NZR review
-
Rugby: Players Association boss Rob Nichol reaffirms commitment to split from NZR after 'disappointing' vote | Newshub
Rob Nichol says it's a "missed opportunity" for rugby in New Zealand.
Nicholl says NZRPA will now begin working with its stakeholders to establish that independent panel. "We aren't going running out of this country or anything like that," he clarified. "We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots. "What we're talking about is a tribunal that comes together in order to ensure really good decisions on behalf of the professional game, to make sure it's effective and efficient as possible, and delivers what the game wants in this country. "We want to put something together where we come together to make sure we make really good decisions for pro rugby. What we won't do is trust New Zealand Rugby under this government structure to go off and make those decisions by themselves. The model isn't unprecedented, with French rugby currently operating with a governing body that runs the game alongside the national union. "It's coming from a perspective of what we feel the professional game is going to need in terms of connecting those stakeholders and getting them together, making good decisions and getting them on the same page getting good alignment. "So we'd be surprised if people don't want to go down the path." -
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Rugby: Players Association boss Rob Nichol reaffirms commitment to split from NZR after 'disappointing' vote | Newshub
Rob Nichol says it's a "missed opportunity" for rugby in New Zealand.
Nicholl says NZRPA will now begin working with its stakeholders to establish that independent panel. "We aren't going running out of this country or anything like that," he clarified. "We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots. "What we're talking about is a tribunal that comes together in order to ensure really good decisions on behalf of the professional game, to make sure it's effective and efficient as possible, and delivers what the game wants in this country. "We want to put something together where we come together to make sure we make really good decisions for pro rugby. What we won't do is trust New Zealand Rugby under this government structure to go off and make those decisions by themselves. The model isn't unprecedented, with French rugby currently operating with a governing body that runs the game alongside the national union. "It's coming from a perspective of what we feel the professional game is going to need in terms of connecting those stakeholders and getting them together, making good decisions and getting them on the same page getting good alignment. "So we'd be surprised if people don't want to go down the path."He gone power mad. Like Union boss that thinks it's all about him
My view this is a great day for rugby. The PU's made a stand and refused to have all the power grabbed from them. But, also realize that NZR needs a much better-quality Board. This might now happen
And Aust now only has 4 super rugby teams. It should be three but 4 is much better than 5.
Rob should accept this decision and see how it works out. If the new Board is as bad as the old one, then do his thing. If he can't do this then step aside. Because he's creating a very negative energy that NZ rugby doesn't need. Esp right now
-
"We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots.
That's a strong statement from Mr Nichol. But it's going to be fabulous now seeing him and all of his NZRPA members out at the grounds before 8am each Saturday, giving up their time for free...
-
i think the biggest problem is you can't get two people in NZ to agree what the game should look like
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Rugby: Players Association boss Rob Nichol reaffirms commitment to split from NZR after 'disappointing' vote | Newshub
Rob Nichol says it's a "missed opportunity" for rugby in New Zealand.
Nicholl says NZRPA will now begin working with its stakeholders to establish that independent panel. "We aren't going running out of this country or anything like that," he clarified. "We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots. "What we're talking about is a tribunal that comes together in order to ensure really good decisions on behalf of the professional game, to make sure it's effective and efficient as possible, and delivers what the game wants in this country. "We want to put something together where we come together to make sure we make really good decisions for pro rugby. What we won't do is trust New Zealand Rugby under this government structure to go off and make those decisions by themselves. The model isn't unprecedented, with French rugby currently operating with a governing body that runs the game alongside the national union. "It's coming from a perspective of what we feel the professional game is going to need in terms of connecting those stakeholders and getting them together, making good decisions and getting them on the same page getting good alignment. "So we'd be surprised if people don't want to go down the path."He gone power mad. Like Union boss that thinks it's all about him
My view this is a great day for rugby. The PU's made a stand and refused to have all the power grabbed from them. But, also realize that NZR needs a much better-quality Board. This might now happen
And Aust now only has 4 super rugby teams. It should be three but 4 is much better than 5.
