New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Te Kaha]

we get it, you hate League and don't want it played in New Zealand....

you are posting on a Rugby League expansion forum though

No clearly you don't get it. I understand that comprehension on this forum is sparse to say to least, but it seems so many on here simply do not get the point. Its not even an obscure or obtuse point.

 

[Perth Red]

I'm not pissy, once again taking a post out of context.
By those figures the players definitely have an alternative option to play NRL, if they are capable of course.
And why wouldn't they? A better average pay, with payments on the rise, more 3rd party opportunities, and the chance to play against the best "Rugby" players in the best "Rugby" competition in the world.
The NRL will continue to raid-away on NZRU juniors, and maybe the All Blacks will go from 3rd in the world to be competing with the Wobbilies at 6th.
Good result all round, for everyone.

They have that option now with 17 nrl teams, I dont see many jumping ship for the extra coin. Why would another club make any difference?

 

[siv]

NYC was a important for RL pathways in NZ

But it needs to go hand in hand with NRL Reserve Grade

Even the old NYC $250k salary cap for 25 players is still about right. Maybe push it up to $500k for 2020s

 

[Matua]

I'm not pissy, once again taking a post out of context.
By those figures the players definitely have an alternative option to play NRL, if they are capable of course.
And why wouldn't they? A better average pay, with payments on the rise, more 3rd party opportunities, and the chance to play against the best "Rugby" players in the best "Rugby" competition in the world.
The NRL will continue to raid-away on NZRU juniors, and maybe the All Blacks will go from 3rd in the world to be competing with the Wobbilies at 6th.
Good result all round, for everyone.

Then why don't they? Barely any players have switched to league in the last few years. They're just not doing it. Less NZR juniors are going to league now than during the Holden Cup years.

You might not like rugby, you may think it's a boring game, but the kids playing the game in NZ do. Lots like and play league too, as we generally don't have your us/them mentality, but the lure of the ABs is bloody strong. You may think playing for the Bulldogs, Storm, Warriors, Cowboys is the greatest thing ever but it's not to young NZers.

we get it, you hate League and don't want it played in New Zealand....

you are posting on a Rugby League expansion forum though

Seriously mate, you need to grow up if you think that providing facts about the game in NZ while at the same time liking rugby means someone hates league. I love league (I hate origin though), played it every Sunday for most of my childhood/teenage years. I discuss it with people on here because they're talking rubbish and burying their heads in the sand.

I want league to be successful in NZ because I don't see it as a zero sum game. League and rugby can exist side by side. But lets be real here league is in the doldrums in NZ. I'd be happy for NZ to get another team, especially if they operate as a NZ team unlike the Warriors, but that's not going to cause the death of rugby in NZ which posters on here seem to think it will.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

If the ARLC wants to increase RL's profile in NZ then start holding "event" games in the country. Take the ANZAC Day game to Auckland or Wellington. Have Sydney teams take home matches against the Warriors to New Zealand and play in the Fri 6pm slot. Have an annual three match series between Australia and New Zealand with two games played in Auckland and Wellington. Create a dedicated window for Origin so New Zealand can play Tests.

 

[mongoose]

Then why don't they? Barely any players have switched to league in the last few years. They're just not doing it. Less NZR juniors are going to league now than during the Holden Cup years.

You might not like rugby, you may think it's a boring game, but the kids playing the game in NZ do. Lots like and play league too, as we generally don't have your us/them mentality, but the lure of the ABs is bloody strong. You may think playing for the Bulldogs, Storm, Warriors, Cowboys is the greatest thing ever but it's not to young NZers.


Seriously mate, you need to grow up if you think that providing facts about the game in NZ while at the same time liking rugby means someone hates league. I love league (I hate origin though), played it every Sunday for most of my childhood/teenage years. I discuss it with people on here because they're talking rubbish and burying their heads in the sand.

I want league to be successful in NZ because I don't see it as a zero sum game. League and rugby can exist side by side. But lets be real here league is in the doldrums in NZ. I'd be happy for NZ to get another team, especially if they operate as a NZ team unlike the Warriors, but that's not going to cause the death of rugby in NZ which posters on here seem to think it will.

your attitude is different to Te Kaha who comes across like a Nimby Union troll telling League to not bother with NZ. Same rhetoric you here from AFL in the southern states - "we will never follow it". Plenty of idiots from NSW/QLD on this forum who say the same about AFL.... Anyway, I don't live in NZ nor am I up to date with the state of League in NZ so I am all ears from people with a non-biased viewpoint. My point of view is that the NRL and AFL are the two biggest domestic competitions in Oceania. Super Rugby might be popular in NZ but overall it doesn't come close to the size and revenue of NRL or AFL. If the NRL implemented a plan to increase grassroots and develop pathways in NZ then I don't see how it wouldn't be a hugely attractive option for a lot of kids. There must already be 20% or more New Zealanders in the NRL, granted a lot of those probably moved to Australia at a young age.

