Goodbye Bears, CQ and PNG?

[Rockin Ronny]

His point being that if these companies want to advertise into the Brisbane market and use NRL as that vehicle then they currently can't as there is only one club. You could argue why don't Bundy sponsor a different NRL club outside Brisbane which would be a fair question unless Bundy specifically want their product associated with a Brisbane NRL club for what ever reason.

The bigger issue is incompetence in existing clubs.

Nothing shits me more than these gormless football club executives whining about a bigger grant - which might add $500K or $1 million each year - when they really need $10-15 million to be viable.

If th IC is fair dinkum, they should say to eah bid - "right, you need $15 million a year to run a team (excluding the grant) - so come back with binding commitments/ contracts from your sponsors for a guaranteed $75 million for the next 5 years". Watch most of these bids go to pieces OR come up with some bullshit centre of excellence development/deferred payment scheme.

Rugby league management has a chance with thes TV rights negotiation/expansion to show other codes how professional we are. Being owned and a slave to news limited (with a News Limited CEO) has made our game a laughing stock. It's time the game was run professionally.

 

[bobmar28]

lol!!!
Yes but not if you ask it thinking you know the answer but are so far wrong its funny.

I didn't "think I knew the answer". And I am a little uncomfortable discovering the fact that team I support adopted an AFL name. I am also surprised to find that said AFL team chose that name in the year 1908.

 

[busterc]

The value of a sponsorship, though, is through the wider television exposure. Otherwise, all these sposnors would just buy a hoarding at the ground if advertising to the local market was all they wanted to do.

My point is simply that the same broad exposure would be gained by sponsoring an NRL team from any location. Unless there is an explicit link, (such as the XXXX/Bundy brands being distinctly "Queensland" as I've already said, or for that matter JJ Lawson with the Bears), then the money could still make it's way into the wider NRL community via another club. If Jeep really wanted to throw their marketing money around, but the bombers don't make it in, they will just sponsor someone else, make no mistake. A direct comparison between the 2 Brisbane teams, drawing on similarities between their named supporters, is just not a compelling (nor convincing) argument for having a second Brisbane team. They have other things going for them, definitely, but this is not one of them. THAT is my point.

What a brilliant point.
How many times are the Broncos on Friday night football?? How many times do you think a Perth team will be on Friday night foorball live into Perth??? NSW teams have to share exposure. Single team towns or two team towns in Brisbanes case would be worth millions more than another team added to a saturated market.

 

[betcats]

I didn't "think I knew the answer". And I am a little uncomfortable discovering the fact that team I support adopted an AFL name. I am also surprised to find that said AFL team chose that name in the year 1908.

Im not sure if it was 1908 or not, but it was def before Canterbury.

 

[BunniesMan]

I didn't "think I knew the answer". And I am a little uncomfortable discovering the fact that team I support adopted an AFL name. I am also surprised to find that said AFL team chose that name in the year 1908.

I know you're as dumb as a doorknob. But fmd...you realise the Bulldogs aren't even a foundation club? You do realise your team was founded in 1935? So I don't understand the reference to 1908.

And they didn't use the 'bulldogs' name until the late 70s. They were the 'berries' before that'.

The Western Bulldogs are an AFL team, estalished in 1883 (again, I don't know why you said '1908'). They've been the 'Bulldogs' for longer. The Western Bulldogs are 50+ years older than your Bulldogs, and especially when you consider your Bulldogs only started using the name relatively late.

I hope you don't hurt yourself over this information....

 

[Perth Red]

If th IC is fair dinkum, they should say to eah bid - "right, you need $15 million a year to run a team (excluding the grant) - so come back with binding commitments/ contracts from your sponsors for a guaranteed $75 million for the next 5 years". Watch most of these bids go to pieces OR come up with some bullshit centre of excellence development/deferred payment scheme.

The Reds are targetting an $18mill a year revenue level to start up. They are confident between game day income, corporate support and the NRL grant they will achieve this. A rich mining magnet backer would be a nice security net! I think your idea of guaranteed 5 year deals are cloud cuckoo land!

