NZR review
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
@nzzp said in NZR review:
Reflecting on this, the requirement for PU involvement in the past seems to indicate the PU don't trust the external board appointments. Possibly summed up that they didn't trust the conclusions of the Pilkington review.
Proposal 1 was clearly rejected by the PU, and Proposal 2 clearly adopted.
It's done now. I think a step forward; time will tell how good or bad it is.
Now we see whether the NZRPA have the balls to follow through.
I've been unimpressed with RN. He really should consider his position. So the NZRPA can find a better leader. Who, rather than reverting to threats talks to people etc. Rob seem to belong to a different era
-
No Stakeholder council, but a GAP with a non-voting external chair. The PUs will have 3/7 votes so they only need one more person to block or control this panel (edit: for example, assuming they can influence the Maori rugby board appointment, they could control this panel). This body appoints 3/6 members of the appointments panel.
A new body named the Governance Advisory Panel (GAP) will be established.
The GAP will be formed annually, and will be made up of representatives of the following stakeholder groups:
a. Three representatives of Provincial Unions, being one Heartland Championship representative, and two NPC Union representatives, with the Provincial Unions to run their own process to determine their representatives.
b. One representative of the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board.
c. One representative of the foundation New Zealand Super Rugby Clubs (Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders), with NZR to call for nominations and, if more than 1 is received, to undertake a postal ballot to select the successful nominee. Nominees can be a Super Rugby Club Board member or senior manager.
d. One representative of the body representing professional rugby players in New Zealand (currently the NZ Rugby Players Association).
e. One representative of Tausoa Fa’atasi NZR Pasifika Advisory Group (or independent Pasifika Rugby entity recognised by NZR and the Affiliated Bodies, if one is formally established in future).
f. One independent Chair who will be appointed by the members of the GAP in conjunction with NZR, who will be remunerated by NZR, and who will be non-voting.
g. The GAP may agree by way of a majority to add other stakeholders to the GAP.The GAP will:
b. select 3 members of the ARP for the AGM NZRB appointment process. For the avoidance of doubt, the 3 members selected for the ARP are not required to be members of the GAP.
-
Hold on, here is a interesting one too. What the below could mean is that the GAP could revise the skills and competencies framework for the board so that more (or less) of them need certain experiences (i.e., we could go to needing 6/9 with PU experience or 1/9). This body will be incredibly powerful so think about how it could be captured if the PUs can get one more person to join them.
The 3/7 PU GAP will also:
a. review annually the updates to the Skills and Competencies Framework and the Needs and Priorities Statement (the SCF documents) proposed by the NZRB. NZRB will present the SCF documents to the GAP for discussion. The GAP will review the SCF documents, and make additional or alternative suggestions if necessary. Any updates required to be made to the SCF documents, proposed by the GAP, requires agreement by way of a majority of the GAP. For clarity, the GAP will have the final approval and sign off of the SCF documents, being the Skills and Competences Framework and the Needs and Priorities statement.
-
-
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I hope the voting details are released/leaked.
Some of it has - Taranaki, Waikato, Otago and Manawatu for proposal 1. Auckland voted for both
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I hope the voting details are released/leaked.
Some of it has - Taranaki, Waikato, Otago and Manawatu for proposal 1. Auckland voted for both
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
Prop 1 was Pilkington
-
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
Now there's a loaded question
-
@Donsteppa said in NZR review:
@Kiwiwomble said in NZR review:
which one was which again? was Prop 1 the good guys?
Now there's a loaded question
no idea what you mean
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Bovidae said in NZR review:
I hope the voting details are released/leaked.
Some of it has - Taranaki, Waikato, Otago and Manawatu for proposal 1. Auckland voted for both
It will be interesting to see if there is a bit of a divide between the provinces that supported different proposals.
-
As reported the the NZHerald live feed. Nice to see some constructive talk from a leading player that's not essentially Rob Nichol taking the NZRPA ball and going home.
Blues captain Patrick Tuipulotu responds to Proposal 2 being voted in
“I’m a bit disappointed,” he said.“But it’s for the future of rugby, whatever we decide, we have to do it together.
“From here on out, the conversation has to be open. Although Proposal 1 didn’t go through, we have to work together to try and get to where we want to.”
-
-
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
It will be interesting to see if there is a bit of a divide between the provinces that supported different proposals.
Or more importantly, within SR franchises. That appears to be the case at the Chiefs (Waikato/Taranaki vs BOP). I've no idea how CM voted.
-
@Donsteppa said in NZR review:
As reported the the NZHerald live feed. Nice to see some constructive talk from a leading player that's not essentially Rob Nichol taking the NZRPA ball and going home.
Blues captain Patrick Tuipulotu responds to Proposal 2 being voted in
“I’m a bit disappointed,” he said.“But it’s for the future of rugby, whatever we decide, we have to do it together.
“From here on out, the conversation has to be open. Although Proposal 1 didn’t go through, we have to work together to try and get to where we want to.”
The shareholders have made their (decisive) decision. Anyone not in alignment with this decision should step aside. Not try and continue fighting
Starting with the NZR Board. A good starting point anyway would be to appoint a new Board using this new proposal. Hopefully it can attract the required talent.
-
Well done to NZR for holding this on budget day too.
-
@SouthernMann said in NZR review:
Well done to NZR for holding this on budget day too.
And on no Rebels in Super Rugby day. And all the rest of the news headlines too...
-
@george33 said in NZR review:
Sounds like Rob Nicol has backed down on original comments
Where is that?
I see 'expressed disappointment'?
I wouldn't expect them to throw the toys today, I would expect they'll now make a decision to live with it or try to do something else?
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Donsteppa said in NZR review:
As reported the the NZHerald live feed. Nice to see some constructive talk from a leading player that's not essentially Rob Nichol taking the NZRPA ball and going home.
Blues captain Patrick Tuipulotu responds to Proposal 2 being voted in
“I’m a bit disappointed,” he said.“But it’s for the future of rugby, whatever we decide, we have to do it together.
“From here on out, the conversation has to be open. Although Proposal 1 didn’t go through, we have to work together to try and get to where we want to.”
The shareholders have made their (decisive) decision. Anyone not in alignment with this decision should step aside. Not try and continue fighting
Starting with the NZR Board. A good starting point anyway would be to appoint a new Board using this new proposal. Hopefully it can attract the required talent.
You understand that is exactly what the professional players have threatened?
I'm fascinated to see whether they go through with it or not.