 

[Gobsmacked]

your attitude is different to Te Kaha who comes across like a Nimby Union troll telling League to not bother with NZ. Same rhetoric you here from AFL in the southern states - "we will never follow it". Plenty of idiots from NSW/QLD on this forum who say the same about AFL.... Anyway, I don't live in NZ nor am I up to date with the state of League in NZ so I am all ears from people with a non-biased viewpoint. My point of view is that the NRL and AFL are the two biggest domestic competitions in Oceania. Super Rugby might be popular in NZ but overall it doesn't come close to the size and revenue of NRL or AFL. If the NRL implemented a plan to increase grassroots and develop pathways in NZ then I don't see how it wouldn't be a hugely attractive option for a lot of kids. There must already be 20% or more New Zealanders in the NRL, granted a lot of those probably moved to Australia at a young age.

Very well summarised

 

[SpaceMonkey]

your attitude is different to Te Kaha who comes across like a Nimby Union troll telling League to not bother with NZ. Same rhetoric you here from AFL in the southern states - "we will never follow it". Plenty of idiots from NSW/QLD on this forum who say the same about AFL.... Anyway, I don't live in NZ nor am I up to date with the state of League in NZ so I am all ears from people with a non-biased viewpoint. My point of view is that the NRL and AFL are the two biggest domestic competitions in Oceania. Super Rugby might be popular in NZ but overall it doesn't come close to the size and revenue of NRL or AFL. If the NRL implemented a plan to increase grassroots and develop pathways in NZ then I don't see how it wouldn't be a hugely attractive option for a lot of kids. There must already be 20% or more New Zealanders in the NRL, granted a lot of those probably moved to Australia at a young age.

I don;t think TK is really that much of a Union troll even- more just disillusioned with the Warriors and NZ League in general.

For the record I 100% agree with Matua's assessment. League isn't going to supplant Union in NZ or even significantly detract from it. But that doesnt mean that borth codes can't exist and thrive there.

 

[Te Kaha]

your attitude is different to Te Kaha who comes across like a Nimby Union troll telling League to not bother with NZ. Same rhetoric you here from AFL in the southern states - "we will never follow it". Plenty of idiots from NSW/QLD on this forum who say the same about AFL.... Anyway, I don't live in NZ nor am I up to date with the state of League in NZ so I am all ears from people with a non-biased viewpoint. My point of view is that the NRL and AFL are the two biggest domestic competitions in Oceania. Super Rugby might be popular in NZ but overall it doesn't come close to the size and revenue of NRL or AFL. If the NRL implemented a plan to increase grassroots and develop pathways in NZ then I don't see how it wouldn't be a hugely attractive option for a lot of kids. There must already be 20% or more New Zealanders in the NRL, granted a lot of those probably moved to Australia at a young age.

What a crock of shit. Once again that shows how little you know or understand. You really do have a comprehension issue.

 

[The Great Dane]

I don;t think TK is really that much of a Union troll even- more just disillusioned with the Warriors and NZ League in general.

For the record I 100% agree with Matua's assessment. League isn't going to supplant Union in NZ or even significantly detract from it. But that doesnt mean that borth codes can't exist and thrive there.

People said the same thing about Aussie rules in the Northern States, gridiron supplanting baseball as the most popular sport in the US, ice hockey in the desert, the NFL building a significant audience outside of the US, soccer becoming a major professional sport in the US, etc, etc. Nothing is infallible, nor is anything is too big to fail, and something having never happened doesn't make it impossible.

If the NRL, or AFL for that matter, were smart about it and willing to do whatever was necessary, then there'd be little to stop them from taking a significant share of the NZ market given time. Both could offer an alternative local professional product and throw significant amounts of money and resources at the grassroots in a targeted way that the NZRU would struggle to compete with over an extended period.

Supplanting RU as the major sport in NZ would be an unrealistic goal, but taking somewhere between 10-20% of the market would definitely be achievable if they gave themselves a generation or two and a few hundred million dollars to play with.

For multiple reasons I doubt that such an attempt to grow in NZ will happen any time soon in either sport, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't, or that it'd be impossible.

 

[Perth Red]

People said the same thing about Aussie rules in the Northern States, gridiron supplanting baseball as the most popular sport in the US, ice hockey in the desert, the NFL building a significant audience outside of the US, soccer becoming a major professional sport in the US, etc, etc. Nothing is infallible, nor is anything is too big to fail, and something having never happened doesn't make it impossible.

