NRL demands for investment

[Smudger06]

V'Landys and the Arlc can't big up the British Game because that gives it more value meaning they have to pay much more for a stake in it. 

So they can only say, we would like to assist if we are asked etc.....

Edited April 9 by Smudger06

[Prestigious Doubt]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

For all the wealth the NRL has their record on expansion is utterly abysmal. They have one team located in a place where Rugby League wasn't already very popular. To be fair to them (or more precisely to News) that team was given tens of millions of dollars in support over its early years to keep it going.

Since then they have added more teams in RL heartlands or heartland adjacent. They seem unable to even commit to launching the Perth team without substantial government support.

 

You're simply wrong.

Canberra wasn't a Rugby League heartland before the Raiders popped off in the early 90s, and still isn't truly a RL town if you know anything about the place. Canberra is a weird place with a weird culture and history, it's actually pretty unique and interesting in it's own way.

Auckland wasn't and isn't a league town either, and despite having a decent foothold in the south of the city for years, the Warriors have only really started to put real pressure RU in the last few years since covid. It's been a 30 year project that still hasn't met it's true potential, and probably won't until further expansion in NZ is sustainable.

So that's at least three including Melbourne, and, like it or not, that's three more than British RL has managed in over 100 years.

At times all three have required significant amounts of support and intervention from the governing body and other clubs to keep them strong, and that attitude of sacrificing to help new entities to survive and succeed is why expansion has been much more successful in Australia than in England.  That's before we talk about all the other clubs that the NRL, and it's predecessors, have assisted or propped up for the betterment of the sport over the years as well. I mean the Knights, Titans, Cronulla, and so on, are all from dyed in the wool Rugby League heartlands, and all of them have required bailouts to keep them going, and have arguably been more unstable than at least the Raiders and Storm. 

The NRL isn't incapable of launching a Perth team without government support either. They could launch a Perth side tomorrow, and Adelaide for that matter, but rightly or wrongly, they're angling to get as much government support to subsidise the costs as possible because they think it's available. That'll either end up being genius negotiating or it'll blow up the V'landy's face, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ too soon to tell.

[Big Picture]

9 hours ago, Treizistance said:

You'd imagine they'd want to do expansion carefully and properly, rather than add filler to the 8 English and 2 French clubs, like they have now.

Gus does a great segment on this on his 6 Tackles podcast today (from 28:31)

Gus is mistaken about one thing though, the game's base in the north isn't strong, it's weak.  Weak enough in fact to undermine the whole project.

Edited April 9 by Big Picture

[Prestigious Doubt]

The fact of the matter is that ideally you wouldn't need to consider the type of radical change that NRL intervention offers, but the state of English rugby league is in a far from ideal place.

All the Super League clubs are reliant on owners propping them up, and not a single one is sustainable. Like it or not, multiple offer little or no commercial value to the league. The system, structure, and administration has made change and growth difficult to the point of being borderline impossible in most cases, and vested interests have had way too much say in the direction the league, and sport as a whole, has headed.

The NRL is one of the few, if not the only, organisations in the world with the means and the will to change that, and the type of gravitas and power that people will actually listen to what they have to say. Yes it's likely to hurt in the short term, and no matter what is done it's an unfortunate inevitability that people will be left behind, but this is the sort of radical change Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere needed for a long time now.

I can see why people aren't happy with it, hell I'm not happy with it either, but all the other options on the table look likely to result in much worse outcomes, and who has the RFL, clubs, English RL community more broadly, got to blame for that but themselves.

So for mine it's not really a question, you either take the NRL's offer and back them to the hilt, or you let petty squabbling and self-interest reign, and watch as the sport slowly withers away to semi-professionalism and irrelevance in the North Hemisphere.

Edited April 9 by Prestigious Doubt

[binosh]

3 hours ago, Treizistance said:

Do you think losing say Leigh, Castleford and Huddersfield and gaining London and Toulouse would reduce the TV deal? Perpignan and Toulouse may not have Sky satellite dishes on the back of their houses but they at least give the perception that a NRL Europe is a forward moving, cosmopolitan, growing league as opposed to the insular M62, post-industrial junction vibes it has now. An image sponsors want to be associated with, unless they only want to flog their products to a narrow band of northern England.

