General Whangerei trial

Magic Stick_old

Guest
Only 5000 crowd...thats pathetic

They should play the pre season games in hamilton or rotorua, or even wellywood
 

RobRoyMcCoy_old

Guest
Didn't a previous poster say crowd was 9000, which compared well with rugby crowd of 5000?
 

stevenb_old

Guest
Warriors are reporting it as 9000 as well, my thoughts are there was more than 5,000 but not as many as last years Pre-Season
 

Fazz_old

Guest
Only 5000 crowd...thats pathetic

They should play the pre season games in hamilton or rotorua, or even wellywood

This. What's the point of playing in a tiny town that's got no hope of ever getting a team of it's own? Why not take it to Wellington, Chch or somewhere that's actually got decent facilities. I'm sure a game in one of those places would have drawn more people.

Then again, there was only one NRL team involved, so that may have actually been a good turn out come to think of it.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
This. What's the point of playing in a tiny town that's got no hope of ever getting a team of it's own? Why not take it to Wellington, Chch or somewhere that's actually got decent facilities. I'm sure a game in one of those places would have drawn more people.

Then again, there was only one NRL team involved, so that may have actually been a good turn out come to think of it.

Maybe the NRL is not the be all to end all? Rugby league is played in the north and a trial game like this will boost the game locally. Or is rugby league only allowed to be played in major cities now?
 

mr frank white_old

Guest
don't listen to newspaper crowd reports. they slant it to whatever bias the editor has. They reported the chch protests @ 2000, police put it @ 5000. Papers are normally pro rugby...
 

Fazz_old

Guest
I'm not saying that at all. The fact is that most of these larger cities are just as neglected as the smaller ones. I just feel like the benefits of hosting a game in a larger city does more to grow the game. I mean really, when was the last time Wellington got to see the Warriors? When was the last time the Warriors hosted a game in the south island?
 

¿N. ig-mah¿_old

Guest
I'm not saying that at all. The fact is that most of these larger cities are just as neglected as the smaller ones. I just feel like the benefits of hosting a game in a larger city does more to grow the game. I mean really, when was the last time Wellington got to see the Warriors? When was the last time the Warriors hosted a game in the south island?

The Warriors can't play home games out of Auckland. Some BS clause in their NRL contract states they can play home games anywhere in the world outside of Auckland, EXCEPT another NZ location.

They have played trials in the South Island, though the only ones I can recall were in Invercargill, I think it was 1997 (Superleague year, against the Cowboys) and 2003 against the Panthers (a lot of hype over that one as it was one of their first appearances since their Grand Final - the Panthers won, and went on to win the comp as well). I know they have never had a trial in Dunedin, but don't know if they have been to ChCh or Nelson for a "home" preseason game. I'm pretty sure both trials in Invercargill were sellouts of around the 16,000 mark, so were well worth while for the club.

With the success the club is now having in NRL, Toyota Cup and NSW Cup, perhaps it is time the club revisited this clause with the NRL, so they can truly become the NEW ZEALAND Warriors.
 

wallacenz_old

Guest
I guess if we get another team they'll have to change their name. North Island Warriors? Penrose Warriors?

I read someone sarcastically posting on the League Unlimited forum "Where is Vodafone?"

edit: posted in wrong thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:

¿N. ig-mah¿_old

Guest
Just on the subject of the "New Zealand Warriors". I asked the question of the administrators in the VWFF about the clubs official name. The Vodafone answer to the question was that the team has not been the New Zealand Warriors for quite some time and that the real team name is the Vodafone Warriors. But if you check NRL.com they are listed as the New Zealand Warriors, and I believe the club is still registered as such. It seems interesting that Vodafone believe that they have a naming rights sponsorship deal, while the NRL don't seem to have the same belief.

It seems to me that over the last 12 months the club has gone out of their way to connect with the New Zealand part of their name with the Fern jersey sporting silver ferns and the national colours, the flag jersey sporting our nations flag and now the heritage jersey this year having Maori designs all over it.

I would like to know if anyone has any genuine answers to this question. What is the club called???
 

stevenb_old

Guest
https://www.vodafone.co.nz/about/sponsorship/sport.jsp

Vodafone Warriors


As naming sponsor of the Vodafone Warriors for 10 years there is no other sponsorship in New Zealand that has dedicated so much time and effort than we have. From the days of Stephen Kearney, Ali Lauitiiti, and Kevin Campion, to the recent heroes of Stacey Jones, Ruben Wiki, and Steve Price, the Vodafone Warriors have a culture of commitment, strength, faith, and family – all traits we are proud to be involved with.

From what I recall they have naming rights as above, no surprise that the NRL do not use this as Telstra are the Competition sponsors, therefore would imagine that the Naming rights are for NZ promotion only
 

¿N. ig-mah¿_old

Guest
https://www.vodafone.co.nz/about/sponsorship/sport.jsp

Vodafone Warriors


As naming sponsor of the Vodafone Warriors for 10 years there is no other sponsorship in New Zealand that has dedicated so much time and effort than we have. From the days of Stephen Kearney, Ali Lauitiiti, and Kevin Campion, to the recent heroes of Stacey Jones, Ruben Wiki, and Steve Price, the Vodafone Warriors have a culture of commitment, strength, faith, and family – all traits we are proud to be involved with.

From what I recall they have naming rights as above, no surprise that the NRL do not use this as Telstra are the Competition sponsors, therefore would imagine that the Naming rights are for NZ promotion only

Yeah, thats kind of what I assumed.

