NZR review
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
-
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
You think though, how many employees does Wairarapa Bush RFU employ, vs how many they actually need. They have 5 employees + the two coaches + a board (presumably the latter two unpaid)
Does Wairarapa Bush really need a board, a CEO, a Community Rugby Manager & Events, a Game Development Manager, a JAB Rugby/Women's Rugby and a Community Liason Officer?
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
So let me get this right - the report says there's a need for consolidation - but not the PU's consolidating?
It mentions the number of boards being too many (26). I think that is more about some heartland unions being run as sub unions. Still have rep sides but no need for their own admin, appointments, payroll, communications
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
Yeah, Wellington is one of the examples of a union that is overspending a lot on its NPC team and has been in the red year after year. They're really poor at financial management and pr/comms. If they'd also become responsible for grassroots rugby in say, Wairarapa or Horowhenua-Kapiti, I can only see that go wrong. It's even a bigger worry if you realise that Wellington and the Hurricanes share some key personnel.
-
I don't think you understand what has been said in the report and what hasn't.
You seem to be arguing about points not made in the report and pretending minor points are the key findings
@Duluth said in NZR review:
I don't think you understand what has been said in the report and what hasn't.
You seem to be arguing about points not made in the report and pretending minor points are the key findings
Well I don't agree with the governance changes either, removing PU's completely and replacing them with interest groups and independents doesn't seem wise.
And governance is chicken and egg in it's effectiveness depending on the structure that lies beneath that governance.
It recommends changes to "the structure" but doesn't say what they are.
I guess it assumes that if we get the governance right at the top it will all flow down throughout the organization and things will work swimmingly.
Unfortunately I've been through enough corporate change to know the above assumption isn't wise either.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
Yeah, Wellington is one of the examples of a union that is overspending a lot on its NPC team and has been in the red year after year. They're really poor at financial management and pr/comms. If they'd also become responsible for grassroots rugby in say, Wairarapa or Horowhenua-Kapiti, I can only see that go wrong. It's even a bigger worry if you realise that Wellington and the Hurricanes share some key personnel.
@Stargazer said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run...and then they might have to run grass roots rugby a couple of hours away?
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
i just cant help but think the smaller provincial unions isn't where the rot is worst...because my limited involvement with them they are still very much centred in their communities and so even if informally held to account
Yeah, Wellington is one of the examples of a union that is overspending a lot on its NPC team and has been in the red year after year. They're really poor at financial management and pr/comms. If they'd also become responsible for grassroots rugby in say, Wairarapa or Horowhenua-Kapiti, I can only see that go wrong. It's even a bigger worry if you realise that Wellington and the Hurricanes share some key personnel.
I agree it would be a disaster if you merged some of these unions whilst maintaining the current NPC format, but I think the general consensus is that there is not enough money for a 14 'pro' comp (It is essentially pro for the 13 weeks it is on, these guys don't work).
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
Look at the way football is governed in this country. There is six organisations who care for the grassroots level across the country, and can't lie, it seems to be in a great place. You don't ned TWENTY-SIX unions. It is absurd.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
we need to think about how people will actually respond, not just what is abjectly "best"
some of the suggestions do feel like "rugby" can survive as its own entity without the fans or wider rugby community, i kind of feel a report on how better to engage with fans both new and old would be a good step
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
we need to think about how people will actually respond, not just what is abjectly "best"
some of the suggestions do feel like "rugby" can survive as its own entity without the fans or wider rugby community, i kind of feel a report on how better to engage with fans both new and old would be a good step
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
For example, North Otago cricket has a board, an administrator, and a, 'community development manager'.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
For example, North Otago cricket has a board, an administrator, and a, 'community development manager'.
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
the fact you can put that down and not think some people might take that as a bit of a insult means we're just going to have to agree to disagree on how people might react
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
the fact you can put that down and not think some people might take that as a bit of a insult means we're just going to have to agree to disagree on how people might react
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Because it is all about money. These are organisations run like professional sporting franchises, despite the fact they are not that. I wouldn't just be downsizing the amount of staff in these smaller unions, you could clean the house through some of the larger unions as well.
The ORFU has 15 Fulltime employees + 11 High Performance for the NPC + 7 for the FPC + The Board... that seems ludicrous to me.
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
the fact you can put that down and not think some people might take that as a bit of a insult means we're just going to have to agree to disagree on how people might react
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing :man_shrugging:
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing :man_shrugging:
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Exactly the point - consolidation means getting rid of people - have the same PU operate as a sub union consolidates nothing :man_shrugging:
The same structure - just one level down and being told by the big boys in town what to do...
