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

[docbrown]

As far as I know there isn't a single major league team in America that has a split home arrangement similar to what you are suggesting for NZ. Nor would any American fanbase ever accept such an arrangement.

An American equivalent to what you are suggesting would be if, for example, the Raiders were to split their home games between Oakland and Las Vegas. As far as I know nothing even close to that has ever happened in the pro-leagues, and the average American would consider it an insulting farce if a team ever attempted it.

Before you say it; yes, some of them do sell games to other markets on occasion, such as the NFL's current international strategy, or have been forced to move home games on a short term basis. However that isn't the same as claiming two "home" cities and grounds, and trying to actively represent both.

In other words your example is a BS false equivalency, and frankly I think you know it as well.

The real life examples that are as close as possible to what you're suggesting are probably GWS, St George Illawarra Dragons, Wests Tigers, Northern Eagles, etc, and not one of them could be considered particularly successful. In fact most would be considered varying levels of failure, and most people I've heard talk about them would argue that most of those clubs biggest issues are linked to their having split identities.

I didn’t mention NFL in relation to splitting games between cities. I mentioned NFL specifically in relation to your other argument that “people over widespread geographic areas that are culturally different won’t support the same team.” This is literally the case with most sports leagues clubs in the states. The Raiders club that you mentioned has fans in both California and Nevada - two different states. So you’re wrong on the geography/culture argument based on your own example and I’d respect you more if you’d just admit it rather than dig in.

You’ve finally mentioned 4 specific examples instead of hypotheticals and I’m happy to address each of them. The 3 NRL examples are the result of the Super League peace agreement. In Northern Eagles case it was the merger of two rival clubs. The other two were hastily arranged without any kind of central coordination from the game’s governing body. The fact that these 3 clubs have struggled is less to do with their geographic spread and more to do with the manner in which they were created. They’re also not new clubs with a singular management structure and club identity from the outset. They were forced mergers, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

In fact I’d argue that in the NRL there is only one club that is spreading itself across multiple geographic areas and was deliberately planned to do so from the outset, and that’s the Dolphins. And I don’t think you can judge their long term success based on the last few weeks.

As for GWS Giants a) unlike Wellington and Christchurch which don’t have an existing NRL team, Sydney already had a team b) their playing in Canberra was blatant tokenism and they did nothing to embrace the local population in their branding - they are literally called Greater Western Sydney Giants, which has nothing to do with Canberra.

This is not comparable with a joint Wellington-Christchurch New Zealand team. Firstly, they wouldn’t be called Wellington and play in Christchurch or vice versa. They’d be called New Zealand, similar to the Warriors. People in both locations can identify with that branding. Secondly, their home ground match allocation would be the same so neither location would be considered dominant to the other. Next, unlike all the NRL teams you mentioned, they’re not the result of a forced merger. They’re a new club from the outside with one identity, management and history.

So if the Dolphins fail I’ll consider your point but until there’s really no club that there’s no existing club that would be set up like the proposed New Zealand club that you can make serious damning judgments about. It’s all just hypothetical.

 

[docbrown]

What's your point?

Most Queenslanders do not support a Sydney team.

Having nine teams in Sydney is at odds with the NFL's model of one team per market.

America has over 300m people and 50 large cities. It's never going to have a professional football team in every market.

Australia only has six or seven large markets. Basing nine of the NRL's teams in Sydney while others have none is insane and bad business. The poor returns that Sydney's clubs make from football operations prove it's a dud model that should have been thrown out decades ago.



Have you seen the annual reports for the clubs?

Sydney's clubs struggle to generate revenue from football operations. If they didn't have pokies and the annual grant then they would be f**ked. It's a terrible model. We should be rationalising Sydney down to six or five teams.

You were talking about the Gemba report the other day which literally shows you that people in Queensland follow Sydney NRL clubs.

I know you want to get sidetracked into another “let’s kill off half the Sydney NRL clubs conversation” but I’m not going to take the bait because it’s a pointless exercise. I’m not biased in this conversation because as I’ve said I’m not really a Sydneysider. But it’s quite clear that you have an agenda and can’t be swayed. So let’s leave it at that.

 

[docbrown]

Yeah compare the Australian sporting landscape to the USA. There are over 50 cities in the USA over a million people, of course they will never all have a team.

But if you seriously think splitting a team between the north and South Island in NZ is the way to go then you are kidding yourself.

With the Storm a game a year in regional Victoria will do absolutely nothing to grow the game.

His comment was that people in different geographical and cultural areas won’t support the one team. I have proven that is incorrect with multiple examples.

”You are kidding yourself” is not an argument.

As for the Storm, one is better than zero.

 

[MugaB]

You were talking about the Gemba report the other day which literally shows you that people in Queensland follow Sydney NRL clubs.