If the NRL, or AFL for that matter, were smart about it and willing to do whatever was necessary, then there'd be little to stop them from taking a significant share of the NZ market given time. Both could offer an alternative local professional product and throw significant amounts of money and resources at the grassroots in a targeted way that the NZRU would struggle to compete with over an extended period.

Supplanting RU as the major sport in NZ would be an unrealistic goal, but taking somewhere between 10-20% of the market would definitely be achievable if they gave themselves a generation or two and a few hundred million dollars to play with.

For multiple reasons I doubt that such an attempt to grow in NZ will happen any time soon in either sport, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't, or that it'd be impossible.

There’s no real money in it for afl. Hence why they’ve concentrated on building a national australian league in capital cities with metro tv ratings. That’s where the money is as proved by the latest tv deal.
nrl bit different as we want players from nz. Investment is worthwhile from a player talent pool return. How much is debatable. Nrl gets out around $25-30mill cash a year from nz. as of next season it will be investing around $17.5mill in nz.

 

[The Great Dane]

There’s no real money in it for afl. Hence why they’ve concentrated on building a national australian league in capital cities with metro tv ratings. That’s where the money is as proved by the latest tv deal.
nrl bit different as we want players from nz. Investment is worthwhile from a player talent pool return. How much is debatable. Nrl gets out around $25-30mill cash a year from nz. as of next season it will be investing around $17.5mill in nz.

I'd argue that there's no real money in it for the NRL either, which is why I doubt that the NRL or AFL will attempt such large scale expansion in NZ for a long time, if ever.

The NRL has a proven track record of attracting Kiwi juniors without a strong local presence, and I see no reason why that state of affairs wouldn't continue into the future. The question then becomes if the NRL really needs to expand their junior development programs in NZ, and would they really need more pro-clubs to get a satisfactory result. IMO the answer to the first question is open ended, and the second is a resounding no.

What's undeniable is that there're more commercial opportunities and potential for growth of the talent pool in Australia than in NZ in both sports. Though, TBF, the AFL is quickly running out of sustainable expansion opportunities in Australia (which is to their credit BTW), that isn't the case for the NRL, and I see no rational reason why you'd turn down the bigger opportunities in the south and west of the country to focus all your efforts on a relatively tiny market like NZ, especially when truly cracking NZ would take just as much money and effort as cracking Vic, WA, and SA.

 

[Gobsmacked]

I'd argue that there's no real money in it for the NRL either, which is why I doubt that the NRL or AFL will attempt such large scale expansion in NZ for a long time, if ever.

The NRL has a proven track record of attracting Kiwi juniors without a strong local presence, and I see no reason why that state of affairs wouldn't continue into the future. The question then becomes if the NRL really needs to expand their junior development programs in NZ, and would they really need more pro-clubs to get a satisfactory result. IMO the answer to the first question is open ended, and the second is a resounding no.

What's undeniable is that there're more commercial opportunities and potential for growth of the talent pool in Australia than in NZ in both sports. Though, TBF, the AFL is quickly running out of sustainable expansion opportunities in Australia (which is to their credit BTW), that isn't the case for the NRL, and I see no rational reason why you'd turn down the bigger opportunities in the south and west of the country to focus all your efforts on a relatively tiny market like NZ, especially when truly cracking NZ would take just as much money and effort as cracking Vic, WA, and SA.

Complete rubbish. Tiny market? 5 million? SA is 1.5 . WA 2. Those are tiny markets. And no money? f**k me , they just got a 30 million dollar deal!
You think we're going to get that out of Adelaide?
And New Zealand are already RU fans and will watch league. AFL states go out of their way to avoid league.
And the Chief executive of the NRL stated only months ago that the most likely expansion is NZ for the 18th team.
It is 100% easier to get a Union fan to watch league than it is an AFL fan.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[Gobsmacked]

There’s no real money in it for afl. Hence why they’ve concentrated on building a national australian league in capital cities with metro tv ratings. That’s where the money is as proved by the latest tv deal.
nrl bit different as we want players from nz. Investment is worthwhile from a player talent pool return. How much is debatable. Nrl gets out around $25-30mill cash a year from nz. as of next season it will be investing around $17.5mill in nz.

An AFL expansion into NZ has many hurdles.
1. They wouldn't know what the f**k is going on.
2. Lack of stadiums that are suitable.
3. It's called " AUSSIE RULES " !
4. 0 Participants or awareness
5. Dilution of their already stretched talent pool.
Basically a yearly loss of 30 million for the next 50 years

So no , the AFL won't expand into NZ.

