<< Go back to previous page

28/05/07

For those who are still interested in the process the following is a synopsis

A few days after the National Triples Murray advised Bryan Wells that the team did not want any of the semi finalists as their fourth player.

Bryan advised that they should at least ask if any of the semi finalists were interested in the fourth player position.

A letter was sent to the players and a sentence in that letter stated "The team captain of the NZ Team has informed me that it would be very unlikely that the fourth team member would get any game time at the championships and he would only break up his winning combination in the event of a sudden illness to one of his current team members".

The wording in this sentence ( sent later to the extended exec and the council) differs slightly from the wording in the earlier version sent to the players.

Three semifinalists put their names forward - Georgio, Michael and Paul.

Georgio withdrew his name on the 17th April after being provided with costs and a reminder that the position of fourth player was "really just an insurance against injury or sickness" for the team.

Later on the 17th April, Murray advised Bryan that neither Michael or Paul were acceptable to the team and the team had chosen David Lippard as their fourth team member.

Later still on the 17th April, Bryan sent an email to Michael and Paul advising them that as the team needed a specialist shooter and neither of them filled that bill, they had chosen David Lippard as their fourth player.

The council asked the Exec to review their decision to go outside the protocols regarding the fourth player.

On the 19th April Bryan Wells sent all the available information to the extended executive and the council.

The Exec asked the council for a directive on a choice of options regarding the protocols for the fourth player.

On the 26th April the council directed that Michael Rocks would withdraw from consideration as the fourth player and the team should abide by the conditions set by PNZ. That is, that the fourth player must come from a team which made the semi finals of the National Triples.

Georgio was provided with a revised estimate of the costs to enable him to make his final decision on his availability for the position of fourth player.

On 30th April Murray advised that the team would not be taking a fourth player.

There is a more detailed account of the process for those who want it. -Liz Rocks.

See also: To The Team and Replies to CEO Newsletter.

Comments:

At 2:11 PM, Anonymous said...

and the point of all this is?????

mischief making, I suspect.

Mrs Rocks seems well informed of everything considering she resigned from the "extended" executive on the 17th of April!

Graeme Burnard

At 8:40 AM, Anonymous said...

At the end of the day two groups could of made all this crap non existant. Firstly the team and especially Murrey, who has past experience of selection protocols to go by and secondly the executive and council who also have previous experience of not keeping to process. In hindsight the process was probably not right

but that does not mean that you dont stick to it, or if you are going to change it at least communicate it to the players first hand not by chinese whispers.

Rightly or wrongly with in at least one day of this request there should of been a difinitive answer by the council and executive. I say again if you want this game to evolve then it starts at the top with clear, honest and timely decisions being communicated.

Myles cowper

At 9:07 AM, Anonymous said...

My resignation was formally accepted by the Executive on the 05/05/07. Up until that time I was included in all correspondence from the Executive.

Liz

29/05 Maurice, this is the last thing I am going to say - it is time the people involved voiced their opinion, but could it be that the answer came back as "YES". Also, you'll find that the truth is always in the detail. -Tom.

PS. I am sorry your ten year old finds this topic too long. Good thing he/she was not visiting our Blog or Wiki last year (2006).

28/05 I'm confused, the latest offering on the blog just confirmed for me that the process for selection as outlined on the PNZ website is still current and being followed.

The question was asked by the team and the answer came back as "No". It seems to me that the team is being criticised because they asked the question. To me, this is unfair. If you don't ask you don't get. I don't need to know all the details of who did what and when, the outcome is still the same. If, as of today, the process as outlined originally by PNZ on the website is still being followed by the PNZ and by the team, - what's with all the fuss? The worst thing thing that the PNZ could be criticised of IMO - is taking the scenic route to get to the answer that followed the process - but they got there in the end.

I want to support the team and see support for the team. I really don't want to see from now until September, a weekly conspiracy column being posted around the latest "development as it comes to hand".

In the words of my 10 year old, "this topic is getting too loooong Dad".

Go Ron, Muzz and Simon.

Cheers

Maurice

28/05 Graeme, the question in my mind is this: if the team has suffered, is this because of the Open Letter or because of the mishandling of the process by PNZ (the chicken and the egg).

Why now? I do not know, but it could have something to do with the endless silence by PNZ. Maybe Liz had the decency to wait and give PNZ an opportunity to explain what happened.

I can assure you that it is factually correct - despite of what your sources tell you. Don’t forget that Liz’s resignation was formally accepted by the Executive on the 05/05/07. Up until that time she was included in all correspondence from the Executive.

I think we need to clear the air before we can all support our team. We certainly should not fight among ourselves. PNZ needs to come forward and explain the situation to the stakeholders. -Tom.

28/05 Tom, my criticism of Liz was firstly because I do not believe that the blog was the appropraite place for her original "letter to the team". This should have been directed to the team and not aired in public. It has not done the team any good whatsoever. Secondly, why, now, after 10 days or so does she come out with all this stuff about the process when everything had died down. My sources tell me that it is not all factually correct as it happens. I am now trying to conentrate on supporting our national team - something Mrs Rocks should be doing as well as our recently departed national selector.

Graeme B

28/05 I must say, I am really surprised at Graeme's assertion of "mischief making" in response to "For those who are still interested in the process the following is a synopsis" on our NZPC Blog.

Why is it that we always seem to attack the one who is providing the news or information ("shoot the messenger"). It usually means we do not like the information or news. I thought the point was quite clear: listing the events as they happened. I would also have preferred it came from PNZ, but to attack Liz....., I just don't get it. -Tom.

Top