NZR review
-
@gt12 loving your work. Clearest description I’ve read so far about what’s actually in the second proposal.
Amazing what happens when you actually read stuff.
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
@gt12 loving your work. Clearest description I’ve read so far about what’s actually in the second proposal.
Amazing what happens when you actually read stuff.
What's fucking annoying is that none of the sports journalists have done the work to read it and then clearly lay out what it means.
I have to thank @pakman for making me go find the actualy source materials, because his point was pretty valid - in of itself, 3 members on an otherwise independent panel shouldn't be enough to throw the toys quite this much.
As it turns out, I think it is fair to say that there are different ways that the PUs will still exert far more control that they have let on - and I think there is huge opportunity in their proposal for a some of the committees to be captured.
I was also thinking that because the PUs have the voting rights on appointments to the board (at least), it would relatively easy for PU members of committees to let on who is voting against the PUs too much, which could then get those who don't tow the line voted out.
The Pilkington report deals with a lack of confidentiality and how it relates to the relationship with PUs specifically on page 72:
All NZR directors, no matter how they make it to the board, should have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the NZR board. For those with the support of a constituency, as member-Elected or Nominated directors, the odds are against them fulfilling that potential because of their direct association with a sectional interest. They must ‘campaign’ to gain election or nomination, under pressure to make commitments to their prospective constituents that can easily be ill-informed and/or unachievable. Once on the board, if they wish to be re-elected or renominated, they must be responsive to constituent concerns—even when those seek to advance sectional interests at the expense of the greater good. We were told they are expected to represent the member union view of the world and are often under pressure to distance themselves from board decisions unpopular with the Provincial Unions even when they supported those decisions in the boardroom. They are regularly courted by Provincial Union peers and media contacts who would have them break ranks and disclose NZR board confidences. In fact, lack of confidentiality has been a major problem at times. NZR directors coming through the member union channels have often had little or no formal governance training, limited experience and limited understanding of the disciplines expected
-
I think the players are going to now work with NZRU on this new council to shut the PUs out of the professional game.
It will be interesting whether there is now a push to wrap up Super rugby by the PUs - I don't think the ownership is simple enough for them to be so easily cancelled, but I haven't read enough about that yet.
Pretty explosive from the Pilkington report (p73 I think)
NZR is unable to make decisions needed to advance the game and the collective interests of all stakeholders. This can be seen in NZR’s apparent inability (to date) to rationalise the two separate professional rugby competitions (Super Rugby and NPC). We encountered a widespread view that the NPC, in particular, contains too many teams. Attendance statistics suggest it is also a programme of games with few fans. Continuing the present arrangement defies logic but we were told challenging that logic has drawn threats of Special General Meetings from member Unions and the implicit threat of board censure or removal. Declining fan engagement is a far bigger issue and directly relevant to the Super Rugby competition as well. There are likely multiple contributing factors: complex and difficult to understand rules, the timing of games, the number and frequency of games, poor stadium experience, and many other factors as well. These cannot be solved by any one of New Zealand rugby stakeholders alone, but it is another pointer to the breadth of perspectives required around the board table. If it is not NZR’s role to take a lead in this, then who? It is widely accepted that a key responsibility of Provincial Unions is to maintain the health of the community game. Yet, on average, NPC unions spend 59% of their turnover on high performance and only 21% on community rugby, where most rugby players (and the future black-jersey wearers) can be found. Based on that damning statistic, it is to the credit of one NPC union that told us they have given up on any thought of being competitive in the NPC. The choice for them was stark: it would be financially crippling to invest enough to win the NPC. They have chosen to invest in supporting and developing grassroots rugby. As far as we know, no other NPC union has confronted this trade-off head-on and moved in favour of growing the game from the ground up. A decision to resolve the present professional rugby problem is obviously one that must be made at the national level. However, NZR’s present governance structure does not support that.
-
I'm a bit busy in next few weeks to read this fully through and mull it, but the mature approach from NZPA is to let the Proposal 2 machinations work their way through to the 'new deal' committees and Board.
