Central Coast Bears, 2013.

[BuffaloRules]

We better get the Bears in NOW because the CC Mariners are taking over the CC.

I mean the Mariners attracted a whopping 7,000 to their grand final qualifier the other night. lol

I remember the carry on here from a lot of the usual suspects when the Central Coast missed out to the Gold Coast the last time...

The Mariners were going to be dominant on the CC and the area would be forever lost to Rugby League apparently...

The only thing more laughable is the guy behind the Central QLD NRL bid saying that if they dont get in then there is a danger of AFL taking over that area...

 

[Dogs Of War]

What I do find amusing is that Norths Leagues club is considered one of the key elements to financing the club. When you look around the NRL, you can see that it's something that all clubs are tryign to get away from. Relying on Leagues clubs grants is becoming a thing of the past, Central Coast should be looking at what teams like Souths are doing (or even the Western Australian AFL teams).

 

[bobmar28]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/03/10/lets-say-it-again-the-central-coasts-time-is-now/

Say it again, Central Coast’s time is now
The strengths of the Central Coast bid have been enunciated clearly over the past year and last week the Bears were promised $3.5 million for offices and training facilities by Premier-in-waiting, Barry O’Farrell.
The Bears hold their season-launch this Friday at Terrigal and have every right to be quietly optimistic with regard their chances of inclusion into the competition.
It is a fact that the Central Coast Bears have secured 6,100 financial members – 4,200 of them from the Central Coast – with a staff of just four and a band of about 15 volunteers (cricket legend and Central Coast resident Arthur Morris was the 6,000th member).
The NRL asked the Bears to provide members to prove support – they have delivered in spades. In recent months the tally is growing by an average of 119 per week.
If the NRL want to “fish where the fishes are”, they are on the Coast.
Another angle that must be considered is the effect that not bringing a team in on the Central Coast would have.
I would contend that no bidding franchise would be as critically damaged by rejection for expansion in 2013 (or 2014) than the Central Coast.
This crucial element entitles the Bears, as the bookies agree, to favouritism for inclusion, provided the NRL and its IC regard the Central Coast Bears bid as being of worthwhile strategic value. Simply put, unlike the other bid locations, it’s now or never.
Some Sydney teams will object to a Central Coast entry based on self-interest – a perceived reduction of corporate opportunities (as will the Broncos and Titans towards any SEQ bid).
The ownership model proposed by Ken Sayer of Mortgage House eliminates most of the arguments.
With sponsor support from loyal Bear organisations such as Norths Leagues and JJ Lawsons, the other clubs aren’t missing out on what they would never have got. It’s the story of being involved with possibly Australia’s greatest team sporting comeback that is inspiring corporate support, along with access to one of NSW’s youngest and fastest growing demographic.
While there are pluses and minuses for all bids, the Bears can say their bid has no question marks. And decision-makers love clarity.
As the bid is so advanced, if the IC are confident that the Central Coast is of strategic value, the Bears will be added at the first opportunity to increase the TV deal currently in the initial stages of negotiation.
This is one reason the Bears stick by their deadline of March 31 (even though the NRL may indeed tell them to wait a month till the IC is fully established) by being proactive over the past two years regarding expansion. The Bears are driving the agenda and forcing themselves into the TV dialogue.
A decision to delay expansion would be a signal to the Bears that the Central Coast is not a priority and almost the same as a rejected bid.
Rejection for the Central Coast means the administrators of the game will likely never admit a team from the region, as no bid will ever be presented as comprehensive and mature as that proposed by the Bears.
Any delay reduces the effectiveness of reconnecting with old Bears fans and countering the GWS Giants in the Hornsby Shire.
In other words, to gain maximum benefit from the Central Coast Bears, they need to be added now.
As a Bears fan, I have confidence in the outcome, as the NRL continue to encourage the bid team, urging them to increase their membership base, approving of their merchandise sales and clothing range at Best and Less.
The Bears have been on standby twice now for teams in difficulty, which tends to signal the Central Coast Bears are perceived to be of strategic value.
Besides, the NRL would know fully well the ramifications of rejecting a franchise which will have, by decision time, around 8,000 financial members.
One interesting spin-off of the increasing media focus on Bears’ bid and manly attempts to secure support in the northern suburbs is a large spike in junior player registrations this year in northern Sydney.
It is perhaps a sign that the Bears-Sea Eagle rivalry will in fact assist both teams through increased interest in the game in northern Sydney.
It is a fact that further reinforces the bid team’s message.

If the NRL want to fish where the fish are they should be looking at QLD.

 

[Timmah]

What evidence do you have that the fish are there?

The Bears have 6,000+ "fish on the hook", what do any of the QLD bid sides have?

