NZR review
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@Windows97 if NZRPA want to bypass the PUs wont they then need to ensure they are signing these kids out of school to stop them buggaring off to league or other rugby playing countries?
Cant see any winners in this whole debacle.
arent they kind of already?
-
@Kiwiwomble yes, but I expect the numbers will increase a bit quicker with these kids who would usually follow the path through their provincial team first with their dreams of bigger things.
-
It seems to me that the NZRPA has planned for both vote outcomes, and been very open about what the next steps will be.
So we'll get that professional council/board that negotiates directly with NZR to run the pro game. We'll probably end up with with more Super Rugby teams, a longer season and no contracted players in the NPC.
The NPC will go back to be being represenative rugby of their local clubs (not Auckland club players playing in Hawkes Bay for example). Effectively the top tier of club rugby and fully amateur.
In the current system West Coast gets a vote on how the game is run, but the Crusaders don't. That's ass backwards.
We can't afford two professional comps, so Super Rugby will be the new NPC and will have a dedicated organisation to improve the comp (hopefully with a new name). Without the PUs voting for self interest, we'll have a competition voting for it's own self interest, and PUs can run the grassroots.
There will have to be compromises between the NZR and the new org, but that's fine. Easier to herd 5 (up to 10) cats than 27 too.
The change over will be messy, but will be a more sensible structure than the worst of both words we have no, and the PUs have no interest in actually fixing.
-
I think there is about zero chance of this happening now. It would for one destroy super rugby (just when it's starting to pick up again) as there has been so much change now is the time to stick with SRP as it basically is. Not start from scratch with new teams etc
Aas well many loyal rugby men and women would just give up on rugby
RN needs to go.
-
Dylan Cleaver has a good summary
Put all those pre-existing biases aside and unless I’m missing the master-key that unlocks this issue, this is what it boils down to:
-
A review into the governance of a struggling game was commissioned.
-
The reviewers, deemed to be experts in their field, made findings, which were brutal while at the same time obvious to anybody who has cared about this sport for long enough.
-
They made recommendations, which, although obviously not universally popular, were easy enough to implement.
So… and this is the part that cracks me up, a group of people whose body of work was reviewed and found to be lacking in both the understanding and delivery of good governance, sat back and went, “Hmmm, I get where you guys are coming from, but leave it with us, we have a few ideas of our own.”
So we now find ourselves inside some of the denser pages of a Kafka novel, where the PUs noted the points made about the PUs and used the power vested in them by the PUs to come up with a compromise devised by the PUs for the benefit of the PUs.
Then put out a press release with a chef’s kiss of a pay-off line (emphasis and all-caps is mine):
“‘[This weekend] 150,000 people will be out on the playing fields, and the provincial unions will continue their work, UNCHANGED.”
-
-
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The reviewers, deemed to be experts in their field,
People need to stop worshipping these so-called experts. Including Dylan.
Well, we've had at least 25 years of mis-management by the status-quo, so lets get people in that have run large businesses successfully.
Meritocracy is alweays better than jobs for the boys.
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
“‘[This weekend] 150,000 people will be out on the playing fields, and the provincial unions will continue their work, UNCHANGED.”
Was this ever going to change, regardless of what happened the top of the game?
Silly throw away comment
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
“‘[This weekend] 150,000 people will be out on the playing fields, and the provincial unions will continue their work, UNCHANGED.”
Was this ever going to change, regardless of what happened the top of the game?
Silly throw away comment
For them to put that in the press release speaks to their intent IMO.
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The reviewers, deemed to be experts in their field,
People need to stop worshipping these so-called experts. Including Dylan.
Well, we've had at least 25 years of mis-management by the status-quo, so lets get people in that have run large businesses successfully.
Meritocracy is alweays better than jobs for the boys.
How many women are on the NZR Board. What about the Chair.
Did you listen to the Dave Moffett interview? He has lots of experience and formed a different viewpoint. Like me he thinks this independent directors will solve all our problems is just bullshit. Also Robs proposal doesn't work that well according to Moffett. He gave the Wales example
Maybe the PU's took all of this into account and did the best thing. But they are mostly men so toxic masculinity... So, they can't be right I guess. Just fill the place with diversity appointments and we will be led to the promised land.
