What's new
The Front Row Forums

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!

Pacific Islander owned 18th NRL club.

Colk

Bench
Messages
4,129
Is there the fanbase and corporate support in Christchurch to generate $15million a year plus revenue in those 2 areas? Its a bit unanswerable I guess but that's realistically what teams without a pokies club are aiming for to be sustainable and have the cash to not just survive but thrive.

The same argument could be made for especially Adelaide for example and perhaps even Perth (although I would strongly disagree with the latter). Any area that doesn’t have pokies could have these accusations made against them.

Nevertheless, I think a second New Zealand side is more important than especially another Brisbane side for terms of player development.
 
Messages
7,207
No it's not.

"Pacific Island" is not a race.

If anything it's an eligibility team, like all teams in Super Rugby. It's for players from the PIs, of PI heritage, eligible for the PIs, or eligible for NZ. It's actually more open than other Super teams (Australian eligible players and Pakeha players turned out for the team).

If it was based in Samoa/Tonga then I predict you wouldn't be using these arguments against it. Do you have an issue with the Drua? I assume you had no issue with the Jaguares (which was only open to Argentinian players) or the Sunwolves (which was only open to players eligible for Japan). You only have an issue because it's based in NZ.


There's no need of those teams to exist. Pakeha NZers are well represented with accessible pro teams in NZ. On any given weekend in NZ and Oz you're likely to find teams of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds playing each other in league and rugby. It's not an issue unless you're wanting to make it one. But even so, I've played rugby against a Pakeha team before. There was no outrage. Also MP is really not discriminating against anyone. It would not exist if not created to be a PI team. If it was financially viable for the team to be based in the islands then would you have an issue with its existence?

TBH, when responding to your original post I didn't even think you were complaining about it from a "race" viewpoint. I actually thought you were suggesting we're not doing enough to help the islands. I guess I read you wrong.


Hilarious pot calling the kettle black considering league eligibility rules that allowed players to change teams on the eve of a competition, during a season, and has specific SOO rules that preference one type of Polynesian ancestry over another type of Polynesian ancestry, and over any European ancestry (to the benefit 3 or 4 countries over the rest including the most powerful and rich country in the sport).
Austronesians share a common language and can trace their ancestry back to Taiwan. Indonesians, Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians are related to one another.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,962
The same argument could be made for especially Adelaide for example and perhaps even Perth (although I would strongly disagree with the latter). Any area that doesn’t have pokies could have these accusations made against them.

Nevertheless, I think a second New Zealand side is more important than especially another Brisbane side for terms of player development.
True and Id only be looking at Adelaide as a Bears relocation to cover that. In that regards Bears in NZ would also cover that risk I suppose, well for as long as they stayed there lol
Perth has investors, govt support and we know has a decent fanbase waiting so there'd be more confidence in sustainability you'd think. Any club outside nsw and qlnd isnt going to have pokies so the NRL needs to have some strategies for how it deals with that risk.
 

Pippen94

Juniors
Messages
2,049
Is there the fanbase and corporate support in Christchurch to generate $15million a year plus revenue in those 2 areas? Its a bit unanswerable I guess but that's realistically what teams without a pokies club are aiming for to be sustainable and have the cash to not just survive but thrive.

Nz tv
 

Pippen94

Juniors
Messages
2,049
True and Id only be looking at Adelaide as a Bears relocation to cover that. In that regards Bears in NZ would also cover that risk I suppose, well for as long as they stayed there lol
Perth has investors, govt support and we know has a decent fanbase waiting so there'd be more confidence in sustainability you'd think. Any club outside nsw and qlnd isnt going to have pokies so the NRL needs to have some strategies for how it deals with that risk.

..& 50k watching on fox & kayo. Oh, wait wookie debunked ur outrageous claims..
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
4,129

That is not a really profitable avenue to be fair. They are paying what $30m p.a at this point in time. As a comparison, they pay $70m p.a for RU rights which as we know is a significantly more popular sport.

I’m all for another NZ side but you wouldn’t be doing it for the potential windfall
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,424
Canterbury Bulldogs (Christchurch). Just change colours to red and black.
Nah, that'd alienate old Bulldogs fans in Sydney.

I actually think Christchurch *could* successfully take-up the Bears brand.

Yes, it's risky, given that the traditional Canterbury province colours are red and black.. and it could be seen as yet another Cantab team, rather than a South Island or "NZ outside of Auckland" team but the mascot is a point of difference to the Canterbury Bulls Provincial team, and a third colour (say, silver for instance) could be added for trim, or on alternate jerseys.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
4,129
Nah, that'd alienate old Bulldogs fans in Sydney.

I actually think Christchurch *could* successfully take-up the Bears brand.

Yes, it's risky, given that the traditional Canterbury province colours are red and black.. but the mascot is a point of difference to the Canterbury Bulls Provincial team, and a third colour (say, silver for instance) could be added for trim, or on alternate jerseys.

In saying that I’d much prefer Keas. Such a cool brand idea
 

Pippen94

Juniors
Messages
2,049
That wont help a club unless the NRl decide to give more grant to that club than the others are getting. Good luck with that. The $15mill is what a club needs to generate above and beyond the tv grant.

It's guaranteed money. Perth will require backers like Newcastle & gold coast. NRL don't want to buy back.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,962
It's guaranteed money. Perth will require backers like Newcastle & gold coast. NRL don't want to buy back.
its revenue for the nrl, not the club. the club will get same grant as everyone and will need to generate $15mill in revenue to keep pace. can a Christchurch based club achieve that?
 

MugaB

First Grade
Messages
6,289
its revenue for the nrl, not the club. the club will get same grant as everyone and will need to generate $15mill in revenue to keep pace. can a Christchurch based club achieve that?
Is this becoming a Perth as 18th club thread again..
....or are we still spitballing the idea of the Pasifika nrl team
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
52,962
Is this becoming a Perth as 18th club thread again..
....or are we still spitballing the idea of the Pasifika nrl team
I think its a legit question we need to be asking given the NRL's current stance on not investing any thing extra in new markets. That means any new market is going to have to stand on its own and generate around $15mill a year. Its a dumb decision imo that limits the games longer term growth but it is what it is for now.
Of Wellington and Christchurch as locations for a NZ2 club which is most likely to be able to generate that sort of revenue from corporates, fans and investors?
 

Latest posts

Top