18th club, whose next?

[Perth Red]

Tell your source, they are royally f**king themselves up by going to areas that want their own licence, they should be looking at important areas that aren't going to bid or be serviced by anyone, like Adelaide or Melbourne2, trying perth or PNG, pasifika or Nz is pointless when they are already have strong support in the game to want their own licence, you get the bears to go to an area where they dictate what they want to do, 8 games at aami park and 4 at nso, and no one blinks an eye, you try that with perth, png or NZ2 and theyll want all 12 games aswell you based in that city, aswell as the licence

18. West Coast Pirates
19. South Island somethings
20. Adelaide Bears

you know it makes sense.

 

[Perth Red]

For the record, my personal view is that the “non-negotiable” for games at NSO need to be very flexible from Bears POV for it to make sense from a commercial business sense.

2 games guaranteed is fine as long as the other half of the table/shareholders agree to it (WA, PNG, Pasifika, Stockholm - whoever) but if you’re asking for more than that when a team is supposed to be based fulltime in Perth, Pasifika or elsewhere then it stagnates what expansion is essentially about, solidification in a new market and as such you would need as many home games to get the locals to rally behind the team as possible.

There needs to be a real caution when asking for things that you don’t necessarily have the bargaining power to ask for, otherwise Bears will be left by the way side perpetually. I would advise against putting this in any prospective clause or as a “non-negotiable” and bring it to 1 home game obviously against Manly, the other game should be an away game with an incentive deal struck with either Chooks, Souths and Tigers to take it to NSO (as long as it benefits one of those sides).

As for branding non-negotiables ie Bears, red and black and history carry over that just makes sense and I think it’s more common sense than anything else.

Not to sound like a stuck record but it all comes down to ownership of the club. if NS own the club then it will be a likely disaster long term for the expansion city. If a consortium in the host city own the club then NS would not have the power to do anything.

Yes theyd be handing over their brand and IP to another company in effect, and giving up their dream of being back in NRL as a NSW club, and there would need to be protections around branding etc but until NSFC are willing to hand over ownership of the Bears to a new city owner they are highly unlikely to ever get back in.

Its a hard thing to do but they really need to decide and NRL needs to stop yanking their chain and giving them false hope that somehow they will be back owning the new club and just be playing some games in another location.

The games at NSO is irrelevant in reality, if it commercially makes sense to the new club then it should happen, if it doesnt it should be limited to pre season games. We shouldnt expect a new club to lose money by taking games to NSO if they can make more playing at home.

 

[Wb1234]

as a perth person why woudl I give a sht about whats good for sydney people? I only care about whats good for RL in perth when it comes to a perth nrl club. If a partnership offers player development, maybe some corporate interest and maybe a few thousand members elsewhere then commercially its worth looking at. But clearly the bears non negotiables were not acceptable to the perth consortium otherwise they wouldnt have gone off and developed a pacifica bears idea.

Brand value
Merchandise sales
season Ticket sales
Being shown on channel nine
Corporate sponsors from one of the richest parts of Sydney
More derbies vs games with little meaning

Perth standalone games in Sydney are going to struggle without being attached to the bears

plastic gets replaced with solid oak

 

[Wb1234]

Not to sound like a stuck record but it all comes down to ownership of the club. if NS own the club then it will be a likely disaster long term for the expansion city. If a consortium in the host city own the club then NS would not have the power to do anything.

Yes theyd be handing over their brand and IP to another company in effect, and giving up their dream of being back in NRL as a NSW club, and there would need to be protections around branding etc but until NSFC are willing to hand over ownership of the Bears to a new city owner they are highly unlikely to ever get back in.

Its a hard thing to do but they really need to decide and NRL needs to stop yanking their chain and giving them false hope that somehow they will be back owning the new club and just be playing some games in another location.

The games at NSO is irrelevant in reality, if it commercially makes sense to the new club then it should happen, if it doesnt it should be limited to pre season games. We shouldnt expect a new club to lose money by taking games to NSO if they can make more playing at home.

North Sydney minority share holding

 

[Perth Red]

Brand value
Merchandise sales
season Ticket sales
Being shown on channel nine
Corporate sponsors from one of the richest parts of Sydney
More derbies vs games with little meaning

Perth standalone games in Sydney are going to struggle without being attached to the bears

plastic gets replaced with solid oak

Which is not about whats good for sydney, thats whats good for a perth club commercially. which is what I said. If it commercially makes sense and is needed then sure, as long as ownership is not with NSFC.

