Perth Officially Confirmed to Join NRL in 2027

[Perth Red]

But are they interested in joking the board of a NRL club?

Why do you ask an unanswerable question?

 

[taipan]

The majority are NSW based board members, for a WA club that's not great, imo.
NS have 3 reps WA RL only 2. Again is this a Perth club or not?
Dicko makes total sense and no problem at all with him on the board.

The point to keeping mind.It's not a privately owned club like the Storm ,they appoint major shareholders & local business people.
Perth has the NRL as the major backer ,so they are entitled to nominate the people, they believe will do the job and if that means people they have close ties with , so be it.Bear in mind the NRL are putting their chin out financially so they want this to be a success.
One minute the NRL are hopeless not brining in Perth, the next when they do( and throw money in substantially) , it's nepotism because some big bad boys from the East are n the board.
I mean if Perth had a private consortium prepared to throw the cash in whatever the annual figure is , by all means have a winegrower from Margaret River on the board.

 

[taipan]

What's the biggest sports club in Australia?

The Nauru island fumble ball club.

 

[Perth Red]

The point to keeping mind.It's not a privately owned club like the Storm ,they appoint major shareholders & local business people.
Perth has the NRL as the major backer ,so they are entitled to nominate the people, they believe will do the job and if that means people they have close ties with , so be it.Bear in mind the NRL are putting their chin out financially so they want this to be a success.
One minute the NRL are hopeless not brining in Perth, the next when they do( and throw money in substantially) , it's nepotism because some big bad boys from the East are n the board.
I mean if Perth had a private consortium prepared to throw the cash in whatever the annual figure is , by all means have a winegrower from Margaret River on the board.

lol. yeh if only that had been an option!

 

[Bukowski]

The point to keeping mind.It's not a privately owned club like the Storm ,they appoint major shareholders & local business people.
Perth has the NRL as the major backer ,so they are entitled to nominate the people, they believe will do the job and if that means people they have close ties with , so be it.Bear in mind the NRL are putting their chin out financially so they want this to be a success.
One minute the NRL are hopeless not brining in Perth, the next when they do( and throw money in substantially) , it's nepotism because some big bad boys from the East are n the board.
I mean if Perth had a private consortium prepared to throw the cash in whatever the annual figure is , by all means have a winegrower from Margaret River on the board.

That's only fair, but I question why norths get 2 appointments for $0 investment.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

That's only fair, but I question why norths get 2 appointments for $0 investment.

The investment in pathways is their contribution, plus the bears IP and colours I believe

 

[Bukowski]

The investment in pathways is their contribution, plus the bears IP and colours I believe

Yeah, the things that Perth never asked for. LOL.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Yeah, the things that Perth never asked for. LOL.

Fair enough. I guess the pathways are at least useful, you'd need a partner initially anyway

 

[Red&BlackBear]

lol. yeh if only that had been an option!

It wasn’t a sustainable option. The business case/model was inherently defective. Sure there was start up funding but there was no long term financial planning, nor contingency had the club struggled. It relied too heavily on promises and verbal guarantees.

It was flawed. Therefore whilst it might have been presented and submitted as a formal bid, it was never an option.

You have had 8 months to digest that info, still you fight it.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

Yeah, the things that Perth never asked for. LOL.

Your WA Government asked for it. In fact; they conceptualised it, proposed it.

May 14th, 2022 at Magic Round. I was present in the room when it was presented and discussed.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

That's only fair, but I question why norths get 2 appointments for $0 investment.

Technically, it’s 3 appointments.

IP & Brand is the investment. In the commercial world, IP and franchise brands is the strength. Of course here so is the geographical location ie Perth, WA.

In rugby league, the geographical locations did provide the foundations for the franchise brands to grow and become the invaluable asset that they are today. We need to acknowledge that without those locations, the brands might not have been recognised and bear the strength, commercially, that they currently do.

However in today’s world; Broncos is the brand, not Brisbane. Cowboys is the brand, not North Queensland. Dolphins is the brand, hence no need for a geographical titled location in their club title. Panthers is a brand, not Penrith hence why they are controlled by the over arching Panthers Group and not Penrith Group and so on and so forth. At some point the brand, all brands, outgrows the location.

This is why US Sports franchise brands can and do willingly relocate locations. The that world; the brand is more powerful than the location. I acknowledge that it’s different circumstances in this case but still, is it that different?

Brand and IP = commercial attachment and selling point. Commercial attachment = investment.

Of course this was all discussed ad nauseam on the original WA Bears thread; so I’m not quite sure why months later it’s ruffled feathers here. I quite literally stated in that thread how this was going to play out, Lo and behold; here we are.

 

[Bukowski]

Fair enough. I guess the pathways are at least useful, you'd need a partner initially anyway

You'd need a feeder, agreed.

 

[insert.pause]

It wasn’t a sustainable option. The business case/model was inherently defective. Sure there was start up funding but there was no long term financial planning, nor contingency had the club struggled. It relied too heavily on promises and verbal guarantees.

It was flawed. Therefore whilst it might have been presented and submitted as a formal bid, it was never an option.

