Christchurch you kind of limit the supporter base to the South Island as I’d image the other 4m North Islanders would likely stick with the North Island team?
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Christchurch you kind of limit the supporter base to the South Island as I’d image the other 4m North Islanders would likely stick with the North Island team?
Haha business really isnt your strong point is it? Half the crowd would already have paid as members. So let’s say 20k paying at gate an avg $50 that’s $1mill. It costs $400k to rent the stadium for that extra game. With corporate sales be lucky to have been worth $1mill once costs taken out.
Interesting you keep parroting ‘losing ABs’ but they have both a higher recent and historical win % than your ‘best rugby team Kangaroos’
For years you've used the Melbourne Storm as a reason to expand into Adelaide and Perth.
Memberships would’ve gone up in price due to another derby
I think you get that with either Christchurch or South Island. Either way that team is going to get most fans on the South Island and the Warriors will keep most north of Cook Strait. But the new team would still be most people’s second team which would help with viewer numbers.
Yea that makes sense. If not Welly, then CHCH is the next logical base. And Dunedin isn't that far down the road. A handful of 'home' games indoors at Forsyth should be well supported, especially if scheduled when the uni students are in term.
Not to mention the complete disrespect shown.
Far as I know, the the CHCH pop. comfortably exceeds Hobart does it not? Likewise the broader catchment areas of the South Is/Tassie.
Christchurch is around the population of the entirety of Tasmania if you factor it as Canterbury. Total South Island is about double that of Tasmania
My bad Hobart is much less, I conflated it with the whole of Tasmania.
Auckland 2 would be a flop, there’s not really a big enough geographical tribalism in the city that you’d see in Sydney for example.
I'm 100% in agreement
The problem for me is that NZ is so decentralised that there isn't one other major centre outside Auckland that will sustain that support.
Hamilton is far enough distance, that its close to both Auckland and the BoP area, without it being too invasive to the warriors, if that goes well a Christchurch or Wellington team could come in down the line, i mean the chiefs and blues both have teams, seems like a no brainer to go there first since the bulk of NZ population is in that region of the north island
Everyone exceeds Townsville ffs... they came in in 95, and the population was 150k,
Hamilton I guess is about as close as you’d get to an ‘Auckland 2’ however it still excludes your next 2 biggest population bases of Wellington and Christchurch. Hamilton/Waikato team support would start to Peter out around Taupō effectively only catering to the northern half of the north island and an ambivalent south. You miiiight get a bit of Hawke’s Bay/Taranaki support but not many would attend regular games. Again biggest issue with NZ 2 is you have no clear and obvious base but a couple of strong albeit risky candidates
Yea no idea to be honest. There'll be the inevitable honeymoon period but whether that turns into sustained support is hard to tell.
