Red&BlackBear
First Grade
- Messages
- 5,447
NZ bids have strengths that other locations can’t compete with. I think that should be the main focus.They can't accept all the bids..
the " rejected " aren’t necessarily inadequate, rather less favourable. Some have better infrastructure , organisation or funding ect.
I'm sure that it's the Searle bids that had very heavy financial backing.
Look, you don’t like Moffett and perhaps others don't also but I won't be believing that that is the sole reason for the bids rejection. There's many nuances to this multifaceted process of which we are privy to next to nothing...
We'll just have to see how it plays out..
Or jump to conclusions lol
This whole we want to crush rugby stemming from there or AFL is taking over our neighbourhoods stemming from QLD is utter dribble.
Their bids imo should be built on promoting the fact they have amazing athletes built and conditioned for the sport that can be used to elevate the game even further both in NZ and Australia.
With a second team not only adding value from an increase to the overall player resource pool but adding rivalry to the growing Warriors franchise and adding a unique TV time slot of Saturday 1pm (AEST) or 3pm (local NZ time) that can increase Super Saturday to 4 games and potentially grow the games viewerships.
Unique geographical locations with state of the art new stadia and facilities that would be utilised. I know some of those points have been glossed over already but geez, missing a beat by not going hard with them. It instantly sells it with TV value, player pool value and rivalry value.
Last edited: