Prediction poll - who will get the 18th team?

[Perth Red]

Sure mate. Expansion more than payed for itself at worse. If what you are saying is true & thats a big if then FTA isn't getting extra Brisbane content. 3rd Brisbane might be on cards

Depends, if fox don’t want to show the dolphins then nine could get two brisbane fta games a week compared to their current one most weekends. I expect broncos fta will be cut by 50% and dolphins will be on fta for 75% of their games. unless they’re shthouse lol.

next season broncos are on fta 17 out of 24 rounds. Say that goes down to 8 in ‘23 and dolphins are on 16 out of 24 then nine get a brisbane increase of 7 games overall.

if dolphins draw same as broncos will be Interesting to see, titans dont.

 

[Perth Red]

Z team they have to be based on the South Island - Christchurch - for a North ( Warriors) vs South Island ( Orcas or whatever they will be called) rivalry - No use them playing some games in Christchurch and some in Wellington and be half North and Half South.

Other Contenders would be the 2 QLD ones that missed out for the 17th team bid ( best to combine the bid I sugges.

The issue with the NZ2 side is that the Warriors have not delivered on a regular basis since they came into the league in 1995 and Rugby is far away the dominant football code- will this improve the game in NZ and the performances of the 2 NZ teams including attracting more players to the game, more interest and sponsorship etc.

Perth will be hard as WA is rusted on AFL and Rugby is more popular than League as well - More likely to have a better chance of getting a foot in the door in the WA sporting market if a team was relocated than start one from scratch.

Central Coast would be an option but the Bears will need to be based in and play home games mostly in Gosford and not some half and half arrangement of dual bases and splitting games between North Sydney and Gosford.

It would End up somewhat as dysfunctional as Wests Tigers with 3 factions (Balmain/Wests Ashfield who own 90% of the JV/ Macarthur Wests Tigers who the other two factions ignore) not on the same page when everyone can see that they should be based in Campbelltown and play home games mostly at a re-furbished Campbelltown Stadium

What makes you say that re perth? We have a very good record of getting string Attendances at all sports. Basketball avg’s more than some nrl teams, glory are mid table for attendances, force in their hey day gig 20k plus, NRL games gets strong crowds, big bash is very popular with 20k p,is crowds. Sure afl is number one by a long way but being a city of over 2 million means other sports have strong supporter bases here.
relocation will on,y work here if it is a club owned by perth people, not some east coast parachuted in failed venture still run by a pokie den in suburban sydney.

 

[The Great Dane]

I wouldn’t mind the South Island whatevers & the Warriors to change name to North Island Warriors.

I don't claim to be an expert but it's my understanding that the big rivalry in NZ is Auckland vs everybody else, not north island vs south island.

So if the goal is to create a strong rivalry between the two clubs then playing into that Auckland vs the rest dynamic by rebranding the Warriors back to the Auckland Warriors and playing up their Auckland heritage makes sense.

In an ideal world you'd then try to position the new club as the club for the rest of New Zealand, though that probably isn't realistic in practice given the last 25 years of the Warriors acting as the de facto NZ club in the NRL, so your best bet is probably to break the Warriors monopoly by picking a well defined target audience and running with it.

 

[marshall stalin]

What makes you say that re perth? We have a very good record of getting string Attendances at all sports. Basketball avg’s more than some nrl teams, glory are mid table for attendances, force in their hey day gig 20k plus, NRL games gets strong crowds, big bash is very popular with 20k p,is crowds. Sure afl is number one by a long way but being a city of over 2 million means other sports have strong supporter bases here.
relocation will on,y work here if it is a club owned by perth people, not some east coast parachuted in failed venture still run by a pokie den in suburban sydney.

It looks likely they want a second NZ team as the 18th team - Other contenders would be the QLD consortium's , Central Coast and Perth.

I would say that if they went to a 20 team comp there would be another QLD team as the 19th team with the 20th team out of Central Coast or Perth

Central Coast are unfairly lumped into the Sydney market under the so called Greater Sydney catchment.

Greater Sydney is deemed as as the circle which includes Central Coast/ Blue Mountains/Macarthur and Wollongong to Shellharbour.

So what is the difference between Greater Sydney, Metropolitan Sydney and Regional NSW?

Check out these maps of Greater Sydney,Metropolitan Sydney and Regional NSW.

www.timeout.com

People living in the Central Coast/Blue Mountains/Macarthur and Wollonging to Shellharbour dont think of themselves as Sydney Siders though.

 

[marshall stalin]

Not having a go mate but what’s wrong with calling them the Auckland warriors and Christchurch(insert nickname)?

I think changing the names to North Island Warriors and South Island Orcas is a good idea. Not everyone lives in Auckland or Christchurch - it would be all encompassing and the buzz word "Inclusive".

You don't want a situation of what happens in Tasmania the issue between Hobart and Launceston and where Tasmania teams should be based ,play and be called.

Warriors have changed their name previously from Auckland to New Zealand Warriors in any case.

