New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Canard]

Super Rugby is a flawed model for a sports league. It got by in the 90s and early 00s for the following reasons:

• Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were the top dogs in rugby union.
• The competition was still young and a novelty.
• Rugby league was on the nose due to the Super League War.
• Rugby went professional around this time, so there was money to raid the ailing ARL and NZRL
• Australia became also-rans in the mid-00s.
• The disparate time zones in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa made it hard to follow the competition.
• European and Japanese rugby union grew and poached players from Super Rugby.

I suspect RU will become like cricket. The international game will be huge, but the domestic competitions will lose relevancy and become nothing more than a tool to develop talent for the national teams. RU in this part of the world is sort of going back to where it was before the game turned professional.

They also Big Bashed it. It used to be a short season that didn't interfer with any of the International Rugby, then they kept adding more and more weeks to the season.

 

[Brian potter]

All blacks…….

'So frustrated with it': Wayne Smith driven to turn off Super Rugby for animal doco

Former All Blacks assistant and Black Ferns head coach Wayne Smith has shared his frustrations with the current state of the game.

www.rugbypass.com

 

[Gobsmacked]

Except your making assumptions about the trajectory of both comps in NZ. You're also assuming any changes that are made wont have an effect.
HIstory has shown that the NRL has almost no ratings value in NZ outside the Warriors. It averages around 50K a game. The Warriors non finals games ratings averaged around 150K and have ranged from between 100 to 250K. 100K when up against a Rugby Game and up to 250K when they aren't. The TV ratings thread shows ample evidence of that.
While there is zero chance that there wont be Super Rugby or an equivalent comp that, shows that some Rugby fans who are paying for SKY will watch the Warriors if there is nothing else on. How many of those Rugby Fans will continue to keep sky only for the NRL. It's a MASSIVE assumption to assume a lot will.

And the biggest reason your assumptions fail is that Super Rugby has a TV audience on the rise in NZ. And history has shown that NZ Rugby public will watch it, even when there are teams from Australia dragging it down.
And Revenue? Really? The NZR annual report showed just how little Super Rugby effects revenue. So there will always be a "Professional Rugby" comp to watch making your entire post moot.

But I can see why you are bringing all this up now that NZ2 is a dead duck. You need to cling to something.

Dead duck ? based on what?
At this stage NZ 2 is a certainty, currently between NZ and Perth for 18 and given the comp is going to 20 teams it's only a matter of when.

NZ 2 is gaining momentum

 

[Te Kaha]

Dead duck ? based on what?
At this stage NZ 2 is a certainty, currently between NZ and Perth for 18 and given the comp is going to 20 teams it's only a matter of when.

NZ 2 is gaining momentum

No Sky money, No bids, no momentum. Its a dead duck. There currently is more chance of no NZ team then two in the NRL.

 

[Gobsmacked]

No Sky money, No bids, no momentum. Its a dead duck. There currently is more chance of no NZ team then two in the NRL.

Given we're going to 20 teams, there's a chance of 3 teams in NZ
The NRL has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to expansion options.
Meanwhile Super Rugby has glued together a few countries in the Pacific to scratch together 12 teams...

 

[Colk]

Given we're going to 20 teams, there's a chance of 3 teams in NZ
The NRL has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to expansion options.
Meanwhile Super Rugby has glued together a few countries in the Pacific to scratch together 12 teams...

There isn’t going to be three teams nor is there not going to be zero. There might be two or there might be one. Exaggeration is not helping you or the other poster

 

[Gobsmacked]

There isn’t going to be three teams nor is there not going to be zero. There might be two or there might be one. Exaggeration is not helping you or the other poster

Say our next team is Christchurch, it's an overwhelming success like the Dolphins. You think it's an exaggeration to say Wellington becomes a distinct possibility?

 

[Te Kaha]

Given we're going to 20 teams, there's a chance of 3 teams in NZ
The NRL has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to expansion options.
Meanwhile Super Rugby has glued together a few countries in the Pacific to scratch together 12 teams...

No the most likely outcome is that Perth comes in as 18, the complaints about the standard of play come back and they stop there.

You are clinging to the hope that someone will come along to bid. But The other Aussie clubs wont want it when there is nobody in NZ to pay for it and the Aussie media companies get no value from NZ . Then there is Sky who are tapped out... The next rights deal will be back near where it's historically been. You dont like it, but it's simple economics. NZ2 is dead.

