The New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association has threatened to break away from NZ Rugby in a dramatic escalation of their fight over the current governance model of the game in this country.
An independent report paid for by NZ Rugby last year called for major changes to the organisation’s governance, noting the constitution and the governance structures were "not fit for purpose in the modern era'', and calling for NZ Rugby's current board to resign and be replaced by an independent one.
However, the provincial unions (PUs) have dug in and are reluctant to implement the findings, which include the resignation of the 26 provincial union representatives on the board ahead of a new independent model.
The PUs effectively have proposed an alternative – that they will see out their roles and retain their influence, a bid described as “proposal 2” by the NZRPA which the organisation has found unacceptable. The 26 PUs and Māori Rugby Board will vote on their new governance model at a special general meeting a week on Thursday.
Last month, New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association head Rob Nichol described New Zealand Rugby’s current governance model as being in a state of “chaos” and said the game here was “impotent”, “disorganised” and operating in a “leadership vacuum”.
In a statement this afternoon, the organisation added: “The Adoption of Proposal 2 will result in the NZRPA being forced to establish a new governance arrangement for professional rugby in New Zealand.
“The professional rugby players of New Zealand will not be governed by the failed governance processes and outcomes currently in place in New Zealand.
“The adoption of Proposal 2 (or the status quo) entrenches these failed processes and leaves the professional players with no option but to establish alternative governance arrangements for the professional game in New Zealand.
“The adoption of Proposal 2 will be a clear sign to the professional players that PUs believe rugby in New Zealand should be governed by PUs for PUs.
“The adoption of Proposal 2 is a rejection of our wish that together we seek an NZRU Board with a mandate to govern the game for the entire rugby community and, indeed, all New Zealanders. You will be aware that the professional players and NZRU share the assets needed to operate professional rugby.
“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. The combination of these assets with the players creates the opportunity for professional rugby in New Zealand.
“Should Proposal 2 be adopted, or the status quo prevail, the professional players will no longer pass to NZRU, via a collective employment agreement, the right to govern the professional game.”
NZ Rugby's report, called the Pilkington Report, was demanded by the NZRPA as part of their negotiations with NZ Rugby over the Silver Lake deal.
There were questions about whether NZ Rugby would ask the board to vote on that governance model, or a watered down version of it, but in the end the organisation agreed to put make that their "Proposal 1" for next week's vote.
The NZRPA added that their break away from the establishment would include a new body to govern the professional game in New Zealand. Directors would be appointed by the professional players.
NZ Rugby would make appointments to this new body, as will, likely it's new commercial arm NZRC.
Super Rugby Clubs will be represented and "tangata whenua will of course be inherent".
"This new body, for example called ‘The Professional Rugby Tribunal’, will govern, in some sort of partnership with NZRU, the sale of media rights, the contracting of sponsors, the revenue share model, international and national competitions, the high-performance programmes and development pathways and any other activity that impacts the careers, safety, remuneration, workplace and development of professional players. NZRU will continue to govern alone the community and amateur game including provincial rugby, club rugby and other non-professional rugby activities."
Wellington Rugby chair Russell Poole, who represents the NZRU PUs on the board said Nichol's statement was a "misrepresentation" of the facts.
Asked how concerned he was about the Players' Association threat, Poole said: "It's not how serious I take their threat, I'm much more concerned around the misinformation that has gone out in the paper and the perception that puts out in the wider rugby community.
"Rob and his team, you know they are free to make their own decision around how they want to behave and react or whatever - It's purely up to them, but it's the misrepresentation in their proposal or their document today is what concerns me more."
SHARE ME