-
Rob Nichol told exactly what would happen, it wasn't a threat or an ultimatum. It was a declaration of what the NZRPA had decided. NZRPA board: https://www.nzrpa.co.nz/our-people/nzrpa-board
These people know pro rugby, seem to have a better idea of business (like forcing the better SL deal on NZR), and with the little gems of PU influence that have been smuggled in under the press radar (thanks @gt12 ) you can see why they are worried -
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
it wasn't a threat
Sounded like it to me
It was making sure the PUs knew the full result of their vote, being open and honest. NZRPA were prepared for both eventualities, and I don't have a problem with open statements.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The reviewers, deemed to be experts in their field,
People need to stop worshipping these so-called experts. Including Dylan.
Well, we've had at least 25 years of mis-management by the status-quo, so lets get people in that have run large businesses successfully.
Meritocracy is alweays better than jobs for the boys.
How many women are on the NZR Board. What about the Chair.
Did you listen to the Dave Moffett interview? He has lots of experience and formed a different viewpoint. Like me he thinks this independent directors will solve all our problems is just bullshit. Also Robs proposal doesn't work that well according to Moffett. He gave the Wales example
Maybe the PU's took all of this into account and did the best thing. But they are mostly men so toxic masculinity... So, they can't be right I guess. Just fill the place with diversity appointments and we will be led to the promised land.
Why are you bleating on about DEI? Are you confused about which thread you are on?
Meritocracy is what I'm supporting. As for Moffett, his record is pretty poor - a good example of "not fit for purpose". You have a short memory.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
People need to stop worshipping these so-called experts. Including Dylan.
@Winger said in NZR review:
Did you listen to the Dave Moffett interview? He has lots of experience
-
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
As for Moffett, his record is pretty poor
Was it Moffett who was in charge when NZR made about 50 million in XR gains. whereas Aust didn't take out forward cover
Or was it someone else
Steve Tew I believe.
Moffett was the one who lurched from one disaster to the next in Wales and as spent the last decade or so being a backseat driver.
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
It seems to me that the NZRPA has planned for both vote outcomes, and been very open about what the next steps will be.
So we'll get that professional council/board that negotiates directly with NZR to run the pro game. We'll probably end up with with more Super Rugby teams, a longer season and no contracted players in the NPC.
The NPC will go back to be being represenative rugby of their local clubs (not Auckland club players playing in Hawkes Bay for example). Effectively the top tier of club rugby and fully amateur.
In the current system West Coast gets a vote on how the game is run, but the Crusaders don't. That's ass backwards.
We can't afford two professional comps, so Super Rugby will be the new NPC and will have a dedicated organisation to improve the comp (hopefully with a new name). Without the PUs voting for self interest, we'll have a competition voting for it's own self interest, and PUs can run the grassroots.
There will have to be compromises between the NZR and the new org, but that's fine. Easier to herd 5 (up to 10) cats than 27 too.
The change over will be messy, but will be a more sensible structure than the worst of both words we have no, and the PUs have no interest in actually fixing.
Realistically five teams is the maximum NZ can sustain in a Super rugby of the current level.
And without a strong NPC the foundations are undermined.
Other than AB/Maori squad members many SR players will be available from June to September.
This cries out to me for a streamlined/upgraded NPC, which needs to dovetail with provincial rugby.
If the NZPRA tries to run a separate structure, then, based on the England experience that will be a financial black hole.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The reviewers, deemed to be experts in their field,
People need to stop worshipping these so-called experts. Including Dylan.
Well, we've had at least 25 years of mis-management by the status-quo, so lets get people in that have run large businesses successfully.
Meritocracy is alweays better than jobs for the boys.
How many women are on the NZR Board. What about the Chair.
Did you listen to the Dave Moffett interview? He has lots of experience and formed a different viewpoint. Like me he thinks this independent directors will solve all our problems is just bullshit. Also Robs proposal doesn't work that well according to Moffett. He gave the Wales example
The same Wales Moffett helped ruin..?
