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.

Matua

Bench
Messages
3,162
The thing with a PI side or a marketed one would be:

Is it going to be an exclusive PI side (you would only have players, staff and ownership with people of a PI background - not a fan of this idea for obvious reasons). The better way would surely be have more Kiwi sides and have them successful.
I haven't actually been advocating for a PI side at any time. As for having more Kiwis sides, we can't make one successful, not sure we deserve any more. 🤣
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
3,259
I haven't actually been advocating for a PI side at any time. As for having more Kiwis sides, we can't make one successful, not sure we deserve any more. 🤣

You make a good point about the Warriors and that would be the problem; hence why I would prefer a Perth side for the 18th side.

Give the Warriors and NZRL some support to get their pathways and structures fixed up so that when we can go there for an additional side or sides they are hitting the ground running so to speak
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
51,302
I guess it depends if a PI team ends up being more exclusive than inclusive. If it puts off more fans and sponsors than it attracts then from a purely business point of view it would make no sense.

I get your point Matua, we have a png team and a Fiji team for players on,y from those countries in second tier and that isn’t seen as excluding people so not sure why this would really?

yeh we have to get a national metro footprint In Aus before we start looking at other countries imo.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
3,259
I guess it depends if a PI team ends up being more exclusive than inclusive. If it puts off more fans and sponsors than it attracts then from a purely business point of view it would make no sense.

I get your point Matua, we have a png team and a Fiji team for players on,y from those countries in second tier and that isn’t seen as excluding people so not sure why this would really?

yeh we have to get a national metro footprint In Aus before we start looking at other countries imo.

In a perfect world you’d bring in Perth, maybe have a team relocate to Adelaide and decide whether you want two or three sides out of NZ.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
51,302
Ideally we’d go WC Pirates next. Then Adelaide Bears, then South Brisbane Firehawks. Aim for that in next ten - 15 years.
That gives the nrl a national footprint way above and beyond afl and will see our revenue go through the roof.
When we are as rich as afl we could look to subsidising a nz2 and png team. That would be awesome if we could achieve that before I cark it!
 

Matiunz

Juniors
Messages
34
I haven't actually been advocating for a PI side at any time. As for having more Kiwis sides, we can't make one successful, not sure we deserve any more. 🤣
Big problem is the perception that the Warriors ‘have the pick of talent of a whole country’. Reality is Warriors are just one of 16 teams scouting talent in NZ, with league essentially being a niche sport in NZ many young players from an already small pool will go to a more entrenched system in Australian schools and then flow into their associated clubs.
Need to firmly establish age grade pathways and aim to keep majority of talent and NZ could easily support a 2nd team, problem is where to base it with the second and third largest cities not really big enough(albeit larger of comparable to Newcastle,Canberra,Townsville and Goldcoast) to support them by themselves but too far away from each other to form a combined team.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,714
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).
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
5,714
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.
BTW, you didn't read me wrong.

I think the NRL has totally failed the grassroots here, in NZ, in the PI's, and anywhere else that my be relevant for decades now, and that they could, and should, be doing significantly more where possible.

However, doing more in the grassroots doesn't necessitate racially, or for that matter ethnically, exclusive clubs and teams. If anything IMO allowing racially and ethnically exclusive clubs will only hurt the goal of supporting the grassroots and growth of the sport, not to mention society more broadly, in the long run, and I have very good reasons to believe that.

Whether it be segregated leagues/teams in the USA and other colonial countries in the past, ethnic soccer clubs around the world, or many of the other plentiful examples from around the world that you can read up on yourself, these sorts of idea always lead to tragedy sooner or later.

A lot of my thinking on this is informed by first hand experience of these sorts of ideas leading to terrible outcomes, and trust me, we don't want games deteriorating into racial conflict, or young kids being attacked in the street because they happened to be wearing the wrong footy jersey when something happened on the other side of world.
 
Last edited:

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,349
Cheers Flippikat. So the idea of a PI side could only really take place in Auckland?

