WA BEARS

[Perth Red]

'The colour, the history, the logo, etc, will always be owned by our football club. We're never giving that up for anything.'

Oh and Christchurch Bears is supposedly a legitimate possibility lol.

Staying at Crown Towers, nice.

 

[The Great Dane]

Just like Canberra were when they went to super league

selfishness is common in rugby league

Yeah because trying to stop a handful of corrupt people in Sydney from effectively murdering your business out of pettiness is just is the height of selfishness...

The black and white, ARL good SL bad, revisionist history when it comes to the SL war is tiring.

 

[The Great Dane]

If the ARLC had any sense they would simply reply: enjoy NSW Cup in that case.

If the NRL/ARLC had any sense they would have made that clear to them 20 years ago. Instead they've strung the Bears, and Norths fans, along for all these years because successive administrations were too cowardly to do the right thing and totally crush their hope so they could move on.

The saddest thing is that PVL is dumb enough to let them back in. I mean look at it from his point of view; the usual suspects will give him nothing but praise if he let's the Bears back into the NRL, then he can go back to Racing NSW or onto a new job and leave the inevitable mess for somebody else to clean up.

 

[Colk]

If the NRL/ARLC had any sense they would have made that clear to them 20 years ago. Instead they've strung the Bears, and Norths fans, along for all these years because successive administrations were too cowardly to do the right thing and totally crush their hope so they could move on.

The saddest thing is that PVL is dumb enough to let them back in. I mean look at it from his point of view; the usual suspects will give him nothing but praise if he let's the Bears back into the NRL, then he can go back to Racing NSW or onto a new job and leave the inevitable mess for somebody else to clean up.

Of course. Also I’m not saying what will happen; I’m saying what should happen or what should have already happened. The only way relocations work is to transfer owners, essentially what has happened in any other sport where it has worked.

Otherwise it will end up being a disaster like the Swans were post South Melbourne when they were simply called the Swans (pre Edelsten)

 

[Perth Red]

Ownership has to be Perth’s or it will be a disaster.

 

[siv]

Ownership has to be Perth’s or it will be a disaster.

For Perth only

If Perth dont embrace the Bears then 18th franchise will simply relocate

 

[Colk]

For Perth only

If Perth dont embrace the Bears then 18th franchise will simply relocate

That’s the problem. Or you know that and you’re being disingenuous.

 

[Perth Red]

For Perth only

If Perth dont embrace the Bears then 18th franchise will simply relocate

my point exactly! Either we are putting a team in perth because its important to the NRl, or getting a NS Bears owned club back in that could move at the drop of hat is important. Which is it?
Because of its the first then it has to be a perth owned club.

That’s the problem. Or you know that and you’re being disingenuous.

I think we know which it is.

 

[The Great Dane]

The only way relocations work is to transfer owners, essentially what has happened in any other sport where it has worked.

Yeah that's simply not true.

There're plenty of examples of American teams where the owners have successfully relocated the team, sometimes multiple times, for financial reasons or a dispute over stadiums.

The difference between them and the Bears though is that they are cut-throat businessmen who aren't emotionally attach to any individual market, where the Bears are deeply emotionally attached to North Sydney.

The point is that hypothetically, under different circumstances, a Bears relocation to Perth could work. Unfortunately for all involved the people in charge of both the Bears and NRL could never be trusted to do it right.
As soon as the going got tough in Perth, or they didn't get their way somehow, the Bears would use it as an excuse to move back to North Sydney, because that's where they really want to be anyway, and the NRL is too weak and myopic to stand in their way.

 

[The Great Dane]

On the other hand, the Bears reintroduction and subsequent relocation could be an interesting way to force further expansion, as happened with the Rabbitohs return in 02 and has happened in America a few times.

If the Bears left Perth that'd leave a niche and source of revenue that the NRL would probably have become reliant on, and as such they'd be obliged to fill it or learn to live without the revenue, which would force further expansion to keep the competition even. Like the Rabbitohs reintroduction leading to the Titans joining in 07, or like Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, etc, relocating in the NFL and having to be replaced leading to the introduction of other markets whom may not have gotten a team as quickly under other circumstances.

