New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Gobsmacked]

I’m fine mate. If you are a fan of his utter drivel then that is your problem. Plenty agree with me. The bloke is a stain.

Just playing the man as usual. Have you heard of twitter? You'll be a star there with this shit. Now f**k off so we can talk about the game.

 

[flippikat]

I think Auckland should get the Northland region too (from Auck up to Cape Reinga). The rest of the NI should go to the Wellington Wasps.

I'm 50-50 on whether Waikato/BOP should be Warriors turf in a "2 North Island teams" scenario.

Although having Auckland/Northland v Rest of the North Island seems like a goid idea, having one Warriors game per year in Hamilton & one game in Rotorua (whether that's trial or regular season - maybe trial in Hamilton, regilar game in Rotorua) frees the Wellington based side to do likewise with New Plymouth & Napier.

Basically Warriors territory being the original Blues + Chiefs Super Rugby territory (from before Taranaki switched from Hurricanes to Chiefs) & Wellington being the Hurricanes original territory.

 

[Canard]

The Warriors and the NRL have exploded in ratings in NZ. There's a chance that they're making room for a bigger deal with the NRL but there's a decent recession in NZ which is the most likely the cause.
In any case , every cent less spent on NZRU , the more it leaves in the bank account for NRL.
Rugby trolls try and debunk basic math in 3...2...

Even the "explosion" in ratings (which are very vague at best) only puts them on par with Union doesn't it?

And I doubt any TV business would base its long term contract on one season of "good ratings".

Logic would dictate that this is a sign that the NRL deal will be lower also.

 

[SirPies&Beers]

you make a good point gobby but if sky nz spend less there and potentially more here then the overall spending is the same really and nothing changes as far as what sky pay overall for sports? id imagine they spend less there and less here to bring those overall costs/spending down no matter the sport. or is this thought of mine incorrect? i dunno

 

[Gobsmacked]

Even the "explosion" in ratings (which are very vague at best) only puts them on par with Union doesn't it?

And I doubt any TV business would base its long term contract on one season of "good ratings".

Logic would dictate that this is a sign that the NRL deal will be lower also.

Probably.
There's a steady trajectory of increased NRL exposure in NZ, not just 1 season though. Along with the addition of a woman's team this coming year.
Like I've stated many times.. throw a second NZ team in the mix and I guarantee the deal will be substantially better.

 

[Gobsmacked]

you make a good point gobby but if sky nz spend less there and potentially more here then the overall spending is the same really and nothing changes as far as what sky pay overall for sports? id imagine they spend less there and less here to bring those overall costs/spending down no matter the sport. or is this thought of mine incorrect? i dunno

Probably right. We'll see though.

 

[Wb1234]

if sky nz are paying less for rugby which has 5 super rugby teams + uber successful all blacks team then it will most likely pay less for nrl which has has 1 mediocre team and 1 in and out warriors nrlw team + 1 mediocre or should say inconsistent kiwi's team.

unless of course this is a content vs content in which nrl has more games for longer period of time than rugby does. not only about warriors but also about all nrl games as a whole. im no expert or perceive myself to be one but its interesting situation yeah?

i cants see how this downgrade of rugby tvs valuation is good for nrl.

Nrl has higher ratings

And sky nz pay 32 million vs 100 million for the union

They obviously overpaid for the union

 

[SirPies&Beers]

Nrl has higher ratings

And sky nz pay 32 million vs 100 million for the union

They obviously overpaid for the union

so lets say thats totals 132mil for both codes. id suspect the totals would be lesser this round if sky nz want to cut costs so totals might be 100mil combined and saves them 32mil. maybe just guessing

 

[Wb1234]

so lets say thats totals 132mil for both codes. id suspect the totals would be lesser this round if sky nz want to cut costs so totals might be 100mil combined and saves them 32mil. maybe just guessing

Most kiwi posters and a few of the usual suspects have been saying without spark tv the nrl tv deal was going down

Worst case it stays the same

I’ve always felt 40 million would be a decent number with nz2 being team 20

As @Gobsmacked has pointed out this is a disaster for rugby union in nz and only makes it easier for nrl to expand

If they do get cut by 50 percent their finances will be decimated

Total super rugby tv deal will be around 90 million Aussie

NRL currently 430 million rising to ???? 550 million

Union is stuffed

 

[Gobsmacked]

Most kiwi posters and a few of the usual suspects have been saying without spark tv the nrl tv deal was going down

Worst case it stays the same

I’ve always felt 40 million would be a decent number with nz2 being team 20

As @Gobsmacked has pointed out this is a disaster for rugby union in nz and only makes it easier for nrl to expand

If they do get cut by 50 percent their finances will be decimated

Total super rugby tv deal will be around 90 million Aussie

NRL currently 430 million rising to ???? 550 million

Union is stuffed

Even if the NRL deal does get cut, this is still a massive win for League..NZ being the main engine room for revenue and is in decline.. a drop from sky to the NRL is just a drop in the bucket.
Also read that 7's Rugby reported a loss..

