Team 20 - Who? Adelaide or Queensland 5?

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Agree 100%.


I bet if I surveyed locals 99% wouldn't know about that one pirate . I'm not against the Pirates as a brand. It is unique in local sports but it's hardly some major local connection with significant meaning. It's just another brand.

I agree. Ownership should be through WARL and/or a Western Australian based consortium.


Indeed. I find it odd that some people are arguing against increase attendances.

I agree. No way Perth should lose any home games. Bears fans in Sydney can travel to Manly, SFS, Leichardt et al.



That can be solved by having the club owned by either the WARL or a WA consortium. North Sydney could be a minority owner with no control over where the club is based.

I don't agree with the Bears current proposal. But that's not to say that an alternative is impossible.

That's where we disagree. Every club's job is to maximise attendances at all grounds, not just their own. There's still a very much alive Bears fan base and a couple thousand at away games in Sydney and tens of thousands of extra TV viewers that wouldn't watch a non-Bears Perth TV game do add value to the overall competition.


That's why the license should be owned by either WARL or WA consortium with Norths as minority partners. Basically, they'd be selling their brand.

An expansion club didn't have a fanbase so they used an existing brand to boost it.


Which existing team are you suggesting we axe? I don't think we can afford to do that. If a WA group buys the Bears brand it doesn't cost the game anything.

I wouldn't support the inclusion of a North Sydney Bears owned Perth Bears side. But I would support the inclusion of a WA majority owned WA Bears side.

Cronulla should be kicked out. Their annual financial reports prove they're a small club that relies on the annual grant to make ends meet. They have no hope in hell of growing their brand as they stand because they're boxed into Sutherland by the Dragons. They won't even broaden their brand to appeal to anyone outside of Sutherland.

Brisbane Bears were generating good crowds at the Gabba when they started winning in 95 and 96.

 

[Colk]

Agree 100%.


I bet if I surveyed locals 99% wouldn't know about that one pirate . I'm not against the Pirates as a brand. It is unique in local sports but it's hardly some major local connection with significant meaning. It's just another brand.

I agree. Ownership should be through WARL and/or a Western Australian based consortium.


Indeed. I find it odd that some people are arguing against increase attendances.

I agree. No way Perth should lose any home games. Bears fans in Sydney can travel to Manly, SFS, Leichardt et al.



That can be solved by having the club owned by either the WARL or a WA consortium. North Sydney could be a minority owner with no control over where the club is based.

I don't agree with the Bears current proposal. But that's not to say that an alternative is impossible.

That's where we disagree. Every club's job is to maximise attendances at all grounds, not just their own. There's still a very much alive Bears fan base and a couple thousand at away games in Sydney and tens of thousands of extra TV viewers that wouldn't watch a non-Bears Perth TV game do add value to the overall competition.


That's why the license should be owned by either WARL or WA consortium with Norths as minority partners. Basically, they'd be selling their brand.

An expansion club didn't have a fanbase so they used an existing brand to boost it.


Which existing team are you suggesting we axe? I don't think we can afford to do that. If a WA group buys the Bears brand it doesn't cost the game anything.

I wouldn't support the inclusion of a North Sydney Bears owned Perth Bears side. But I would support the inclusion of a WA majority owned WA Bears side.

I’m not suggesting we axe anybody. I was suggesting a relocation if the Bears aren’t going to be serious about relocating

 

[The Great Dane]

That can be solved by having the club owned by either the WARL or a WA consortium. North Sydney could be a minority owner with no control over where the club is based.

I don't agree with the Bears current proposal. But that's not to say that an alternative is impossible.

That's why the license should be owned by either WARL or WA consortium with Norths as minority partners. Basically, they'd be selling their brand.

With all due respect, you've got absolutely no clue what you're talking about and probably should have looked into the Bear's past proposals for re-entry and demands before entering this discussion. In this case a palatable alternative is impossible as the Bear have been making it clear since the day the Northern Eagles fell apart that they will never be part of an NRL side again unless they own the license, and if we're being honest he who controls the license controls the club.

Here's a quote from Billy Moore, whom is a member of the board FYI-

We are pragmatic and we understand our place in the game. We want to be re-admitted and we’ve got these very, very small number of non-negotiables: our colours; our badge; we want somewhere between two to four games at North Sydney Oval — one of those must be against Manly — and we want that the rights of the 18th licence will always sit with the North Sydney Rugby League Football Club.

