WA BEARS

[titoelcolombiano]

Firstly, that's an appeal to authority.

Secondly, he's produced precisely zero evidence to support his hypothesis other than it was happening at the same time. Which is the same evidence everybody uses in this case, because for some f**king reason most people don't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation.

Let's try a different tact; Penrith averaged 12922 in 2017, 14264 in 2018, 12482 in 2019, then covid happened and now in 2022 (the first year unaffected by covid) they're averaging 18034.

Somebody using exactly the same logic you are using to say the Swans are only successful because of SL, could say that ipso facto the covid pandemic was responsible for their growth in attendance. Of course we both know that isn't true, and that there were other factors that lead to their growth in attendance, namely the usual reasons why a team's support suddenly rises.

Which begs the question; why in the specific case of the Swans do you choose to ignore those factors and embrace what is a glorified conspiracy theory at this point?

My guess is that, for whatever reasons, it's easier for you to accept that a terrible catastrophe, that will almost certainly never be repeated, is the only way that the Swans/AFL was capable of growing in the RL states, than it is for you to accept the idea that they're capable of being successful off their own backs.

That's the way it's gonna be is it...

If you're just going to say that any data or piece of evidence you don't like is fudged then what's the point of discussing it with you? You're just going to ignore anything you don't like then declare victory. TBF, every discussion with you is a game of pigeon chess and I don't know why I expected anything different this time.

BTW, I addressed the Swans attendance in my last post, and despite your protests, pretty much all of their other metrics saw pretty consistent growth until 2019.

There's probably a whole host of reasons why that is.

If I had to speculate, then I'd guess that a big one would be that there was always support for the AFL in Sydney, however that support was fractured because most people chose to support their favourite team over jumping on the Swans once they relocated.

Their sudden success unified that support behind the Swans as much as possible, however that can only happen once, after that you're reliant on more organic growth which takes time.

That definitely happened to the Raiders for example, on a smaller scale of course, but I'd know I was part of it. I'd imagine that it happens to a lot of expansion teams.

If anybody is caught up in being right it's you.

You have an idea you want to be true so much that you're bending and breaking it in an effort to force it to fit.

Appeal to authority (an authority actually involved in the situation being discussed) is not ok, but you appealing to your own opinion is ok? Right, got it. The Swans chairman is in a very unique position with access to information and conversations that we aren't when he makes a statement like that and again, I'll take his word over your opinion any day on this topic.

Aren't you always the one quoting Occam's Razor on these boards? Well guess what mate, the swans' only real swell in crowd support coming during the SL War and not in any of their premiership years means that the most simple answer is probably the correct one here.

Re Memberships. They are not as reliable as crowds or TV ratings in terms of a clubs growth. The reason? Clubs can sell one game memberships, three game memberships etc. Memberships can be sold outside of Sydney (and in the Swans' case, probably are sold in Melbourne more than most non-Melbourne clubs due to their history. Fact is, there are many ways to boost a membership tally without actually growing your fan base in your own city. TV ratings and average attendances are much harder to manipulate and again, the fact is the Swans received a dramatic and exaggerated boost between 1995 and 1997 and have gone nowhere since, even in premiership years.

I'm caught up in being right? The guy that was actually right about the Dolphins back in 2019 whilst you were arguing that they were no chance? lol I know you like to come across as the intellectual giant of the forums but you are wrong quite a bit and when you are found to be wrong you come up with some ridiculous stuff to justify it.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The sentiment has certainly changed from perth fans if social media is anything to go by. I think we were all open to the idea when it first started but the more this guy talks the more fans here are saying go it alone and leave the Bears in Sydney as the Roosters bitches.

Interesting to hear him say he's had contact from Christchurch

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I wasn't talking about hypothetical bids, or bids that failed to put in a bid, with the exception of Ipswich and the Bombers, whom would have put in independent bids except for the fact that they were pressured to merge by the NRL. So I honestly have no clue what you're talking about...

