NZR review
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@SouthernMann as i say, i can see the attraction too trying to win (other than some glory), winning begets winning often and that attracts money which you can easily convince yourself is good for the game in the region
It depends. Wellington for example, very sucessful on the field, absolutely bleeds money off it. It has a high spend with high performance
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
long-term high performance programme
isnt this in the interest of NZ Rugby as a whole, especially as the NPC loses it's significance?
i think the argument is an expensive high performance program for an increasingly insignificant competition (which kills me to say) is viewed as poor use of funds
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
long-term high performance programme
isnt this in the interest of NZ Rugby as a whole, especially as the NPC loses it's significance?
But 20 high performance units is way too many.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).
i think its a bit harsh to say that spending on high performance is misusing funds, until NZR has the balls to come out and say the NPC is no longer a important competition then i think trying to do well in it (short of overspending which some have)....doing well raises interest, attracts more sponsors and new players, more money in the door etc
I can't be bothered going back to the report, but it explained situations where money earmarked for local club rugby was redirected for high performance NPC.
-
@Canes4life said in NZR review:
As Mils put it on the Breakdown, NZ Rugby will be dead in four years because of this.
This really is a very silly comment by Mils
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).
i think its a bit harsh to say that spending on high performance is misusing funds, until NZR has the balls to come out and say the NPC is no longer a important competition then i think trying to do well in it (short of overspending which some have)....doing well raises interest, attracts more sponsors and new players, more money in the door etc
I can't be bothered going back to the report, but it explained situations where money earmarked for local club rugby was redirected for high performance NPC.
ok, that is more clearly unacceptable, as long as thats the level they are being critiqued for rather than just trying to well in the NPC
-
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
That is resounding.
Unless someone has more info, I don't see a lot of difference in them. Insisting on 3 board members with PU experience is very different to representing a particular PU on the board.
I hate how the NPC has been undermined over the years by NZR. They have treated it shamefully and it's no surprise that it is a shadow of its former self.
Nor do I. Pilkington wanted 100% and he got 95%. Still an outcome for reform
The thing is it still will be very hard to attract / find outstanding Board members. They just don't exist. Esp not to focus on NZ rugby (and low remuneration). It will be made much harder with these diversity requirements
-
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
The Super rugby franchises don't get a vote do they? That could probably change in the future.
arent most (all?) for the franchises partially owned by at least one or two of the local PU's?
edit: as of 2021
Blues: 38.5% ARU 21.5% NHRU
Chiefs: PU's 50%
Crusaders: PU's 100%
Highlanders: ORFU 7% SR% 4.7% NORFU 1.3%
Hurricanes: WRU 50% HKR 3% -
So effectively what we have is PUs determined to live in the past and misuse the money provide to them.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The Pilkington report laid out that it sees the political games of the PUs fltering into the boardroom where other key stakeholders don't get representation (e.g., Super franchises, players), and basically says that the PUs are misusing funds (redirecting may the term) to focus on high performance rather than community rugby (like, only 21% of their spend vs 59% on high performance).
i think its a bit harsh to say that spending on high performance is misusing funds, until NZR has the balls to come out and say the NPC is no longer a important competition then i think trying to do well in it (short of overspending which some have)....doing well raises interest, attracts more sponsors and new players, more money in the door etc
I can't be bothered going back to the report, but it explained situations where money earmarked for local club rugby was redirected for high performance NPC.
ok, that is more clearly unacceptable, as long as thats the level they are being critiqued for rather than just trying to well in the NPC
I went back to have a read (from p. 38, discussing roles and its relationship to funding):
Agreed frameworks of accountability are not consistently adhered to, and the formal NZR corporate strategy insufficiently assigns roles and responsibilities. Both parties need to be able to hold each other to account. For example, we were informed that, in some cases, funds granted for the community game have been rerouted into high performance.
-
-
@antipodean said in NZR review:
So effectively what we have is PUs determined to live in the past and misuse the money provide to them.
Can you explain the big difference between proposal 1 and 2
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@antipodean said in NZR review:
So effectively what we have is PUs determined to live in the past and misuse the money provide to them.
Can you explain the big difference between proposal 1 and 2
Proposal 2 cements the ability of PUs to continue the behaviour highlighted a few posts above yours (https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/post/946052)
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Chris said in NZR review:
NZRPA your move.
