So Eric Watson wants to sell his share of the Warriors? Cool.

So someone wants to buy Eric Watson's share of the Warriors? Cool.

Do I care who buys it or how they buy it? No.

Should you? No.

Who buys the Warriors, or what happens with ownership, would only be important if we got one of those funky situations where fans bought into the club. This happens occasionally around the world with sports clubs and is a pretty cool concept that doesn't have too many negatives against it. We'll just let the rich jokers who like to feel better about themselves do their thing for now though.

The ownership of the Warriors has little impact or influence on how the club is run, especially when Jim Doyle and Stephen Kearney are currently dictating the direction of the Warriors. This is not a case of Manchester City in English football, for example, who suddenly enjoyed a dramatic increase in financial backing when they were bought by Abu Dhabi United Group in 2008, thus steering them in a very expensive direction towards Premier League titles.

This is the NRL where there is a salary cap to offer equality and figures such as Doyle (or Nick Politis with the Roosters) hold the keys to the club. I found it quite strange when kiwi media members recently called for Watson to sell and are now celebrating the sale of the Warriors. This is the NRL, where the NRL themselves still own Gold Coast Titans and are in the process of selling Newcastle. News Corp Australia owns Brisbane Broncos and up until recent years owned Melbourne Storm, while the respective 'Leagues Clubs' for the Bulldogs and Parramatta own those clubs.

So to whinge and moan about the Warriors owner, suggesting that the owner should take some responsibility for his club's performances throughout his ownership, is a bit weird.
Imagine telling the Penn Family who own Manly Sea Eagles that they should sell because their team isn't very good. Or telling Parramatta Leagues Club that they should sell because their club struggled to do much over the past decade. Or that News Limited should sell because Brisbane Broncos might head into decline once Wayne Bennett retires.

In some sporting competitions, team ownership is incredibly important. Take the Premier League where the owner's pockets directly influences which players that club can sign. Or the NBA where owners cop a 'luxury tax' if they decide to exceed their salary cap and there are direct repercussions for the owner if they want their team to chase immediate success - which the NRL could learn a lot from.

The NRL is a silly organisation that doesn't resemble anything close to how the best sporting competitions are run. With that in mind, it's purely up to you whether you want owners to be hugely influential figures or not; some competitions have it that way and some don't.

I've got my opinions for sure, but that's not as important as telling y'all that NRL ownership is borderline irrelevant. Which should be the key point you take away from this and as long as there is an owner, or an ownership group, it really doesn't matter. I mean, ponder this sentence for a moment before we go any further: it doesn't matter who owns an NRL club as long as there is an owner, or ownership group, whether that's a millionaire businessman or a large corporate or the NRL themselves.

This is neither good or bad folks, it is what it is.

There's a bit of funk in why Watson is selling though and... why now?

If I were the owner of the Warriors, I would definitely not be selling as I see a large upside in the future of the club. Here are some points that would form the basis of me not selling the Warriors:

- This is year one of Stephen Kearney/Jim Doyle's rebuild. There is a long way to go and the thorough nature of the rebuild will end in a net-positive outcome by the time Kearney's three-year deal is up. This is year one of Kearney/Doyle, year one of at least three.

- Kearney has immediately flipped the development pathways at the Warriors. Gone is the reliance on the Under 20s team, replaced by greater importance placed on reserve grade and local park footy. Now the Under 20s competition is dead, this move to embracing local footy and developing the best players from local footy, through the Warriors, will be far more influential.

- Tohu Harris is joining the club and he's the mantis. He has grown up under Craig Bellamy and I love him.

- The club has signed a much celebrated Kiwis spine and that Kiwis spine hasn't played together enough to fulfil expectations or disappoint. Roger Tuivasa-Sheck missed the majority of 2016, while Kieran Foran and Shaun Johnson have both had injuries in 2017. Johnson's missed the entire back-end of the season - ya know, the crucial run into the Finals.

- A young crop of Warriors are now entering their peak years where they will not only play their best footy, they are actually becoming grown-ass men instead of being talented young kids. I can see that David Fusitua, Solomone Kata, Ken Maumalo, Sam Lisone, Albert Vete, Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, Bunty Afoa, Isaiah Papalii have benefited from Kearney's new plans and they are all moving into the 50-100 game period of their careers.

- I have found a long-term halves partner for Shaun Johnson in Ata Hingano, finally. Johnson has not enjoyed the luxury of having the same halves partner for multiple NRL seasons.

- I see that rugby league's popularity is increasing rapidly. The NRL is a far better competition than Super Rugby (across Australia and Aotearoa) and there's more financial growth available to the NRL than Super Rugby.

