NZR review
-
@kev have to think alot goes into the broadcasting side of things.
I know several years back (c 2018) we needed 10,000 to a blues game at Okara, but that included the fee to the blues for hosting, I think that has since been removed?
-
My plan:
Strict salary caps for Super Rugby sides.
Let players with more than 40 AB caps play abroad as long as they commit to a Super franchise for 2 years in a RWC cycle.
Tax-free testimonial games for players who play more than 150 times for their Super franchise.
NPC of 14 sides in two divisions.
Strict salary caps for NPC teams.
Every adult ticket to any NZ Rugby game apart from Tests or Super knockout comes with the possibility of two free complementary tickets for kids.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Nepia said in NZR review:
Quick note (as I haven't finished reading the report I don't want to get too much into it until I've finished) but isn't the competition makeup discussion jumping the gun? This is a report on governance, and mostly on the make up of the Board, the report writers have made clear "their" thoughts on the competition makeup, but it's worthwhile considering that one key stakeholder does not rate a proper mention in this report - Sky. They state they spoke with broadcasters but I can't see where that filters down into the actual report itself. Any decision on competition makeup, regardless of the outcome of this report will made in conjunction with Sky (or some other magical broadcaster NZR think they can find).
the nerve of this bloke, getting his facts straight before wading in like he's better than us
A part of my job is writing these types of reports, best I not go in half cocked.
-
@Stargazer said in NZR review:
I dont' think the NPC will go, nor do I think it should. It should probably get a new format (or return to an old format) with more divisions and/or fewer teams. NPC in my view is a necessary pathway in-between club/school rugby and Super Rugby. The step from club/school rugby to SR is too big.
Also, and maybe people from the SR main centres just don't understand this, but in the smaller provinces you won't get the same sort of tribalism for SR that you see in NPC. That tribalism in the main centres may have (in part) shifted from NPC to SR because of having the SR franchise there. The connection with a SR franchise is to a great degree missing outside the SR main centres. Remove NPC, and the interest in watching rugby will diminish in provinces without a team in the main competition because it's not "for us" and "from us".
I disagree with the idea of adding more NZ teams to an enlarged SR (replacing NPC). It will dilute the player pool in NZ and the quality of rugby would go down. Rugby in NZ could end up in a same downward spiral as Australia that has too many teams. SR should be an elite competition with better quality rugby. You don't get bums on seats with rugby at the level of the Rebels, Waratahs or Reds if that's your highest level of competition. Nor would it be a good preparation for the All Blacks.
Whatever they do, some things are crucial:
- unions/clubs should be forced to stay within their budget;
- a system should be set-up that ensures that there is a pathway to pro-rugby in provinces that miss out on having a team in the major competition(s). Otherwise, a lot of talent may remain undiscovered, or stops playing. This is not just scouting. It's also player development in some form (e.g. regular rugby clinics). Super Rugby franchises should probably have more than one academy and follow the example of the Crusaders, e.g. the Hurricanes should have an Academy in Welington and Napier; the Chiefs in Hamilton and Tauranga etc etc
- whatever a new NPC competition will look like, unions/clubs with already big player pools shouldn't be allowed to drain away the best players from other provinces. I disagree with the comment that the NPC isn't a provincial competition anymore, because there's some player movement between provinces. More than the core of most teams is still from the province. Smaller provinces sometimes need players from bigger provinces because their pool of players is smaller & local players at an adequate level may not be available. Some player movement from big to small provinces takes away some of the imbalance that exists. Player movement from small to big provinces is - in principle - undesirable.
- irrespective of competition format: NZR needs to up its game and promote the competition(s) properly, increase fan engagement etc.
- also irrespective of competition format: all games should be either televised or livestreamed. If broadcasting a game is taking away bums on seats, do a regional black-out of the game, but still broadcast a game outside the region where it's played. Otherwise, people could never see their own team play away games.
Edited to add an extra point:
- whatever changes will be made, every decision should take into consideration the effect it will have on retaining players in NZ. There have been a lot of complaints this season about the replacement of injured players and that the depth isn't as good anymore as it was, because so many of the fringe players were playing in the MLR. They have to make sure this doesn't get worse.
Should have had you on the review panel Gazer.
-
@kev said in NZR review:
@Stargazer agree with all of that. I have no real affinity for SR. I watch NZ games because I enjoy rugby but as a competition it lacks the tribal element and it is just not a great competition. I like the current 14 team NPC and think the NZRFU has tanked it and then conveniently said it doesnât work. It could do with proper management, but if it had to change Duluths regional amalgamation is the best of the bitter pills to swallow.
