General From the Herald - Rugby Crowds Down, Warriors Crowds Up!

Kav_old

Guest
I don't agree with you there Kav because I watch both and quite prominantly. I first grew up watching union it was my first footy love before league and I only got into league through union. How exactly I don't know but I did.

Both codes are vastly different yes but it doesn't mean a person can't be an advocate for both. The only reason I don't spend as much time talking about it here is because I can see a vast majority dispise union to such a degree.

So yes in my view you can love both and watch it for what it is but you shouldn't have to get caught in the cross-fire of having to pick one over the other.

With respect, Victoria, you may be too young to understand and/or experience the bitter divisions that have been created by league's affrontery to go it alone and union's arrogance in trying to squash a much smaller rival. If there is one human trait that I despise more than any other, it is arrogance from a position of strength.

Kav

Kav
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Hard to argue against that Kav, i to was thinking both Vic And Esoj may to young to have been on the recieving end of union arrogance and bullying as both you and i have.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
To me, I don't give a rat's arse if you are old or young. You can't let what past indescretions in a sport dominate the way you think or view it. Of course there will be times when the administrators and the likes have done things where we, as the fans totaly disagree with and feel we are being shut out.

I don't for one mind think it is right but I also don't believe we should use it against them as you two do. Obviously whatever was done is something you two have taken too much to heart. If that's how you feel sure but I don't see why you should let it be the ruling governing mind set you already have.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
Why is it are we going into this divide of old v young? It doesn't matter. We all watch a sporting game and we all appreciate it. For different reasons but under no circumstances should we make it like an alienation of difference because of the generation seperation. Just simply because what you experience is not like what many of us does it make us any less of a person?

I should hope not.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
What bit sounds strange to you? The powers that be (past and present) are what i hate.

Sorry. I didn't make that very clear at all, lol. I meant, that in light of you saying you enjoy the game but not the politics behind it, it seemed strange to say that supporting union is the equivalent of being pro-murder. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at?
 

westie stylz_old

Guest
I love league and rugby.

Grew up watching both and playing both. I know what Union has done to league and still does though to a lesser extent these days.

I am more interested in the actual game though, not the politics. When I go to watch the kids I teach play rugby at school or my local rugby club toilers play how can I hate the game? They are ordinary kids and adults having fun and putting on a good show.

Back on the topic of crowds though. The Warriors have a very good side by the looks of things but...... have the 12th best attendance in the league. Only worse teams are Sharks, Raiders, Storm and Dragons.

Why is it that people still don't really show up to Warriors games? I would have thought with 12 years behind the club now and a whole generation of kids having grown up with the club always having been around along with the diehards then they would be getting 15,000 along each week no problem as a base number.

Is it the regular sunday kickoff times? Are they un attractive time slots? Do people like Saturday games more or night games more?

Are the covered seats too pricey given it's often cold and wet at games and people don't want to put their families out in the open?

Or is it the problem of modern times in Auckland where there are so many things to see and do combined with house prices and mortgages weighing on peoples minds?
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Sorry. I didn't make that very clear at all, lol. I meant, that in light of you saying you enjoy the game but not the politics behind it, it seemed strange to say that supporting union is the equivalent of being pro-murder. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at?


The facts are these Dave, in 2001 i wanted to play some form of rugby. At the time the Timaru Warriors were playing Canterbury second division league which is pretty high level of football....basically i wasn't prepared to put my body through playing league at this level again SOOOOOOO i played for Timaru Old boys rugby union as a poor second choice mainly due to my above reason and because my mates were playing for them. At no time have i said or will i ever say i love union. And to give you some i idea of where i am at, when it came time to register with the club ACC purposes i refused because this is also where playing numbers come from.

I live breath and eat rugby league simple as that.
 

Kav_old

Guest
Why is it are we going into this divide of old v young? It doesn't matter. We all watch a sporting game and we all appreciate it. For different reasons but under no circumstances should we make it like an alienation of difference because of the generation seperation. Just simply because what you experience is not like what many of us does it make us any less of a person?

I should hope not.

Don't take this personally, Victoria - I was only pointing out that union arrogance (and discrimination) against league was worse in my youth but has definitely improved since union went professional. The cynical side of me would say that was because league then had much reduced pulling power over union players and were therefore less of a threat. The point is that while I might be willing to put aside past differences, I cannot be persuaded to support union as, compared with league, it is a dinasour beyond saving.

Kav
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Don't take this personally, Victoria - I was only pointing out that union arrogance (and discrimination) against league was worse in my youth but has definitely improved since union went professional. The cynical side of me would say that was because league then had much reduced pulling power over union players and were therefore less of a threat. The point is that while I might be willing to put aside past differences, I cannot be persuaded to support union as, compared with league, it is a dinasour beyond saving.

Kav

I was never around to witness the discrimination union has had against league, but I just don't enjoy union as a sport. I think that's partly because I don't understand all of the rules, but it's a very messy game. I'm wary of any sport that offers bonus points for players to score tries rather than the comparitively boring goal kicks. I was highly impressed (and surprised) by my 95-year-old Scottish grandmother a couple of months back when she told me why she preferred league to union, and she started reciting some of the rules of league. I was genuinely stunned, lol!
 

LordGnome_old

Guest
Lets be honest, its not just the warriors that struggle for crowds - the New Zealand public doesn't get out and support its teams like people do in other countries - with the possible exception of the All Blacks, who are world powers in the same vien as the Chinese table-tennis team (i.e. no opposition because nobody else in the world is interested!)
 