I know you want to get sidetracked into another “let’s kill off half the Sydney NRL clubs conversation” but I’m not going to take the bait because it’s a pointless exercise. I’m not biased in this conversation because as I’ve said I’m not really a Sydneysider. But it’s quite clear that you have an agenda and can’t be swayed. So let’s leave it at that.

The unmoveable potato argument from the bogan from....

 

[Perth Red]

If it’s such a good idea why has no other sport in the world done it? Other than afl, and I think we are in agreement gws are not to be held up as a bastion of good ideas.
surely there’d be lots of successful examples of multi city clubs if it worked?

 

[MugaB]

If it’s such a good idea why has no other sport in the world done it? Other than afl, and I think we are in agreement gws are not to be held up as a bastion of good ideas.
surely there’d be lots of successful examples of multi city clubs if it worked?

I would use North Queensland Cowboys as an example, but townsville is not a "city" neither is Mackay or Cairns... hell they don't even take games there no more, so you right other than the token trials its not a real good example

 

[Perth Red]

I would use North Queensland Cowboys as an example, but townsville is not a "city" neither is Mackay or Cairns... hell they don't even take games there no more, so you right other than the token trials its not a real good example

There really isnt any examples in world sport, I guess that might be telling us something?

 

[MugaB]

There really isnt any examples in world sport, I guess that might be telling us something?

Doesn't mean it cant work.... if we dont try...
I read a post today that said those exact words

 

[docbrown]

If it’s such a good idea why has no other sport in the world done it? Other than afl, and I think we are in agreement gws are not to be held up as a bastion of good ideas.
surely there’d be lots of successful examples of multi city clubs if it worked?

Other sports have had teams play games between multiple cities. It’s not some new idea. For instance, Buffalo played half out of Toronto for a couple of years. The problem is they’re usually always existing teams that do it years later and don’t change their branding so it comes off as a cheap money grab. But the reason they do it is exactly that - it makes them more money. A team that’s split between Christchurch and Wellington will make more money than a team just based in one of those. The difference here is unlike Buffalo and Toronto or say Tampa and Montreal - that there’s a common identity - New Zealand - that both cities can embrace. And it would happen from day one, not years later when they need the money or after Super League style war.

 

[Perth Red]

Other sports have had teams play games between multiple cities. It’s not some new idea. For instance, Buffalo played half out of Toronto for a couple of years. The problem is they’re usually always existing teams that do it years later and don’t change their branding so it comes off as a cheap money grab. But the reason they do it is exactly that - it makes them more money. A team that’s split between Christchurch and Wellington will make more money than a team just based in one of those. The difference here is unlike Buffalo and Toronto or say Tampa and Montreal - that there’s a common identity - New Zealand - that both cities can embrace. And it would happen from day one, not years later when they need the money or after Super League style war.

No other sport has consistently and permanently had a club play a significant amount if its home games out of more than one city. maybe NRL has come up with an idea no other sport in the world has thought of? Or maybe it’s a dumb idea So no one has gone there. It’s hard to tell.

Woukd dragons be better off playing all games in Wollongong or all games at allianz? At the moment couldn’t say playing in two cities, all be it a short drive from each other, is an overwhelming success can you?

why would Christchurch and Wellington have any commonality more so than say having a team playing in melbourne and Hobart, being in the same country on different islands hardly qualifies as commonality lol

 

[The Great Dane]

I didn’t mention NFL in relation to splitting games between cities. I mentioned NFL specifically in relation to your other argument that “people over widespread geographic areas that are culturally different won’t support the same team.” This is literally the case with most sports leagues clubs in the states. The Raiders club that you mentioned has fans in both California and Nevada - two different states. So you’re wrong on the geography/culture argument based on your own example and I’d respect you more if you’d just admit it rather than dig in.

And why do the Raiders have an unusually large fanbase in California despite being based in Nevada? Well it's probably got something to do with the fact that they were based in Oakland and Los Angeles for 60 years before relocating to Las Vegas. Not exactly representative of the average club is it...

I'm not going to continue to waste my time reading and responding to your stuff if all you're going to do is dishonestly stretch the truth all the time.

Nothing you've presented so far is even close to what you're suggesting happen in NZ, and the reason for that is that your idea to split a club's identity between two different cities is incredibly stupid. Yes, all clubs have fans all over the place, but there's no pretence that those clubs actually represent those extended regions, i.e. it's not the same and trying to pretend that it is is silly at best.

 

[The Great Dane]

Other sports have had teams play games between multiple cities. It’s not some new idea. For instance, Buffalo played half out of Toronto for a couple of years. The problem is they’re usually always existing teams that do it years later and don’t change their branding so it comes off as a cheap money grab. But the reason they do it is exactly that - it makes them more money. A team that’s split between Christchurch and Wellington will make more money than a team just based in one of those. The difference here is unlike Buffalo and Toronto or say Tampa and Montreal - that there’s a common identity - New Zealand - that both cities can embrace. And it would happen from day one, not years later when they need the money or after Super League style war.