It commissioned market researchers Synovate to prepare the report and WARL Bid project manager Ralph McManis said the WARL pleased with the outcome.
“There were certainly no surprises and many positives,” McManis said.
“We’ve done financial modelling on what we believe is needed for a national team and we are on course.”
The WARL bid has gathered strong support from within NRL ranks including chief executive David Gallop, who said earlier this year that Perth was a frontrunner in the race.
He said a new franchise would have to produce a $15-20 million a year turnover but McManis is confident they can achieve that target.
“We’ve punched the numbers and we believe we can jump through all the financial hoops,” McManis said.
“We believe it would be more than feasible otherwise we would not be proceeding.”



and :

Western Australia's bid team claim they'd be among the highest sponsorship-earning NRL clubs within two years if admitted to the competition.
They are acting on advice to have their bid ready to go in the next few weeks and indications are finance should not be an issue given interest shown in the AFL-dominated state.
WARL chief executive John Sackson said about $4 million worth of company sponsorship commitments were already on the table and one of them was prepared to commit $1.5 million to be the team's major sponsor.
Following the lead of Star City casino's recent major sponsorship of South Sydney and the partnership between Crown Casino and the Melbourne Storm, Perth's Burswood Casino was among those eager to be involved with a WA team.
Despite having only been able to sell "hopes and dreams" at this stage, McManis said the interest shown by the business community made them believe the club would be very profitable.
"We've had a bit of a roadshow around some of the corporates of Perth, particularly the top end of town," he said.
"If we're awarded a licence, we anticipate we could go close to being the highest sponsor-earning NRL club in our first two years."
http://www.nrl.com/finance-not-an-issue-in-wa-league-bid/tabid/10874/newsid/61795/default.aspx

 

[Lockyer4President!]

I know you're as dumb as a doorknob. But fmd...you realise the Bulldogs aren't even a foundation club? You do realise your team was founded in 1935? So I don't understand the reference to 1908.

And they didn't use the 'bulldogs' name until the late 70s. They were the 'berries' before that'.

The Western Bulldogs are an AFL team, estalished in 1883 (again, I don't know why you said '1908'). They've been the 'Bulldogs' for longer. The Western Bulldogs are 50+ years older than your Bulldogs, and especially when you consider your Bulldogs only started using the name relatively late.

I hope you don't hurt yourself over this information....

Just fyi the Western Bulldogs didn't officially have 'Bulldogs' in their name until 1997 and the earliest logo they had featuring a bulldog was in the 70's, which is the same time Canterbury changed from the Berries.

 

[betcats]

Just fyi the Western Bulldogs didn't officially have 'Bulldogs' in their name until 1997 and the earliest logo they had featuring a bulldog was in the 70's, which is the same time Canterbury changed from the Berries.

In that case maybe i was wrong bobmar, I was sure the afl had it first.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

The Reds are targetting an $18mill a year revenue level to start up. They are confident between game day income, corporate support and the NRL grant they will achieve this. A rich mining magnet backer would be a nice security net! I think your idea of guaranteed 5 year deals are cloud cuckoo land!

It commissioned market researchers Synovate to prepare the report and WARL Bid project manager Ralph McManis said the WARL pleased with the outcome.
“There were certainly no surprises and many positives,” McManis said.
“We’ve done financial modelling on what we believe is needed for a national team and we are on course.”
The WARL bid has gathered strong support from within NRL ranks including chief executive David Gallop, who said earlier this year that Perth was a frontrunner in the race.
He said a new franchise would have to produce a $15-20 million a year turnover but McManis is confident they can achieve that target.
“We’ve punched the numbers and we believe we can jump through all the financial hoops,” McManis said.
“We believe it would be more than feasible otherwise we would not be proceeding.”



and :

Western Australia's bid team claim they'd be among the highest sponsorship-earning NRL clubs within two years if admitted to the competition.
They are acting on advice to have their bid ready to go in the next few weeks and indications are finance should not be an issue given interest shown in the AFL-dominated state.
WARL chief executive John Sackson said about $4 million worth of company sponsorship commitments were already on the table and one of them was prepared to commit $1.5 million to be the team's major sponsor.
Following the lead of Star City casino's recent major sponsorship of South Sydney and the partnership between Crown Casino and the Melbourne Storm, Perth's Burswood Casino was among those eager to be involved with a WA team.
Despite having only been able to sell "hopes and dreams" at this stage, McManis said the interest shown by the business community made them believe the club would be very profitable.
"We've had a bit of a roadshow around some of the corporates of Perth, particularly the top end of town," he said.
"If we're awarded a licence, we anticipate we could go close to being the highest sponsor-earning NRL club in our first two years."
http://www.nrl.com/finance-not-an-issue-in-wa-league-bid/tabid/10874/newsid/61795/default.aspx

That's all nice and rosey and I sincerely hope that some rich mining magnet does indeed come into the fray for the W.A. Reds. With that said, I'm somewhat suprised that a rich mining magnet hasn't already come into the picture. Maybe it's just being cautious and waiting for the actual green light before the Reds announce anything of the sort.