If Sydney clubs cant generate their own fanbases to attend games then thats not Perths problem.

More like floating deadwood, but yeh Perth could revive it back to some sort of life.

 

[Perth Red]

North Sydney minority share holding

Nope, place on the board and cast iron agreements around pathways and brand forever more. The club should be 100% owned by the Perth consortium.

 

[Wb1234]

Nope, place on the board and cast iron agreements around pathways and brand forever more. The club should be 100% owned by the Perth consortium.

Unrealistic

 

[Perth Red]

Unrealistic

No its not. the NSFC chair or CEO should be on the board of the new club but thats all. Ownership should sit 100% with the new club in the new city. If they only have their 3 non-negotaiables re brand and games at NSO they are easily protected in legal agreements, theres no needs for NSFC to own any part of the new club. And thats what it should be, a new club.

Or the other alternative is they buy a share of the club. Say 20% for $20million if they want to be part owners. But always a minority share.

 

[Wb1234]

No its not. the NSFC chair or CEO should be on the board of the new club but thats all. Ownership should sit 100% with the new club in the new city. If they only have their 3 non-negotaiables re brand and games at NSO they are easily protected in legal agreements, theres no needs for NSFC to own any part of the new club. And thats what it should be, a new club.

Or the other alternative is they buy a share of the club. Say 20% for $20million if they want to be part owners. But always a minority share.

They aren’t handing over their branding and ip for nothing lol

they will want a say in it’s use

 

[Perth Red]

They aren’t handing over their branding and ip for nothing lol

they will want a say in it’s use

Thats not in their non negotiables. The no change to logo and colours can be easily dealt with in a legal contract with the new club. What you are actually intimating is they want a say in how the new club is run. Beyond a seat on the board they shouldnt have any say otherwise we are back to NSFC running the Bears in another city. which is exactly what we dont want.

The relationship between the new club and the NSFC should be a pathways one. Not an NRL club operational one.
The trade off for the NSFC is they are guaranteed a future as a pathways club, they get extra funding to improve the NS Bears jnrs (currently only got $30k a year from the roosters partnership), have direct pathway to NRl level for local Jnrs, keeping them relevant in Sydney, and their fans get to cheer on a Bears team in the NRl again. Thats the wins for them.

 

[Wb1234]

Thats not in their non negotiables. The no change to logo and colours can be easily dealt with in a legal contract with the new club. What you are actually intimating is they want a say in how the new club is run. Beyond a seat on the board they shouldnt have any say otherwise we are back to NSFC running the Bears in another city. which is exactly what we dont want.

The relationship between the new club and the NSFC should be a pathways one. Not an NRL club operational one.

So now you agree the non negotiables don’t include ownership

lmao

in the end of the day a minority share holding is what they will want but k suspect that could also involve a commitment to provide finance each year from the leagues club

 

[Perth Red]

So now you agree the non negotiables don’t include ownership

lmao

in the end of the day a minority share holding is what they will want but k suspect that could also involve a commitment to provide finance each year from the leagues club

Nope, Im just taking your line for sake of argument.
They have said previously ownership of the license is a non-negotiable, they havent said since it isnt. Until they step back from that publicly I can only assume its still in play, especially given how Perth and PNG negotiations went.

And if, as you seem to think, it isnt then what Im proposing isnt an issue for them.

If they no longer have ownership as a non-negotiable then they need to get back in touch with Perth Id say and tell them they've relented!

 

[Wb1234]

Nope, Im just taking your line for sake of argument.
They have said previously ownership of the license is a non-negotiable, they havent said since it isnt. Until they step back from that publicly I can only assume its still in play, especially given how Perth and PNG negotiations went.

And if, as you seem to think, it isnt then what Im proposing isnt an issue for them.

If they no longer have ownership as a non-negotiable then they need to get back in touch with Perth Id say and tell them they've relented!

Once png is announced then negotiations about Perth begin in earnest

we see if pvl needs the bears included or not

 

[Perth Red]

So with all the latest news and goss wheres things sitting?
Presuming the gossip has some seeds of truth and Vlandys isnt spinning us a yarn the safest bet is it will look like:

club 18 PNG 2027/28

depending on tv deal NRL may look to 20 clubs in the following 5-10 years and could be:

Perth club 19. Either stand alone or in partnership with Newtown

NZ2/Pacifica club 20 either stand alone or in partnership with Bears.

seems to be the way the wind is blowing but plenty of time for it to change direction yet!