Except I literally said you'd be having less staff - so consolidation.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
that honestly just sound like it will further disenfranchise more rural rugby fans, i know lots already feel out of the loop with the super teams largely ignoring them
How though? You aren't getting rid of North Otago, and if anything, having everything under one roof probably allows for greater sharing of resources, which can only benefit these smaller unions.
you dont think people from smaller towns might dislike having people from the big smoke come in (phone in) to run things for them, especially when the big smoke teams arent exactly being run the best as it is
Did you read what I said? North Otago rugby would still be run by the people of North Otago (for example), just like Otago Country rugby is run by the people from Otago country even though they are a sub-union.
You could share staff for those expertise roles, but as I said, you would have a 'Head of North Otago Rugby' or something to that affect, who is essentially a knock down from the CEO of the ORFU, and is like a mini CEO, but obviously with less power. They'd be running the competitions, engaging with the people etc. This model is used effectively in hockey, cricket, football and I'm almost certain this stretches to other sports.
but also, i dont see how its this great sea change thats going to save rugby if there is still a mini ceo and still run but local people, just feels like a small down size (no board?) and demotion for others
Because it is all about money. These are organisations run like professional sporting franchises, despite the fact they are not that. I wouldn't just be downsizing the amount of staff in these smaller unions, you could clean the house through some of the larger unions as well.
The ORFU has 15 Fulltime employees + 11 High Performance for the NPC + 7 for the FPC + The Board... that seems ludicrous to me.
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
-
@frugby said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
my concern this with is how bad some of the larger ones are currently run
Yeah it's scathing about the way some PU's are run. Rightly so. It also suggests changes to their priorities etc
Presumably, in a hypothetical world where you shifted away from a winning model, and more towards a semi-pro/amateur model at a grassroots level, the people in high performance will lose their jobs, and PUs would be forced to employ people more interested/capable of caring for it. I'm not saying it would 100% work, but you'd assume that say North Otago merged with Otago, there would be in a role titled something like, 'North Otago Competitions Co-ordinator', who works and lives in Oamaru.
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
@gt12 said in NZR review:
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
They want to narrow the focus of unions towards community rugby, amateur rep, club etc
Also made it clear that the top down approach of NZR doesn't work and that the unions should have more ability to decide what works for them in those areas (the difference needs between city unions and rural ones for instance)
-
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
Grow Super Rugby not the NPC. A country of 5m, spread across a huge area of land is not big enough to support 14 professional organisations.
Look at the NBA, they have 30 teams for a country of 600m.
The NPC is so far away from financially sustainable in a pro model. If you wound the clock back to 1996, and never created Super Rugby, and kept the promotion + relegation but made it pro, could it have worked? Maybe, but I'm not convinced due to the amount of money that would cost, and the lack of people there to support it.
And I do actually think the Super Rugby teams are attempting to become bigger/better organisations. The step towards the U20s, HP programmes, increased social media presence and the new kit deal allowing for greater freedom I think does show a shift.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@frugby and to me thats seems like a small business (medium including playing staff), if this was any other business i think we'd be looking to grow our market rather than just downsizing to fit, ive seen little effort from Otago or the Highlander to become a bigger part of fans lives, more fans and a larger presence means you're more attractive to sponsors...just feels like were giving up
Grow Super Rugby not the NPC. A country of 5m, spread across a huge area of land is not big enough to support 14 professional organisations.
Look at the NBA, they have 30 teams for a country of 600m.
The NPC is so far away from financially sustainable in a pro model. If you wound the clock back to 1996, and never created Super Rugby, and kept the promotion + relegation but made it pro, could it have worked? Maybe, but I'm not convinced due to the amount of money that would cost, and the lack of people there to support it.
And I do actually think the Super Rugby teams are attempting to become bigger/better organisations. The step towards the U20s, HP programmes, increased social media presence and the new kit deal allowing for greater freedom I think does show a shift.
@frugby said in NZR review:
not big enough to support 14 professional organisations
I know you know this, but it's 20 pro organisations across 2 pro competitions
It's insane. No one would design this. SR is a mess and NPC is in terminal decline
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
They want to narrow the focus of unions towards community rugby, amateur rep, club etc
Also made it clear that the top down approach of NZR doesn't work and that the unions should have more ability to decide what works for them in those areas (the difference needs between city unions and rural ones for instance)
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@gt12 said in NZR review:
With KPIs related to increased participation in grassroots rugby, perhaps?
In other words, a structure that supports the regions and purpose of local rugby.
How strange given that the authors appear to want to take away the power of the unions.
They want to narrow the focus of unions towards community rugby, amateur rep, club etc
Also made it clear that the top down approach of NZR doesn't work and that the unions should have more ability to decide what works for them in those areas (the difference needs between city unions and rural ones for instance)
Apologies, I don't think the sarcasm of the last part of my post was strong enough.
I think the report is really clear about suggesting that there is just too much admin and focus on professionalism to the bottom of grassroots rugby. Better governance (and structures) focused on the two integrated aspects of rugby (professional teams, amateur grassroots) seems pretty sensible to me.
