Should the Broncos have been branded "Southern" and not "London" then to capture all the southern regions of the country?
The Dragons "France/French" and not "Catalans"?
Welsh Crusaders?
East Riding Rovers?
South Yorkshire Eagles?

It's good to have a wide area to draw support from, yes. But sometimes if you try and draw a big area, the central market place (in the immediate locality of the club) feel less of a connection to the club. Then again, if you draw it too small, you struggle to get people outside of the locality to be connected. It's a balancing act. It's what stops teams being called "St Michael's Lane Rhinos" or "Earth Rhinos" (although I know there was an Earth Titans, but that was a sponsor!).

I really don't think that that many people from Christchurch have an attachment to the Warriors, and I don't think of the ones that do, them being called Auckland would have affected the decision of many.

On the contrary, I'd say it would be odd for Widnes residents to support Warrington Wolves over Widnes Vikings simply because they play at a higher level or in a competition with more prestige and happen also to play in Cheshire. Of the 2 sides, Widnes Vikings certainly represent Widnes more than Warrington do and a decision to support Widnes could hardly be construed as deciding to not "support the club which represents you because its too far away from where you live".

They are 'Harlequins' Im not sure where you think 'harlequin' is. And i would hope our plans for the entire southern region stretch further than a single token team.
You mean like they are Les Catalans Dragons rather than Perpignan Dragons?
Crusaders and Celtic Crusaders rather than Bridgend or Wrexham Crusaders? Placing themselves as the Welsh team rather than the Wrexham team?
Well no, simply because there are about 5 people in East Yorkshire outside of Hull.
Maybe.

Earth Rhinos wouldnt make sense because they would play other clubs also based on Earth. Leeds Rhinos represent a very large area but as soon as you step out of Leeds there are competition like Bradford, Wakefield, Castleford, Huddersfield. Thats why they are 'Leeds' and not Headingley or St Johns Parish sides anymore. This is why the whole of Wales is available to Crusaders, The whole of Catalonia is available to Les Catalans and the Whole of NZ is available to the Warriors.

So why do you think they changed? and why do you think if nobody in Christchurch has an attachment to the Warriors the Warriors play games there and get about 20k watching them?

But this is your statement, yours to justify. What benefit would there be to changing the one NRL side NZ has to one which only represents Auckland and not the rest of NZ?

you are confusing the question again. Its not about getting Widnes fans to support Warrington. In fact, my argument was that Widnes fans (read Wellington and Christchurch RL fans) would be less likely to support a Warrington (read Auckland) SL side than they would a Cheshire (read NZ) side.

The decision they would need to make is whether to watch Widnes in the lower leagues with no P+R and a franchise system like the NRL, or watch 'Cheshire' in SL. Why would you expect them to choose Widnes rather than Cheshire? Do you expect people from Scholes to support St Pats instead of the Warriors?

But they won't be Harlequins forever, will they? They're looking at changing the name again. Should they be London? Or should they be The South?

But why not France? Surely they're excluding the rest of France?

Placing themselves as a team with no location perhaps?

There are more people living in the East Riding outside of Hull than inside.

I'd stick with Sheffield


That's not the reason it would be daft though.
Hull FC play another team from Hull.

Why the whole of Catalonia and not the whole of France? There aren't any other French SL clubs. Or any other mainland Europe SL clubs for that matter. This is the point I'm making.


Is that an attachment to the Warriors or an attachment to watching NRL?
Do clubs have an attachment to the Sydney sides that take NRL side that take on the road games to Adelaide, Perth, etc? And if so, why aren't they put off by them being named after a suburb of a city in another state?


Because it would give the Kiwis better brand recognition, as there are people that would confuse the Warriors for being the international team that represent New Zealand. And who would blame them considering they now have the name "New Zealand" in there, wear the same colours, and often even wear the same style.

Warriors are well supported across NZ and by Kiwis in Australia. A Southern named team based in Wellington but playing 4 games in Christchurch could be massive.

They should almost certainly be London, As i said there will/should be other teams in the very poorly defined area of 'the south'
They are, that would be taken up by other french teams.
They do have a location, Wales.
There are 573k people in the Hull Urban Area, 593k in the east riding of Yorkshire.
So would I

They do, but it is very rare for that to be happening isnt it.
And I am saying there will be. I am saying that Les Catalans arent the representatives for the whole of Europe because there are other areas

Who knows. But im not sure why the name of the club would be relevant to this question.



there is?

I would, it would be pretty ridiculous. Australian players play for the Warriors, they are called the Warriors not the Kiwis, and they play in a club competition. The warriors are the club team which represents New Zealand, the Kiwis are the international team. Its not a complex concept.

Do you really have to dissect every single line of every single post and reply to key points individually?

London is more akin to a county than a city, it's huge.

They should almost certainly be Auckland, As i said there will/should be other teams in a New Zealand.


They are, that would be taken up by other New Zealand teams.

Where's the consistency?
You'd expect the World Champions to be getting a 2nd pro team in their country before France or an expansion area in England that already has one. But you wouldn't name them after the full area yet for the Warriors you would?

I'm talking about people that don't know of the Kiwis, but have come across a team called New Zealand Warriors and assumed they're a rep side. You wouldn't expect someone in this situation to know the roster of the team, let alone where they are from (although there are Australians playing for NZ, Wales and France anyways).