You do a lot of name calling of English teams considering the state of the French leagues and national team, glass houses and all that. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, EggFace said:

10 teams will kill the game and we need Hull FC, Wakefield, Castleford and Leigh need to be in the Super Duper League.

Its the thinking that all RL in a given town is dependent on the pro club in that town, despite in many cases that being false.

[M j M]

32 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:

You're simply wrong.

Canberra wasn't a Rugby League heartland before the Raiders popped off in the early 90s, and still isn't truly a RL town if you know anything about the place. Canberra is a weird place with a weird culture and history, it's actually pretty unique and interesting in it's own way.

Auckland wasn't and isn't a league town either, and despite having a decent foothold in the south of the city for years, the Warriors have only really started to put real pressure RU in the last few years since covid. It's been a 30 year project that still hasn't met it's true potential, and probably won't until further expansion in NZ is sustainable.

So that's at least three including Melbourne, and, like it or not, that's three more than British RL has managed in over 100 years.

At times all three have required significant amounts of support and intervention from the governing body and other clubs to keep them strong, and that attitude of sacrificing to help new entities to survive and succeed is why expansion has been much more successful in Australia than in England.  That's before we talk about all the other clubs that the NRL, and it's predecessors, have assisted or propped up for the betterment of the sport over the years as well. I mean the Knights, Titans, Cronulla, and so on, are all from dyed in the wool Rugby League heartlands, and all of them have required bailouts to keep them going, and have arguably been more unstable than at least the Raiders and Storm. 

The NRL isn't incapable of launching a Perth team without government support either. They could launch a Perth side tomorrow, and Adelaide for that matter, but rightly or wrongly, they're angling to get as much government support to subsidise the costs as possible because they think it's available. That'll either end up being genius negotiating or it'll blow up the V'landy's face, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ too soon to tell.

Pretending Auckland and Canberra are in any way similar market propositions for brand new pro Rugby League clubs as London, Melbourne or Perth is absolutely absurd.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Treizistance said:

You'd imagine they'd want to do expansion carefully and properly, rather than add filler to the 8 English and 2 French clubs, like they have now.

Gus does a great segment on this on his 6 Tackles podcast today (from 28:31)

The chapter before that about AI was both hilarious and terrifying!

[sweaty craiq]

19 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Gus is mistaken about one thing though, the game's base in the north isn't strong, it's weak.  Weak enough in fact to undetermine the whole project.

Yet it has already bought over 100,000 full price ashes tickets.

Australian RL needs a strong GB/England and then a strong France to drive income in a market it has little presence ie Intl fixtures. 

[sweaty craiq]

57 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

V'Landys and the Arlc can't big up the British Game because that gives it more value meaning they have to pay much more for a stake in it. 

So they can only say, we would like to assist if we are asked etc.....

Seems they have sent their PR men out to devalue the product at present

[Barley Mow]

14 minutes ago, M j M said:

Pretending Auckland and Canberra are in any way similar market propositions for brand new pro Rugby League clubs as London, Melbourne or Perth is absolutely absurd.

Agreed.

Rugby League has been played in New Zealand as long as it has in Australia, if Auckland hasn't been it's heartland where on earth has?

Canberra is an interesting one because, as a 20th Century new town (with a relatively small permanent population for much of its history) it seems to have been a (professional) sport wilderness until into the 1980s. There's little doubt that rugby league has always been amongst its most popular sports though, and the Raiders were (I believe) its firsts professional sports teams - you can't say that of Melbourne or the British/European locations being discussed for 'NRL Europe' expansion franchises.

Edited April 9 by Barley Mow

[Smudger06]

Most fans will be happier for their clubs to transfer power to a large proven RL organisation which would be somewhat neutral in English Clubland rather than a cartel of bigger fish small pond club owners, plus so much better than selling out to venture capitalists as per Union comps.

[Barley Mow]

41 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Agreed.

Rugby League has been played in New Zealand as long as it has in Australia, if Auckland hasn't been it's heartland where on earth has?

Canberra is an interesting one because, as a 20th Century new town (with a relatively small permanent population for much of its history) it seems to have been a (professional) sport wilderness until into the 1980s. There's little doubt that rugby league has always been amongst its most popular sports though, and the Raiders were (I believe) its firsts professional sports teams - you can't say that of Melbourne or the British/European locations being discussed for 'NRL Europe' expansion franchises.