But other than that point us in the direction and we will move. No one in Australian sport has done this where we’re saying ‘we will go (wherever) to fix your problem, we will de-risk the 18th team’ because we understand our place.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...e/news-story/5c2a36d6927951bf560381b8db473a9a

Before you suggest that Billy is speaking out of turn, he is not the first official from the Bears to state those 'non-negotiables' publicly, only the most recent of many, and the above 'non-negotiables' have more or less been their main demands in every negotiation/attempt to renter the NRL for the last 20 years. Given the history of the club it's understandable why they feel the way they do, but they won't move from those positions, and as such any talk of a side where the Bears are the minority partner is a complete fantasy that has been concocted by people whom have no clue what they're talking about.

That's where we disagree. Every club's job is to maximise attendances at all grounds, not just their own. There's still a very much alive Bears fan base and a couple thousand at away games in Sydney and tens of thousands of extra TV viewers that wouldn't watch a non-Bears Perth TV game do add value to the overall competition.

These sort of attitudes are short sighted and hurt the sport's growth nationally, but you probably already know that and couldn't careless, and this is a tangent that can be explored another time.

An expansion club didn't have a fanbase so they used an existing brand to boost it.

Wrong again...

Obviously it's a bit more complex than this, but the TL;DR version is that the Bears knew that they'd have the makings of an unstoppable team if they could take their pick of the Lions players, so decided to try and buy the club out so they'd have first pick. However the AFL, whom wanted to get rid of Melbourne sides, wouldn't approve the sale unless the Bears took on Fitzroy's brand, history, and other valuable assets.

Fitzroy openly opposed the sale and wanted to proceed with a merger with North Melbourne (whom were also trying to have their pick of the Lion's roster), and they and their fans were furious when the AFL basically manipulated the situation to effectively sell the club out from under them.

Brisbane and the AFL got what they wanted, but only an extreme minority of Fitzroy fans took up supporting the Brisbane side. With the exception of those few years when they were on top of the world, Brisbane continued to be smallest club in the AFL until the Suns and Giants joined, since then they've been the third smallest.

 

[Perth Red]

Bears would go ok in Adelaide as team 20, they need their investment and structure where as WA doesn’t. Also when bears up sticks back to nsw the game won’t suffer as much as they’re is no real game in SA these days!

 

[docbrown]

With all due respect, you've got absolutely no clue what you're talking about and probably should have looked into the Bear's past proposals for re-entry and demands before entering this discussion.

There's no need to get your knickers in a twist about it. I've seen the Bears' past and current proposals and I also disagree with them. I've said that repeatedly in this thread. All I'm talking about is a WA consortium taking over the Bears as a brand itself, with Norths at most a non-voting minority partner. Yes, I know after the joint venture they're reluctant if not outright obstinate and if Norths don't want that then fine, they can enjoy the wilderness. But there is real value in resurrecting their brand (even if you don't want to believe it) if a compromise can be achieved. Similarly, if Perth isn't a good fit Adelaide is a second option. However, if Bears management want to delude themselves into thinking Central Coast or their Country plan is going to happen then they will bring upon themselves continued irrelevancy. We're not in disagreement on that.

if they could take their pick of the Lions players, so decided to try and buy the club out so they'd have first pick. However the AFL, whom wanted to get rid of Melbourne sides, wouldn't approve the sale unless the Bears took on Fitzroy's brand, history, and other valuable assets.

It was both players and branding. Marketing testing done on the Brisbane Bears brand in the local market at the time was abysmal. They were getting smashed by the Broncos for penetration. Peter Getherberg was working for the agency on behalf of the club and discusses it in his lecture courses.

 

[Canard]

Are the Bears are more valuable brand then any of the current NRL clubs?

No, for mine.

 

[The Great Dane]

if a compromise can be achieved.

If you have in fact paid attention to their past proposals then you'd know that the Bears themselves have made it explicitly clear that a palatable compromise isn't achievable, so why are you wasting everybody's time by continuing to bring it up?

It was both players and branding. Marketing testing done on the Brisbane Bears brand in the local market at the time was abysmal. They were getting smashed by the Broncos for penetration. Peter Getherberg was working for the agency on behalf of the club and discusses it in his lecture courses.

Yeah, and their solution was to abuse Fitzroy's situation to build a legendary team, win some flags, and let that success push interest and sales. It worked for a while as well, but unfortunately that strategy is inherently reliant on a successful team.

If the Lions brand, or heritage brands in general, were the smoking gun you and many others try to present them as, then the Lions wouldn't have continued to struggle commercially after taking it on and wouldn't still be the third least successful club in the AFL to this day.

