Pacific Islander owned 18th NRL club.

[Perth Red]

Big drop. You left off 1997

Thats because it would be stupid to try and get a sense of fanbase at the most extreme time the game has ever seen. Even in 1996 the game was in turmoil and the fans were sick of it. Eg. broncos went from 36k in 95 to 23k in 96 and down to 19k in 97. Fans were abandoning the game, especially in Brisbane.

1995 they were 3rd best supported team in 20 club comp
1996 they were 6th best supported club in a 20 club comp

to say they had no fans is plain stupidity

 

[Colk]

Big drop. You left off 1997

What the same year you are disregarding Sydney attendances?

 

[Pippen94]

Thats because it would be stupid to try and get a sense of fanbase at the most extreme time the game has ever seen. Even in 1996 the game was in turmoil and the fans were sick of it. Eg. broncos went from 36k in 95 to 23k in 96 and down to 19k in 97. Fans were abandoning the game, especially in Brisbane.

1995 they were 3rd best supported team in 20 club comp
1996 they were 6th best supported club in a 20 club comp

to say they had no fans is plain stupidity

Hahaha. After initial interest support fell off cliff

 

[Pippen94]

What the same year you are disregarding Sydney attendances?

No.

 

[Perth Red]

You haven’t proved anything either

Tbf you can’t prove it either way till after it happens! All you can do is look for what evidence there is that has some relevance. For me it’s:
90% of media advertising is spent in the 5 metro areas
Afl has 5 metro reach and is way ahead in its revenue from tv and advertising
logically if you’re a national company you are going to choose the sport option that gives you national exposure over one that doesn’t.

that all seems pretty logical. Before I was actually pro nz2 and wouldn’t have minded if they got in before us. But the afl deals have put things into a different space, the environment has changed drastically and I’ve changed my opinion accordingly.

 

[Perth Red]

Hahaha. After initial interest support fell off cliff

Why do you think that might have been? Do you think a game at war with itself might have played a part? Why do you think broncos fanbase fell off a cliff as well at same time? And the Reds? Do you think the rumours that started end of 96 of these clubs being cut impacted?
Do you have any analytical abilities?

 

[Pippen94]

Why do you think that might have been? Do you think a game at war with itself might have played a part? Why do you think broncos fanbase fell off a cliff as well at same time? And the Reds? Do you think the rumours that started end of 96 of these clubs being cut impacted?
Do you have any analytical abilities?

Can I make excuses or just look at numbers?! Funny warriors & cowboys still around

 

[Perth Red]

Haha. Still haven't proved metro reach is more valuable

Here’s my proof. now you tell me why you think it isn’t.

fta and media rights
afl $195mill
nrl $130mill

ptv
afl $390mill
nrl $240mill

naming rights
afl $21mill
nrl $12mill

overall revenue (2019)
afl $790mill
nrl $550mill

your turn!

 

[Pippen94]

Here’s my proof. now you tell me why you think it isn’t.

fta and media rights
afl $195mill
nrl $130mill

ptv
afl $390mill
nrl $240mill

naming rights
afl $21mill
nrl $12mill

overall revenue (2019)
afl $790mill
nrl $550mill

your turn!

No it's because afl is on oval field..

 

[Perth Red]

Can I make excuses or just look at numbers?! Funny warriors & cowboys still around

Hmm
warriors 95 26k, 97 15k
Cowboys 95 22k 97 17k

its almost like something happened between 1995 and 1997 that caused fans to leave the game!

 

[Perth Red]

No it's because afl is on oval field..

And thats it? that’s your answer? Troll.

 

[Pippen94]

And thats it? that’s your answer? Troll.

Conclusion with no evidence

 

[Perth Red]

Conclusion with no evidence

Sums you up lol. So come on I’ve given the evidence of revenue difference between one sport with full metro reach versus one without, thats why imo metro reach is number 1 priority for nrl expansion, let’s hear yours why it’s not. Don’t be shy.

 

[Colk]

No.

Well tell me what the Sydney attendances were in 97 then?

