General Auckland or New Zealand Warriors?

Auckland Warriors or New Zealand Warriors.

  • Auckland

    Votes: 49 55.1%
  • New Zealand

    Votes: 21 23.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 5.6%
  • Don't Care

    Votes: 14 15.7%

  • Total voters
    89
Hey guys . Just wondering what do ypu prefer to be known as for the our club?? Auckland or New Zealand.

Made this poll as I think the results will be interesting.
 
Isn't it the Vodaphone Warriors. IMO it is too parochial calling it the Auckland Warriors and a bit insulting to the rest of us who live elsewhere. There are over a million people in Auckland, which means there is about 3 and 1/2 million who don't. Do not overestimate Auckland's importance to the rest of us, other than bleeding us white to provide your Mayor with James Bond bathrooms.

You could argue that there is too much of an emphasis on Auckland recruitment, to the detriment of the Warriors missing out on players like Tohu Harris. Auckland has been, and always will be the spiritual home of NZ League. That is not disputed. However, the Warriors are a national franchise as it stands, all you will do with such a name change would be to alienate those ofus that don't want to be JAFA's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Defence
Isn't it the Vodaphone Warriors. IMO it is too parochial calling it the Auckland Warriors and a bit insulting to the rest of us who live elsewhere. There are over a million people in Auckland, which means there is about 3 and 1/2 million who don't. Do not overestimate Auckland's importance to the rest of us, other than bleeding us white to provide your Mayor with James Bond bathrooms.

You could argue that there is too much of an emphasis on Auckland recruitment, to the detriment of the Warriors missing out on players like Tohu Harris. Auckland has been, and always will be the spiritual home of NZ League. That is not disputed. However, the Warriors are a national franchise as it stands, all you will do with such a name change would be to alienate those ofus that don't want to be JAFA's.

I still support the Wellington Phoenix .. NZ Phoenix would just piss me off and send a shiver down my spine.
 
The NZ name has never really sat comfortably with me, going back to Auckland seems like a backwards step but I could live with that if there was a 2nd NZ team.

I team ember an article a while back wanting to change the name to Pacific Warriors but I'd just be happy with Warriors RLFC as the offical name and to be known as the Warriors
 
  • Like
Reactions: fizurg and Ranger
The Auckland Warriors went bankrupt and the franchise was taken over by Eric Watson and became the New Zealand Warriors.

The Auckland name should not be attached to this club. The colours were changed at the same time as the name change. The Auckland Warriors died in 2000.

Anyone calling them Auckland are in fact wrong.

I have no problem with them being called the Warriors or the Vodafone Warriors, but calling them the Auckland Warriors really shits me.
 
they are based in Auckland, they are the Auckland Warriors. Caterbury Bankstown Bulldogs, Brisbane Broncos, Penrith Panthers.. thats where they are based. The Dogs may play home games in Wellington, that doesnt make them the Oceania Bulldogs

there should be only 1 'New Zealand' team, the Kiwis
 
I prefer the name Auckland Warriors personally over NZ Warriors. That being said, I understand why the name change occurred etc, and there is no other NZ team to support right now. However, if a second NRL team did occur in NZ - the Warriors would probably need to change their name..

There's arguments for and against both as names... for example - Brisbane is a city, North Queensland is a region. I'm comfortable with it being New Zealand UNTIL another NZ team is admitted to the comp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fizurg
they are based in Auckland, they are the Auckland Warriors. Caterbury Bankstown Bulldogs, Brisbane Broncos, Penrith Panthers.. thats where they are based. The Dogs may play home games in Wellington, that doesnt make them the Oceania Bulldogs

there should be only 1 'New Zealand' team, the Kiwis
The Bulldogs specifically dropped the Canterbury Bankstown name several years back specifically remove the local loyalties. They only lasted a couple of years that way.

By your reckoning, the North Queensland cowboys should be the Townsville Cowboys. They only play in Townsville, not the whole of North Queensland.

Locality doesn't change a business name. A business name stands alone.

Just having the NZ name doesn't make you a national representative team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surfin
I prefer the name Auckland Warriors personally over NZ Warriors. That being said, I understand why the name change occurred etc, and there is no other NZ team to support right now. However, if a second NRL team did occur in NZ - the Warriors would probably need to change their name..

There's arguments for and against both as names... for example - Brisbane is a city, North Queensland is a region. I'm comfortable with it being New Zealand UNTIL another NZ team is admitted to the comp.
By that way of thinking, the Roosters need to revert to Easts. There is no reason the club would have to change their name due to another team. The other team will call themselves a different name. We aren't going to be faced with the NZ Warriors and the NZ Orcas.
 
By that way of thinking, the Roosters need to revert to Easts. There is no reason the club would have to change their name due to another team. The other team will call themselves a different name. We aren't going to be faced with the NZ Warriors and the NZ Orcas.

how so? The roosters were the Sydney City Roosters, because their cachement area included Sydney City, up until the bridge which north of which was North Sydney, and down towards Redfern at which point it became South Sydney...

