Gold Coast Bears/Nth Sydney/Gosford

[taipan]

The Titans have been more than competitive, except the latter part of this season,plus they have had a swag of injuries.and Hayne's form has been up and down.Plus apparent disharmony within the camp.

My view is whoever buys in ,it must be a local consortium.They will firstly ensure the fans do not have a name change,they due to their local identity be more likely to ensure success as they are at the coalface, and they I suggest will have more business contacts(potential sponsors) within the area.

One thing that club needs is stability on which to grow, continued instability will drag them down.
I would love to see the Bears back in, but not via a GC buyout.And please no more relocations, unless a club just cannot continue.

 

[The Great Dane]

My view is whoever buys in ,it must be a local consortium.They will firstly ensure the fans do not have a name change,they due to their local identity be more likely to ensure success as they are at the coalface, and they I suggest will have more business contacts(potential sponsors) within the area.

One thing that club needs is stability on which to grow, continued instability will drag them down.

One of the problems I think that the Titans have had is that they've relied way to much on local money, they (and all NRL clubs) really need to start looking into national and international sponsors to boost their sponsorship dollars.
All it would take for them to get a reliable long term big money sponsor would be for them to seek out a Chinese or American company looking to break into the Australian market, that wants to get some good national publicity.
Carl's Jr and Little Caesars are two American companies that have a history of sponsoring American sports that are currently trying to crack the Aussie market, maybe start talking to them about deal.

Under the right circumstances a foreign owner (not foreign administration!!) would be a good way to stick their foot into the door of international sponsorship dollars and international branding, two things that all sports (apart from soccer) in this country have failed to capitalise on in the past.

The other thing that I don't really get is the obsession that many have with maintaining the Titans brand, don't get me wrong I think it's preferable for the Titans not to have a brand change at this point, but if the choice is keep the brand intact but with uncertain financial security or re-brand and gain long term financial security, then I'm going to go with option B every time, with the caveat that it's a new brand or resurrected GC brand and not an imported resurrected brand (so Bears no).
I'd rather have the GC Marlins/Chargers/whatever for the foreseeable future instead of keep the Titans and be back in the same position that we're in now in 5-10 years time, if that's what the decision comes down too.

 

[taipan]

One of the problems I think that the Titans have had is that they've relied way to much on local money, they (and all NRL clubs) really need to start looking into national and international sponsors to boost their sponsorship dollars.
All it would take for them to get a reliable long term big money sponsor would be for them to seek out a Chinese or American company looking to break into the Australian market, that wants to get some good national publicity.
Carl's Jr and Little Caesars are two American companies that have a history of sponsoring American sports that are currently trying to crack the Aussie market, maybe start talking to them about deal.

Under the right circumstances a foreign owner (not foreign administration!!) would be a good way to stick their foot into the door of international sponsorship dollars and international branding, two things that all sports (apart from soccer) in this country have failed to capitalise on in the past.

The other thing that I don't really get is the obsession that many have with maintaining the Titans brand, don't get me wrong I think it's preferable for the Titans not to have a brand change at this point, but if the choice is keep the brand intact but with uncertain financial security or re-brand and gain long term financial security, then I'm going to go with option B every time, with the caveat that it's a new brand or resurrected GC brand and not an imported resurrected brand (so Bears no).
I'd rather have the GC Marlins/Chargers/whatever for the foreseeable future instead of keep the Titans and be back in the same position that we're in now in 5-10 years time, if that's what the decision comes down too.

The main reason I believe changing the Titan's brand ,is due to the constant historical and present turmoil within the club.If i happened to be a fan,I would just want everything to settle down.

I do agree ,if it came down to a final matter of long term security by an outside bidder, then yes by all means call them whatever.If long term security was offered with the current name and local consortium ,then change IMO would not be ideal.The latter would be the best of both worlds.

Whatever the decision and it's obvious judging by the NRL admin's comments,the first priority i slong term financial security, and that means not 5 years nor 10 years but beyond.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The other thing that I don't really get is the obsession that many have with maintaining the Titans brand, don't get me wrong I think it's preferable for the Titans not to have a brand change at this point, but if the choice is keep the brand intact but with uncertain financial security or re-brand and gain long term financial security, then I'm going to go with option B every time, with the caveat that it's a new brand or resurrected GC brand and not an imported resurrected brand (so Bears no).
I'd rather have the GC Marlins/Chargers/whatever for the foreseeable future instead of keep the Titans and be back in the same position that we're in now in 5-10 years time, if that's what the decision comes down too.

I dont know why this would ever be the ultimatum...

