20 teams. 26 rounds. 260 games. 28 cities.

[Perth Red]

Im a little bit lazy on this topic, but what are talking about here? Is the PNG/Cairns thing or a Tigers at LO/CSS/Commbank thing

Theres two idea bubbles for multi city teams

nz2 based in Wellington and playing half the games in christchurch
”the” pacifika based in cairns playing games all over the place

 

[MugaB]

Theres two idea bubbles for multi city teams

nz2 based in Wellington and playing half the games in christchurch
”the” pacifika based in cairns playing games all over the place

A yes the Wellington/Christchurch model... it wont happen anyways, either Christchurch on its own or its Wellington with a Pasifika angle also on its own

As for Cairns, they are going to f**k this up if they overinclude the Pacific, the only reason its based in Cairns is for PNG to base out of, no other reason..


But its funny to watch the cowboys fans squirm

 

[docbrown]

Yes and you're trying to twist the example to make it A. look like it supports your point when it doesn't, and B. like I was saying something I was not.

FFS you initially brought up the Raiders, not me.

By what you’re saying it’s clear that you don’t even remember your own words. You literally said:

trying to represent multiple culturally and geographically distinct regions under the one brand is always janky at best

And I have told you repeatedly that this is literally the case for tons of teams in the USA, not just in the NFL but in other major leagues too.! Following teams not in your state, but even 3 or 4 states over, is literally the norm. And in fact it even happens here in the NRL already, as per the Gemba report shows, with Queensland fans supporting NSW NRL teams.

So no, I don’t buy your argument that people in Wellington won’t follow a team just because half the games are played in Christchurch, because sporting brands are capable of having appeal beyond borders. This just seems to be a concept too far for you to grasp.

It’s quite clear to me now that you‘ve forgotten your very own words and are solely hung up on the two cities aspect.

 

[Colk]

FFS you initially brought up the Raiders, not me.

By what you’re saying it’s clear that you don’t even remember your own words. You literally said:


And I have told you repeatedly that this is literally the case for tons of teams in the USA, not just in the NFL but in other major leagues too.! Following teams not in your state, but even 3 or 4 states over, is literally the norm. And in fact it even happens here in the NRL already, as per the Gemba report shows, with Queensland fans supporting NSW NRL teams.

So no, I don’t buy your argument that people in Wellington won’t follow a team just because half the games are played in Christchurch, because sporting brands are capable of having appeal beyond borders. This just seems to be a concept too far for you to grasp.

It’s quite clear to me now that you‘ve forgotten your very own words and are solely hung up on the two cities aspect.

The problem with that argument is that those teams aren’t really attempting to market to those areas. They have supporters in those areas but you wouldn’t suggest that they are marketing for that.

 

[docbrown]

The problem with that argument is that those teams aren’t really attempting to market to those areas. They have supporters in those areas but you wouldn’t suggest that they are marketing for that.

How do you know they’re not marketing in those locations or are you just assuming that? Have you lived in any of these places? Teams in the states do a lot to spread their brands beyond their stadium cities. Taking games elsewhere is only one way of brand growth. For example, New Orleans goes on a well known tour each year throughout Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi meeting their fans and looking for high school and college future draft prospects. Is that not spreading brand awareness? Patriots do similar with the College towns up North. Eagles and Steelers are well known for heading out to rust belt towns even though they’ve got the big centre’s already sewn up. There’s multiple ways to gain fans outside your home city. Perhaps don’t just assume that they do nothing.

 

[Perth Red]

How do you know they’re not marketing in those locations or are you just assuming that? Have you lived in any of these places? Teams in the states do a lot to spread their brands beyond their stadium cities. Taking games elsewhere is only one way of brand growth. For example, New Orleans goes on a well known tour each year throughout Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi meeting their fans and looking for high school and college future draft prospects. Is that not spreading brand awareness? Patriots do similar with the College towns up North. Eagles and Steelers are well known for heading out to rust belt towns even though they’ve got the big centre’s already sewn up. There’s multiple ways to gain fans outside your home city. Perhaps don’t just assume that they do nothing.

None of that relates to one club with a generic brand trying to appeal by playing half its games in a different city,

 

[The Great Dane]

FFS you initially brought up the Raiders, not me.

By what you’re saying it’s clear that you don’t even remember your own words. You literally said:


And I have told you repeatedly that this is literally the case for tons of teams in the USA, not just in the NFL but in other major leagues too.! Following teams not in your state, but even 3 or 4 states over, is literally the norm. And in fact it even happens here in the NRL already, as per the Gemba report shows, with Queensland fans supporting NSW NRL teams.