 

[adamkungl]

What I do find amusing is that Norths Leagues club is considered one of the key elements to financing the club. When you look around the NRL, you can see that it's something that all clubs are tryign to get away from. Relying on Leagues clubs grants is becoming a thing of the past, Central Coast should be looking at what teams like Souths are doing (or even the Western Australian AFL teams).

Which is ridiculous. Why do Leagues Clubs exist if not to fund Rugby League teams?

Here is the mission statement from the Leagues Clubs Australia website (http://www.lca.asn.au/default.aspx?id=2)

To represent, inform and support the needs of Member Clubs around Australia ensuring their ongoing commitment to Rugby League and the Community.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

What I do find amusing is that Norths Leagues club is considered one of the key elements to financing the club. When you look around the NRL, you can see that it's something that all clubs are tryign to get away from. Relying on Leagues clubs grants is becoming a thing of the past, Central Coast should be looking at what teams like Souths are doing (or even the Western Australian AFL teams).

You need to go to the first page of this thread and read it properly. Your assumptions about being a sponsor or financer are way off. The CCBears are acheiving a stream of funding via various different avenues. Norths Leagues is just a small component of that stream. Eventually CCLeagues will be as well. However the Center of Sports Excellence, major sponsors and private corporate partners mixed with community share holdings will be more essential to funding than any leagues club.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

What evidence do you have that the fish are there?

The Bears have 6,000+ "fish on the hook", what do any of the QLD bid sides have?

4200 on the CC, which lessens the impact of the figures.
Nearly ten years on from when the bears got shafted and support for a north sydney side relocating to the area is hardly overwhelming despite what bears fans say.

The 'fish' are in brisbane - television ratings and crowds indicate that. Just because they haven't been caught doesn't mean they are not there.

 

[Timmah]

4200 on the CC, which lessens the impact of the figures.
Nearly ten years on from when the bears got shafted and support for a north sydney side relocating to the area is hardly overwhelming despite what bears fans say.

The 'fish' are in brisbane - television ratings and crowds indicate that. Just because they haven't been caught doesn't mean they are not there.

Hardly overwhelming? :lol:

You have no measure on how Brisbane or other places in Queensland would respond to a new team - and if you want to use the Broncos or Titans as potential markers, then you could easily do the same for CC using Newcastle or better still any Sydney team.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Hardly overwhelming? :lol: .

Yes, hardly overwhelming. 6200 'memberships' out of a population of 1.1million, (using figures that bear supporters have regularly cited on this forum).

6200/1.1million = 0.56% of the population. I think that is deserving of a ranking of hardly overwhelming or underwhelming. Of course I'm not including rote photos of kids holding up the same old bears cap or the '90% of kids had bears armbands on' or 'red and black everywhere' statistics because they are just poppycock. The major push for the bears inclusion is driven by old north sydney fans.

You have no measure on how Brisbane or other places in Queensland would respond to a new team - and if you want to use the Broncos or Titans as potential markers, then you could easily do the same for CC using Newcastle or better still any Sydney team.

No measure at the moment, which is perfectly legitimate considering that submissions for bids by the NRL, let alone confirmed expansion plans, have notbeen called for. But there are numerous measures for the increasing popularity of the game in Queensland.

 

[Timmah]

Yes, hardly overwhelming. 6200 'memberships' out of a population of 1.1million, (using figures that bear supporters have regularly cited on this forum).

6200/1.1million = 0.56% of the population. I think that is deserving of a ranking of hardly overwhelming or underwhelming. Of course I'm not including rote photos of kids holding up the same old bears cap or the '90% of kids had bears armbands on' or 'red and black everywhere' statistics because they are just poppycock. The major push for the bears inclusion is driven by old north sydney fans.

So those raw stats of 0.56% of the population... let me see how this works.

Brisbane Broncos - 2011 members as at last Friday - 13,574 (from here)
Brisbane population - 2,004,262 (from here)

Lets put those numbers over each other... 0.67% of the population are Broncos members.

If that's the benchmark, the Bears don't have that far to go then, do they?

No measure at the moment, which is perfectly legitimate considering that submissions for bids by the NRL, let alone confirmed expansion plans, have notbeen called for. But there are numerous measures for the increasing popularity of the game in Queensland.

I'd like to think the proactivity of the Bears in firming up financial, community and general support well ahead of being asked, would work well in their favour.

And if there are no measures by which the current QLD bids can show support for their bid, then how on Earth can we simply automatically assume they're going to be better for the NRL than another bid?

Anyway - if confirmed expansion plans have not been set down by the NRL, how can anyone possibly have such an in-depth knowledge of all the factors which will decide whether a bid is ajudged as worthy of entry to the competition?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

So those raw stats of 0.56% of the population... let me see how this works.

Brisbane Broncos - 2011 members as at last Friday - 13,574 (from here)
Brisbane population - 2,004,262 (from here)

Lets put those numbers over each other... 0.67% of the population are Broncos members.