The only bid we know of that is intent on rebranding is the Bears (who, i will guess, is the least likely bidder to win).

The ARLC have some pretty solid motivations for keeping the Titans name in place (percieved stability/continuity and 10 year of brand exposure). I dont think any other piece of the clubs brand is off limits (logo, colours, jumper, even place-name could all change without too much issue) but the Titans name just shouldnt be touched at this point.

And honestly, i dont imaging the name will be the difference between success and failure for whoever takes over next. Many other this can go wrong, but i doubt this name is really all that much of an anchor...

 

[The Great Dane]

The main reason I believe changing the Titan's brand ,is due to the constant historical and present turmoil within the club.If i happened to be a fan,I would just want everything to settle down.

I do agree ,if it came down to a final matter of long term security by an outside bidder, then yes by all means call them whatever.If long term security was offered with the current name and local consortium ,then change IMO would not be ideal.The latter would be the best of both worlds.

Whatever the decision and it's obvious judging by the NRL admin's comments,the first priority i slong term financial security, and that means not 5 years nor 10 years but beyond.

That part of the post wasn't directed towards you per say, more towards people that hold the 'keep the brand at all cost' or 'changing the brand would be catastrophic' sort of opinions.

By the way, we completely agree on this (well apart from the local consortium bit, as I don't think that whether you're based on the GC or not should make a difference as to whether or not you're suitable to be the Titans new owner, but that's a discussion for another time) and I knew that before I responded to your post, I just din't want to split the thought bubble into another post.

I dont know why this would ever be the ultimatum...

There're plenty of people that would lose all interest in owning the club if complete control of said club wasn't on the table, they may not even want to change the brand but if they can't change the brand if they want to then what else can't they do and what are they really buying then? Are they buying simply the right to pump more money then we'll earn in a life time into a sports team and to call themselves an owner of an NRL club, or are they actually buying an business that they own and can run as they see fit.

Besides if you need to see an example of where a situation like this that came to a head go look into the Hull City/Tigers situation where the owner of the club Assem Allam was prepared to give it up because he was blocked from changing the name from Hull City FC to Hull City Tigers, and that was just a minor name change not a complete re-brand.

The only bid we know of that is intent on rebranding is the Bears (who, i will guess, is the least likely bidder to win).

That's true, but by the same token for all we know the other 4-5 bids all have their own visions for the club that may or may not include a brand change, and for all we and the NRL know at this point the best most sustainable bid may be one of those bids that plan to re-brand.

I'm also not so sure that the Bears are the least likely to win, the NRL is notorious for taking the short sighted option, and I'm certain that there're at least a few people a the NRL that would argue that the Bears feel good story is the best option, particularly some of the Sydney old boys club and the Sydney Media both of which have way to much influence over the NRL.

The ARLC have some pretty solid motivations for keeping the Titans name in place (percieved stability/continuity and 10 year of brand exposure). I dont think any other piece of the clubs brand is off limits (logo, colours, jumper, even place-name could all change without too much issue) but the Titans name just shouldnt be touched at this point.

I agree that best case scenario it wouldn't be changed, but if the best consortium/owner with the best business plan wants to change the branding then the NRL'd be nuts to turn them down because we're intent on holding onto the Titans branding.

It's very possible that it's the case that the best bid wants to re-brand, and if that's the case then they should be allowed too, because sustainability should be the priority, however if the best bid is happy to keep the Titans brand, then great everybody is happy.

It would be funny if a consortium wanted to change the name to the Pirates/Buccaneers/etc though, imagine PRs' response lol.

And honestly, i dont imaging the name will be the difference between success and failure for whoever takes over next. Many other this can go wrong, but i doubt this name is really all that much of an anchor...

I agree, however it may be the difference between getting the best people for the job and not getting the best people for the job, and that shouldn't be the case.

 

[Diesel]

A lot of us agree, the Titans was such a poor name and doesn't fit with the GC.
Even when the club had a fan poll around 2005 because they couldn't use the Dolphins name, suggestions like Marlins, Stringrays and Pirateswere miles ahead of the Titans name, yet Searle goes with Titans. It seemed like a real FU to potential fans

 

[The Great Dane]

A lot of us agree, the Titans was such a poor name and doesn't fit with the GC.
Even when the club had a fan poll around 2005 because they couldn't use the Dolphins name, suggestions like Marlins, Stringrays and Pirateswere miles ahead of the Titans name, yet Searle goes with Titans. It seemed like a real FU to potential fans

I'm not sure if it's true, but I remember somebody coming out after the poll and saying that Searle had already decided on the Titans name before the fan poll was started and that it was just a publicity stunt.

