18th club, whose next?

[docbrown]

Of course it is. But they also realise the value in perth, otherwise they wouldn't be coming here. You want to work with the local investors. Surely they are more important than a reserve grade sydney club.

They also realise the value in Brisbane, PNG and NZ too. All have their pros and cons. And yes, they're going to work with the franchises that offer them both the most value. PNG may be a long term government commitment to rugby league in the hundreds of millions. Christchurch has a new state of the art stadium. WA's main value is it's a large metro but it's behind on both the money and stadium fronts.

Furthermore, the NRL will also consider risk exposure. It may be that the government will cover the full cost of PNG. NZ has been more receptive to rugby league than WA. In WA's case, if you've got a Perth stand alone or a Perth Bears bid, the NRL will lean towards the Bears in terms of risk exposure. Also if the Cummins led group is too difficult to work, then they'll go with a different one. It might be a different WA consortium that's more willing to play ball. Or a different city altogether.

The point is I don't think any tenderer is in a position to set terms. Not WA, not the Bears and not anyone else. Again - the NRL 100% of the power here. If the WA government wants to get this over the line, they can't just beg - they need to go to the Pharoah Vlandys and offer some kind of financial tribute.

 

[blue bags]

Bring back the seagulls
Everyone loves chips

 

[Centy Coast]

They also realise the value in Brisbane, PNG and NZ too. All have their pros and cons. And yes, they're going to work with the franchises that offer them both the most value. PNG may be a long term government commitment to rugby league in the hundreds of millions. Christchurch has a new state of the art stadium. WA's main value is it's a large metro but it's behind on both the money and stadium fronts.

Furthermore, the NRL will also consider risk exposure. It may be that the government will cover the full cost of PNG. NZ has been more receptive to rugby league than WA. In WA's case, if you've got a Perth stand alone or a Perth Bears bid, the NRL will lean towards the Bears in terms of risk exposure. Also if the Cummins led group is too difficult to work, then they'll go with a different one. It might be a different WA consortium that's more willing to play ball. Or a different city altogether.

The point is I don't think any tenderer is in a position to set terms. Not WA, not the Bears and not anyone else. Again - the NRL 100% of the power here. If the WA government wants to get this over the line, they can't just beg - they need to go to the Pharoah Vlandys and offer some kind of financial tribute.

Exactly this, the Bears had all of these non-negotiables on the table when they first met WA representatives a few years ago at the SOO in Perth, I heard that the Bears officials were very arrogant and sent packing (Billy Moore was very intoxicated), since then many Bears members have been very vocal towards our board and I am sure Peter V’Landys and the NRL have worked very hard to repair any damage done that night.
The non-negotiables are now the Bears logo, red and black colours (which the Perth Reds virtually wore in Super League) and a game at NSO.

 

[Wb1234]

Exactly this, the Bears had all of these non-negotiables on the table when they first met WA representatives a few years ago at the SOO in Perth, I heard that the Bears officials were very arrogant and sent packing (Billy Moore was very intoxicated), since then many Bears members have been very vocal towards our board and I am sure Peter V’Landys and the NRL have worked very hard to repair any damage done that night.
The non-negotiables are now the Bears logo, red and black colours (which the Perth Reds virtually wore in Super League) and a game at NSO.

Perth should jump all over that

not asking for at least 20 percent ownership and two board seats is crazy

 

[Bukowski]

They also realise the value in Brisbane, PNG and NZ too. All have their pros and cons. And yes, they're going to work with the franchises that offer them both the most value. PNG may be a long term government commitment to rugby league in the hundreds of millions. Christchurch has a new state of the art stadium. WA's main value is it's a large metro but it's behind on both the money and stadium fronts.

Furthermore, the NRL will also consider risk exposure. It may be that the government will cover the full cost of PNG. NZ has been more receptive to rugby league than WA. In WA's case, if you've got a Perth stand alone or a Perth Bears bid, the NRL will lean towards the Bears in terms of risk exposure. Also if the Cummins led group is too difficult to work, then they'll go with a different one. It might be a different WA consortium that's more willing to play ball. Or a different city altogether.

