New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Iamback]

I am shocked at shit teams not getting FTA coverage.

Next you will tell me that water is wet

 

[Colk]

I am shocked at shit teams not getting FTA coverage.

Next you will tell me that water is wet

Are Cowboys, Raiders and Sharks c*** teams? Your analysis is way too simplistic.

 

[Iamback]

Are Cowboys, Raiders and Sharks c*** teams? Your analysis is way too simplistic.

When the draw was done based on 2021 table they ran

15th, 10th and 9th.

2023 FTA games

Brisbane Broncos - 13
Sydney Roosters - 13
Melbourne Storm - 13
Parramatta Eels - 12
Penrith Panthers - 12
South Sydney Rabbitohs - 12
Manly Sea Eagles - 12
Cronulla Sharks - 11
North Queensland Cowboys - 11
St George Illawarra Dragons - 10
The Dolphins - 10
Wests Tigers - 9
Canberra Raiders - 8
Canterbury Bulldogs - 7
Newcastle Knights - 6
Gold Coast Titans - 4
New Zealand Warriors - 2

Dolphins have the novelty factor
Manly were bad due to no Tom Turbo so are an outlier

Remember ch9 choose what is expected to be the 2 best games of the round. The numbers get skewed by Dragons being on ANZAC Day and Dogs on Good Friday. A few others too, Like the Broncs v Cows is always on FTA. Generally though it is top 8 teams for the Thurs and late Friday night

Warriors are hurt by timezone, Perth also would only realistically have away games on ch9

 

[Matua]

The problem with these figures is some clubs got more games on Ch9 than others. The bottom five clubs got the least games on Ch9. The ones at the top got the most.

This article proves it.

Which NRL team has the most free-to-air games in 2022?

NRL games are split over free-to-air and subscription services, though they aren’t shared equally. So which teams benefit the most in 2022?

www.finder.com.au

Club	Ch9 Games	Foxtel Exclusive Games
Broncos	17	7
Panthers	13	11
Roosters	13	11
Rabbitohs	13	11
Storm	12	12
Eels	12	12
Sea Eagles	12	12
Knights	11	13
Dragons	10	14
Tigers	9	15
Sharks	8	16
Cowboys	8	16
Raiders	8	16
Titans	7	17
Bulldogs	5	19
Warriors	2	22

So if we combine this post with the post above from 2016-2019 then we really aren't clear how big a draw card the Warriors are TV ratings wise as they had a high average back then (but we don't know off how many games) and they only got 2 games in 2022.

 

[westerntiger]

We're getting 9 FTA games? How is that even possible?

 

[Wb1234]

When the draw was done based on 2021 table they ran

15th, 10th and 9th.

2023 FTA games

Brisbane Broncos - 13
Sydney Roosters - 13
Melbourne Storm - 13
Parramatta Eels - 12
Penrith Panthers - 12
South Sydney Rabbitohs - 12
Manly Sea Eagles - 12
Cronulla Sharks - 11
North Queensland Cowboys - 11
St George Illawarra Dragons - 10
The Dolphins - 10
Wests Tigers - 9
Canberra Raiders - 8
Canterbury Bulldogs - 7
Newcastle Knights - 6
Gold Coast Titans - 4
New Zealand Warriors - 2

Dolphins have the novelty factor
Manly were bad due to no Tom Turbo so are an outlier

Remember ch9 choose what is expected to be the 2 best games of the round. The numbers get skewed by Dragons being on ANZAC Day and Dogs on Good Friday. A few others too, Like the Broncs v Cows is always on FTA. Generally though it is top 8 teams for the Thurs and late Friday night

Warriors are hurt by timezone, Perth also would only realistically have away games on ch9

Dogs getting ripped off big time

 

[Iamback]

We're getting 9 FTA games? How is that even possible?

Most are Sunday games

 

[Iamback]

Dogs getting ripped off big time

Not really, Have to win some games to get on prime time

 

[The Great Dane]

Semantics chuckles

gws plays games in two different states of Australia

It's not semantics, you're just full of shit.

Trying to compare clubs like GWS that sell a handful of games at most to a single city/region, to a club that would split it's home between 4 of the top 5 major cities in a country, is just insane. They're simply not comparable.

