NRL NRL Expansion

[snake77]

Think the fact they are likely using the exact same colour scheme makes it a bit more understandable but there’s plenty of shared sport monikers that I doubt it will confuse anyone

Watching the Kumuls game yesterday I was wandering what colours they may use and thought it would be good to distinguish the NRL side from the national side.

We had that period where the Warriors kit was black/silver and the Kiws black/white. It is good now being back to the old blue kit.

Having an issue with the Chiefs name I don't agree with.

The colours and logo they have more of a point. They should also assess if it something to dig their heels over. They aren't flush for cash reserves like they used to be. Lawsuits can drag out and is a common tactic to keep it going until one side decides it isn't worth it anymore.

Starting a side has quite a few challenges. Even the teams in the competition you are playing with will be watching your colours. The Knights and Roosters were worried about the Warriors kit when it was first shown prior to the 95 season. The Warriors had to point out a reverse kit solves that problem.

It is a bit of a setback in terms of getting a club up and running as there is a lot to do. It would still be best in my opinion to make some changes to the colours and look at the logo. Get some people sort that out and concentrate long term on the important things like staffing, facilities, development systems and the roster.

 

[Makasene]

Interestingly (and not surprisingly) it is The Warriors who are the biggest opponents to a 2nd NZ team (which would almost certainly be in Christchurch).

Michael Carayannis on SEN Radio played a clip from Andrew Voss who sugested that surely now is the time to capitalise on the growth of the game by adding another NZ team in Christchurch. Carayannis was quick to point out that Warriors are heavily against it citing "they feel there is more work to do before the country is ready for it"

I would disagree there is more work to do, but I can definitely see where the club is coming from. After 30+ years we are now the dominant professional sporting team in the country, we're yanking kids out of Rugby left right and centre right up and down the country, we would lose a lot of what we have built.

 

[snake77]

Yes they should consult the Warriors seeing as they are here in the coalface. However, the Warriors do have a bias and that should be taken into account.

When is the perfect time? After the Warriors have won 2 premierships and become a regular top 8 side, and have a strong development system, Auckland or NZ having a feeder competition similar to NSW/QLD Cup?
Besides the feeder competition a lof of the above is on the Warriors who have had 30 years.

There will likely always be work to do. The other way to look at it is commit to the plan of a second team and start the work required.

Christchurch and Dunedin have suitable stadiums. Financing/management for a second club might be an issue, judging on some of the comments around the current bids. If the NRL is serious these are things that can be worked on.

Investment in the age group and lower grades will be needed.

The work on the ground the Warriors are talking about is hard to see happening without NRL support.

If a second side was approved with x number of years lead time it puts a timeline on things and work can be done to achieve it.

 

[Rizzah]

Interestingly (and not surprisingly) it is The Warriors who are the biggest opponents to a 2nd NZ team (which would almost certainly be in Christchurch).

Michael Carayannis on SEN Radio played a clip from Andrew Voss who sugested that surely now is the time to capitalise on the growth of the game by adding another NZ team in Christchurch. Carayannis was quick to point out that Warriors are heavily against it citing "they feel there is more work to do before the country is ready for it"

I would disagree there is more work to do, but I can definitely see where the club is coming from. After 30+ years we are now the dominant professional sporting team in the country, we're yanking kids out of Rugby left right and centre right up and down the country, we would lose a lot of what we have built.

The talent pool could sustain two teams; with RU stinking up the joint. Most importantly, this would be transformative for rugby league in New Zealand: two homegrown professional RL pathway systems, double the local development investment, and genuine north/south representation. The Warriors should be championing this, not kicking stones. A second team would create an instant rivalry narrative, keeping Wahs management sharp through competitive pressure and with a second team assisting to provide a wider talent pool with further investment in national pathways. The Warriors should be part of the team assisting with the roadmap; management have done an exceptional job since COVID.
It's an interesting/exciting prospect - I'd love to see a SI team, even if it is based in CHCH.