It's not a complex concept, but neither is the fact there is a sport called rugby league and one called rugby union but there are still plenty that would think they are the same.

Do you really have to constantly ignore people's posts and not reply to any of them at all and come out with your usual bull?

But the Cheshire/NZ side is (or would be) merely a re-marketed Warrington/Auckland side. And the reason Widnes residents would be less likely to support Warrington is because they have Widnes Vikings. That's my point. Anyone who actually argued that Warrington should re-brand as Cheshire so that people in Widnes had someone to support would surely (and rightly) be met with the response that Widnes Vikings exist even if they aren't in SL! Throughout, what I've disagreed with is the idea that if there isn't an NRL or SL side then there is "nobody to support".


You're kind of changing my argument here, though not on purpose I think. It isn't about what I expect fans to do or not do, I simply disagree with the idea that "no NRL/SL team" = "nobody to support" and therefore requires re-branding to include these so-called team-less fans.

And at that point it will change


Because NZ is a very defined area. 'the south' and 'the rest of europe' arent. Whereas London, Auckland, NZ and Catalonia are.

And before you say it, France is a defined area but a massive country, many many many times the size of New Zealand in population and in land, which is why Les Catalans represent Catalonia rather than 'france'. Catalonia is the largest population represented by a single team in either hemisphere nearly twice the population of NZ. They represent about 7million people.

Do they? Do you really think there are large portions of NZers who dont know the difference between the Warriors and the Kiwis? Who dont know the difference between their NRL side and the National Side?

Some people dont want to be involved in the lower leagues, thats just life. It is these people, who are a sizeable portion, who have 'nobody to support'. There are people who will support a Christchurch team playing in the lower leagues, they arent harmed or in anyway really affected by their being an NZ NRL team for people to support. My point was never to say people who support lower league sides are lesser or lower leagues sides themselves are lesser, my point was what do we gain by excluding people from Wellington/Christchurch from the NRL side.

So basically the size of the catchment area being too big changes to suit your argument then? And that it's OK for some to be named after it and change back afterwards, but not others because they're too big (which changed depending on who you're arguing about)?

Well there's no real point in carrying on with this argument then as you change it to suit.

Where has it changed? NZ is in no way comparable to France in terms of size or population. And im not sure where you think it said it was ok for some to be named after it and changed back but not for others.

In simple terms for you, a country like France, far too big in both population and area for one club to represent it.

A place like catalonia or London, still pretty big places, have the population to possibly support a few teams but still small enough to have one represent it in the absence of other clubs.

NZ relatively small, certainly capable of supporting one team, probably two, unlikely three. Definitely small enough to be represented by only one side.

It would be ridiculous for us to pretend France, NZ, Catalonia, London, 'the south'(whatever that is) are all the same in terms of the amount of teams they can support and whether one club side could claim to represent them. One has 65m people in it, two between 7/8m and one 4m

But that isn't "nobody to support" at all, is it?! It's "nobody [uwho I [/u[uwant[/u to support".


Aren't they? You honestly don't think having a bigger, more successful club in a more prestigious competition re-brand themselves to cover your locality would harm your smaller, less successful team? Anyway, like I said I didn't intend on putting forward an argument for what should or shouldn't be done, more disagreeing with your reasoning about there being no club to support.


I imagine you would gain some and lose some. You would attract people from outside the immediate locality who previously did not feel affiliated with "MyTown RLFC", but you'd lose people who no longer felt affiliated with "OurCounty RLFC". How would most RL fans honestly feel if their team became a different team for different fans? I'd also say,as above, that it might weaken smaller clubs.

Its a distinction without a difference. The outcome is exactly the same.

People have that choice. If they choose to support the bigger more successful club in a more prestigious competition thats not a bad thing for the game.

Id imagine it will attract a lot more than it will lose. Even if it did 'weaken' the smaller clubs by taking some of their fans, it would also attract others who werent smaller clubs fans. We cant stop attracting more fans on the basis some may have held an affiliation elsewhere.

Course there's a difference! If John Smith down the road doesn't fancy supporting Wigan (as impossible as that scenario seems) would he be correct in saying there isn't a team in Wigan to support and then going on to suggest Saints should re-brand to cover Wigan? Sorry, but regardless of whether you think it would be good for the game, or good for fans, your starting point is simply wrong!

If John Smith doesnt want to, and doesnt support a lower league team, and doesnt have an SL side to support, whether you say he doesnt doesnt have a team to support or he does but he is choosing not to by his decision to only support the game at the top level is irrelevant it leaves us with exactly the same net effect that at this point John Smith doesnt support the game.

If a club widens its support area to then take where he lives into account through re-branding, better/more marketing, closer community links, then good. They havent taken a supporter away from the lower leagues (because John Smith wouldnt support the lower leagues) and increased their fan base.

John Smith sounds like a bit of a tool.

John Smith is representative of a large amount of people, and unfortunately, tools money is worth exactly the same as the money awesome guys like me

Anyone bought one of these yet? If so whats the quality and sizing like?

I remember hearing (and seeing) how poor the Wigan World club challenge shirts were. Hopefully the exiles one hasn't been rushed into production like that one was.