However what the Reds and other bids are trying to achieve, the CCBears and CQLD bids already have achieved. Both have deep pockets on the back of Singleton and Murphy, both have heavy duty sponsors already initiating funds into their respective bids, both have generated an amazing amount of community support, both have huge pools of juniors to draw talent from and both have good sustainability plans.

Hence why I find this rumour by the Mole incredibly rich, what people have outlined as fundamentally important to sustaining a new team both these bids have since secured and shored up those key area's. For people to say that the "Central" bids have no chance is really naive. At the end of the day, they're the only 2 bids who can "show the money" at any given time.

The W.A. Reds have alot of potential but I would have thought that by this stage that we'd be hearing big news coming out of the bid camp. I have no doubts that you guys will get a team, I just hope you guys haven't slowed down for a minute thinking "we're good to get a license, let's take the foot off the peddle alittle bit since we don't have to go as hard".

Otherwise when a license is granted to W.A. Reds, the catch up work might be abit too much to really hit the ground running and instead of making a Titan's esque impact, it'll be more like a Warriors esque impact (it did take them 5+ years to really reach a quarter of their potential as a club). Does that make any sense?

Go the Reds.

 

[rednblack]

Just fyi the Western Bulldogs didn't officially have 'Bulldogs' in their name until 1997 and the earliest logo they had featuring a bulldog was in the 70's, which is the same time Canterbury changed from the Berries.

Prior to 1997 they were the Footscray Bulldogs.

On the occasion of Footscray's one and only VFL premiership victory in 1954, contemporary sports journalist of the day Hugh Buggy, who covered the match for 'The Argus' newspaper, wrote that "(he) estimates that at least 70,000 of the 80,897 spectators at the ground were cheering for the Bulldogs..."

There are many and numerous references to the Foostscray Football Club as the Bulldogs, dating back to their days in the VFA (prior to their admission to the VFL in the 1920's). Whether as part of their club name or not, they've been the Bulldogs for well over 100 years now (apart from a brief period where they were the "royals" or similar, in deference to some French monarch who died or some such, but this was only for a year or two if I'm not mistaken.

As for the mascot being a part of the club's official name, I think you'll find this to be a relatively new phenomenon. SSRLFC doesn't have the rabbitohs in their name. Nor did balmain or wests. I may be mistaken, (and I'll concede on this if I am), but I'm pretty sure, at least until relatively recent times, the Canterbury-Bankstown Football Club was the official name, with the bulldog as their mascot (since the 70's of course).

Only very few ALF teams have the mascot in their club name. Think Collingwood, North Melbourne, St Kilda, Carlton, Melbourne, Port Adelaide, even the new GWSFC. Yet all of these clubs have long and proud traditions with their respective identifying mascots, as do all the NRL teams, past and present.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

I think your idea of guaranteed 5 year deals are cloud cuckoo land!

That's only because rugby league clubs will continue to be run by chook raffle losers.

If the game wants to be professional, get big groups on 3,4 or 5 year commitments which will give clubs certainty.

It's a pity the Cowboys name was taken - because it summarises rugby league management to a tee.

 

[Jason Maher]

Any Sydney team being called 'Sydney' is ridiculous. How stupid would it look if all 9 teams were 'Sydney'. The Roosters, and if they were to merge with Cronulla, should be 'East Sydney' because 'Sydney' is stupid and 'Eastern Suburbs' is just as dumb in a national comp (cough*tigers*cough).

The NRL should ban teams from being called 'Sydney'.

Yet somehow the Melbourne Demons have been able to get away with what you call dumb for 115 years, while surrounded by anywhere from 5 to 9 other Melbourne teams (all based pretty close to the city). I know you follow AFL (as do I), so your stance here strikes me as a little inconsistent (unless you think the Demons should change their name after 115 years).

 

[BunniesMan]

Yet somehow the Melbourne Demons have been able to get away with what you call dumb for 115 years, while surrounded by anywhere from 5 to 9 other Melbourne teams (all based pretty close to the city). I know you follow AFL (as do I), so your stance here strikes me as a little inconsistent (unless you think the Demons should change their name after 115 years).

