Real interested in this, there an awful lot of things that don't line up with the letter. If the NZRPA did walk away, they would have noone to play, certainly not test matches RC , Bledisloe, WC etc, or even use the Name All Blacks the Silver Fern etc.
Real interested in this, there an awful lot of things that don't line up with the letter. If the NZRPA did walk away, they would have noone to play, certainly not test matches RC , Bledisloe, WC etc, or even use the Name All Blacks the Silver Fern etc.
Still bonus is the Wallabies will win the Bledisloe etc.
So who are the goodies and who are the baddies in this one?
From what I can understand WOB, there are only a few PUs against it. Auckland , Wellington are a couple, but I know a lot like Taranaki etc see it as way forward. It's pretty confusing, I think the NZR board are pretty keen on new structure, but can also perhaps see how some PUs are worried about splitting game more between Pro and anmateur.I don't think it's as simple as "goodies v baddies" @Dismal Pillock.
Near as I can tell everyone bar the Provincial Unions wants the game split between the bits that generate money (AB & whatever Super Rugby evolves/ mutates into) & those that don't, the PU having no direct say in how either is run.
So NZR Commercial controls the sponsorship, tv rights etc & pays NZR Community a dividend which is then distributed via the PU who have in the meantime done a deal with Gallaghers (the insurance company, not the one that makes electric fences ) that gives themselves a revenue stream independent of NZR.
It all looks OK on paper but my concern is what happens to NPC (e.g. does Commercial take the position that the PU are getting Gallagher's money so don't need as much of their's, do Super Rugby players & the occasional AB play in it, etc).
Anyhoo there's a Special General Meeting next week that will either blow the game up & leave NZRPA, NZR & the PU fighting over how it gets rebuilt, or someone will have to put self-interest aside & do what's best for the game. I suspect the latter but only after a lot of chest-beating from both sides & some kind of revenue-sharing deal being done on the sidelines.
The chair will be paid by NZR, but not have any voting rights, and if the GAP is set up as per the proposal, it will have seven voting members, three of whom represent unions, meaning it will only take one other member of the panel to be persuaded to side with them for the provinces to dominate decision-making.
David Pilkington, the former Fonterra executive and highly experienced director who delivered the independent review of rugby’s governance structure that formed the basis of Proposal 1 that was rejected by the unions, believes any prospective NZR directors will be wary about the lack of clarity in the intended relationship between the GAP and national body’s board.
He says the set-up looks like a two-tier board where a provincial union dominated GAP will have a remit and mandated powers to influence the NZR board on matters of governance.
It would be unprecedented in business or sport to have a board advising a board, and Pilkington, and other experienced governance personnel spoken to the Herald, believe that high-calibre directors will be reluctant to apply for positions on the NZR board given the probable control and influence the GAP will hold over it, and the uncertainty as to the true nature of its intended relationship with the national body.
What may further erode confidence is that the provincial unions who have been so determined to create the GAP, appear to have little to no understanding themselves of what kind of skillsets, experience and knowledge they want contained within the new body.
Wellington chairman Russell Poole, who led the working group that devised Proposal 2, wrote to all unions on June 3, before an update meeting later that day, to say:
“Ahead of the hui tonight for those PU chairs that can make it, I asked AI for a position and person description for a GAP member.
“Specifically, I typed in the following: job and person description for a role in a Governance Advisory Panel in a New Zealand sporting organisation.
“The above of course needs to be read in conjunction with the tasks outlined in P2 and is not ‘gospel’ but simply a starter document.
Former All Blacks Corey Flynn and David Hill will add their throwing and kicking expertise to the All Blacks environment during the 2024 season.
Flynn, a 15-test All Blacks hooker, will fill a newly-created role of throwing coach with regular touch points with the squad when they are in New Zealand throughout the season.
...
Hill, a first five-eighth who made one test appearance as a replacement against Ireland in 2006 and also played two games in 2001, will continue as kicking coach for the next two years.
It’s a role that’s seen him keeping tabs on the All Blacks kickers since as far back as 2017 in a part time capacity. He has been in a regular contracted role since 2019.
...
Tamati Ellison, who has been a member of the Crusaders coaching group for the last two years, will also work part-time as a contact skills coach.
Love , Telea. Reece, Proctor/ALB, Barrett, DMac, TJ, Sotutu, Papali'i, Finau,Vai'i, Darry, Lomax, Aumua,Numia.Which is your ABs starting XV if you have to pick according 2024 Super Rugby performances?