Just to add to this, the previous poster commented "Auckland wasn't and isn't a league town either, and despite having a decent foothold in the south of the city for years, the Warriors have only really started to put real pressure RU in the last few years since covid. It's been a 30 year project that still hasn't met it's true potential, and probably won't until further expansion in NZ is sustainable."

If the definition of a rugby league area is one where the sport is the most popular or pushing to be, the NRL aren't going to find any rugby league areas in the UK or France, or anywhere else outside of Queensland, NSW and PNG.

The British/European RL heartlands; South Lancashire, West Cumberland & Furness, West Yorkshire, Hull and the south of France are not ones where the sport is the first choice, it is second choice at best.

If they are looking at this thinking there are 9 clubs in 'rugby league areas' to add London to and build from, but that Auckland hasn't been a league area and required a 30 year project on its own, they will be in for a shock.

These places are obviously rugby league areas, but in the northern hemisphere context you have to accept that that means it is one of the top two or three most popular football codes rather than the outright leader.

Edited April 9 by Barley Mow

[Gerrumonside ref]

So far I’ve not seen a touted NRL proposal that takes into account the whole UK/Europe rugby league ecosystem and how to improve/revive it for the benefit of all parties both NRL and UK/Europe.

I don’t believe just ensnaring the bigger clubs will work and if it doesn’t work the NRL will lose a lot of money and interest in doing it again.

UK/Europe stand to lose a hell of a lot more and potentially fully unravel as a professional sporting entity.

Let’s do this properly, get it right, even if it means moving conservatively and building a whole slew of smaller ‘win-win’ situations.

Sorry for the buzz word salad, but the stakes are huge.

I’ve no doubt a properly realised global dimension to rugby league could lead to bigger commercial options for the two regions, clubs, players etc.

The benefits of coming together in a spirit of cooperation and partnership is long overdue, it doesn’t need a rushed botch job.

 

Edited April 9 by Gerrumonside ref

[Prestigious Doubt]

42 minutes ago, M j M said:

Pretending Auckland and Canberra are in any way similar market propositions for brand new pro Rugby League clubs as London, Melbourne or Perth is absolutely absurd.

Not only are you moving the goalposts, but that's just ignorance talking.

The difficulties with each are unique, but what's actually absurd is to play down the successes brand new clubs have had in Auckland and Canberra because it doesn't suit your position in the moment.

There was significantly more institutional resistance to RL and the Warriors in Auckland, and NZ in general, than there was in Melbourne, and especially Perth at the moment. At worst Melbourne was apathetic to the Storm, the Rugby institutions in NZ have been pretty hostile to the Warriors at times for example.

Cashflow and investment have been a much bigger issue for the Warriors traditionally than the Storm as well.

Canberra is a much more competitive market than any of the above. It's probably the most competitive sports market in Australia, whilst also being small and highly transient, meaning there's little room for error.

In Canberra you need to build a fanbase quick and not only hold on to it for dear life, but also be capable of turning over new fans regularly. Otherwise a couple bad seasons is all it can take for you to lose a significant portion of those fans to competitors offering a better experience, while you watch as the club's bank balance goes from healthy to deep in the red. This is something the Raiders have frankly excelled at, only having missed the finals twice in a row a few times in their existence for example.

Canberra has traditionally had no support from broadcasters either. If anything Nine in particular has been pretty hostile to them, treating them like a waste of airspace.

Not to downplay the Storm's achievements, because they're significant, but if anything I'd argue that Auckland and Canberra have been more impressive successes in their own ways. You shouldn't be in the business if you aren't perennial contenders and can't find 15-20k people to support a club in a market with a population of 5 million with the sort of resources they've had at their disposal.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

So far I’ve not seen a touted NRL proposal that takes into account the whole UK/Europe rugby league ecosystem and how to improve/revive it for the benefit of all parties both NRL and UK/Europe.

I don’t believe just ensnaring the bigger clubs will work and if it doesn’t work the NRL will lose a lot of money and interest in doing it again.

UK/Europe stand to lose a hell of a lot more and potentially fully unravel as a professional sporting entity.

