The future of NZ Rugby
-
@Nepia said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
TBH, and apologies in advance at @Tim but I highly doubt that a Super team based in Harbour from the start would have made any difference to how things are going now. Auckland can't even run one competent team at the moment let alone two.
It would have made a big difference, for rugby as a whole (investing in by far the biggest market) and it would avoided some of the issues that caused probems in the Blues.
A Super Rugby battle of the bridge would have retained a lot of interest that has now been lost over the past 25 years. Remember North Harbour was pretty strong back then too.
Factor in all the Auckland/North Harbour/Counties players playing around the country and it's even a stupider decision.
-
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12312527
Does it mention asian people? They make up a lot of the school age population.
Does it honestly deal with the challenge of losing two major sponsors in a year? With no replacements announced ...
-
-
-
@Higgins said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@nzzp Auckland may have one third of the country's population but about one third of that is either of Asian (mostly Chinses) or Indian origin/ethnicity neither of which are all that interested in rugby (the Japanese aside)
just be careful of sweeping generalisations. The lads who drew me into Eden Park (and are 25 year+ sesaon ticket holders) are indians; no reason the Rugby Religion can't sweep up folks from any ethnicity. Rugby's problem is more that it's hard to get into for damn near anyone, regardless of where you're from.
-
@Tim said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12312527
Does it mention asian people? They make up a lot of the school age population.
Does it honestly deal with the challenge of losing two major sponsors in a year? With no replacements announced ...
Feels like getting your ducks lined up to be bought by a large investment firm....
-
@Kirwan said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Nepia said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
TBH, and apologies in advance at @Tim but I highly doubt that a Super team based in Harbour from the start would have made any difference to how things are going now. Auckland can't even run one competent team at the moment let alone two.
It would have made a big difference, for rugby as a whole (investing in by far the biggest market) and it would avoided some of the issues that caused probems in the Blues.
A Super Rugby battle of the bridge would have retained a lot of interest that has now been lost over the past 25 years. Remember North Harbour was pretty strong back then too.
Factor in all the Auckland/North Harbour/Counties players playing around the country and it's even a stupider decision.
If you'd have asked anyone in the 90s if the Blues would be a struggling franchise you'd get laughed at, I don't think there's a guarantee of success of a Harbour team in Super rugby (or if there would have been other knock on effects from basing it there).
I'm not saying it couldn't have been a success, but not the fait accompli you guys are making it out to be.
@nzzp said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Higgins said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@nzzp Auckland may have one third of the country's population but about one third of that is either of Asian (mostly Chinses) or Indian origin/ethnicity neither of which are all that interested in rugby (the Japanese aside)
just be careful of sweeping generalisations. The lads who drew me into Eden Park (and are 25 year+ sesaon ticket holders) are indians; no reason the Rugby Religion can't sweep up folks from any ethnicity. Rugby's problem is more that it's hard to get into for damn near anyone, regardless of where you're from.
Yeah, I always remember seeing lots of Indians at rugby matches in NZ.
-
@Nepia Some of the problems of the Blues has been infighting between Northland, Harbour and Auckland.
On the Shore and Northland, they see the Blues as Auckland dominated, so you lose fan engagement there.
So two problems solved straight away.
Then you factor in the marketing advantages of local rivalries now being on the field, and being able to retain their talent and you have a better product.
Or you could prop up dwindling populations in Southland and Dunedin...
-
@nzzp said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Higgins said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@nzzp Auckland may have one third of the country's population but about one third of that is either of Asian (mostly Chinses) or Indian origin/ethnicity neither of which are all that interested in rugby (the Japanese aside)
just be careful of sweeping generalisations. The lads who drew me into Eden Park (and are 25 year+ sesaon ticket holders) are indians; no reason the Rugby Religion can't sweep up folks from any ethnicity. Rugby's problem is more that it's hard to get into for damn near anyone, regardless of where you're from.
Do their kids play?
-
As professional rugby supporters, I'm not sure that matters. My friend goes to heaps of Cowboys games, but his kids play tennis and golf.
-
@gt12 said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
As professional rugby supporters, I'm not sure that matters. My friend goes to heaps of Cowboys games, but his kids play tennis and golf.
I thought there was dwindling player numbers. I appreciate that you don't have to play to be a supporter, but surely the strike rate for a sport that has season ticket holders is some of their offspring take up the game.
-
A real eye opener for me was listening to a rugby contract lawyer on a podcast a couple of years ago. He basically suggested that NZ Rugby should axe payments to NPC players in order to fund a professional women's competition, "because we just have to". That is the calibre of person who works in NZ rugby.
Of course Scotty Stevenson loved it.
-
yep, but splitting the professional game and putting teams in client rich areas versus encouraging players (some of whom could become pros) should be separated IMO.
So, at the pro level, that probably means academies picking up brown kids from South Auckland before they get snatched by league (plus high school routes currently used). Many of them are natural Warriors supporters or will go where the money is, so I don't see how/why focusing on rich customers kids - as players - is necessarily important.
That's not to say we don't want more players, but most of the casual players are also likely to be outside the major 'rich' population areas (i.e., not Rems) such as South Auckland, rural NZ, regional cities etc.
Rich markets etc etc.
-
@antipodean said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@nzzp said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Higgins said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@nzzp Auckland may have one third of the country's population but about one third of that is either of Asian (mostly Chinses) or Indian origin/ethnicity neither of which are all that interested in rugby (the Japanese aside)
just be careful of sweeping generalisations. The lads who drew me into Eden Park (and are 25 year+ sesaon ticket holders) are indians; no reason the Rugby Religion can't sweep up folks from any ethnicity. Rugby's problem is more that it's hard to get into for damn near anyone, regardless of where you're from.
Do their kids play?
all the boys did, some to late teens.
-
5 Super teams, 1 in each major centre at the time - seems a sensible decision simply based on that alone. We've never just considered commercial factors - grass roots and regional rugby is an important part of the mix.
There also the point that our main commercial product is the All Blacks, and we've done well in keeping them dominant.
Ultimately though, this is the joy of professional sport run by a non-profit member-driven incorporated society. Sometimes, they make decisions based on non-commercial factors because at their heart, they are not a commercial organisation.
-
-
@kev said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Nepia NPC is the competition that matters. It is the competition that has made NZ rugby great. Take that away and in 20 years we will be like Scotland. We can’t compete with those that have more money.
In the past yes. NZ has changed significantly in the past 20years and rugby needs to change with it.
NPC has only been around since the 70s so there was a different structure of the game before that.
Evolution basically.
If we just keep spinning the wheels it certainly will be dead before long.
-
@Tim said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
A real eye opener for me was listening to a rugby contract lawyer on a podcast a couple of years ago. He basically suggested that NZ Rugby should axe payments to NPC players in order to fund a professional women's competition, "because we just have to". That is the calibre of person who works in NZ rugby.
Of course Scotty Stevenson loved it.
Oh ffs.
-
@Kirwan said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Nepia Some of the problems of the Blues has been infighting between Northland, Harbour and Auckland.
On the Shore and Northland, they see the Blues as Auckland dominated, so you lose fan engagement there.
So two problems solved straight away.
Then you factor in the marketing advantages of local rivalries now being on the field, and being able to retain their talent and you have a better product.
Or you could prop up dwindling populations in Southland and Dunedin...
We don't have the server space to list the rest.
