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!
Would love to know why News ltd changed their minds re Reds. They went all out to get them to sign with SL, including basically taking them over and throwing a load of money at them as sponsors, then a year later decided to cut them loose. I suspect the ARL had more to do with the Reds demise than News Ltd, payback for jumping ship and all that.
Murdoch never had a major stake in the Perth print media. The only reason News Ltd bailed them out in 1995 was because they needed teams for Super League. Once they got what they wanted at the end of 1997 they cut Perth loose and eventually did the same with the Rams.
www.sen.com.au
Why the f#ck do people insist on putting another NRL team in Auckland!!!The obvious choice for an 18th team, according to ex-Warriors coach Tony Kemp
"Come over here and take the game over."
I think due the population size for Auckland in comparison to the other cities and regions that are elsewhere in NZ, but yeah i agree, Wellington or Christchurch are a better idea
Wellington and Christchurch are the best choices.
Because the other options are realistically unviable unless there is a very big investor willing to prop them up.
That wouldn't be too much of an issue, don't forget if skynews is involved, and there seems to be a bit of talk about a 2nd nz team from many ex-player kiwis (talking pros &cons) but still talk regardless which could draw potential owners/bidders out, as opposed to only freddys talk regarding perth...which is only due to SoO.
From the outside looking in Auckland 2 looks the only option that maybe viable, however given the struggles of the Warriors on and off the field that is quite a gamble to introduce another club into a city where the current club isnt going great.
I didn't mean a nomadic NZ team, but Warriors take 2-3 games to Wellington Christchurch and Hamilton for example per year, as they are "NZ" or they could revert to being "Auckland" again, and having both teams float around NZ, keeping the bulk 9 games each in Auckland
Still has to pay its way which means the hosting city stumping up $200-300k cash like in other cities.
Well if they want an event then they pay, having both Auckland sides play in Auckland mostly, gives them the advantage of picking and choosing prospective areas to travel to for exhibition matches, much like penrith does for central west tablelands, and how Bathurst has become their yearly home event
‘An enormous market’: Abdo backs New Zealand for 18th NRL team
While the NRL boss insists that the Dolphins becoming competitive when they join in 2023 is paramount, there is a growing need to broaden the game’s talent pool.www.smh.com.au
Its not going play out that way, yes they want nz2, but there isn't a current viable bid, other than the older chalmers "orcas" bid, and Perth have 1-3 bids, but are better off combining under either the old reds banner or new pirates.. but again no junior talent, PNG/cairns will be 18, then Nz2, then possibility Perth, depending if they can pull finger out and compete at reserve grade level
I think the NRL are hoping that if they say "NZ will have team 18, we now call for any NZ bids" that at least 2-3 bids will come out of the woodwork, like they did with team 17 and Brisbane.
They will repeat what they did this time
