Pacific Islander owned 18th NRL club.

[Colk]

All they need to pay is 18 million to cover the cost of the new team

then the Aussie broadcasters will be pure profit as they pay for the extra games each week

Australian broadcasters aren’t going to pay a significant amount for a non Australian team. An extra NZ side should be amongst those selected if we are going to 20 teams.

 

[Wb1234]

Australian broadcasters aren’t going to pay a significant amount for a non Australian team. An extra NZ side should be amongst those selected if we are going to 20 teams.

They are paying as much for nz2 as Perth ie zero

they are paying a lot more for the ninth game however

 

[Perth Red]

If this moment in time hasnt shown that NRL needs to add the N into its title nothing will. NZ2 is a nice to have, but what we need next is the must haves. Perth then Adelaide then either Bris3 or NZ2.

 

[Foreign Legion]

rugbyleaguehub.com is under construction

rugby league's home on the internet

rugbyleaguehub.com

 

[Perth Red]

rugbyleaguehub.com is under construction

rugby league's home on the internet

rugbyleaguehub.com

paywall

 

[siv]

Broadcasters would pay a lot for the CC Bears

 

[Colk]

Broadcasters would pay a lot for the CC Bears

No they wouldn’t.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Australian broadcasters aren’t going to pay a significant amount for a non Australian team. An extra NZ side should be amongst those selected if we are going to 20 teams.

That doesn’t matter at all if NZ broadcasters are paying instead. Money is money, doesn’t matter where it’s coming from.
it’s only an issue if a team’s addition doesn’t add any extra broadcast exposure because the market is already saturated like Sydney, or it’s a market with exposure but no money like PNG.

 

[Colk]

That doesn’t matter at all if NZ broadcasters are paying instead. Money is money, doesn’t matter where it’s coming from.
it’s only an issue if a team’s addition doesn’t add any extra broadcast exposure because the market is already saturated like Sydney, or it’s a market with exposure but no money like PNG.

There is way more money potentially from Australian broadcasters than there would be from New Zealand broadcasters; hence why they are more important.

I would love a second NZ side but let’s face the facts, if we are $200m behind fumbleball and being incredibly undersold then the 18th side shouldn’t be from a market that Australian broadcasters aren’t going to care about.

 

[MugaB]

There is way more money potentially from Australian broadcasters than there would be from New Zealand broadcasters; hence why they are more important.

I would love a second NZ side but let’s face the facts, if we are $200m behind fumbleball and being incredibly undersold then the 18th side shouldn’t be from a market that Australian broadcasters aren’t going to care about.

God its become the same shit on every expansion thread, we 200 million behind alf..
Woowest me nrl... seriously give it a rest, howabout stick to the title of thread.. out of the 4 pages here only one has any info about this pasifika bid team, the rest is garbage and derailing all towards either the recent Alf broadcast, or how its perth that should be next..its the same few f**kas gibbering that tripe.. and its not even grotd for a change. fk me dead

 

[Colk]

God its become the same shit on every expansion thread, we 200 million behind alf..
Woowest me nrl... seriously give it a rest, howabout stick to the title of thread.. out of the 4 pages here only one has any info about this pasifika bid team, the rest is garbage and derailing all towards either the recent Alf broadcast, or how its perth that should be next..its the same few f**kas gibbering that tripe.. and its not even grotd for a change. fk me dead

The debate is whether we should put this side in as the next side. I say we shouldn’t because of the money it would generate, or the lack thereof but also the logistics of it. How would this work?

If it’s based on replicating the Pacific side in Super Rugby it won’t work for obvious reasons

 

[SpaceMonkey]

There is way more money potentially from Australian broadcasters than there would be from New Zealand broadcasters; hence why they are more important.

I would love a second NZ side but let’s face the facts, if we are $200m behind fumbleball and being incredibly undersold then the 18th side shouldn’t be from a market that Australian broadcasters aren’t going to care about.

That’s not a given. It all depends on the level of extra exposure an Australian team generates. A team in Adelaide gets you enhanced exposure in the SA market, not much else. That’s a market of 1.8 million.
NZ has a population of 5.1M, going on 3 times that size, but of course they already have one team, so you can effectively cut that pie in half. Still leaves you with a team per nearly 2.6m though. Which actually puts it approximately equal with WA.

 

[Colk]

That’s not a given. It all depends on the level of extra exposure an Australian team generates. A team in Adelaide gets you enhanced exposure in the SA market, not much else. That’s a market of 1.8 million.
NZ has a population of 5.1M, going on 3 times that size, but of course they already have one team, so you can effectively cut that pie in half. Still leaves you with a team per nearly 2.6m though. Which actually puts it approximately equal with WA.

NZ is great for NZ advertisers. Not so good for Australian ones. You are also comparing by person without comparing the actual economic market. I’m sorry but there is a lot more money in Western Australia and Australia in general than there is in New Zealand.