Let’s do this properly, get it right, even if it means moving conservatively and building a whole slew of smaller ‘win-win’ situations.

Sorry for the buzz word salad, but the stakes are huge.

I’ve no doubt a properly realised global dimension to rugby league could lead to bigger commercial options for the two regions, clubs, players etc.

The benefits of coming together in a spirit of cooperation and partnership is long overdue, it doesn’t need a rushed botch job.

 

So what you're saying is 2 x 10...

[Toby Chopra]

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

That works in Australia where it’s a popular sport and there are plenty of willing investors. I don’t see people lining up to do that here though sadly.  At the risk of sounding pessimistic a Lilly scenario is SL would just become a farm for NRL players and the rest of the British game would become amateur. 

We've had plenty of people seriously invest in clubs over recent years, Derek Beaumont, Matt Ellis, and the HKR group to name a few. All at supposedly "smaller" clubs on the fringes of SL. With the right environment, we can certainly encourage people to invest in UK RL and add teams. 

 

[M j M]

22 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:

Not only are you moving the goalposts, but that's just ignorance talking.

The difficulties with each are unique, but what's actually absurd is to play down the successes brand new clubs have had in Auckland and Canberra because it doesn't suit your position in the moment.

There was significantly more institutional resistance to RL and the Warriors in Auckland, and NZ in general, than there was in Melbourne, and especially Perth at the moment. At worst Melbourne was apathetic to the Storm, the Rugby institutions in NZ have been pretty hostile to the Warriors at times for example.

Cashflow and investment have been a much bigger issue for the Warriors traditionally than the Storm as well.

Canberra is a much more competitive market than any of the above. It's probably the most competitive sports market in Australia, whilst also being small and highly transient, meaning there's little room for error.

In Canberra you need to build a fanbase quick and not only hold on to it for dear life, but also be capable of turning over new fans regularly. Otherwise a couple bad seasons is all it can take for you to lose a significant portion of those fans to competitors offering a better experience, while you watch as the club's bank balance goes from healthy to deep in the red. This is something the Raiders have frankly excelled at, only having missed the finals twice in a row a few times in their existence for example.

Canberra has traditionally had no support from broadcasters either. If anything Nine in particular has been pretty hostile to them, treating them like a waste of airspace.

Not to downplay the Storm's achievements, because they're significant, but if anything I'd argue that Auckland and Canberra have been more impressive successes in their own ways. You shouldn't be in the business if you aren't perennial contenders and can't find 15-20k people to support a club in a market with a population of 5 million with the sort of resources they've had at their disposal.

Fundamental to setting up new clubs is establishing a fan base. In both Auckland and Canberra there were people who followed the sport - and played the sport - in decent numbers. The sport was not virtually   unknown.

That simply isn't/wasn't the case in places like Perth and Melbourne. 

Edited April 9 by M j M

[binosh]

Why won’t anybody think of the children!!!!

Joking aside, what happens to all the ambitious kids making their way through the amateur game wanting to play professional RL if there’s only 6 professional clubs in the north of England.

[Bostik Bailey]

14 minutes ago, binosh said:

Why won’t anybody think of the children!!!!

Joking aside, what happens to all the ambitious kids making their way through the amateur game wanting to play professional RL if there’s only 6 professional clubs in the north of England.

Well considering that up until recently only Three of them had well run professional academy pathways, then it will double their chances of getting the correct training.

[Prestigious Doubt]

33 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Agreed.

Rugby League has been played in New Zealand as long as it has in Australia, if Auckland hasn't been it's heartland where on earth has?

Being in a place a long time doesn't make it a heartland.

Australian Rules has been played in Auckland since the 1800s, is that enough to make Auckland an Aussie Rules heartland as well? Seems silly to me.

33 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Canberra is an interesting one because, as a 20th Century new town (with a relatively small permanent population for much of its history) it seems to have been a (professional) sport wilderness until into the 1980s. There's little doubt that rugby league has always been amongst its most popular sports though, and the Raiders were (I believe) its firsts professional sports teams - you can't say that of Melbourne or the British/European locations being discussed for 'NRL Europe' expansion franchises.

I'll spare you a detailed history lesson, but none of the above is true.

