Wellington SHOULD be the next NRL team.

[The Great Dane]

Why would they be mad too? It sells them to all of New Zealand, not just one city...

For what its worth I'd have no problem if it was the Aotearoa Warriors and the New Zealand Orcas as the Warriors would probably have the stronger maori fan base but honestly, there's no need. There's no problem with having two clubs in the NRL both called New Zealand.

What do people think is going to happen? People won't sign up for memberships or go to games because they're called 'New Zealand'? The argument against it doesn't make any sense.

The point of a second NZ team is to have a team that is a constant and meaningful presence in Wellington and the South Island and to create a brutal rivalry in NZ. Not to create what will most likely be interpreted as cheep imitation of the Warriors!

We don't want or need another team to represent the whole of NZ, what we do want and need is to be able to split NZ in two North and south, Auckland vs the rest, that's the whole point of a second NZ team.

This is a ridiculous argument. Are you expecting a load of Auckland fans to start supporting the side and fly down every fortnight to attend a game? It's like saying the Titans should have been called the Australian Titans because otherwise it excludes people from Newcastle.

The NZ 2 side should be focused on gaining support and ownership from the people of Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Auckland fans, while welcome, are irrelevant.

This ^^^.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Sport thrives on nationalism, the idea that "this is us, this is NOT you". Excluding areas is is just as important as including areas.
The NEWCASTLE knights, not the NSW knights. NORTH Queensland Cowboys (specifically not from the south)

(ps how shit would it be if that "Superleague *Insert name*" naming thig had caught on

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Sport thrives on nationalism, the idea that "this is us, this is NOT you". Excluding areas is is just as important as including areas.
The NEWCASTLE knights, not the NSW knights. NORTH Queensland Cowboys (specifically not from the south)

(ps how shit would it be if that "Superleague *Insert name*" naming thig had caught on

Pretty shit, just look at 'SupeRugby'.

 

[Perth Red]

Would a Wellington team play in black and yellow or go with a more generic colour to represent the whole of southern NZ such as black, white and aqua of the southern orcas idea?

 

[docbrown]

The NZ 2 side should be focused on gaining support and ownership from the people of Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Auckland fans, while welcome, are irrelevant.

There are actually people in the South Island and Wellington who currently fly/drive to Auckland to go to Warriors games because they view the Warriors as a 'New Zealand' team, as 'their' team. They don't go to every game but they're still fans of the club. You go and tell them that the Warriors are an Auckland only club then their support may wane. Same for the second NZ club. You start telling people in the South Island that it's a 'Wellington' club or telling people in the North Island that its a 'Southern' club then you will put some offside.

And yes, we want both clubs to have fans across the entire country. That's a good thing. We want away fans. We want there to be a minority of Warriors fans in Wellington & South Island and the reverse in Auckland. It's what gets people talking about the game. Its how the game will be marketed to its maximum possible extent.

Nobody will be put off if its called 'New Zealand'. Again like I said before - What do people think is going to happen? People won't sign up for memberships or go to games because they're called 'New Zealand'? The argument against it doesn't hold any logical weight.

The point of a second NZ team is to have a team that is a constant and meaningful presence in Wellington and the South Island and to create a brutal rivalry in NZ.

And they will do that by playing games there and going out into the community and creating a presence.

If you think that all that would be undone if they were called 'New Zealand' then sorry, but that's a total stretch.

Sport thrives on nationalism

Pretty sure I'm suggesting that they be named after the country.

That's as nationalist as you can get. ;-)

 

[flippikat]

Would a Wellington team play in black and yellow or go with a more generic colour to represent the whole of southern NZ such as black, white and aqua of the southern orcas idea?

The NRL need to think about this, because there's huge potential for clashes between provincial NZ colours & suburban Sydney colours.

Wellington would be distinctive in their traditional colours, no problem there.

But the Warriors present a challenge if they revert to being Auckland Warriors & want to play in their traditional blue & white. Would that mean that the Warriors need a 3rd colour to distinguish themselves from the Bulldogs?

Also, if Christchurch and the Central Coast Bears get places in the NRL, who gets dibs on red & black (and what happens to the other team's colours)?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Pretty sure I'm suggesting that they be named after the country.