Sounds believable to me.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

There're plenty of people that would lose all interest in owning the club if complete control of said club wasn't on the table, they may not even want to change the brand but if they can't change the brand if they want to then what else can't they do and what are they really buying then? Are they buying simply the right to pump more money then we'll earn in a life time into a sports team and to call themselves an owner of an NRL club, or are they actually buying an business that they own and can run as they see fit.

Besides if you need to see an example of where a situation like this that came to a head go look into the Hull City/Tigers situation where the owner of the club Assem Allam was prepared to give it up because he was blocked from changing the name from Hull City FC to Hull City Tigers, and that was just a minor name change not a complete re-brand.



That's true, but by the same token for all we know the other 4-5 bids all have their own visions for the club that may or may not include a brand change, and for all we and the NRL know at this point the best most sustainable bid may be one of those bids that plan to re-brand.

I'm also not so sure that the Bears are the least likely to win, the NRL is notorious for taking the short sighted option, and I'm certain that there're at least a few people a the NRL that would argue that the Bears feel good story is the best option, particularly some of the Sydney old boys club and the Sydney Media both of which have way to much influence over the NRL.



I agree that best case scenario it wouldn't be changed, but if the best consortium/owner with the best business plan wants to change the branding then the NRL'd be nuts to turn them down because we're intent on holding onto the Titans branding.

It's very possible that it's the case that the best bid wants to re-brand, and if that's the case then they should be allowed too, because sustainability should be the priority, however if the best bid is happy to keep the Titans brand, then great everybody is happy.

It would be funny if a consortium wanted to change the name to the Pirates/Buccaneers/etc though, imagine PRs' response lol.



I agree, however it may be the difference between getting the best people for the job and not getting the best people for the job, and that shouldn't be the case.

You speak as if this name would be the only limitation on the club...

In certain the ARLC will demand they keep the majority of their games on the GC (not the most profitably RL market, but a valuable one for the game), they will only be allowed to spend to the salary cap, they will likely need to put a minimum into local RL and they will need release their players every year during the Origin period. That is the simple reality of running an RL club, there are a thousand restrictions.

And i think it is reasonably that the ARLC demand the name stays. Continuing with "Titans" expresses stability and continuity, changing the name is ANOTHER failed GC brand. And its hardly unprecedented, the ARLC told Wests they needed to keep the Tigers name even if Balmain had nothing to do with the club. The brand is just too valuable and the apparent chaos would just be too much...

 

[The Great Dane]

You speak as if this name would be the only limitation on the club...

In certain the ARLC will demand they keep the majority of their games on the GC (not the most profitably RL market, but a valuable one for the game), they will only be allowed to spend to the salary cap, they will likely need to put a minimum into local RL and they will need release their players every year during the Origin period. That is the simple reality of running an RL club, there are a thousand restrictions.

Terrible comparisons.

All of these things are restrictions that the other clubs have as well and most are rules of the competition, there're no rule that say a club can't change their name.

Also there's no way that there's a rule that the clubs need to put money into local RL, or if there is one then the Storm and Roosters (and probably a few others as well) should be crucified for not meeting the minimum requirements ever.
And the majority of games on the GC is part of the license, if any club wants to take any games away from their home region then they need the go ahead from the NRL, it's been that way since american style licensing agreements were introduce.

And i think it is reasonably that the ARLC demand the name stays. Continuing with "Titans" expresses stability and continuity, changing the name is ANOTHER failed GC brand. And its hardly unprecedented, the ARLC told Wests they needed to keep the Tigers name even if Balmain had nothing to do with the club. The brand is just too valuable and the apparent chaos would just be too much...

It would be reasonable for them to ask for the name to stay, it isn't reasonable to demand it though, just like it wouldn't be reasonable for government to demand that you keep the old name of a restaurant you bought if you wanted to change it's name.
However they could refuse to sell to anyone that states they want to change the name, but that would be bloody stupid if the best offer included a name change.

Basically I don't care how bad it looks in the short term, if the most sustainable business plan includes a name change then the Titans shouldn't be the Titans anymore going forward, because sustainability should be the NRL's number one concern.
Besides in a couple of generations time the brand (whatever it is) will be establish, but that can only happen if they're still around, and that is most likely if the business is sustainable, and the best bet to make sure that the business is sustainable is if the bid with the best business plan runs the club!