If the PUs do not exert undue influence with these (which remains to be seem) then sensible thing is to give the new governance a try.
If, however, the PUs show their true colours by infiltrating a bunch of ringers, THAT is the time for the NZPA to go nuclear.
One thing I'm not seeing written is the pretty fundamental point that in most organisations it's the CEO and his team which actually drive initiatives.
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
Does all this bleating about an independent Board suggest the Executive has plans which they know PUs will find toxic?
Are we really meant to believe that a Board of 'Corporate Governance experts" will transform Mark Robinson into a world beater?
Isn't all this fuss just a tad suspicious...?
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
@gt12 loving your work. Clearest description I’ve read so far about what’s actually in the second proposal.
Amazing what happens when you actually read stuff.
What's fucking annoying is that none of the sports journalists have done the work to read it and then clearly lay out what it means.
I have to thank @pakman for making me go find the actualy source materials, because his point was pretty valid - in of itself, 3 members on an otherwise independent panel shouldn't be enough to throw the toys quite this much.
As it turns out, I think it is fair to say that there are different ways that the PUs will still exert far more control that they have let on - and I think there is huge opportunity in their proposal for a some of the committees to be captured.
I was also thinking that because the PUs have the voting rights on appointments to the board (at least), it would relatively easy for PU members of committees to let on who is voting against the PUs too much, which could then get those who don't tow the line voted out.
The Pilkington report deals with a lack of confidentiality and how it relates to the relationship with PUs specifically on page 72:
All NZR directors, no matter how they make it to the board, should have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the NZR board. For those with the support of a constituency, as member-Elected or Nominated directors, the odds are against them fulfilling that potential because of their direct association with a sectional interest. They must ‘campaign’ to gain election or nomination, under pressure to make commitments to their prospective constituents that can easily be ill-informed and/or unachievable. Once on the board, if they wish to be re-elected or renominated, they must be responsive to constituent concerns—even when those seek to advance sectional interests at the expense of the greater good. We were told they are expected to represent the member union view of the world and are often under pressure to distance themselves from board decisions unpopular with the Provincial Unions even when they supported those decisions in the boardroom. They are regularly courted by Provincial Union peers and media contacts who would have them break ranks and disclose NZR board confidences. In fact, lack of confidentiality has been a major problem at times. NZR directors coming through the member union channels have often had little or no formal governance training, limited experience and limited understanding of the disciplines expected
@gt12 You’re too kind: I was just trying to understand what I was missing!
But thank you for putting the time into digging out the detail and posting relevant snippets!
-
-
I'm a bit busy in next few weeks to read this fully through and mull it, but the mature approach from NZPA is to let the Proposal 2 machinations work their way through to the 'new deal' committees and Board.
If the PUs do not exert undue influence with these (which remains to be seem) then sensible thing is to give the new governance a try.
If, however, the PUs show their true colours by infiltrating a bunch of ringers, THAT is the time for the NZPA to go nuclear.
One thing I'm not seeing written is the pretty fundamental point that in most organisations it's the CEO and his team which actually drive initiatives.
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
Does all this bleating about an independent Board suggest the Executive has plans which they know PUs will find toxic?
Are we really meant to believe that a Board of 'Corporate Governance experts" will transform Mark Robinson into a world beater?
Isn't all this fuss just a tad suspicious...?
@pakman said in NZR review:
I'm a bit busy in next few weeks to read this fully through and mull it, but the mature approach from NZPA is to let the Proposal 2 machinations work their way through to the 'new deal' committees and Board.
> If the PUs do not exert undue influence with these (which remains to be seem) then sensible thing is to give the new governance a try.
If, however, the PUs show their true colours by infiltrating a bunch of ringers, THAT is the time for the NZPA to go nuclear.
One thing I'm not seeing written is the pretty fundamental point that in most organisations it's the CEO and his team which actually drive initiatives.