That's as nationalist as you can get. ;-)

While a country is the most common idea we have of nationalism, its only one example. Nationalism is a unity coming from a shared fanaticism. You come together under this national image of a flag, jersey, badge, jersey, ect.

You are right, these are mostly to do with geographic borders, but its not just in the sense of a country. State Of Origin is NSW and Queensland nationalism, being proud to come from your home town is nationalism and supporting a football team is nationalism (people wear their jerseys like a national flag).

But the key thing about nationalism is that it is very divisive (patriotism for a country is not actually that great, its how wars start. But for sport this is exactly what you want). Its about being proud to be part of an exclusive group, "This is us, you are NOT one of us"

Its why having a more localised name is a good thing. Its the team saying "we're from the South island (or where ever), Aukland for that other shiity team, they can go blow".

 

[The Great Dane]

And they will do that by playing games there and going out into the community and creating a presence.

If you think that all that would be undone if they were called 'New Zealand' then sorry, but that's a total stretch.

I believe it was best put by saying it this way, if the Titans had been called the Australia Titans not to exclude anybody outside of the Gold Coast what do you think would have been the reaction? The vast majority of people outside of the Gold Coast would have said F off we already have our team and you don't have anything to do with us, at the same time many of the potential fans on the Gold Coast would have been turned off because the Titans would have been seen as to broad and not really their team.

The people in NZ are no different to us here in Oz, most are very proud of where they are from and they have their own rivalries and feuds, in the same way that it would have been inappropriate to call the Titans the Australia Titans or even the Queensland Titans, it would be damaging and constricting to call the the Orcas the NZ Orcas.

If a second NZ team is to work we need to tap into the rivalries between Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and naming the second NZ team the New Zealand Orcas would heavily restrict those rivalries and would be to broad a name to be taken seriously in our target areas.

 

[docbrown]

I believe it was best put by saying it this way, if the Titans had been called the Australia Titans not to exclude anybody outside of the Gold Coast what do you think would have been the reaction?

You're offering up a weak straw man argument.

We have a club in Sydney called the Sydney Roosters when there are 8 other teams in Sydney. It's not even a heritage name, they change it because of exactly what I said - it's stronger branding.

The fumblers even have a club in Melbourne called Melbourne when there are 8 other fumble clubs in Melbourne.

Where are the riots? Like you said, where are the people saying 'F off we already have our team and you don't have anything to do with us'?

They're not the CBD Roosters. They're not the CBD Demons. They've taken the Sydney & Melbourne names because they're going for the biggest audience possible as they want to grow their clubs. That's not a bad thing.

While a country is the most common idea we have of nationalism, its only one example.

Okay I'll be fair here, you were the one who said nationalism first (not me) when I think what you were trying to emphasize was regionalism/localism - essentially a tribalism to a specific area. That said the notion of nationalism as you brought it up is apt.

If we really want two disparate regions with different identities - South Islands & parts of the North Island - to come together under that one banner as you have suggested yourself there is nothing stronger than nationalism hence why I advocate the New Zealand branding.

To quote yourself:

Nationalism is a unity coming from a shared fanaticism.

That's how you unify those two different regions. People will still associate the Warriors with being "the other", "the enemy" etc even if they've got the same name. I say this having lived in US as a NY Giants fan. Our other, our enemy, is the NY Jets. Both engage the entire region because the people have a choice in deciding which team represents them the best. No one complains that they're both called New York. No one complains that they can't hate the other side because they're called New York too. That would be silly.

If its good enough for New York, it's good enough for New Zealand.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

You're offering up a weak straw man argument.

Okay I'll be fair here, you were the one who said nationalism first (not me) when I think what you were trying to emphasize was regionalism/localism - essentially a tribalism to a specific area. That said the notion of nationalism as you brought it up is apt.

If we really want two disparate regions with different identities - South Islands & parts of the North Island - to come together under that one banner as you have suggested yourself there is nothing stronger than nationalism hence why I advocate the New Zealand branding.


