Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The game in this country is about more than just the All Blacks

The sun sets over a scrum during the Bunnings Warehouse NPC Quarter Final match between Canterbury and Auckland at Apollo Projects Stadium, on October 06, 2023, in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo by Peter Meecham/Getty Images)

So who is running rugby in New Zealand?

Prior to Thursday’s governance vote, I’d have said it was New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association (NZRPA) chief executive Rob Nichol.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the decision of our provincial unions to resoundingly vote against the proposal Nichol championed severely undermines his authority, if not actually making his position untenable.

Nichol huffed and puffed about forming a rogue governing body, if the provincial unions didn’t cast a vote of liking.

Well, in the post-vote interview I heard with him, Nichol wasn’t nearly so strident.

Maybe the players he purports to represent felt he’d overplayed his hand? Either way, his days running that particular trade union should be numbered.

Similar could be said for New Zealand Rugby (NZR) chief executive Mark Robinson.

After all, NZR endorsed the same defeated proposal Nichol did. Or maybe they were just doing what Nichol had told them to, given the whip hand he’s held for so long.

Either way, if the NZR chief executive can’t rally the provincial delegates, then what place does he have running the outfit at all?

ADVERTISEMENT

So good on the provincial unions for exercising their constitutional right to choose between Proposal 1 and Proposal 2.

The problem is that, despite showing their contempt for the NZRPA and the NZR board in opting for Proposal 2, the provincial unions don’t run the game either.

They don’t control the existing board and, with just three representatives on the nine-strong board that will now have to be formed, they’ll be outnumbered by independents then too.

It really is a shambles, which will come as no great surprise to an increasingly-exasperated fanbase.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nichol, having struck a more conciliatory tone than he did prior to the vote, is talking about working constructively with NZR and other stakeholders to convene a body that represents the high performance part of the game i.e., the pampered few.

So what’s New Zealand Rugby Commercial, then?

I mean, this is all about money at the end of the day and that separate entity exists solely for the purpose of monetising the All Blacks.

How many quasi governing bodies does the NZRPA need before it can feel assured that the game is being run in the best interests of its members?

I heard Nichol talking all sorts of junk on Thursday about the NZRPA being more committed to grassroots and community rugby than anyone, but I doubt many people buy that.

If I saw a commitment to the beating, participatory heart of the game this week, it came from the provincial unions and no-one else.

It was them who, in words and deeds, sent the message that the game in this country is about more than just the All Blacks.

Nichol can continue rubbishing Proposal 2 and the people who voted for it but, to me, it was always a far more palatable option for fans and volunteers across the country.

So, on that score, I heartily congratulate the provincial unions on reminding Nichol that he doesn’t call all the shots here.

Ultimately, though, it still leaves us with a leadership vacuum.

It’s too early to speculate on who or what might fill it.

But what’s clear is that those who championed Proposal 1 have been defeated and need to exit the stage.

They sought a mandate to lead rugby in a different direction and it was roundly rejected.

 

Watch the exclusive reveal-all episode of Walk the Talk with Ardie Savea as he chats to Jim Hamilton about the RWC 2023 experience, life in Japan, playing for the All Blacks and what the future holds. Watch now for free on RugbyPass TV

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

10 Comments
G
Greg 205 days ago

Put your head back in the sand, Hamish. Hope Nichol delivers on his threat and the PU fish-heads discover exactly what it is they own when the cash subsidy stops trickling down from the top - sweet fa.

N
Nickers 205 days ago

This article ignores much of the actual facts.

The outcome of the Pilkington Review is that PUs are not capable of running their own organisations, let alone a modern multi billion dollar company.

The details of proposal 2, especially around the formation of the GAP and ARP still gives outsized voting rights to the PUs, who have proven incapable stewards of the game. On their watch the game in NZ has deteriorated by every measure - yet they have given themselves pass marks on every previous review they have done of themselves.

Proposal 2 allows for the very few capable people who will be on the board to be outvoted by the status quo.

It’s a shame Nichol seems to be all talk about the pro players splitting off. It is the best thing that could have happened for all parties.

J
Jmann 205 days ago

It is time the amateur and professional game in NZ split entirely with the NPC becoming entirely amateur. High school rugby should be run by local clubs with the exception of the elite rugby schools who are essentially feeders to the Super Franchises anyway. Also if League is going to continue to dangle contracts in front of the noses of our elite 15 year olds… maybe SR franchises should step in and do the same.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 27 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

143 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Leinster player ratings vs Connacht | 2024/25 URC Leinster player ratings vs Connacht | 2024/25 URC
Search