Rob should accept this decision and see how it works out. If the new Board is as bad as the old one, then do his thing. If he can't do this then step aside. Because he's creating a very negative energy that NZ rugby doesn't need. Esp right now
I disagree, as has been pointed out above, the PUs voted for a structure that keeps them in power, same with the opportunity to take even more power. They've have voted for themselves, and the background of PUs which parochialism, miss-spent funds and budgeting like teenagers mean I (and NZRPA) have no trust in them. PUs are there power hungry ones. I also have no trust in NZR as a unit (see end of SR, silver lake, etc). There is to much of the amateur old days hanging around a multi billion dollar business. The share holders voted indeed, but when the shareholders are the last vestiges of pre professionalism, that's not surprising. Turkey's don't vote for Xmas, despite how good it is for everyone else...
So we are going to get a set up like the French, not ideal, but the players have run out of trust with the set up and are exercising their rights under their agreement. Hopefully this will get some balance from the old boys on the provincial boards.
But we won't see the guts required for a full rejig of our Pro player landscape now, sadly. PUs are to wielded to the NPC, which is unsustainable as a Pro comp
-
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
i think the biggest problem is you can't get two people in NZ to agree what the game should look like
THIS ^^^
i have slowly just accepted my ideal situation a) might not be possible b)...not going to happen even if it was
and the reality is i might just not watch a much pro rugby
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Rugby: Players Association boss Rob Nichol reaffirms commitment to split from NZR after 'disappointing' vote | Newshub
Rob Nichol says it's a "missed opportunity" for rugby in New Zealand.
Nicholl says NZRPA will now begin working with its stakeholders to establish that independent panel. "We aren't going running out of this country or anything like that," he clarified. "We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots. "What we're talking about is a tribunal that comes together in order to ensure really good decisions on behalf of the professional game, to make sure it's effective and efficient as possible, and delivers what the game wants in this country. "We want to put something together where we come together to make sure we make really good decisions for pro rugby. What we won't do is trust New Zealand Rugby under this government structure to go off and make those decisions by themselves. The model isn't unprecedented, with French rugby currently operating with a governing body that runs the game alongside the national union. "It's coming from a perspective of what we feel the professional game is going to need in terms of connecting those stakeholders and getting them together, making good decisions and getting them on the same page getting good alignment. "So we'd be surprised if people don't want to go down the path."He gone power mad. Like Union boss that thinks it's all about him
My view this is a great day for rugby. The PU's made a stand and refused to have all the power grabbed from them. But, also realize that NZR needs a much better-quality Board. This might now happen
And Aust now only has 4 super rugby teams. It should be three but 4 is much better than 5.
Rob should accept this decision and see how it works out. If the new Board is as bad as the old one, then do his thing. If he can't do this then step aside. Because he's creating a very negative energy that NZ rugby doesn't need. Esp right now
I disagree, as has been pointed out above, the PUs voted for a structure that keeps them in power, same with the opportunity to take even more power. They've have voted for themselves, and the background of PUs which parochialism, miss-spent funds and budgeting like teenagers mean I (and NZRPA) have no trust in them. PUs are there power hungry ones. I also have no trust in NZR as a unit (see end of SR, silver lake, etc). There is to much of the amateur old days hanging around a multi billion dollar business. The share holders voted indeed, but when the shareholders are the last vestiges of pre professionalism, that's not surprising. Turkey's don't vote for Xmas, despite how good it is for everyone else...
So we are going to get a set up like the French, not ideal, but the players have run out of trust with the set up and are exercising their rights under their agreement. Hopefully this will get some balance from the old boys on the provincial boards.
But we won't see the guts required for a full rejig of our Pro player landscape now, sadly. PUs are to wielded to the NPC, which is unsustainable as a Pro comp
once again...are they really "in power", it seems they just want a direct contribution to how things are run, theyre still the minority
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Rugby: Players Association boss Rob Nichol reaffirms commitment to split from NZR after 'disappointing' vote | Newshub
Rob Nichol says it's a "missed opportunity" for rugby in New Zealand.
