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.
-
@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"
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
Perhaps it working just fine as it is, as there seems no concensus on changing things?
There is as mentioned before. Its agreement on the actual change that is the issue. Its doesn't help with some pushing an agenda, others protecting their job and the initial recommendations not being realistic regarding the members right to keep their reps seats on the board.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@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"
Recommendations are just recommendations, they don't need to be adopted. In my (somewhat professional) opinion the report was pretty average anyway.
But I would have kept the above recommendation, but in it's original form and not how it was ported across into the proposal report.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
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.
not sure i agree with this when we want to grow the sport into all kinds of different demographics, the board reflecting only how things currently are is how you keep things how they currently are, if we want the womens game to grow, for example, then we need women on the board to make sure things are being done to attract more women
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
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.
not sure i agree with this when we want to grow the sport into all kinds of different demographics, the board reflecting only how things currently are is how you keep things how they currently are, if we want the womens game to grow, for example, then we need women on the board to make sure things are being done to attract more women
I don't like discrimination full stop. But I can see merit in the selection panel (not the Board) reflecting the people who support and or play rugby.
My view is the best people should be appointed to the board regardless of gender, background or ethnicity. And if this happens to be mainly men (or women) then that's life. As long as it is based on merit. Thats the hard bit to achieve. As opposed to belonging to the right club etc.
The opposing view (and currently popular) is to employ and appoint sometimes inferior people because they are the right color or gender etc. Like Boeing is doing. My view is this will lead to poorer outcomes. And, should be avoided. Unlike the NZR proposal.
-
@Winger i think the starting point as you need to see fresh points of view and an inherent understanding of what someone like a female rugby player wants as something that has merit, if we see things like years in the current rugby management structure as the only thing that has merit and that a female point of view on females playing rugby as not having merit....then we're missing the point
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
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.
not sure i agree with this when we want to grow the sport into all kinds of different demographics, the board reflecting only how things currently are is how you keep things how they currently are, if we want the womens game to grow, for example, then we need women on the board to make sure things are being done to attract more women
I don't like discrimination full stop. But I can see merit in the selection panel (not the Board) reflecting the people who support and or play rugby.
My view is the best people should be appointed to the board regardless of gender, background or ethnicity. And if this happens to be mainly men (or women) then that's life. As long as it is based on merit. Thats the hard bit to achieve. As opposed to belonging to the right club etc.
The opposing view (and currently popular) is to employ and appoint sometimes inferior people because they are the right color or gender etc. Like Boeing is doing. My view is this will lead to poorer outcomes. And, should be avoided. Unlike the NZR proposal.
Nothing in either proposal precludes a selection on merit, it's just clarifying all the aspects that a board may require..
Furthermore what is merit? I know people on boards who meet the "sound commercial skills etc" so presumably would be "on merit" yet are hopeless board members.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
i think the starting point as you need to see fresh points of view and an inherent understanding of what someone like a female rugby player wants as something that has merit,
I disagree that a Board appointed strictly on merit couldn't do this. There are many ways this could be achieved. By say appointing a sub-committee to achieve this with an appropriate diverse group of appointments.
In fact, a merit-based Board is much more likely to produce a good outcome than a diverse board. Where the best candidates are excluded or don't want to be involved.
-
@Winger you seem to keep missing what some are saying...as an example, being a woman...invested in growing the women's game...and so having personal inherent understanding on what may be missing...has merit
you really are coming across like only white men are the only ones that can have merit
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
you really are coming across like only white men are the only ones that can have merit
Where have I said this?
I would expect a merit based board to have a diverse make up. But it may lean towards white men at times and in other directions at other times
One thing that is clear is the current NZR Board appointments process isn't working. It must change. And a good starting point would be asking all current Board members to resign. As a Board that produces the dreadful NZR recommendations isn't fit for purpose.
But think of the upside. Get a good or better board in place and NZ rugby will take off. This of course is easier said than done.
-
NZR walks back NPC claim:
Gregor Paul: The issue simmering below NZR bungle of TV comms
OPINION: Perhaps it's symbolic of a deeper concern that unions raised last year.
It would seem reports of the death of the National Provincial Championship’s broadcast contract are greatly exaggerated, and news that the plug will be pulled in 2026 was treated with as much surprise within Sky as it was everywhere else.
The NPC is likely to have a different broadcast set-up when a new contract begins in 2026, but, importantly, it will have a deal of some kind.
It is not going to disappear entirely from screens despite the fact New Zealand Rugby wrote to the provincial unions last week and told them: “That future broadcast revenue values for the NPC will be significantly lower than previous broadcast agreements, on the basis that Sky TV is not expected to wish to bid for rights to broadcast every NPC/FPC [Farah Palmer Cup] game moving forward.”
There were three things about that statement that were alarming — perhaps illustrative of the concerns growing within the rugby community about the competencies in the national body’s management and executive group.
The first is that its manifestly not true — which is why this week, NZR re-sent its correspondence to the unions with that specific line deleted.
It is understood Sky has not indicated any intent to axe the NPC from its broadcast package in the next deal it is expected to sign with NZR.
There are educated assumptions seasoned analysts could make about the NPC’s broadcast future — that it may, from 2026, shift to a lower-cost base where fewer cameras are devoted to each game.
It’s also possible not every game is broadcast live in the future, but Sky is certainly not ready to walk away from a competition that continues to be a value-for-money proposition for subscribers.
The broadcaster is, after all, the self-styled home of rugby and while the NPC may not be the jewel in the crown anymore, it generates enough audience to ensure Sky will want it to maintain its market dominance.
So, too, could a body of NPC content be run on its free-to-air channel, Sky Open, to create yet more advertising inventory — as part of its publicly stated ambition to drive more revenue by selling airtime to big brands who want to be associated with rugby.
-
Players association calls for entire NZ Rugby board to resign amid governance standoff
The Players' Association has declared the board 'not fit for purpose'.
what's going on bruh?
-
