NZR review
-
Seems to be some difficulty working out which entities are the high performance pathways. Everyone probably agrees that the international teams are the pinnacles, starting with the ABs and working down from there.
Everyone probably also agrees that clubs and schools are the engine rooms of amateur rugby.
Deciding whether to have one or two layers of pro rugby and one or two layers of high performance pathways between the two seems to be much harder since even agreement that there should be one of each doesn't automatically lead to agreement on which one of each to retain.
My hunch is that if the provincial unions didn't have the votes, this would be a lot easier to decide, and there would be one pro layer below the All Blacks.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Machpants said in NZR review:
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.
Apparently not. NZR ditched their plan and are putting up the Pilkington proposal for a vote
From a paywalled NZH article:
That was until now, and the surprise announcement that the board has effectively given up trying to push its own strangely concocted and confused transitional plan to change its governance structure, and has instead decided to ask the unions to vote in favour of adopting the key recommendations of the independent review.So it will be Pilkington vs the PU proposal
Here's some of the language for the PU proposal (@Winger this is the one you support right?)
that at least one board member has “lived experience, knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori in a complex organisational context”, and likewise, at least one member “must identify and have lived experience as Pasifika with ancestral and authentic cultural connections and an ability to apply a Pasifika world view in a complex organisational context”Also the PU proposal will be finalised next week.. they are still writing it
As for support for the PU proposal?
Wellington chair Russell Poole says there is not universal support among the unions for their own proposal, but that until more detail is released about the alternative, it’s unclear how much support it will have.No, the Pilkington report is not being voted on at the EGM on the 30th.
It is the NZR counter proposal v the Provincial Union's counter proposal.
-
You still have to convert what is in the Pilkington report to a proposal, so more correctly NZR are offering a proposal that is what is recommended in the report - you can't dump a report on the table and say this is it. It's a report that has a recommended course of action, NZR proposal now follows that course of action
-
-
-
@Tim Just read that, and can't quite get my head around how much of it is a bluff etc, as without the NZRU there is no test matches or indeed even Super rugby as these matches come ubder the jurisdiction of WR, that NZR is affiliated to, not pro rugby players.
-
There is no bluff, IMO, NZR bullshitted us (or allowed themselves to be bullshitted) with the upsides of silver lake. The pro players were always against it, managed to force a better deal, but we're still saddled with that debt and so far no upsides in income. They think their jobs will be gone, same NZR collapse like Ozzie is doing, without this change.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
There is no bluff, IMO, NZR bullshitted us (or allowed themselves to be bullshitted) with the upsides of silver lake. The pro players were always against it, managed to force a better deal, but we're still saddled with that debt and so far no upsides in income. They think their jobs will be gone, same NZR collapse like Ozzie is doing, without this change.
So fair enough, so real question, All Blacks is a NZR brand, and I believe owned by NZR, so will no longer play for them. This reminds me of 96 where rebel pro thing was starting, only way it will work if all the other unions do same , or who will they play? Genuinely surprised to hear that you think NZR are going to collapse anyway. Though to be fair if this shit happens the game will collapse in NZ, as the NZPA seem to be saying we want the money side of it and the rest of you can worry how grassroots etc will be run.
I sure there is more to this than we reading. So they will end up with rugby being run for the 150-200 pro players in NZ? -
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
-
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
-
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
@mariner4life said in NZR review:
that reads to me like the pro players telling the archaic provinces to pull their fucking heads in and get in line
It is for sure, it's their flexing of muscles no doubt, I would actually think NZR board may actually not be far away from this too. As I said who is this new identity going to play, and aren't the players contracted to NZR anyway? So are they all going to walk out on contracts etc?
The other way to look at it is, if all the pro players walk, who will play for the ABs? And when they get flogged, what damage will that do to the brand?
-
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I was just reading that article. It does clarify that the NZRPA only represents the SR players (professional) as they state that NZR would have control over community and provincial rugby.
I'm all for supporting a union, however, there's a lot of pro players (players that make income from playing rugby) in NZ that don't fall under the SR banner so I am genuinely surprised that they don't represent them all.
@Dan54 said in NZR review:
so will no longer play for them.
Cavaliers is probably available.
Damn it, we'll be starting with a losing record against the Boks though. -
@canefan Agree will be the end of rugby as we know it in NZ.
This is what NZPA wrote in letter that they couldn't play in Rugby Championship, Blediskoe and WC. So basically they won't play international rugby, so where will they get money from.
The letter also said the players had the ability to effectively bring the professional game to its knees.“You will be aware that the professional players and NZRU share the assets needed to operate professional rugby,” it said.
“For instance, NZRU owns the silver fern logo, the names of our great teams and the right to enter competitions such as the Rugby Championship, Bledisloe Cup and Rugby World Cup.
-
@Nepia said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I was just reading that article. It does clarify that the NZRPA only represents the SR players (professional) as they state that NZR would have control over community and provincial rugby.
I'm all for supporting a union, however, there's a lot of pro players (players that make income from playing rugby) in NZ that don't fall under the SR banner so I am genuinely surprised that they don't represent them all.
That's what has got me confused, they basically saying we only representing top players who will play invitational teams?
-
You've got it mixed up, they are not threatening pulling out of rugby. They are threatening, as allowed under their PGA, to change their governorship. So instead of being governed by just NZR, they would set up some other board that NZR (basically PU amateur game) would be one part of.
They can strike, but the only thing that NZR can't use it they withdraw is player image rights
More info there
Professional players threaten split from NZ Rugby over governance structure
The matter will come to ahead at next week's special general meeting.
-
@Machpants Realise what they saying, but they saying they will set up a board to run the pro game. I actually see what they saying, but bottom line is they still have to do it through NZR or they got noone to play in tests etc. Basically I don't even see them trying roll board as some saying, we will still have basically same board etc, just no PU input into it. They trying to seperate the pro and amateur game (and basically shrinking the pro game numbers?)
-
It is a tough pill for PUs to swallow. For decades they have been the big swinging dicks. Now, broadly being told to go home, sort out their own backyards and leave the big decisions to the adults. They know that this will have an impact on the long-term future of their shop window product (men's domestic rugby), and don't want to lose their relevance in the NZ Rugby landscape. We will never have a fit for purpose product when there are so many self serving cooks in the kitchen
Stuff
