NZ rugby community 100 percent behind the Warriors

"SR crowds are bigger because percentages of the 3 regions represented by each team support that franchise." hmmmmmm.

You haven't even accepted that Super rugby and the ITM cup are different with different crowds!

God code war discussions are boring. For what its worth, i think League has alot more to worry about in terms or the AFL before worrying about taking over New Zealand with a million teams that dilute quality and take a while to get up to speed. I love Union, I love League. They will compete sure, but it doesnt have to be to crush the other out of existence.

Oikee AFL is going to spend a lot of cash fighting its little war in GWS, and its little war on the Gold Coast, as well as proping up the brisbane lions which had a horrible year with both crowd numbers and required additional funding from the club. They might be giving the 18 teams a 100 million dollars a year for the next 5 years but thats 140,000,000 / 5 = 28,000,000 per year * 18 clubs = 540 million dollars per year or over 2billion over 5 years.. Sorry dude not even with their billion dollar tv deals can they do this. So lets make the assumption that the AFL decides to put a club in Auckland 1 they would need to find a suitable ground there are none in New Zealand, 2. once they had established a club they would have to try and get either one of the FTA channels or Sky to sign on but the price the AFL charges for a club would never be met by a tv station because there is no proved ratings for the game over here in australia foxtel can point to the numbers coming from melbourne to justify expense but in nz there is no luxtary so no channel is going to pay tv station will pay top dollar for the competition, the added team brings almost no value to the afl itself and it could cost them hundreds of mllions to get a team up and running. could they do it yes they could is it worth anything to them no. nrl, basketball, netball, soccer, and rugby are all proven sports in nz with their own followings and in the case of netball, soccer and rugby and league with a large cross-code following each with something to offer sky sport .. afl does not rate and putting a team in auckland would not suddenly improve the ratings. converting nsw has not gone well for the afl, converting new zealand is a lot harder but the afl is welcome to try it would waste millions of their dollars in new zealand and give the nrl breathing room in australia - the afl does not have the resources to take on both rugby codes.

NZ has survived worse recessions, and it will survive this one.

Now that sounds better :) I'll agree with your idea though I'd only allow 3 spots per squad. Enforced. My veiw may not be mirrored by the NZ public though :) SA is the best bet in terms of sustainability and Locale (Stadiums,Fans) Cost should put NZ out of the picture. OZ I don't know enough about. It sounds good, but it would need a lot of changes to current structure and work. They would need to be brave.

I have to say I do agree with the general gist of this discussion. SANZAR could look to introduce a number of teams playing the the competition relatively easily if it looked to broaden it's player recruitment policies. With Argentina entering the 4Ns next season, each SR franchise should be looking open between 3-5 squad places with 50% of those dedicated for Argentines and the other 50% open for PI's and development player's from the likes of the US and Canada. With the maximum squad numbers being 30 that would create a surplus of 25 players in each nation to fill a whole new squad on it's own. This could be rapidly accelerated by increasing this to 10 spots. Look to recruit PI's, Argentines, Americans and Canada's as well as your odd Japanese player and such. The opportunity is there it's whether SANZAR are brave enough to take it.

Oh I get what you're trying to say. It just doesn't make sense as per points above. - The amount the crowds are raised will not cover the costs. Fact - More teams actually reduces profitability since it isn't profitable now. Fact - The cash from Crowds do not keeps NZ rugby going. Again it's Adidas, Sky, ABs and so on. Just saying that SR local derbies will raise the crowds to the point that it becomes profitable is wrong. Low transport costs? So they don't go overseas at all? The overall travel costs would rise. The overall income cost would rise. The increase in revenue will not cover this. Profits arent based game to game... They are based on the whole financial year. SR crowds are bigger because percentages of the 3 regions represented by each team support that franchise. Steelers Fans won't suddenly increase to the point where they're making money again just because their team is now in SR. They couldn't even afford to keed Masaga. Their fanbase may increase, but not by enough. You don't know. So dont pretend you do.