LordGnome_old

Guest
Also, I have nothing against union (its just some of the other things associated with the wider English Royal family that I don't like!)
 

LordGnome_old

Guest
What does annoy me about union in New zealand is the way it is made out to be more popular than it really is by the media, both in terms of public interest and the international game;

1) Crowds and television audiences are nothing compared to the national/regional sports of other nations of similar populations; i.e. Scottish football, Gaelic football, aussie rules in Melbourne etc

2) Who really plays the game at international level?

- The Boers/Dutch oppressors in South Africa
- Samoa - best players poached by NZ - poulation less than Christchurch
- Tonga - best players poached by NZ - population less than Hamilton
- Fiji - best players paoched by NZ - population less than Auckland
- The English Royal Family
- 60 people in the whole of Austalia (most from the very best schools!)
- 15 Stockbrokers from Edinborough
- 15 Private Schoolboys from accross Ireland
- A very small section of France (despite their attempts to abolish league in the 1960s)

Plus, its SOOOOOO boring!
 

Northern_Union

Guest
What does annoy me about union in New zealand is the way it is made out to be more popular than it really is by the media, both in terms of public interest and the international game;

1) Crowds and television audiences are nothing compared to the national/regional sports of other nations of similar populations; i.e. Scottish football, Gaelic football, aussie rules in Melbourne etc

2) Who really plays the game at international level?

- The Boers/Dutch oppressors in South Africa
- Samoa - best players poached by NZ - poulation less than Christchurch
- Tonga - best players poached by NZ - population less than Hamilton
- Fiji - best players paoched by NZ - population less than Auckland
- The English Royal Family
- 60 people in the whole of Austalia (most from the very best schools!)
- 15 Stockbrokers from Edinborough
- 15 Private Schoolboys from accross Ireland
- A very small section of France (despite their attempts to abolish league in the 1960s)

Plus, its SOOOOOO boring!

I agree with what your saying 99%, the other 1% is in a slight correction. It actually durring the occupation of France durring the early stages of ww2 that league was banned by rugby union through the Vichy government lead by Marshal Petan.

Also on South Africa, rugby league had a strong foot hold in the republic but with rugby union all but owning local governments union was able to see to it that league lost all the grounds it used to play on, this was durring the 50's and 60's. When i say good foot hold i mean it, crowds of up to 10.000 would turn up to watch games.

Similar moves are currently being made in Fiji with the FRU attempting to ban league from grounds, when this doesn't work they call local radio stations and pretend to be league officials and cancel league matches, failing this they cut the locks off grounds that league uses and puts new padlocks on so league can't use them. Vodafone is the new sponsor of rugby league in Fiji and it is gaining national coverage there and is genuinely rivalling union for player and clun numbers now.

Tonga is almost on a par with union there, the Cook Islands are in the same boat with it only bring a matter of time before it is on a par with union.
 

Kav_old

Guest
What does annoy me about union in New zealand is the way it is made out to be more popular than it really is by the media, both in terms of public interest and the international game;

1) Crowds and television audiences are nothing compared to the national/regional sports of other nations of similar populations; i.e. Scottish football, Gaelic football, aussie rules in Melbourne etc

2) Who really plays the game at international level?

- The Boers/Dutch oppressors in South Africa
- Samoa - best players poached by NZ - poulation less than Christchurch
- Tonga - best players poached by NZ - population less than Hamilton
- Fiji - best players paoched by NZ - population less than Auckland
- The English Royal Family
- 60 people in the whole of Austalia (most from the very best schools!)
- 15 Stockbrokers from Edinborough
- 15 Private Schoolboys from accross Ireland
- A very small section of France (despite their attempts to abolish league in the 1960s)

Plus, its SOOOOOO boring!

Love ya comments matey - I think union has an exalted position due to being regarded as part of the "establishment" with all the status and money that is derived from that. Conversely, of course, league is regarded by the "establishment" as a rebel and non-entity to be put down and shown in the worst light at every oppportunity. However, I am optimistic that the latter will overcome these disadvantages as both codes are given equal coverage on pay television (where ratings are paramount).

Kav
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Love ya comments matey - I think union has an exalted position due to being regarded as part of the "establishment" with all the status and money that is derived from that. Conversely, of course, league is regarded by the "establishment" as a rebel and non-entity to be put down and shown in the worst light at every oppportunity. However, I am optimistic that the latter will overcome these disadvantages as both codes are given equal coverage on pay television (where ratings are paramount).

Kav
Technically, league is a rebel form of the game, as it broke away from rugby union, but then union itself was a rebel form by breaking away from football, so it's a bit of a hypocritical position to take, methinks.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Technically, league is a rebel form of the game, as it broke away from rugby union, but then union itself was a rebel form by breaking away from football, so it's a bit of a hypocritical position to take, methinks.

Is it hypocritical for a sport to ban players for one hundred years for accepting money to play...but is now paying players as well?
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Is it hypocritical for a sport to ban players for one hundred years for accepting money to play...but is now paying players as well?

Of course it is, especially when you consider that at the time they started banning, (circa. 1907-08), the All Blacks were already getting paid more than the All Golds.

I'm just not sure why you're asking me...lol.
 

Similar threads

Replies
60
Views
4K
warriors4life_old
Replies
29
Views
2K
2big2strong_old
Replies
29
Views
2K
mosh_old
Replies
58
Views
5K
fanrrior_old
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE
Replies
29
Views
3K
mt.wellington
mt.wellington