WA BEARS

[MugaB]

Ironically the Bears wanted to buy the Titans license and the NRL told them no, I wonder why??

Had nothing to do with the bears.... titans brand is probably the longest current brand on the glitter strip, had they let the bears take over, it would've been just another brand change for RL..

Brl Vikings/Giants/Seagulls/Gladiators/Chargers/Titans then bears... better just to finally stick with one,
the other brand names hadn't past more than 5 years, let alone the 16 years of the titans

Personally the Burleigh Bears should have got it, it would have solved everything and norths would have stopped their constant bids

 

[Perth Red]

Nothing was submitted to the NRL,
don’t believe everything you read in the press

From the horses mouth, its like back to the future reading these Bears comments about the Gold coast lol

Central Coast Bears CEO Greg Florimo believes the Gold Coast franchise will succeed if the NRL gives the green light to his organisation's bold proposal to partner with the Titans and rebrand the franchise as the Gold Coast Bears.

The bold plan to bring North Sydney Bears back to NRL via Gold Coast Titans

Central Coast Bears CEO Greg Florimo believes the Gold Coast franchise will succeed if the NRL gives the green light to his organisation's bold proposal to partner with the Titans and rebrand the franchise as the Gold Coast Bears.

www.smh.com.au

From Billy, sound familiar? Word for word what they are still saying now lol

“If you are able to couple up the Gold Coast franchise with the North Sydney Bears’ tradition, history and fan base, all of a sudden you have the impetus of a hundred thousand-plus fans being directly interested and buying into this new entity.”

The only sustainable solution for Gold Coast Titans, according to Billy Moore

The only takeover that will save Titans

www.foxsports.com.au

The North Sydney Bears say two private investors are ready to tip in money should they be given the go-ahead to take over Gold Coast. And they say they can put the club, which has lurched from scandal to scandal during the past several NRL seasons, on a solid financial footing.

The Bears, led by chief executive Greg Florimo, are exploring whether the club could buy out the NRL’s licence on the Gold Coast, which would see the franchise renamed and some matches taken to the Central Coast.

North Sydney Bears say investors can help them take over NRL's Titans

The North Sydney Bears say two private investors are ready to tip in money should they be given the go-ahead to take over the Gold Coast Titans NRL club

www.theguardian.com

 

[Wb1234]

 

[Centy Coast]

N

From the horses mouth, its like back to the future reading these Bears comments about the Gold coast lol

Central Coast Bears CEO Greg Florimo believes the Gold Coast franchise will succeed if the NRL gives the green light to his organisation's bold proposal to partner with the Titans and rebrand the franchise as the Gold Coast Bears.

The bold plan to bring North Sydney Bears back to NRL via Gold Coast Titans

Central Coast Bears CEO Greg Florimo believes the Gold Coast franchise will succeed if the NRL gives the green light to his organisation's bold proposal to partner with the Titans and rebrand the franchise as the Gold Coast Bears.

www.smh.com.au

From Billy, sound familiar? Word for word what they are still saying now lol

“If you are able to couple up the Gold Coast franchise with the North Sydney Bears’ tradition, history and fan base, all of a sudden you have the impetus of a hundred thousand-plus fans being directly interested and buying into this new entity.”

The only sustainable solution for Gold Coast Titans, according to Billy Moore

The only takeover that will save Titans

www.foxsports.com.au

The North Sydney Bears say two private investors are ready to tip in money should they be given the go-ahead to take over Gold Coast. And they say they can put the club, which has lurched from scandal to scandal during the past several NRL seasons, on a solid financial footing.

The Bears, led by chief executive Greg Florimo, are exploring whether the club could buy out the NRL’s licence on the Gold Coast, which would see the franchise renamed and some matches taken to the Central Coast.

