New Zealand dominance of rugby league paving way for second Kiwi team in NRL

[Cloudsurfer]

The whole thing is total pie-in-the-sky stuff, especially considering that the Warriors franchise came close to collapse on several occasions and the team has generally performed poorly apart from a handful of good seasons (2002, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2011).

Are the New Zealand Warriors going to revert to the Auckland Warriors if the Whales make their NRL debut?

That's still a handy record for the length of time in the comp, especially compared to how long the Oz & UK comps have been going. And yes, it would take a while for any other franchise in NZ to find their feet. Competition within NZ is needed to up the ante for the Warrior selectors & to minimise the flow of NZ players to Oz. I agree grassroots league & the 2nd tier comp has to have some real growth to make it more viable but watch the interest grow from the Warriors success this season - NZ needs to capitalise on that big time & ensure the provincial & regional comps step up. The talent is there...they need to create the pathways.
Being a parochial kiwi like we all tend to be, the Warriors aren't it for me (even though I can back'em to beat an OZ team) & it would be great to see a central regions NRL team & a southern one, sooner rather than later.

 

[Canard]

Totally agree. Imagine how much good the NZRL could do with an extra guaranteed $5million a year to spend on developing the game! One of the things the IC should do is start talking to NZ TV to see what a Welllington team would be worth to the TV contract. If it is likely to fetch in more than $5mill a year on top of the current deal then they should instruct the NZRL to make it happen and the NRL underwrite them.

I think people are looking at this a bit simplistically.

Im certain the $12M is being paid by Sky Sports NZ for the rights to broadcast the entire NRL not just the Warriors.

If the Warriors didn't exist it would be likely that this figure would be less, but there would still be an interest in NZ for the NRL.

If we look at what teams "deserve" more money because of TV rights deals, the Broncos or Dragons or Souffs could argue they deserve more than the Cowboys, Storm etc.

For mine TV rights money has to be split between all clubs evenly.

 

[Quidgybo]

For mine TV rights money has to be split between all clubs evenly.

Who's saying it shouldn't be? I thought the argument was that New Zealand, the television market and the grassroots Rugby League community, was more than paying its way. And therefore we should consider whether investing further, both in another NRL franchise and in NZRL development, might grow the pie significantly more - to the benefit of everyone when it is split.

Leigh

 

[Perth Red]

I think people are looking at this a bit simplistically.

Im certain the $12M is being paid by Sky Sports NZ for the rights to broadcast the entire NRL not just the Warriors.

If the Warriors didn't exist it would be likely that this figure would be less, but there would still be an interest in NZ for the NRL.

If we look at what teams "deserve" more money because of TV rights deals, the Broncos or Dragons or Souffs could argue they deserve more than the Cowboys, Storm etc.

For mine TV rights money has to be split between all clubs evenly.

True but when you consider the ARL get $8mill+ a year of that money for grassroots RL in Australia, isn't it only fair that the NZRL should also get some of it to promote and develop the game in NZ? We still consider it an Oz comp with Warriors a pseudo Australian team instead of considering it a Oz&NZ comp, again reflected in the lack of NZ representation on the IC.

 

[Quidgybo]

Are the New Zealand Warriors going to revert to the Auckland Warriors if the Whales make their NRL debut?

Why should the Warriors change their name? They market themselves to the whole of New Zealand. That's not going to change just because a new or relocated team comes in from another part of the country. If a new franchise wishes to market themselves on a similar scale they could use the name "South Pacific", a team name that not only has the potential to attract the support of Wellington or Christchurch locals but also non Warriors supporting Rugby League fans throughout New Zealand, and throughout the Pacific island nations. A new team based in New Zealand would be there first and foremost to expand the market for Rugby League, not take away from the Warriors.

Leigh.

 

[Izz]

Warriors' haven't called themselves the New Zealand Warriors for a few seasons. The only time you hear it is from Aussie commentators.

 

[Wilson1]

Warriors' haven't called themselves the New Zealand Warriors for a few seasons. The only time you hear it is from Aussie commentators.

It's the club's official name.

 

[Squatdog]

It's the club's official name.

Stop confusing him with facts!

 

[Izz]

It's the club's official name.

Stop confusing him with facts!

lol You're both missing my point. If they don't market themselves as the New Zealand Warriors, then why would they need to change their name? Or, if they were forced to change their name, would it really matter what they changed it to? I don't think the name has any relevance to the point of this thread. It's just a convenient way to attempt to shift the focus of discussion.

 

[Iafeta]

The whole thing is total pie-in-the-sky stuff, especially considering that the Warriors franchise came close to collapse on several occasions and the team has generally performed poorly apart from a handful of good seasons (2002, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2011).

Are the New Zealand Warriors going to revert to the Auckland Warriors if the Whales make their NRL debut?

