house through some of the larger unions as well.
The ORFU has 15 Fulltime employees + 11 High Performance for the NPC + 7 for the FPC + The Board... that seems ludicrous to me.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
-
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
They want to narrow the focus of unions towards community rugby, amateur rep, club etc
Also made it clear that the top down approach of NZR doesn't work and that the unions should have more ability to decide what works for them in those areas (the difference needs between city unions and rural ones for instance)
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
Grow Super Rugby not the NPC. A country of 5m, spread across a huge area of land is not big enough to support 14 professional organisations.
Look at the NBA, they have 30 teams for a country of 600m.
The NPC is so far away from financially sustainable in a pro model. If you wound the clock back to 1996, and never created Super Rugby, and kept the promotion + relegation but made it pro, could it have worked? Maybe, but I'm not convinced due to the amount of money that would cost, and the lack of people there to support it.
And I do actually think the Super Rugby teams are attempting to become bigger/better organisations. The step towards the U20s, HP programmes, increased social media presence and the new kit deal allowing for greater freedom I think does show a shift.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
not big enough to support 14 professional organisations
I know you know this, but it's 20 pro organisations across 2 pro competitions
It's insane. No one would design this. SR is a mess and NPC is in terminal decline
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
They want to narrow the focus of unions towards community rugby, amateur rep, club etc
Also made it clear that the top down approach of NZR doesn't work and that the unions should have more ability to decide what works for them in those areas (the difference needs between city unions and rural ones for instance)
Apologies, I don't think the sarcasm of the last part of my post was strong enough.
I think the report is really clear about suggesting that there is just too much admin and focus on professionalism to the bottom of grassroots rugby. Better governance (and structures) focused on the two integrated aspects of rugby (professional teams, amateur grassroots) seems pretty sensible to me.
-
If they get it right, and it may well be that the horse has bolted, but if they get it right, the Blues could play in front of minimum crowds of 15k, and crowds of closer to 30k+ for the bigger games if they got Super Rugby going. The key with that, will be leaving the competition without changing the format for a sustained period.
The current format is getting close to where it needs to be, but it isn't quite there yet. I think MP are still going to fail, and when that occurs, I think you'd add one, if not two teams in the central north island. Hawke's Bay in particular is not really close to Wellington or Hamilton, and I think would be big enough to support a SR franchise.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
Except your version of less staff seems to be telling Mrs Miggins that her sausage rolls are not required at NORU anymore and someone from ORU will deliver subway instead...
Honestly to think that driving cost out of the heartland unions is going to be the transformation of NZR is ridiculous.
All the paid roles at the now sub unions will have to be culled in order for this to work.
However even to operate as a sub union some paid roles will still have to exist i.e. CEO, director, you're not going to cull a great amount of roles down from what currently exists.
Or will we simply expect people at the sub unions to do it for free??
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
Except your version of less staff seems to be telling Mrs Miggins that her sausage rolls are not required at NORU anymore and someone from ORU will deliver subway instead...
Honestly to think that driving cost out of the heartland unions is going to be the transformation of NZR is ridiculous.
All the paid roles at the now sub unions will have to be culled in order for this to work.
However even to operate as a sub union some paid roles will still have to exist i.e. CEO, director, you're not going to cull a great amount of roles down from what currently exists.
Or will be simply expect people at the sub unions to do it for free??
I'm not just culling sub-unions. These are wannabe pro organisations who employee way too many people. If you really want the focus to be on the community, you'd have fewer paid positions and more volunteers/people on wages rather than salary.
If the NPC wasn't professional, and you left that to Super Rugby, you could get rid of so much wasted money. Like why does Otago need a High Performance Coach? If you have any chance of making it pro in NZ (Super Rugby) you'd be involved with the Highlanders U20s.
-
Building out on my previous point, imagine if you took the professional element out of the NPC, and made it like a three-week tournament played at a different location each year, with players going back to play for their local team.
Imagine if say, Counties hosted the 2024 Tier One NPC, and they won it in front of their own fans with a bunch of local players. Focus it in properly, make it a bit of a festival.
Say Tier One has 12 teams enter, you could have three pools of four, play Wednesday, Saturday, Tuesday.
With finals to follow: Saturday, Wednesday and Sunday. Teams would play off right until the end, so the bottom four teams could say play a round-robin for 9th-12th placings.More of the classic junior style rep tournaments, which kids enjoyed when they were younger. Imagine the influx of income for some of the local businesses, with squads of 30 + I'd say really strip it back, a Head Coach, a Manager, Two Assistants and a Physio.
Could you offer some kind of pay? Perhaps a little bit where necessary, but we are talking no more than 1k a week. Sponsors money could be put to better use for paying the accommodation, I really think the model could work. Would it perhaps cut out some of your older players? Possibly, but if that is the price you have to pay for financial sustainability, so be it.
-
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
-
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
Some unions are quite small and could merge. But I also think some unions are too big. There is a reason there are the same few teams that have won the NPC, they have the biggest population and rugby numbers. Stuff the traditions, break up Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland.
I think that is quite likely if the provinces become fully amateur. A West Auckland sub union with it's own rep team etc. Also, maybe places like the Far North would rather have a team than compete with Whangarei based players in a Northland side?
That sort of thing might be an improvement for club/community level.
-
@mikedogz Auckland split up at u18 and below I believe.
