NZ | Sports Thread - Page 6

cambennett · March 16th, 2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blah

One wonders how a team from the "islands" is even viable. Which country would that be? Fiji? Politically unstable and on unfriendly terms with NZ. Plus their economy is too small to make a profit one would think.

The rest of the islands are way too small. All of Samoa has less people than Waitakere City with a lot less disposable income.

So then what? Base it in Auckland? That's just going to take away support from the Blues.

And then we have a team from Japan. Oh joy, let's watch a bunch of over the hill kiwis playing for the Nissan Raiders.

Stupid bastards

Regarding an island team. The answer is it wouldn't. It would have to be subsidised by the other franchises. In terms of viewing numbers, facilities or anything it would not stack up.

Blah · March 16th, 2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jandles

Let South Africa go off and Play with the Northern Hemisphere teams.. The travel between here and there is to friggin long and most teams are fucked after the long flights.

A rugby comp with 5 teams from aussie, 5 from NZ and 1 or two from the islands would be best.

And then have a 5 nations with SA, Australia, Argentina, Japan and ourselves.

Win win win all round..

An islands team is just not viable in a professional comp. They don't have the resources.

Plus a 5N with Japan would be boring, they'd lose to the Auckland NPC team by 20 points.

I think an NRL-like comp would be better. Just have a trans-tasman comp and at the end of the season a type of champions league where the top clubs around the world play each other. That would be awesome IMO.

jarbury · March 16th, 2009, 10:47 PM

I agree Blah. A trans-Tasman competition would be a great move. Not sure how it could fit in with the NPC though...

cambennett · March 16th, 2009, 10:53 PM

Well we all seem to be on the same page with this.

Jarbury, I think the NPC would have to become a feeder comp. Like a second division.

If we revert to provinces again for the trans tasman comp then provinces that don't make the cut would have to play in the NPC which you would probably run at the same time. I know a lot of people would not like this but a lot of the smaller provinces would become development/feeder teams for some the bigger ones in the trans tasman comp.

However what would then happen to the Ranfurly shield is the next question?

Blah · March 16th, 2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarbury

I agree Blah. A trans-Tasman competition would be a great move. Not sure how it could fit in with the NPC though...

I think the NPC can just be like the Toyota Cup is in Rugby LEague. An amateur comp that gives players a taste of high level rugby, but is basically just a feeder comp to whatever the new pro-comp is called.

THe NPC as it currently stands is also not viable. It's leaking money big time.

Richard7666 · March 17th, 2009, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jandles

Let South Africa go off and Play with the Northern Hemisphere teams.. The travel between here and there is to friggin long and most teams are fucked after the long flights.

A rugby comp with 5 teams from aussie, 5 from NZ and 1 or two from the islands would be best.

And then have a 5 nations with SA, Australia, Argentina, Japan and ourselves.

Win win win all round..

I don't really want to see any island teams, that'd just make ours weaker. Just whack two more NZ teams in there (or 1 NZ and 1 Aussie, if there's another Aussie team strong enough).

I like Blah's idea of the top teams playing each other...the top Currie Cup vs NPC teams would have been great. Though Australia is problematic there, not having a strong domestic competition like SA and NZ do.

I still find it hard to be that interested in the Highlanders (though they are playing in Invercargill more and wearing Southland colours a lot this season which is good, I imagine it's a survival decision) though.

KLK · March 17th, 2009, 11:02 AM

I'm afraid that SA is here to stay (unless they choose to leave).

Under the broadcasting agreement (which generates the major cash for the SANZAR unions) a whopping 65% is attributable to the SA pay-TV provider. So if you get rid of SA, you are reducing your product, therefore the value the market is willing to pay, and ultimately the amout that the ARU & NZRU will receive. And thats a big hit in anyone's bank balance....

And its not as simple as replacing them with someone else. The US and Asian markets don't have the rugby subscribers/viewers yet. Only the UK and Europe could be substituted - but they have their own (more lucrative) arrangements.

Its simple economics.

Richard7666 · March 17th, 2009, 11:52 AM

KLK, they very nearly DID leave the other day. Read a few posts back.

KLK · March 17th, 2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard7666

KLK, they very nearly DID leave the other day. Read a few posts back.

Nah - all media talk. They also know where their bread is buttered - their only option is to join with the Magners league teams (non-English) in a competition separate to the Heineken Cup. No more lucrative from the broadcasters point of view. But there is no doubt they hold the upper hand in SANZAR expansion talks.

But I was really coming from the fact that NZ & Australia are not going to get so fed up with SA that they say "b*gger off". Economically they can't.

Howdy · March 17th, 2009, 12:24 PM

How are broadcasting revenues actually split? I've been looking for some info but there doesn's seem to be that much available.

cambennett · March 17th, 2009, 11:31 PM

Agree NZ and Aus will not ditch SA it will be the other way round. SA bring in 65% of the broadcast revenue apparently through the supersport broadcast rights. However they also add a hell of a lot to the cost of staging the comp. So if the leave that could somewhat offset the lost revenue.

NZ and Aus don't want SA to leave but i could see them doing it. One of the reasons they are so protective of the currie cup is that they have an extremely lucrative broadcast deal for that as well. I could see them walking.

This competition is a lame duck anyway, nobody cares. Most NZ franchises can't give tickets away. For example last week the Blues were selling two tickets for $10 as a promotion and still only quarter filled North Harbour stadium.

