NZR review
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The timing of this seems poor, surely this is best left to after the world cup?
So they should hold in a finished report? Nope, that's worse. It was finished when it finished, and then you publish it. Otherwise it will all be about the cover up.
Anyway, can't be worse than recent ABs results!
They can wait 6 weeks as to not distract the teams during the most important tournament they play surely?
It will directly affect their professional futures.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The timing of this seems poor, surely this is best left to after the world cup?
So they should hold in a finished report? Nope, that's worse. It was finished when it finished, and then you publish it. Otherwise it will all be about the cover up.
Anyway, can't be worse than recent ABs results!
But that goes back to when they originally commissioned the report and the ToR - they didn't need to have it completed right before the RWC, that was a choice they made, and seems like a silly one to me.
-
-
@Nepia said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The timing of this seems poor, surely this is best left to after the world cup?
So they should hold in a finished report? Nope, that's worse. It was finished when it finished, and then you publish it. Otherwise it will all be about the cover up.
Anyway, can't be worse than recent ABs results!
But that goes back to when they originally commissioned the report and the ToR - they didn't need to have it completed right before the RWC, that was a choice they made, and seems like a silly one to me.
Yep, more incompetence. Can't understand how a private equity expert wouldn't think of that.
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The timing of this seems poor, surely this is best left to after the world cup?
Not sure it is hugely different to thier change of process and sorting the next coach before the RWC?
I see Robinson was endorsed too, maybe there was some heat there?
-
Not sure the best place for this, mods might need to create a new thread. Yes it talks about NPC not sustainable, which why placed here, but also Super Rugby is also not financially sound either, also struggling to make money... burn the house down and start again lol
-
A link to the review pdf: https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/assets/NZRU-Governance-Review-31-August-2023-web.pdf
-
I think most people would agree with the first point surrounding poor leadership and lack of ability to make the hard decisions. While I agree some decisions are not easy to make, the head in the sand approach has at least been called out
-
It's a governance review so it's mostly about changes to the board etc
I think this will be stage one before they consider changes to the competitions etc
Good to see this line in there:
Few—if any—would contend that a country of five million people can support six professional franchises and 14 NPC teams.That's a hint about the tough decisions that will need to be made soon
-
@Duluth I think what found interesting was at least the acknowledgement that neither Super Rugby clubs nor NPC clubs were completely financially viable and whatever solution has to consider both
-
-
-
It seems obvious to me that's why I've been talking about a consolidated professional competition to replace both
I'm pleased about that line being in the report because it makes it clear that there will not be 20 professional teams (a semi pro team is just a pro team that doesn't pay it's players much)
There's lots of terrible ways to cut teams. Time to think of good ones
Also worth noting was the line about how 6 provinces can band together and block any reform. The governance changes have to happen before any competition changes can pass
My guess is ultimately unions will focus on the amateur & community rugby. They will have more autonomy about how they achieve their goals. However I think high performance/pro rugby will be run differently
-
There's plenty of corporate fluff in the report too
I did chuckle at the 67% player retention goal in mens rugby and the same 67% retention goal in womans rugby. Given the significant overlap between playing years and fertile ages, woman will never hit the same retention number. I think it's frowned upon to play contact sport while pregnant.
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
It's a governance review so it's mostly about changes to the board etc
I think this will be stage one before they consider changes to the competitions etc
Good to see this line in there:
Few—if any—would contend that a country of five million people can support six professional franchises and 14 NPC teams.That's a hint about the tough decisions that will need to be made soon
Cut the NPC and go straight from club to super rugby?
Or reduce down to 6 NPC teams that are straight feeders for the super team?
-
@Windows97 or ditch super and find a way to fund the top 7-8 NPC team each year, get promoted get extra funding, drop down and loose it
-
@Kiwiwomble I'd say from a continuity of coach and player development they would want their professional teams to stay rather stable.
With SA out of super rugby that leaves a yawning revenue gap.
For the life of me I don't know why they didn't keep Japan involved in super rugby, while it's great that the Pacifica and Dura teams are there they certainly aren't the cash cow that Japan has to offer.
-
@Windows97 i agree re japan but i kind of feel their control over the teams and development of players and coaches is kind of why we are were we are, there are very few upsets or surprises in super rugby because every year is just slight variation on the year before
'Not fit for purpose': Changes recommended after NZR governance review