Ok, concentrate hard: 1) Super rugby is a far bigger affair than the ITM cup and so draws bigger crowds. That is simple and clear and obvious. This should be obvious to a prehistoric caveman. SUPER RUGBY BIG GLAMOUROUS INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION CROWDS BIGGER THAN ITM WHICH IS SMALL DEAL SO HAS SMALLER CROWDS SUPER RUGBY NOT THE SAME AS ITM CUP NOT THE SAME NOT THE SAME. 2) The most profitable matches in Super rugby are not Wellington/Brisbane or Waikato/Bulls but LOCAL DERBIES. Not only do these draw the biggest crowds, but because of the LOW TRANSPORT COSTS they also make the biggest profits. So, therefore, as a result, in consequence, following from this MORE TEAMS IMPROVES THE PROFITABILITY OF SUPER RUGBY BECAUSE IT MEANS UNDER THE CONFERENCE SYSTEM MORE LOCAL DERBIES WHICH BRING THE BIGGEST CROWDS AND LOW TRANSPORT COSTS WHICH LOWER COST. SO MORE TEAMS MEANS MORE PROFIT UNDER THE CONFERENCE SYSTEM WHICH IS BASED AROUND CHEAP BUT POPULAR LOCAL DERBIES AND SUPER RUGBY IS ALSO MORE GLAMOUROUS AND ATTRACTIVE TO CROWDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Surely that's clear by now?

Firstly. It's way off Test intensity. Hence why a lot of players can excel at SR rugby and not Test matches. Secondly. Which Counties Manakau players are in the All Blacks? How many have secured SR spots? What "stars" are you talking about? Your claim its more important... That's opinion. (Not mine by the way) And it's getting silly having to repeat that the crowds will not account for the costs. Did you read my last post in which I list where the money comes from that actually keeps NZ rugby running? At the moment, and for a long time, the NZRU has run at a loss. The money pulled in by the crowd that will turn out (Which would be small) will not cover the costs. As I have already stated. They just wont. There is zero chance they could. Don't pretend to know things that your guessing about. Bring solid ideas based on something more than population numbers and assertions about support size. All ideas aren't created equal. It's why I ask you questions. If you can fix the fundamental problems with it. I'll support it :)

Look, i just pointed out that AFL, and they will continue to call it Australian Football, and in Australia they use the words, out indigernous code, have no fear of other codes, and why should they, their warchest after the next 5 years will be half a billion, plus as i outlined above, they spend 140 million on each club over the next 5 years. They have put a club in league heartland, plus they are part of the private school curriculum. What hope NZ. NZ has already built its grave without knowing it.

all7 obviously the crowds are bigger in Super rugby than the ITM Cup because it's a much bigger, more important, more glamourous competition. They're not the same thing so how can you compare the crowds in both? Super rugby is not far off test intensity, with a plethora of stars, of course it gets bigger crowds so that's why people would come.

"someone tell em that rugby is not for soft lads with rich dads" ? It's a well known fact mate, and when rugby bans league from its schools, this will never change. Rugby has done itself no favours in Australia, the tact they took 100 years ago is now a well known fact. The AFL in Melbourne really has come back to haunt them. Our Indigernous code. :( I might as well write this here, i was going to write it somewhere anyhow. The Rugby World cup in NZ. Look, i really wish them good luck, i will be getting into it once league is over this weekend. Looking at their profits for this cup seem pretty impressive to most, myself also thought they looked pretty good. Yet, the more you look, the more you wonder, the more the world retreats into a recession, and with a downgrade in the kiwi economy to AA, along with a falling dollar, the real profit for rugby might be a deathblow to NZ. I will make a few points. First, notice i did not say NZ rugby. I said NZ. The NZ dollar has been downgraded, so the 250 million profits instantly take a hit. Kiwi's put alot of their own hard earned into supporting this world cup, not only infrastructure, (which they will now pay for many decades to come) but the game itself. Most of these profits are from Rugby followers. They have spent tens of thou\sands supporting this cup. Once the cup rolls outta town, time to reflect, a giant slug on the whalf, which will probably be decommisioned after a few years, a Eden park which will only be used to capacity once every year. Ordinary folk adding to the strain of a downturn with less income. You only have to look at Sydney, a city with the pop of NZ to understand this impact. They held the Olympic games and are still feeling the pinch when times were good. And lets have alook at what 200 million(i downgraded the profit in line with the dollar fall) , 200 million is what 2 domestic comps in Australia earn each year, AFL and NRL. They use this money just to keep 2 comps afloat. The reason i bring this up is not because of League, its because i read how much the AFL lions were to get over 5 years from AFL coffers, 140 odd million, and that is one club. More if they need a centre of excellence. Every club which is 18 teams receives this amount. Plus they have a warchest, plus their players will be receiving 1 billion or more alone over that 5 year period. Thats what league and union are up against. In a coutry which just hit 22.5 million and just annouced a 150 thousand shortfall in mine workers next year. For these reasons alone, i fear for NZ.