- I see the vast number of players who join Australian clubs from around Aotearoa as a positive instead of a negative (which many try to push). The more kids around heartland Aotearoa who forge connections with the NRL, the more popular rugby league is around heartland Aotearoa, meaning there's greater opportunities for the Warriors' popularity to increase. Even if heartland Aotearoa supports the plethora of kiwis with Australian clubs, I can take specific games away from Mt Smart to strategic locations around Aotearoa.

For example: Penrith have James Fisher-Harris and Corey Harawira-Naera, both from Northland in their team, so let's take our home game vs Penrith up to Whangarei. Pocket some cash and spread the rugby league gospel.

Or: let's take a warm up game vs Roosters to Tokoroa where Joseph Manu is from.
Or: let's play the Storm in Wellington because that's where the superstar (he will be by next year) Nelson Asofa-Solomona is from.

I see opportunities, both in terms of spreading good vibes and making money.

- The club I own is predominantly made up of Maori and Polynesian men. I see an opportunity for the Warriors to become a cultural leader in Aotearoa, leading the way in how a sports club connects with its community.

If I were the owner of the Warriors, I would not be selling the club after a period of mediocrity just as things are looking rather positive (think long-term folks). So why is Watson selling if I think this is a terrible time to sell - the price is currently low and I predict that the Warriors will be worth a lot more in five years time?

A) Watson cbf anymore - fair play, time for something new.
B) Watson can't see those opportunities and has been caught in the wave of negativity - silly bugger.
C) Watson feels that the club is better off with a clean slate - what a nice guy.
D) Jim Doyle (who has a minority ownership stake) has told Watson his honest thoughts and Doyle's pushing for more power - Doyle owns some of the club and runs it?

I suspect that this is a case of Doyle and Watson coming together at a good time to switch things up. Of course, Doyle won't be the 'owner' and there's a bunch of jokers who have been mentioned, but right now Doyle has 10 percent ownership and even if he maintains that during the sale (he'll probably get an increase) Doyle is still the most important man given he is CEO and 10 percent (at least) owner.

Even mediocrity hasn't been all that bad. The Warriors have a stadium where they have been able to set up base and despite their mediocrity, they will continue to be able to set up base there. The Warriors have sponsors who are large companies in Aotearoa and while I must first point out that mediocrity isn't nearly as bad as consistently finishing 15th/16th, the Warriors have a decent home base and strong sponsorship because they are a good business.

The Warriors' results haven't been so terrible that it has hindered their business (sure there's still plenty of room for growth). Even as the Warriors have consistently hovered around 8th-14th, they have still been able to hold major sponsors and build impressive facilities in a stadium that they do not own.

I predict that this possible change of ownership will look like a pivotal moment in the club's history when we look back in hindsight.

That's an illusion though because this change in ownership would coincide with years two/three of Kearney's tenure as coach. A period when Kearney moves beyond work through someone else's roster and trying to implement change (changing all of those 'culture' issues you love to hate'), towards executing with a club that is his, a team that he has built.

Year one: identify problems, start to fix problem, recruit players I want, sort out players I want to let go, establish foundations of playing style, identify individual player development work-ons.

Year two: nail down playing style and best-17 with depth options, add more scope for player combinations and development (how Johnson, Hingano, Tuivasa-Sheck play together), put team in best position to catch fire and hunt a top-four spot.

Year three: systems, style and club culture should be set in stone and team should be peaking, top-four is the genuine expectation.

I've always thought that Kearney and Doyle would need time to work through their current predicament, hence it's been so mind-boggling to see so much negativity spread about the Warriors. Don't think that a change in ownership is responsible for the change in fortunes of the Warriors, it's merely a case of Kearney and Doyle rolling through their system of change.

Moves have been made for dramatic change at the Warriors and were are currently caught up in the tornado of change. Everything about the club is in a state of flux, I just can't see how that is negative in any way, shape or form because think about the position the Warriors were in before the winds of change started to blow through the club. Think of all the negative culture stuff, from a lack of effort to a lack of professionalism, all of that and then sit back and ponder that we are in the process of change.

Hasn't change been all we have ever wanted?

This is like saying; the Warriors need offloads and another defensive menace in the middle, a true professional who has learned from the two best coaches of my lifetime ... but don't sign Adam Blair!

Relax and let the changes sweep through. Change takes time to really work through, depending on the level of change you want and we are trying to change the very fabric or genetic make up of the Warriors, so yeah, it might take a year or two. That's what Kearney and Doyle are driving, they have already made positive steps forward in how the club and NRL team operate, so I view this system of change as working as it should.

Whoever owns the club while these changes are taking place doesn't matter. Changes were and still are being made with Watson as owner and ownership changes won't influence how Kearney and Doyle are shaping this club.

If you can't see the long-term or accept some short-term pain for greater gain, I can't help you.

Go and fill your loins with negativity.

Peace and love 27.

Bang an ad to show your support to the Niche Cache.

Or head over to Patreon and become a Niche Cache Patron.