North Sydney Bears say investors can help them take over NRL's Titans

The North Sydney Bears say two private investors are ready to tip in money should they be given the go-ahead to take over the Gold Coast Titans NRL club

www.theguardian.com

Nothing was EVER submitted to the NRL for the Gold Coast license, it was all bullshit.
There was a lot of talk, but nothing was ever officially taken to the NRL.
That is why then North Sydney Bears Chairman Perry Lopez and CEO David Perry eventually lost their positions, and as for the Gold Coast bid money, many questions are still being asked to this day.
Current Chairman Daniel Dickson was then elected and was in damage control from day one due to false starts and broken promises to long time members and fans.

 

[The Great Dane]

The idea was the club would go broke and the bears would move back to nso

No it wasn't.

They can’t just move games when they feel like it

They more or less can.

They're free to renegotiate as soon as their lease is up, and they can get out of their leases pretty easily more often than not anyway. I mean how do you think teams organise to play games in the bush and the such.

stop making up bs

Like always you're only one making BS up.

 

[The Great Dane]

Yes there is the arlc and the wa govt will put conditions on how many games they can move

They literally don't have the power to enforce those conditions indefinitely.

and the bears aren’t getting a controlling stake

Firstly, how many times do they have to repeat that they won't accept anything less than a controlling stake before you believe them? I mean they've literally been saying it for 20 years at this point, and their behaviour has always been to pursue ownership of the license and a controlling stake of the club.

Secondly, who will have a controlling stake if not them?
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks in, but as far as we know publicly they've never had any discussions with any other bids or consortiums about a merger, and have repeatedly expressed a preference to go it alone.

Now I'm sure that those discussions will happen given time, but it's more likely than not that they'll only be a courtesy unless the NRL insists on a merger, which would be stupid of the NRL, but I wouldn't rule it out given the current administration.

 

[Iamback]

They literally don't have the power to enforce those conditions indefinitely.

Firstly, how many times do they have to repeat that they won't accept anything less than a controlling stake before you believe them? I mean they've literally been saying it for 20 years at this point, and their behaviour has always been to pursue ownership of the license and a controlling stake of the club.

Secondly, who will have a controlling stake if not them?
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks in, but as far as we know publicly they've never had any discussions with any other bids or consortiums about a merger, and have repeatedly expressed a preference to go it alone.

Now I'm sure that those discussions will happen given time, but it's more likely than not that they'll only be a courtesy unless the NRL insists on a merger, which would be stupid of the NRL, but I wouldn't rule it out given the current administration.

They do, The licenses effectively are the property of the NRL

 

[Wb1234]

They literally don't have the power to enforce those conditions indefinitely.

Firstly, how many times do they have to repeat that they won't accept anything less than a controlling stake before you believe them? I mean they've literally been saying it for 20 years at this point, and their behaviour has always been to pursue ownership of the license and a controlling stake of the club.

Secondly, who will have a controlling stake if not them?
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks in, but as far as we know publicly they've never had any discussions with any other bids or consortiums about a merger, and have repeatedly expressed a preference to go it alone.

Now I'm sure that those discussions will happen given time, but it's more likely than not that they'll only be a courtesy unless the NRL insists on a merger, which would be stupid of the NRL, but I wouldn't rule it out given the current administration.

Controlling stake held by Perth owner or owners

and yes the arlc can put conditions on it indefinitely

its a Perth team

your ability to make up bs is unparalleled

 

[Perth Red]

No one’s doubting they could, if they’d hold the bears to it, hmmmm.
they didn’t trust them enough to let them take over the gold coast License.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

and sponsors from the richest part of the richest city in Australia will jump on board

Why the f**k would sponsors from Sydney jump on board to support a Perth team that's associated with North Sydney?

The nine clubs that service Sydney struggle to generate revenue from their sponsors. If they're not going to support teams that are based in Sydney then they won't care for one that only plays a few home games there.

 

[Wb1234]

No one’s doubting they could, if they’d hold the bears to it, hmmmm.
they didn’t trust them enough to let them take over the gold coast License.

They didn’t want to change the titans brand after the Gold Coast had so many different clubs

you need to think of another conspiracy theory this one has run it’s course

 

[The Great Dane]

They do, The licenses effectively are the property of the NRL

Even so, as I said before, they don't really have the power to enforce the terms of those contracts unless they are willing to take significant financial and legal risks, and they've proven unwilling to take those risks almost every time they've come up in the past.