 

[Pippen94]

Well tell me what the Sydney attendances were in 97 then?

You can't find them?!

 

[Perth Red]

You can't find them?!

I think it was rhetorical lol
but I’ll play, reds where better than
penrith, Illawarra, Souths, st George and wests lol

 

[Pippen94]

I think it was rhetorical lol

Colked is pretty useless tho

 

[Colk]

Colked is pretty useless tho

You’re the one arguing against evidence

 

[Perth Red]

You’re the one arguing against evidence

I don’t think even he knows what he’s arguing lol

 

[Matua]

Let the mental gymnastics ensue...

Let me hit your major points as quickly as possible.

You are, intentionally IMO, conflating nationality, race, and ethnicity, when none of them are synonyms for each other.

Moana Pasifika will only hire "Pasifika" players. As I'm sure you are aware, that's a borderline meaningless identity that popped up in NZ that basically means all Polynesians except for Maori. Ergo anybody not a member of that racial group need not apply. The same is not true of any other Super Rugby team that has ever existed, as they have all hired based on nationality, whether they come from AUS, NZ, ZA, ARG, JPN, or FJI.

BTW, I, and frankly any other reasonable person, would still have a problem with it no matter where the team is based, just as I'd have a problem with Europa United no matter where it was based either, as the problem is the principle of the thing.

Your point about representation both blatantly dodges the point I was making and is a furphy.

I'm not intentionally conflating anything. You claimed they are a racially exclusive team. Which race do you consider MP are? Are you considering Fijians to be the same race as Samoans, Tongans, Cook Islanders? Also, they don't just hire Pasifika (whatever the definition). Furthermore, Pasifika isn't a meaningless identity just because you decide it is.

Seriously, you would have a problem with MP even if they were based in the islands? FFS, you can't say more should be done to support PIs and then reject even that.

Why is a single nationality sacrosanct but not two or more nationalities combining for reason of scale/economics? Should the West Indies exist in cricket?

As for your you and other reasonable people, the team has lots of support from reasonable people, because they're not looking at it through an identity politics lens.

So I had to look up furphy and what exactly are you claiming is a furphy?

Most of Moana Pasifika's team had already played for other Super Rugby sides, as such it's absolute nonsense to say that they weren't being represented within Super Rugby. The real issue was that they were being prevented from representing their nation of choice by Super Rugby's (and all other relevant bodies) backward eligibility rules, which forced them to declare for Australia or NZ over their nation of choice if they were to participate in Super Rugby.

Most of this paragraph is incorrect. The bulk of the MP team were not already playing for Super teams, a few had played for Super teams previously, a few had come back from overseas after extensive Super careers. The bulk of the team had not been prevented from playing for their nation of choice at all.

Super Rugby does not have backward eligibility rules. They have different rules due to the commercial realities of the sport. There is no one size fits all on how a professional sport should operate. NZ (and other countries like Ireland/Wales) suit operating top down franchise models because the economies do not suit NRL style leagues.

Name me a player you consider forced to declare for NZ over their nation of choice?

Which brings us to said eligibility rules. Your attack on RL's eligibility rules (which I agree are a disgrace BTW) is whataboutery that intentionally dodges the point I was making. That point being that the only thing RU had to do to fix this problem was to get rid of Super Rugby's backwards eligibility rules and form it into what it should have been from the start; a proper professional league that exists independently of the international tier, and is open to any player whom has an offer to participate no matter which nation they are eligible to represent.

However you and I both know that the NZRU (among many others) will never, ever, allow that to happen so long as they have the power to prevent it.

See paragraph above, there's no one right way to run a sport. And there's no obligation on any sporting league to be open to everyone. At any rate, all of the major rugby leagues have eligibility limits. Also, I attacked leagues rules because it was the pot calling the kettle black. But in the end each sport decides on their own rules.

The best way to run NZ rugby is the franchise system, the job of NZR is to run NZ rugby the best way possible. The NRL does the same in league in Australia which is why international league is nearly dead and a competition with changeable eligibility dominates the game. It is what it is.