Wellington SHOULD be the next NRL team.

[flamin]

2 on the road makes 32 games per season. We probably could get by with half that.

On the topic of the thread, great crowd yesterday by the Wellingtonians. 30k+ is definitely a compelling reason to go back time and again until there's a 2nd NZ side.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Probably much easier to get more games in other area's once more ground rationalisation has been done. If you had Tigers, Bulldogs and Souths playing out of Homebush, it's not hard to give all 3 teams 12 games to members (with 2 reciprocal), plus getting say Parra playing 3 games a season their (with the same deal), so that all 3 clubs can take 3 games on the road. Souths could target Perth x2 , Bulldogs Wellington x2, and Tigers Adelaide x1, Darwin x1. With the extra fixture a country game.

You get similar things with ensuring that Dragons always play the Roosters at the SFS x2 so that the Roosters can take a game elsewhere and both sets of members get reciprocal rights to these games.

Just look at how members can still get 12 games worth in a season, while still allowing the game to grow in other areas.

 

[The Great Dane]

I think 10 home games should be enough, taking two on the road should not be that big an impact in the grand scheme of things (and may actually encourage people to attend games if there is less opportunity to do so). In the ideal model clubs would adopt a second city and have links in many different ways with the game in that city/state. For clubs like Canberra and Melbourne it opens up another market for members and Jnr's. ultimately though where we differ is I believe in the greater good for the game and you believe in the clubs greater good being the priority. I respect your opinion but don't agree with it.

So what you would like to see is a competition full of GWS's!? A competition of teams taking advantage of areas and giving them very little in return!? A competition full of plastic promises and flat out lies!? A competition of teams that represent everywhere and nowhere all at the same time!?

Being from Canberra I have been on the wrong side of deals like this quite a few times and all that comes from it in the end is hatred. At the start you think what a great idea it is having these guys come and play here a couple of times a year, but after that honeymoon period and you start to look at it more closely you slowly start to see it as it really is, your the broken ATM and their just coming to take all the can from you and leave, and eventually that leaves a very sour taste in your mouth.

Then of course there's all the "we're your local team" when they don't represent you at all, and they (unwittingly) start to make a mockery of the teams and people that really do represent you.
Oh and then there's the part when after claiming to be your team and to represent you they move on to whore themselves out to the next city that has a government stupid enough to pay them.

Is that what you really want?! Because I have more then enough experience in the area to say that it would be the biggest mistake in Australian RL history!

ultimately though where we differ is I believe in the greater good for the game and you believe in the clubs greater good being the priority.

Not at all, no player is bigger then their team, no team is bigger then their club, no club is bigger then their competition and lastly no competition is bigger then the game!

That means that I would be willing to sacrifice the whole NRL if it meant that the game as a whole would be in a better position.

Unfortunately what you are suggesting would not be beneficial to the game, it would be very, very detrimental.

I want to repeat what I said in my last post, I have no problem with teams taking home games away as long as they are not forced into an agreement that they do not want to be part of and that they treat the area/city that they are going to play games in properly and respectfully.

As I said earlier, I have first hand experience of what deals like this can do to the reputation of the game in the second home if they go sour and that is something that needs to be avoided, I can't see how bad deals would be avoided if we mass produced them, especially since all three of the ones that Canberra has been a part of with AFL teams have gone bad.

 

[Perth Red]

You must have missed the "committment" to an area bit in your haste to bring AFL into the discussion! Lets take Melbourne. They committ to growing the game in Tasmania. They play a trial and one NRL game a year in Hobart. They work with the TRL to set up a jnr elite academy program that they provide some seed funding for and coaching development etc. They have a scouting link up with the TRL to identify any decent U18's that then play for the Storm SG Ball Team, they run jnr training camps in Tassie, they have promotional competitions in Tasmania through the media to win signed Storm merchandise etc, they have Tasmania Storm membership scheme, they run school clinics throughout Tasmania etc etc etc. They do this for a guaranteed next 5 years. Now imagine the Cowboys doing the same in Darwin and NT, Bulldogs in Wellington, Souths in WA, Broncos in PNG, Raiders in Adelaide etc etc. What I am talking about is long term full on link ups and committments , not the current situation which is what you are advocating for which is exactly as you have described above with clubs blowing into town, playing a game and clearing off again for a year or more. That model is our current model and does the game no good in new areas.