So no, I don’t buy your argument that people in Wellington won’t follow a team just because half the games are played in Christchurch, because sporting brands are capable of having appeal beyond borders. This just seems to be a concept too far for you to grasp.

It’s quite clear to me now that you‘ve forgotten your very own words and are solely hung up on the two cities aspect.

Mate you know damn well that I was talking about clubs that split games when I said that.

All you're trying to do is move goalposts because you know you're full of shit and don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[docbrown]

None of that relates to one club with a generic brand trying to appeal by playing half its games in a different city,

Here comes Perth Red pissing and moaning as usual…

By the way, first you said no sport team in the world does city sharing. Even though you knew the NRL does it already. So instead you shit on those NRL team to deflect. And then when you realised that GWS and Super Rugby do it too, you come up with excuses as to why they don’t really count. So really, I don’t care what you have to say.

I was replying to Colk about how NFL brands market themselves. I suggest you stick to your three usual topics of discussion. 1) shitting on any talk of expansion that isn’t about Perth. 2) masturbating over the AFL 3) reminding us all why poms are miserable c***s.

 

[The Great Dane]

Here comes Perth Red pissing and moaning as usual…

By the way, first you said no sport team in the world does city sharing. Even though you knew the NRL does it already. So instead you shit on those NRL team to deflect. And then when you realised that GWS and Super Rugby do it too, you come up with excuses as to why they don’t really count. So really, I don’t care what you have to say.

I was replying to Colk about how NFL brands market themselves. I suggest you stick to your three usual topics of discussion. 1) shitting on any talk of expansion that isn’t about Perth. 2) masturbating over the AFL 3) reminding us all why poms are miserable c***s.

And here comes docbrown to be a dishonest weasel, here to obfuscate and muddy every one of his positions so he can never be pinned down.

 

[docbrown]

Mate you know damn well that I was talking about clubs that split games when I said that.

All you're trying to do is move goalposts because you know you're full of shit and don't have a leg to stand on.

Lol so at last you admit that you said it.

Your logic is basically that:
1. You now admit that NFL teams have fans across multiple other cities and states even though they’re based in one city.
2. You now admit that just like the NFL, the NRL already has teams based in one city with fans spread across multiple cities and states.
3. But if you have that same NRL team share half its games with another city (like the Dragons already do in the NRL) — oh my god it’s the end of the world.

It’s nonsense.

 

[docbrown]

And here comes docbrown to be a dishonest weasel, here to obfuscate and muddy every one of his positions so he can never be pinned down.

Didn’t you say ages ago you were going to stop replying? Feel free any time.

 

[The Great Dane]

Lol so at last you admit that you said it.

Your logic is basically that:
1. You now admit that NFL teams have fans across multiple other cities and states even though they’re based in one city.
2. You now admit that just like the NFL, the NRL already has teams based in one city with fans spread across multiple cities and states.
3. But if you have that same NRL team share half its games with another city (like the Dragons already do in the NRL) — oh my god it’s the end of the world.

It’s nonsense.

I never denied saying it, what I said is you're intentionally cherry picking it out of context and misrepresenting the meaning.

Here I'll even quote the full sentence in context for you so all can see that it doesn't say what you're trying to make out that it does.

Splitting home venues and/or cities devalues membership/season ticket value, muddies brand identity, and creates disunity both in the club and fan base. You can get away with selling a small amount of games to other cities (just because you can doesn't mean you should BTW), but trying to represent multiple culturally and geographically distinct regions under the one brand is always janky at best, and commercial cancer at worst.

BTW, the Dragons are a perfect example of it being janky and not really working.

 

[The Great Dane]

Didn’t you say ages ago you were going to stop replying? Feel free any time.

Because I don't like it when people intentionally misrepresent what I've said. It's almost like people don't like it when people lie about them.

 

[docbrown]

I never denied saying it, what I said is you're intentionally cherry picking it out of context and misrepresenting the meaning.

Here I'll even quote the full sentence in context for you so all can see that it doesn't say what you're trying to make out that it does.

BTW, the Dragons are a perfect example of it being janky and not really working.

Lol every time I’ve brought up examples of teams spreading beyond these cultural and geographical boundaries that seem to be impassable in your mind you‘ve had a whinge because they didn’t fit some rigid criteria that you’ve set in your mind. It’s a sign of inflexible thinking. As if suddenly the Dallas Cowboys would implode if they played games in San Antonio, even though they have fans there. It makes no sense.

The Dragons were a merger compromise from the Super League War. Everyone knows that. It’s quite different than setting up a new team from scratch and you know that. Yet despite that shaky beginning and a decade of shit form they’re still going okay, better than stand alone teams like Manly. But I mean if you want to shit on them, I guess you do you. Once the Dragons come back into form again consistently they’ll go back to being a top tier club. So no, I don’t accept your argument.