The point is I don't think any tenderer is in a position to set terms. Not WA, not the Bears and not anyone else. Again - the NRL 100% of the power here. If the WA government wants to get this over the line, they can't just beg - they need to go to the Pharoah Vlandys and offer some kind of financial tribute.

If they come up with the $30mill then I don't see how adding the bears lessens the risk. I mean they want to play games at a 10k cricket ground. Are they smart operators?

 

[docbrown]

Exactly this, the Bears had all of these non-negotiables on the table when they first met WA representatives a few years ago at the SOO in Perth, I heard that the Bears officials were very arrogant and sent packing (Billy Moore was very intoxicated), since then many Bears members have been very vocal towards our board and I am sure Peter V’Landys and the NRL have worked very hard to repair any damage done that night.
The non-negotiables are now the Bears logo, red and black colours (which the Perth Reds virtually wore in Super League) and a game at NSO.

Yep. You only want to work with reasonable people. You don't need Karens.

And the thing is NSO is such an easy work around. Another solution is for Manly to give up 1 game and give it to the Perth Bears as the NSO game. Then the NRL compensate Manly for the gate loss or the Bears share some gate receipts from Perth games or the NSO game. It's really such a minor quibble. As for Manly, they'd still be playing 12 games North of the harbour.

And that said - Sydney teams give up home games in Sydney all the time to play in places like Tamworth. The idea that Sydney clubs can't be flexible about this is ridiculous.

 

[Centy Coast]

If they come up with the $30mill then I don't see how adding the bears lessens the risk. I mean they want to play games at a 10k cricket ground. Are they smart operators?

It hasn’t hurt the Dolphins playing games at their 10K Kayo Stadium ?

 

[Bukowski]

It hasn’t hurt the Dolphins playing games at their 10K Kayo Stadium ?

That's just as stupid.

 

[docbrown]

If they come up with the $30mill then I don't see how adding the bears lessens the risk. I mean they want to play games at a 10k cricket ground. Are they smart operators?

Didn't you say you were a Tigers fan? Did they not just literally give up a home game to play in Tamworth in front of 10k?

Yet the idea of Sydney clubs moving games around or taking risks on lower attendances for other reasons is somehow foreign to you.

 

[Bukowski]

Didn't you say you were a Tigers fan? Did they not just literally give up a home game to play in Tamworth in front of 10k?

Yet the idea of Sydney clubs moving games around or taking risks on lower attendances for other reasons is somehow foreign to you.

The NRL didn't pay for that. Why would they pay Manly to move a game up the road? The NRL don't waste money on things like that.

 

[reanimate]

WA is literally begging a private organisation to grant them a franchise in the biggest sporting competition in the country, competing against multiple other locations who all want the same thing.

And the plan from the WA bid group is to set strict terms and refuse the NRL's directives?

Good luck with that!

The Bears have been literally begging the NRL to grant them a place in the comp for years now. The plan from the Bears this time around has been to set non-negotiables, despite getting left out of the same competition by the NRL in the past and left at the altar in previous expansion talks multiple times.

I’d say good luck with that, but luckily for them V’landys has a soft spot for them. They have to take advantage of this situation now, once those from the younger end of Gen Y and younger take charge of the game, they’ll be left in the cold forever.

 

[docbrown]

The NRL didn't pay for that. Why would they pay Manly to move a game up the road? The NRL don't waste money on things like that.

Yet you're happy for the Tigers to reduce their crowd attendance averages to play at 10k venue but not for others.

Like I said earlier, the NRL don't have to pay for it if they reduce it from the allocation from clubs that play games at centralised grounds. And they don't have to pay for it if the Perth Bears and Manly come to a gate sharing arrangement themselves. There's 2 scenarios where it costs nothing to the NRL.

And if it ended up that the NRL did pay to resolve such a minor quibbles that only lives large in the mind of cynical fans and that the rest of the public don't really care about, it would be such a minor amount in the scheme of things that it would barely be noticed.

