The Bears

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Yes, but this is sementics in regards to perth, if you used the same example but said Melbourne or Adelaide then it's worthy of it

The Bears ain't coming back.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The Bears ain't coming back.

Bears.... goooooorn

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Burleigh Bears > North Sydney Bears

It would be an injustice to give a licence to North Sydney in favour of Burleigh.
Robina Stadium is close to Burleigh Bears, so they at least have a quality stadium to use. Poor old North Sydney Bears only have a dilapidated cricket ground with trees surrounding it.

 

[AdelaideSharky]

Burleigh Bears > North Sydney Bears

It would be an injustice to give a licence to North Sydney in favour of Burleigh.
Robina Stadium is close to Burleigh Bears, so they at least have a quality stadium to use. Poor old North Sydney Bears only have a dilapidated cricket ground with trees surrounding it.

Weren't Norths looking to move to Gosford which is why Central Coast Stadium got built in the first place?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Weren't Norths looking to move to Gosford which is why Central Coast Stadium got built in the first place?

It was a stupid plan and one made out of desperation. If they had have agreed to relocate to Adelaide in 1998 and merge with the Rams to become the Adelaide Bears then they would be one of the most valuable assets to the NRL.

 

[siv]

What’s the point of this post? The suggestion that Adelaide Sharkey was that somehow Sydney clubs were more important than other clubs or that their supporters are more authentic in their experience or support of these clubs.

The origin of these clubs is irrelevant to the here and now - that is do they have enough money and enough supporters ?

You will find all Sydney clubs are stronger financially than regional clubs

They also have strong supporter bases in Sydney and nationally based upon years support and years of history

Think of the clubs that might be not in the top tier but everyone knows about eg Jets

But you will find clubs like the Mariners no one remembers

 

[Colk]

You will find all Sydney clubs are stronger financially than regional clubs

They also have strong supporter bases in Sydney and nationally based upon years support and years of history

Think of the clubs that might be not in the top tier but everyone knows about eg Jets

But you will find clubs like the Mariners no one remembers

1. That’s patently false. Not every regional club is Newcastle and Gold Coast circa five years ago. Canberra and North Qld are better off financially than a lot of Sydney clubs. There’s also been five clubs from Sydney that have died over the past 40 years, mostly due to financial insolvency; whilst a few others have been bailed out.

2. Not all Sydney clubs have great followings. Souths, Parra, Dragons, Tigers and Dogs have good followings. The rest don’t - the Roosters have a shockingly low supporter base considering they have essentially stayed at the top of the ladder for twenty odd years. Moreover none of these teams have as much interest or following as the Broncos and Storm and clubs like the Warriors and Cowboys have similar followings to most Sydney clubs. Even clubs like the Raiders and the Knights are likely to have similar numbers to or more supporters than the less popular Sydney clubs like the Sharks, Manly and Penrith

3. Depends on where and who you are. If you’re based in Sydney and are of that vintage then of course you’ll remember the Jets. If you’re under 40 or you’re not from Sydney (say you’re a league fan from Qld, WA or NZ for example) then you’re not going to care about Newtown. Take me for example, the Western Reds, Adelaide Rams or the South Qld Crushers are more prominent to me because they were in the top league whilst I have been alive

 

[siv]

There’s also been five clubs from Sydney that have died over the past 40 years, mostly due to financial insolvency;

Care to explain which 5 clubs died financially?

There has been only one - Newtown

Bears only had a issue when they were kicked out of the comp and their ability to earn was taken away

 

[Colk]

Care to explain which 5 clubs died financially?

There has been only one - Newtown

Bears only had a issue when they were kicked out of the comp and their ability to earn was taken away

Maybe I was a little strong in my language but were Newton, Norths, Balmain, Wests and Souths going well financially before they merged or were kicked out of the competition. Add to that, Cronulla have been bailed out how many times, Manly weren’t travelling very well either before they were bought out by the Penns.

Sydney clubs aren’t the bastion of good financial management.

 

[Perth Red]

Maybe I was a little strong in my language but were Newton, Norths, Balmain, Wests and Souths going well financially before they merged or were kicked out of the competition. Add to that, Cronulla have been bailed out how many times, Manly weren’t travelling very well either before they were bought out by the Penns.

Sydney clubs aren’t the bastion of good financial management.

