NZR review
-
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.
-
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.
-
@gt12 Robinson was asked some very simple questions. He preferred to waffle rather than give answers.
-
@gt12 Robinson was asked some very simple questions. He preferred to waffle rather than give answers.
@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? -
@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?
-
One thing that's abundantly clear is that under Robinson there's a real lack of leadership. He's displayed a complete lack of ability to introduce change (which is needed in the game) without getting the required people on side and making a mess of it.
Silverlake, the Fozzie will we or wont we fire him saga and this recent one.
In part this vacum has been filled by Rob Nicol and we have to give him credit for that, however I can't help but feel that it's gone to Robs head somewhat, with his erregous claims and blatent lies that the NZRPA will take care of a amatuer and grassroots game in NZ.
- It's not his job to do so
- There's no way he or his organisation could possibly do that
It could only have possibly been said to get some good PR and play politics (which apparently we all don't like).
It's sadly a long way from the days of Jock Hobbs where everyone in NZ rugby seemed aligned on what was good for the game and for the AB's, this current bunch appear to be acting purely out of self interest.
In sayign that I still cirles this back mainly to be the fault of Robinson - in the absence of leadership and direction people simly fend and try and get the best for themesles as they can't rely on anyone else. This appears to be what's playing out now in NZ rugby.
-
One thing that's abundantly clear is that under Robinson there's a real lack of leadership. He's displayed a complete lack of ability to introduce change (which is needed in the game) without getting the required people on side and making a mess of it.
Silverlake, the Fozzie will we or wont we fire him saga and this recent one.
In part this vacum has been filled by Rob Nicol and we have to give him credit for that, however I can't help but feel that it's gone to Robs head somewhat, with his erregous claims and blatent lies that the NZRPA will take care of a amatuer and grassroots game in NZ.
- It's not his job to do so
- There's no way he or his organisation could possibly do that
It could only have possibly been said to get some good PR and play politics (which apparently we all don't like).
It's sadly a long way from the days of Jock Hobbs where everyone in NZ rugby seemed aligned on what was good for the game and for the AB's, this current bunch appear to be acting purely out of self interest.
In sayign that I still cirles this back mainly to be the fault of Robinson - in the absence of leadership and direction people simly fend and try and get the best for themesles as they can't rely on anyone else. This appears to be what's playing out now in NZ rugby.
@Windows97 You do know Robinson doesn't make these decisions. A CEO is really just there carrying out (or should be) the will of the board. I was always amused when people bagged him when the Fozzie thing was happening, he didn't appoint him, the board did, and he certainly couldn't fire him. Have a sneaky peek what happened in Aus with Eddie Jones, he was emplyed by the chaiman and board, and CEO didn't want a lot to do with it.
On NZR Robinson and Razor are mates who played together etc, and I always had impression he would rather have Razor. But as board wanted Foaster he rightfully backed him. Same as things now I have feeling he is for Pilkington report, but he should do as he did shut up, it's not his decision.
Same as whether the PUs are right or worng thing, he should never crticise them in public, he couldn't do job if he did! -
One thing that's abundantly clear is that under Robinson there's a real lack of leadership. He's displayed a complete lack of ability to introduce change (which is needed in the game) without getting the required people on side and making a mess of it.
Silverlake, the Fozzie will we or wont we fire him saga and this recent one.
In part this vacum has been filled by Rob Nicol and we have to give him credit for that, however I can't help but feel that it's gone to Robs head somewhat, with his erregous claims and blatent lies that the NZRPA will take care of a amatuer and grassroots game in NZ.
- It's not his job to do so
- There's no way he or his organisation could possibly do that
It could only have possibly been said to get some good PR and play politics (which apparently we all don't like).
It's sadly a long way from the days of Jock Hobbs where everyone in NZ rugby seemed aligned on what was good for the game and for the AB's, this current bunch appear to be acting purely out of self interest.
In sayign that I still cirles this back mainly to be the fault of Robinson - in the absence of leadership and direction people simly fend and try and get the best for themesles as they can't rely on anyone else. This appears to be what's playing out now in NZ rugby.
@Windows97 don't forget the utter debacle approaching Australian Super franchises behind their board's back
-
@Tim From the article:
However, before that happens two steps must take place: the formation of a new Governance Advisory Panel (GAP) and then the new Appointments and Remuneration Panel (ARP).
