NZR review
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
I not against the Pilkington report, but suggesting PUs shouldn't be propped up with coin is to suggest that our grassroots game isn't the most important part of our game, and in general have least way of hauling money in.
PUs are propped up with coin.
Clubs are grassroots.I don't see how that changes with implementing key aspects of the Pilkington Review.
edit - keep in mind that provincial unions don't appear to be losing vast sums of money organising amateur leagues - it's spending sums on trying to win the NPC. Hence why their input into running a professional organisation is less than desired. Generally speaking they don't have the skills so what use are they at the highest level?
Disagree, but been on PU and know how much we spent on junior leagues , all the age grade teams etc. I know some spend too much on NPC teams, but take my word for it best way to get rugby on a high in your area? Get your rep team winning unfortunately, it all relates. NZ rugby goes well when ABs going well and what also happens it goes down to grassroots. As I say I think in end Pilkington isn't bad, but don't ever be under any impression that not putting money into age grade doesn't help make NZ rugby what it is!
Pilkington isn't preventing money being put into age grades.
-
@BorderJB said in NZR review:
@Dan54 After reading up from the last few months info, there does look to possibly be a fear from the PUs when things are all being analyzed that Super Rugby Unions will takeover the running of rugby i.e the secondary schools, club comps etc over the 5 areas or even expanded to 8 or 9. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but there has been talk from Super CEOs about a 24 week comp which can only be done with NPC out of the way.
I know , like you I don't know who is right or wrong, but super rugby taking over club rugby etc will never ever work unless we want to kill grassroots. All that system would do is turn Super clubs into PUs so really no difference.
-
The GOAT clears his throat
PLUS: Eliza McCartney vaults into The Week That Was and a foulmouthed Weekend That Will Be
Apparently the Chiefs' unions are aligned against proposal 2.
Taranaki particularly strident about the need to reject Proposal 2, which was tabled for vote at the Special General Meeting next week. It is understood that Waikato, Counties and Bay of Plenty are all backers of Proposal 1, the (nearly) full implementation of the Pilkington Report’s recommendations.
Rehashing some important points:
On that subject, we are long overdue for hard, potentially combustible, discussions about what the role of the PUs really is.
As one who has operated on a provincial board said (under the protection of anonymity), the PUs should be more worried about the make-up of their own boards than that of NZR. They’re “owned” by the clubs, the source said, but too many PU “boards are made up of men who want to [spend] their cash on the performance of the NPC team”.
The source continued: “It’s not the NZR’s job to get kids playing rugby in Stratford; that’s Taranaki’s job.” Which brings to mind David Gibson and North Harbour. There was a guy, I thought, who recognised the demographic challenges rugby faced and had to work harder and more innovatively to engage the population in rugby. The community responded well, the traditionalists didn’t.
Gibson is now doing something else.
New Zealand has, in effect, 20 professional high-performance units (and that’s not including the elite schools that serve as proxy academies). Most of those units run academies and offer services that are replicated, sometimes within the same city. This is not what efficiency or effectiveness looks like.
-
@Winger The review also received comments/feedback that regionalism is an issue, that PU board members can't always agree with a good proposal because they may be removed from the board or not be re-elected, and that the threat of replacing the board via SGM is used to avoid addressing more controversial issues.
-
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
-
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The breakdown gets into it from 26:30.
Mils was not holding back.
Kirwan says Auckland, BOP, Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, NH are against and have the votes to block it.
I think they were too afraid to say the quiet part out aloud, which is that the future is an amateur NPC and the PUs know it, and that dialling back their overspending on those teams is the fastest way of righting the finances and setting a clear boundary between the amateur and pro games.
Assuming the analysis here the be correct (pretty huge assumption), we'll have the NZRPA withdraw from the colllective bargaining agreement negiotiations.
Is Mils a bit stupid? As his summary was really poor.
If the only difference is three board members (out of 9) need a PU background (along with the other qualities) who cares
This discussion is poor. And that is maybe NZRs biggest issue. The quality of our rugby top minds discussing these issues. I doubt if many would even know a good proposal if it was presented to them
Kirwan seems about as clueless as Mils. Jeff might be a bit smarter but his comment on the increase in spending seemed to lack any depth
If you have got stomach issues don't watch this segment.
-
Auckland and Canterbury aren't happy with the lack of promotion of the NPC and some previous damaging public comments by NZR, which is a fair criticism. NZR have pointed the finger back at the big three PUs about participation numbers.
This doesn't appear to be behind a paywall.
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
"We have more than 34 'Rugby' Boards, 350 Board Members (more Board members than our full-time professional player base)"
are those board members all full time?
-
If the Pilkington report is voted in indications are the NPC will then become mainly a amateur competition,Which probably it has to happen in the long run.Not enough money to sustain all these teams.
It is going to be really hard to implement the Pilkington recommendations the Provincial unions will not want to relinquish the NPC as a professional competition.
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition reads of the Cavaliers all over again a complete mess. -
It seems there is a fair bit of talking by stealth around what the future of the different competitions will be, and how these two options will impact them. I think the public and the rugby communities would benefit if some of the future operational options could be outlined, albeit by commentators instead of those directly involved. The fact that there is a lot of talking in code, means people's views can be skewed. Of course a lot of people want their provinces to have a voice, and for their teams to maintain some strength. If there were statements out there such as; provincial unions are struggling financially and their biggest costs areplaying contracting, and operational delivery during the NPC. We need a competition that reflects modern challenges and to consolidate our high performance units. Having an independent board allows us to listen to all stakeholders and do the best thing for NZ rugby right from community rugby to our high performance and commercial arms. It is just from a lay persons perspective it can be difficult for some to understand. Expect the i.portsnt people want to take the decision making and tell all the regions what to do. Whereas it is clear rugby is a very different model to what it was when the regions had more control over the ship
-
@Chris said in NZR review:
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition
It wouldn't be a new competition. Just a new body to run the professional game
Initially at least SR wouldn't change. Pro players could still play NPC. The new body would negotiate with NZR
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
Next move the Players association starts up their own competition
It wouldn't be a new competition. Just a new body to run the professional game
Initially at least SR wouldn't change. Pro players could still play NPC. The new body would negotiate with NZR
I wonder how that would go ? looks a mess to me,To many people wanting to hold on to power.
edit
so still PU's on the board ? -
@Chris said in NZR review:
so still PU's on the board ?
But largely irrelevant
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players. NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC. Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent". "This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities." -
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
so still PU's on the board ?
But largely irrelevant
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players. NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC. Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent". "This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities."Ok, will this impact the NPC it looks like it will as won't the PRT want to filter the majority of the money in to the high end professionals and the elite pathways under Npc, then the NPC will most probably drift away to an amateur comp.
-
as it should. make it a rep comp for club players. it will have genuine meaning again
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
"We have more than 34 'Rugby' Boards, 350 Board Members (more Board members than our full-time professional player base)"
are those board members all full time?
I doubt if many (or any) would be full time. And the majority wouldn't get paid very much
I don't think the issue is Board Members of PU's. It's mainly the salaries of the NPC players I assume. And the PU's are in a tough position. NPC crowds have fallen away especially for many big unions and if the team is crap they certainly won't improve. So, they pay money to try and keep a good side hoping the rest will fall into place (sponsorship and crowds)
It hasn't really worked though
Some think the solution in independent Board members. I have doubts. It might lead to just a lot of diversity appointments who are worse than the current lot.
The Post