Firstly I doubt any of those cities would willingly share a club anymore than the major cities in Australia would, and I'm even more doubtful that they'd pay for the right to do so, so there goes the comparison to the GWS/Canberra relationship, or other similar ones, straight away. But you're also completely ignoring cultural differences between each of those cities/regions.

My comparison earlier of a person suggesting a team that split games between the four major capitals of Australia outside of Sydney was apt. That's basically the equivalent of what you're suggesting for NZ, and results would be just as disastrous.

I could see a team that's based in either Wellington or Christchurch that sells a couple of their home games to the highest bidder working (like GWS BTW), but a team that tries to juggle 4 major markets would end up with so much internal conflict, and such a confused identity, that it'd completely f**k the club from the get go. I mean look at the Tigers; they struggle to juggle the interests of their fanbase and they're only splitting games between three stadiums in the same city. Your proposed club would have similar issues to theirs, but with more complexity and on a larger scale.

 

[The Great Dane]

Not really, Have to win some games to get on prime time

That's been proven to be BS time and time again over the years.

The teams with the highest ratings generally get the better TV slots regardless of their success on the pitch, and a large part of the reason why they get better ratings is that they have higher amounts of exposure.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy; higher exposure makes it easier for them grow their fanbase, which then leads to higher ratings, which then justifies them getting better TV slots, which leads to more exposure, which continues on and on in an endless cycle.

Take the Broncos for example. They could be dreadful for years, and they'll still get better than their share of FTA games.

It's actually a real problem for the game, but they don't have the cojones to back themselves and demand a more equitable split of broadcasting slots for their clubs.

 

[ground zero]

Which just proves that Aussie TV doesn't want another NZ team. They don't want it, so they wont fund it. No chance at all of a second NZ team in the near future

should off said bottom 6 includes the sharks then

 

[Wb1234]

It's not semantics, you're just full of shit.

Trying to compare clubs like GWS that sell a handful of games at most to a single city/region, to a club that would split it's home between 4 of the top 5 major cities in a country, is just insane. They're simply not comparable.

Firstly I doubt any of those cities would willingly share a club anymore than the major cities in Australia would, and I'm even more doubtful that they'd pay for the right to do so, so there goes the comparison to the GWS/Canberra relationship, or other similar ones, straight away. But you're also completely ignoring cultural differences between each of those cities/regions.

My comparison earlier of a person suggesting a team that split games between the four major capitals of Australia outside of Sydney was apt. That's basically the equivalent of what you're suggesting for NZ, and results would be just as disastrous.

I could see a team that's based in either Wellington or Christchurch that sells a couple of their home games to the highest bidder working (like GWS BTW), but a team that tries to juggle 4 major markets would end up with so much internal conflict, and such a confused identity, that it'd completely f**k the club from the get go. I mean look at the Tigers; they struggle to juggle the interests of their fanbase and they're only splitting games between three stadiums in the same city. Your proposed club would have similar issues to theirs, but with more complexity and on a larger scale.

No other city other than Auckland can support an nrl side full time

either share it around or have no team

I know which you’ll pick lol

in the real world where things aren’t always ideal a team based out of Christchurch and playing one or two games out of those other centres works fine for me

by playing in more cities they get more potential for fans

 

[Wb1234]

That's been proven to be BS time and time again over the years.

The teams with the highest ratings generally get the better TV slots regardless of their success on the pitch, and a large part of the reason why they get better ratings is that they have higher amounts of exposure.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy; higher exposure makes it easier for them grow their fanbase, which then leads to higher ratings, which then justifies them getting better TV slots, which leads to more exposure, which continues on and on in an endless cycle.

Take the Broncos for example. They could be dreadful for years, and they'll still get better than their share of FTA games.

It's actually a real problem for the game, but they don't have the cojones to back themselves and demand a more equitable split of broadcasting slots for their clubs.