Nicholl says NZRPA will now begin working with its stakeholders to establish that independent panel. "We aren't going running out of this country or anything like that," he clarified. "We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots. "What we're talking about is a tribunal that comes together in order to ensure really good decisions on behalf of the professional game, to make sure it's effective and efficient as possible, and delivers what the game wants in this country. "We want to put something together where we come together to make sure we make really good decisions for pro rugby. What we won't do is trust New Zealand Rugby under this government structure to go off and make those decisions by themselves. The model isn't unprecedented, with French rugby currently operating with a governing body that runs the game alongside the national union. "It's coming from a perspective of what we feel the professional game is going to need in terms of connecting those stakeholders and getting them together, making good decisions and getting them on the same page getting good alignment. "So we'd be surprised if people don't want to go down the path."He gone power mad. Like Union boss that thinks it's all about him
My view this is a great day for rugby. The PU's made a stand and refused to have all the power grabbed from them. But, also realize that NZR needs a much better-quality Board. This might now happen
And Aust now only has 4 super rugby teams. It should be three but 4 is much better than 5.
Rob should accept this decision and see how it works out. If the new Board is as bad as the old one, then do his thing. If he can't do this then step aside. Because he's creating a very negative energy that NZ rugby doesn't need. Esp right now
I disagree, as has been pointed out above, the PUs voted for a structure that keeps them in power, same with the opportunity to take even more power. They've have voted for themselves, and the background of PUs which parochialism, miss-spent funds and budgeting like teenagers mean I (and NZRPA) have no trust in them. PUs are there power hungry ones. I also have no trust in NZR as a unit (see end of SR, silver lake, etc). There is to much of the amateur old days hanging around a multi billion dollar business. The share holders voted indeed, but when the shareholders are the last vestiges of pre professionalism, that's not surprising. Turkey's don't vote for Xmas, despite how good it is for everyone else...
So we are going to get a set up like the French, not ideal, but the players have run out of trust with the set up and are exercising their rights under their agreement. Hopefully this will get some balance from the old boys on the provincial boards.
But we won't see the guts required for a full rejig of our Pro player landscape now, sadly. PUs are to wielded to the NPC, which is unsustainable as a Pro comp
once again...are they really "in power", it seems they just want a direct contribution to how things are run, theyre still the minority
Not in power, but they hold a very large proportion of the power, and the ability to stall any appointment. The 3 experience on the board is bad enough (experience in running things into the ground, basically) but it's the influence in the appointments panel that's really problematic
Anyway, probably better than now, I just hope that whomever is the new board had the guts to make big changes below SR level. What will be interesting is because of the PU requirement and changes, how many truly independent members will apply
But it is what it is, NZRPA had done what it feels is needs to protect is interests, and the PUs theirs. Hopefully they can get on with it
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
Rugby: Players Association boss Rob Nichol reaffirms commitment to split from NZR after 'disappointing' vote | Newshub
Rob Nichol says it's a "missed opportunity" for rugby in New Zealand.
Nicholl says NZRPA will now begin working with its stakeholders to establish that independent panel. "We aren't going running out of this country or anything like that," he clarified. "We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots. "What we're talking about is a tribunal that comes together in order to ensure really good decisions on behalf of the professional game, to make sure it's effective and efficient as possible, and delivers what the game wants in this country. "We want to put something together where we come together to make sure we make really good decisions for pro rugby. What we won't do is trust New Zealand Rugby under this government structure to go off and make those decisions by themselves. The model isn't unprecedented, with French rugby currently operating with a governing body that runs the game alongside the national union. "It's coming from a perspective of what we feel the professional game is going to need in terms of connecting those stakeholders and getting them together, making good decisions and getting them on the same page getting good alignment. "So we'd be surprised if people don't want to go down the path."He gone power mad. Like Union boss that thinks it's all about him
My view this is a great day for rugby. The PU's made a stand and refused to have all the power grabbed from them. But, also realize that NZR needs a much better-quality Board. This might now happen
And Aust now only has 4 super rugby teams. It should be three but 4 is much better than 5.
Rob should accept this decision and see how it works out. If the new Board is as bad as the old one, then do his thing. If he can't do this then step aside. Because he's creating a very negative energy that NZ rugby doesn't need. Esp right now
I disagree, as has been pointed out above, the PUs voted for a structure that keeps them in power, same with the opportunity to take even more power. They've have voted for themselves, and the background of PUs which parochialism, miss-spent funds and budgeting like teenagers mean I (and NZRPA) have no trust in them. PUs are there power hungry ones. I also have no trust in NZR as a unit (see end of SR, silver lake, etc). There is to much of the amateur old days hanging around a multi billion dollar business. The share holders voted indeed, but when the shareholders are the last vestiges of pre professionalism, that's not surprising. Turkey's don't vote for Xmas, despite how good it is for everyone else...