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
Does all this bleating about an independent Board suggest the Executive has plans which they know PUs will find toxic?
Are we really meant to believe that a Board of 'Corporate Governance experts" will transform Mark Robinson into a world beater?
> Isn't all this fuss just a tad suspicious...?
This
My view is Rob, David (Kirk), Pilkington and (maybe) Robinson had an agenda. To blame the PUs for everything that's wrong with rugby in NZ and remove their control
They fought back and now Rob (and Pilkington) are pissed off
They have sold to the public that the answer is independent directors and any PU involved is a recipe for disaster. This will magically make everything right. Even with Robinson still in control
Yet NZ rugby is in a much better state than Aust. And how much is the super rugby disaster due to the NZR.
Maybe Robinson wants to go in a certain direction but he's being stopped by this Board
My view is give it a go (the new structure) and see the outcome. But I can't see much change occurring if Robinson cotinues in control. But based on the super rugby changes. and a new head coach its looking better. Sort out super rugby and then look at the NPC
and hope the Silver Lake investment isn't actually that terrible (that RN and his team approved)
-
I'm a bit busy in next few weeks to read this fully through and mull it, but the mature approach from NZPA is to let the Proposal 2 machinations work their way through to the 'new deal' committees and Board.
If the PUs do not exert undue influence with these (which remains to be seem) then sensible thing is to give the new governance a try.
If, however, the PUs show their true colours by infiltrating a bunch of ringers, THAT is the time for the NZPA to go nuclear.
One thing I'm not seeing written is the pretty fundamental point that in most organisations it's the CEO and his team which actually drive initiatives.
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
Does all this bleating about an independent Board suggest the Executive has plans which they know PUs will find toxic?
Are we really meant to believe that a Board of 'Corporate Governance experts" will transform Mark Robinson into a world beater?
Isn't all this fuss just a tad suspicious...?
@pakman said in NZR review:
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
From my experience, the Board sets the overall strategy and priorities, adn it's up to the executive to, er, execute
Seriously though, in businesses of any serious size that I have been involved with, it's the Board who are critical to setting direction and (basically) hold the power. -
@pakman said in NZR review:
OK just watched this video
Thanks for posting
I agree with Moffett. RN must go (maybe replaced by Conrad Smith as an option). His threat was a disgrace and totally unacceptable.
But also, this Board and Robinson need to go as well. This has been an unbelievable shambles that they have presided over. And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Time for a total cleanout.
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
From my experience, the Board sets the overall strategy and priorities, adn it's up to the executive to, er, execute
Seriously though, in businesses of any serious size that I have been involved with, it's the Board who are critical to setting direction and (basically) hold the power.@nzzp said in NZR review:
From my experience, the Board sets the overall strategy and priorities, adn it's up to the executive to, er, execute Seriously though, in businesses of any serious size that I have been involved with, it's the Board who are critical to setting direction and (basically) hold the power.
Depend on how competent both groups are
A brilliant CE and team can almost do everything. Just getting approval from the Board who have their full trust and respect
Often Board member just haven't the time or ability (or they might not be that young anymore) to do they required work so rely heavily on the management team. Othertimes, the management team is a bit limited so the Board have to become (or one or 2) a lot more involved
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
From my experience, the Board sets the overall strategy and priorities, adn it's up to the executive to, er, execute
Seriously though, in businesses of any serious size that I have been involved with, it's the Board who are critical to setting direction and (basically) hold the power.@nzzp said in NZR review:
@pakman said in NZR review:
A Board is there to say yay or nay to Executive's proposals, and to sack the CEO if he proves incompetent.
From my experience, the Board sets the overall strategy and priorities, adn it's up to the executive to, er, execute
Seriously though, in businesses of any serious size that I have been involved with, it's the Board who are critical to setting direction and (basically) hold the power.I'm based in UK and here in all significant listed companies and most private equity ones the day-to-day operations and the materials which the Board receives are driven by the CEO who will also be a director. Independent non-executive directors are usually around 75% of the Board.