And lets be honest its not like most home town clubs fans really give that much of a frick to get along to watch their team live looking at the appaling crowds of some clubs, including your own.

 

[The Great Dane]

You must have missed the "committment" to an area bit in your haste to bring AFL into the discussion! Lets take Melbourne. They committ to growing the game in Tasmania. They play a trial and one NRL game a year in Hobart. They work with the TRL to set up a jnr elite academy program that they provide some seed funding for and coaching development etc. They have a scouting link up with the TRL to identify any decent U18's that then play for the Storm SG Ball Team, they run jnr training camps in Tassie, they have promotional competitions in Tasmania through the media to win signed Storm merchandise etc, they have Tasmania Storm membership scheme, they run school clinics throughout Tasmania etc etc etc. They do this for a guaranteed next 5 years. Now imagine the Cowboys doing the same in Darwin and NT, Bulldogs in Wellington, Souths in WA, Broncos in PNG, Raiders in Adelaide etc etc. What I am talking about is long term full on link ups and committments , not the current situation which is what you are advocating for which is exactly as you have described above with clubs blowing into town, playing a game and clearing off again for a year or more. That model is our current model and does the game no good in new areas.

And lets be honest its not like most home town clubs fans really give that much of a frick to get along to watch their team live looking at the appaling crowds of some clubs, including your own.

Yep, sounds just like GWS, 10 year commitment, coaching clinics, school visits, Canberra memberships, etc etc!

What you are describing is exactly what I am against, I'll put it super simple we don't want teams to stay to long, we don't want them to stay past the honeymoon period, we don't want them to say stupid things like 'we represent you' and then at the end of the contract F off to hollowly "represent" another city.

We don't want the clubs to go around patronizing every group of people in Australia and New Zealand and in turn turning them off the game, just like GWS is doing right now in Canberra and just like the North Melbourne Kangaroos and the Western Bulldogs did before them.

What we do want is one off special events, the clubs come in for a week to provide 'the NRL experience', they make TV appearances, they visit schools, sign some balls, then play the game and move on. They don't try to make out that they are in anyway connected to that area, they are just coming in to put on a show and leave. Similar to how rock stars come in put on an entertaining show and leave, their there for a one night stand and hopefully everybody that leaves the show has had the time of their lives and is talking about it for weeks.

The cities/areas get an NRL game, the NRL and clubs get to spread the game and hopefully make some money in the process and there are no hollow remarks and promises, and most importantly no scornful locals.

This may mean that different clubs go to different cities ever year and that we may loose some possible extras like possible new juniors base's for the clubs (that will almost certainly be neglected when the clubs are not in the city!), but trust me we don't want to make those fake connections there just way to damaging.

And lets be honest its not like most home town clubs fans really give that much of a frick to get along to watch their team live looking at the appalling crowds of some clubs, including your own.

You can talk about appalling crowds only when you have a team in Perth and they have had almost 20 years of not meeting their potential, almost 20 years of their fans having those moments of "where the f#$k did my team go!?' almost every second week when they go from slaughtering a top of the table team by 40 points to losing to bottom dwellers by 40 points, almost 20 years of you wondering if your team is really giving it everything they have got. You can talk about appalling crowd numbers when your team has been one of if not the most frustrating team to support in the competition for almost 20 years.

It's easy to support a losing team, as long as you know they are leaving it all out on the field every week (I know I've done it) and as you can imagine it is even easier to support a team that is winning (I know I've done it), but try supporting a team that you know can do a lot better then they are doing and then you will see why there are so many disenchanted Raiders fans around.

 

[docbrown]

Probably much easier to get more games in other area's once more ground rationalisation has been done. If you had Tigers, Bulldogs and Souths playing out of Homebush, it's not hard to give all 3 teams 12 games to members (with 2 reciprocal), plus getting say Parra playing 3 games a season their (with the same deal), so that all 3 clubs can take 3 games on the road.

It's got to be the NRL driving this instead of the clubs. What you're suggesting is the right kind of approach.

They don't try to make out that they are in anyway connected to that area

I do agree that variety is the key but I would also suggest though there are certain areas where clubs - either as home or away teams - could mutually benefit along with the areas. For example it makes sense for the Knights & Manly to be involved in Gosford games, Cowboys in Cairns, Warriors in Wellington/Christchurch et al.

