Building the next NZ team

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Proximity of the side line to the field doesn't change the fact that it's an oval and will always be an oval. That might fly in NZ, but it simply isn't up to the standards expected in the NRL anymore and we shouldn't be lowering those standards.

On their reputation; it may be unfair, but it is what it is.

If you think ovals aren't up to standard then why do you want the ARLC to hold Magic Round and Origin at the MCG, Perth Stadium and Adelaide Oval?

 

[Matiunz]

Pasifika Bear's team not based on race
It's based on where the games will be played
NZ can get extra Games live at NZ stadium's
Cause NZ 2 . Not big enough for stand alone team
I'm sure players. Juniors from All over south pacific Oceania. Would jump love the opportunity to play NRL. Live in Sydney
Travel All over The pacific. Australia NZ
Living the dream

Playing games in NZ and Aus is kinda paying lip service to naming the team ‘pasifika’. At most I can’t imagine more than a game a season in the heart of pasifika.
’Pasifika’ implies race or at least cultural ties, both of which are in the minority in NZ as much Aus. ’Oceania’ or ‘Australasia’ wouldn’t work for similar reasons it’s to vague a representation, NZ 2 needs to be a NZ representative to work.

 

[Matua]

Not taking your word as writ isn't the same as being 'excessively argumentative'.

Arguing the crowds of soccer in NZ don't measure up to the crowds of league in Australia to claim Wellington doesn't have a sporting reputation is.

 

[blue bags]

If pasifika Bear's
Gets a franchise. The Grizzly Bear's
Will play matches in NZ. Papa New Guinea
Tonga. Fiji. Somoa. And Australia
Giving pathways feeder systems growths
For juniors in the whole South Pacific oceanic areas

 

[flippikat]

Proximity of the side line to the field doesn't change the fact that it's an oval and will always be an oval. That might fly in NZ, but it simply isn't up to the standards expected in the NRL anymore and we shouldn't be lowering those standards.

On their reputation; it may be unfair, but it is what it is.

I see your point, and as far as stadium goes Christchurch has it over Wellington due to the new stadium being both rectangular and covered - even though the Sky Stadium is a small oval & close to the sidelines as far as ovals go, the covered aspect is pretty hard to ignore.

It's really a shame Wellington's stadium wasn't designed & built a bit later, as two decisions really made for a shift in NZ's stadium thinking

- Hamilton keeping separate rugby & cricket grounds & upgrading them instead of combining them in a new multi-use oval stadium like Sky Stadium.

- Dunedin replacing the old multi-use Carisbrook with Forsythe-Barr Stadium (covered & rectangular), which necessitated an upgrade to University of Otago Oval for provincial/international cricket in Dunedin.

The best solution for Wellington would've been a rectangular stadium where Sky Stadium is (preferably with a roof), and a separate cricket ground - whether that's the current Basin Reserve site, or an upgrade of some other existing oval.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Arguing the crowds of soccer in NZ don't measure up to the crowds of league in Australia to claim Wellington doesn't have a sporting reputation is.

Wellington’s A-Leage crowd average was ahead of Brisbane, Newcastle and Perth’s last year on any case so it’s not a great example to try to use.

 

[Matua]

I see your point, and as far as stadium goes Christchurch has it over Wellington due to the new stadium being both rectangular and covered - even though the Sky Stadium is a small oval & close to the sidelines as far as ovals go, the covered aspect is pretty hard to ignore.

It's really a shame Wellington's stadium wasn't designed & built a bit later, as two decisions really made for a shift in NZ's stadium thinking

- Hamilton keeping separate rugby & cricket grounds & upgrading them instead of combining them in a new multi-use oval stadium like Sky Stadium.

- Dunedin replacing the old multi-use Carisbrook with Forsythe-Barr Stadium (covered & rectangular), which necessitated an upgrade to University of Otago Oval for provincial/international cricket in Dunedin.