From a fans point of view if they could stitch together some sort of transtasman comp with proper provinces that would be great we need a competition with more meaning. If the choose to go for an "asia pacific" comp with teams from Japan and the islands that will be just another nail in the coffin and people will continue to turn off in droves.

jarbury · March 18th, 2009, 04:19 AM

Decent recovery in the cricket: from 60/6 to 161/6

Blah · March 19th, 2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarbury

Decent recovery in the cricket: from 60/6 to 161/6

Yeah, good recovery but I expect India to get 400+. It was a bad toss to lose though.

jarbury · March 19th, 2009, 03:26 AM

Seems like it was an OK batting pitch right from the start though (well... after the first hour). Yeah India look on track for a big score (though Gambhir goes as I type this...)

Milan Luka · March 19th, 2009, 10:11 PM

Regardless of what happens in the test just good to see two Kiwis make hundreds in a single innings.

Vettori now has what is it 3000 runs and 200 wickets in test cricket which is a record as well.

jarbury · March 19th, 2009, 11:04 PM

Hadlee did 3000 runs & 400 wickets I thought?

john-ston · March 22nd, 2009, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard7666

And yeah, wtf is with 'Stadium Christchurch'???

Rugby World Cup rule; the stadiums cannot have corporate sponsors names. When the Cup was in Australia in 2003, Suncorp Stadium reverted to its old name of Lang Park until it was over.

IHaveNoLegs · March 22nd, 2009, 11:15 AM

yes but stadium christchurch over lancaster park?

john-ston · March 23rd, 2009, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IHaveNoLegs

yes but stadium christchurch over lancaster park?

It does seem odd. I understand their reasoning behind Wellington, since Westpac Stadium was the name from the very beginning (I would have preferred Cake Tin Stadium though

), but it does seem odd that Christchurch didn't just flick back to Lancaster Park.

Perhaps the powers that be have amnesia?

Richard7666 · March 23rd, 2009, 03:15 AM

That's what I was getting at. Lancaster Park is what it should always be called.

March 22nd, 2009, 11:15 AM	#118
IHaveNoLegs No Fat Chicks Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: One of the cracks at AMI Stadium Posts: 887 Likes (Received): 17	yes but stadium christchurch over lancaster park? __________________ Of Course you Canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 RIP Rucks, Mauls and any laws against forward passes Bring back the embankment Canterbury Dragons - We have the CLAP Gotta get money - for the things I want to buy

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

March 16th, 2009, 10:53 PM	#104
cambennett Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Auckland Posts: 2,128 Likes (Received): 3	Well we all seem to be on the same page with this. Jarbury, I think the NPC would have to become a feeder comp. Like a second division. If we revert to provinces again for the trans tasman comp then provinces that don't make the cut would have to play in the NPC which you would probably run at the same time. I know a lot of people would not like this but a lot of the smaller provinces would become development/feeder teams for some the bigger ones in the trans tasman comp. However what would then happen to the Ranfurly shield is the next question?

March 17th, 2009, 11:02 AM	#107
KLK Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,087 Likes (Received): 1	I'm afraid that SA is here to stay (unless they choose to leave). Under the broadcasting agreement (which generates the major cash for the SANZAR unions) a whopping 65% is attributable to the SA pay-TV provider. So if you get rid of SA, you are reducing your product, therefore the value the market is willing to pay, and ultimately the amout that the ARU & NZRU will receive. And thats a big hit in anyone's bank balance.... And its not as simple as replacing them with someone else. The US and Asian markets don't have the rugby subscribers/viewers yet. Only the UK and Europe could be substituted - but they have their own (more lucrative) arrangements. Its simple economics.

March 17th, 2009, 11:52 AM	#108
Richard7666 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Invercargill Posts: 875 Likes (Received): 3	KLK, they very nearly DID leave the other day. Read a few posts back.

March 17th, 2009, 12:24 PM	#110
Howdy The safety guy Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 157 Likes (Received): 0	How are broadcasting revenues actually split? I've been looking for some info but there doesn's seem to be that much available.

March 17th, 2009, 11:31 PM	#111
cambennett Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Auckland Posts: 2,128 Likes (Received): 3	Agree NZ and Aus will not ditch SA it will be the other way round. SA bring in 65% of the broadcast revenue apparently through the supersport broadcast rights. However they also add a hell of a lot to the cost of staging the comp. So if the leave that could somewhat offset the lost revenue. NZ and Aus don't want SA to leave but i could see them doing it. One of the reasons they are so protective of the currie cup is that they have an extremely lucrative broadcast deal for that as well. I could see them walking. This competition is a lame duck anyway, nobody cares. Most NZ franchises can't give tickets away. For example last week the Blues were selling two tickets for $10 as a promotion and still only quarter filled North Harbour stadium. From a fans point of view if they could stitch together some sort of transtasman comp with proper provinces that would be great we need a competition with more meaning. If the choose to go for an "asia pacific" comp with teams from Japan and the islands that will be just another nail in the coffin and people will continue to turn off in droves.

March 19th, 2009, 10:11 PM	#115
Milan Luka stupid sexy flanders Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Out in the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 2,715 Likes (Received): 78	Regardless of what happens in the test just good to see two Kiwis make hundreds in a single innings. Vettori now has what is it 3000 runs and 200 wickets in test cricket which is a record as well.

March 23rd, 2009, 03:15 AM	#120
Richard7666 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Invercargill Posts: 875 Likes (Received): 3	That's what I was getting at. Lancaster Park is what it should always be called.