NZR review
-
The problem with splitting and making the NPC purely amatuer is that the quaility of it - on and off the field will decrease noticably.
Players wont get paid and will go elsewhese, admin, coach's etc wont get paid and will go elsewhere also.
The quality of rugby will decrease across the board, across all aspects.
It's sad we can't make the current model work as it's a really good pathway for players and admin, coach's alike to get to the top level.
But as I say - we can't make enough money to make it work and have to cut the NPC. The beast is slowly dying.
-
The Players Association has been good throughout this
NZR board agreeing to one thing and then backing away is no surprise. They are spineless
Certain PU's fighting in personal self interest is no surprise either. I would note that there's been comments that a few PU's are pretending to speak on behalf of all PU's. However there are PU's who fully support the recommendations
Here's a short Rob Nichol interview from this morning:
-
@Duluth interesting.. so very high level summary of audio
Point 1: some (not all unions ) holding out
Point 2: board members who want to ignore the part of the reform themselves and serve out their term as opposed to reapply
Wonder if it is possible to allow an ex (not current) PU board member to temporarily consult on the set up, thus nullifying PU hold out concerns that an independent board member won't be able to understand the nuances of PU level activity. Seems plausible to fix point one, not perfect but gets things moving.
To fix point 2, perhaps if point 1 resolved, they can not longer point fingers and just have to get on with it. This one not so easy to resolve unless they're told this is it
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
The Players Association has been good throughout this
NZR board agreeing to one thing and then backing away is no surprise. They are spineless
Certain PU's fighting in personal self interest is no surprise either. I would note that there's been comments that a few PU's are pretending to speak on behalf of all PU's. However there are PU's who fully support the recommendations
Here's a short Rob Nichol interview from this morning:
Is Rob being a bit naive
This 'good appointment panel' will lead to great times. It doesn't always happen this way. I still think 3 board member is not only unreasonable but maybe also desirable
Dame Patsy as Chair might not the best person to lead this process
-
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I think the concern of the PUs is that the balance will go too far in the other direction. We don't want to board full of accountants and career directors either. "Deep knowledge of the game" is very subjective.
It's also a bit of a check (and insulting) to ask the PUs to give up control in this way. It's like saying they are too stupid to make good decision and so let a wise (diverse and all that entails) group make the decision instead
But the wise (diverse) group might in fact be incompetent or corrupt. What then?
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350229260/counties-manukau-clubs-remove-junior-rugby-fees-revive-game
This is what the Silverlake money that was allocated to the provinces should be used for, rather than increasing salary caps or upgrading 14 different stadiums for NPC games.
-
I really not arguing one way or other on board make up, can see both sides. I know the PUs want a say rightly, but to say we need reps who have experience on boards and so hopefully experience on ground running community game, is perhaps like saying big companies that own grocery chains etc should have people on their board that have managed store or worked on tills etc. Really there are completely different needs to all different jobs etc.
I will give example one of best rugby club admins I saw I think was when club I was involved in in Aus got a committee (who basically decided how club spent money etc etc) was made up of jokers who were all businessmen (Lawyer was Pres, there were 2 accountants, mangers of businesses etc) and had nothing to do with senior or junior committees or teams etc. Were incredibly efficient, and while I didn't agree with every decision, they did nothing but good for club, seemed to be removed from petty things that go on in club. We had a senior committee and junior club committees below them, I was on senior committee and just had to say to myself how bloody good it was removing admin from actual playing/team probs.
I have been on a few rugby committees , PU, Jabs etc etc in my life , but when I stop and think that was probably best system I saw. -
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
I really not arguing one way or other on board make up, can see both sides. I know the PUs want a say rightly, but to say we need reps who have experience on boards and so hopefully experience on ground running community game,
I think they are only asking for 3 out of 9 board positions.
And surely there are some people involved at this level who have good accounting or business skills etc.
I really don't see what the issue is. This year it all seems to be, with super rugby, heading in the right direction. With the current board
-
@Winger yep as I said I not arguing one way or other, just it's not clear cut and can see both sides. It's not about accountants etc as such, but the right skills to manage what needs to be managed, I haven't really seen how other sports run their top bodies.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@Winger yep as I said I not arguing one way or other, just it's not clear cut and can see both sides. It's not about accountants etc as such, but the right skills to manage what needs to be managed, I haven't really seen how other sports run their top bodies.
Corruptly?
-
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
I really don't see what the issue is. This year it all seems to be, with super rugby, heading in the right direction. With the current board
SR has been farmed off to it's own independent team, so this seems a point in favour of an independent board.
-
@Higgins said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@Winger yep as I said I not arguing one way or other, just it's not clear cut and can see both sides. It's not about accountants etc as such, but the right skills to manage what needs to be managed, I haven't really seen how other sports run their top bodies.
Corruptly?
Well if you seen it in other sports, fair enough, but regardless I still don't know how they set up boards etc.
-
@booboo said in NZR review:
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Made me think about who owns NZR
I think this is important. From my understanding of the review there was no place for anyone representing the owners of the game.
Well who owns the game anyway? Noy PUs, or NZR etc. I think the review suggested the most quaified should be on board?
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@booboo said in NZR review:
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Made me think about who owns NZR
I think this is important. From my understanding of the review there was no place for anyone representing the owners of the game.
Well who owns the game anyway? Noy PUs, or NZR etc. I think the review suggested the most quaified should be on board?
The PU literally own NZ rugby. It's theirs.
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@booboo said in NZR review:
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Made me think about who owns NZR
I think this is important. From my understanding of the review there was no place for anyone representing the owners of the game.
Well who owns the game anyway? Noy PUs, or NZR etc. I think the review suggested the most quaified should be on board?
The PU literally own NZ rugby. It's theirs.
@Dan54 see the above post.
I'll go a little deeper though @nzzp. Who owns the PUs?
Answer: the clubs.
Next question: who owns the clubs?
Answer: the members
I accept the governance structure is wrong and needs to change, but the review recommendations, IIRC, do not allow any place for the owners of the game within the governance. Only for a bunch of "stakeholders" with particular interest.
The PUs, well some of them, have lost focus on what they stand for as winning the NPC, and buying a team to do so, is no longer the prestigious prize it used to be. (The NPC needs to continue as the rep comp it used to be.) But representation direct from the grassroots through the PUs is 100% necessary.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
I really don't see what the issue is. This year it all seems to be, with super rugby, heading in the right direction. With the current board
SR has been farmed off to it's own independent team, so this seems a point in favour of an independent board.
But this was agreed to by the current Board. And seems to be a big step in the right direction.
-
@booboo said in NZR review:
I think this is important. From my understanding of the review there was no place for anyone representing the owners of the game.
Which is a nonsense recommendation. It puts so-called experts on a pedestal. It's a naive recommendation where everything will be fine if we somehow get the right 'experts' in place. And as I've said previously it insulting to all the members who have helped to make NZ rugby what it is
Dame Patsy thinks diversity (discrimination especially against white men) is the answer. Boeing might be one example that suggests otherwise
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
Dame Patsy thinks diversity (discrimination especially against white men) is the answer. Boeing might be one example that suggests otherwise
Do you know she's speaking DEI or diversity of professional experience? I.e. someone with demonstrated success in marketing, in finance etc?
Rob Nichol: NZ Rugby Players' Association CEO on Rugby NZ's proposal aiming to overhaul its governing structure - The Mike Hosking Breakfast | iHeart