BTW, I don't remember the NRL saying that they wouldn't let Wests change the brand if they owned the club, only that so long as they had a presence on the board as it was at the time (since they were effectively the deciding vote at the time) that they wouldn't let them change the brand, could be wrong though, I also remember Wests coming out and saying they didn't want to change the brand.
Besides, after the Magpies had full ownership of the club the NRL wouldn't have been able to stop them, the courts would have backed the Magpies right to call their business whatever they want to.

 

[Perth Red]

Good luck buying a McDonald's franchise and then changing the name whilst keeping it a Franchise! Dont the nrl own franchise brands?

Maybe a positive sign the Kelly/frizelle group will be buying them?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...b/news-story/53674db8e4b50594fb38ffb1c57ed130

 

[Foreign Legion]

REBECCA Frizelle has resigned as Titans chair, with the respected businesswoman joining a consortium that has ramped-up plans to buy the Gold Coast club.

Frizelle, the NRL’s first female chair, confirmed she had quit her role on the Gold Coast board to avert any perceived conflict of interest in the battle for the Titans licence.

Frizelle notified the NRL of her decision last Friday, just days before the NRL formally placed the Titans up for sale.

The successful Gold Coast business identity was appointed as Titans chair in April, 2014 but now has bigger plans, joining forces with former co-owner Darryl Kelly as part of a bidding process to buy the embattled club.

Kelly, who lost $5 million following the collapse of the Titans, which prompted an NRL takeover two years ago, has also walked away from the board.

“I took this action to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest once the formal sale process for the club licence commenced this week,” Frizelle said last night.

Gold Coast Titans chair Rebecca Frizelle with chief executive Graham Annesley.
“My family’s private company is part of a consortium that is being led by long-term fellow director and former major shareholder, Darryl Kelly that will enter the formal bidding process for the sale of the licence.

“As a consequence of this bid, it would not have been appropriate for me or Darryl to continue as directors, nor for me to remain as chair of the club during the sale process.”

It is understood at least two other unknown businessmen are part of the Kelly-Frizelle consortium determined to clinch the Titans licence.

At one stage, up to five consortia were interesting in buying the club, but the biggest threat to the Kelly-Frizelle team will come from a North Sydney faction refusing to give up on the Bears’ NRL dream.

Darryl Kelly and Rebecca Frizelle are part of aconsortium that aims to save the Gold Coast Titans.
The North Sydney Bears consortium is armed with an estimated $7 million bid, but the Kelly-Frizelle bid is the frontrunner, with the NRL reluctant to relocate the Titans and tinker with its brand.

The Bears are interested in bringing at least two Titans home games to Sydney but Frizelle last night vowed to keep the NRL’s 16th team on the Gold Coast for good.

“If our consortium is successful, we will ensure that the Gold Cost Titans remain based on the Gold Coast, with local management and investment,” Frizelle said.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...b/news-story/53674db8e4b50594fb38ffb1c57ed130

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Its great that Kelly/Frizzel are keen to stay focused on the Gold Coast. But after 10 years in the NRL, they should really be looking to expand their footprint as a major SE QLD team...

Ive said befor that i think they should rebrand as "South Queensland Titans", but i also think they should be looking at taking games (at least trials) to other SE QLD areas; Logan, Ipswich, Tawoomba.

Let the Broncos have the city, the Titans should be positioning themselves as the team for all regional South Queensland.

I would consider this a far better investment than Cairne or NT as people in Logan, etc. can travel to games at Robina....

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I also think going to South Queensland Titans would be great for the Titans-broncos rivalry, as the the Titans will become less a "a rebirth of the Giants/seagulls/etc." and become more a "rebirth of the Crushers" (the colours almost match as well...

So rather than being a continuation of this failed line of GC franchises, they become a continuation of the club intended to challenge the Bronx for SE QLD fans until they were ruthlessly killed by the NewsLTD/Broncos/Super League.

I reckon that a much better story to associate with...

 

[taipan]

I also think going to South Queensland Titans would be great for the Titans-broncos rivalry, as the the Titans will become less a "a rebirth of the Giants/seagulls/etc." and become more a "rebirth of the Crushers" (the colours almost match as well...

So rather than being a continuation of this failed line of GC franchises, they become a continuation of the club intended to challenge the Bronx for SE QLD fans until they were ruthlessly killed by the NewsLTD/Broncos/Super League.

I reckon that a much better story to associate with...

Disagree the Gold Coast is a well known region in this country and beyond.If they are to stay on the GC ,they have to be the Gold Coats somethings at worst.
South Queensland is not as "specific "as Nth Queensland.
The way the place is growing ,maybe not in my lifetime I see !m living in that environs.

 

[siv]

The question will be - how real are the non-Bears bids ?