That's how you unify those two different regions. People will still associate the Warriors with being "the other", "the enemy" etc even if they've got the same name. I say this having lived in US as a NY Giants fan. Our other, our enemy, is the NY Jets. Both engage the entire region because the people have a choice in deciding which team represents them the best. No one complains that they're both called New York. No one complains that they can't hate the other side because they're called New York too. That would be silly.

If its good enough for New York, it's good enough for New Zealand.

Nationalism is actually the word for it, but you get the point.

As for the NY Giant/Jets thing, the difference is that they share a city, not a country. not only that, dont they share a stadium, geographically not really the same comparison.

Not only that, Jets and Giants had history in there name before the comps merged. they were teams in competing competitions, like the Sydney Roosters and the Sydney swans, Not like the Sydney Tigers.

And while i disagree with your assesment of the rooster (i dont this "sydney"has helped their brand), They took a brand unclaimed in the competiton. This new NZ team would be like bringing a team into Cairnes and calling them North Queensland or bringing a new team into sydney and calling them the Parramatta Heat or something, its not a positive.

 

[docbrown]

Nationalism is actually the word for it, but you get the point.

I disagree that its the right word for what you're trying to say (like I said, I would say tribalism) but I understand your intent. That said I also disagree with you about NY Giant/Jets.

Another user specifically said - "naming the second NZ team the New Zealand Orcas would heavily restrict those rivalries"

Yet having two teams named New York has done nothing to diminish the Jets-Giants rivalry, in facts its the opposite. Both the Jets & Giants fight to determine which team represents New York the best. And likewise there will still be a strong rivalry between the Warriors & Orcas if both are called New Zealand.

At best I've only heard subjective reasons against the 'New Zealand' moniker but nothing that has been offered so far has conclusively discredited that proposed branding.

Again and I go back to what I said at the very start - What do people think is going to happen? People won't sign up for memberships or go to games because they're called 'New Zealand'? The argument against it doesn't hold any logical weight.

This new NZ team would be like bringing a team into Cairnes and calling them North Queensland or bringing a new team into sydney and calling them the Parramatta Heat or something, its not a positive.

Again, another straw man argument. You're inventing an unconnected scenario that no-one else has even suggested. Your argument against the New Zealand branding is weakened every time you resort to such fallacies.

This bid would be like bringing a second team into New Zealand and calling them New Zealand. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

What if we renamed the 9 sydney team the "Sydney ------". We can call the knights and dragons the "NSW ------". We can call cowboys, broncos, brisbane 2 and the titans the "Queenaland ----------"

Basing teams in in the same city and having them share a name is bad enough. Having them in cities hours apart and having them share a name is another level of wrong. It's a domestic football team, it doesnt have to be intertwined with national spirit.

Also, I think your arguement that this is how to engage Aucklander is is off. The have a local team so logic would dictate they support the Warriors, but not all Acklanders would, just like not all brisbanites like the broncos. But this would be a conscious choice because they actively dislike the team. Bringing in an alternative and copying the original is not a good sell.

 

[flamin]

Again and I go back to what I said at the very start - What do people think is going to happen? People won't sign up for memberships or go to games because they're called 'New Zealand'? The argument against it doesn't hold any logical weight.

.

No they are arguing that the team should have a name that actually fits the area it represents since a team which differentiates itself from the Warriors will engage with those who want a team to represent them as non-Aucklanders/Wellingtonians/South Islanders/etc and stand out as a club/brand/identity.

What you are arguing is the reason the Tigers became the Sydney Tigers, the Bulldogs became the Sydney Bulldogs, the Cowboys are called Nth Qld not Townsville and Auckland became the NZ Warriors (though they no longer technically have that name anymore) - to appeal to the most people possible by increasing their geographic reach.

But there is also a reason why the Sydney Tigers and Sydney Bulldogs failed and those teams went back to specific locations - increasing the geographic representation didn't work because the other locations were already represented and people didn't feel as if the Tigers and Bulldogs were representing them. The Roosters name likewise doesn't bring fans across Sydney though they have a better claim to the name any other team since they actually have Sydney CBD in their territory.

Obviously its a case by case basis.

The Warriors could rightly rename themselves as NZ since they are currently representing that entire area despite being based in Auckland. However, if a 2nd NZ team based in the South both teams would be representing specific parts of the country. It makes sense that there names would reflect who they represent, which is, you know, the point of a name.

