WA BEARS

[Iamback]

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 Bears would own the licence.
The licence would be there's to control off a successful business case, That would include the location.

Moving the side would be breach of the licence and NRL would take it back to give to another bidder in this case Perth

 

[Wb1234]

The Bears would own the licence.
The licence would be there's to control off a successful business case, That would include the location.

Moving the side would be breach of the licence and NRL would take it back to give to another bidder in this case Perth

I wouldn’t give them control

anything under 50 percent the rest is in the hands of Perth businessmen or even nrlwa

they don’t need full control

 

[Iamback]

I wouldn’t give them control

anything under 50 percent the rest is in the hands of Perth businessmen or even nrlwa

they don’t need full control

They won't get control. A few seats on the board maybe.

Just pointing out why that theory is zero chance of happening. Even with control they'd struggle

 

[Nuke]

I think we can all agree that the best thing, going forward, is to make them the West Coast Northern Sydney Pirate Bears.

3 home games at North Sydney Oval, Sydney
3 home games at HBF Park, Perth
3 home games on the Central Coast
1 home game at the Brisbane Magic Round
1 home game at the SFS
1 game in Adelaide / Darwin / Cairns / Port Macquarie / wherever else (to promote the NRL)

Players to train in some specially made training facility in the town of Kimba, South Australia, as that falls on the midpoint between Perth and the northern suburbs of Sydney.

Halfway Across Australia Sign

Halfway Across Australia Sign

www.kimba.sa.gov.au

Get on it, peeps. The WCNS Pirate Bears RLFC are coming...

 

[mongoose]

I think we can all agree that the best thing, going forward, is to make them the West Coast Northern Sydney Pirate Bears.

3 home games at North Sydney Oval, Sydney
3 home games at HBF Park, Perth
3 home games on the Central Coast
1 home game at the Brisbane Magic Round
1 home game at the SFS
1 game in Adelaide / Darwin / Cairns / Port Macquarie / wherever else (to promote the NRL)

Players to train in some specially made training facility in the town of Kimba, South Australia, as that falls on the midpoint between Perth and the northern suburbs of Sydney.

Halfway Across Australia Sign

Halfway Across Australia Sign

www.kimba.sa.gov.au

Get on it, peeps. The WCNS Pirate Bears RLFC are coming...

View attachment 71583

I'm guessing you are being facetious but you can never be sure on the expansion forum...

 

[Nuke]

I'm guessing you are being facetious but you can never be sure on the expansion forum...

Nothing could be more serious than a bear wearing a cute little bandana and gold earring.

But yes, of course I was being facetious.

But seriously, get on board the Pirate Bears.
Setting sail to GGRRRRow the NRL soon.

 

[The Great Dane]

The Bears would own the licence.
The licence would be there's to control off a successful business case, That would include the location.

Moving the side would be breach of the licence and NRL would take it back to give to another bidder in this case Perth

This really isn't that difficult to understand...

Revoking a licence doesn't mean the NRL gets to take over that club. It simply means that they revoke that club's right to participate in the league. That means that if the NRL were to ever revoke a club's license that they'd need to replace that club fully in time for the next season. Failing to do so would mean that they'd be in breach of most of their contractual agreements, and that they'd be completely f**ked with lawsuits raining down on them from every direction.

That means that any new "bidder", or the NRL themselves, could have as little as the time between late October and the trials in February to effectively create a new club in Perth from the ground up. Maybe a little more time than that if they were lucky and we're being generous, but roughly 6 months at most.

Not only would that be setting the new club up for failure, but that's not to mention the fact that revoking a license in such a manner would be a PR nightmare, and would inevitably land them in a lengthy court battle.

By rights they should win that court battle, but in honesty god knows what would happen if it ended up in the courts. You could end up with another Souths situation, where a rogue judge mandates that they be allowed back into the league only for the inevitable to happen and that ruling be overturned at a later date, at which point the NRL would end up in the unenviable position of being forced to decide whether to kick the Bears out for a third time or accept a team they don't want into the league permanently, which would be another massive PR nightmare in of it's self.

And that doesn't even address the battle in the court of public opinion, where the NRL, and probably Perth by extension, would inevitably be painted as the bad guys by voices sympathetic to the Bears in the media in Sydney. I can just imagine the headlines in the Daily Telegraph.

So tell me, considering all that what do you think would be the more likely outcome if a "Perth Bears" side was to up their amount of home game at NSO from e.g. 2 to 3?

A. That the NRL revokes their license and goes through the inevitable PR disaster above.

B. That the NRL lets it slip to avoid said PR disaster, just as they let the Dragons playing more games at Kogarah slip to avoid that PR disaster, and sooner or later 3 home games at NSO becomes more or all.

If we're being honest we both know what the answer is...