And dragons who’ve had to be loaned money. Take away the pokies and see how sustainable all these sydney clubs are

 

[siv]

Maybe I was a little strong in my language but were Newton, Norths, Balmain, Wests and Souths going well financially before they merged or were kicked out of the competition. Add to that, Cronulla have been bailed out how many times, Manly weren’t travelling very well either before they were bought out by the Penns.

Sydney clubs aren’t the bastion of good financial management.

Norths were thinking of the future when they built Gosford Stadium. Criteria was their only issue not financial.

Balmain's issue was a desire to redevelop their LC after their merger, their LC before this was trading well.

Manly and Souths moved away from a LC operational model with great success. While Souths still have one of the strongest LCs with the Juniors behind them as well as owners who are bigger than Murdoch who started the SL War.

Wests are one the strongest financial groups in Sydney with 2 strong LCs.

You could quote regional clubs like Newcastle who needed Wests Group to save them, Gold Coast eho gave gone bust so many times its not funny, Auckland when bust twice and Perth who were shutdown due to financials or like Canberra can't attract sponsors

 

[Colk]

I forgot about the Saints.

The point remains though that whilst Sydney is the economic capital of Australia (arguably so at least) and that being in Sydney is an advantage, it is only an advantage in so far as you can’t properly leverage big business or corporate sponsorship.

Based on history that hasn’t always been the case for a variety of reasons

 

[Colk]

Norths were thinking of the future when they built Gosford Stadium. Criteria was their only issue not financial.

Balmain's issue was a desire to redevelop their LC after their merger, their LC before this was trading well.

Manly and Souths moved away from a LC operational model with great success. While Souths still have one of the strongest LCs with the Juniors behind them as well as owners who are bigger than Murdoch who started the SL War.

Wests are one the strongest financial groups in Sydney with 2 strong LCs.

You could quote regional clubs like Newcastle who needed Wests Group to save them, Gold Coast eho gave gone bust so many times its not funny, Auckland when bust twice and Perth who were shutdown due to financials or like Canberra can't attract sponsors

So you’re arguing that North and Balmain shouldn’t count because they were unlucky? They may have been unlucky but try telling that to a bank when you default on a loan.

Also are you going to give Adelaide, Perth, North Queensland and Auckland the same benefit of the doubt when talking about external factors. If Sydney clubs were so strong financially shouldn’t they have they been able to pay for their travel costs

 

[Colk]

Manly and Souths have been able to transition away from the LC model because they are both owned by multimillionaires. Good on them both but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t killed off or financially struggling.

Onto the regional clubs where you are using arguments that you wouldn’t apply for Sydney clubs. Newcastle and Gold Coast are going better now because the same thing happened to them as did Souths and Manly: they were bought by wealthy private individuals/companies. Also I did explicitly mention Newcastle and GC in my original post.

Auckland and Perth I addressed prior but if Perth come back into the competition and are given $13m every year by the NRL then I’m sure they would prosper given the growth of the city by population and financially. The Warriors haven’t had an issue in their current iteration either

On your last point Canberra didn’t have a sponsor for what one year? Not ideal but they haven’t been bailed out either. They also have a mammoth amount of assets so they’re fine on the economic front.

All in all I’m not arguing that some regionals clubs haven’t struggled in the same way that there aren’t rich Sydney clubs. What I’m not advocating for is some rigid, inflexible position based on some perceived yearning for the return of a Sydney competition, wherein you are considering all Sydney clubs as equally wealthy (they are not) and that they are all weathier than all of the regional clubs which is false

 

[The Great Dane]

Norths were thinking of the future when they built Gosford Stadium. Criteria was their only issue not financial.

Mate, they were millions of dollars in debt and every delay on the stadium pushed them further into debt that they hadn't planned for.

That debt probably wouldn't have sunk them in of it's self, but they weren't in a great financial position.

They also aren't as rich today as many make them out to be. If they (i.e. the Bears alone) were given a license they'd be one of the smaller clubs.

Balmain's issue was a desire to redevelop their LC after their merger, their LC before this was trading well.

Which failed and bankrupted them... If they were a standalone club they would have folded.

Manly and Souths moved away from a LC operational model with great success. While Souths still have one of the strongest LCs with the Juniors behind them as well as owners who are bigger than Murdoch who started the SL War.

Manly are flat broke, and more or less totally reliant on the Penn's generosity to keep them going...

Wests are one the strongest financial groups in Sydney with 2 strong LCs.