The Post understands the following three provincial union GAP representatives have been selected: Kate Daly, a former Auckland rugby board member, Corey Kennett, the chief executive of the Horowhenua-Kapiti Rugby Union and Andrew Golightly, the chair of the Northland Rugby Union.
Pauline-Jean Luyten, an emerging NZ Rugby director last year, will be the Pasifika representative, while Anne-Marie Jackson has been informally put forward by the Māori Rugby Board.
But under Proposal Two, the Super Rugby franchises and the NZRPA were to fill the other two positions on the GAP, and they are yet to submit representatives.
-
@Tim From the article:
However, before that happens two steps must take place: the formation of a new Governance Advisory Panel (GAP) and then the new Appointments and Remuneration Panel (ARP).
The Post understands the following three provincial union GAP representatives have been selected: Kate Daly, a former Auckland rugby board member, Corey Kennett, the chief executive of the Horowhenua-Kapiti Rugby Union and Andrew Golightly, the chair of the Northland Rugby Union.
Pauline-Jean Luyten, an emerging NZ Rugby director last year, will be the Pasifika representative, while Anne-Marie Jackson has been informally put forward by the Māori Rugby Board.
But under Proposal Two, the Super Rugby franchises and the NZRPA were to fill the other two positions on the GAP, and they are yet to submit representatives.
-
-
The media release:
Income of $268m continues to track strongly in 2023
NZR Reserves almost double to $175m
NZR+ streaming platform launched in time for the RWC23 in France
$42m invested in community Game DevelopmentThere is a pdf of the Financial Statement that can be viewed via a link in the article.
-
Robinson said the overall operating result was heavily impacted by a truncated Rugby Championship, the lack of the mid-year home series, Māori All Blacks or All Blacks XV matches, and just two domestic tests.
The result was a 39% decrease in match-day income from $28m to $17m. Broadcast income also decreased by $16m due to the impact of the 2023 Rugby World Cup.
damn, that seems like a lot, all would have been forecast and not hosting those games but have saved money but i guess your still paying salaries etc
-
From a paywalled NZH article
With their governance change proposal in danger of falling at the first hurdle, the provincial unions will use New Zealand Rugby’s annual general meeting to force through constitutional change to enable them to handpick individuals to represent major stakeholders who are actively boycotting the proposed new structure. If the resolution proposed by North Harbour is passed at next Friday’s AGM, it will mean that New Zealand Māori Rugby Board (NZMRB), New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association (NZRPA) and the Super Rugby Clubs (SRC) will have people they don’t support or endorse represent them in a governance system they don’t want to be part of.What the unions are effectively doing is circumnavigating their own proposal by rewriting it in such a way that they will control every step of the governance process and never need any buy-in from any other stakeholder to retain their dominant position.Under the same resolution, the constitution will be changed to lower the number of people who need to serve on the proposed Governance Advisory Panel (GAP) for it to be recognised as a quorum – a belt and braces move to ensure that even if the unions can’t coerce pseudo representatives of the NZMRB, NZRPA and SRC to serve on the GAP, it will still be recognised as a constitutionally viable entity. -
What a surprise, no wonder the RPA wanted no part of option 2. As pointed out in this thread, it is very possible for the provinces to hijack. And they appear to be going to do so, preemptively, before the option is even in place. What a mess, and rugby will continue is downward spiral in NZ
-
Quite obvious that the professional arm needs to strike out and follow through on their "threat". The modern game shouldn't be hamstrung by amateurism.
-
What a surprise, no wonder the RPA wanted no part of option 2. As pointed out in this thread, it is very possible for the provinces to hijack. And they appear to be going to do so, preemptively, before the option is even in place. What a mess, and rugby will continue is downward spiral in NZ
@Machpants said in NZR review:
What a surprise, no wonder the RPA wanted no part of option 2. As pointed out in this thread, it is very possible for the provinces to hijack. And they appear to be going to do so, preemptively, before the option is even in place. What a mess, and rugby will continue is downward spiral in NZ
But what can you do when you are dealing with children like this
individuals to represent major stakeholders who are actively boycotting the proposed new structure.
