NZR review
-
@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?
-
-
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Tim said in NZR review:
@ruggabee Feels like massive changes and schisms are coming, with little public consultation ...
Silver Lake echo, echo, echo
Agree with the bolded bit below. Based on the NZR proposal
NZ Rugby's governance model described as 'chaos', game 'impotent'
New Zealand Rugby Players' Association take gloves off in battle for a fit-for-purpose and independent board and leadership structure.
The New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association has described New Zealand Rugby’s current governance model as being in a state of “chaos” and says the game here is “impotent”, “disorganised” and operating in a “leadership vacuum”.
The strongly worded statement today was approved by NZRPA leader Rob Nichol, who confirmed to 1News he stood by everything in it.
It comes as NZ Rugby grapples with its governance in the wake of the non-binding Pilkington report recommendations released eight months ago which stated NZ Rugby’s constitution and governance was not fit for purpose and stressed the need, among other things, for a nine-person independent board.
Some among the provincial union representatives on NZ Rugby’s board have taken issue with that, however, which has created an impasse that the national organisation has attempted to bypass with a compromise of a transitional model towards a fully independent board.
This compromise was released by chairwoman Dame Patsy Reddy last week in an announcement she described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform”. It has been reported that Dame Patsy has offered to resign if she can’t get an agreement across the line.
Nichol’s organisation has flatly refused to accept NZ Rugby’s compromise, saying “since the publication of the Review the NZR and its voting members have accepted the Review findings and the need for change.
“However, to date, they have not accepted the recommendations, and instead have put forward numerous alternative mitigated and/or compromised proposals.
“None of these proposals, to date, deliver on the Review Panel recommendations, and none of them have garnered the united support of the NZR and its voting members, let alone other key stakeholders and the public.”
The statement added: “It has been eight months since the release of the Review. The game is widely regarded as impotent/disorganised and incompetent and is essentially in a state of governance chaos.
“The very issues highlighted in the Review and that contributed to its conclusion - that NZR governance is not fit for purpose - are literally manifesting themselves in front of New Zealand’s eyes.
“There is now a leadership vacuum, and, as such, this proposal is designed to fill that vacuum and provide something the entire game can unite behind and support.”
-
@Tim said in NZR review:
@ruggabee Feels like massive changes and schisms are coming, with little public consultation ...
i think they would say if you want to be consulted then you need to be involved with one of the unions/club, as we discussed further up, the unions represent their members....not just anyone that watches rugby
-
NZ Rugby steps in to repay $3m Covid wage subsidies
Rugby's ruling body is looking to cut funding at provincial level by $3.6m over two years.
-
Must-see TV
PLUS: Rugby joust hogs the headlines in The Week That Was, but not The Weekend That Will Be
-
NZHerald: new-zealand-rugby-and-provincial-unions-at-odds-over-governance-change-proposals
NZR & the PU's have shown that NZRPA were correct
Edit - Looks like that is pay walled now
In the next few days, a special general meeting will be called, giving the distinct impression New Zealand Rugby’s elongated governance restructure saga is coming to an end. But, unless there is a dramatic twist of events, the announcement of the SGM will serve not as a historic moment signalling that the game is ready to adapt and modernise but instead provides a disastrous ending to a disastrous process and perfectly illustrates why trust and confidence in rugby’s directors and leaders is so low.A meeting last week between NZR and a handful of chairs from the provincial unions failed to dissuade either side from being wedded to their own change proposal.That two, maybe even three, proposals are likely to be presented for vote is not only a serious governance failure, but it is a position that will most likely fail to bring this process to a conclusionNZRPA has considerable power to block or amend any significant changes and its boss, Rob Nichol, has said several times that a failure to bring governance in line with the review recommendations will force a re-think about how the professional players engage with the game. Precisely what that means is likely to become clear, just as the unions and NZR will be thinking they have put this whole issue to bed. -