What we don't want though is for clubs to then turn around and say to the NRL, "No you can't expand there, that's our area".

Again all this should be coordinated by the NRL rather than the clubs.

 

[The Great Dane]

It's got to be the NRL driving this instead of the clubs. What you're suggesting is the right kind of approach.

I do agree that variety is the key but I would also suggest though there are certain areas where clubs - either as home or away teams - could mutually benefit along with the areas. For example it makes sense for the Knights & Manly to be involved in Gosford games, Cowboys in Cairns, Warriors in Wellington/Christchurch et al.

What we don't want though is for clubs to then turn around and say to the NRL, "No you can't expand there, that's our area".

Again all this should be coordinated by the NRL rather than the clubs.

I have no problem with that, they have real connections to those areas, it's the pseudo Rabbits-Perth, GWS-Canberra connections that need to be avoided.

Probably should have made that clear earlier, my bad.

What we don't want though is for clubs to then turn around and say to the NRL, "No you can't expand there, that's our area".

Never even thought of that. That could be a huge problem.

 

[Perth Red]

What we do want is one off special events, the clubs come in for a week to provide 'the NRL experience', they make TV appearances, they visit schools, sign some balls, then play the game and move on. They don't try to make out that they are in anyway connected to that area, they are just coming in to put on a show and leave. Similar to how rock stars come in put on an entertaining show and leave, their there for a one night stand and hopefully everybody that leaves the show has had the time of their lives and is talking about it for weeks.

The cities/areas get an NRL game, the NRL and clubs get to spread the game and hopefully make some money in the process and there are no hollow remarks and promises, and most importantly no scornful locals.
.

Your kidding yourself if you think this does anything to grow the game in that city, it does nothing but give a very short non sustainable buzz then nothing for another year. That is no way to grow the game and does nothing for the RL bodies in those regions that have a damn hard fight getting the game noticed.

Somewhere like Hobart is never going to get an NRL team so having the storm to follow and be engaged with makes perfect sense as long as the relationship is genuine, long term and committed. Instead we have your model where it is left at the whim of the clubs, storm roll into town, draw 15k for a trial, get RL noticed then nothing for at least two years. How does that help the game in Tassie?

Souths arrangement with Perth and the warl specified three years unless Perth gets an NRL team in that period.

 

[The Great Dane]

Your kidding yourself if you think this does anything to grow the game in that city, it does nothing but give a very short non sustainable buzz then nothing for another year. That is no way to grow the game and does nothing for the RL bodies in those regions that have a damn hard fight getting the game noticed.

Somewhere like Hobart is never going to get an NRL team so having the storm to follow and be engaged with makes perfect sense as long as the relationship is genuine, long term and committed. Instead we have your model where it is left at the whim of the clubs, storm roll into town, draw 15k for a trial, get RL noticed then nothing for at least two years. How does that help the game in Tassie?

Souths arrangement with Perth and the warl specified three years unless Perth gets an NRL team in that period.

Now where did I say that is my model? That's not my thinking at all!

What I would like to see is the NRL/ARLC wright up a 5-10 year time table that says how many games they want in each city in each year, then hand this plan over to all the clubs and allow them to apply for the games they have an interest in, then the NRL/ARLC would distribute the games accordingly.

Their would have to be some rules like each club must participate in x amount of games every year, which admittedly I don't really like, but they would be necessary for the plan to work and IMO this would be the best way forward.

For example, that may mean that the NRL wants 2 games in Hobart in 2015, 1 trial and 1 NRL game. Now lets say that 5 or so teams applied to play in these two games then the NRL/ARLC would be able to place the teams best suited to play the games into those games taking their fixture and the last time they played in Hobart into account.

So in 2015 Hobart got to see a Knights vs Tigers Trial game and a Titans vs Panthers NRL game, but in 2016 they would get a completely different draw that may include more or less games and will almost certainly include completely different teams.

This would also allow for cities not already getting NRL games to apply to show interest in being rostered into the program every 5-10 years, or when one of the cities currently on the roster gain their own team, so their would be a lot of flexibility unlike your model where each team would pick up a second home and that's it.

That's what I would like to see no BS, everybody knows their end of the bargain, no "we're your best friends until a bigger paycheck comes alone", lots of variety and most importantly no disenchanted, mislead or ripped off natives.