Much as QLDers will support other QLD teams if theirs are knocked out early, NZers will support any NZ team in the NRL over any Aus-based team. But Nth QLDers gravitate to the Cowboys because that is their team. It specifically represents them. If the Cowboys were all called QLD whatevers to make themselves "more appealing" to the whole state they risk disenganging themselves with their local community. There would still be support in Townsville but many locals wouldn't feel that they owned the team. That it really represented them. If all 3 QLD teams were called QLD obviously the differentiation of their identities would decrease even if they still played out of 3 differfent cities.

NY Jets/NY Giants sitation works because they are both challenging each other to best represent the same area. In fact they play out of the same stadium. It's akin to the Brisbane Bombers or Brisbane Brothers playing out of Suncorp with the Broncos. (which is why I'm ok with a 2nd team using the name "Brisbane"). Further the identity of the geographic area they are representing is approppriate for their domestic competition.

On the other hand, the Warriors and a 2nd NZ would not be representing the same parts of the country, let alone playing out of the same region, let alone same stadium and city. Whether an Aucklander is a fan of a 2nd NZ team is as relevant as a Brisbanite following the Cowboys. Great, but the point of the name is to engage with the local fans the team is representing. The locals have to feel that they own the team.

Further, for domestic competitions a name that represents a region or city is much more appropriate than the whole country. We already have a team that represents NZ. They're called the Kiwis. It's part of the reason the Warriors dropped NZ from their name. Having one team called NZ differentiates the Kiwis from any other rugby league team, which is extremely important for branding. They stand seperate from every other team - the same way an NRL team called Southern/Wellington/whatever would differentiate NZ2.

 

[jamesgould]

There are actually people in the South Island and Wellington who currently fly/drive to Auckland to go to Warriors games because they view the Warriors as a 'New Zealand' team, as 'their' team. They don't go to every game but they're still fans of the club. You go and tell them that the Warriors are an Auckland only club then their support may wane. Same for the second NZ club. You start telling people in the South Island that it's a 'Wellington' club or telling people in the North Island that its a 'Southern' club then you will put some offside.

That's a total load of rot! There are loads of people in Wellington that I know (actually, I'd say the majority) who don't support the Warriors. They have their Australian team - are they put off because it's the "Melbourne" Storm, for example? Of course not.

This is actually one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. Calling the Wellington side NZ and renaming the Warriors NZ ... it's like an overseas person's view that the country is 100kms long and we all commute from one side of the island to the other for work each day. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Just as an aside, have the Hurricanes crowds gone up or down since they ditched the Wellington part of their name? And do the Wellington Phoenix get big crowds outside of Wellington, or do they not?

 

[docbrown]

What if we renamed the 9 sydney team the "Sydney ------".

Again, another fallacy. The only person suggesting that is you. When you invent a scenario to try and win an argument of your own creation, it cheapens your overall argument.

Basing teams in in the same city and having them share a name is bad enough.

Nonsense. There's nothing 'bad' about it at all.

The only argument you have made is one of personal taste. If you can't discuss the point objectively then you shouldn't bother.

But this would be a conscious choice because they actively dislike the team. Bringing in an alternative and copying the original is not a good sell.

Nobody is copying the Warriors. It's a totally different club and structure.

The Warriors don't own exclusive rights to the 'New Zealand' branding, it's free for any sporting club to use with just cause.

Again, that's another weak argument.

No they are arguing that the team should have a name that actually fits the area it represents since a team which differentiates itself from the Warriors will engage with those who want a team to represent them as non-Aucklanders/Wellingtonians/South Islanders/etc and stand out as a club/brand/identity.

And calling the club 'New Zealand Orcas' would do nothing to prevent any of that. They will differentiate themselves through the markets they proactively engage. By being out in the community, play matches, connecting to local grass roots through associated networks.

The Warriors have been able to sell themselves as an Auckland club without the 'Auckland' moniker. The Orcas can do the same for South Island-Wellington without a South Island-Wellington moniker.

But there is also a reason why the Sydney Tigers and Sydney Bulldogs failed and those teams went back to specific locations - increasing the geographic representation didn't work because the other locations were already represented and people didn't feel as if the Tigers and Bulldogs were representing them.