Why would I do that when the NRL's criteria were shit lol.

The NRL's (lets be honest; V'landys') criteria only really valued the net worth of each bid's assets, their "tradition"/"heritage"/[insert cliched buzzwords that can mean whatever the user wants them to in the moment here], and the opinion of stakeholders with deeply conflicted interests.

Being admittedly simplistic, what should have been the most important criteria was:

. market research to assess where the most potential support for a new club was based in the Brisbane metro area, and how much each team could realistically garner;
. what impacts, if any, the bids would have on the other teams and the league as a whole, positive and/or negative and how serious they were;
. potential return and growth across all the important metrics over the short, mid, and long term;
. finding the risk-return ratio of each bid and assessing it;
. doing the due diligence to make sure that the winning bid would actually have the means to support the club until it was sustainable, with and/or without assistance from the NRL.

Going on what information is public, Redcliffe would almost certainly fall down on two of those five points, and potentially a third, when compared to the other bids. They'd almost certainly pass the due diligence (that is if we're happy with another archaic leagues club funded team, but that's tangent), and the risk-return ratio is impossible for us to know without information that knowing the NRL A. probably doesn't exist for the most part, and B. will never be public knowledge even if it does.

So to sum it up... Redcliffe weren't the best bid... but none of the actual bidders were better... right. Makes sense.

In terms of the criteria, that's just your opinion of course but a lot of what you are calling for seems to have been looked at according to Abdo:

"This is exciting because it's not just about adding a 17th team, it's about a strategy, specifically in Queensland,"

"The NRL can get in behind a strategy that is holistic, that covers all corners of the state, that thinks about the growth of the game from the bottom, all the way to the top.''

"This was a strategic consideration. It's been thought about over a number of years. It's been a very thorough and rigorous process. It has been very heavily researched, it has been data-driven, and that's why it has taken as long as it has taken."

"From a governance and a risk perspective, from a stability and financial diversification of revenues... this is not something the Commission wanted to invest tens of millions of dollars into,"

"We need a club that can stand on their own two feet and have diversified revenue streams and have a plan. A very strong commercial plan.''

"It was important for any new club to bring new sponsors into the game, not cannibalise existing sponsors. With the Dolphins we've seen the ability of a club to bring in, and have already contracted a naming rights sponsor and several significant sponsors that aren't currently invested in the game.''

"And we want a team that can be successful on the field very quickly, and what we saw in their proposal were personnel instructions around a team that we believe can perform very quickly at the highest level.

"What we've seen from the Dolphins is a plan to grow the men's competition, the women's competition, to connect with affiliations throughout Queensland, open opportunities to bring new participants into the game."

But of course, you'll just dismiss that because it differs from your opinion.

 

[Perth Red]

So to sum it up... Redcliffe weren't the best bid... but none of the actual bidders were better... right. Makes sense.

In terms of the criteria, that's just your opinion of course but a lot of what you are calling for seems to have been looked at according to Abdo:

"This is exciting because it's not just about adding a 17th team, it's about a strategy, specifically in Queensland,"

"The NRL can get in behind a strategy that is holistic, that covers all corners of the state, that thinks about the growth of the game from the bottom, all the way to the top.''

"This was a strategic consideration. It's been thought about over a number of years. It's been a very thorough and rigorous process. It has been very heavily researched, it has been data-driven, and that's why it has taken as long as it has taken."

"From a governance and a risk perspective, from a stability and financial diversification of revenues... this is not something the Commission wanted to invest tens of millions of dollars into," he said.

"We need a club that can stand on their own two feet and have diversified revenue streams and have a plan. A very strong commercial plan.

"It was important for any new club to bring new sponsors into the game, not cannibalise existing sponsors. With the Dolphins we've seen the ability of a club to bring in, and have already contracted a naming rights sponsor and several significant sponsors that aren't currently invested in the game.

