New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Te Kaha]

So you want talented kids to stay in their region playing amateur footy?

I wan't investment in those regions so that when the best leave it doesn't destroy the comp. Since the Warriors have been around places like The Hawkes Bay, West Coast, Otago, Central NI have all lost clubs and in some cases comps. The remaining ones wont last with investment.

 

[Matua]

Whatever dude.
You know everyone in NZ and the point at which they decide on a subscription and why - good for you.

I actually enjoyed the company of kiwis far more in NZ. The ones that come to Australia can't help but be condescending no matter how subjective the topic.
It's actually quite incredible.

Ok then, you tell me how you think it plays out.

Where should NZ2 be based?

How many more subs do you think Sky will get out of it and why? Why were these people not signed up to Sky previously but will sign up now?

What do you think is the minimum crowd number they'll need and how realistic do you think it is that they'll get those numbers?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I wont support a team with those names. So I'd just be watching the Warriors still, and then the odd other game. I'll support the Dolphins over a Cantab team.

See? There’s some proper tribal hatred.
Christchurch va Canterbury is pretty much the same thing in practical terms, wouldn’t really affect support either way. I’d support lower north island (Wellington) or more general “southern” NZ side but not a Canterbury/Christchurch side, as I’m from the central north island. But I supported the Warriors when they were the Auckland Warriors so I’d probably still stick with them as my #1 side.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Most NZers are Warriors supporters, if they're not then they still follow an Oz club from before the Warriors existed, it's likely they'll do the same with a new club. If the new team is in Chch and the fan lives in the Naki and supports Manly they're not likely to switch.

That’s it- the only fans who are likely to switch are those who are BETTER represented by the new team. And that’s going to difficult because of the population spread in NZ, where approximately half the population lives in what would probably still be Warriors catchment and the rest is pretty evenly split.

 

[Matua]

See? There’s some proper tribal hatred.
Christchurch va Canterbury is pretty much the same thing in practical terms, wouldn’t really affect support either way. I’d support lower north island (Wellington) or more general “southern” NZ side but not a Canterbury/Christchurch side, as I’m from the central north island. But I supported the Warriors when they were the Auckland Warriors so I’d probably still stick with them as my #1 side.

TBH, I probably would struggle to support a Wellington side as I have a hatred of the Canes too, being a former fan who left during the Hammettuer era and now dislike them more now due to their shoddy treatment of Hawkes Bay.

So would need to be a Hamilton or Dunedin based team for to support it.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Ok then, you tell me how you think it plays out.

Where should NZ2 be based?

How many more subs do you think Sky will get out of it and why? Why were these people not signed up to Sky previously but will sign up now?

What do you think is the minimum crowd number they'll need and how realistic do you think it is that they'll get those numbers?

I think it'll be Christchurch and be probably the Southern Bulls or something. The new team will engage around 40% more kiwi viewers ( maybe more) so not 40% more viewers on sky but 40% more league one's. The current value for Sky is 30 million for league, this will put it up to around 43 million but given there's another fixture, probably more likely 45 + .
You could debate that it's not worth the same with the spark thing but whatever it's deemed to be worth with 1, it will be at least 40% more with 2.
Of course the tv deal in Australia goes up also with another fixture.
Having a second NZ team will have households in NZ watching League 2 nights a week instead of 1 meaning they'll be turned into 1 less Super Rugby game.
Sky Having less money to spend on Super Rugby and people effectively watching less of it effects the Sky revenue to the downside for Super Rugby.. already haemorrhaging money they abandon Super Rugby freeing up even more money they can pay for league and given there's no Super Rugby.. they watch more League.

If NZ get the next League world cup and a new team I expect to see double the amount of people in NZ engaged in Rugby league of what we have today.
This could all lead to a stronger kiwi team and start a massive rivalry with Australia that becomes the pinnacle of Rugby league as opposed to origin.