 

[Colk]

It looks likely they want a second NZ team as the 18th team - Other contenders would be the QLD consortium's , Central Coast and Perth.

I would say that is they went to a 20 team comp there would be another QLD team as the 19th team with the 20th team out of Central Coast or Perth

Central Coast are unfairly lumped into the Sydney market under the so called Greater Sydney catchment.

Greater Sydney is deemed as as the circle which includes Central Coast/ Blue Mountains/Macarthur and Wollongong to Shellharbour.

So what is the difference between Greater Sydney, Metropolitan Sydney and Regional NSW?

Check out these maps of Greater Sydney,Metropolitan Sydney and Regional NSW.

www.timeout.com

People living in the Central Coast/Blue Mountains/Macarthur and Wollonging to Shellharbour dont think of themselves as Sydney Siders though.

Doesn’t really matter. NSW doesn’t need another side. The only reason why Central Coast would ever be considered is if one of the Sydney sides were to die out and even then another side in NSW shouldn’t be the priority

 

[marshall stalin]

Doesn’t really matter. NSW doesn’t need another side. The only reason why Central Coast would ever be considered is if one of the Sydney sides were to die out and even then another side in NSW shouldn’t be the priority

If they have the business plan they should be considered though - the long term viability of the club is the number one priority I would say as they wouldn't want a new club that folds in a few years.

Any new club needs to be areas where there is support for the team and the game - does Perth have the support or even NZ especially for a second team?

I know the NRL are keen on a second team in NZ but they need to be careful as after all Rugby is far and away the number one football code and will there be the corporate support in NZ for a second team not withstanding they will be in competition for the corporate dollar from the various super Rugby franchises and Rugby in general along with Cricket , Football, Basketball, Netball and Baseball - limited corporate dollars.

NZ have done will in Cricket the past few years in making the final of both the ODI and T20 World cups and winning ICC Test Championship this year defeating India by 9 wickets at Lords - Their corporate sponsorship dollars are increasing as the Corporate's love to be attached to successful sides.

The NZ Warriors haven't exactly set the world on fire and have had numerous owners during their short life - 1995

 

[Colk]

If they have the business plan they should be considered though - the long term viability of the club is the number one priority I would say as they wouldn't want a new club that folds in a few years.

Any new club needs to be areas where there is support for the team and the game - does Perth have the support or even NZ especially for a second team?

I know the NRL are keen on a second team in NZ but they need to be careful as after all Rugby is far and away the number one football code and will there be the corporate support in NZ for a second team not withstanding they will be in competition for the corporate dollar from the various super Rugby franchises and Rugby in general along with Cricket , Football, Basketball, Netball and Baseball - limited corporate dollars.

NZ have done will in Cricket the past few years in making the final of both the ODI and T20 World cups and winning ICC Test Championship this year defeating India by 9 wickets at Lords - Their corporate sponsorship dollars are increasing as the Corporate's love to be attached to successful sides.

The NZ Warriors haven't exactly set the world on fire and have had numerous owners during their short life - 1995

Firstly there would be little corporate support for a team in the Central Coast. The Central Coast Mariners have been on death’s door a few times and this is in a competition with much smaller cost base.

Then you have to argue the need for a team on the Central Coast. Whilst there is a strong following for league in the area you can’t argue that there is a lack of access to the competition relative to its popularity like for example Brisbane where you had essentially one side and two in the South East Qld. You have essentially 10 other sides within a 100-150km radius so it is not like a person can’t attend games or a junior in the area shouldn’t have difficulty picking up a contract if they are good enough.

Lastly, the whole point of any expansion should be to make the game accessible to people that it is currently inaccessible to. For example, introducing the game to the South Island or WA for example makes sense, people who want to actively follow or participate in the game are essentially unable to. They can watch the game (if they have paytv) but they can’t attend the game and if they have any talent, they can’t really pursue anything in the NRL unless they want to move interstate or to Australia.

Again, I’m not saying that it won’t happen but it would be incredibly daft if they did.

 

[The Great Dane]

I think changing the names to North Island Warriors and South Island Orcas is a good idea. Not everyone lives in Auckland or Christchurch - it would be all encompassing and the buzz word "Inclusive".

You don't want a situation of what happens in Tasmania the issue between Hobart and Launceston and where Tasmania teams should be based ,play and be called.

Warriors have changed their name previously from Auckland to New Zealand Warriors in any case.

You can keep repeating this all you like, but like I said before North Island vs South Island isn't the major cultural divide in NZ, Auckland vs the rest is. So if the goal is to create as strong a competitive rivalry between the two teams as possible, which it should be, then surely playing into that divide is the best way of going about it.

Besides Calling the teams North Island and South Island is creating the exact Tasmania style situation that you proclaim to be trying to avoid.
North Island and South Island are such large and diverse markets that no singular team could truly represent them. In other words the teams would end up being North Island and South Island in name only and would effectively become de facto teams for their home cities, and no matter what you call the teams on average people from e.g. Dunedin aren't going to actively support a team based in e.g. Christchurch en masse and vice versa.