The top dog will likely be told to pull his horns in
It will be interesting,I would think it will be hard for NZPA to back down after the statements they have made.
That would make look toothless to some degree. -
The report outlined that as NZ voting structures stand, a minority of unions can block change (9/27) due to voting share being determined by club numbers. @Duluth I didn't see this mentioned in proposal 1 or 2, have you seen anything about it?
Interestingly, it looks like proposal 2 has some less direct ways that the PUs continue to exert influence beyond the 3 seat requirement on the board.
Edit:
They have increased their role on the stakeholder council to 50% meaning they can effectively stop that functioning if they are consolidated in their actions.can't find exact numbers of how many people will be on this.They have also increased their role (edit, maybe not exactly theirs) on the appointments board to 50%, meaning they can block anything that doesn't pass muster with the PUs. Edit: The chair does not have a casting vote.
I can know start to see why the NZRPA is acting this way - the board will look less PU heavy but to get there, you will still have to be heavily political and directly endorsed by the PUs to get there.
OK, I think I worked it out - the appointments panel (6 members) is where they maintain power a lot of behind the throne. It deals with recruitment and payment of board members, making suggestions to the NZRU board. By increasing their stake to 50% and with no casting vote, the PUs do have outsized control over the composition of the 'independent' board.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
I can know start to see why the NZRPA is acting this way - the board will look less PU heavy but to get there, you will still have to be heavily political and directly endorsed by the PUs to get there.
3/9 on the board now must have PU experience, so 6/9 are independent.
But the selections panel should appoint the other 6. Is the panel makeup different in Proposals 1 and 2? I didn't think it was - open to be corrected though.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The report outlined that as NZ voting structures stand, a minority of unions can block change (9/27) due to voting share being determined by club numbers. @Duluth I didn't see this mentioned in proposal 1 or 2, have you seen anything about it?
Interestingly, it looks like proposal 2 has some less direct ways that the PUs continue to exert influence beyond the 3 seat requirement on the board.
They have increased their role on the stakeholder council to 50% meaning they can effectively stop that functioning if they are consolidated in their actions.
They have also increased their role on the appointments board to 50%, meaning they can block anything that doesn't pass muster with the PUs.
I can know start to see why the NZRPA is acting this way - the board will look less PU heavy but to get there, you will still have to be heavily political and directly endorsed by the PUs to get there.
But this
CRFU's Winchester said PUs had a "genuine desire'' to have one proposal but everyone couldn't get on the same page. If Proposal 2 is endorsed "history will be created''. He reflects on history and the PUs always having a voice on the NZ Rugby board. He is now stating that under 2 all directors on the board would be scrutinised by a recruitment company, followed by scrutiny by an advisory panel. Followed by an appointments panel, which will be a mix of independents and advisors - he says the PUs won't influence it.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The report outlined that as NZ voting structures stand, a minority of unions can block change (9/27) due to voting share being determined by club numbers. @Duluth I didn't see this mentioned in proposal 1 or 2, have you seen anything about it?
Interestingly, it looks like proposal 2 has some less direct ways that the PUs continue to exert influence beyond the 3 seat requirement on the board.
Edit:
They have increased their role on the stakeholder council to 50% meaning they can effectively stop that functioning if they are consolidated in their actions.can't find exact numbers of how many people will be on this.They have also increased their role on the appointments board to 50%, meaning they can block anything that doesn't pass muster with the PUs. Edit: The chair does not have a casting vote.
I can know start to see why the NZRPA is acting this way - the board will look less PU heavy but to get there, you will still have to be heavily political and directly endorsed by the PUs to get there.
OK, I think I worked it out - the appointments panel (6 members) is where they maintain power a lot of behind the throne. It deals with recruitment and payment of board members, making suggestions to the NZRU board. By increasing their stake to 50% and with no casting vote, the PUs do have outsized control over the composition of the 'independent' board.
Is there a full version of Proposal 2 anywhere? Going off the explanation from here, it's unclear what the PU representation on the stakeholder council will be.
It seems that the appointments panel will have 6, but three of those come from the stakeholder council (so not necessarily PUs?), but it's unclear to me whether the PUs have control of the stakeholder council.
