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
-
@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.
-
You know something, all the years I was on club committes etc, you had board members who didn't think the PUs were doing what they wanted, and the PU board should have to do what clubs wanted, which is all very nice, but the clubs wanted different things, so you had to make decisions on what you thought was correct for the PU. And as board member at clubs I was involved in, I never heard anyone say we 'owned' the game, just we all were doing our best to run it with in many cases, not always having skills to do it well, only a love for the game. The same could be said when on PU board etc, and I have to admit those experiences are what makes me think that the recommendation are not necessarily that bad. Prahps we need just the best people we can get within the parameters of what we have to have to make the game run efficiently at top level.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
You know something, all the years I was on club committes etc, you had board members who didn't think the PUs were doing what they wanted, and the PU board should have to do what clubs wanted, which is all very nice, but the clubs wanted different things, so you had to make decisions on what you thought was correct for the PU. And as board member at clubs I was involved in, I never heard anyone say we 'owned' the game, just we all were doing our best to run it with in many cases, not always having skills to do it well, only a love for the game. The same could be said when on PU board etc, and I have to admit those experiences are what makes me think that the recommendation are not necessarily that bad. Prahps we need just the best people we can get within the parameters of what we have to have to make the game run efficiently at top level.
-
Of course you didn't. It was implicit who owned the game. And the game was run for the good of the game itself. Now there is profit and huge salaries required to be generated.
-
And therein lies the conflict. Running the game at the top level relies on generating as much money as possible and keeping it there to the exclusion of 'the good of the game'. The governance changes seem exclusively focussed on the pro and high performance.
We aren't in the days of Ron Don any more.
-
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
and I have to admit those experiences are what makes me think that the recommendation are not necessarily that bad. Prahps we need just the best people we can get within the parameters of what we have to have to make the game run efficiently at top level.
What recommendation(s)
Because the NZR recommendations will not (it seems) ensure the best people are appointed (if the attached is correct. Maybe it's not as this is so terrible). But if it is it EXCLUDES this section (on merit) from the Review Panel recommendations. Instead, it focuses on diversity (in the attached NZR document). Thats the main focus. Not rugby knowledge (it downgrades from deep knowledge) or merit but just diversity.
How 7 out of 9 NZR Board members agreed to this garbage is beyond me. When they had a much better recommended proposal that maybe should have been left like it was (Except they are guaranteed to keep their job. Support a crap proposal because ... )
My view is the whole NZR Board should be required to step down (especially the Chair) and they should go back to the Review Panel's recommendations on this section. With the addition of three out of 9 appointed members from PR (I don't think the final decision bit is enough).
Governance-Reform-Proposal_260324-v2.pdf
NZR PROPOSAL
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.REVIEW PANEL
All Board members are independent (no representatives)
• Appointment is on merit & open to any individual.
• Diversity of thought and background is demonstrated.
•Must have sound commercial skills, financial acumen,
deep knowledge of the game and experienced leadership
capability.
• Collectively have the skills to interact with the wide range
of stakeholders within the game.
•Members make the final decision on all persons seeking
Board positions at AGM. -
I would also change this section on the appointments panel
The Panel will exhibit diversity across gender, background
and ethnicity including knowledge of Māori and Pasifika
rugby.to something to include playing numbers. For example, if men are 90% of playing numbers, then the board should reflect this. And take out background and the focus on just one (or 2) group. It's not needed especially in light of the first section. The panel selection should treat everyone equally but the only basis for discrimination being the playing makeup.
-
@booboo said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
You know something, all the years I was on club committes etc, you had board members who didn't think the PUs were doing what they wanted, and the PU board should have to do what clubs wanted, which is all very nice, but the clubs wanted different things, so you had to make decisions on what you thought was correct for the PU. And as board member at clubs I was involved in, I never heard anyone say we 'owned' the game, just we all were doing our best to run it with in many cases, not always having skills to do it well, only a love for the game. The same could be said when on PU board etc, and I have to admit those experiences are what makes me think that the recommendation are not necessarily that bad. Prahps we need just the best people we can get within the parameters of what we have to have to make the game run efficiently at top level.
-
Of course you didn't. It was implicit who owned the game. And the game was run for the good of the game itself. Now there is profit and huge salaries required to be generated.
-
And therein lies the conflict. Running the game at the top level relies on generating as much money as possible and keeping it there to the exclusion of 'the good of the game'. The governance changes seem exclusively focussed on the pro and high performance.
We aren't in the days of Ron Don any more.
Yep I understand all that boo, but take my word for it, all the PU boards are there to rightfully worry about rugby in their PU, Auckland isn't in anyway worried about Taranaki etc etc etc. We can argue all we want, but we can't run the game from the bottom, it makes no sense. Why does running the game at top level mean keeping money there for the exclusion of the good of the game? I would think it's opposite, because without the top end making the bottom important, the top end will die!! The NZR board has always been mindful of the bottom end, it's why the money they make is also used to fund the game at lower levels!!
-
-
Actually just had a read back over the thread, and have come to conclusion perhaps noone really knows the answer. There is arguments because some think some own game, others don't want diversity, some seem for review recommendations, some against.
Perhaps it working just fine as it is, as there seems no concensus on changing things? -
@Winger It's Easter Sunday and I don't know if I can be bothered with the shitfight, but, I think you're over egging (pun intended) it a bit.
The recommendations and the NZR proposals aren't really that different. All the diversity etc you seem to have an issue with are within the recommendations, and if you go back to the actual report they acknowledge that diversity is a goal and that a lack of diversity of thought, and a lack of gender diversity is anachronistic.
The main difference of the two to me seems to be the lack of a requirement "for sound commercial skills, financial acumen, deep knowledge of the game and experienced leadership capability" in the NZR proposal.
Now the way it's written on the proposal doc you link to is a bit odd. In the original report it notes that "The board should have ...", yet the proposal doc makes it seem like it's a requirement of individual board members. Not sure if that was intended by the writers of the proposal doc or if it was just a porting over error.
This is then repeated on the NZR proposal with: "Have expertise in tikanga and Te Ao Māori and strong relationships across Māori and Pasifika". They needed to specify the board or collectively like the other two bullet points.
In both cases by not specifying board/collectively it leaves it open for interpretation and if interpreted as individuals it limits the candidates pool.
Take away the bad writing and I really don't think they're as far apart as you're making them out to be.
-
@Nepia said in NZR review:
Take away the bad writing and I really don't think they're as far apart as you're making them out to be.
WE will just have to agree to disagree on this one (although I agree that the NZR proposal is unclear. Maybe deliberately)
I like the panels' recommendations. The NZR Boards are awful. And if your point is correct why change the recommendations so completely.
I would like to know who was the driving force behind these changes. Although I think I can guess who the main one was.
and why would anyone take this out
The main difference of the two to me seems to be the lack of a requirement "for sound commercial skills, financial acumen, deep knowledge of the game and experienced leadership capability"