I also wonder about a rugby Governance review that has 3 professional directors in it and just Graham Mourie. I always though professional rugby should exist to support amateur rugby. In that regard Super should make a shitload and fund NPC. Itâs NPC that provides the wide base - always wondered about SR development and age group rugby sides just doubling up. Still reading it though.
Interesting comment that it costs $400k to host an NPC game. Like to know what that cost is? Stadiums, media⌠surely they could get that down?
Travel? Accommodation? Meals?
-
@sparky said in NZR review:
My plan:
Strict salary caps for Super Rugby sides.
Let players with more than 40 AB caps play abroad as long as they commit to a Super franchise for 2 years in a RWC cycle.
Tax-free testimonial games for players who play more than 150 times for their Super franchise.
NPC of 14 sides in two divisions.
Strict salary caps for NPC teams.
Every adult ticket to any NZ Rugby game apart from Tests or Super knockout comes with the possibility of two free complementary tickets for kids.
Apart from 40 cap ABs playing overseas, I like this plan. Although from what I understand super salary cap is pretty solid. Like the 2 div eetc, but maybe even if Sth Canterbury or someone can be talked into coming up, could havr a 1st div of 8-9 teams and still have decent 2nd div
-
From Page 76 of the report:
"We question not only whether New Zealand can support so many fully
professional rugby players but whether it can afford the overhead costs
of 26 different Provincial Unions. We recognise that history and tradition
and associated emotional attachments run deep but 26 boards, 26 CEOs,
26 board and executive support teams?" -
Staff numbers at NZRFU headquarters could looked at given some of them are probably doing a lot of the same work as the provincial unions. It would not be surprising if a lot of the work getting done in the Heartland Championship Unions is being done by what are essentially rugby enthusiastic "volunteers" on a shoestring budget anyway.
-
Can't see the smaller heartland unions being much different to my local union. And that is 100% local volunteers (mainly guys already helping to keep clubs running) shit even I was the treasurer one year.
Not a lot of help from the state anywaySo the cost aspect will 100% be aimed at the bigger "provinces"
-
I have got half way through the report and all the alarm bells are ringing. It reads like a takeover of rugby by its executives. To me paid executives provide professional expertise and the board are the owners or their nominated representatives. In this case from player to club to provincial unions, the PUs are the games nominated representatives. Instead they want âindependentâ board members. Democracy can be messy but the PUs are NZ rugby not privately run SR boards and big secondary schools. The report reads like a hit job on PUs. I hope it gets tossed.
-
@kev said in NZR review:
I have got half way through the report and all the alarm bells are ringing. It reads like a takeover of rugby by its executives. To me paid executives provide professional expertise and the board are the owners or their nominated representatives. In this case from player to club to provincial unions, the PUs are the games nominated representatives. Instead they want âindependentâ board members. Democracy can be messy but the PUs are NZ rugby not privately run SR boards and big secondary schools. The report reads like a hit job on PUs. I hope it gets tossed.
I think it sounded surprisingly realistic as they understand that there are professional parts of the game and amateur parts of the game. I think that they want professionals for the professional parts and amateurs for the amateur parts.
-
-
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
Can't see the smaller heartland unions being much different to my local union. And that is 100% local volunteers (mainly guys already helping to keep clubs running) shit even I was the treasurer one year.
Not a lot of help from the state anywaySo the cost aspect will 100% be aimed at the bigger "provinces"
Even Heartland unions have a CEO and a Director of rugby etc, so no not 100% volunteers as it basically used to be when I was on a provincial union board.
-
While I'm sure the report is blisteringly effective form an economics point of view I'm not sure it's the right thing to do.
Basically it removes the provinces completely from saying how NZR is run - considering all the players come from the provinces it would seem somewhat unwise for you to completely neglect your nursery in the saying how the game is run.
If we look at the proposed make-up of the board again the provinces have been removed and they've been replaced entirely by interest groups. These interest group's have no way of generating players themselves, again they will get them all from clubs and provinces - that again will have no say in how the game is run.
If the NPC is canned then we have rough math some 420 players being put out of a job overnight. And what will they do? Vast majority will probably say "Fuck you" and move overseas.
The report seems hell-bent on turing NZ rugby into the haves (professionals) and the have nots (unprofessional) and nary shall those cursed amateur's interfere with the cash generating machine the professionals are...
Any system set-up to produce the have and the have not's never ends well.
Yes NZR needs to make some tough decisions, I don't think a recommendation to leave the clubs and provinces behind is quite the way to go however.
-
I think where this will end up is a fully professional NPC of 10 teams. There will be some merging, maybe some different names and boundries, but we will end up where we want to be.
The Super franchises will turn into clubs and we'll have a structure that we can afford and sustain.
If we continue where the way we are we'll go broke.