You have had 8 months to digest that info, still you fight it.

Pretty fitting for someone that runs CashConverters…

 

[wb2027]

Yeah, the things that Perth never asked for. LOL.

Your WA Government asked for it. In fact; they conceptualised it, proposed it.

The government/supporter disconnect is a huge reason why neither side will completely feel like they got what they wanted.

On the Norths side, they always had an established club with supporters who had readmission at the forefront of their minds. Their board were able to have constant dialogue with the ARLC about what to expect, and given that there are 10 other clubs all within a 2-hour drive, it's easier for that supporter base to come to terms with the idea of being transplanted to an expansion market if it restored their place in the NRL.

On the Perth side, they've had the WA Government as their voice (not counting the consortium who missed the mark for reasons listed above) and no Perth equivalent of 10 other clubs nearby to make it any easier to come to terms with why they can't go it alone. Even though it's been well documented that the WA Government are all for it, it's still perceived as Norths robbing WA of the fleeting curiosity of how a new club could've taken shape.

 

[yakstorm]

That's only fair, but I question why norths get 2 appointments for $0 investment.

Still a better deal than what the Brisbane Bears got when they merged with Fitzroy. In that scenario the Fitzroy side got 3 board positions for at least the first 10 years whilst the Bears side had to pay $1.25m of the Lions debt to the Nauru Insurance Corporation.

As others have said, the Bears aren't bringing nothing, there is the IP, pathways and arguably another customer base for the club to commercialise, which will be important in the initial years.

 

[SirPies&Beers]

It wasn’t a sustainable option. The business case/model was inherently defective. Sure there was start up funding but there was no long term financial planning, nor contingency had the club struggled. It relied too heavily on promises and verbal guarantees.

It was flawed. Therefore whilst it might have been presented and submitted as a formal bid, it was never an option.

You have had 8 months to digest that info, still you fight it.

Your WA Government asked for it. In fact; they conceptualised it, proposed it.

May 14th, 2022 at Magic Round. I was present in the room when it was presented and discussed.

Technically, it’s 3 appointments.

IP & Brand is the investment. In the commercial world, IP and franchise brands is the strength. Of course here so is the geographical location ie Perth, WA.

In rugby league, the geographical locations did provide the foundations for the franchise brands to grow and become the invaluable asset that they are today. We need to acknowledge that without those locations, the brands might not have been recognised and bear the strength, commercially, that they currently do.

However in today’s world; Broncos is the brand, not Brisbane. Cowboys is the brand, not North Queensland. Dolphins is the brand, hence no need for a geographical titled location in their club title. Panthers is a brand, not Penrith hence why they are controlled by the over arching Panthers Group and not Penrith Group and so on and so forth. At some point the brand, all brands, outgrows the location.

This is why US Sports franchise brands can and do willingly relocate locations. The that world; the brand is more powerful than the location. I acknowledge that it’s different circumstances in this case but still, is it that different?

Brand and IP = commercial attachment and selling point. Commercial attachment = investment.

Of course this was all discussed ad nauseam on the original WA Bears thread; so I’m not quite sure why months later it’s ruffled feathers here. I quite literally stated in that thread how this was going to play out, Lo and behold; here we are.

god damn, dropping those facts once again @Red&BlackBear

 

[Perth Red]

god damn, dropping those facts once again @Red&BlackBear

Accept they arent.

Not wanting to cover old ground but sometimes you just have to call it

1. The Consortium offered up $30mill start up, they then added to that with a $20mill license fee AND financial guarantees. Yeh doesnt sound like a bid with financial backing at all lol.

2. Ive heard from a good Govt source that the very first meeting with NRL The WA govt was told the NRL's strong preference was a Bears link up and they should pursue that. Bears wasnt WA govt idea at all. They had no choice given the NRL's directive

3. That NS have 3 seats on the board of a Perth club sets alarm bells ringing for us again in the West.

 

[wb2027]

2. Ive heard from a good Govt source that the very first meeting with NRL The WA govt was told the NRL's strong preference was a Bears link up and they should pursue that. Bears wasnt WA govt idea at all. They had no choice given the NRL's directive

The man said he was literally in the room.

3. That NS have 3 seats on the board of a Perth club sets alarm bells ringing for us again in the West.

Alarm bells in case of what? Norths have far more to lose and with only 1/3rd representation on the board they'd be outvoted on any motion to sever all ties and rebrand.

 

[Bukowski]

Still a better deal than what the Brisbane Bears got when they merged with Fitzroy. In that scenario the Fitzroy side got 3 board positions for at least the first 10 years whilst the Bears side had to pay $1.25m of the Lions debt to the Nauru Insurance Corporation.

As others have said, the Bears aren't bringing nothing, there is the IP, pathways and arguably another customer base for the club to commercialise, which will be important in the initial years.

The interstate fanbase would be the most valuable. Potentially, I'm keen to see how many are actualy out there.

 

[Perth Red]

The interstate fanbase would be the most valuable. Potentially, I'm keen to see how many are actualy out there.

It'll be interesting to see how many of the alleged 200k decide to support the Perth Bears in any meaningful way.