It wouldn't be ideal, but an independent replacement entering alongside a brand new Adelaide team would be a silver lining I guess.

 

[Colk]

Yeah that's simply not true.

There're plenty of examples of American teams where the owners have successfully relocated the team, sometimes multiple times, for financial reasons or a dispute over stadiums.

The difference between them and the Bears though is that they are cut-throat businessmen who aren't emotionally attach to any individual market, where the Bears are deeply emotionally attached to North Sydney.

The point is that hypothetically, under different circumstances, a Bears relocation to Perth could work. Unfortunately for all involved the people in charge of both the Bears and NRL could never be trusted to do it right.
As soon as the going got tough in Perth, or they didn't get their way somehow, the Bears would use it as an excuse to move back to North Sydney, because that's where they really want to be anyway, and the NRL is too weak and myopic to stand in their way.

Apologies I don’t follow American sport other than baseball.

 

[Perth Red]

Y

On the other hand, the Bears reintroduction and subsequent relocation could be an interesting way to force further expansion, as happened with the Rabbitohs return in 02 and has happened in America a few times.

If the Bears left Perth that'd leave a niche and source of revenue that the NRL would probably have become reliant on, and as such they'd be obliged to fill it or learn to live without the revenue, which would force further expansion to keep the competition even. Like the Rabbitohs reintroduction leading to the Titans joining in 07, or like Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, etc, relocating in the NFL and having to be replaced leading to the introduction of other markets whom may not have gotten a team as quickly under other circumstances.

It wouldn't be ideal, but an independent replacement entering alongside a brand new Adelaide team would be a silver lining I guess.

You mean like when gosford was abandoned and the nrl put a team there instead, oh hang on …….

 

[Reflector]

Using your argument, the fact that North Sydney Bears fans haven't embraced the Manly Sea Eagles over the last 20 years means there isn't an appetite for rugby league on the North Shore.

You're the guy who claimed that Broncos v Cowboys is the only real rivalry in the NRL, right?

Or was that somebody else?

 

[The Great Dane]

You mean like when gosford was abandoned and the nrl put a team there instead, oh hang on …….

You joke, and Gosford is an unfair example considering that they never really had a team, and nobody would probably miss them if they did, but it happens.

Let's take one example; Houston in the NFL.

Through the 90s the Houston Oilers owner, Bud Adams, lobbied Houston for a new stadium. They wouldn't give it to him, so he moved the team to Tennessee in 1997 and renamed them the Titans.

Houston, and Texas in general, is a huge and important market for the NFL, so they and the owners group only approved the Oilers move because there was no mending the bridge between Adams and the local government in Houston, and then fast tracked expansion so that they could replace the Oilers as quickly as possible. The Houston Texans were founded in 99 and joined the league in 02.

There're plenty of other examples as well, and not just from the NFL.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

You're the guy who claimed that Broncos v Cowboys is the only real rivalry in the NRL, right?

Or was that somebody else?

It's the only one guaranteed to draw a big crowd and huge TV ratings regardless of when it's played or the form of the teams. It would be great if Sydney had something equal to it.

 

[flippikat]

You joke, and Gosford is an unfair example considering that they never really had a team, and nobody would probably miss them if they did, but it happens.

Let's take one example; Houston in the NFL.

Through the 90s the Houston Oilers owner, Bud Adams, lobbied Houston for a new stadium. They wouldn't give it to him, so he moved the team to Tennessee in 1997 and renamed them the Titans.

Houston, and Texas in general, is a huge and important market for the NFL, so they and the owners group only approved the Oilers move because there was no mending the bridge between Adams and the local government in Houston, and then fast tracked expansion so that they could replace the Oilers as quickly as possible. The Houston Texans were founded in 99 and joined the league in 02.

There're plenty of other examples as well, and not just from the NFL.

One of the interesting aspects of American sports relocations is when the relocated team changes name, so that it's previous home keeps claim to the logo, name & colours of the old club.

Eg the Cleveland Browns, moving to Baltimore & becoming the Baltimore Ravens.. then few years later the "new" Cleveland Browns coming in as an expansion team - same branding as the original Browns.