 

[Colk]

Say our next team is Christchurch, it's an overwhelming success like the Dolphins. You think it's an exaggeration to say Wellington becomes a distinct possibility?

Considering there are other areas that are seeking admission I would say it is very remote that we’ll have three Kiwi teams within 20 teams. Same as the other poster saying that there will be none is very remote.

It’s not even a definite that we’ll have another one to be fair. For instance, we could have another team in SE QLD, Perth, PNG/Pasifika etc. Essentially nobody knows what it is going on with expansion.

 

[Te Kaha]

Considering there are other areas that are seeking admission I would say it is very remote that we’ll have three Kiwi teams within 20 teams. Same as the other poster saying that there will be none is very remote.

It’s not even a definite that we’ll have another one to be fair. For instance, we could have another team in SE QLD, Perth, PNG/Pasifika etc. Essentially nobody knows what it is going on with expansion.

Remote? All it would take is for the NRL to enforce its agreement with Telstra about not allowing other telecommunications companies to sponsor teams.... and given how the CEO of One\vodafone is currently in their bad books.....

 

[Colk]

Remote? All it would take is for the NRL to enforce its agreement with Telstra about not allowing other telecommunications companies to sponsor teams.... and given how the CEO of One\vodafone is currently in their bad books.....

Yeah that is not likely to happen either even if you want it to happen.

The chances of any club being forcibly removed from the competition is very remote.

 

[Perth Red]

NRL just spent a motza keeping Warriors going through Covid, they arent going anywhere.
NZ2? Seems unlikely but this is rugba league so who knows where the club 18 chips will land. I can see it far more likely if they ever go to 20 clubs.

 

[Te Kaha]

Yeah that is not likely to happen either even if you want it to happen.

The chances of any club being forcibly removed from the competition is very remote.

It's not forcibly removed. Because of Telstra, the NRL has previously demanded the Warriors had to get a new sponsor, the fact the couldn't find one and Telstra relented, was the only reason the NRL backed down. Telstra is worth more to the NRL than the Warriors are. The NRL knows this, The Warriors know this, and I'm sure the CEO of One has now been told this.

 

[Perth Red]

It's not forcibly removed. Because of Telstra, the NRL has previously demanded the Warriors had to get a new sponsor, the fact the couldn't find one and Telstra relented, was the only reason the NRL backed down. Telstra is worth more to the NRL than the Warriors are. The NRL knows this, The Warriors know this, and I'm sure the CEO of One has now been told this.

Now the name has changed there is no competition between Telstra and One. Neither operate in the others country. If Telstra put up with Vodaphone being advertised in NRL they wont care about One NZ being advertised.

 

[Colk]

It's not forcibly removed. Because of Telstra, the NRL has previously demanded the Warriors had to get a new sponsor, the fact the couldn't find one and Telstra relented, was the only reason the NRL backed down. Telstra is worth more to the NRL than the Warriors are. The NRL knows this, The Warriors know this, and I'm sure the CEO of One has now been told this.

Forcibly removed from the competition. You know what I meant.

Secondly, you know that they are not going to have a competition without a Kiwi entrant. Primarily because it is about the only competitive advantage they have against the AFL. It would be completely stupid.

Another reason is because the Warriors are popular over there

I seriously think you are confusing what you want to happen with what is going to happen

 

[Te Kaha]

Now the name has changed there is no competition between Telstra and One. Neither operate in the others country. If Telstra put up with Vodaphone being advertised in NRL they wont care about One NZ being advertised.

There was never any competition between them. But that didn't stop Telstra telling the NRL to enforce the contract. It was only because The Warriors couldn't find another sponsor that that Telstra relented. That may not always be the case.

Forcibly removed from the competition. You know what I meant.

Secondly, you know that they are not going to have a competition without a Kiwi entrant. Primarily because it is about the only competitive advantage they have against the AFL. It would be completely stupid.

Another reason is because the Warriors are popular over there

I seriously think you are confusing what you want to happen with what is going to happen

As i said it wouldn't be forcibly be removing anyone. It would be the NRL enforcing an existing contract.

And as for you stupid claim about "you are confusing what you want to happen with what is going to happen".. i was responding to your comment "saying that there will be none is very remote.". It's far from remote when it only takes the NRL enforcing an existing contract to spell the end. Is it unlikely? yes... but more likely than NZ2 coming in anytime soon, if ever.

