NZR review
-
'Warts and all': Heavyweight review of New Zealand Rugby due to be published in coming week
-
Review was a condition of players’ association backing Silver Lake deal
-
NZ Rugby board appointment process under scrutiny
-
Panel under chair David Pilkington has remit to make game-changing recommendations
-
NZRPA also undertaking belated review, AGM likely by year-end
A review that has the potential to reshape rugby in New Zealand will be published in the coming week.
The review, which former New Zealand Rugby chair Stewart Mitchell said last year could be “confronting”, has been progressing for the past eight months and has been asked to establish whether NZ Rugby, and its provincial unions, are fit for purpose in the Silver Lake era.
Furthermore, Stuff has learnt that Rob Nichol, the chief executive of the NZRPA, had a significant hand in drafting the terms of reference for the review.
The terms of reference – which are available on the NZ Rugby website – were therefore designed to ask hard but necessary questions of NZ Rugby’s governance and processes after a bumpy few years.
[I'll post the link to the full terms of reference below.]
David Pilkington, a governance heavyweight who was chair of the Port of Tauranga for nine years, was joined on the panel by former Sealord chair Whaimutu Dewes, former NZ Cricket director Anne Urlwin and former All Blacks captain Graham Mourie.
Pilkington is said to have carried out a rigorous process, and the terms of reference provides pointers as to where the review could lead, noting that “[NZ Rugby] should be run by the best possible mix of qualified directors with relevant experience”.
At present, NZ Rugby’s nine-person board has three appointed members, three elected members and three members nominated by the provincial unions, a process that critics argue can be too political and lead to the appointment of directors without the requisite commercial or high-performance acumen for an increasingly complex business.
The five Super Rugby clubs, who drive a significant part of NZ Rugby’s broadcast deal, are not currently represented on the board.
The terms of reference also points out that “NZR’s constitutional structure, its members [particularly the Provincial Unions] have significant influence over NZR governance, and through the rugby players collective employment agreement, the Rugby Players Association (RPA) has significant influence over New Zealand rugby’s professional game, in particular.
“It is in the best interests of rugby in New Zealand that the Provincial Unions, Māori Rugby Board, RPA and other New Zealand rugby stakeholders are also well governed.
“Provincial Unions and other New Zealand rugby stakeholders should be encouraged to take learnings from this review as they to seek to consider if their governance is also fit for purpose.”
Discussing the NZ Rugby review last year, Mitchell offered unequivocal backing of NZ Rugby chief executive Mark Robinson.
The composition of the NZ Rugby board has changed since then, with private equity expert Catherine Savage and former Auckland chair Stu Mather joining, and Dame Patsy Reddy replacing Mitchell as chair.
However, Stuff understands that Robinson is determined to keep pushing through a change agenda despite a sometimes bruising time in the hot seat.
Robinson is even known to regard periods of All Blacks dominance as a double-edged sword, with their success potentially papering over the cracks in the system, particularly when it comes to participation, fan engagement and commercial sustainability.
-
-
Terms of reference (pdf)
-
Relevant page on NZR's website:
-
my gut feeling, at least some issues with rugby in NZ is the same as some of the issues with the current rules/laws in general, layers and layers of tweeks rather than going back to first principles. dont get me wrong, going back to first principles might not be possible....but that doesn't mean thats not a problem
-
-
@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!
-
@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
Governance Reform