Rugby League was present in Canberra and the region early on, but it didn't really make strong inroads into Canberra itself until the WWII and post-war period. It particularly started to take off when their was an influx of immigration from the northern states to Canberra in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, many of them to attend The Royal Military Collage, Duntroon or as part of a general build up of the military. 

Aussie Rules was well established and the most popular sport in Canberra before the advent of the Raiders, and is still competitive in size to League to this day. Union was bigger than League before the Raiders as well, and has been more successful for short periods post the founding of the Raiders as well.

Both Canberra City (77) and the Cannons (79) were professional teams in national competitions that predate the Raiders, and the Cannons were initially more successful than the Raiders as well. There were also local semi-pro teams that were varying levels of competition to the Raiders at different times as well, such as Ainslie, Eastlake, Manuka for a minute before their decline, the Kookaburras, the Knights at times, and debatably a few others.

The Raiders weren't even based in Canberra initially, being based in neighbouring, and much more League friendly at the time, Queanbeyan for the first 8 years of their existence.

28 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Just to add to this, the previous poster commented "Auckland wasn't and isn't a league town either, and despite having a decent foothold in the south of the city for years, the Warriors have only really started to put real pressure RU in the last few years since covid. It's been a 30 year project that still hasn't met it's true potential, and probably won't until further expansion in NZ is sustainable."

If the definition of a rugby league area is one where the sport is the most popular or pushing to be, the NRL aren't going to find any rugby league areas in the UK or France, or anywhere else outside of Queensland, NSW and PNG.

The British/European RL heartlands; South Lancashire, West Cumberland & Furness, West Yorkshire, Hull and the south of France are not ones where the sport is the first choice, it is second choice at best.

If they are looking at this thinking there are 9 clubs in 'rugby league areas' to add London to and build from, but that Auckland hasn't been a league area and required a 30 year project on its own, they will be in for a shock.

You say all this as if it'll be some kind of revelation.

The NRL would absolutely be looking at the Super League as a long term project, and are under no illusions to the position of the sport in the UK.

The initial value to them is in content they can bundle with the NRL when selling broadcasting rights to streamers, and in having absolute control over internationals at the professional level. Short to mid-term their goal would be to get the Super League to a relatively break-even prospect, long-term the goal would be genuine growth, as growth equals more content.

Who knows whether they can pull it off. There's only really one way to find out.

By the way; I'm not even sure it's fair to say that RL is pushing to be the most popular sport in Auckland. The Warriors and Rugby League are in a boom period, and Union in a lull, but I'm not sure that the current situation is representative of a sustainable trend. I wouldn't be surprised if the All Blacks having a good WC campaign was all it took to flip it on it's head, but who knows.

[binosh]

31 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Well considering that up until recently only Three of them had well run professional academy pathways, then it will double their chances of getting the correct training.

What happens to you’re Matty Ashtons, Deon Crosses, Tyler Dupree’s, Ryan Brierleys or Andy Ackers to name a few who are given the flick, lost to the game if there are no other clubs to fall back on and develop.

For every Nsemba at Wigan there’s a Joe Wardle, Will Pryce or Dom Young at Huddersfield.

Not everyone develops at the same rate.

Edited April 9 by binosh

[Barley Mow]

25 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:

Being in a place a long time doesn't make it a heartland.

Australian Rules has been played in Auckland since the 1800s, is that enough to make Auckland an Aussie Rules heartland as well? Seems silly to me.

You had pointed out that RU is more popular in Auckland than league, using that as part of your argument that Auckland could be seen as akin to Melbourne in being an expansion location. In pointing out that rugby league has been amongst the most popular sports in Auckland since early last century I was drawing a comparison with the rugby league areas of the UK where the sport also hasn't been the most popular despite being a significant part of the sporting scene (which isn't the case in Melbourne, London, Paris...)

New Zealand have been a significant player in rugby league internationally since the sport spread from Britain. That must be based on it being popular in some part of the country. To my (limited) knowledge Auckland is such a part of New Zealand - indeed RL is strongest there.

25 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:

I'll spare you a detailed history lesson, but none of the above is true.

Rugby League was present in Canberra and the region early on, but it didn't really make strong inroads into Canberra itself until the WWII and post-war period. It particularly started to take off when their was an influx of immigration from the northern states to Canberra in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, many of them to attend The Royal Military Collage, Duntroon or as part of a general build up of the military. 

