NZR review
-
@Nepia said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The timing of this seems poor, surely this is best left to after the world cup?
So they should hold in a finished report? Nope, that's worse. It was finished when it finished, and then you publish it. Otherwise it will all be about the cover up.
Anyway, can't be worse than recent ABs results!
But that goes back to when they originally commissioned the report and the ToR - they didn't need to have it completed right before the RWC, that was a choice they made, and seems like a silly one to me.
Yep, more incompetence. Can't understand how a private equity expert wouldn't think of that.
-
@Kirwan said in NZR review:
The timing of this seems poor, surely this is best left to after the world cup?
Not sure it is hugely different to thier change of process and sorting the next coach before the RWC?
I see Robinson was endorsed too, maybe there was some heat there?
-
Not sure the best place for this, mods might need to create a new thread. Yes it talks about NPC not sustainable, which why placed here, but also Super Rugby is also not financially sound either, also struggling to make money... burn the house down and start again lol
-
A link to the review pdf: https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/assets/NZRU-Governance-Review-31-August-2023-web.pdf
-
I think most people would agree with the first point surrounding poor leadership and lack of ability to make the hard decisions. While I agree some decisions are not easy to make, the head in the sand approach has at least been called out
-
It's a governance review so it's mostly about changes to the board etc
I think this will be stage one before they consider changes to the competitions etc
Good to see this line in there:
Few—if any—would contend that a country of five million people can support six professional franchises and 14 NPC teams.That's a hint about the tough decisions that will need to be made soon
-
@Duluth I think what found interesting was at least the acknowledgement that neither Super Rugby clubs nor NPC clubs were completely financially viable and whatever solution has to consider both
-
-
-
It seems obvious to me that's why I've been talking about a consolidated professional competition to replace both
I'm pleased about that line being in the report because it makes it clear that there will not be 20 professional teams (a semi pro team is just a pro team that doesn't pay it's players much)
There's lots of terrible ways to cut teams. Time to think of good ones
Also worth noting was the line about how 6 provinces can band together and block any reform. The governance changes have to happen before any competition changes can pass
My guess is ultimately unions will focus on the amateur & community rugby. They will have more autonomy about how they achieve their goals. However I think high performance/pro rugby will be run differently
-
There's plenty of corporate fluff in the report too
I did chuckle at the 67% player retention goal in mens rugby and the same 67% retention goal in womans rugby. Given the significant overlap between playing years and fertile ages, woman will never hit the same retention number. I think it's frowned upon to play contact sport while pregnant.
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
It's a governance review so it's mostly about changes to the board etc
I think this will be stage one before they consider changes to the competitions etc
Good to see this line in there:
Few—if any—would contend that a country of five million people can support six professional franchises and 14 NPC teams.That's a hint about the tough decisions that will need to be made soon
Cut the NPC and go straight from club to super rugby?
Or reduce down to 6 NPC teams that are straight feeders for the super team?
-
@Windows97 or ditch super and find a way to fund the top 7-8 NPC team each year, get promoted get extra funding, drop down and loose it
-
@Kiwiwomble I'd say from a continuity of coach and player development they would want their professional teams to stay rather stable.
With SA out of super rugby that leaves a yawning revenue gap.
For the life of me I don't know why they didn't keep Japan involved in super rugby, while it's great that the Pacifica and Dura teams are there they certainly aren't the cash cow that Japan has to offer.
-
@Windows97 i agree re japan but i kind of feel their control over the teams and development of players and coaches is kind of why we are were we are, there are very few upsets or surprises in super rugby because every year is just slight variation on the year before
-
Yeah it's just the rule of intended consequences.
When super rugby first came out as a long suffering BOP supporter I was delighted that players could still play for the BOP and play super rugby instead of always leaving for bigger unions to get better chances.
I'm not sure of the exact stats/percentages but I think first year of super rugby there were some 30 players from second division teams picked in super rugby teams (lot less teams in the first div then).
95% of these div 2 players went to a div 1 team after the first year...
In reality it simply made it easier for the super unions to ID talent in div 2 and smaller unions and draw them into their NPC team.
-
@Windows97 thats kind of my point though, at least some of those players might hang around in the home union if there is a chance, even if small, of leading them up the ladder, especially locked in AB's as they have less to prove, or worst case they might go away to a bigger union to get into the AB's...and them come back
keeping super rugby means we almost never see AB's play for their home unions
-
formation of the Stakeholder Council. “A maximum of 15 is proposed, including an independent chair, and nominees from: Annual meeting of NZR (3), NZ Māori Rugby Board (1), NZR Pasifika Advisory group (1), Super Rugby clubs (1), NZ Secondary Schools Rugby Union (1), NZ Rugby Foundation (1), Women in Rugby Aotearoa, (1) Local Government NZ (1), Sport New Zealand (1),”
From my reading of that make up there's no representation of community rugby. Schools get a bigger say than clubs.
Where do the provinces and clubs sit in this?
-
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.I wonder which union this is? Maybe Southland based on comments from them about preferring the old two tiered NPC?
'Not fit for purpose': Changes recommended after NZR governance review