Again. If the people aren't selling out the stadiums in these local derbies already in the ITM cup... Why would it happen in SR? All the places you want teams have ITM cup teams. They play each other regularly. The crowds aren't paying the bills even now. Therefore, when you add extra costs to these teams that have been promoted to SR, your plan falls over. More teams would be awesome! But have a plan that works. Oh and what makes the ITM cup survive? The ABs, Sky, Adidas... etc. Crowds help. But even in ITM cup where, by your logic, local teams draw bigger crowds, the bills aren't being paid. These are facts. Not opinion.

BT the crowds are higher with more local interest and more local derbies. This is what is most appealing and makes the clubs the most money, much more than the international Super rounds. So more teams would increase profitability and of course, the local derbies have the lowest transport costs and so as there would be relatively more of them, they would lower overall costs. It is precisely because there are not enough teams that local interest is not maximised, there is little national feeling to the competition, and so crowds are not as high as they would be if there were more teams. There are not large single owners within the franchise system at present. If they were encouraged, there would be a huge new flood of sponsorship and capital.

I am with all7days. Despite my obvious bias towards League, this has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. If you are not getting full crowds with the current sides playing, how do you expect to get big enough crowds to cover the extra costs associated with another 4 teams in NZ. I am telling you that in Australia, more Super teams in the near future is not going to happen. There are not enough quality players playing the game. In Australia, the better quality players play Rugby League. There will no doubt be cries from the heavens following that remark, but at the end of the day it is there for anyone to see. On top of that what, gate takings make up only a small percentage of a clubs income. The majority of the money is from corporate $$$, be it television or sponsors. Do you think NZ will be able to attract enough corporate $$$ to field another 4 teams? You are talking 4 full squads of players and associated staff, office staff, new stadiums, travel costs etc etc.

Emric the question is how to add new teams. I would say they should add the same number to each conference each time, to avoid arguments. Obviously they can't just add, or rather in reality they won't add several at once. It would have to be staggered. Eastern Cape, Western Sydney, South Auckland first. I think the critical thing is the next two or three teams in each place. It's so important to shore up Western Sydney and Gold Coast before league and AFL take over, and to get to Adelaide before the NRL. Then in New Zealand more teams in Auckland will fend off the advances of league. And in SA it will help them bring new areas into the game. They should really do it as soon as possible.

No Logic. There are not enough people going to games already. Placing more teams will raise costs. The people who feel that they identify with the new teams will not be enough to make it sustainable. So it is spreading the cash around. Still disregarding the Rugby calender. Still disregarding the fact the population doesn't equal support. Again, Dont pretend to know things you don't.

KPM I agree a conference semi-final and conference champion is a logical bi-product of any expansion between the teams. Reaslitically each conference should have 12 teams, in New Zealand that would be the entire NPC, in Australia it makes it up to be 2 teams for each state and SA can take care of themselves a semi final / final for each conference with the top 6 teams going up against each other

Marhshall if there were more Super teams would have grown up with rugby and is more likely to have gone into it at the beginning. More Super teams doesn't mean having to spread more cash, because the crowds would provide the revenue to play the new players. There would just be more teams. more money in the game, a bigger market, pure gain.