We are better off aiming eventually for three Kiwi sides - Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch or Auckland x 2 and Christchurch
Well, I'm not saying a PI side could only work in Auckland, but the numbers are more compelling than Wellington, and FAR more compelling than Christchurch (3.2% of the roughly 600k Canterbury region = roughly 19,000 people versus that roughly 42,000 in the Wellington region)

Source for Canterbury region demographics:

It's hard seeing how a 2nd Auckland club should market itself as a point of difference to the Warriors, and I fear that a 2nd team based in Auckland will split the Warriors supporter base more than bringing new fans in - PI-branded or not.

What the game really needs here IMO is a geographically distinct team, away from the Warriors turf.

A club that can GROW the game in NZ and take it to rugby union - a code that frankly is in some doldrums here. It's the perfect opportunity to add a bit more disruption to the NZ Rugby (union).

In that regard, it's really disappointing that the NRL isn't walking the talk about taking more games to NZ in respect to what the Warriors endured the last 3 years, because NOW is the perfect time to strike against NZR.
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,349
Ideally we’d go WC Pirates next. Then Adelaide Bears, then South Brisbane Firehawks. Aim for that in next ten - 15 years.
That gives the nrl a national footprint way above and beyond afl and will see our revenue go through the roof.
When we are as rich as afl we could look to subsidising a nz2 and png team. That would be awesome if we could achieve that before I cark it!
I think your roadmap for expansion is pretty much right, though that 20th team for me is a toss-up between South Brisbane, Western Corridor (Ipswich), and a 2nd NZ team.. mind you a Southern Brisbane team that has Ipswich as a feeder could be the go?

I'm unsure whether the competition can/should/will expand past 20 teams, so adding those 4 MAY make a relocation or replacement necessary for a 2nd NZ club (No, I'm not gonna guess who - that's another topic).

I guess you could say "hey let's go to 22", as you kinda hinted - and that opens up all sorts of questions as to who team 22 would be - especially since all the big Australian metro markets have a team in that scenario (would any city in AFL land be worth putting a 2nd team in?)
 

MugaB

First Grade
Messages
5,445
Well, I'm not saying a PI side could only work in Auckland, but the numbers are more compelling than Wellington, and FAR more compelling than Christchurch (3.2% of the roughly 600k Canterbury region = roughly 19,000 people versus that roughly 42,000 in the Wellington region)

Source for Canterbury region demographics:

It's hard seeing how a 2nd Auckland club should market itself as a point of difference to the Warriors, and I fear that a 2nd team based in Auckland will split the Warriors supporter base more than bringing new fans in - PI-branded or not.

What the game really needs here IMO is a geographically distinct team, away from the Warriors turf.

A club that can GROW the game in NZ and take it to rugby union - a code that frankly is in some doldrums here. It's the perfect opportunity to add a bit more disruption to the NZ Rugby (union).


In that regard, it's really disappointing that the NRL isn't walking the talk about taking more games to NZ in respect to what the Warriors endured the last 3 years, because NOW is the perfect time to strike against NZR.
Thats like saying we need a 2nd team in Melbourne or Victoria, to take it ALF... due to the 5 million population they have... doesn't mean shit if they aren't playing RL
 
Last edited:

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,349
Thats like saying we need a 2nd team in Melbourne or Victoria, to take it ALF... due to the 5 million population they have... doesn't mean shit if they aren't playing RL
I can see what you're getting at, but the key differences here are that RU is way more similar to RL than AFL is - so from a cultural viewpoint, we're "geared towards" the rugby codes here in NZ. Plus, Christchurch & Wellington already have pretty decent league scenes. Yeah, not to the extent of RU, but certainly a decent base to build from.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
3,259
Thats like saying we need a 2nd team in Melbourne or Victoria, to take it ALF... due to the 5 million population they have... doesn't mean shit if they aren't playing RL

I get what you’re saying MugaB but you are not really growing the game if you are going to places where the game is already strong. All you are doing is making the existing clubs weaker. So in essence if you are putting a team in say Christchurch or Perth for example, you are not reducing the support of the existing clubs.

It will be difficult but every option in terms of expansion has a significant challenge attached to it, whether it be support or whether it be financial viability
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,349
I get what you’re saying MugaB but you are not really growing the game if you are going to places where the game is already strong. All you are doing is making the existing clubs weaker. So in essence if you are putting a team in say Christchurch or Perth for example, you are not reducing the support of the existing clubs.