It such a minor point on contention, nobody 20 years from now will even look back and think of it as ever having been a problem.

 

[Centy Coast]

I may just have a word to Bears NSW Cup Captain and Prop Kurt De Luis, he is a South Perth Lions junior and get his views on the Bears possible future move to Perth and whether he thinks the people of Perth will accept it or not. Actually watch this space.

 

[docbrown]

The Bears have been literally begging the NRL to grant them a place in the comp for years now. The plan from the Bears this time around has been to set non-negotiables, despite getting left out of the same competition by the NRL in the past and left at the altar in previous expansion talks multiple times.

I’d say good luck with that, but luckily for them V’landys has a soft spot for them. They have to take advantage of this situation now, once those from the younger end of Gen Y and younger take charge of the game, they’ll be left in the cold forever.

Did you literally not read my post where I explicitly said:

The point is I don't think any tenderer is in a position to set terms. Not WA, not the Bears and not anyone else.

 

[Bukowski]

Yet you're happy for the Tigers to reduce their crowd attendance averages to play at 10k venue but not for others.

Like I said earlier, the NRL don't have to pay for it if they reduce it from the allocation from clubs that play games at centralised grounds. And they don't have to pay for it if the Perth Bears and Manly come to a gate sharing arrangement themselves. There's 2 scenarios where it costs nothing to the NRL.

And if it ended up that the NRL did pay to resolve such a minor quibbles that only lives large in the mind of cynical fans and that the rest of the public don't really care about, it would be such a minor amount in the scheme of things that it would barely be noticed.

It such a minor point on contention, nobody 20 years from now will even look back and think of it as ever having been a problem.

No I'm not happy at all with the tigers going to Tamworth, a dickhead call by that dickhead Pascoe . Thankfully Richardson is in charge now.
Gate sharing on a 10k crowd won't entice anyone. LOL.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

No geniusmate wants Manly to grab the North Shore for themselves when the Bears go to WA, hell Manly ignore the Northern Beaches and get all their players from Blacktown why would they bother with the North Shore.
Manly had their chance, they could’ve been a part of the North Shore and the Central Coast but they wanted everything for themselves, the Central Coast people stopped attending games in droves, Manly got the message and returned back to Brokevale.

Manly have done themselves no favours by being so insular. They really should spread their wings and embrace the whole of northern Sydney and Gosford.

 

[docbrown]

No I'm not happy at all with the tigers going to Tamworth, a dickhead call by that dickhead Pascoe . Thankfully Richardson is in charge now.
Gate sharing on a 10k crowd won't entice anyone. LOL.

If clubs didn't sacrifice home games to take them to other cities Perth wouldn't have gotten any games except State of Origin. No NRL double headers. Or did you not attend those out of some strange moral standpoint?

 

[Bukowski]

Did you literally not read my post where I explicitly said:

The point is I don't think any tenderer is in a position to set terms. Not WA, not the Bears and not anyone else.

It's only been the bears that have said they have non negotiable. That's not a good sign when one partner is doing that.

 

[Bukowski]

If clubs didn't sacrifice home games to take them to other cities Perth wouldn't have gotten any games except State of Origin. No NRL double headers. Or did you not attend those out of some strange moral standpoint?

Of course cubs will move games if it's financially beneficial. State govts and stadiums have funded those
A 10k ground will be a loss makong endeavour and the NRL won't pay a club to play at bear Park. Cmon

 

[Wb1234]

The Bears have been literally begging the NRL to grant them a place in the comp for years now. The plan from the Bears this time around has been to set non-negotiables, despite getting left out of the same competition by the NRL in the past and left at the altar in previous expansion talks multiple times.

I’d say good luck with that, but luckily for them V’landys has a soft spot for them. They have to take advantage of this situation now, once those from the younger end of Gen Y and younger take charge of the game, they’ll be left in the cold forever.

TikTok - Make Your Day

Roger cook supports a bears bid

aw diddums