I believe the Titans have a similar sort of deal. When travelling they are know as the Gold Coast Titans, while at home they are always referred to as the Jetstar Titans.

But from what I can gather, the officially licensed name of the franchise IS the New Zealand Warriors, or at least that is the name of the company that owns the NRL franchise rights.

I still prefer calling them New Zealand Warriors or at the worst the Vodafone New Zealand Warriors. It makes me feel more connected to the team, being a Kiwi outside of Auckland. And especially now that they are going all out to connect with the New Zealand part of the club with team colours and jersey designs.
 

stevenb_old

Guest
Yeah, thats kind of what I assumed.

I believe the Titans have a similar sort of deal. When travelling they are know as the Gold Coast Titans, while at home they are always referred to as the Jetstar Titans.

But from what I can gather, the officially licensed name of the franchise IS the New Zealand Warriors, or at least that is the name of the company that owns the NRL franchise rights.

I still prefer calling them New Zealand Warriors or at the worst the Vodafone New Zealand Warriors. It makes me feel more connected to the team, being a Kiwi outside of Auckland. And especially now that they are going all out to connect with the New Zealand part of the club with team colours and jersey designs.

Wouldn't think there would be any sporting team anywhere that would use their Naming Rights Sponsor name as their Legal Company name, imagine having to register companies every time you change Naming Rights Sponsors.
Personally they are just the Warriors to me ...Short and Simple
 

Fazz_old

Guest
The Warriors can't play home games out of Auckland. Some BS clause in their NRL contract states they can play home games anywhere in the world outside of Auckland, EXCEPT another NZ location.

They have played trials in the South Island, though the only ones I can recall were in Invercargill, I think it was 1997 (Superleague year, against the Cowboys) and 2003 against the Panthers (a lot of hype over that one as it was one of their first appearances since their Grand Final - the Panthers won, and went on to win the comp as well). I know they have never had a trial in Dunedin, but don't know if they have been to ChCh or Nelson for a "home" preseason game. I'm pretty sure both trials in Invercargill were sellouts of around the 16,000 mark, so were well worth while for the club.

With the success the club is now having in NRL, Toyota Cup and NSW Cup, perhaps it is time the club revisited this clause with the NRL, so they can truly become the NEW ZEALAND Warriors.

Cheers for the info mate. Didn't know there was a legal reason behind it. I think that if the NRL aren't going to let another NZ team in with the next batch, then they should at least allow the warriors to do other games around NZ if they desire.
 

¿N. ig-mah¿_old

Guest
Cheers for the info mate. Didn't know there was a legal reason behind it. I think that if the NRL aren't going to let another NZ team in with the next batch, then they should at least allow the warriors to do other games around NZ if they desire.

Biggest issue there would be the club members.

When this topic was discussed on VOT/VWFF there was a clear division. People from outside of Auckland felt the club should venture out to other regions, while season members felt that the club would be betraying their members to take home games away from Auckland. The feeling was unpleasant when the club first mentioned taking a game to Eden Park. Fans insisted that 11 home games at Mt Smart were not enough and that the twelfth game should not have been taken to Eden Park.
 

Big Gee_old

Guest
The Warriors can't play home games out of Auckland. Some BS clause in their NRL contract states they can play home games anywhere in the world outside of Auckland, EXCEPT another NZ location.

They have played trials in the South Island, though the only ones I can recall were in Invercargill, I think it was 1997 (Superleague year, against the Cowboys) and 2003 against the Panthers (a lot of hype over that one as it was one of their first appearances since their Grand Final - the Panthers won, and went on to win the comp as well). I know they have never had a trial in Dunedin, but don't know if they have been to ChCh or Nelson for a "home" preseason game. I'm pretty sure both trials in Invercargill were sellouts of around the 16,000 mark, so were well worth while for the club.

With the success the club is now having in NRL, Toyota Cup and NSW Cup, perhaps it is time the club revisited this clause with the NRL, so they can truly become the NEW ZEALAND Warriors.
I believe the clause is In the lease agreement the Warriors have with the Auckland city Council for Mount Smart. Something to do with only playing home games at grounds under Auckland city's control or something to that effect. Not sure if the lease at Mount Smart has to be renegotiated with the New Auckland super City, that might open a whole new can of worms.....
 

¿N. ig-mah¿_old

Guest
I believe the clause is In the lease agreement the Warriors have with the Auckland city Council for Mount Smart. Something to do with only playing home games at grounds under Auckland city's control or something to that effect. Not sure if the lease at Mount Smart has to be renegotiated with the New Auckland super City, that might open a whole new can of worms.....
Oh, OK.

I'm a little confused how that clause could open the way for the club to take home games out of NZ, but not elsewhere within. Surely, if that is correct, then the club would be able to get a dispensation from the council/NRL for other venues within NZ as easily as outside.

I struggle to understand how such a clause was even included in their contract. I can't understand who it protects. It shouldn't affect the NRL either way, and you would think the club would see there is more value in other NZ venues than there is in any other country. I guess if the club had received some type of guarantee from the Auckland council that assisted in securing its NRL franchise, then the council may have demanded it, but I don't get why it would want to exclude NZ stadiums but not other countries.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Paul Holmes_old
Replies
104
Views
6K
Fazz_old
Replies
2
Views
739
KeepingTheFaith_old
Replies
82
Views
7K
L N_old
Replies
53
Views
3K
Kav_old