That's just the reality of it though isn't it, heritage brands aren't a smoking guy, they've never been a smoking gun, and have their own set of negatives and baggage that isn't worth the trouble more often than not.

 

[The Great Dane]

Are the Bears are more valuable brand then any of the current NRL clubs?

No, for mine.

Depends on the market.

If you were launching a club in North Sydney then having the Bears brand and backing would be invaluable. In most other places it wouldn't be more valuable than any other brand.

 

[Canard]

Depends on the market.

If you were launching a club in North Sydney then having the Bears brand and backing would be invaluable. In most other places it wouldn't be more valuable than any other brand.

My thoughts exactly, and surely North Sydney and Sydney in general is the last place that needs an NRL team in 2024 and beyond

 

[Perth Red]

If you have in fact paid attention to their past proposals then you'd know that the Bears themselves have made it explicitly clear that a palatable compromise isn't achievable, so why are you wasting everybody's time by continuing to bring it up?

Yeah, and their solution was to abuse Fitzroy's situation to build a legendary team, win some flags, and let that success push interest and sales. It worked for a while as well, but unfortunately that strategy is inherently reliant on a successful team.

If the Lions brand, or heritage brands in general, were the smoking gun you and many others try to present them as, then the Lions wouldn't have continued to struggle commercially after taking it on and wouldn't still be the third least successful club in the AFL to this day.

That's just the reality of it though isn't it, heritage brands aren't a smoking guy, they've never been a smoking gun, and have their own set of negatives and baggage that isn't worth the trouble more often than not.

Looking at last years annual report I wouldn't call them the disaster you seem to be making out?

40k members
revenue of $60mill plus
football club revenue generation of $20mill
profitable last year
secured a $22mill govt grant for property development

if someone told me Perth could get to those figures every year I wouldnt be unhappy!

https://resources.lions.com.au/aflc-bl/document/2022/01/10/35073b75-74d1-4083-81f1-65a44de401d1/210475_2021_Financial_Report.pdf

 

[The Great Dane]

Looking at last years annual report I wouldn't call them the disaster you seem to be making out?

40k members
revenue of $60mill plus
football club revenue generation of $20mill
profitable last year
secured a $22mill govt grant for property development

if someone told me Perth could get to those figures every year I wouldnt be unhappy!

https://resources.lions.com.au/aflc-bl/document/2022/01/10/35073b75-74d1-4083-81f1-65a44de401d1/210475_2021_Financial_Report.pdf

Sure by NRL standards that's amazing, but by AFL standards it's shit.

They get one of the highest grants from the AFL, their membership and attendance numbers suck, lower end of ratings, etc, etc.

It's really an indictment on the NRL that a club that is doing poorly by the AFL's standard would be the biggest in this sport.

 

[Perth Red]

Sure by NRL standards that's amazing, but by AFL standards it's shit.

They get one of the highest grants from the AFL, their membership and attendance numbers suck, lower end of ratings, etc, etc.

It's really an indictment on the NRL that a club that is doing poorly by the AFL's standard would be the biggest in this sport.

Fair call lol. There is certainly a big gap between the haves and have nots in AFL, why they need variable grant scheme I guess.
Point still stands though as an expansion team in a foreign market their revenue generation and fanbase isnt to be sniffed at and something I would love for a new Perth NRL club!

 

[docbrown]

If you have in fact paid attention to their past proposals then you'd know that the Bears themselves have made it explicitly clear that a palatable compromise isn't achievable, so why are you wasting everybody's time by continuing to bring it up?

Because the NRL have never actually sat down with the Bears and a Perth based consortium to try to hash out a deal. If they did that and the Bears still rejected it then it would be the end of the matter. You're literally complaining about someone posting hypotheticals on a thread that's all about hypothetical future teams. So no, I'll post about it as much as I want.

Yeah, and their solution was to abuse Fitzroy's situation to build a legendary team, win some flags, and let that success push interest and sales. It worked for a while as well, but unfortunately that strategy is inherently reliant on a successful team.

And none of that matters in the WA Bears case because there's no North Sydney Bears NRL club to raid players from. You just seem to want to belabor the point for the sake of it.

If the Lions brand, or heritage brands in general, were the smoking gun you and many others try to present them as, then the Lions wouldn't have continued to struggle commercially after taking it on and wouldn't still be the third least successful club in the AFL to this day.