They did ok in 2005-2006. 2006 would have made the playoffs if not for the salary cap rort penalty. 2005 I think they were 11th or so?? 2008 they made the finals too. 2009 was a write off IMO given the tragic loss of Sonny Fai.

All in all they've been pretty consistent. Its a good stable club these days, nothing like the horror shows of the 90s. 2000 was the last time the club came 'close to collapse'. There's no issues at the moment of viability at all.

 

[Iafeta]

Stop confusing him with facts!

lol, show us anywhere on the clubs logo or anywhere from the club's press releases where they are termed such a name. It was a marketing campaign early in the 2000s. They are the Warriors.

 

[flippikat]

lol You're both missing my point. If they don't market themselves as the New Zealand Warriors, then why would they need to change their name? Or, if they were forced to change their name, would it really matter what they changed it to? I don't think the name has any relevance to the point of this thread. It's just a convenient way to attempt to shift the focus of discussion.

There are precidents here:

The main daily paper published in Auckland is titlae "The New Zealand Herald", even though it's especially Auckland-centric.

In MLB Baseball, there's a team called the Texas Rangers, despite the fact that it just plays out of the Dallas/Fort Worth area, and there's also the Houston Astros in the same baseball league. (also the Florida Marlins.. despite there being a Tampa Bay team!)

 

[duck_dodgers]

Imagine the excitement of a Warriors v Whales GF


Split Enz could reform for the pre game entertainment


National anthem would be interesting too .



.

 

[Perth Red]

Yes they do appear to have dropped the "NZ" for Vodaphone in all their marketing, website etc. Where abouts in NZ is Vodaphone, I am guessing it must be a suburb of Auckland?

 

[Squatdog]

"The New Zealand Warriors are a professional rugby league football club based in Auckland, New Zealand. They compete in the National Rugby League (NRL) premiership and are the League's only team from outside Australia. Coached by Ivan Cleary and captained by Simon Mannering, the Warriors are based at Mt Smart Stadium in the southern Auckland suburb of Penrose."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Warriors

Yep.

 

[Squatdog]

...

 

[Izz]

"The New Zealand Warriors are a professional rugby league football club based in Auckland, New Zealand. They compete in the National Rugby League (NRL) premiership and are the League's only team from outside Australia. Coached by Ivan Cleary and captained by Simon Mannering, the Warriors are based at Mt Smart Stadium in the southern Auckland suburb of Penrose."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Warriors

Yep.

You're still missing the point, dude.

 

[blukablu]

Another NZ team is probably at least 5-10 years away. Only a few years ago grass roots Rugby League was almost dead everywhere else besides Auckland.

 

[Bluebags1908]

Why should the Warriors change their name? They market themselves to the whole of New Zealand. That's not going to change just because a new or relocated team comes in from another part of the country. If a new franchise wishes to market themselves on a similar scale they could use the name "South Pacific", a team name that not only has the potential to attract the support of Wellington or Christchurch locals but also non Warriors supporting Rugby League fans throughout New Zealand, and throughout the Pacific island nations. A new team based in New Zealand would be there first and foremost to expand the market for Rugby League, not take away from the Warriors.

Leigh.

Well they haven't played a single solitary home game in the NRL outside of Auckland since they came into the comp. If they were serious about marketuing themselves all over New Zealand they would be playing home games in Wellington & Christchurch.

I'm against calling a club team after a whole nation. 'New Zealand' is the Kiwis.

I also don't like how they wear the NZ flag design on one of their alternate jerseys (the games vs Tigers this year for example). For a start Aussies play for that team so it is odd for them to wear a NZ flag designed jersey, and secondly Benji Marshall is the Kiwi captain and other Kiwis have to play against them as well wearing a NZ flag design. Just wrong.

 

[Quidgybo]

Well they haven't played a single solitary home game in the NRL outside of Auckland since they came into the comp. If they were serious about marketuing themselves all over New Zealand they would be playing home games in Wellington & Christchurch.

Well you could say the Cowboys shouldn't be called NQ because they've played perhaps two games outside Townsville in 16 years. Which ground you play your games at defines your core support base and for practical reasons most clubs restrict that to one ground. But who buys your merchandise or boosts your television value doesn't need to be restricted by physical proximity. And if there's a larger market that is a natural extension of your core and no one else is catering to it, why limit your appeal?

I'm against calling a club team after a whole nation. 'New Zealand' is the Kiwis.

Who cares, it's just marketing. I'm not confused by the difference between the New Zealand representative side and a professional league franchise. And I'm sure neither you nor anyone else with the slightest interest in Rugby League is either. Associating the club with a defined geographic area is only done on the basis of what gives the club the best bottom line. If the name "New Zealand" means a more financially successful and better supported franchise than calling it "Auckland" at one end of the scale or "Planet Earth" at the other end then good luck to them. Ultimately the more successful that franchise, the better the result for the game of Rugby League in New Zealand.

Leigh