 

[Iafeta]

Back to Welington, my experience on Saturday is its a very good stadium, crowd was electric, the atmosphere magnificent. A very special experience to be a part of. Every time a game goes to Wellington, they let their ticket sales do the talking. No excuses if not having their own team, they do their region proud.

I think a model of 9 games in Wellington, 2 in Christchurch, 1 in Dunedin (especially nice they got a terrific crowd earlier this year for a trial and have a magnificent stadium) would give leaguies in he Southern part of New Zealand everything they need to significantly grow the game. My old man is a die hard union man, I took him to the game and he said he would come back (even with a 3 hour drive). IMO, Wellington would bring significant new streams of revenue, massively impact the market share of juniors proportionately against union, threfore also improving the international game.

 

[GAZF]

Back to Welington, my experience on Saturday is its a very good stadium, crowd was electric, the atmosphere magnificent. A very special experience to be a part of. Every time a game goes to Wellington, they let their ticket sales do the talking. No excuses if not having their own team, they do their region proud.

I think a model of 9 games in Wellington, 2 in Christchurch, 1 in Dunedin (especially nice they got a terrific crowd earlier this year for a trial and have a magnificent stadium) would give leaguies in he Southern part of New Zealand everything they need to significantly grow the game. My old man is a die hard union man, I took him to the game and he said he would come back (even with a 3 hour drive). IMO, Wellington would bring significant new streams of revenue, massively impact the market share of juniors proportionately against union, threfore also improving the international game.

Was also thinking along the lines of that, maybe 8 Wellington/3 Christchurch/1 Dunedin (+1 trial). By playing games in the South Island, the NRL can gauge what sort of demand there is for their own team down the track. Doc has brought it up several times before but a second NZ team should market itself AS an NZ team as opposed to exclusively Wellington. I still like the Orcas and think it would work on a scale larger than Wellington (with potential to scale back if NZ3 ever came in).

 

[Iafeta]

Can someone give me an idea of the strength of junior/grade footy in the wellington region. Is there enough talented stock there that they will be a developing club immediately or will it take time?

Would like to see Welllington locked in for annual fixtures as Perth is getting now, that would demonstrate a clear commitment to the region.

Junior levels are decent.

Players to come out of that region including top of he South Island and lower North Island include

Mose Masoe
Ben Matulino
Simon Mannering
Stephen Kearney
David Faiumu
Vince Mellars
Alehana Mara
John Lomax
David Lomax
Syd Eru
Morvin Edwards
Paul Whatuira
Sam Stewart

The Orcas model was to host games in Christchurch too. They were a powerhouse of NZ league in thev90s and have always produced good players. Access to the Orcas would be hugely beneficial to them too.

 

[flamin]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/8663462/NZ-Warriors-happy-with-Wellington-experiment

Wellington Rugby League general manager Jason Hemson felt it had been a great night, and week, for the code. The Warriors had sent an advanced party of staff and players to Wellington who'd made about 30 community and sponsorship appearances, which did a huge amount to promote the game.

Ad Feedback

Hemson also said the crowd of 30,000 indicated that New Zealand might be ready to sustain another NRL club in the future.

Wellington boasts nearly 40 players at various Australian clubs, which Hemson thought was a fine effort for a city which doesn't have its own NRL team.

"The time is right for a second team in New Zealand. We're promoting a lot of football talent to the NRL competition and it would be great to hang on to a lot of those kids here," Hemson said.

In the meantime, he said the size of Saturday's gate meant the Warriors would be "crazy" not to stage a game here next year.

 

[flamin]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/8663721/Fans-do-league-proud

They couldn't win, but the New Zealand Warriors succeeded where the Hurricanes and Phoenix have failed by attracting a near-capacity crowd to Westpac Stadium.

Despite sitting second from the bottom on the NRL table, the Warriors' clash against the Bulldogs on Saturday night still attracted more than 30,000 fans.

With the exception of the rugby sevens, it was the biggest crowd at the stadium this year, more than doubling the 15,000 who watched the Hurricanes' victory over the Kings in March.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

For now, why don't the Warriors just split their games across the whole of NZ?

They are the 'New Zealand' Warriors after all.

No need to bring a second NZ team yet IMO.

It's not like the Warriors (a one country team) have been like the Broncos (a one city team).


