Photo: AFP / MIGUEL MEDINA
The chair of the review panel that has recommended wide-sweeping reforms into how rugby is governed in New Zealand says the players association's threat to walk away from NZ Rugby is ''not helpful''.
NZR will hold a special general meeting on Thursday to vote for one of two proposals. The first, Proposal A, recommends adopting the findings of last year's Pilkington Report in full. Its thrust is that rugby would be governed by an independently selected nine-person board.
The second, put forward by major provincial unions Canterbury, Wellington and Auckland, requires that three directors on a new board would need to have served on provincial boards in the past.
The New Zealand Rugby Players Association (RPA) backs Proposal A and has threatened to form a new body to govern the professional game if the provincial unions proposal is accepted.
David Pilkington, who chaired the independent panel that recommended Proposal A, told Morning Report he was disappointed by the RPA's response.
"I don't think it has been helpful in the sense it has really moved the debate from a professional players versus provincial unions.''
NZ Rugby to vote on governance
The issue the review panel were trying to address was providing a governance body that would preside over all rugby, improving the health of the sport from grassroots community through to the professional game.
"I think the professional players have clouded that debate somewhat,'' Pilkington said.
Asked what would happen if Proposal B was accepted, he thought "the decline we have seen in recent years'' would continue.
David Pilkington, chair of the review into NZ Rugby governance. Photo: Supplied
"If we keep on doing the same thing we are doing, we are going to get the same result. I think widespread change was acknowledged as being necessary. The problem is we have got a provincial union system that is just reluctant to embrace that change.
"I think the point that is missed in all this is that the provincial unions, as members of the incorporated society, will still have the final vote at an annual meeting as to who gets on the board. It's just that they want to control the process all the way through to that annual meeting, rather than put trust in a professional process to attract and bring forward the best people."
Pilkington said he was not optimistic Proposal A would be adopted.
"The votes are apportioned across the provincial unions based on how many affiliated teams they have, and therefore the bigger unions have a bigger say in the final outcome - and it is those bigger unions that have signalled that they don't want change, they want to preserve the status quo."
He said the review panel got consistent feedback on a host of issues that were not being addressed, with concerns over fan engagement, declining participation, struggling clubs and a dwindling volunteer base.
"Everywhere we went people said, 'The system is not working, we need to change.'"
The fundamental problem the panel found was the way in which the board members were selected was very much influenced by the provincial unions.
"They were essentially approaching this as, 'How do we get our person on NZ Rugby to promote our interests?', rather than forming the best possible group of leaders that could provide a clear pathway forward for the whole game, not just professional but grassroots as well."
The provincial union proposal "really just takes right back to the status quo of where we are", he said.