 

[Wb1234]

Png will be announced after origin

then you might get an early Xmas present after the grand final

 

[Perth Red]

Png will be announced after origin

then you might get an early Xmas present after the grand final

Abdo said decisions likely by end of year. Im not expecting any decisions on club 19 and 20 or if there will be 20 clubs until after the next tv deal is done. Which is likely around mid to end 2026.

"We want to keep growing," Abdo told News Corp. "By the end of 2024, we will know what it looks like for an 18th franchise and potentially beyond that."

https://www.nospam47.com/au/rugby-l... CEO Andrew Abdo has,club in the near future.

 

[st george dragons]

So PNG is the most likely team to become the 18th team, followed by Perth and perhaps North Sydney for the 19th and 20th teams respectively?

I'm surprised that the die-hard Bear fans are pushing so much for the inclusion of the Bears being back. The Newtown Jets have more of a case of re-joining than the Bears, as they still play regularly in the NSW Cup and get "good crowds" (compared to other lower grades). But then again, the Jets have no "big name backers" though. And is sandwiched between a few teams of Souths, Roosters and the Balmain part of Wests Tigers. So their chances of a return are quite slim.

 

[MugaB]

So PNG is the most likely team to become the 18th team, followed by Perth and perhaps North Sydney for the 19th and 20th teams respectively?

I'm surprised that the die-hard Bear fans are pushing so much for the inclusion of the Bears being back. The Newtown Jets have more of a case of re-joining than the Bears, as they still play regularly in the NSW Cup and get "good crowds" (compared to other lower grades). But then again, the Jets have no "big name backers" though. And is sandwiched between a few teams of Souths, Roosters and the Balmain part of Wests Tigers. So their chances of a return are quite slim.

Png wont get announced till the govt commits to fund it, and 2025 is the anniversary of their independence, thats why abdo said end of the year, they'll push the announcement till the anniversary...
As for the next 2, its really upto the bears willingness to pick and area, and the arlc to commit to that one too... it's not a fait o compli that perth is a target for them, i hope it is tho... 18. PNG, 19.Bears, 20. Perth are my guesses...

 

[Perth Red]

So PNG is the most likely team to become the 18th team, followed by Perth and perhaps North Sydney for the 19th and 20th teams respectively?

I'm surprised that the die-hard Bear fans are pushing so much for the inclusion of the Bears being back. The Newtown Jets have more of a case of re-joining than the Bears, as they still play regularly in the NSW Cup and get "good crowds" (compared to other lower grades). But then again, the Jets have no "big name backers" though. And is sandwiched between a few teams of Souths, Roosters and the Balmain part of Wests Tigers. So their chances of a return are quite slim.

Newtown and Perth have been talking. I doubt Perth will take on the Jets brand but there could be a long term pathways partnerships between a Perth NRL club and the Newtown Jets. That would support the Jets starting up all age groups again, they currently only have a NSW cup side. You can see from their financials they have little money and no asset base. There isnt much they are offering other than somewhere for a Perth team to establish an east coast pathway program.

https://www.newtownjets.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NRLFC-Limited-2022-Financial-statements-SIGNED.pdf

Bears, depends on if NZ2 can get its act together. If they can and there's no imperative to partner with the Bears then they will go it alone in all likelihood. Leaving the Bears back where they started a feeder club for other NRL teams, at least until reserve grade comes along, then they are well screwed.

People have to realize NSFC dont just want the Bears brand back in NRl and for their old fans to have someone to follow again, they want to own, control and run an NRL club, wherever it may be. Until they shift from that position they arent going to find a partner anywhere.

 

[Centy Coast]

Png wont get announced till the govt commits to fund it, and 2025 is the anniversary of their independence, thats why abdo said end of the year, they'll push the announcement till the anniversary...
As for the next 2, its really upto the bears willingness to pick and area, and the arlc to commit to that one too... it's not a fait o compli that perth is a target for them, i hope it is tho... 18. PNG, 19.Bears, 20. Perth are my guesses...

It’s not up to the Bears to pick an area, V’Landys and the NRL are calling the shots, Bears Chairman Daniel Dickson has said this many times.
V’Landys wasn’t interested in WA at all until a link with the Bears was suggested.
V’Landys knows how hard it was for the NRL to start up the Melbourne Storm and that was with the Storm having a very impressive squad, off the field it took News Ltd over 10 years to start making a profit.