 

[Colk]

I think it'll be Christchurch and be probably the Southern Bulls or something. The new team will engage around 40% more kiwi viewers ( maybe more) so not 40% more viewers on sky but 40% more league one's. The current value for Sky is 30 million for league, this will put it up to around 43 million but given there's another fixture, probably more likely 45 + .
You could debate that it's not worth the same with the spark thing but whatever it's deemed to be worth with 1, it will be at least 40% more with 2.
Of course the tv deal in Australia goes up also with another fixture.
Having a second NZ team will have households in NZ watching League 2 nights a week instead of 1 meaning they'll be turned into 1 less Super Rugby game.
Sky Having less money to spend on Super Rugby and people effectively watching less of it effects the Sky revenue to the downside for Super Rugby.. already haemorrhaging money they abandon Super Rugby freeing up even more money they can pay for league and given there's no Super Rugby.. they watch more League.

If NZ get the next League world cup and a new team I expect to see double the amount of people in NZ engaged in Rugby league of what we have today.
This could all lead to a stronger kiwi team and start a massive rivalry with Australia that becomes the pinnacle of Rugby league as opposed to origin.

Mate I don’t think you get their argument or the reason why the NZ TV market is different to that of Australia.

You could set up multiple sides in NZ and it wouldn’t seriously impact subscription numbers. The reason is that unlike Australia, sport isn’t shown on FTA over there. So literally anybody who follows any sport over there - and that’s your audience for the Warriors or any other league side there - already has subscription TV.

The reason why a second team in NZ would get the go ahead (at this point in time) would be via the NRL wanting to expand the international game and seeing the potential of greater player numbers; as opposed to any financial or commercial benefit they could get. If they think the latter, then the next side is most likely to come from Australia

 

[Te Kaha]

I think it'll be Christchurch and be probably the Southern Bulls or something. The new team will engage around 40% more kiwi viewers ( maybe more) so not 40% more viewers on sky but 40% more league one's. The current value for Sky is 30 million for league, this will put it up to around 43 million but given there's another fixture, probably more likely 45 + .
You could debate that it's not worth the same with the spark thing but whatever it's deemed to be worth with 1, it will be at least 40% more with 2.
Of course the tv deal in Australia goes up also with another fixture.
Having a second NZ team will have households in NZ watching League 2 nights a week instead of 1 meaning they'll be turned into 1 less Super Rugby game.
Sky Having less money to spend on Super Rugby and people effectively watching less of it effects the Sky revenue to the downside for Super Rugby.. already haemorrhaging money they abandon Super Rugby freeing up even more money they can pay for league and given there's no Super Rugby.. they watch more League.

If NZ get the next League world cup and a new team I expect to see double the amount of people in NZ engaged in Rugby league of what we have today.
This could all lead to a stronger kiwi team and start a massive rivalry with Australia that becomes the pinnacle of Rugby league as opposed to origin.

This post is so much horse shit.. but lets dissect it.

I think it'll be Christchurch and be probably the Southern Bulls or something. The new team will engage around 40% more kiwi viewers ( maybe more) so not 40% more viewers on sky but 40% more league one's. The current value for Sky is 30 million for league, this will put it up to around 43 million but given there's another fixture, probably more likely 45 + .
You could debate that it's not worth the same with the spark thing but whatever it's deemed to be worth with 1, it will be at least 40% more with 2.

Thats total shit based on your dreams. You have no basis for 40% more engagement, that's just a fantasy number plucked from your arse. League isn't on free to air. Anybody who follows League already has sky.
Auckland has a third of NZs population. 40% of that would be 660K viewers. They don't even get a quarter of that, and yet you think a new team will do better than that?????
Sky TV dont have the money to pay more. What's more they don't need to. Nobody is going to bid anything near the 20millionish the previously bid. What will the ARLC do when sky say they will only bid 20 mill? take less than half of that to put it on FTA? I'm sure the clubs will love that. And then the Warriors wont even pay for themselves, let alone a second team.

Having a second NZ team will have households in NZ watching League 2 nights a week instead of 1 meaning they'll be turned into 1 less Super Rugby game.