 

[docbrown]

Because I don't like it when people intentionally misrepresent what I've said. It's almost like people don't like it when people lie about them.

Sensitive much?

 

[Perth Red]

Here comes Perth Red pissing and moaning as usual…

By the way, first you said no sport team in the world does city sharing. Even though you knew the NRL does it already. So instead you shit on those NRL team to deflect. And then when you realised that GWS and Super Rugby do it too, you come up with excuses as to why they don’t really count. So really, I don’t care what you have to say.

I was replying to Colk about how NFL brands market themselves. I suggest you stick to your three usual topics of discussion. 1) shitting on any talk of expansion that isn’t about Perth. 2) masturbating over the AFL 3) reminding us all why poms are miserable c***s.

Bless, someone’s feeling triggered lol

one club in the world is doing what you’re suggesting in a genuine way from inception, maybe they’ve pioneered it and we’ll see many more, or maybe the rest of the world knows its a dumb arse idea. Who’s to say?

 

[The Great Dane]

Lol every time I’ve brought up examples of teams spreading beyond these cultural and geographical boundaries that seem to be impassable in your mind you‘ve had a whinge because they didn’t fit some rigid criteria that you’ve set in your mind.

They're your criteria, not mine.

The scenario that you're presenting is a team that splits it's identity and home games between two cities, and the argument from the start has been whether or not a that would be successful.

Not about whether or not teams can build fanbases outside of their target audience, or if they can sell the odd game to another market. Nobody has denied either of those things, and you've only brought them up to obfuscate and move the goalposts.

If you were proposing either a Wellington or Christchurch club, that appeals to some people in the other city by happenstance, and maybe even plays the odd game in the other city every now and again (like the Warriors do BTW), then there'd be no argument. But that's not what you've been proposing.

 

[Last Week]

Well this was a thrilling discussion.

Apart from the "city sharing" suggestions, I like it.

Perth, NZ2 and Adelaide.

Competition split into 4 divisions of 5. Play everyone in division twice (8 matches) and everyone else once (15 games), making 23 rounds in total. Work out the finals later.

Each team gets 11 home games, and 11 away games, with magic round being considered as a neutral venue.

As for the Pacific, I'm of the view that the ARLC should assist in supporting and growing local domestic competitions. Clubs from PNG, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Cook Islands, etc etc, should be looking at their own club competition/club championship. An NRL team, particularly based in Australia, representing numerous countries, is not going to assist anyone.

Imagine if the NFL wanted to add a "Europe" team to the NFL based in Berlin and London, and expecting people from France to follow it. Ridiculous.

 

[docbrown]

Bless, someone’s feeling triggered lol

one club in the world is doing what you’re suggesting in a genuine way from inception, maybe they’ve pioneered it and we’ll see many more, or maybe the rest of the world knows its a dumb arse idea. Who’s to say?

The only thing that you trigger is the sensation of wanting to vomit every time I read one of bitching and moaning posts.

I honestly thought whinging poms were an imaginary stereotype but you’re clearly patient zero.

 

[docbrown]

They're your criteria, not mine.

The scenario that you're presenting is a team that splits it's identity and home games between two cities, and the argument from the start has been whether or not a that would be successful.

Not about whether or not teams can build fanbases outside of their target audience, or if they can sell the odd game to another market. Nobody has denied either of those things, and you've only brought them up to obfuscate and move the goalposts.

If you were proposing either a Wellington or Christchurch club, that appeals to some people in the other city by happenstance, and maybe even plays the odd game in the other city every now and again (like the Warriors do BTW), then there'd be no argument. But that's not what you've been proposing.

No it’s not shifting the goalposts (which is obviously a phrase you like to repeat ad nauseum) because having a team spread across multiple geographical and cultural areas is something that, again, you brought up initially, not me, and I have agreed is a key component to a twin-city team scenario. But that scenario is exactly what we already have with the St George Illawarra Dragons and to some degree with the Wests Tigers. And again so far the deepest criticism you can offer is that such teams are ‘janky’. It’s truly insightful stuff.

I find it funny that you think the Warriors or a second New Zealand side playing one or two games away from their main stadium is fine but more than that it become some major impossibility for… reasons…?

How many home games are the Dolphins playing at Lang Park this year? 7? They’re taking games to Redcliffe, Sunshine Coast and even Perth. But they’ll also end up having one of the highest crowd averages. But apparently if those five home games were in just one other location instead of three they’d be ‘janky’. Dolphins are the models that NRL clubs should actually be aspiring to.