You could quote regional clubs like Newcastle who needed Wests Group to save them, Gold Coast eho gave gone bust so many times its not funny, Auckland when bust twice and Perth who were shutdown due to financials or like Canberra can't attract sponsors

The Raiders have no issue attracting sponsors, and haven't started a season without a major sponsor in a decade. Even then that was only for a very short period and caused by a late pull out.

It's whataboutism anyway.

We were talking about the Sydney clubs, not regional clubs, as the regional clubs have very different market pressures on them than the Sydney clubs which makes it difficult to compare the two like for like.

Many of the regional clubs struggle at least in part because of the structure of the competition and amount of clubs in Sydney as well.

 

[The Great Dane]

I forgot about the Saints.

The point remains though that whilst Sydney is the economic capital of Australia (arguably so at least) and that being in Sydney is an advantage, it is only an advantage in so far as you can’t properly leverage big business or corporate sponsorship.

Based on history that hasn’t always been the case for a variety of reasons

And Penrith.

They were millions of dollars in debt and basically insolvent about a decade ago until Gould convinced James Packer to pay their debts and got a few other angel investors involved in the club.

 

[Perth Red]

You could probably include Storm in there as well when news ltd sold up and nrl agreed to invest in them. I think what we are saying is there aren’t many clubs that at some point in their lives haven’t been financially screwed lol. Just seems some have managed to build from that into a position where it’s unlikely to happen again, whilst some others are still very reliant on the pokies keeping flowing.
I’d love to know how knights got Into so much strife given their massive supporter base?
agreed bears would be in trouble from day one unless a big money backer comes along or they can head the corporate sponsor list which is unlikely. A small fans base playing in inadequate facilities with a LC that barley turns a profit.

 

[Santino Patane]

Manly and Souths have been able to transition away from the LC model because they are both owned by multimillionaires. Good on them both but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t killed off or financially struggling.

Onto the regional clubs where you are using arguments that you wouldn’t apply for Sydney clubs. Newcastle and Gold Coast are going better now because the same thing happened to them as did Souths and Manly: they were bought by wealthy private individuals/companies. Also I did explicitly mention Newcastle and GC in my original post.

Auckland and Perth I addressed prior but if Perth come back into the competition and are given $13m every year by the NRL then I’m sure they would prosper given the growth of the city by population and financially. The Warriors haven’t had an issue in their current iteration either

On your last point Canberra didn’t have a sponsor for what one year? Not ideal but they haven’t been bailed out either. They also have a mammoth amount of assets so they’re fine on the economic front.

All in all I’m not arguing that some regionals clubs haven’t struggled in the same way that there aren’t rich Sydney clubs. What I’m not advocating for is some rigid, inflexible position based on some perceived yearning for the return of a Sydney competition, wherein you are considering all Sydney clubs as equally wealthy (they are not) and that they are all weathier than all of the regional clubs which is false

Always on point @Colk but I think it is a bit of a redundant argument to have. You’re arguing with a dying perspective, one where Rugby League in Australia is exclusively structured for the Sydney comp, and all other clubs are there at the grace of the former NSWRL. No matter what facts or rationales raised in a solid argument, it won’t matter as it doesn’t serve the worldview in question.

It’s a worldview that surprises me that it still exists, as it is outdated by over 30 years. I was flabbergasted in an early argument you had with someone else that Cronulla is a legitimate or solid club compared to Canberra, despite only starting 15 years before the Raiders.

Sydney is definitely critical to RL and must be looked after, but it’s well overdue for the rest of Australia to be prioritised in orders of magnitude greater for the game to exist and grow in the future.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

If we're going to stick with nine teams in Sydney then their salary cap should be 30% lower than the Knights, Raiders, Warriors, Storm, Cowboys, Titans, Broncos, Dolphins, Pirates, Firehawks and NZ2. The competition is rigged to give the Sydney clubs easier access to players on the market, by virtue of not having to fly on a plane evry week. The only way to make things fairer for the non-Sydney clubs is to give them more money to spend so that the Rorters can no longer buy premierships.

 

[Perth Red]

If we're going to stick with nine teams in Sydney then their salary cap should be 30% lower than the Knights, Raiders, Warriors, Storm, Cowboys, Titans, Broncos, Dolphins, Pirates, Firehawks and NZ2. The competition is rigged to give the Sydney clubs easier access to players on the market, by virtue of not having to fly on a plane evry week. The only way to make things fairer for the non-Sydney clubs is to give them more money to spend so that the Rorters can no longer buy premierships.

You think there’s a salary cap? That’s cute!