AlwaysGreen
Immortal
- Messages
- 49,925
Cummins cumins Cummmmins kummins karma chameleon
sorry Fangs, but fụk cricketWhich is why we must respect the surname.
Cumin, Cum, Cummins, Cummings, Comeing, Come in. Only one carries the respect of a nation.
Imagine spelling Benaud with an O on the end. Another wonderful Penrith boy.
He cums and goes, he Cumms and goooooeessCummins cumins Cummmmins kummins karma chameleon
He won't be coming back from this.He cums and goes, he Cumms and goooooeess
To be fair though alot of Cashies customers are repeat clients. They Work, get money, buy dope and gamble using all their money, pawn items for money to buy more dope and gamble some more, work, get money, buy pawned items back and buy dope and gamble using all money, pawn items for money, buy more dope and gamble some more repeat repeat repeat.He won't be coming back from this.
Having a bank guarantee (line of credit) is different to paying a licence fee though. From what I understand (anecdotally based on this forum) Norths have just as much gambling money behind them.I do not believe so, or if they did it was much lower. That's because the Dolphins NRL team's finances were being guaranteed by the Redcliffe Dolphins Leagues Club, which is a financial powerhouse.
Having a bank guarantee (line of credit) is different to paying a licence fee though. From what I understand (anecdotally based on this forum) Norths have just as much gambling money behind them.
Its a bit bizarre that the NRL (according to the press) have told Norths, they are sweet and are guaranteed re-entry in any form, but turned around to this WA consortium and said "No go, you are too cash poor". Why isn't Norths on the hook for the fee (or at least part of it) also?
Thank fūk4 thatHe won't be coming back from this.
If the leaked logo was anything to go by they hardly even wanted the brand and IP.Because WA Consortium wanted full control and rejected Norths money and Bears investors. All they wanted was the brand and IP.
From what I understand, the NS pathways, heritage and branding (I.P) is all that they are looking at providing, if they wanted to go alone they would have done it in Adelaide or somewhere else by now, maybe they are Cummin around to the idea that can do it without the cash convertHaving a bank guarantee (line of credit) is different to paying a licence fee though. From what I understand (anecdotally based on this forum) Norths have just as much gambling money behind them.
Its a bit bizarre that the NRL (according to the press) have told Norths, they are sweet and are guaranteed re-entry in any form, but turned around to this WA consortium and said "No go, you are too cash poor". Why isn't Norths on the hook for the fee (or at least part of it) also?
Because WA Consortium wanted full control and rejected Norths money and Bears investors. All they wanted was the brand and IP.
Maybe you've hit the nail on the head there....Tbf to Cummmmmmmmmmmins and co, if I was saddled with the bears I'd be asking the NRL to pay me a $30mill fee.
He didn’t have the moneyMaybe you've hit the nail on the head there....
From WA cash converts view, it's the NRL who's demanding all these extra side add ons to the bid, the bears, the nso game, the seat on board, why should they be paying some licence fee, when all these extras are shlepped upon them
sorry Fangs, but fụk cricket
I'm Zimbabwean, ....as if I careYour Australian citizenship has just been revoked.
This is likely all just a classic Vlandys "negotiate in the media" play (which is all very unbecoming of our great game), and will likely be resolved shortly.
But I think a good outcome is a wholly owned NRL/WA Govt (with no Norths involvement) or joint NRL/Norths/WA Govt team.
Told them they couldn't go with Singo too. If money is an issue.......Maybe you've hit the nail on the head there....
From WA cash converts view, it's the NRL who's demanding all these extra side add ons to the bid, the bears, the nso game, the seat on board, why should they be paying some licence fee, when all these extras are shlepped upon them