So we are going to get a set up like the French, not ideal, but the players have run out of trust with the set up and are exercising their rights under their agreement. Hopefully this will get some balance from the old boys on the provincial boards.
But we won't see the guts required for a full rejig of our Pro player landscape now, sadly. PUs are to wielded to the NPC, which is unsustainable as a Pro comp
once again...are they really "in power", it seems they just want a direct contribution to how things are run, theyre still the minority
Not in power, but they hold a very large proportion of the power, and the ability to stall any appointment. The 3 experience on the board is bad enough (experience in running things into the ground, basically) but it's the influence in the appointments panel that's really problematic
Anyway, probably better than now, I just hope that whomever is the new board had the guts to make big changes below SR level. What will be interesting is because of the PU requirement and changes, how many truly independent members will apply
But it is what it is, NZRPA had done what it feels is needs to protect is interests, and the PUs theirs. Hopefully they can get on with it
I still haven't been able to track down the Maori board constitution, but assuming that they can get that person or another on the GAP to vote with them, they are the power behind the throne. That body has the capability to set the terms of competency for the board itself. It's really worrying because the 'independent' board will have its Skills and Competencies Framework set by that GAP panel. That is clear from proposal 2.
@gt12 said in NZR review:
The 3/7 PU GAP will also:
a. review annually the updates to the Skills and Competencies Framework and the Needs and Priorities Statement (the SCF documents) proposed by the NZRB. NZRB will present the SCF documents to the GAP for discussion. The GAP will review the SCF documents, and make additional or alternative suggestions if necessary. Any updates required to be made to the SCF documents, proposed by the GAP, requires agreement by way of a majority of the GAP. For clarity, the GAP will have the final approval and sign off of the SCF documents, being the Skills and Competences Framework and the Needs and Priorities statement.
The NZRPA are basically now just going to try to cut the PUs out of the professional game completely with this new tribunal.
Fascinating and worrying. Hopefully it settles things down but I think there is plenty to come.
-
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
@gt12 loving your work. Clearest description I’ve read so far about what’s actually in the second proposal.
Amazing what happens when you actually read stuff.
What's fucking annoying is that none of the sports journalists have done the work to read it and then clearly lay out what it means.
I have to thank @pakman for making me go find the actualy source materials, because his point was pretty valid - in of itself, 3 members on an otherwise independent panel shouldn't be enough to throw the toys quite this much.
As it turns out, I think it is fair to say that there are different ways that the PUs will still exert far more control that they have let on - and I think there is huge opportunity in their proposal for a some of the committees to be captured.
I was also thinking that because the PUs have the voting rights on appointments to the board (at least), it would relatively easy for PU members of committees to let on who is voting against the PUs too much, which could then get those who don't tow the line voted out.
The Pilkington report deals with a lack of confidentiality and how it relates to the relationship with PUs specifically on page 72:
All NZR directors, no matter how they make it to the board, should have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the NZR board. For those with the support of a constituency, as member-Elected or Nominated directors, the odds are against them fulfilling that potential because of their direct association with a sectional interest. They must ‘campaign’ to gain election or nomination, under pressure to make commitments to their prospective constituents that can easily be ill-informed and/or unachievable. Once on the board, if they wish to be re-elected or renominated, they must be responsive to constituent concerns—even when those seek to advance sectional interests at the expense of the greater good. We were told they are expected to represent the member union view of the world and are often under pressure to distance themselves from board decisions unpopular with the Provincial Unions even when they supported those decisions in the boardroom. They are regularly courted by Provincial Union peers and media contacts who would have them break ranks and disclose NZR board confidences. In fact, lack of confidentiality has been a major problem at times. NZR directors coming through the member union channels have often had little or no formal governance training, limited experience and limited understanding of the disciplines expected
-
I think the players are going to now work with NZRU on this new council to shut the PUs out of the professional game.
It will be interesting whether there is now a push to wrap up Super rugby by the PUs - I don't think the ownership is simple enough for them to be so easily cancelled, but I haven't read enough about that yet.