And just as a question for expansion teams (all of them), why do people always say "let's put a team on Central Coast, but play 9 games at Gosford and 2 at North Sydney Oval and 1 at Wyong...or bring in Perth and play 8 games in Perth, 2 in Broome...etc etc??

Surely if you're bringing in a new region, their finances, crowds, sponsors etc should be enough for them to play ALL their home games at home?

 

[Iafeta]

For now, why don't the Warriors just split their games across the whole of NZ?

They are the 'New Zealand' Warriors after all.

No need to bring a second NZ team yet IMO.

It's not like the Warriors (a one country team) have been like the Broncos (a one city team).


And just as a question for expansion teams (all of them), why do people always say "let's put a team on Central Coast, but play 9 games at Gosford and 2 at North Sydney Oval and 1 at Wyong...or bring in Perth and play 8 games in Perth, 2 in Broome...etc etc??

Surely if you're bringing in a new region, their finances, crowds, sponsors etc should be enough for them to play ALL their home games at home?

Isn't this all a contradiction. On one hand you want the Warriors (who by the way have always been based in Auckland and are most certainly like Brisbane a one city team) to take games elsewhere but on the other hand you are saying new clubs shouldn't have to take games elsewhere? That's an each way bet if ever I've heard one.

For Wellington, that model works on a number of levels. Firstly Wellington isn't anywhere near as populated as Auckland. My concern is 12 home games may be a drain. It's a lot easier to get bigger crowds to events you have less of. Secondly, as the Warriors showed with their trial in Dunedin, you can get fantastic crowds in Christchurch and Dunedin if they are limited. Thirdly, Wellington would have a very competitive junior base to pool from if they expanded their focus into Canterbury, the West Coast, and with Dunedin being a university city that produces a lot of All Blacks for its population it would be great to have a link into that and get league entrenched down there. Fourthly, Wellington I'm sure in the weekend attracted up a lot of people from the West Coast, Canterbury and non league footholds like the Wairarapa, Manawatu, Marlborough and Nelson Bays areas. Fifthly, in New Zealand there is a distinct Auckland versus the rest mentality, it would make for. Massive rivalry with massive long term benefits in terms if junior participation if the Warriors were the arch rival of the Central and Southern part of New Zealand. Sixthly, I'm sure the new stadium in Dunedin would vigorously pursue a link with an NRL team As a stadium of that quality and cost is going to need to sustain big events regularly.

Jason Henson suggests 40 players come from the Wellington catchment currently. That would increase significiantly if Canterbury and the West Coast were also included in that catchment.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Yes, re-reading what I wrote, it does sound contradictory. Not very well put.

A - I don't see the Warriors as a powerhouse, like a Broncos. B - to rectify this, spread the NZ games around NZ for the time being.

Although it - Dogs vs Warriors - was a better crowd than anything Gosford can throw up for any number of NRL games that are played on CC.

 

[Generational Player]

I would actually be pretty confident if they had a team in Wellington they'd get a bit of a crowd coming from outside of Wellington, the cake tin is really accessible from the main state highway, and there seems to be a pretty big league fan base in some of the surrounding areas. I preferred travelling to the Cake tin when I lived outside of Wellington, it's such a pain to get their from the suburbs haha. I spend more money on parking than I do on petrol living here.

 

[CC_Roosters]

Have heard there is and isn't a bid from Wellington this time can someone clarify what is the case?

Welligton and Perth has a certain balance to it. One area will be aiming to increase the junior pool from a small base and the other is already a net contributer to the player pool without a team.

 

[Iafeta]

Yes, re-reading what I wrote, it does sound contradictory. Not very well put.

A - I don't see the Warriors as a powerhouse, like a Broncos. B - to rectify this, spread the NZ games around NZ for the time being.

Although it - Dogs vs Warriors - was a better crowd than anything Gosford can throw up for any number of NRL games that are played on CC.

They've played 7 games at Westpac. Only 2 have had less than 20000 fans. Wellingtonians vote with their feet IMO. No excuses offered by them.

The Warriors have just made massive investments to their fitness infrastructure. There's no way they'll spread their games out aside from 1 or maybe 2 per year. Firstly they incur additional costs. Secondly their membership for Aucklanders becomes less valuable with every game you take off them. Thirdly they have all their necessary facilities in Auckland. The reason clubs don't do it more than once or twice a season is it's not logistically feasible or commercially viable.

It would be interesting to see how Wellington would approach this though.