Every club in the league has been in breach of their license at one time or another, yet how many times can you remember them being seriously reprimanded for it?!

I mean I already gave an example of a club doing pretty much exactly what you're saying it'd be impossible for the Bears to do, and not only were they not reprimanded by the NRL for it, it wasn't even seen as problem and was largely celebrated at the time.

I wouldn't be surprised if there're other cases where other clubs have done the same and we just don't know about it because the details of their licensing agreements and other relevant contracts aren't public. I could totally believe that the Wests Tigers have/had some sort of agreement in place pertaining to the amount of games they're meant to play in each stadium/region for example.

 

[Wb1234]

Welcome to Danes World

 

[The Great Dane]

Controlling stake held by Perth owner or owners

Which Perth owner/owners?!

You keep saying this, but so far the Bears haven't had any discussions with any Perth based consortiums or other potential business partners about shared ownership of an NRL club.

What you're suggesting hasn't happened, isn't currently on the cards, and the Bears have made it clear innumerable times that they'd prefer to avoid it.

It's literally just BS editorialization you've got from the media that you think is a fait accompli when it isn't.

and yes the arlc can put conditions on it indefinitely

its a Perth team

your ability to make up bs is unparalleled

Yes we know, but they don't really have the ability to enforce those conditions.

Given that, the conditions aren't worth the paper they're written on. Especially not considering that most at the NRL wouldn't be inclined to enforce the conditions in the first place.

 

[The Great Dane]

They didn’t want to change the titans brand after the Gold Coast had so many different clubs

you need to think of another conspiracy theory this one has run it’s course

We don't know that.

Literally none of us know what the NRL's thinking was when they were looking for new owners for the Titans license.

 

[Iamback]

Even so, as I said before, they don't really have the power to enforce the terms of those contracts unless they are willing to take significant financial and legal risks, and they've proven unwilling to take those risks almost every time they've come up in the past.

Every club in the league has been in breach of their license at one time or another, yet how many times can you remember them being seriously reprimanded for it?!

I mean I already gave an example of a club doing pretty much exactly what you're saying it'd be impossible for the Bears to do, and not only were they not reprimanded by the NRL for it, it wasn't even seen as problem and was largely celebrated at the time.

I wouldn't be surprised if there're other cases where other clubs have done the same and we just don't know about it because the details of their licensing agreements and other relevant contracts aren't public. I could totally believe that the Wests Tigers have/had some sort of agreement in place pertaining to the amount of games they're meant to play in each stadium/region for example.

Stadium contracts, office space leasing etc are why NRL won't move a club. They will merely fund it until a new owner is found in that area.

it isn't the US were owners can do what they want with a team

 

[Wb1234]

Which Perth owner/owners?!

You keep saying this, but so far the Bears haven't had any discussions with any Perth based consortiums or other potential business partners about shared ownership of an NRL club.

What you're suggesting hasn't happened, isn't currently on the cards, and the Bears have made it clear innumerable times that they'd prefer to avoid it.

It's literally just BS editorialization you've got from the media that you think is a fait accompli when it isn't.

Yes we know, but they don't really have the ability to enforce those conditions.

Given that, the conditions aren't worth the paper they're written on. Especially not considering that most at the NRL wouldn't be inclined to enforce the conditions in the first place.

Welcome to Danes world

 

[The Great Dane]

Stadium contracts, office space leasing etc are why NRL won't move a club. They will merely fund it until a new owner is found in that area.

it isn't the US were owners can do what they want with a team

Nobody is suggesting that the NRL would move the club...

What they're suggesting is that the NRL wouldn't stop the Bears from moving the NRL side back to Sydney, and there's nothing stopping the owners of Australian sports franchises from moving them just like their American counterparts.

 

[The Great Dane]

Welcome to Danes world

That's not an argument.

Why don't you give addressing the argument a go.

 

[Wb1234]

That's not an argument.

Why don't you give addressing the argument a go.

Your just making stuff up

I would just be repeating my previous post again