Here you go again.

As far as I can remember the Bills never played half their season out of Toronto. They did however play a home game a season, and a pre-season game most years, out of Toronto between 2008-2013.

It's an open secret that the reason for the Bills playing games out of Toronto was because Ralph Wilson, the founder and owner of the Bills at the time, had designs to sell the Bills to a consortium based out of Toronto. They knew they couldn't get a full relocation over the line for a whole host of reasons, so they got permission to play games in Toronto, with an eye to building support up in Toronto until they could fully relocate the club there.

The games in Toronto were lucrative, but the Bills fans detested them, and the agreement to play games in Toronto was torn up after his death in 2014. The consortium from Toronto where one of the groups that bid for the Bills when they were put up for sale after Wilson's death, but they lost out to Terry Pegula whom also owns the Buffalo Sabres NHL team.

In other words there was no plan to permanently split home games evenly between Buffalo and Toronto, the Bills would have totally alienated their fanbase in Buffalo if they were to attempt such a thing, and the NFL would never approve a team permanently splitting their homes between two cities like that.
Goodell and the other owners would have either said they had to pick one or the other, or would have said no to them relocating out of Buffalo at all.

 

[docbrown]

No other sport has consistently and permanently had a club play a significant amount if its home games out of more than one city. maybe NRL has come up with an idea no other sport in the world has thought of? Or maybe it’s a dumb idea So no one has gone there. It’s hard to tell.

Woukd dragons be better off playing all games in Wollongong or all games at allianz? At the moment couldn’t say playing in two cities, all be it a short drive from each other, is an overwhelming success can you?

why would Christchurch and Wellington have any commonality more so than say having a team playing in melbourne and Hobart, being in the same country on different islands hardly qualifies as commonality lol

Other sports have done it though. For example, the old basketball league in America had joint city teams. Even the clubs had names that featured both cities. Right now in Super Rugby Drua are splitting games between two stadiums that are about 4 hours apart by driving. I guess that would be the same as having a Newcastle-Wollongong joint team in the NRL. What do they have in common? They’re both Fijian so it works. Just like New Zealand would.

As for the Dragons, that’s a team that exists as it does now because they were threatened with being kicked out of the comp if they didn’t merge. That’s quite different to having a single club with one identity from the get go split games between stadiums, like Drua is and New Zealand 2 could be.

 

[docbrown]

And why do the Raiders have an unusually large fanbase in California despite being based in Nevada? Well it's probably got something to do with the fact that they were based in Oakland and Los Angeles for 60 years before relocating to Las Vegas. Not exactly representative of the average club is it...

I'm not going to continue to waste my time reading and responding to your stuff if all you're going to do is dishonestly stretch the truth all the time.

Nothing you've presented so far is even close to what you're suggesting happen in NZ, and the reason for that is that your idea to split a club's identity between two different cities is incredibly stupid. Yes, all clubs have fans all over the place, but there's no pretence that those clubs actually represent those extended regions, i.e. it's not the same and trying to pretend that it is is silly at best.

You’re the one that brought up the Raiders not me so don’t get your knickers in a twist. As I said there are heaps of clubs that are followed by out of state fans. Cowboys dominate the middle of the country, similar to Broncos. Seattle have fans in Oregon and Idaho. If you’re in Vermont you go for a Massachusetts team. None of those clubs are relocated. I can also name more. Dakotas - Vikings. Mississippi - Saints or Falcons. Following an out of state club is normal in the states despite what you think. I’m also going to add, if you look at the Gemba report, it’s clear that about a third of people in Brisbane follow Sydney NRL clubs. So I’d say it’s also normal here. This barrier about geography and culture exists mostly in your head.

 

[docbrown]

Here you go again.

As far as I can remember the Bills never played half their season out of Toronto. They did however play a home game a season, and a pre-season game most years, out of Toronto between 2008-2013.

It's an open secret that the reason for the Bills playing games out of Toronto was because Ralph Wilson, the founder and owner of the Bills at the time, had designs to sell the Bills to a consortium based out of Toronto. They knew they couldn't get a full relocation over the line for a whole host of reasons, so they got permission to play games in Toronto, with an eye to building support up in Toronto until they could fully relocate the club there.

The games in Toronto were lucrative, but the Bills fans detested them, and the agreement to play games in Toronto was torn up after his death in 2014. The consortium from Toronto where one of the groups that bid for the Bills when they were put up for sale after Wilson's death, but they lost out to Terry Pegula whom also owns the Buffalo Sabres NHL team.