 

[JustLikeStartingOver]

Tracksuit Cam always shits on the idea of a second side when asked. Why wouldn’t he? it would be direct competition for juniors, sponsors, coaches.

The second team would need another Alpha type figure to tip money in though, the NRL tv rights pay for the first grade side, but 30 years of the wahs have shown us that isn't enough. No pokie money / leagues club to fund it either.

 

[Falcon]

The current TV deal concludes in 2027, so any expansion opportunities will need to come to light pretty quickly in outlining when a 20th team would join, possibly in 2029 or more likely 2030. Three years in a row of introducing an expansion side and the drain on playing resource could be a bit too much to bare, but I think as many have noted, the opportunity to add another team in NZ is upon us as rugby continues with its struggles and league rides the wave of excitement and general interest.

 

[mrblonde]

Interestingly (and not surprisingly) it is The Warriors who are the biggest opponents to a 2nd NZ team (which would almost certainly be in Christchurch).

Michael Carayannis on SEN Radio played a clip from Andrew Voss who sugested that surely now is the time to capitalise on the growth of the game by adding another NZ team in Christchurch. Carayannis was quick to point out that Warriors are heavily against it citing "they feel there is more work to do before the country is ready for it"

I would disagree there is more work to do, but I can definitely see where the club is coming from. After 30+ years we are now the dominant professional sporting team in the country, we're yanking kids out of Rugby left right and centre right up and down the country, we would lose a lot of what we have built.

Let's not ever lose sight of - and I'm talking about non-Auckland fans here - the number of Warriors fans who support them because they've taken New Zealand as their name (like the father from "Hunt For The Wilderpeople"). As an Aucklander, frankly, I look forward to the day we're the Auckland Warriors again (got nothing against Tamaki Makaurau, but I just don't think that's gonna fly for various reasons), but I respect that the Warriors would rather not risk losing a fair number of the fanbase.

As to the "more work to do": How sure are we that a Christchurch team would be a big enough attraction to Kiwis in Australia/Australians stuck behind so-and-so and such-and-such who'll go with the new New Zealand team just to get some game-time, show people what they can do? I'd love a second team, absolutely brilliant, but if I'm the NRL I'm not signing off on a second New Zealand team without some real confidence they can fly (ie challange for Finals Football, aka finish 9-10 at worst) from Season 1.

Which, of course, is a metric I as the NRL would not be applying to the Perth Bears/Papua New Guinea Chiefs/Etc...

 

[Makasene]

Let's not ever lose sight of - and I'm talking about non-Auckland fans here - the number of Warriors fans who support them because they've taken New Zealand as their name (like the father from "Hunt For The Wilderpeople"). As an Aucklander, frankly, I look forward to the day we're the Auckland Warriors again (got nothing against Tamaki Makaurau, but I just don't think that's gonna fly for various reasons), but I respect that the Warriors would rather not risk losing a fair number of the fanbase.

As to the "more work to do": How sure are we that a Christchurch team would be a big enough attraction to Kiwis in Australia/Australians stuck behind so-and-so and such-and-such who'll go with the new New Zealand team just to get some game-time, show people what they can do? I'd love a second team, absolutely brilliant, but if I'm the NRL I'm not signing off on a second New Zealand team without some real confidence they can fly (ie challange for Finals Football, aka finish 9-10 at worst) from Season 1.

Which, of course, is a metric I as the NRL would not be applying to the Perth Bears/Papua New Guinea Chiefs/Etc...

I don't think immediate on-field results necessarily come into it.

What is most important is the business case.

It's not possible to predict where a team will finish considering they are given only 12 months to build a squad before their first pre-season. In most cases making the finals within the first 5 years is a goal. Dolphins will be 4 at least, We were 7th season, Cowboys were 10th season!

Immediate on-field results are also secondary to the fact that a poor business case with good on-field results will not likely outlast a sound business-case with poor on-field results. Just look at the Titans, took off early and done shit-all since.

As for "would Christchurch be a big enough attraction?" Very simply I think it would. It's an NRL team, lads want to play, coaches want to coach, they would have no trouble whatsoever attracting talent.