NZR review
-
@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?
-
@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.
Mate see booboo's point, no way dp PU's own the game. I not saying which is right way for game to be run, and strongly rubbish comments from some on here about the Blazer brigade that run PU's too. Have never had that impression of any PU board that I have had dealings with , etc. The PU's in general are made up of reps frpm clubs, and the biggest struggle they can have is clubs will get their reps to vote for waht suits their club etc. With too much sway by PU's on NZR the same will apply, and no way do the probelms etc of running rugby in say Auckland the same as running it in Taranaki etc. That rightly or wrongly is why I suggest they are trying to take PUs out of picture? I am guessing there, but would assume that is one of reasons. Anyone even talking about Super boards etc are well off track, they don't have reps on NZR and never have.
@Winger 'asking what if baord is incompetent or corrupt is just trying to muddy water, that is trouble whatever way you form board!!
-
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@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?
“But there are different ways of doing this, and having a bar, or having a requirement that at least three members of the board must have that [provincial union] governance experience is unnecessarily restrictive.
“It sets in place a criterion that will cut out or could cut out people that have equally as strong understanding of the game.”
The NZ Rugby proposal would also pave the way for a ‘stakeholder council’ that Reddy saw as crucial to give more of a voice to diverse communities, Pasifika, women and younger participants.
“Over the last 10 or 12 years, there've been five separate governance reviews into our structure, our governance, our leadership structure, and each time there's been some incremental change, but it has not delivered the reform that everybody's seeking,” Dame Patsy said.
Should Reddy resign, it would mean a short tenure for the first woman to chair NZ Rugby since it was founded in 1892.
Asked what message that would send about NZ Rugby as an organisation, she said: “I think that's for you to consider.
“For me it's being honest, it's being upfront with the provincial unions in the first instance, but also the wider rugby stakeholders - and indeed the public - to say that one of the principles that I firmly believe in is the time is right to have not only a diverse board, not only a board that has the opportunity for constructive feedback from a wider range of stakeholders, but a board that has that an independent position, all appointed through the same appointments process.
"And for me, that's a fundamental requirement.“
The NZ Rugby proposal is now being weighed up by the provincial unions.
-
@booboo said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
no way dp PU's own the game.
But they do represent the owners.
Spot on.
As @booboo said, it's the members who own the clubs who own the PU. They have to have a major say in how the game is run.
Professional rugby needs different skills. PU don't always have that. But ultimately having the PU cut out of the board seems weird to me.
-
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
On the diversity thing, everyone does remember we lost Gov't grants because of not enough women on board? So diversity is a requirement.
The thing with this requirement is that all women on the NZR Board will be considered a diversity as opposed to a merit appointment. And it won't stop with the Board if it's not stopped. Men (esp white) need to find their backbone again and fight this sort of stuff.
Having said that I support more PI, Maori and women involved but always based on merit. Nothing else
-
@Winger a stakeholder council isn't a board. I don't see a problem with asking women as an example what they see as lacking from their game. Doesn't mean NZR are bound to provide it, just consider it.
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Winger a stakeholder council isn't a board. I don't see a problem with asking women as an example what they see as lacking from their game. Doesn't mean NZR are bound to provide it, just consider it.
My view is the NZR proposal is much worse (its f++king awful) than the review panel recommendations
The review panel seemed ok
NZR proposal (who came up with this?)
Same - all Board members are independent.
Existing Board members will continue in office until they
are due for retirement by rotation.
The Constitution will entrench the following in the Skills &
Competencies Framework:
• The Board must have diversity across gender,
background, and ethnicity,
• Have expertise in tikanga and Te Ao Māori and strong
relationships across Māori and Pasifika
• Collectively have sufficient rugby knowledge at all levels
of the game in New Zealand -
@Winger said in NZR review:
The Constitution will entrench the following in the Skills &
Competencies Framework:
• The Board must have diversity across gender, background, and ethnicity,
• Have expertise in tikanga and Te Ao MāoriThat I certainly don't agree with.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
On the diversity thing, everyone does remember we lost Gov't grants because of not enough women on board? So diversity is a requirement.
The thing with this requirement is that all women on the NZR Board will be considered a diversity as opposed to a merit appointment. And it won't stop with the Board if it's not stopped. Men (esp white) need to find their backbone again and fight this sort of stuff.
Having said that I support more PI, Maori and women involved but always based on merit. Nothing else
Well that's for politics thread probably. I was just replying to the comments on Reddy talking about diversity etc, it is needed end of. Doesn't worry me, and I don't think I have lost backbone as a white male because I comfortable with it. Noone is suggesting that you have to have board members without merit, and if you think only white males are always or the only ones who can do job, I would maybe relievesd you only give opinions on a forum and not running game.
-
Doesn't matter what we think anyway, if we want the game to flourish, and I mean apart from us old white males, you have to (I think) show you are there for game for all. I think saying the board has to have expertise in Tikanga and Te Ao Maori is a problem, you can have advisors etc for that. I would also think the board would have to have expertise in english and NZ culture etc, but we take that for granted anyway.
-
In all of this I haven’t heard what is specifically wrong? …that couldn’t be fixed by other mechanisms.
Reminds me of the 1980s when NZ started its fire sale of its infrastructure assets to foreign owners who were going to bring expertise and invest. What did they do? They levered up the assets with debt (not equity), paid themselves dividends, sold the shares for capital gains, and moved on. I struggle to see where we benefited - except we no longer own the assets. Private equity is an extractive industry and public companies are focussed on short term profitability - giving lip service to everything else. Why would you want a bunch of narcissist’s (likely) running a game that’s been built off the back of volunteers and amateurs over many years?
That’s why I am totally against the idea that rugby is run by “independent directors”. Retain ownership and governance of the game within the traditional democratic ownership structures and use expertise to assist the board and operations.
-
Also it’s worth noting none of the PU’s are arguing for the status quo. Apparently the criticisms of the governance have generally been accepted
What is happening is certain parties are happy with recommendations that apply to others but not the recommendations that affect themselves.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@kev said in NZR review:
In all of this I haven’t heard what is specifically wrong?
You didn’t read the governance review from last year? You may not agree with it but there were many specific criticisms
“That couldn’t be fixed by other mechanisms”. A lot of what is said about parochialism is bang on and does nothing to advance NZ Rugby - the big unions have a lot to answer for here. But the word independent is on rinse and repeat throughout the report - it doesn’t exist.
I note though that it suggests the independent directors should attend some club rugby games. Helpful.