Here's the crazy thing as well; there's an option C. that totally avoids all those potential pitfalls. Simply don't give the Bears the license in the first place.

 

[Wb1234]

This really isn't that difficult to understand...

Revoking a licence doesn't mean the NRL gets to take over that club. It simply means that they revoke that club's right to participate in the league. That means that if the NRL were to ever revoke a club's license that they'd need to replace that club fully in time for the next season. Failing to do so would mean that they'd be in breach of most of their contractual agreements, and that they'd be completely f**ked with lawsuits raining down on them from every direction.

That means that any new "bidder", or the NRL themselves, could have as little as the time between late October and the trials in February to effectively create a new club in Perth from the ground up. Maybe a little more time than that if they were lucky and we're being generous, but roughly 6 months at most.

Not only would that be setting the new club up for failure, but that's not to mention the fact that revoking a license in such a manner would be a PR nightmare, and would inevitably land them in a lengthy court battle.

By rights they should win that court battle, but in honesty god knows what would happen if it ended up in the courts. You could end up with another Souths situation, where a rogue judge mandates that they be allowed back into the league only for the inevitable to happen and that ruling be overturned at a later date, at which point the NRL would end up in the unenviable position of being forced to decide whether to kick the Bears out for a third time or accept a team they don't want into the league permanently, which would be another massive PR nightmare in of it's self.

And that doesn't even address the battle in the court of public opinion, where the NRL, and probably Perth by extension, would inevitably be painted as the bad guys by voices sympathetic to the Bears in the media in Sydney. I can just imagine the headlines in the Daily Telegraph.

So tell me, considering all that what do you think would be the more likely outcome if a "Perth Bears" side was to up their amount of home game at NSO from e.g. 2 to 3?

A. That the NRL revokes their license and goes through the inevitable PR disaster above.

B. That the NRL lets it slip to avoid said PR disaster, just as they let the Dragons playing more games at Kogarah slip to avoid that PR disaster, and sooner or later 3 home games at NSO becomes more or all.

If we're being honest we both know what the answer is...

Here's the thing crazy thing as well. There's an option C. that totally avoids all those potential pitfalls; simply don't give the Bears the license in the first place.

So how did they manage it when the knights and titans went bust

 

[greenBV4]

So how did they manage it when the knights and titans went bust

How are you incapble of seeing that is a completely different scenario

 

[Wb1234]

How are you incapble of seeing that is a completely different scenario

Did you read his post ?

 

[greenBV4]

Did you read his post ?

One is a club that's gone bust

The other is a club wanting to take games away from an expansion market

 

[The Great Dane]

So how did they manage it when the knights and titans went bust

Again, this really isn't that difficult to understand...

They didn't revoke either the Knights or Titans licenses. The Knights and Titans went bankrupt and handed ownership of their clubs to the NRL to stop them from folding.

 

[Perth Red]

Again:
it would be a long and painful orchestrated white anting of perth supported by a sydney nostalgic media, leading to a call for more games at NSO as they make more commercial sense, followed by an eventual call to move to CC with 5 games or so at NSO as the only way the club can survive.

Its not like we dont have a precedent, When SL hit and the Reds ownership passed from locally to News ltd the support for the club dropped off a cliff. WA fans and sponsors wont support a Sydney club in Perth as their own. They wont have to move, they'll be laughed out of town.

 

[Wb1234]

One is a club that's gone bust

The other is a club wanting to take games away from an expansion market

No he said if Perths license got revoked the arlc would have a few months to get another Perth team up from scratch

 

[Wb1234]

Again, this really isn't that difficult to understand...

They didn't revoke either the Knights or Titans licenses. The Knights and Titans went bankrupt and handed ownership of their clubs to the NRL to stop them from folding.

Please continue this fantasy it’s amusing

10 out of 10 for creativity

 

[Wb1234]

Again:
it would be a long and painful orchestrated white anting of perth supported by a sydney nostalgic media, leading to a call for more games at NSO as they make more commercial sense, followed by an eventual call to move to CC with 5 games or so at NSO as the only way the club can survive.

Wow Billy Moore is going to plan this over 20 years

guys a genius

 

[greenBV4]

No he said if Perths license got revoked the arlc would have a few months to get another Perth team up from scratch

Yes

Not what happened to the titans or knights

 

[Wb1234]

Yes

Not what happened to the titans or knights

if the club gets its license revoked it signs up all the old players and does a rebadge

and that’s even assuming the nrl don’t retain rights to the ip in the event the club breaches it’s license conditions

 

[The Great Dane]

Please continue this fantasy it’s amusing

10 out of 10 for creativity

The only one making up fantasies is you.

 

[Perth Red]

Wow Billy Moore is going to plan this over 20 years

guys a genius

I sure the long term plan is already in place, I doubt Billy had much to do with it lol.