Sydney City is a suburb (or group of suburbs) in its own right... as is South Sydney, Western Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs etc.

The Roosters dropped the Sydney City moniker in about 2000 by the way, and are now officially just the Roosters as opposed to the Sydney Roosters.
 
how so? The roosters were the Sydney City Roosters, because their cachement area included Sydney City, up until the bridge which north of which was North Sydney, and down towards Redfern at which point it became South Sydney...

Sydney City is a suburb (or group of suburbs) in its own right... as is South Sydney, Western Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs etc.

The Roosters dropped the Sydney City moniker in about 2000 by the way, and are now officially just the Roosters as opposed to the Sydney Roosters.
No, they are the Sydney Roosters. The dropped the "city" in 2000 (which had only been around since 1995). Their Football club is still called Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club. The Sydney City and Sydney Roosters were just simplifications of their name, not a direct description of their location. Otherwise they would still be the Eastern Suburbs Roosters, as they never moved.

They became the Sydney Roosters in 2000 because Souths were ejected from the comp, Norths merged with Manly and became the Northern Eagles and Western Suburbs and Balmain merged to become Wests. They were the only stand alone left from the originals, and so didn't need to distinguish their location anymore.
 
Last edited:
No, they are the Sydney Roosters. The dropped the "city" in 2000 (which had only been around since 1995). Their Football club is still called Eastern Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club. The Sydney City and Sydney Roosters were just simplifications of their name, not a direct description of their location. Otherwise they would still be the Eastern Suburbs Roosters, as they never moved.

They became the Sydney Roosters in 2000 because Souths were ejected from the comp, Norths merged with Manly and became the Northern Eagles and Western Suburbs and Balmain merged to become Wests. They were the only stand alone left from the originals, and so didn't need to distinguish their location anymore.

oops, my mistake on that part. thought from a marketing perspective they had dropped down to simply the roosters.

regardless - the Sydney is there from the Sydney City perspective and doesn't change the argument imo.

I still think if Wgtn or Chch get a team, the warriors should drop NZ from the their name and either revert to Auckland, or have something different.
 

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
Personally don't like the name 'NZ' as it makes it sound like the national team. I still supported them when they were the 'Auckland Warriors' despite never living in Auckland.
Currently I only ever refer to them as "the Warriors" and never NZ anyway, ironically enough if we ever got a 2nd team I wouldnt mind if both teams were called NZ similar to 96ish when there was Sydney Bulldogs/tigers/roosters.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Manu's mistake
It isn't really an issue over here anyway (even though I find it an interesting debate). They are referred to as the Vodafone Warriors when in NZ, as a part of their sponsorship obligations, while in Oz they are called the NZ Warriors because the NRL don't wish to give free advertising to the competitor (Vodafone Australia) of the competitions chief sponsor (Telstra).
 
The Bulldogs specifically dropped the Canterbury Bankstown name several years back specifically remove the local loyalties. They only lasted a couple of years that way.

By your reckoning, the North Queensland cowboys should be the Townsville Cowboys. They only play in Townsville, not the whole of North Queensland.

Locality doesn't change a business name. A business name stands alone.

Just having the NZ name doesn't make you a national representative team.
Thats not it at all, as stated in my final line, only one team should be named new zealand, the national team.

They can be the north island warriors, hell even the invercargill warriors if that makes you happy but they are not a national team. We have another NZ league team that wears black.

People complain about the international game being marginalised in league, the Warriors contribute to that using New Zealand
 
Last edited:
Thats not it at all, as stated in my final line, only one team should be named new zealand, the national team.

They can be the north island warriors, hell even the invercargill warriors if that makes you happy but they are not a national team. We have another NZ league team that wears black.

People complain about the international game being marginalised in league, the Warriors contribute to that using New Zealand
You're over-dramatising it. There is and never has been a rule where only a national representative team can wear the country's name. The same must be said for the Breakers, as well. The same would have to be said for the Auckland Warriors. They are NOT the representative side for Auckland, so they could not in all fairness wear the title. Hell, some of the players don't even come from Auckland, or even NZ, for that matter.

They are the sole representative from NZ in an Australian competition, therefore it is only natural that they would market themselves to the whole country by using their name.

The game has a lot more problems than a professional franchise using the country's name.

I think I would have more issue if they were known as the ... Kiwis than I do with the NZ name.
 

eudebrito

|-|
Contributor
Warriors, clap, clap, clap, Warriors...

They could ditch any of the prefixes, it does shit me when Aus league shows refer to them as New Zealand, just call them the warriors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surfin

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Jesbass_old
Replies
3
Views
980
LordGnome_old
Replies
30
Views
3K
Tajhay_old
Replies
2
Views
1K
Fazz_old