I just came across this old academic paper on the failed rebranding from Kingz to Knights. This section seemed relevant:
"In a further attempt to make a clean break from the ill-fated Kingz, the Knights relocated to North Harbour Stadium on Auckland’s North Shore. The decision to
"In a further attempt to make a clean break from the ill-fated Kingz, the Knights relocated to North Harbour Stadium on Auckland’s North Shore. The decision to
move was also recognition by management of the competitive forces facing the Knights and a desire to move to a potentially more advantageous geographical location. The North Shore is attractive to the Knights in terms of demographics and socio-economic status while also being an area where soccer has a strong following. Thus management believed that playing the Knights’ home games at North Harbour Stadium would see the club better able to attract and retain spectators. Furthermore, the North Shore is not a location for one of the other high-profile professional sports teams connected with Auckland. The Knights’ previous stadium in Auckland’s south-west [sic - authors' geography is lacking] was the home ground for the New Zealand Warriors (New Zealand’s entry in the Australian professional rugby league competition). Continuing to play matches heavily associated with a rival football code would do little to help the club establish a ‘home’ for football."
Interesting that Foley is not influenced by any of these factors. He's not upset at the idea of groundsharing with the Wahs, nor is he influenced by what are euphemistically called "demographics" (i.e. that the Shore is richer and less Polynesian).
Interesting that Foley is not influenced by any of these factors. He's not upset at the idea of groundsharing with the Wahs, nor is he influenced by what are euphemistically called "demographics" (i.e. that the Shore is richer and less Polynesian).