 

[cumbrian Mackem]

I don't claim to be an expert but it's my understanding that the big rivalry in NZ is Auckland vs everybody else, not north island vs south island.

So if the goal is to create a strong rivalry between the two clubs then playing into that Auckland vs the rest dynamic by rebranding the Warriors back to the Auckland Warriors and playing up their Auckland heritage makes sense.

In an ideal world you'd then try to position the new club as the club for the rest of New Zealand, though that probably isn't realistic in practice given the last 25 years of the Warriors acting as the de facto NZ club in the NRL, so your best bet is probably to break the Warriors monopoly by picking a well defined target audience and running with it.

That’s what I’m led to believe as well with the main rivalry in rugby Union being that of Auckland v Canterbury which could easily be transferred into rugby league as well.

 

[cumbrian Mackem]

I think changing the names to North Island Warriors and South Island Orcas is a good idea. Not everyone lives in Auckland or Christchurch - it would be all encompassing and the buzz word "Inclusive".

You don't want a situation of what happens in Tasmania the issue between Hobart and Launceston and where Tasmania teams should be based ,play and be called.

Warriors have changed their name previously from Auckland to New Zealand Warriors in any case.

This just strikes me of a trying to please everyone but only end up pleasing no one situation.

Something that I fear will happen with the dolphins.

 

[Perth Red]

Looking at the warriors membership numbers I’m not sure the buy in from the country is that great tbf.

 

[RL The greatest game]

Doesn’t really matter. NSW doesn’t need another side. The only reason why Central Coast would ever be considered is if one of the Sydney sides were to die out and even then another side in NSW shouldn’t be the priority

I would love the Bears to rejoin the comp and play out of the CC

 

[Colk]

I would love the Bears to rejoin the comp and play out of the CC

If they are going to rejoin the competition they shouldn’t do it out of CC. We already have too many NSW sides

 

[Perth Red]

Why the love for the bears and not the jets to rejoin? is it just a generation thing, ie you can remember the bears being in first grade but not Newtown? In which case it’s a pretty flimsy reason to advocate their readmission.

 

[The Great Dane]

Why the love for the bears and not the jets to rejoin? is it just a generation thing, ie you can remember the bears being in first grade but not Newtown? In which case it’s a pretty flimsy reason to advocate their readmission.

That's exactly what it is; nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses.

 

[cumbrian Mackem]

That's exactly what it is; nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses.

wouldn’t a bears side representing north Sydney playing out of the north Sydney oval be better for Sydney and the NRL than a suburban and hard to get to manly?

 

[The Great Dane]

wouldn’t a bears side representing north Sydney playing out of the north Sydney oval be better for Sydney and the NRL than a suburban and hard to get to manly?

Whether or not the Bears would be better for Sydney and the sport than Manly is highly debatable at this point.

If we are talking about 20 years ago, i.e. Manly folds and the Bears take over the Northern Eagles license in 03, then yeah it probably would have been a better outcome. Then again I'm extremely biased when it comes to this subject, and it's all academic anyway because both that scenario and the Bears replacing Manly in the NRL today are impossible. Can't and won't happen.

One thing is for sure though, the best most realistic outcome at this point would be for Manly to take up the mantle as "the North Sydney team", but they haven't shown any real interest in doing that and the Bears and NSWRL would do everything in their power to try and prevent it from happening.

 

[cumbrian Mackem]

Whether or not the Bears would be better for Sydney and the sport than Manly is highly debatable at this point.

If we are talking about 20 years ago, i.e. Manly folds and the Bears take over the Northern Eagles license in 03, then yeah it probably would have been a better outcome. Then again I'm extremely biased when it comes to this subject, and it's all academic anyway because both that scenario and the Bears replacing Manly in the NRL today are impossible. Can't and won't happen.

One thing is for sure though, the best most realistic outcome at this point would be for Manly to take up the mantle as "the North Sydney team", but they haven't shown any real interest in doing that and the Bears and NSWRL would do everything in their power to try and prevent it from happening.

For me it just seems a shame that the north Sydney region isn’t represented in the NRL compared to western Sydney and southern Sydney.

Got to admit I’ve a soft spot for the bears because of their unique stadium and players like Brett Dallas and Gary Larson who I watched as a kid on uk tv.

incidentally what’s the population of north Sydney mate?

 

[The Great Dane]

For me it just seems a shame that the north Sydney region isn’t represented in the NRL compared to western Sydney and southern Sydney.

That's just the thing; North Sydney is represented in the NRL, it's just that the team representing them doesn't do a very good job it.

Besides Western Sydney is much larger than North Sydney, and all three of Western Sydney, South Sydney, and Eastern Sydney are overrepresented in the NRL.

Got to admit I’ve a soft spot for the bears because of their unique stadium and players like Brett Dallas and Gary Larson who I watched as a kid on uk tv.

incidentally what’s the population of north Sydney mate?

I'd guesstimate somewhere between 1-2mil, maybe little more.

It really depends on how you are defining North Sydney.