"And we want a team that can be successful on the field very quickly, and what we saw in their proposal were personnel instructions around a team that we believe can perform very quickly at the highest level.

"What we've seen from the Dolphins is a plan to grow the men's competition, the women's competition, to connect with affiliations throughout Queensland, open opportunities to bring new participants into the game."

But of course, you'll just dismiss that because it differs from your opinion.

He missed off the bit that said " And that's what News ltd told us they wanted" lol
We all scoffed at THE Bears NSW bid yet Dolphins have done the same and the NRL have gone with it!

 

[Colk]

The sentiment has certainly changed from perth fans if social media is anything to go by. I think we were all open to the idea when it first started but the more this guy talks the more fans here are saying go it alone and leave the Bears in Sydney as the Roosters bitches.

Interesting. I think the fact that they are talking about still owning the club is the biggest concern.

 

[Perth Red]

Interesting. I think the fact that they are talking about still owning the club is the biggest concern.

yes that and their zero commitment to perth with their constant 'we could go anywhere' line. Not to mention their arrogance that they think its all about them lol

 

[reanimate]

Well

Well if you care so much about Perth let the bears come back to Sydney and manly can move go Perth then lol

The Bears aren’t entitled to anything, be it home games in Sydney or admittance into the comp at the expense of anyone else. Their re-entry to the competition isn’t a given, as seen when they were so sure they were going to be included in the comp during expansion talks in the past they actually started selling CC Bears foundation memberships.

Getting expansion in Perth right is far more important than old Bears fans’ nostalgia and home games in Sydney.

 

[Wb1234]

Interesting to hear him say he's had contact from Christchurch

oh that’s interesting

 

[Wb1234]

The Bears aren’t entitled to anything, be it home games in Sydney or admittance into the comp at the expense of anyone else. Their re-entry to the competition isn’t a given, as seen when they were so sure they were going to be included in the comp during expansion talks in the past they actually started selling CC Bears foundation memberships.

Getting expansion in Perth right is far more important than old Bears fans’ nostalgia and home games in Sydney.

Lucky you aren’t Peter vlandys because he does value them

manly should just try and develop juniors from their area which they don’t do much of (Blacktown link up) and not worry about someone else’s chances for the nrl

 

[Wb1234]

The sentiment has certainly changed from perth fans if social media is anything to go by. I think we were all open to the idea when it first started but the more this guy talks the more fans here are saying go it alone and leave the Bears in Sydney as the Roosters bitches.

Think the bears have more advantage here than you give them credit for

if they link up with Christchurch then they will have a stronger bid than a Perth standalone bid

 

[reanimate]

Lucky you aren’t Peter vlandys because he does value them

manly should just try and develop juniors from their area which they don’t do much of (Blacktown link up) and not worry about someone else’s chances for the nrl

I’m not Manly, my opinion on the Bears being brought back is my own. The Bears trying to get a foot in the door in Sydney is a waste of everyone’s time and a valuable expansion slot. The focus needs to be on Perth, which theirs clearly isn’t, given their comments on how they have options and how they could go anywhere.

 

[Perth Red]

Think the bears have more advantage here than you give them credit for

if they link up with Christchurch then they will have a stronger bid than a Perth standalone bid

Thats ok, Id rather wait another 10 years than have a Sydney club playing games in Perth called THE. They'd be better going with NZ, they can dictate terms there.
Here we have 3 consortiums of rich business people fighting to own a club already and a large active fanbase ready to back whoever wins and a cashed up State Govt willing to back it all. We don't actually need the Bears beyond Vlandys myopic Sydney attitude. Hopefully he might be gone by the time Club 18 is decided anyway.

 

[Wb1234]

I’m not Manly, my opinion on the Bears being brought back is my own. The Bears trying to get a foot in the door in Sydney is a waste of everyone’s time and a valuable expansion slot. The focus needs to be on Perth, which theirs clearly isn’t, given their comments on how they have options and how they could go anywhere.