The best solution for Wellington would've been a rectangular stadium where Sky Stadium is (preferably with a roof), and a separate cricket ground - whether that's the current Basin Reserve site, or an upgrade of some other existing oval.

Yeah, this is the key if you want to have a go at the Caketin, with Wellington's wind it needs a roof because it sometimes doesn't matter where you sit you're going to get wet.

And agree that the Caketin build was slightly too early, a few years later and they would have gone for the rectangle/Basin.

 

[Vee]

There has been some seemingly quite rightful concerns from NZ locals, that the NRL scheduling of Warriors games often clashes with big Union games (something I had never thought about before as an Aussie and a non-Union fan), which detracts from there audience.

So whilst the 6pm Australian timezone is great for us East Coasters, I assume its not ideal for NZ and clashes with Union? (I say this not really knowing when most NZ games are scheduled)

I imagine they clash in most timeslots, at least a regular 8pm Friday slot gives them a chance to build a following.

 

[Vee]

Thast probably the location dilema. Wellington seemingly has the better population, corporate base and Rl base to make it work but no stadium, Christchurch has the amazing stadium but probably lacks in those areas and is a Union strong hold. I think on balance of viability Wellington probably still ticks more boxes?

I might be wrong but I thought I remembered hearing CC and the South Island west coast were historically stronger RL areas. Can anyone confirm or refute?

 

[Matiunz]

I might be wrong but I thought I remembered hearing CC and the South Island west coast were historically stronger RL areas. Can anyone confirm or refute?

Canterbury is probably #2 and Wellington #3 but that is a very distant 2nd to Auckland, west coast it is indeed historically popular but there’s only about 4 people and 2 cows that actually live there.
But you need to look at it subjectively League in NZ is 90% Auckland 10% rest of NZ in terms of teams/player numbers.

 

[blue bags]

Canterbury is probably #2 and Wellington #3 but that is a very distant 2nd to Auckland, west coast it is indeed historically popular but there’s only about 4 people and 2 cows that actually live there.
But you need to look at it subjectively League in NZ is 90% Auckland 10% rest of NZ in terms of teams/player numbers.

And a few 100 sheep

 

[The Great Dane]

Arguing the crowds of soccer in NZ don't measure up to the crowds of league in Australia to claim Wellington doesn't have a sporting reputation is.

The only reason the Nix have got a mention in this discussion at all is because you brought them up to try and argue that Wellington does have a "sporting reputation" because of their sub-10k crowds. . .

It remains to be a stupid argument on face value, and as I said before is largely irrelevant in the context of the NRL and the minimum standards they need to be successful.

Wellington’s A-Leage crowd average was ahead of Brisbane, Newcastle and Perth’s last year on any case so it’s not a great example to try to use.

I'm genuinely shocked that the Nix had a higher attendance than two teams without owners and a third that is amongst the worst run clubs in a league of incompetently run clubs. Who could've guessed that!

 

[RedVee]

Canterbury is probably #2 and Wellington #3 but that is a very distant 2nd to Auckland, west coast it is indeed historically popular but there’s only about 4 people and 2 cows that actually live there.
But you need to look at it subjectively League in NZ is 90% Auckland 10% rest of NZ in terms of teams/player numbers.

As far as rivalry goes, yes Christchurch v Auckland.
But I’m informed that it is actually everyone Vs Auckland that is the rivalry

 

[Matua]

The only reason the Nix have got a mention in this discussion at all is because you brought them up to try and argue that Wellington does have a "sporting reputation" because of their sub-10k crowds. . .

It remains to be a stupid argument on face value, and as I said before is largely irrelevant in the context of the NRL and the minimum standards they need to be successful.

I'm genuinely shocked that the Nix had a higher attendance than two teams without owners and a third that is amongst the worst run clubs in a league of incompetently run clubs. Who could've guessed that!

The Phoenix are an example that refute your belief Wellington doesn't have a sport reputation - that's why they were brought up.

You thinking sub 10k crowds at a soccer match somehow mitigates against their sporting reputation suggests you don't really understand sports supporting in a NZ context as much as you think you do.

