Building the next NZ team

[Matua]

A sincere question (particularly to the Kiwis here) with no bias or trolling at all- is there genuine desire in NZ for a second NRL team? If there was, I’d be all for them to get the next licence but I see a few hesitations around it.

More specifically, are the Warriors divisive in NZ like the Broncos were in Brisbane- ie are there fans of the game that can’t get the on the Wahs? Here in Queensland, it seems all the kiwis (probs all the Pacifikas) love the Wahs. With their success atm, wouldn’t it be better to embed the Warriors as a power club rather than dilute the game in Nz?

Or would it be that most kiwis are very parochial and would back both teams?

Again, I’m not at all trying to hang shit, the thread creator seems genuine in wanting to have a real discussion about the topic and I’m all for that, I’m just curious around these points. Cheers all!

I think other posters have mostly covered this. I'll add a couple of my thoughts.

I am a diehard Warriors fan, went to their first game, went regularly when I lived in Hamilton (hours drive), go to a few games every year here in Oz. But I nearly gave up on them a while back. They were so badly mismanaged, and became filled with Aussie journeymen over young NZers that I really was starting to feel disinterested.

Last year turned that around a bit, but I think it was more to luck than management. Cameron George got lucky in that his stupid association with that grifter player recruitment guy (Matt Lodge FFS) ended, and he had to quickly find a coach and luckily Webster was available. I still fear that things will turn around - last year was a crazy high, but we've had them before and then endured the decade that led up to last year.

In saying all that I dislike Canterbury so wont be backing the SI team. I wont back a Wellington team either. TBH, unless the team is based in my home province I'll stick with the Warriors (assuming they don't start becoming an Oz journeyman club again).

 

[Matua]

How realistic is it to talk about adding a second and a third club to New Zealand?

In the ideal scenario you would provide Christchurch Wellington with the 18th and 20th licence.

If we want to increase the value of the NZ broadcast rights then we'll need to provide the broadcasters with more local content. Three teams will be needed to compete with Super Rugby for marketshare.

I don't know how much the broadcast rights can be increased. Sky doesn't have an endless pool of money and new NZ teams isn't going to increase subscribers, it will just create more content for current subscribers. Remember the majority of fans in NZ are also rugby fans so the subscriber base would be nearly the same.

The local content will help in that there will be more eyes watching NRL than currently, Warriors rate highly in good years like last year, the NRL relatively doesn't.

Despite what is said on the troll thread rugby is Sky's bread and butter, they fund the game almost exclusively in NZ currently and they do that due to subscribers and viewership.

 

[flippikat]

How realistic is it to talk about adding a second and a third club to New Zealand?

In the ideal scenario you would provide Christchurch Wellington with the 18th and 20th licence.

If we want to increase the value of the NZ broadcast rights then we'll need to provide the broadcasters with more local content. Three teams will be needed to compete with Super Rugby for marketshare.

Well, the population of the original Hurricanes (Super Rugby) area - Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay, Greater Wellington (including Wairarapa) - is comparable to the whole South Island - about 50k more in the lower North Island.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_New_Zealand

So you could have a split of the Warriors in the upper North Island, Wellington based team for the lower North Island, and Christchurch based team for the whole South island... and two of the teams would have a similar "catchment" so to speak.

Warriors would still be the most populated area, but that's kinda inevitable given that Auckland itself is huge before you add places like Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua, Whangarei all within 3 hours driving driving distance (The lower North is a bit wider spread-out between population centres.. and South Island has some huge distances)

 

[Matua]

Well, the population of the original Hurricanes (Super Rugby) area - Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay, Greater Wellington (including Wairarapa) - is comparable to the whole South Island - about 50k more in the lower North Island.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_New_Zealand

So you could have a split of the Warriors in the upper North Island, Wellington based team for the lower North Island, and Christchurch based team for the whole South island... and two of the teams would have a similar "catchment" so to speak.

Warriors would still be the most populated area, but that's kinda inevitable given that Auckland itself is huge before you add places like Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua, Whangarei all within 3 hours driving driving distance (The lower North is a bit wider spread-out between population centres.. and South Island has some huge distances)

- 1 for the Wellington catchment, I hate you lot almost as much as the Cantabs.

The central north island region (essentially Chiefs area) would be the second most populous wouldn't it? If we were looking at pure population?

 

[flippikat]

- 1 for the Wellington catchment, I hate you lot almost as much as the Cantabs.