In practice, the Board isn't generally able to commit sufficient time to get into the detail of the actual workings.
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
OK just watched this video
Thanks for posting
I agree with Moffett. RN must go (maybe replaced by Conrad Smith as an option). His threat was a disgrace and totally unacceptable.
But also, this Board and Robinson need to go as well. This has been an unbelievable shambles that they have presided over. And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Time for a total cleanout.
@Winger said in NZR review:
@pakman said in NZR review:
OK just watched this video
Thanks for posting
I agree with Moffett. RN must go (maybe replaced by Conrad Smith as an option). His threat was a disgrace and totally unacceptable.
But also, this Board and Robinson need to go as well. This has been an unbelievable shambles that they have presided over. And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Time for a total cleanout.
Isn't the expected result of Proposal 2 a new Board?
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
OK just watched this video
Thanks for posting
I agree with Moffett. RN must go (maybe replaced by Conrad Smith as an option). His threat was a disgrace and totally unacceptable.
But also, this Board and Robinson need to go as well. This has been an unbelievable shambles that they have presided over. And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Time for a total cleanout.
@Winger said in NZR review:
And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Has she resigned as promised?
I was astonished the Chair wasn't there - this is arguably the most important vote in a couple of decades. Anyone know why not? Got the pip, or some other commitment?
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Has she resigned as promised?
I was astonished the Chair wasn't there - this is arguably the most important vote in a couple of decades. Anyone know why not? Got the pip, or some other commitment?
-
@pakman said in NZR review:
OK just watched this video
Thanks for posting
I agree with Moffett. RN must go (maybe replaced by Conrad Smith as an option). His threat was a disgrace and totally unacceptable.
But also, this Board and Robinson need to go as well. This has been an unbelievable shambles that they have presided over. And the Chair wasn't even at this meeting.
Time for a total cleanout.
-
The enromously disturbng thing anout the professional players tyring to split away is that it creates an us V them in NZR.
The NZPA needs the PU's to provide them with talent, its not like they can do any of this by themselves. Nor can they expect PU's to become the snake that eats it's own tail (just give them all their talent with no reward).
It needs to be a co operative arrangement between NZPA and the PU's and especially for NZR if we want to keep our best talent here.
None of this seems to be there.
It's all very worrying.
-
"We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots.
That's a strong statement from Mr Nichol. But it's going to be fabulous now seeing him and all of his NZRPA members out at the grounds before 8am each Saturday, giving up their time for free...
@Donsteppa said in NZR review:
"We're more committed to rugby and professional rugby in this country than anyone, including the community game and grass roots.
That's a strong statement from Mr Nichol. But it's going to be fabulous now seeing him and all of his NZRPA members out at the grounds before 8am each Saturday, giving up their time for free...
Personally I can't wait for Rob Nicol, or a suitable proxy coming down to the club an holding a tackle bag at our team training.
-
The enromously disturbng thing anout the professional players tyring to split away is that it creates an us V them in NZR.
The NZPA needs the PU's to provide them with talent, its not like they can do any of this by themselves. Nor can they expect PU's to become the snake that eats it's own tail (just give them all their talent with no reward).
It needs to be a co operative arrangement between NZPA and the PU's and especially for NZR if we want to keep our best talent here.
None of this seems to be there.
It's all very worrying.
@Windows97 said in NZR review:
professional players
Or Rob and I suspect David Kirk had a lot to do with this. A few mainly ex-players also signed this letter but not many
-
The enromously disturbng thing anout the professional players tyring to split away is that it creates an us V them in NZR.
The NZPA needs the PU's to provide them with talent, its not like they can do any of this by themselves. Nor can they expect PU's to become the snake that eats it's own tail (just give them all their talent with no reward).
It needs to be a co operative arrangement between NZPA and the PU's and especially for NZR if we want to keep our best talent here.
None of this seems to be there.
It's all very worrying.
@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.