 

[Perth Red]

Telstra is in competition with Vodaphone in Australia. I can see why they weren't happy about that. They are not in competition with One NZ so will not care.

 

[Colk]

There was never any competition between them. But that didn't stop Telstra telling the NRL to enforce the contract. It was only because The Warriors couldn't find another sponsor that that Telstra relented. That may not always be the case.



As i said it wouldn't be forcibly be removing anyone. It would be the NRL enforcing an existing contract.

And as for you stupid claim about "you are confusing what you want to happen with what is going to happen".. i was responding to your comment "saying that there will be none is very remote.". It's far from remote when it only takes the NRL enforcing an existing contract to spell the end. Is it unlikely? yes... but more likely than NZ2 coming in anytime soon, if ever.

Confusing argument.

Enforcing a contract that in turn removes them from the competition. The cause of the decision doesn’t change the result.

Also, don’t play semantics; or at least play it with somebody stupider. Unlikely is a synonym of remote and a pretty strong one at that (and you know it)

Btw semantics I know but this is what is confusing with your argument: essentially you are arguing in one part that is far from remote (far from unlikely) but then later on suggest that removing the Warriors is unlikely. So which one is it? Unlikely or likely? Remote or not? You seem to be not agreeing me in one sense and later on do agree with me.

All in all, I would have thought that it is pretty simple to simply acknowledge that it would be (strongly) unlikely that the NRL removes any side. They have been quoted on numerous occasions that it is their position to not remove any sides (talk of permanent licences would suggest they are not keen on not removing any side) and they have bailed out numerous sides post Super League (so their actions match their rhetoric)

Whether you like it or not, the Warriors will be part of this competition, unless something extraordinary happens.

 

[Te Kaha]

Telstra is in competition with Vodaphone in Australia. I can see why they weren't happy about that. They are not in competition with One NZ so will not care.

Vodafone NZ and Vodafone Australia had no connection other than the name. The enforced it anyway. Unless you think Australians are so stupid they cant tell the difference between the two?

Confusing argument.

Enforcing a contract that in turn removes them from the competition. The cause of the decision doesn’t change the result.

Also, don’t play semantics; or at least play it with somebody stupider. Unlikely is a synonym of remote and a pretty strong one at that (and you know it)

Btw semantics I know but this is what is confusing with your argument: essentially you are arguing in one part that is far from remote (far from unlikely) but then later on suggest that removing the Warriors is unlikely. So which one is it? Unlikely or likely? Remote or not? You seem to be not agreeing me in one sense and later on do agree with me.

All in all, I would have thought that it is pretty simple to simply acknowledge that it would be (strongly) unlikely that the NRL removes any side. They have been quoted on numerous occasions that it is their position to not remove any sides (talk of permanent licences would suggest they are not keen on not removing any side) and they have bailed out numerous sides post Super League (so their actions match their rhetoric)

Whether you like it or not, the Warriors will be part of this competition, unless something extraordinary happens.

somebody "stupider"?? (congrats on the irony)... A synonym or not, the two have vastly different meanings. other synonyms are
improbable, implausible, doubtful, dubious, far-fetched, fain. but the waitings are vastly different e.g. "It is unlikely to rain today" vs " there is a remote chance of being hit by a meteor."

When a simple contract enforcement can bring down a club, that makes them folding far from remote. That the NRL has previously enforced the clause before backing down makes that happening again far from remote. If it remains in their best interests to keep The Warriors involved, and Telstra dont object, it makes it happen unlikely. You notice the difference between the two?

On the other hand, SKY is tapped out and wont fund a new team. The rights will revert back to historic norms. Aussie TV gets next to nothing from another NZ team while the opposite is true about new Aussie teams. There are no bids coming out of NZ. Corporate sponsorship has tried up, and there doesn't appear to be an Angel investor willing to put up the capital. This makes the chances of NZ2 "remote"...

Remote > Unlikely... Get it now.?There is more of a chance of there being Zero NRL teams in NZ then there is two or more.

 

[Vibing]

A 47m loss in 2022 ! YIKES !! Haemorrhaging that amount of money you have to wonder how long the NZRU can stay afloat?

NZ Rugby posts massive financial loss

NZ Rugby’s annual report was presented at its AGM in Wellington.

www.nzherald.co.nz

but but but

duh annual report
duh annual report !!!