I knew you would use the broncos as an example to make a bad argument

their ratings have tanked anyway

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Cowboys only have nine games on Ch9 this year. Broncos have 13.
2023 Allocation of Games

CLUB	Ch9	Foxtel
Broncos	13	11
Bulldogs	7	17
Cowboys	9	15
Dolphins	10	14
Dragons	10	14
Eels	12	12
Knights	7	17
Panthers	12	12
Rabbitohs	12	12
Raiders	8	16
Roosters	13	11
Sea Eagles	12	12
Sharks	11	13
Storm	13	11
Tigers	9	15
Titans	4	20
Warriors	2	22

 

[Gobsmacked]

The average population currently supporting an NRL club is around
250k... Cronulla, Manly, Penrith ect..
An area like Wellington, Christchurch at around 400k works , actually the perfect size for an NRL club on their own.
A " Southern " tag just makes it easy for people outside the chosen city to support them for TV viewing.
The Southern Orcas works perfectly.
If anyone can recall they were in close competition with the Gold Coast for the 16th franchise.
What's happened since then... The Gold Coast are no longer thier competition and the TV money has gone up 70% in NZ .

New Zealand 2 is an obvious choice.

O we have a few people on a relatively unknown forum advocating against it.
So it's probably not going to happen because PV an Andrew Abdo have been swayed by Perth Red and Te ka ...

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

To get an idea of how Sydney-centric the draw is, here's a breakdown of how many Sydney teams will feature on Ch9 each week.

Round	Sydney Teams on Ch9
Round 1	3/6
Round 2	3/6
Round 3	6/6
Round 4	2/6
Round 5	4/6
Round 6	4/8
Round 7	4/6
Round 8	7/8
Round 9	4/6
Round 10	3/6
Round 11	4/6
Round 12	4/6
Round 13	3/6
Round 14	1/4
Round 15	3/6
Round 16	3/4
Round 17	2/4
Round 18	5/6
Round 19	3/6
Round 20	2/4
Round 21	5/6
Round 22	2/6
Round 23	4/6
Round 24	5/8
Round 25	5/8
Round 26	3/8
Round 27	4/8

Out of 82 games on Ch9 in 2023, 94 of the 164 teams (57%) involved in them will be from Sydney.

Warriors will feature in just 2 (1.2%).

 

[Pippen94]

Cowboys only have nine games on Ch9 this year. Broncos have 13.
2023 Allocation of Games

CLUB	Ch9	Foxtel
Broncos	13	11
Bulldogs	7	17
Cowboys	9	15
Dolphins	10	14
Dragons	10	14
Eels	12	12
Knights	7	17
Panthers	12	12
Rabbitohs	12	12
Raiders	8	16
Roosters	13	11
Sea Eagles	12	12
Sharks	11	13
Storm	13	11
Tigers	9	15
Titans	4	20
Warriors	2	22

That's funny; I thought fox wanted broncos more on their broadcasts?!

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

That's funny; I thought fox wanted broncos more on their broadcasts?!

They do. Last year the Broncos played 17 games on Ch9. This year the number is down to 13.

 

[The Great Dane]

No other city other than Auckland can support an nrl side full time

either share it around or have no team

I know which you’ll pick lol

in the real world where things aren’t always ideal a team based out of Christchurch and playing one or two games out of those other centres works fine for me

by playing in more cities they get more potential for fans

Both Christchurch and Wellington could support teams. Yes they'd be smaller clubs than average, but it could be done with the right backing, good local partners, and a strong long term business plan. There're potentially other markets in NZ that could support clubs as well, but I wouldn't suggest attempting them before the other two.

But let's accept your premise for sake of argument; if it is true that only Auckland can support an NRL side then that's just the way it is, and more sides in NZ wouldn't be feasible.

What works for you is irrelevant, and the reality is that no amount of marketing spin is going to get Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Hamilton to truly 'share' the one club. Inevitably what would end happening is one of those markets would turn out to be the most lucrative, and would become the club's target audience out of necessity, and the rest would either be abandoned or left with token representation, which would inevitably offend the sensibilities of the potential audience for the sport in those markets.

 

[The Great Dane]

I knew you would use the broncos as an example to make a bad argument

their ratings have tanked anyway

They are the obvious example. They've finished in the bottom eight three years in a row (one of those a spoon and another bottom four), but I'm pretty sure that they've still had the most/equal most FTA games each season.

But there're plenty of other examples of clubs whose results on the pitch can be bad or up and down but maintain a reasonably steady share of FTA games, and others whom have to beg for better timeslots no matter what they do.