If that's the benchmark, the Bears don't have that far to go then, do they? ?

Thanks for doing the Brisbane figures for me. If only 0.67% of the Brisbane population are Broncos members then that means that 99.33% of the population are potential members of a 2nd Brisbane side. That's a lot of fish.

I'd like to think the proactivity of the Bears in firming up financial, community and general support well ahead of being asked, would work well in their favour.

And if there are no measures by which the current QLD bids can show support for their bid, then how on Earth can we simply automatically assume they're going to be better for the NRL than another bid??

Who is assuming anything? All I'm doing is expressing an opinion on what I believe is a better expansion opportunity for the NRL. Just like RB&B, Beowulf, yourself and others are doing for the bears. I am also pulling up bears on inconsistiencies in their arguments, just as they, yourself excluded, are doing to the brisbane bid on that thread.

Anyway - if confirmed expansion plans have not been set down by the NRL, how can anyone possibly have such an in-depth knowledge of all the factors which will decide whether a bid is ajudged as worthy of entry to the competition?

Who has said they have?

 

[Beowulf]

People bagging 6,100 financial members should realise:
1. The CC Bears don't even exist
2. The CC Bears have 4 staff members
3. The CC Bears have no NRL marketing machine pushing the brand

To even get 10% of an existing NRL teams membership numbers would be outstanding given these clubs have 50+ employees and millions of $ in NRL support and marketing.

To get the same number of members with about 5% of the resources indicates that with the same level of resources we are looking at a massive franchise in the making.

 

[BDGS]

Interesting to see the comments made by Gallop regarding all expansion teams (PNG, CQLD, SEQLD bids, CC, WA and Wellington) through Elbusto's post on the other major forum site.

Not sure if he has posted them up here.

 

[BDGS]

Thanks for doing the Brisbane figures for me. If only 0.67% of the Brisbane population are Broncos members then that means that 99.33% of the population are potential members of a 2nd Brisbane side. That's a lot of fish.

And so far between both South East Queensland bids they have managed to secure a whopping 0% of those potential fish.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

And so far between both South East Queensland bids they have managed to secure a whopping 0% of those potential fish.

What a coincidence, the same amount as your credibility.

 

[Version 6]

How long is everyone going to keep having the same argument?

It's accepted at this point that Brisbane (and Perth for that matter) have the edge as far as TV is concerned. So the Bears have rightfully concentrated on area of strength (community engagement) and by all impartial measures, done very well at it.

So in sum, It's about as useless criticising the Brisbane bid for not having members, as it is criticising the Central Coast for having them.

Different strengths = different strategies. There's more than one way to skin a cat folkes.

 

[Billythekid]

Thanks for doing the Brisbane figures for me. If only 0.67% of the Brisbane population are Broncos members then that means that 99.33% of the population are potential members of a 2nd Brisbane side. That's a lot of fish.

You can then turn around and say the same thing about the CC. I have no problem with anyone saying they don't want the CC (im not sure where i stand) but your logic is terrible.

 

[AuDragon]

Absolutely. Rather than address the whole point provided, you waste time by focusing on small parts of the issue, such as spelling, grammar, or percentages... it makes you look petty and like you don't really have anything to add to such a debate.


I've made plenty of points about the CC Bears and the value they can add to the competition in this thread AND the previous one, I don't need to respond to your garbage again and again.

As for insinuation - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insinuation

Try looking up words you don't understand, might help ;-)

Are you for real? Accusing me of doing what you do? :shock:

You made an insufferable joke about me misspelling "rethoric" instead of rhetoric (unless you really don't know what that means), but were too thick to see your own flaw when you wrote "insinuTation" instead of insinuation. Seriously, if you want to point out something about anyone, make sure your own roof is not made of glass! :roll:

Going back to the matter at hand...

I've explained my point of view regarding the bids several times also, and why despite the Bears having the most comprehensive bid, I don't think they will be chosen.
And unless I do it disrespectfully, I definitely will not be told by anyone how I should reply to any topic or post.

If I say that 90% of the Bulldog fans are redneck inbreds, while the truth may well be 0.9%, you'd just leave it at that and wouldn't want to correct the gross exageration?
The same goes for BDGS and his 90% of the kids he saw wearing CC Bears colours. It's grossly exagerated and worth a correction, because it demonstrates BDGS (lack of) credibility. If that upsets you, I can always suggest a pacifier...

 

[AlwaysGreen]

You can then turn around and say the same thing about the CC. I have no problem with anyone saying they don't want the CC (im not sure where i stand) but your logic is terrible.

Exactly why I made the post. You can make figures say anything. The bottom line is that the NRL will make the decision on expansion based on the figures they feel are important, not those proffered on this forum.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

On a note, I'm not handing in just opinions on here but have provided factual information which amazingly gets dismissed by people that know lesser.