If the Brisbane Bears had continued as the Bears there wouldn't be a Brisbane Bears club today. If was either bring on the Lions base or go extinct. I've seen AFL surveys for the Lions in Melbourne and even decades later they still have a solid fanbase there, despite what you want to believe.

 

[Perth Red]

I've seen AFL surveys for the Lions in Melbourne and even decades later they still have a solid fanbase there, despite what you want to believe.

I cant help but think about the Jack Irish tv series and the three old codgers sat in the Fitzroy run down pub lamenting the loss of the Lions lol

 

[Perth Red]

Because the NRL have never actually sat down with the Bears and a Perth based consortium to try to hash out a deal. If they did that and the Bears still rejected it then it would be the end of the matter. You're literally complaining about someone posting hypotheticals on a thread that's all about hypothetical future teams. So no, I'll post about it as much as I want.

It'll be interesting to see what consortiums there are in Perth to bid and what their views of the Bears are. One consortium has said they'll listen to them but were adamant the license must be owned by the WA consortium. That will ultimately be the make or break decision Id think.
I cant see Sage's bid (if he's still interested) wanting to partner given he's in it to have one company running Glory and an NRL club.

Be funny if they do go to an open tender and Bears bid on their own against the WA consortiums lol

Sorry paywall and dont have access:

Perth NRL expansion push gathers momentum

The Perth syndicate hoping to build a stand alone NRL expansion franchise is pushing ahead with their plan - but are happy to talk with the North Sydney Bears who are investigating a radical cross-country club.

thewest.com.au

 

[docbrown]

I cant help but think about the Jack Irish tv series and the three old codgers sat in the Fitzroy run down pub lamenting the loss of the Lions lol

Is that like you when you lament the loss of the Perth Reds?

 

[Perth Red]

Is that like you when you lament the loss of the Perth Reds?

Never a big fan of the Perth Reds, was sad to see the Western Reds go though.

 

[docbrown]

Never a big fan of the Perth Reds, was sad to see the Western Reds go though.

You know the Western Reds rebranded as the Perth Reds in 1997 right? It's the same club.

 

[Canard]

If the Brisbane Bears had continued as the Bears there wouldn't be a Brisbane Bears club today. If was either bring on the Lions base or go extinct. I've seen AFL surveys for the Lions in Melbourne and even decades later they still have a solid fanbase there, despite what you want to believe.

Could you point me in the direction of these surveys? I've lived here for over a decade and can't say I have experienced more than a handful of Brisbane Lions supporters (and most of those were expat QLDers). The Swans on the other hand still have a large following in South Melbourne and the surrounds.

Yes Fitzroy still has some diehards, but thats not Brisbane, its a very different entity and team locally.

 

[The Great Dane]

Because the NRL have never actually sat down with the Bears and a Perth based consortium to try to hash out a deal. If they did that and the Bears still rejected it then it would be the end of the matter. You're literally complaining about someone posting hypotheticals on a thread that's all about hypothetical future teams. So no, I'll post about it as much as I want.

Hypotheticals are fine, however it's also fine to critic them, especially when your hypothetical is being presented as a realistic possibility when it isn't. I'd also remind you that you are the one that started this interaction not me, so it's very disingenuous to act as if you were just innocently shitposting before it begun.

BTW, over the years the NRL have sat down with the Bears to discuss multiple potential opportunities to re-join the NRL, including representatives from the Bears discussing the potential of "relocating" to Perth with PVL, and of what we know of those discussions they've all gone about the same; the Bears have presented their non-negotiables and the NRL has rejected their proposal. Whether or not PVL will reject their proposal this time remains to be seen, but it'll be a travesty if it goes ahead.

And none of that matters in the WA Bears case because there's no North Sydney Bears NRL club to raid players from. You just seem to want to belabor the point for the sake of it.

That's my point...

Pretending that North Sydney's current situation is at all analogous to the situation Fitzroy was in is BS, and the above is a large part of the reason why.

If the Brisbane Bears had continued as the Bears there wouldn't be a Brisbane Bears club today. If was either bring on the Lions base or go extinct. I've seen AFL surveys for the Lions in Melbourne and even decades later they still have a solid fanbase there, despite what you want to believe.

Our definitions of 'solid' must be very different.

Furthermore if the surveys are to be believed then the Raiders have a few hundred thousand supporters in the ACT, yet somehow their membership, attendance, and ratings numbers have never even come close to reflecting that... You're also attributing all of the Lion's support in Melbourne to their association with Fitzroy, which is also absolute BS.