It's a totally different scenario and you're trying to stretch the failures of clubs during Super League to this situation.

To use your own words "didn't work because the other locations were already represented".

There is no club based in Wellington or South Island so your argument does not apply.

Obviously its a case by case basis.

Exactly and bringing up old Super League issues doesn't apply.

The only case that you need to concern yourself with is a 2nd New Zealand side in New Zealand calling themselves New Zealand and nothing more.

However, if a 2nd NZ team based in the South both teams would be representing specific parts of the country. It makes sense that there names would reflect who they represent, which is, you know, the point of a name.

I disagree with that. Why should a club be forced to change its identity because a new club is brought in? It's nonsense. If a Brisbane side comes in representing South West Brisbane I doubt you'd be asking the Broncos to become the North East Brisbane Broncos. :roll:

If the Warriors want to try and engage the entirety of New Zealand after a second club is brought in that's a good thing! It's so obvious, I honestly can't believe we're even debating it. We want more people being fans of both New Zealand clubs and to do that we need both marketing to the broadest audience possible.

There would still be support in Townsville but many locals wouldn't feel that they owned the team. That it really represented them.

Again another strawman argument. Nobody is talking about the Cowboys.

Why do you guys consistently bring up other teams that have nothing to do with the situation in New Zealand?

I will repeat your own words back to you -

Obviously its a case by case basis.

;-)

NY Jets/NY Giants sitation works because they are both challenging each other to best represent the same area.

Exactly!!!

That's what will happen in New Zealand if both are called New Zealand.

On the other hand, the Warriors and a 2nd NZ would not be representing the same parts of the country, let alone playing out of the same region, let alone same stadium and city. Whether an Aucklander is a fan of a 2nd NZ team is as relevant as a Brisbanite following the Cowboys. Great, but the point of the name is to engage with the local fans the team is representing. The locals have to feel that they own the team.

And again I go back to start - if you want to prove that the 'New Zealand' name will hinder that then prove that they won't sign up for membership or go to games because of the 'New Zealand' name.

Just think about it logically. Nobody is going to turn away from the club because they're called 'New Zealand' instead of 'Wellington' or 'Southern'.

Further, for domestic competitions a name that represents a region or city is much more appropriate than the whole country.

That's just a matter of subjective taste. "More appropriate" is pretty meaningless by any measurable standard. If a team from PNG were to enter the competition they would be stronger if they united behind the "PNG" moniker than if they were to be called "Port Moresby". So the concept of "most appropriate" again is irrelevant.

We already have a team that represents NZ. They're called the Kiwis. It's part of the reason the Warriors dropped NZ from their name. Having one team called NZ differentiates the Kiwis from any other rugby league team, which is extremely important for branding.

There was no negative implications from having both the Warriors & Kiwis called New Zealand. No fans were turned away from the game in droves. Nobody had anxious seizures from trying to figure out the difference between the two.

Honestly that one's over the top.

There are loads of people in Wellington that I know (actually, I'd say the majority)

I never take any argument seriously that is based around the people that some stranger knows (you know, so it must be true even if it can't be proven with things like facts...)

 

[flamin]

Edit

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Doc, i still whole-heartedly disagree, but damn you are good at this.

 

[Perth Red]

I would hope the ARLC has a very long term idea of what it wants to do with NZ. If they don't see a third NZ team anytime in the next few decades then I would go with Southern Orcas pimarily in Wellington but with representation in the Sth island. If the ARLC can one day see a third team in the Sth Island they should go with Wellington and leave that market open for the future.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Imagine Wellington and Perth playing away games against teams like Penrith/Titans/Raiders,there will be crowds of 3k

 

[flamin]

And calling the club 'New Zealand Orcas' would do nothing to prevent any of that. They will differentiate themselves through the markets they proactively engage. By being out in the community, play matches, connecting to local grass roots through associated networks.

The Warriors have been able to sell themselves as an Auckland club without the 'Auckland' moniker. The Orcas can do the same for South Island-Wellington without a South Island-Wellington moniker.