Thats bullshit. Super Rugby is still, by far the highest rating game. Warriors games rate less when Super Rugby is on. And with no evidence, you state that a NEW League team will do what The Warriors haven't done in almost 30 years for reasons.... pathetic.

Sky Having less money to spend on Super Rugby and people effectively watching less of it effects the Sky revenue to the downside for Super Rugby.. already haemorrhaging money they abandon Super Rugby freeing up even more money they can pay for league and given there's no Super Rugby.. they watch more League.

When you go moron, you go full moron. SKY pays very little for Super Rugby. You know it, you ignore it. Not to mention the little fact that more people are watching Super Rugby not less.

If NZ get the next League world cup and a new team I expect to see double the amount of people in NZ engaged in Rugby league of what we have today.

You expect it, because you love fairy tales. What you expect, and reality seem to be miles apart.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Mate I don’t think you get their argument or the reason why the NZ TV market is different to that of Australia.

You could set up multiple sides in NZ and it wouldn’t seriously impact subscription numbers. The reason is that unlike Australia, sport isn’t shown on FTA over there. So literally anybody who follows any sport over there - and that’s your audience for the Warriors or any other league side there - already has subscription TV.

The reason why a second team in NZ would get the go ahead (at this point in time) would be via the NRL wanting to expand the international game and seeing the potential of greater player numbers; as opposed to any financial or commercial benefit they could get. If they think the latter, then the next side is most likely to come from Australia

Sky (New Zealand) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Rugby league supporters in NZ have 1 team from NZ on Sky each week. Is it worth getting a subscription?
2 games a week makes for a much more compelling argument/ incentive.

 

[Gobsmacked]

This post is so much horse shit.. but lets dissect it.




Thats total shit based on your dreams. You have no basis for 40% more engagement, that's just a fantasy number plucked from your arse. League isn't on free to air. Anybody who follows League already has sky.
Auckland has a third of NZs population. 40% of that would be 660K viewers. They don't even get a quarter of that, and yet you think a new team will do better than that?????
Sky TV dont have the money to pay more. What's more they don't need to. Nobody is going to bid anything near the 20millionish the previously bid. What will the ARLC do when sky say they will only bid 20 mill? take less than half of that to put it on FTA? I'm sure the clubs will love that. And then the Warriors wont even pay for themselves, let alone a second team.




Thats bullshit. Super Rugby is still, by far the highest rating game. Warriors games rate less when Super Rugby is on. And with no evidence, you state that a NEW League team will do what The Warriors haven't done in almost 30 years for reasons.... pathetic.



When you go moron, you go full moron. SKY pays very little for Super Rugby. You know it, you ignore it. Not to mention the little fact that more people are watching Super Rugby not less.



You expect it, because you love fairy tales. What you expect, and reality seem to be miles apart.

Calm down old timer, you're gunna give yourself a heart attack.

 

[Wb1234]

No thanks to North Island vs South Island
Kiwis don’t really identify strongly with their islands as much as they do with their city/region. I’d rather Auckland vs Canterbury or Wellington. Or even Auckland vs a combined side as there’s a degree of “Auckland vs everyone else” sentiment in NZ.

Auckland warriors
Nz orcas (well and ch)

 

[Wb1234]

But it wont increase viewership of other NRL games, and likely wont drive new subscriptions. If you're a big league fan you already have Sky for the Warriors, if you're from that region or the rest of NZ then you already have Sky for either the rugby or the league (or both, or soccer, MMA, BB etc).

That’s what they said about the broncos before the dolphins came in and the game boomed in Queensland

clearly there’s people not from Auckland who want to watch rugby league games and aren’t going to travel

a second game means another high rating game for sky each week from the current viewers and of course the new team will also raise subscribers

 

[Wb1234]

Ok then, you tell me how you think it plays out.

Where should NZ2 be based?

How many more subs do you think Sky will get out of it and why? Why were these people not signed up to Sky previously but will sign up now?

What do you think is the minimum crowd number they'll need and how realistic do you think it is that they'll get those numbers?