I sense a feeling of desperation from the NRL that they may not have any viable alternatives to the Bears

 

[The Great Dane]

I don't even think that the Bears bid is viable long term if the numbers that have been thrown around like the Bears offering $7 million to buy the Titans are accurate.

The Bears leagues clubs aren't as rich as they once were, so unless the consortium that have been given the rights to the Bears brand are willing to throw in big money for at least the first 5-10 years until the club is well and truly on their feet I don't really see how they'd be that better backed financially then the Kelly-Frizelle bid, and frankly if my assumption is correct then I'd be inclined to give the license to Kelly over the Bears as a few extra million a year wouldn't be worth relocating games down to Sydney, constant speculation in the media about the Bears relocating south, the risk of replacing a local GC/QLD brand with a foreign brand that's from NSW, etc.

Personally I hope that there's at least one other bid that's serious and viable (hopefully better then the other two as well) and neither the Bears or Kelly get the license, but in the end beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Disagree the Gold Coast is a well known region in this country and beyond.If they are to stay on the GC ,they have to be the Gold Coats somethings at worst.
South Queensland is not as "specific "as Nth Queensland.
The way the place is growing ,maybe not in my lifetime I see !m living in that environs.

For me, aside from "Gold Coast" being a tainted name in RL thanks to the 4 dead brands that came previously, its just too narrow a fanbase to claim...

"South Queensland" encompasses many more potential fans and declares to the world that the Titans want to be THE major SEQld team. "Gold Coast", on the other hand, declares that they forever want to be the insignificant little brother to the Broncos.

Imagine if the VFL called their second Sydney team the "Blacktown Giants" or the "Campbeltown Giants". Imagine if, after the NEW ZEALAND Warriors, the next NZ was called "Dunedin Orcas". Theres a reason SuperLeague called their Newcastle team the "Hunter Mariners" rather than the "Maitland Mariners".

Clubs need to declare that they want to be the dominant team in their region, no one else is gonna do it for them. If they dont stake their claim, they will only ever be the insignificant little brother...

(i genuinely think this is the major reason why the Titans-Broncos rivalry is just non existent. Its like the the Taree Panthers trying to challenge the QLD Maroons, no one would ever take it seriously)

 

[herbert henry1908]

Do people indetify as "south Queenslanders" though?

I mean the hunter valley is a widely used name, does south Queensland get used up there?

Just seems a bit contrived, similar to 'Greater Western Sydney'

Plus wouldn't adding Queensland to the title possibly put off some northern NSW fans?

Just spitballing.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Frankly, I hope that one of the other bids gets the nod over Kelly and the Bears, because the way I see it Darryl Kelly is the status quo and that hasn't been working, and the Bears are a very risky prospect and frankly I don't trust them not to try and relocate back to NS or the CC some time down the road.

So hopefully at least one of the other bidders has a viable business plan and can take over, preferably one that is cashed up and has some innovative ideas.

Interesting point re Kelly. One that hasn't really been explored.

How long has he been involved, and what was his level of involvement? Obviously I know he was on the board, but did he make any key decisions? From what's been said in the media it was the board who wanted Jarryd Hayne for instance. So they sound like they're pretty hands on.

 

[The Great Dane]

For me, aside from "Gold Coast" being a tainted name in RL thanks to the 4 dead brands that came previously, its just too narrow a fanbase to claim...

"South Queensland" encompasses many more potential fans and declares to the world that the Titans want to be THE major SEQld team. "Gold Coast", on the other hand, declares that they forever want to be the insignificant little brother to the Broncos.

Imagine if the VFL called their second Sydney team the "Blacktown Giants" or the "Campbeltown Giants". Imagine if, after the NEW ZEALAND Warriors, the next NZ was called "Dunedin Orcas". Theres a reason SuperLeague called their Newcastle team the "Hunter Mariners" rather than the "Maitland Mariners".

Clubs need to declare that they want to be the dominant team in their region, no one else is gonna do it for them. If they dont stake their claim, they will only ever be the insignificant little brother...

(i genuinely think this is the major reason why the Titans-Broncos rivalry is just non existent. Its like the the Taree Panthers trying to challenge the QLD Maroons, no one would ever take it seriously)

Yeah calling the Titans South Queensland would encompass more people, but like Herbert says nobody considers themselves a 'South Queenslander' so it'd come off as contrived and plastic, it'd be a classic case of trying to represent everybody and only achieving to represent nobody.

Besides, using your logic wouldn't it be best simply to not have a geographical connection at all (for example re-brand the Titans as the Titans RLFC), that way you encompass everybody on the planet.