NZR review
-
I've been avoiding contributing to this thread as some if feels too much like my actual work and it's actually quite depressing seeing the shitfight play out. (Shitfight in general, not saying the thread is a shitfight like a Hammettuer thread
). Also this is just rambling of points I can remember and my general thoughts so don't expect any structure.The three directors with PU experience need not be associated with a PU, they just need experience. That doesn't automatically mean they will only put PU interests first. Furthermore, if proposal 1 is designed to exclude these types of directors then that is also a problem itself as NZ rugby is an entity in and of itself (i.e. looking at the NRL and copying that wont work because it's apples and oranges). If it isn't designed to do that then why have an issue with the PU one?
Furthermore, if the remaining 6 directors can't sway three who have PU experience then that's on them and maybe they're not up to it as members.
I find the somewhat demonising of ownership contribution to the board to be a bit perplexing, especially from those pushing the corporatisation of comps. The majority of boards have ownership influence.
On the discussions for a new professional setup of franchises I'm not onboard with some obviously. IIRC some discussed include having a reserve grade under the franchises. All that does is redistribute money (to reserve grade squads from NPC squads) and removes any attachment to those teams that currently exist.
I have no issue with anyone preferring different solutions, each to their own, I don't agree with anyone who wants to throw away the NPC, I think it will be detrimental to the sport in the provinces (I got into rugby through playing and going to NPC, first took my little cousins to NPC games, now when I'm back home we take their kids to NPC games - can't see those same opportunities under a franchise system considering our supposed franchise partner) and I think I'll be done as an active financial contributor to the game if that happens. Currently I don't directly contribute to NZ rugby (outside of going to matches on trips home) but I contribute to our partner via Stan and attending games here. If the NPC goes I don't think I bother with the subscription anymore. I'll become a watch odd highlights on internet of the franchise comp and watching AB tests. That may sound dramatic but it's the way I feel, and I know a few others who have the same mindset.
Well that's all for now, need to go and do some actual work - which is on point to this discussion as it's figuring out a plan to dump a poor performing Chair.
-
Robinson clearly knows he is on thin ice with the PUs and is too much of a pussy to just say the quiet part out aloud.
His comments of the Breakdown show that he isn't the man to push things forward - he will go so it would be better to be brave and say that we can't have afford to run this many professional teams.
It's good to see the Breakdown team actually pushing a bit - both Wilson and Mils were good in pushing a bit. JK asked the simple question whether the two parts of the game need splitting. Robinson was just dodging and weaving though. Terrible.
Interestingly enough, I saw an article questioning the investment in women's rugby. It would be interesting if the PUs would sell that out to keep their NPC.
Edit: This might be the first time I've been really impressed with the breakdown in actually doing their job. I loved it how JK directly asked him how 5 of the PUs can control things, so how will they avoid the horse trading that has characterized previous activities? Dodge.
-
-
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@canefan said in NZR review:
Mils looked particularly unimpressed with Robinson's answers
I think the NZ rugby community as a whole has been unimpressed with Robinson's answers for 4 years plus now...
And SARU and AR...
-
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@canefan said in NZR review:
Mils looked particularly unimpressed with Robinson's answers
I think the NZ rugby community as a whole has been unimpressed with Robinson's answers for 4 years plus now...
TSF definitely
-
“The NZRU is incorporated for the purpose of promoting amateur rugby for the recreation or entertainment of the general public. The capacity of the NZRU to carry on any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction, is restricted to any business, activity, act or transaction carried on, undertaken, done or entered into in accordance with, or seeking to achieve, this purpose.”
Scotty Stevenson: Is anyone else over rugby's 'not fit for purpose' phrase?
Rugby union has a love affair with the phrase “not fit for purpose” but no one seems able to articulate what the actual purpose is.
-
-
It's interesting that what you take from that article is likely to depend on your perspective, as I think his article entirely matches with the view of many (including myself), that the amateur and pro games need to be split. As he writes:
Given the primary focus in the professional rugby era is to develop high performance, along with profit, maybe less than 1% of people involved in rugby become “successful’’ and reach a professional level.
This begs the question what about the other 99%, the ones who do not quite make it? Or the vast majority involved for enjoyment and passion.
In my view, it not enough any more just to be part of a team, a club or even a community. These relationships and connections have the potential to impact and support our lives on a much deeper level
What we have at the moment is that some unions - who should be focused on the 99%, spending roughly 59% of their funding on trying to develop the 1% and 21% on the other 99%.
-
The point of sport is to play it. All of these structures are created to give sport meaning beyond playing with family and/or mates in someone's back yard. Given that, my general view is that the most important metrics are numbers of players and numbers of games, basically. Other metrics still have importance for other good reasons like sustainability, but those are the top 2.
For organised competition of some sort, the main reason to create clubs is to organise that competition. If there are enough clubs within travelling distance, those clubs start to want inter-club competition (especially in team sports), so bodies are created to organise those. Then people think bigger and start organising rep sports nationally as a national championship, and now you need a national body.
For tax purposes, the point of most pro sport in NZ is to fund amateur sport. The main reason to charge bigger fees is to pay staff/contractors when your club/PU etc is too big for volunteers to be willing to do the work, or they aren't up to it.
-
-
@sparky said in NZR review:
@gt12 Robinson was asked some very simple questions. He preferred to waffle rather than give answers.
I actually thought Robinson handled questions exactly as he should. It is not up to any CEO or any employees to make statements about the board that is basically his boss. The one thing I thought he did say when he indicated he was surprised that Rob Nichols has been so vocal. Nichols is also a CEO of players association, and it should of been left to chairman to make staements about how game is run.
Is David Kirk still chairman of NZPRPA? He made some statements about Silverlake deal when that was going on, but when you read them, he wasn't against the idea of selling stake (nobody actually was), just wanted it to be sold to someone like Forsyth Barr that he is chairman of? -
I think there is a difference between not bagging the board / PUs and not giving a direct answer to questions about a proposal you and your entity supported.
On Nicols, if he has the support of the board, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't explain what they plan to do, given it is an operational decision of the organization. Perhaps it is an organization with clear alignment between the stakeholders and the exectiuve?
The Post