Compare also the TV deals presently. Sky are paying $30m (or thereabouts) and Australian markets are paying $400m. Also what is the Sky deal for NZ Rugby? $70m per year. That’s also for a sport which is a lot more popular than League over there. You might get another $10-15m from New Zealand for an extra side and you’ll get a lot less for a NZ side from Australian broadcasters than you would get for an Australian side.

NZ 2 will be perfect for a 19th side with maybe Brisbane or something more audacious for the 20th side. Also follows a good way of doing it - bring in a side for talent generation then the next side is a true expansion side. Rinse-repeat.

 

[Perth Red]

That doesn’t matter at all if NZ broadcasters are paying instead. Money is money, doesn’t matter where it’s coming from.
it’s only an issue if a team’s addition doesn’t add any extra broadcast exposure because the market is already saturated like Sydney, or it’s a market with exposure but no money like PNG.

Nz pays about 7% of total deal. You think they’re going to significantly close the gap?? they’ve basically paid the same amount for a decade and only upped it this time due to sparks competition, and we still don’t know how much of that $12.4mill increase is cash. perth and Adelaide is where future value lies for the game.

as for the idea of a Pacifica team, do people identify themselves as that? From what I’ve seen there seems to be a fair bit of tribal rivalry between Samoa and Tonga!

 

[Matua]

Nz pays about 7% of total deal. You think they’re going to significantly close the gap?? they’ve basically paid the same amount for a decade and only upped it this time due to sparks competition, and we still don’t know how much of that $12.4mill increase is cash. perth and Adelaide is where future value lies for the game.

as for the idea of a Pacifica team, do people identify themselves as that? From what I’ve seen there seems to be a fair bit of tribal rivalry between Samoa and Tonga!

The Pasifika team in Super rugby doesn't have problem with Samoan and Tongan rivalry. I don't think it exists in sport like it does in some lower socio economic settings.

I'm genuinely surprised that Sky pays $30m for the league each year, I think a lot of that is due to legacy (Sky was saved in the early 90s by the Winfield Cup before rugby went professional) but I think it's generous. Most of my NZ domiciled mates barely watch regularly anymore and it's not the NRL that's driving their Sky retention.

 

[Colk]

The Pasifika team in Super rugby doesn't have problem with Samoan and Tongan rivalry. I don't think it exists in sport like it does in some lower socio economic settings.

I'm genuinely surprised that Sky pays $30m for the league each year, I think a lot of that is due to legacy (Sky was saved in the early 90s by the Winfield Cup before rugby went professional) but I think it's generous. Most of my NZ domiciled mates barely watch regularly anymore and it's not the NRL that's driving their Sky retention.

Exactly. The idea that we are going to rinse much more money out of Sky is optimistic. Nonetheless, I still think that the game should do it because of the potential for more talent coming in from New Zealand and the fact that unlike something like PNG, it could actually sustain itself

 

[Iamback]

That doesn’t matter at all if NZ broadcasters are paying instead. Money is money, doesn’t matter where it’s coming from.
it’s only an issue if a team’s addition doesn’t add any extra broadcast exposure because the market is already saturated like Sydney, or it’s a market with exposure but no money like PNG.

Him and his dumb shit mate from Perth. Are obsessed with Australian Networks paying what AFL got.

Who cares, money is money NRL on FTA in NZ is a good step to help with that

 

[Iamback]

The Pasifika team in Super rugby doesn't have problem with Samoan and Tongan rivalry. I don't think it exists in sport like it does in some lower socio economic settings.

I'm genuinely surprised that Sky pays $30m for the league each year, I think a lot of that is due to legacy (Sky was saved in the early 90s by the Winfield Cup before rugby went professional) but I think it's generous. Most of my NZ domiciled mates barely watch regularly anymore and it's not the NRL that's driving their Sky retention.

Have they confirmed how much Sky is paying?
Did Spark bid? Losing the cricket would of been a wake up call for Sky

 

[Matua]

Have they confirmed how much Sky is paying?
Did Spark bid? Losing the cricket would of been a wake up call for Sky

Not sure, I'm just going from comments in the thread, and on the forum during other discussions.

 

[flippikat]

That’s not a given. It all depends on the level of extra exposure an Australian team generates. A team in Adelaide gets you enhanced exposure in the SA market, not much else. That’s a market of 1.8 million.
NZ has a population of 5.1M, going on 3 times that size, but of course they already have one team, so you can effectively cut that pie in half. Still leaves you with a team per nearly 2.6m though. Which actually puts it approximately equal with WA.

On terms of "slicing the total population in half", that's technically the truth, but Perth offers the advantage that about 2 million people live in the greater Perth area - a concentration that NZ just can't match.