It will be difficult but every option in terms of expansion has a significant challenge attached to it, whether it be support or whether it be financial viability
Exactly.

Any club you add that's in proximity to an existing NRL club risks cannibalizing the EXISTING club's fanbase.

That can be mitigated by branding & geographic sleight of hand (eg the Dolphins somehow being both "Brisbane 2" and a Redcliffe/Sunshine Coast club), but it's still a far bigger factor than what you'd have in a new location that's nowhere near an existing NRL team.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
3,259
Exactly.

Any club you add that's in proximity to an existing NRL club risks cannibalizing the EXISTING club's fanbase.

That can be mitigated by branding & geographic sleight of hand (eg the Dolphins somehow being both "Brisbane 2" and a Redcliffe/Sunshine Coast club), but it's still a far bigger factor than what you'd have in a new location that's nowhere near an existing NRL team.

That’s why I’d much prefer a NZ 2 team based in South Island than say another Brisbane side.

Not saying another Brisbane side wouldn’t work but the Titans aren’t going well and the Dolphins haven’t kicked a ball yet. At least if you put in a second Kiwi side in, furtherest away from the Warriors you are not taking active supporters away from them and you could build a rivalry that could benefit both.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
51,302
That’s why I’d much prefer a NZ 2 team based in South Island than say another Brisbane side.

Not saying another Brisbane side wouldn’t work but the Titans aren’t going well and the Dolphins haven’t kicked a ball yet. At least if you put in a second Kiwi side in, furtherest away from the Warriors you are not taking active supporters away from them and you could build a rivalry that could benefit both.
In an Ideal world maybe, but in a world where we are $300-400mill a year behind afl in revenue we need to make our next decisions to maximise our value. 93% of the tv deal is Australian tv value. We have to get our Australian footprint right over the next two decades or we are dead in the water. Nz2 is a luxury we can’t afford right now.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
3,259
In an Ideal world maybe, but in a world where we are $300-400mill a year behind afl in revenue we need to make our next decisions to maximise our value. 93% of the tv deal is Australian tv value. We have to get our Australian footprint right over the next two decades or we are dead in the water. Nz2 is a luxury we can’t afford right now.

I agree but it comes down whether a third Brisbane side would fetch massive TV money. I get that putting Adelaide and Perth in increases it from that end but once you put them in there really is no excuse not to increase our Australian deal significantly
 

flippikat

Bench
Messages
3,349
In an Ideal world maybe, but in a world where we are $300-400mill a year behind afl in revenue we need to make our next decisions to maximise our value. 93% of the tv deal is Australian tv value. We have to get our Australian footprint right over the next two decades or we are dead in the water. Nz2 is a luxury we can’t afford right now.
Agree 100% with you on that. Perth has far more financial clout going for it than NZ 2 for that 18th spot.

A 2nd NZ team does have some selling points - particularly the help it provides with 6pm (Eastern) Friday night timeslot, BUT as far as a concentrated market of 1 million+ (nearly 2 now, right?) - we don't even come close.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
3,259
Agree 100% with you on that. Perth has far more financial clout going for it than NZ 2 for that 18th spot.

A 2nd NZ team does have some selling points - particularly the help it provides with 6pm (Eastern) Friday night timeslot, BUT as far as a concentrated market of 1 million+ (nearly 2 now, right?) - we don't even come close.

Perth is a no brainer. Big market which is expanding rapidly and different TV slot. Adelaide again is probably a bigger market than anything in NZ.

Nz 2 is still I reckon more value than a third Brisbane side
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
51,302
I agree but it comes down whether a third Brisbane side would fetch massive TV money. I get that putting Adelaide and Perth in increases it from that end but once you put them in there really is no excuse not to increase our Australian deal significantly
That will depend on how brisbane take to the dolphins. I’m not convinced they are going to fill the brisbane gap we’ve been crying out for since the demise of the crushers. Team 20 decision won’t be for 15-20 years the way nrl goes about expansion so plenty of time to see lol
 
Top