I don't like the fact that the Demons are 'Melbourne', but the comparison to the Roosters isn't too accurate. 'Melbourne' has been 'Melbourne' since the 19th century. The Roosters were Easts for most of the last century and then changed to 'Sydney' in the 90s in a cynical attempt at broadening their appeal beyond their small base...treating fans like idiots in the process (oh gee...let's call ourselves 'Sydney', Penrith bogans will think we're just as much their club as we are Bondi's).

A closer example would be the Bulldogs. Going from 'Footscray' to 'Western' in a national competition is cynical and idiotic.

The Bulldogs in the AFL and the Tigers and Roosters in the NRL should be forced to change their name.

I don't know how the Tigers were allowed to be called 'Wests' after they merged when we were already a national comp for over a decade. And it sounds so amateurish to have an abbreviated nickname as your official name. They should be 'West Sydney'. 'Sydney' should be 'East Sydney.

How much easier would it be to market a big game between 'West Sydney' and 'East Sydney' than a meaningless one between 'Sydney' and 'Wests'.

 

[Perth Red]

The W.A. Reds have alot of potential but I would have thought that by this stage that we'd be hearing big news coming out of the bid camp. I have no doubts that you guys will get a team, I just hope you guys haven't slowed down for a minute thinking "we're good to get a license, let's take the foot off the peddle alittle bit since we don't have to go as hard".

Otherwise when a license is granted to W.A. Reds, the catch up work might be abit too much to really hit the ground running and instead of making a Titan's esque impact, it'll be more like a Warriors esque impact (it did take them 5+ years to really reach a quarter of their potential as a club). Does that make any sense?

Go the Reds.

There's no worries there, lots of stuff happening and going but as I said before we have a number of existing clubs sniffing around the WA corporate scene so we are keeping our alliances close to our chest. In terms of companies already backing the bid, we have a long list of companies doing that including the likes of Virgin, Cash Convertors, Harvey Norman and Northern Ford. In all honesty I would rather we didn't sell off bits of the club before its formed and up and running, I'd rather we get the sponsorship support and be able to be sustainable under the full auspices of the WARL, if we need a rich backer to fill gaps so be it but i'd rather that a last resort rather than a first.

We have the WA govt on side, the stadium redeveloment in place, strong public support and now our key focus goes to further jnr development and growing our corporate base so we can sell out those 80 boxes!

 

[gallagher]

Having a rich sugar daddy doesnt mean long term success and may be disregarded by the NRL. Anyone losing too much money will bail out. Dont forget Singo financed the jets and magpies in the past and that didnt work out well in the long run.

 

[Beowulf]

Having a rich sugar daddy doesnt mean long term success and may be disregarded by the NRL. Anyone losing too much money will bail out. Dont forget Singo financed the jets and magpies in the past and that didnt work out well in the long run.

Which is why the Bears have switched from the one ownership model proposal to a multi-ownership model - diversified risk.

 

[bobmar28]

I know you're as dumb as a doorknob. But fmd...you realise the Bulldogs aren't even a foundation club? You do realise your team was founded in 1935? So I don't understand the reference to 1908.

And they didn't use the 'bulldogs' name until the late 70s. They were the 'berries' before that'.

The Western Bulldogs are an AFL team, estalished in 1883 (again, I don't know why you said '1908'). They've been the 'Bulldogs' for longer. The Western Bulldogs are 50+ years older than your Bulldogs, and especially when you consider your Bulldogs only started using the name relatively late.

I hope you don't hurt yourself over this information....

Let's see... how do I explain the 1908 reference to a dickhead like yourself.
Well it goes like this. The previous poster suggested the western Bulldogs had the name 70 years before Canterbury. According to Wikipedia Canterbury adopted the name in 1978. Hence the reference to 1908 being the year the western Bulldogs adopted the name. Do you get it now....DICKHEAD?

 

[joshreading]

Wiki is wrong. Footscray were clearly recognised as the Bulldogs for atleast the last fifty years. All their logos had the Bulldog in it for decades before Canterbury but at the end of the day who cares. I know which Bulldogs I would rather what and it is not the Melbourne version.

 

[rednblack]

I don't know how the Tigers were allowed to be called 'Wests' after they merged when we were already a national comp for over a decade. And it sounds so amateurish to have an abbreviated nickname as your official name. They should be 'West Sydney'.

Completely agree! Sounds cheap and temporary. People would still call them "wests", fine, but please have SOME degree of professionalism.

 

[smithie]

Completely agree! Sounds cheap and temporary. People would still call them "wests", fine, but please have SOME degree of professionalism.

Agree 100%. The Tigers should also be playing games at Homebush instead of the SFS. Rabbitohs should go back to the SFS permanently.