The provincial unions may well be celebrating their success at voting down New Zealand Rugby's preferred governance model, one that was also backed by the NZ Rugby Players' Association (NZRPA), and various others, but it may be shortlived.
NZRPA head Rob Nichol cut a disappointed figure when interviewed by 1News today following the provincial unions' vote this morning for their "Proposal 2", effectively a watered-down version of the Pilkington Report's recommended fully independent model — "Proposal 1".
But he left no doubt about the players' potential to force all parties back to the negotiating table, adding his recent suggestion the players could go it alone in managing the professional game here was still very much an option.
"I suspect this could all get a bit messy in the next two to three months and we may well revert to getting back around the table."
The provincial unions this morning voted 69-21 for Proposal 2, a plan that effectively allows for their continued influence, rather than Proposal 1, a fully independent model which was voted down 31-59.
NZ Rugby, the professional players, the Super Rugby clubs and NZ Māori Rugby Board, along with several unions, backed Proposal 1.
"We had an expert panel that laid out the red carpet to set the recommendations the game needed to follow to change, to change the outcomes that we're currently seeing and to get that right," Nichol said.
"It was well supported by New Zealand Rugby union, the New Zealand Rugby commercial, the Super Rugby clubs, the Māori Rugby Board, ourselves — [and] a good group of provincial unions supported that way forward through Proposal 1.
"Unfortunately, we missed that opportunity today. A majority of the PUs decided there was a better way forward than what the experts think, one that the experts have basically referenced as not fit for purpose."
He added: "I think that's really disappointing, so … it's going to be very interesting to see what the implementation process is going to be but we're just going to get on with it."
Nichol and the players recently threatened to break away from the board and set up their own professional governance model should the provincial unions not vote for the recommended model, and that threat, while not as explicit today, is very much still an option.
With the professional players employed on a collective contract, and one that is up for renewal, the players could easily withdraw their support on image rights and promotional and sponsorship duties, effectively bringing the professional game here to a halt.
Nichol said: "It will be New Zealand Rugby that will be controlled by the provincial unions for the provincial unions themselves and they have that right. They are the legal owners of New Zealand rugby. They can choose to go down that path and have chosen to go down that path despite the advice of the experts.
"We'll continue to play and continue to perform. We'll work with the stakeholders and drive the professional game the best we possibly can."
Asked about whether they would now "split off" and form their own professional model which they described as a "tribunal", Nichol replied: "We never said 'split off'. But the concept of setting up a tribunal to focus on the professional game and ensure it's efficient and effective and delivers what the crowds and fans and community expects is one that actually has an awful lot of merit.
"It happens in England, it happens in France, it happens the world over and it's one we're likely to pursue now because we're going to need it. We need Super Rugby clubs, we need ourselves, we need NZ Rugby and NZ Rugby commercial around the table making really good decisions.
"We won't sit back and allow NZ Rugby to set up for the PUs to govern the interest of the PUs and make those decisions by themselves and I don't think anyone would expect that. Exactly what that looks like, it's not up to us to determine that but we will work with those stakeholders to work something out."
He added: "We'll get there. We've had good models for 25 years. The professional game is not so much the problem here. It's a challenge. But the big loser today is the community game and the grass roots.
"We all participated in this governance review process for six months. It's a serious amount of investment. We agreed on the terms of reference, we agreed on the expert panel, we all told them where our frustrations were and where the opportunities were.
"They played that back to us and said 'you're not currently fit for purpose but you can be and this is what you have to do to be able to deliver that governance structure for the best interests of the game in this country'.
"We've gone with the status quo, maybe worse. What do they say? If you continue to do what you've always done you're likely to get what you've always got.
"We're actually really encouraged by the fact that the likes of Auckland, Otago, Waikato, Taranaki, Southland, East Coast as we understand it — they all backed us apparently, they all backed an independent model. Don't say never. This could well come back on the table quicker than people realise."
SHARE ME