The argument was about your claim about Wellington's sporting reputation, the performance of a team in a poorly supported sport in NZ is highly relevant to this discussion.

 

[Matua]

As far as rivalry goes, yes Christchurch v Auckland.
But I’m informed that it is actually everyone Vs Auckland that is the rivalry

I support Auckland over Canterbury any day of the week - and I'm from everyone.

 

[Matiunz]

I support Auckland over Canterbury any day of the week - and I'm from everyone.

Yeah me too, think it’s more of a support the team from your island deal. Well that and if you’ve dealt with Crusaders fans it’s a pretty hard to support anything Canterbury.
Similar to the NZ 2 situation, if it was a ‘rest of NZ team’ they’d instantly be my second team, if it was a ‘South Island/Canterbury team’ I’d still want them to do well but would be a lot less invested.

 

[The Great Dane]

The Phoenix are an example that refute your belief Wellington doesn't have a sport reputation - that's why they were brought up.

You thinking sub 10k crowds at a soccer match somehow mitigates against their sporting reputation suggests you don't really understand sports supporting in a NZ context as much as you think you do.

The argument was about your claim about Wellington's sporting reputation, the performance of a team in a poorly supported sport in NZ is highly relevant to this discussion.

The Phoenix don't refute shit, and the NZ context is totally irrelevant when any NZ bid will need to be capable of being competitive with the standards of the Australian NRL market to make themselves an attractive prospect in the NRL. In other words they'll have to show themselves to have the potential to be a stronger market commercially than potential teams in places like Perth, Adelaide, a 4th team in Brisbane/SEQ, etc.

And you can keep repeating yourself, but outside of your little leech state Wellington's reputation as a sports market is that it's small potatoes with a fickle fanbase. Is what it is.

In ideal conditions Wellington would be comparable to the smallest of regional sides in Australia, but conditions won't be ideal. It's a competitive market where RL is unlikely to be the big ticket in town for the foreseeably future, and I think it's probably fair to suggest that an NRL side there would probably be most comparable to a team like the Brumbies; capable of pulling a crowd when things are going well, but the tough times are going to be really tough until RL grows and cements itself in the market.

 

[flippikat]

Yeah me too, think it’s more of a support the team from your island deal. Well that and if you’ve dealt with Crusaders fans it’s a pretty hard to support anything Canterbury.
Similar to the NZ 2 situation, if it was a ‘rest of NZ team’ they’d instantly be my second team, if it was a ‘South Island/Canterbury team’ I’d still want them to do well but would be a lot less invested.

As a Wellington sports fan (apart from cricket, my Kapiti Coast roots have me cheering for Central Districts), I'm all too familiar with Canterbury sports teams knocking out Wellington sports teams - in just about every code except basketball, where the Wellington Saints are traditionally a powerhouse.

I hate 'em for it, and I could never cheer for anything Canterbury/Christchurch.

 

[final say]

The Phoenix don't refute shit, and the NZ context is totally irrelevant when any NZ bid will need to be capable of being competitive with the standards of the Australian NRL market to make themselves an attractive prospect in the NRL. In other words they'll have to show themselves to have the potential to be a stronger market commercially than potential teams in places like Perth, Adelaide, a 4th team in Brisbane/SEQ, etc.

And you can keep repeating yourself, but outside of your little leech state Wellington's reputation as a sports market is that it's small potatoes with a fickle fanbase. Is what it is.

In ideal conditions Wellington would be comparable to the smallest of regional sides in Australia, but conditions won't be ideal. It's a competitive market where RL is unlikely to be the big ticket in town for the foreseeably future, and I think it's probably fair to suggest that an NRL side there would probably be most comparable to a team like the Brumbies; capable of pulling a crowd when things are going well, but the tough times are going to be really tough until RL grows and cements itself in the market.

Wellington is a little larger than Canberra population wise?

 

[blue bags]

Building a NZ Bear's team