The central north island region (essentially Chiefs area) would be the second most populous wouldn't it? If we were looking at pure population?

fair point, and there's a convincing argument for a Waikato/BOP team as the 3rd NZ team over Wellington - that is, taking South Island (Christchurch) as a given for NZ 2.

This is considering that Christchurch is the only openly declared bid for NZ 2 right now, and they claim to have the support of Wellington Rugby League (assuming this means Wellington won't bid against them).

The biggest thing that Waikato/BOP has against it IMO is proximity to Auckland - one thing for the Warriors to have a NZ competitor on the other island, but another to have a team based just 1-2 hours drive away (suburb & traffic depending).

People will say corporates might be an issue when comparing to Wellington, but Hamilton is a major rural hub, and the Bay of Plenty (especially Tauranga - a booming port city) has a lot of businesses to court too.

 

[Matua]

fair point, and there's a convincing argument for a Waikato/BOP team as the 3rd NZ team over Wellington - that is, taking South Island (Christchurch) as a given for NZ 2.

This is considering that Christchurch is the only openly declared bid for NZ 2 right now, and they claim to have the support of Wellington Rugby League (assuming this means Wellington won't bid against them).

The biggest thing that Waikato/BOP has against it IMO is proximity to Auckland - one thing for the Warriors to have a NZ competitor on the other island, but another to have a team based just 1-2 hours drive away (suburb & traffic depending).

People will say corporates might be an issue when comparing to Wellington, but Hamilton is a major rural hub, and the Bay of Plenty (especially Tauranga - a booming port city) has a lot of businesses to court too.

Yeah, I wasn't explicitly advocating for it just commenting on the population breakdown and also agree on the corporates. There's a lot of money in that much maligned city and the BoP is booming with retiree money.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

- 1 for the Wellington catchment, I hate you lot almost as much as the Cantabs.

The central north island region (essentially Chiefs area) would be the second most populous wouldn't it? If we were looking at pure population?

Half of the entire NZ population is in the upper north island, given that Waikato and the Bay of Plenty are the next largest regions after Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury. And yeah adding the two together makes them larger than either Canterbury or Wellington. Main difference though is that population is spread across a number of towns, though the vast majority of it is within 1.5 hrs of Hamilton.

 

[MugaB]

Half of the entire NZ population is in the upper north island, given that Waikato and the Bay of Plenty are the next largest regions after Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury. And yeah adding the two together makes them larger than either Canterbury or Wellington. Main difference though is that population is spread across a number of towns, though the vast majority of it is within 1.5 hrs of Hamilton.

Cowboys do it just just fine and they travel 3-4 hours to see games, Hamilton should be the next NZ team in my opinion, then if the South Island or Wellington are looking at it going i want too, then they can pony up and join... as far a population BoP, Waikato, and Rotarua, jointed together as a region , out does the other areas, via populationVsdistance

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Cowboys do it just just fine and they travel 3-4 hours to see games, Hamilton should be the next NZ team in my opinion, then if the South Island or Wellington are looking at it going i want too, then they can pony up and join... as far a population BoP, Waikato, and Rotarua, jointed together as a region , out does the other areas, via populationVsdistance

Rotorua is part of the BoP region FYI

 

[final say]

CSB - Tony Kidd - NEW NRL TEAM? - The Country Sport Breakfast | iHeart

<p>Could there be an NRL team based in Christchurch by 2026? </p><p>See <a href='https://omnystudio.com/listener'>omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.</p>

www.iheart.com

 

[Matiunz]

Half of the entire NZ population is in the upper north island, given that Waikato and the Bay of Plenty are the next largest regions after Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury. And yeah adding the two together makes them larger than either Canterbury or Wellington. Main difference though is that population is spread across a number of towns, though the vast majority of it is within 1.5 hrs of Hamilton.