Yeh sure your motives aren’t selfish ones lmao

 

[Wb1234]

Thats ok, Id rather wait another 10 years than have a Sydney club playing games in Perth called THE. They'd be better going with NZ, they can dictate terms there.
Here we have 3 consortiums of rich business people fighting to own a club already and a large active fanbase ready to back whoever wins and a cashed up State Govt willing to back it all. We don't actually need the Bears beyond Vlandys myopic Sydney attitude. Hopefully he might be gone by the time Club 18 is decided anyway.

Fair enough

if they do add Christchurch I’ll be happy as a pig in mud tbh

I don’t mind Perth bears

 

[Perth Red]

I think Christchurch will struggle even more than the warriors, a lot more in fact. Bears holding them up makes sense as cant see them being sustainable on their own.

 

[Colk]

Yeh sure your motives aren’t selfish ones lmao

To be honest, whoever he supports and what his motives might or might not be isn’t important, if what he is saying is correct.

The most important thing in all of this, is that an area without a team currently is given a team that is actually theirs not because it is seen as a way in to bring another Sydney/NSW side through the back door or by stealth. Now I don’t have anything against the Bears per se and I can see some of the positivity around bringing them back in (although how long term is that positive) but an area that might be strategically important like Perth or NZ 2 should not be seen as a secondary thing.

The only way this in any way works is if the NRL essentially states that they are not playing any more home games in Sydney and that is their condition of entry. The likelihood of that happening though is pretty slim

 

[Colk]

I think Christchurch will struggle even more than the warriors, a lot more in fact. Bears holding them up makes sense as cant see them being sustainable on their own.

It would be a bad move for any area to allow a team to play any of their home games at NSO. If it’s an away game, sure but the purpose of putting a side in a new area is to have it actually representing that area

 

[Perth Red]

It would be a bad move for any area to allow a team to play any of their home games at NSO. If it’s an away game, sure but the purpose of putting a side in a new area is to have it actually representing that area

As I've said before I can live with 11 games in Perth and one v Manly at NSO. That's fair to the NS fans which will help memberships over there and doesn't massively impact Perth. Its also good business as will sell out and boost memberships.
Then the club should be talking with the other Sydney clubs about a membership that includes games against Eels, Souths, Dogs, Tigers and Roosters and/or Manly. Ideally all at SFS or Commbank. Again that would make commercial sense and give NS fans a 5 or 6 game membership with one game at NS Oval and 4 or 5 at decent stadiums that are close. If Perth can sell 5-10k memberships in Sydney with that sort of arrangement it makes good business sense to do so. On top of the 15-20k membership target in Perth you have a club from day 1 with a very healthy active membership base.

 

[Canard]

As I've said before I can live with 11 games in Perth and one v Manly at NSO. That's fair to the NS fans which will help memberships over there and doesn't massively impact Perth. Its also good business as will sell out and boost memberships.
Then the club should be talking with the other Sydney clubs about a membership that includes games against Eels, Souths, Dogs, Tigers and Roosters and/or Manly. Ideally all at SFS or Commbank. Again that would make commercial sense and give NS fans a 5 or 6 game membership with one game at NS Oval and 4 or 5 at decent stadiums that are close. If Perth can sell 5-10k memberships in Sydney with that sort of arrangement it makes good business sense to do so. On top of the 15-20k membership target in Perth you have a club from day 1 with a very healthy active membership base.

Currently they have 1500 financial members (confirmed by the Bears CEO himself here)

That it no way justifies bringing a the team back to the NRL or having yet another game in the saturated Sydney market.

 

[Perth Red]

Currently they have 1500 financial members (confirmed by the Bears CEO himself here)


That it no way justifies a)bring the team back to the NRL or b) having yet another game in Sydney.

TBF no one becomes a member of a reserve grade club. We keep being told there's a hundred thousand Bears fans out there, whittling that back to reality you'd hope there is 5-10k who would get behind a Bears club back in the NRL?