 

[Gobsmacked]

so lets say thats totals 132mil for both codes. id suspect the totals would be lesser this round if sky nz want to cut costs so totals might be 100mil combined and saves them 32mil. maybe just guessing

I really think with the increase in NRL viewership sky has to bring Rugby back to a more even share to NRL.
As been pointed out before, there's 2 trajectories.. League is going up and Union down.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Most kiwi posters and a few of the usual suspects have been saying without spark tv the nrl tv deal was going down

Worst case it stays the same

I’ve always felt 40 million would be a decent number with nz2 being team 20

As @Gobsmacked has pointed out this is a disaster for rugby union in nz and only makes it easier for nrl to expand

If they do get cut by 50 percent their finances will be decimated

Total super rugby tv deal will be around 90 million Aussie

NRL currently 430 million rising to ???? 550 million

Union is stuffed

Sevens facing fraught future as World Series suffers multi-million dollar losses

Something must change to stop the Sevens World Series suffering massive financial losses.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[Wb1234]

Sevens facing fraught future as World Series suffers multi-million dollar losses

Something must change to stop the Sevens World Series suffering massive financial losses.

www.nzherald.co.nz

It’s happening faster than anybody thought

 

[Bobby DIGital]

I'm 50-50 on whether Waikato/BOP should be Warriors turf in a "2 North Island teams" scenario.

Although having Auckland/Northland v Rest of the North Island seems like a goid idea, having one Warriors game per year in Hamilton & one game in Rotorua (whether that's trial or regular season - maybe trial in Hamilton, regilar game in Rotorua) frees the Wellington based side to do likewise with New Plymouth & Napier.

Basically Warriors territory being the original Blues + Chiefs Super Rugby territory (from before Taranaki switched from Hurricanes to Chiefs) & Wellington being the Hurricanes original territory.

You raise a good point on Waikato/BOP as those regions are in closer proximity to Auckland. Auckland does have enough juniors compared to the rest of the NI though.

It would be cool to get a Waikato/Central NI team in the NRL one day too, and then we can just copy the Super Rugby boundaries.

 

[Gobsmacked]

It’s happening faster than anybody thought

Not me lol

 

[Canard]

Most kiwi posters and a few of the usual suspects have been saying without spark tv the nrl tv deal was going down

Worst case it stays the same

How and why can that opinion be justified?

 

[Canard]

Total super rugby tv deal will be around 90 million Aussie

NRL currently 430 million rising to ???? 550 million

From a financial perspective, wouldn't it be better to compare the operating costs of each competition?

So for example, how much money this translates to per team, and how much it translates to in per week of season?

But in the end I would hope that Australia being 5 times bigger than NZ, would have a bigger TV deal

 

[flippikat]

You raise a good point on Waikato/BOP as those regions are in closer proximity to Auckland. Auckland does have enough juniors compared to the rest of the NI though.

It would be cool to get a Waikato/Central NI team in the NRL one day too, and then we can just copy the Super Rugby boundaries.

While 3 North Island teams & 1 South Island team would be great (and could even be a conference in itself, if the NRL was super-sized), in reality it's gonna be hard enough getting to THREE NZ teams in total.

I honestly think it's likely that 2 NZ teams will be it for some time, and a 3rd in itself is a very aspirational goal.

The discussions over where that 3rd team should be based & catchment/fan base area is, will depend on that 2nd team's positioning.. and conversations closer to a 3rd team bid.

While I can see the benefit of "Auckland v the rest of the North" from a fan population/juniors balance, as far as geographical spread goes & getting the Island well represented & ESPECIALLY access to live games as an event goes, a "top half v bottom half of the north" is preferable.

 

[Wb1234]

How and why can that opinion be justified?

Are you really interested in a response or just fishing for a bite ?

I don’t mind people taking the wee out of me but it’s hard to work out when people want a serious debate or not

 

[Wb1234]

While 3 North Island teams & 1 South Island team would be great (and could even be a conference in itself, if the NRL was super-sized), in reality it's gonna be hard enough getting to THREE NZ teams in total.

I honestly think it's likely that 2 NZ teams will be it for some time, and a 3rd in itself is a very aspirational goal.

The discussions over where that 3rd team should be based & catchment/fan base area is, will depend on that 2nd team's positioning.. and conversations closer to a 3rd team bid.

While I can see the benefit of "Auckland v the rest of the North" from a fan population/juniors balance, as far as geographical spread goes & getting the Island well represented & ESPECIALLY access to live games as an event goes, a "top half v bottom half of the north" is preferable.

Warriors can barely service Auckland as it is without taking too many games from the biggest market