If there were 2 North Island teams I think in terms of geographical spread it would be better to have Auckland and Wellington Bases.
Hamilton is becoming more and more of an extension of Auckland and would probably not enough of a point of difference to differentiate from Warriors catchment. Whereas Wellington is far enough south you’d have a natural split in support

 

[final say]

 

[SpaceMonkey]

If there were 2 North Island teams I think in terms of geographical spread it would be better to have Auckland and Wellington Bases.
Hamilton is becoming more and more of an extension of Auckland and would probably not enough of a point of difference to differentiate from Warriors catchment. Whereas Wellington is far enough south you’d have a natural split in support

Yeah I agree. Despite the numbers putting a team in the Waikato/BoP is still going to cannibalise Warriors support because of proximity to Auckland whereas a Wellington side won’t- you’ve got that natural divine through the central north island that largely aligns with the ‘Canes provinces.
It’s a bit like comparing North QLD and the Gold Coast, NQ had never really struggled to be out of the Broncos shadow support wise, while it’s been more difficult for the GC to forge its identity.
Id leave the upper north island to the Warriors until they became a true juggernaut of a club.

 

[Perth Red]

'Don't dilute the product': Warriors coach Andrew Webster shuts down idea of NRL expanding to New Zealand​

Warriors coach Andrew Webster has denied the need for expansion in New Zealand as the NRL continues to eye off having more teams in the competition.

As it becomes more and more likely that Papua New Guinea will be the next side entered into the NRL, Australian Rugby League Commission chairman Peter V'landys has stated his desire to have 20 teams in the future.

After the Warriors' fourth placed finish last season, New Zealand has been suggested as another location for expansion.

Webster believes it would not be viable.

"I don't (believe it's a good idea) at the moment, no," he said on 2GB's Wide World of Sports Radio.

"The thing for me is we've just generated some momentum, I think we're after some sustained success in this country first of all.

"The Warriors, we need to become giants over a long period of time, similar to what the Broncos have done, they've done it over a long period of time. They're the giants of Queensland in the competition and if we did that then I think it'd be time to expand.

"Until we have that sustained success, I think the whole country is pretty much enjoying getting around one team at the moment and we've got a lot of competition here from rugby union and we're making ground.

"So don't dilute the product, don't change that, because I think you're only going to lose ground."

Warriors coach shuts down idea of NZ expansion

'You're only going to lose ground'

wwos.nine.com.au

 

[flippikat]

To be fair, a 2nd NZ NRL team means more competition for juniors here that want to play in NZ.

No surprises that he wants the Warriors monopoly to remain while they're mounting a serious tilt at a premiership in the next few years. Classic example of clubs doing what clubs do & talking/acting in their own interest.

If it was the CEO, chairman or a Commissioner saying "let's wait until the Warriors have sustained success first" then that's something different, but from a club coach - and especially coach of a team in nearby territory - it's just guarding "his turf".

 

[Canard]

Sorry, can you explain why you think it carries less weight from the coach? And more from a burecrat?

 

[flippikat]

Because coaches don't make expansion decisions. Simple, really.

You may not like it (and coaches may not like it either), but it's the administrators that have the final say - they decide what they think is the best option - not coaches.

Sure they may seek input, but that doesn't guarantee they'll be swayed by it.

Sorry, can you explain why you think it carries less weight from the coach? And more from a burecrat?

 

[Canard]

Because coaches don't make expansion decisions. Simple, really.

You may not like it (and coaches may not like it either), but it's the administrators that have the final say - they decide what they think is the best option - not coaches.

Sure they may seek input, but that doesn't guarantee they'll be swayed by it.

I think your avoiding the issue though.

I think the Warriors sustained success is a hugely important factor, in any expansion discussion.

There is a lot of good will with the team currently, but one swallow doesn't make a summer.

 

[flippikat]

I think your avoiding the issue though.

I think the Warriors sustained success is a hugely important factor, in any expansion discussion.

There is a lot of good will with the team currently, but one swallow doesn't make a summer.

How am I avoiding the issue? A coach can give all the input he wants, but the final decision is with administrators.

He (and you) do have a point in there, that so far the Warriors resurgence is just one great season, and we havent seen it "bed in" to a run of solid seasons.. but keep in mind that if an expansion decision is made later this year, we'll have a read on how well they've followed-on from 2023, and the Warriors will still have another season or two with clear space to operate in, before an NZ 2 enters the competition.

Yes, NZ 2 would be on a pre-debut recruitment drive - but again, if the Warriors are proving that 2023 was no fluke, they'll hold their own. (Ie doing OK on the player market, thanks to their on-field strength)

 

[Perth Red]

I think your avoiding the issue though.

I think the Warriors sustained success is a hugely important factor, in any expansion discussion.

There is a lot of good will with the team currently, but one swallow doesn't make a summer.

If we wait for warriors to have a run of success it could be a very long wait going on past performances!