PNG's back.

[The Great Dane]

Their ‘non - negotiables‘ seem quite negotiable. Their CEO said the following in the same interview on SEN a few weeks back:
‘Two to four games @ NSO’
‘Two games @ NSO’
‘I think our fans would be happy with one. Bears v Manly would be fantastic‘

Dickson’s tone changes depending on the audience.

Mark my words; it might not happen overnight, but the Bears will push for more games at NSO if the precedent of games at NSO is set.

Frankly they shouldn’t be allowed near any expansion side that the NRL needs to be a success. Not Perth, not NZ, not Adelaide, not even PNG.

 

[blue bags]

USA President Biden is involved

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Here, I'll help out the 2 forum morons

"Looks better than Perth Rectangular Stadium"

The irony is you're the biggest moron on the forum.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Their ‘non - negotiables‘ seem quite negotiable. Their CEO said the following in the same interview on SEN a few weeks back:
‘Two to four games @ NSO’
‘Two games @ NSO’
‘I think our fans would be happy with one. Bears v Manly would be fantastic‘

For it to have any hope of working then no games can be played at NSO. South Melbourne tried to have a foot in both camps when they relocated to Sydney. It didn't work until they made the full time move and played all home games in Sydney.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

USA President Biden is involved

God help us!

 

[Brian potter]

USA President Biden is involved

Bound to go tits up then.

 

[Canard]

For it to have any hope of working then no games can be played at NSO. South Melbourne tried to have a foot in both camps when they relocated to Sydney. It didn't work until they made the full time move and played all home games in Sydney.

From what I can tell the Swans ever played any home games in Melbourne once they moved to Sydney.

 

[The Great Dane]

From what I can tell the Swans ever played any home games in Melbourne once they moved to Sydney.

I can't think of a single example of a major club that relocated but continued to play home games in their old market. There're some in the US that have moved back to old markets (e.g. Rams and Raiders), but none that've split games between a new and old market.

It's an idea that would only result in internal conflict and creating more problems than it addresses.

 

[bad boy bubby]

From what I can tell the Swans ever played any home games in Melbourne once they moved to Sydney.

Once they permanently moved they didn't but they did start playing games up here before that, so in both cities... I seem to maybe remember.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Once they permanently moved they didn't but they did start playing games up here before that, so in both cities... I seem to maybe remember.

That is correct.

In 1982, South moved their home matches to Sydney while the players continued to live in Melbourne. By 1983 however, the club name had changed to Sydney Swans and operations had moved to the Harbour City entirely.

1981 - South Melbourne to Sydney - Sports Industry AU

Founded in 1874, the Bloods would go on to win 5 premierships in the VFA and 3 VFL premierships before

www.footyindustry.com

 

[Maximus]

I can't think of a single example of a major club that relocated but continued to play home games in their old market. There're some in the US that have moved back to old markets (e.g. Rams and Raiders), but none that've split games between a new and old market.

It's an idea that would only result in internal conflict and creating more problems than it addresses.

Not just old markets. I can't think of any sporting team outside of Australia that bases itself in multiple locations.

Same for the topic of this thread. I can't think of any sporting teams that voluntarily base themselves in a different country to where they play. Even Ukrainian football teams play in Ukraine for their domestic league.

 

[The Great Dane]

Once they permanently moved they didn't but they did start playing games up here before that, so in both cities... I seem to maybe remember.

That is correct.

In 1982, South moved their home matches to Sydney while the players continued to live in Melbourne. By 1983 however, the club name had changed to Sydney Swans and operations had moved to the Harbour City entirely.​

​

1981 - South Melbourne to Sydney - Sports Industry AU

Founded in 1874, the Bloods would go on to win 5 premierships in the VFA and 3 VFL premierships before

www.footyindustry.com

Seriously...

Testing the market prior to relocating or a partial move during the process of relocating isn't the same as splitting home games between two markets as a permeant strategy, and we all know it.

 

[Canard]

Once they permanently moved they didn't but they did start playing games up here before that, so in both cities... I seem to maybe remember.

That is correct.

In 1982, South moved their home matches to Sydney while the players continued to live in Melbourne. By 1983 however, the club name had changed to Sydney Swans and operations had moved to the Harbour City entirely.​

​

1981 - South Melbourne to Sydney - Sports Industry AU

Founded in 1874, the Bloods would go on to win 5 premierships in the VFA and 3 VFL premierships before

www.footyindustry.com

That's nothing like @Get Rid of The Donkeys suggested though.