Wellington and Christchurch
New subs 50 to 100k
Crowds will be 15k average each or better

 

[Colk]

Sky (New Zealand) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Rugby league supporters in NZ have 1 team from NZ on Sky each week. Is it worth getting a subscription?
2 games a week makes for a much more compelling argument/ incentive.

They would already have a subscription, unless by chance they only follow league and their support is only casual. Every sport is on subscription TV as opposed to FTA over there.

I don’t see a massive amount of people in NZ (or anywhere really) that would only follow one sport and only follow it so casually.

The probability that there would be a large number of people who only follow League (and no other sport) and only so casually that they don’t have subscription TV seems minute.

 

[Wb1234]

They would already have a subscription, unless by chance they only follow league and their support is only casual. Every sport is on subscription TV as opposed to FTA over there.

I don’t see a massive amount of people in NZ (or anywhere really) that would only follow one sport and only follow it so casually.

The probability that there would be a large number of people who only follow League (and no other sport) and only so casually that they don’t have subscription TV seems minute.

Same argument can be used for Perth or Brisbane
Regarding existing fans already subscribing it’s not totally true

new fans will be engaged and there’s the existing customer base to market another local game too

 

[Gobsmacked]

They would already have a subscription, unless by chance they only follow league and their support is only casual. Every sport is on subscription TV as opposed to FTA over there.

I don’t see a massive amount of people in NZ (or anywhere really) that would only follow one sport and only follow it so casually.

The probability that there would be a large number of people who only follow League (and no other sport) and only so casually that they don’t have subscription TV seems minute.

Subscription services are priced close to the margin. They charge as much as they can for what content they have to get the most Subscriptions .
Cost/ volume/ price
It's a combination of those .for the subscribers it's cost/ content

Everyone is generally 1 tv series away from cancellation or subscription or in this case a sporting organisation.
Subscription services are playing these numbers daily..
To suggest people either simply have it or they don't couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Colk]

Same argument can be used for Perth or Brisbane
Regarding existing fans already subscribing it’s not totally true

new fans will be engaged and there’s the existing customer base to market another local game too

To a degree but it is slightly different over there. If somebody wants to grin and bear through Channel Nine’s coverage then you have got that choice. Don’t know why you would by the way but you could.

NZ really doesn’t have sport on FTA. So if you like any type of sport you have to take to subscribe.

Agree though that a second NZ if marketed properly would be able to attract supporters. I would tap into the North vs South thing for example. I don’t think that’s the problem at all - it is just the way that NZ TV is that is somewhat of an impediment to the thing.

I am very supportive of the idea but I just think that the NRL will have to do it knowing that it is not going to be done for the most money but as an investment for the international game and to tap into more players potentially.

 

[Matua]

Wellington and Christchurch
New subs 50 to 100k
Crowds will be 15k average each or better

Seriously mate, you're dreaming.

 

[Ideas Man Stephen]

Its funny... both your accounts spew so much shit....

I spose that's all you have to hold onto though. Since there is no longer any chance of NZ2 happening.
..

Dunno. After a turnout of more than 25% of the local population in Napier, I reckon that was a very good demonstration of Rugby League’s potential for a second NZ team.

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a bid just yet, the NRL can set its own project up, but I am sure if the NRL made a public declaration for a second NZ team, there would be a few consortiums which would get together for a bid.

 

[Matua]

Dunno. After a turnout of more than 25% of the local population in Napier, I reckon that was a very good demonstration of Rugby League’s potential for a second NZ team.

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a bid just yet, the NRL can set its own project up, but I am sure if the NRL made a public declaration for a second NZ team, there would be a few consortiums which would get together for a bid.

25% of the population of Napier is fiddling it a bit, it's more like half that percentage of population with easy access to the park (as another similar sized city is nearby).

Furthermore, as I said earlier it's an event in an area which hasn't had one for a while (no Super rugby matches this year) and my uncle who barely watches the Warriors on TV went.

As I said earlier in the thread, the match at McLean Park really is not a pointer to whether a second team will be successful.