Likewise, I believe the Seattle Supersonics (NBA) brand has been in stasis since they moved and became the Oklahoma City Thunder - just ripe for a potential Seattle expansion/return.

It also opens a door for a rivalry between the relocated club and the restored club.

 

[The Great Dane]

One of the interesting aspects of American sports relocations is when the relocated team changes name, so that it's previous home keeps claim to the logo, name & colours of the old club.

Eg the Cleveland Browns, moving to Baltimore & becoming the Baltimore Ravens.. then few years later the "new" Cleveland Browns coming in as an expansion team - same branding as the original Browns.

Likewise, I believe the Seattle Supersonics (NBA) brand has been in stasis since they moved and became the Oklahoma City Thunder - just ripe for a potential Seattle expansion/return.

It also opens a door for a rivalry between the relocated club and the restored club.

That's not how that works lol.

The team maintains ownership of the branding, and there's no obligation for them to give it up.

In Cleveland's case Art Modell gave the city the Browns IP when he relocated the team to Baltimore under threat of legal action he wasn't confident of winning. In other words it was a compromise, he got to leave Cleveland without a shitfight that may have ended with him being forced to stay, and Cleveland got to keep the team's identity, facilities, and history.

I don't know much about the Supersonics case in particular, but I as far as I can tell OKC's owners (Professional Basketball Club LLC) still owns the Supersonics brand. So any new Seattle team will need a new brand unless they can come to an arrangement with OKC to use the Supersonics brand, which would probably cost a fortune.

 

[Perth Red]

You joke, and Gosford is an unfair example considering that they never really had a team, and nobody would probably miss them if they did, but it happens.

Let's take one example; Houston in the NFL.

Through the 90s the Houston Oilers owner, Bud Adams, lobbied Houston for a new stadium. They wouldn't give it to him, so he moved the team to Tennessee in 1997 and renamed them the Titans.

Houston, and Texas in general, is a huge and important market for the NFL, so they and the owners group only approved the Oilers move because there was no mending the bridge between Adams and the local government in Houston, and then fast tracked expansion so that they could replace the Oilers as quickly as possible. The Houston Texans were founded in 99 and joined the league in 02.

There're plenty of other examples as well, and not just from the NFL.

Gosford is the only example anything like your amercian ones, which have no relevance here. Simple fact is a team left gosford to go back to manly and 20 years later the nrl still hasn’t put a club back there. It’s a very big stretch to say they’d rush expansion if the bears moved back to ns after a few years in perth given they have hardly rushed to bring either gosford, perth or Adelaide back into the nrl in decades.

 

[The Great Dane]

Gosford is the only example anything like your amercian ones, which have no relevance here. Simple fact is a team left gosford to go back to manly and 20 years later the nrl still hasn’t put a club back there. It’s a very big stretch to say they’d rush expansion if the bears moved back to ns after a few years in perth given they have hardly rushed to bring either gosford, perth or Adelaide back into the nrl in decades.

Calling the Northern Eagles a 'Gosford team', or suggesting that Gosford has ever been a key market for the NRL, is frankly ridiculous. It's not the only example either, in fact the Northern Eagles weren't an example at all, but that's by the by.

The reintroduction of the Rabbitohs forced the NRL to fast track expansion onto the GC, which was it's self a market that they were reclaiming after quickly deciding that in an ideal world they shouldn't have been cut. You can argue that they were forced to reintroduce the Rabbitohs if you like, but they were under no obligation to keep them around after the initial (nonsense) ruling was overturned.

Furthermore, if you truly believe that the Perth market wouldn't become a vital source of revenue to the NRL then maybe the NRL shouldn't expand to Perth at all...

You're also taking this waaay more seriously than it was intended. I was simply presenting an interesting thought bubble, not seriously suggesting a Machiavellian scheme where the Perth Bears should happen because it would fail and that could lead to further expansion being fast tracked to replace them and even out the competition.

 

[siv]

Waiting for all of the crowd complaints over yesterdays Sydney games, and using them as reasons for cutting more Sydney teams