 

[Te Kaha]

Complete rubbish. Tiny market? 5 million? SA is 1.5 . WA 2. Those are tiny markets. And no money? f**k me , they just got a 30 million dollar deal!
You think we're going to get that out of Adelaide?
And New Zealand are already RU fans and will watch league. AFL states go out of their way to avoid league.
And the Chief executive of the NRL stated only months ago that the most likely expansion is NZ for the 18th team.
It is 100% easier to get a Union fan to watch league than it is an AFL fan.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

They got a 30 mil deal, which they wont get again.

Any new NZ team wont be financed by Aussie TV money, and in five years it wont be NZ money.

The "market" is a stupid term. You could say "potential market", but even that is a fallacy. The Warriors manage 250K on SKY when there is no competing Rugby, at best. There is zero chance a team plonked in a new city, with Aussie has been or never will be players, will get that, let alone get better. And with so very few juniors in NZ that's what the team will be.

The next NRL team wont be in NZ. The years of junior investment have not been put it, and may never be,

 

[Iamback]

your attitude is different to Te Kaha who comes across like a Nimby Union troll telling League to not bother with NZ. Same rhetoric you here from AFL in the southern states - "we will never follow it". Plenty of idiots from NSW/QLD on this forum who say the same about AFL.... Anyway, I don't live in NZ nor am I up to date with the state of League in NZ so I am all ears from people with a non-biased viewpoint. My point of view is that the NRL and AFL are the two biggest domestic competitions in Oceania. Super Rugby might be popular in NZ but overall it doesn't come close to the size and revenue of NRL or AFL. If the NRL implemented a plan to increase grassroots and develop pathways in NZ then I don't see how it wouldn't be a hugely attractive option for a lot of kids. There must already be 20% or more New Zealanders in the NRL, granted a lot of those probably moved to Australia at a young age.

Warriors in theory have done some good moves over the off season.
Also Dogs are going very hard at the NZ market too.

Covid put all sports behind but most Kiwis I have met love both sports, Warriors being poor and no International game. Hurts the brand to get people switching to League

 

[The Penguin #6.]

I'd argue that there's no real money in it for the NRL either, which is why I doubt that the NRL or AFL will attempt such large scale expansion in NZ for a long time, if ever.

The NRL has a proven track record of attracting Kiwi juniors without a strong local presence, and I see no reason why that state of affairs wouldn't continue into the future. The question then becomes if the NRL really needs to expand their junior development programs in NZ, and would they really need more pro-clubs to get a satisfactory result. IMO the answer to the first question is open ended, and the second is a resounding no.

What's undeniable is that there're more commercial opportunities and potential for growth of the talent pool in Australia than in NZ in both sports. Though, TBF, the AFL is quickly running out of sustainable expansion opportunities in Australia (which is to their credit BTW), that isn't the case for the NRL, and I see no rational reason why you'd turn down the bigger opportunities in the south and west of the country to focus all your efforts on a relatively tiny market like NZ, especially when truly cracking NZ would take just as much money and effort as cracking Vic, WA, and SA.

Interesting point of view, but given that the NZRU has revenues of $188m and League pulls about, let`s say $30m, it would suggest that there is a fair scope for Rugby League to eat into their market and therefore revenue.
Especially, since unlike fumbleball, we have a proven popular product in that country, that maybe just needs better marketing and planning around it to make that incursion.

 

[Perth Red]

Interesting point of view, but given that the NZRU has revenues of $188m and League pulls about, let`s say $30m, it would suggest that there is a fair scope for Rugby League to eat into their market and therefore revenue.
Especially, since unlike fumbleball, we have a proven popular product in that country, that maybe just needs better marketing and planning around it to make that incursion.

NZRU gets $80mill from broadcast rights, but that obviously includes the high drawing internationals. How do you see RL eating into their markets?

 

[Iamback]

Interesting point of view, but given that the NZRU has revenues of $188m and League pulls about, let`s say $30m, it would suggest that there is a fair scope for Rugby League to eat into their market and therefore revenue.
Especially, since unlike fumbleball, we have a proven popular product in that country, that maybe just needs better marketing and planning around it to make that incursion.

Warriors having their own lower grades is a good start, That doubles the number of players playing for the home club

 

[Colk]

If you were serious about bringing in a second Kiwi side you need a lot more investment and to do it properly you need a good lead in time. Simply because the potential market is smaller - your options are really Wellington or Christchurch and they are not big places.

A second side probably would have had a better chance of success about 10 or so years ago when the under 20’s were still a thing.