In other words there was no plan to permanently split home games evenly between Buffalo and Toronto, the Bills would have totally alienated their fanbase in Buffalo if they were to attempt such a thing, and the NFL would never approve a team permanently splitting their homes between two cities like that.
Goodell and the other owners would have either said they had to pick one or the other, or would have said no to them relocating out of Buffalo at all.

You know what? I’m happy to accept that my memory was wrong on that one. I’m an adult, I can admit when I’m wrong. It’s a skill a lot of people on this forum need to learn though. I was living in NY at the time and there was a lot of talk about splitting half the season. I’ll admit I’m not a Bills fan. I remembered there was a lot of pushback which I had already said above. However, I’ve also said it was viewed as a cash grab so it’s why it didn’t work and it’s also not the same as a club setting out from the start of its history to city share. So congrats on your quick googling. But yeah I agree with your early comment that maybe we should just leave the conversation there. You obviously are resistant to new ideas.

 

[Perth Red]

You’re the one that brought up the Raiders not me so don’t get your knickers in a twist. As I said there are heaps of clubs that are followed by out of state fans. Cowboys dominate the middle of the country, similar to Broncos. Seattle have fans in Oregon and Idaho. If you’re in Vermont you go for a Massachusetts team. None of those clubs are relocated. I can also name more. Dakotas - Vikings. Mississippi - Saints or Falcons. Following an out of state club is normal in the states despite what you think. I’m also going to add, if you look at the Gemba report, it’s clear that about a third of people in Brisbane follow Sydney NRL clubs. So I’d say it’s also normal here. This barrier about geography and culture exists mostly in your head.

Which is all totally different from whats being suggested. One club sharing a dual identity and splitting half its games between two cities 450km apart. Storm have a big Brisbane following, not because they are called the Melbourne Brisbane Storm and play half their games at Suncorp but because they are a strong brand, succesful and have Qlnd rep players in the team.

Still not one example anywhere on the globe of this proposed model?

 

[The Great Dane]

You’re the one that brought up the Raiders not me so don’t get your knickers in a twist.

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.

As I said there are heaps of clubs that are followed by out of state fans. Cowboys dominate the middle of the country, similar to Broncos. Seattle have fans in Oregon and Idaho. If you’re in Vermont you go for a Massachusetts team. None of those clubs are relocated. I can also name more. Dakotas - Vikings. Mississippi - Saints or Falcons. Following an out of state club is normal in the states despite what you think. I’m also going to add, if you look at the Gemba report, it’s clear that about a third of people in Brisbane follow Sydney NRL clubs. So I’d say it’s also normal here. This barrier about geography and culture exists mostly in your head.

All of which is literally irrelevant from the point of the discussion.

If anything it proves that you wouldn't need to split home games between the Christchurch and Wellington to build a reasonable following for the club in both markets.

 

[The Great Dane]

You know what? I’m happy to accept that my memory was wrong on that one. I’m an adult, I can admit when I’m wrong. It’s a skill a lot of people on this forum need to learn though. I was living in NY at the time and there was a lot of talk about splitting half the season. I’ll admit I’m not a Bills fan. I remembered there was a lot of pushback which I had already said above. However, I’ve also said it was viewed as a cash grab so it’s why it didn’t work and it’s also not the same as a club setting out from the start of its history to city share. So congrats on your quick googling. But yeah I agree with your early comment that maybe we should just leave the conversation there. You obviously are resistant to new ideas.

I actually didn't need to google that aside from looking up Ralph Wilson's name, but there's nothing wrong with googling a subject before you talk about it anyway. People wouldn't spout half the BS they do if they took the time to look into the things they want to talk about before they start to talk about them...

I'm also not resistant to new ideas. What I'm resistant to is bad ideas, and your idea flies in the face of basic human psychology and our tribal nature. If you were to attempt what you are suggesting it wouldn't work how you expect it to, and you'd probably end up alienating a whole city/region of people, and that wouldn't be a good thing for anybody.

 

[Perth Red]

So from what Ive seen on here and know of around the world the only examples we have of anything like this model are:

St George - Illawarra Dragons - games evenly split between two close proximity cities, joint branded
The Dolphins- in reality second city games are at the whim of that council paying money for it. None descript branding
GWS Giants - long term financial deal to take 25% of games to another city. No branding connection
Fijian Drua - probably the only true representation of this model. Playing in two cities 230km apart and brand encompasses the whole country (ergo both cities)

So really only Fijian Drua. One club in the whole world? Maybe Super Rugby is on to a winner?

 

[MugaB]

Which is all totally different from whats being suggested. One club sharing a dual identity and splitting half its games between two cities 450km apart. Storm have a big Brisbane following, not because they are called the Melbourne Brisbane Storm and play half their games at Suncorp but because they are a strong brand, succesful and have Qlnd rep players in the team.

Still not one example anywhere on the globe of this proposed model?

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