NZR review
-
@Tim said in NZR review:
@ruggabee Feels like massive changes and schisms are coming, with little public consultation ...
Silver Lake echo, echo, echo
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Tim said in NZR review:
@ruggabee Feels like massive changes and schisms are coming, with little public consultation ...
Silver Lake echo, echo, echo
Agree with the bolded bit below. Based on the NZR proposal
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/04/03/nz-rugbys-governance-model-described-as-chaos-game-impotent/
The New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association has described New Zealand Rugby’s current governance model as being in a state of “chaos” and says the game here is “impotent”, “disorganised” and operating in a “leadership vacuum”.
The strongly worded statement today was approved by NZRPA leader Rob Nichol, who confirmed to 1News he stood by everything in it.
It comes as NZ Rugby grapples with its governance in the wake of the non-binding Pilkington report recommendations released eight months ago which stated NZ Rugby’s constitution and governance was not fit for purpose and stressed the need, among other things, for a nine-person independent board.
Some among the provincial union representatives on NZ Rugby’s board have taken issue with that, however, which has created an impasse that the national organisation has attempted to bypass with a compromise of a transitional model towards a fully independent board.
This compromise was released by chairwoman Dame Patsy Reddy last week in an announcement she described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform”. It has been reported that Dame Patsy has offered to resign if she can’t get an agreement across the line.
Nichol’s organisation has flatly refused to accept NZ Rugby’s compromise, saying “since the publication of the Review the NZR and its voting members have accepted the Review findings and the need for change.
“However, to date, they have not accepted the recommendations, and instead have put forward numerous alternative mitigated and/or compromised proposals.
“None of these proposals, to date, deliver on the Review Panel recommendations, and none of them have garnered the united support of the NZR and its voting members, let alone other key stakeholders and the public.”
The statement added: “It has been eight months since the release of the Review. The game is widely regarded as impotent/disorganised and incompetent and is essentially in a state of governance chaos.
“The very issues highlighted in the Review and that contributed to its conclusion - that NZR governance is not fit for purpose - are literally manifesting themselves in front of New Zealand’s eyes.
“There is now a leadership vacuum, and, as such, this proposal is designed to fill that vacuum and provide something the entire game can unite behind and support.”
-
@ruggabee Feels like massive changes and schisms are coming, with little public consultation ...
@Tim said in NZR review:
@ruggabee Feels like massive changes and schisms are coming, with little public consultation ...
i think they would say if you want to be consulted then you need to be involved with one of the unions/club, as we discussed further up, the unions represent their members....not just anyone that watches rugby
-
-
NZHerald: new-zealand-rugby-and-provincial-unions-at-odds-over-governance-change-proposals
NZR & the PU's have shown that NZRPA were correct
Edit - Looks like that is pay walled now
In the next few days, a special general meeting will be called, giving the distinct impression New Zealand Rugby’s elongated governance restructure saga is coming to an end. But, unless there is a dramatic twist of events, the announcement of the SGM will serve not as a historic moment signalling that the game is ready to adapt and modernise but instead provides a disastrous ending to a disastrous process and perfectly illustrates why trust and confidence in rugby’s directors and leaders is so low.A meeting last week between NZR and a handful of chairs from the provincial unions failed to dissuade either side from being wedded to their own change proposal.That two, maybe even three, proposals are likely to be presented for vote is not only a serious governance failure, but it is a position that will most likely fail to bring this process to a conclusionNZRPA has considerable power to block or amend any significant changes and its boss, Rob Nichol, has said several times that a failure to bring governance in line with the review recommendations will force a re-think about how the professional players engage with the game. Precisely what that means is likely to become clear, just as the unions and NZR will be thinking they have put this whole issue to bed. -
@Duluth is that NZRPA speak for withdrawing labour? Our governance is wrecked at the moment, failures by so many different stakeholders here.
-
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
-
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
@Duluth said in NZR review:
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
I not sure who right or wrong, don't NZRPA supposedly represent the players? Players should have a say, but as employees should they run the whole thing? I fully admit to not knowing the best way of doing iy, torn between PUs having a say and it being run by independant board.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
I not sure who right or wrong, don't NZRPA supposedly represent the players? Players should have a say, but as employees should they run the whole thing? I fully admit to not knowing the best way of doing iy, torn between PUs having a say and it being run by independant board.
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
I not sure who right or wrong, don't NZRPA supposedly represent the players? Players should have a say, but as employees should they run the whole thing? I fully admit to not knowing the best way of doing iy, torn between PUs having a say and it being run by independant board.
RPA is professional players only I think. Technically they are contractors not employees I believe.
To me, utlimately it is the PU. I think splitting off the professional side is the way to go - with a dedicated board and org structure that gets the best for the pro game. Then you can have the PU focussing on clubs.unions and developing the game.
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
NZRPA have been on the correct side of this IMO and promises made to them have been broken. It would be interesting to see them throw their weight around
I not sure who right or wrong, don't NZRPA supposedly represent the players? Players should have a say, but as employees should they run the whole thing? I fully admit to not knowing the best way of doing iy, torn between PUs having a say and it being run by independant board.
RPA is professional players only I think. Technically they are contractors not employees I believe.
To me, utlimately it is the PU. I think splitting off the professional side is the way to go - with a dedicated board and org structure that gets the best for the pro game. Then you can have the PU focussing on clubs.unions and developing the game.
@nzzp professional players are employees employed by NZR under a collective agreement and loaned back to the relevant professional team(s).
I have been following this closely as a lot of it was highly relevant to other sports, particularly trying to balance the professional and amateur games. I can see the attraction of splitting off the professional game, but one issue is that profits of any separate entity would be taxed before distribution of dividends, whereas currently they are exempt because national sports bodies are usually organisations that promote amateur sport and the professional side is used to fund that.
-
@nzzp professional players are employees employed by NZR under a collective agreement and loaned back to the relevant professional team(s).
I have been following this closely as a lot of it was highly relevant to other sports, particularly trying to balance the professional and amateur games. I can see the attraction of splitting off the professional game, but one issue is that profits of any separate entity would be taxed before distribution of dividends, whereas currently they are exempt because national sports bodies are usually organisations that promote amateur sport and the professional side is used to fund that.
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
-
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
If it's a separate for-profit entity, the surplus would be taxable. Imputation credits on the dividends would be refunded after filing a tax return, but to avoid all tax, the entity would not be able to retain any amount from the surplus. Possibly there are other options around licensing and/or management fees but that's a good way to attract IRD's attention for an avoidance arrangement.
Appointing a separate arms-length board to run the professional game within the NZRU is fine.
-
@nzzp said in NZR review:
@Godder thanks for that.
If the PU still 'own' the pro game, but appoint a board to run as an independent business, do they still pay tax? Surely the transfer of a surplus to the parent body doesn't attract the liability as the parent body is tax-exempt.
I'm not an accountant, so terminology may be totally wrong.
If it's a separate for-profit entity, the surplus would be taxable. Imputation credits on the dividends would be refunded after filing a tax return, but to avoid all tax, the entity would not be able to retain any amount from the surplus. Possibly there are other options around licensing and/or management fees but that's a good way to attract IRD's attention for an avoidance arrangement.
Appointing a separate arms-length board to run the professional game within the NZRU is fine.
-
So that sounds like the NZR boards alternate proposal isn’t being voted on?
A few weeks ago it was the boards proposal vs the PU proposal without the actual review recommendation
-
No I don't think they've got it right, other articles mention NZR proposal, PU proposal, and NZRPA saying they want the pilkington in full.