Aussie Rules was well established and the most popular sport in Canberra before the advent of the Raiders, and is still competitive in size to League to this day. Union was bigger than League before the Raiders as well, and has been more successful for short periods post the founding of the Raiders as well.

Both Canberra City (77) and the Cannons (79) were professional teams in national competitions that predate the Raiders, and the Cannons were initially more successful than the Raiders as well. There were also local semi-pro teams that were varying levels of competition to the Raiders at different times as well, such as Ainslie, Eastlake, Manuka for a minute before their decline, the Kookaburras, the Knights at times, and debatably a few others.

The Raiders weren't even based in Canberra initially, being based in neighbouring, and much more League friendly at the time, Queanbeyan for the first 8 years of their existence.

Thanks for that.

The conclusion I draw from what you say is that, RL is one of the more popular sports in Canberra (eg top three) and has been for a significant time. Like Auckland, this makes it more akin to rugby league area in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumberland, Sth of France rather than Melbourne, London, or elsewhere considered an expansion area.

25 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:

You say all this as if it'll be some kind of revelation.

The NRL would absolutely be looking at the Super League as a long term project, and are under no illusions to the position of the sport in the UK.

The initial value to them is in content they can bundle with the NRL when selling broadcasting rights to streamers, and in having absolute control over internationals at the professional level. Short to mid-term their goal would be to get the Super League to a relatively break-even prospect, long-term the goal would be genuine growth, as growth equals more content.

Who knows whether they can pull it off. There's only really one way to find out.

By the way; I'm not even sure it's fair to say that RL is pushing to be the most popular sport in Auckland. The Warriors and Rugby League are in a boom period, and Union in a lull, but I'm not sure that the current situation is representative of a sustainable trend. I wouldn't be surprised if the All Blacks having a good WC campaign was all it took to flip it on it's head, but who knows.

No, certainly not any kind of revelation.

My point was simply that the talk has been of an 'NRL Europe' with (initially) 7 existing north of England SL teams, London (as the focus of geographical expansion for the sport's popularity) and 2 French heartland teams - on the basis of how you were defining geographical expansion (including Auckland and Canberra) there would be 10 expansion teams in that 10 team comp rather than just London.

Edited April 9 by Barley Mow

[Bostik Bailey]

7 minutes ago, binosh said:

What happens to you’re Matty Ashtons, Deon Crosses, Tyler Dupree’s, Ryan Brierleys or Andy Ackers to name a few who are given the flicker, lost to the game if there no other clubs.

For every Nsemba at Wigan there’s a Joe Wardle, Will Pryce or Dom Young at Huddersfield.

Not everyone develops at the same rate.

Well considering that up until recently only Three of them had well run professional academy pathways, then it will double their chances of getting the correct training.

[Prestigious Doubt]

38 minutes ago, M j M said:

Fundamental to setting up new clubs is establishing a fan base. In both Auckland and Canberra there were people who followed the sport - and played the sport - in decent numbers. The sport was not virtually   unknown.

That simply isn't/wasn't the case in places like Perth and Melbourne. 

No this isn't accurate either.

RL in Canberra and Auckland pre the Raiders and Warriors was in a very similar place to where RL in WA is now.

In both League had small but sustainable local leagues (in Canberra's case they participated in Group 8, so there wasn't even a local first grade league in fact), and existed largely as a side gig that grassroots Union players used to keep fit and occupy themselves in their time-off and/or off seasons. Pretty much all of the early star players from both Canberra and Auckland were accomplished Union players as well.

In Canberra it was playing third fiddle to Aussie Rules and Union, and was actually in a fragile state in the 70s where it struggled for publicity and support. A good portion of the population that had come from the Aussie Rules states didn't really understand the difference between it and Union either, and Soccer was growing quickly and catching it as well.

In Auckland it had a small and fiercely loyal fanbase, but the reality is that it was a comparatively tiny niche. I imagine that the average Kiwi was more aware of League than the average Australian outside of NSW and Qld was at the time, but I don't know that for sure. 

Melbourne was absolutely more of a cold start though. Rugby League barely existed there before the Storm, and probably to this day most Victorians aren't really aware of the difference between Union and League.