Pretty explosive from the Pilkington report (p73 I think)
NZR is unable to make decisions needed to advance the game and the collective interests of all stakeholders. This can be seen in NZR’s apparent inability (to date) to rationalise the two separate professional rugby competitions (Super Rugby and NPC). We encountered a widespread view that the NPC, in particular, contains too many teams. Attendance statistics suggest it is also a programme of games with few fans. Continuing the present arrangement defies logic but we were told challenging that logic has drawn threats of Special General Meetings from member Unions and the implicit threat of board censure or removal. Declining fan engagement is a far bigger issue and directly relevant to the Super Rugby competition as well. There are likely multiple contributing factors: complex and difficult to understand rules, the timing of games, the number and frequency of games, poor stadium experience, and many other factors as well. These cannot be solved by any one of New Zealand rugby stakeholders alone, but it is another pointer to the breadth of perspectives required around the board table. If it is not NZR’s role to take a lead in this, then who? It is widely accepted that a key responsibility of Provincial Unions is to maintain the health of the community game. Yet, on average, NPC unions spend 59% of their turnover on high performance and only 21% on community rugby, where most rugby players (and the future black-jersey wearers) can be found. Based on that damning statistic, it is to the credit of one NPC union that told us they have given up on any thought of being competitive in the NPC. The choice for them was stark: it would be financially crippling to invest enough to win the NPC. They have chosen to invest in supporting and developing grassroots rugby. As far as we know, no other NPC union has confronted this trade-off head-on and moved in favour of growing the game from the ground up. A decision to resolve the present professional rugby problem is obviously one that must be made at the national level. However, NZR’s present governance structure does not support that.
-
I'm a bit busy in next few weeks to read this fully through and mull it, but the mature approach from NZPA is to let the Proposal 2 machinations work their way through to the 'new deal' committees and Board.
If the PUs do not exert undue influence with these (which remains to be seem) then sensible thing is to give the new governance a try.
If, however, the PUs show their true colours by infiltrating a bunch of ringers, THAT is the time for the NZPA to go nuclear.
One thing I'm not seeing written is the pretty fundamental point that in most organisations it's the CEO and his team which actually drive initiatives.
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
Does all this bleating about an independent Board suggest the Executive has plans which they know PUs will find toxic?
Are we really meant to believe that a Board of 'Corporate Governance experts" will transform Mark Robinson into a world beater?
Isn't all this fuss just a tad suspicious...?
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
I'm a bit busy in next few weeks to read this fully through and mull it, but the mature approach from NZPA is to let the Proposal 2 machinations work their way through to the 'new deal' committees and Board.
> If the PUs do not exert undue influence with these (which remains to be seem) then sensible thing is to give the new governance a try.
If, however, the PUs show their true colours by infiltrating a bunch of ringers, THAT is the time for the NZPA to go nuclear.
One thing I'm not seeing written is the pretty fundamental point that in most organisations it's the CEO and his team which actually drive initiatives.
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
Does all this bleating about an independent Board suggest the Executive has plans which they know PUs will find toxic?
Are we really meant to believe that a Board of 'Corporate Governance experts" will transform Mark Robinson into a world beater?
> Isn't all this fuss just a tad suspicious...?
This
My view is Rob, David (Kirk), Pilkington and (maybe) Robinson had an agenda. To blame the PUs for everything that's wrong with rugby in NZ and remove their control
They fought back and now Rob (and Pilkington) are pissed off
They have sold to the public that the answer is independent directors and any PU involved is a recipe for disaster. This will magically make everything right. Even with Robinson still in control
Yet NZ rugby is in a much better state than Aust. And how much is the super rugby disaster due to the NZR.
Maybe Robinson wants to go in a certain direction but he's being stopped by this Board
My view is give it a go (the new structure) and see the outcome. But I can't see much change occurring if Robinson cotinues in control. But based on the super rugby changes. and a new head coach its looking better. Sort out super rugby and then look at the NPC
and hope the Silver Lake investment isn't actually that terrible (that RN and his team approved)
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
From my experience, the Board sets the overall strategy and priorities, adn it's up to the executive to, er, execute
Seriously though, in businesses of any serious size that I have been involved with, it's the Board who are critical to setting direction and (basically) hold the power. -
@pakman said in NZR review:
OK just watched this video
Thanks for posting
I agree with Moffett. RN must go (maybe replaced by Conrad Smith as an option). His threat was a disgrace and totally unacceptable.
But also, this Board and Robinson need to go as well. This has been an unbelievable shambles that they have presided over. And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Time for a total cleanout.