Then what's the point of calling the 2nd team New Zealand if they're only proactively engaging specific markets? Whats the point of calling them NZ if they're selling themselves as a Wellington team?

The Warriors don't sell themselves as an Auckland team. They changed their name to sell themselves as a NZ team. They're perceived as an Auckland team because they've only played one home game outside of Auckland in their history.

The Warriors won't be running clinics in Wellington. Wellington won't be running go out to schools in Auckland. They aren't representing the same area, and it would ludicrous for them to spread their resources so thin over the country when they have enough work to do in their own backyard.

To use your own words "didn't work because the other locations were already represented".

There is no club based in Wellington or South Island so your argument does not apply.

I was referring to the fact that northern NZ is already represented by the Warriors.

I disagree with that. Why should a club be forced to change its identity because a new club is brought in? It's nonsense. If a Brisbane side comes in representing South West Brisbane I doubt you'd be asking the Broncos to become the North East Brisbane Broncos. :roll:

If the Warriors want to try and engage the entirety of New Zealand after a second club is brought in that's a good thing! It's so obvious, I honestly can't believe we're even debating it. We want more people being fans of both New Zealand clubs and to do that we need both marketing to the broadest audience possible.

Again another strawman argument. Nobody is talking about the Cowboys.

Why do you guys consistently bring up other teams that have nothing to do with the situation in New Zealand?

You were the one who compared a 2nd NZ team to the Jets/Giants to claim they were similar. As I said in my post if you read it the Jets/Giants situation is similar to a 2nd Brisbane team, which is why I specifically said I would not be against a 2nd team called Brisbane. They're engaging the same area. The Cowboys and Broncos both calling themselves is Queensland is virtually the same as 2 teams called New Zealand when one "proactively engages" with the North but the other with the South and is a much much more similar comparison than New York.

And again I go back to start - if you want to prove that the 'New Zealand' name will hinder that then prove that they won't sign up for membership or go to games because of the 'New Zealand' name.

Just think about it logically. Nobody is going to turn away from the club because they're called 'New Zealand' instead of 'Wellington' or 'Southern'.

You want to talk about about a hypothetical situation that can only be measured through experience but you refuse to let other people talk in hypotheticals or talk about their experiences.

That's just a matter of subjective taste. "More appropriate" is pretty meaningless by any measurable standard. If a team from PNG were to enter the competition they would be stronger if they united behind the "PNG" moniker than if they were to be called "Port Moresby". So the concept of "most appropriate" again is irrelevant.

Hang on I thought we were only allowed to talk about NZ?

Of course a PNG team could be called PNG. Much the same as the Warriors were called NZ. If a 2nd PNG team came in and they were representing an area that a Port Moresby based team was not engaging with I'd fully expect that the 2nd team would have a different name to fit its region.

There was no negative implications from having both the Warriors & Kiwis called New Zealand. No fans were turned away from the game in droves. Nobody had anxious seizures

I was talking about the importance of differentiation and branding. The reason the Warriors dropped New Zealand from their name.
Of course fans won't turn away in droves. It makes your argument weaker when you resort to ridiculous exaggerations. You already mentioned the North v South rivalry. It makes sense to build on that with a name that reflects that rivalry. The bid will be stronger if their brand doesn't have crossover with the Warriors. Further some locals will be put off if the team is not perceived as a truly local team - much the same as those non-Aucklanders who are already put off by the Warriors because theydon't perceive the Warriors as truly representing them but instead as an Auckland team who don't often engage with the rest of the country. You said yourself this perception is still strong despite the Warriors previously being called New Zealand. If it didn't work for the Warriors then why would "New Zealand" work for Wellington now?

I never take any arguent seriously that is based around the people that some stranger knows (you know, so it must be true even if it can't be proven with things like facts...)

Then you prove with "facts" that an Aucklander will be more inclined to reject his local team and buy a membership simply because the team is called New Zealand but only proactively engages with Wellington/South Island and never plays a home game in Auckland.


In the end it's irrelevant anyway. If you think it's intelligent to have two teams trying to engage with same the towns and communities across an area of 270000km2 with a population of 4.4 million OR have them engage different areas but have the same name that's fine by me as there is no chance this bid team will go with the name New Zealand.