It isn't the same as splitting home games across cities like the Bears are suggesting.

I doubt anyone in Sydney would have known, or cared where the players live.

 

[The Great Dane]

Not just old markets. I can't think of any sporting team outside of Australia that bases itself in multiple locations.

Same for the topic of this thread. I can't think of any sporting teams that voluntarily base themselves in a different country to where they play. Even Ukrainian football teams play in Ukraine for their domestic league.

I can't think of one that's done it long term, and the ones that have done it short term have always had little choice.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Seriously...

Testing the market prior to relocating or a partial move during the process of relocating isn't the same as splitting home games between two markets as a permeant strategy, and we all know it.

You don't have a problem with the North Sydney Bears playing 12 games in Perth as the "North Sydney Bears"?

 

[The Great Dane]

You don't have a problem with the North Sydney Bears playing 12 games in Perth as the "North Sydney Bears"?

A. The Bears wouldn't need a transitional period to relocate to Perth fulltime like the Swans did to move to Sydney. The Bears aren't even offering to truly relocate in reality, but that's an aside.

B. It's stupid to try and compare the Bears situation to that of the Swans, or any other example of an active club relocating, in the first place, as they're bidding for a license in Perth (or anywhere else) not relocating in the traditional sense.

C. For various reasons, that don't need repeating here, I've clearly stated that I wouldn't give the Bears a license for a Perth side at all, so obviously I'd oppose it.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Who cares what afl do ffs.

 

[Jamberoo]

That is correct.

In 1982, South moved their home matches to Sydney while the players continued to live in Melbourne. By 1983 however, the club name had changed to Sydney Swans and operations had moved to the Harbour City entirely.​

​

1981 - South Melbourne to Sydney - Sports Industry AU

Founded in 1874, the Bloods would go on to win 5 premierships in the VFA and 3 VFL premierships before

www.footyindustry.com

Not sure that what happened 40+ years ago in the VFL is relevant but South Melbourne did not have a partial move to Sydney before they decided to relocate. The VFL played half a dozen games @ SCG involving various teams (like the NRL has done in Perth), then decided that a Sydney team was a good idea and Swans grabbed the opportunity as they were broke.

NS are not even in the competition so they are in a far worse position than the Swans or even Fitzroy were. They have little to no leverage. I agree that they would need to be the minor partner in any joint venture with Perth. All Perth Bears home games in Perth and WA controlling the board. The few Bears fans that are left get to see the name and colour back on the field, with an annual trial game @ NSO v Manly.

P.S. Is this still the PNG thread?

 

[The Great Dane]

Not sure that what happened 40+ years ago in the VFL is relevant but South Melbourne did not have a partial move to Sydney before they decided to relocate. The VFL played half a dozen games @ SCG involving various teams (like the NRL has done in Perth), then decided that a Sydney team was a good idea and Swans grabbed the opportunity as they were broke.

NS are not even in the competition so they are in a far worse position than the Swans or even Fitzroy were. They have little to no leverage. I agree that they would need to be the minor partner in any joint venture with Perth. All Perth Bears home games in Perth and WA controlling the board. The few Bears fans that are left get to see the name and colour back on the field, with an annual trial game @ NSO v Manly.

P.S. Is this still the PNG thread?

The Bears won't accept a joint venture unless they own a controlling share, and aside from having some talks that haven't amounted to anything, they haven't really pursued a merger at all. Frankly, they'll accept it if they have no choice and they've got the final say, but ideally they don't want a partner and don't believe they need one.

As things stands their bid basically exists of telling PVL that they'll run a side out of any market that the NRL and ARLC likes so long as they are allowed to keep their 'non-negotiables'.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Not sure that what happened 40+ years ago in the VFL is relevant but South Melbourne did not have a partial move to Sydney before they decided to relocate. The VFL played half a dozen games @ SCG involving various teams (like the NRL has done in Perth), then decided that a Sydney team was a good idea and Swans grabbed the opportunity as they were broke.

NS are not even in the competition so they are in a far worse position than the Swans or even Fitzroy were. They have little to no leverage. I agree that they would need to be the minor partner in any joint venture with Perth. All Perth Bears home games in Perth and WA controlling the board. The few Bears fans that are left get to see the name and colour back on the field, with an annual trial game @ NSO v Manly.

P.S. Is this still the PNG thread?

South Melbourne did base themselves out of Melbourne in 1982 and continued playing under that brand.

Didn't they want to play their away games at their South Melbourne ground?