NZR review
-
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. -
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
I not sure who right or wrong, don't NZRPA supposedly represent the players? Players should have a say, but as employees should they run the whole thing? I fully admit to not knowing the best way of doing iy, torn between PUs having a say and it being run by independant board.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
I not sure who right or wrong, don't NZRPA supposedly represent the players? Players should have a say, but as employees should they run the whole thing? I fully admit to not knowing the best way of doing iy, torn between PUs having a say and it being run by independant board.
RPA is professional players only I think. Technically they are contractors not employees I believe.
To me, utlimately it is the PU. I think splitting off the professional side is the way to go - with a dedicated board and org structure that gets the best for the pro game. Then you can have the PU focussing on clubs.unions and developing the game.
-
@nzzp professional players are employees employed by NZR under a collective agreement and loaned back to the relevant professional team(s).
I have been following this closely as a lot of it was highly relevant to other sports, particularly trying to balance the professional and amateur games. I can see the attraction of splitting off the professional game, but one issue is that profits of any separate entity would be taxed before distribution of dividends, whereas currently they are exempt because national sports bodies are usually organisations that promote amateur sport and the professional side is used to fund that.
-
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
If it's a separate for-profit entity, the surplus would be taxable. Imputation credits on the dividends would be refunded after filing a tax return, but to avoid all tax, the entity would not be able to retain any amount from the surplus. Possibly there are other options around licensing and/or management fees but that's a good way to attract IRD's attention for an avoidance arrangement.
Appointing a separate arms-length board to run the professional game within the NZRU is fine.
-
NZR sets date for special general meeting to decide governance structure
The end of May will hopefully see a resolution to the ongoing conflict.
So that sounds like the NZR boards alternate proposal isn’t being voted on?
A few weeks ago it was the boards proposal vs the PU proposal without the actual review recommendation
-
No I don't think they've got it right, other articles mention NZR proposal, PU proposal, and NZRPA saying they want the pilkington in full.
NZ Rugby governance reform: Board and provincial unions to go head-to-head
A vote on what has been labelled a generational change to the governance structure of New Zealand Rugby will take place at the end of the month.
-
Yeah that sounds right, that's what was reported earlier.
If the original proposal was voted on as well there would be 3 options
What a mess. It should've been an up/down vote on Pilkington before any counter proposals were put forward.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
No I don't think they've got it right, other articles mention NZR proposal, PU proposal, and NZRPA saying they want the pilkington in full.
Apparently not. NZR ditched their plan and are putting up the Pilkington proposal for a vote
From a paywalled NZH article:
That was until now, and the surprise announcement that the board has effectively given up trying to push its own strangely concocted and confused transitional plan to change its governance structure, and has instead decided to ask the unions to vote in favour of adopting the key recommendations of the independent review.So it will be Pilkington vs the PU proposal
Here's some of the language for the PU proposal (@Winger this is the one you support right?)
that at least one board member has “lived experience, knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori in a complex organisational context”, and likewise, at least one member “must identify and have lived experience as Pasifika with ancestral and authentic cultural connections and an ability to apply a Pasifika world view in a complex organisational context”Also the PU proposal will be finalised next week.. they are still writing it
As for support for the PU proposal?
Wellington chair Russell Poole says there is not universal support among the unions for their own proposal, but that until more detail is released about the alternative, it’s unclear how much support it will have.
