WA BEARS

[MugaB]

Well, my first thought was for them to play a trial somewhere else in WA.. but from a casual glance at the population spread there, there doesn't seem to be any centres of reasonable size outside Perth to take a game to - so why not Adelaide or Tasmania?

Trials aren't meant to draw in populations, its to meant to showcase the teams as a "trial"
Taking a trial match to areas that wouldn't usually be able to hold a standard NRL match, a great example was the bega match between parra and penrith, or the PNG games that sharks, dogs and bronx had taken years back, theres also the classic rabbits v dragons out in mudgee, having a Bears v Manly at NSO trial every year would be a great way to acknowledge the past,
But more importantly it would only be that game, perth needs to be home base all games there or atleast 10 minimum, none of this 6 games in (nso)sydney, they'd already get that with the away games anyways

 

[The Great Dane]

As cynical as it may sound, I wonder if this means his employer are now lining up "Perth Bears" as THEIR preferred 18th team.

Nah, News recycles this story almost annually.

GC Bears, Brisbane Bears, etc, it never goes anywhere and neither will the Perth Bears.

 

[The Great Dane]

your telling me Bears V Sea Eagles at North Sydney Oval is a no?
...... that would be one of the greatest games of the season, I'd go to that and I don't follow either club.

Absolutely a no.

If you are going to move to Perth then surely the goal is to appeal to the Perth market, playing games at NSO to appeal to old men in Sydney actively works against that goal.

 

[The Great Dane]

OK. Who are you negotiating with in ur mind?!

I'm not negotiating with anyone...

The Bears will have to if they want to move to Perth though. They have to negotiate with local RL establishment, the local government, their landlords, etc, etc, and each of those stakeholders should tell them to f**k off as soon as they start talking about playing any games in Sydney.

 

[jim_57]

If the Bears were to move to Perth they could play up to 9 games a year in Sydney… Away games. No reason they couldn’t sell Sydney memberships for those away games like other clubs do. Home games at NSO? Hard no.

 

[Pippen94]

I'm not negotiating with anyone...

The Bears will have to if they want to move to Perth though. They have to negotiate with local RL establishment, the local government, their landlords, etc, etc, and each of those stakeholders should tell them to f**k off as soon as they start talking about playing any games in Sydney.

Perth has no stroke. Behind Christchurch & PNG right now

 

[Pippen94]

LMAO. You’re demanding evidence from other people yet you continue to sprout absolute rubbish with no evidence provided, essentially based on your feelings.

Go look at crowd figures and you’ll see that Perth and Adelaide’s attendances were higher than some Sydney sides. Factor that in, as well as the nominal growth in WA’s population and economy, then one should be pretty confident that they should get enough support.

Also, do you think the WA government would bother looking at this proposal if there wasn’t a perceived appetite for a side there?

You can't guarantee nothing. All we know that Perth had a team & it went bust.

Brisbane lions made 4 straight grand finals then went bust. Storm & Swans never allowed by respective leagues to have losing seasons - wonder why?! Orange Homebush club playing today in front of 50 ppl despite millions being poured in for a decade.

..but yeah Perth succeeding is a cinch.

 

[Pippen94]

What an amazing comeback. Shouldn’t you be trying to get Glebe and Annandale back

Dump existing NRL fans to create more fans in rusted on afl states. Yeah, that's ribot..

 

[flippikat]

You can't guarantee nothing. All we know that Perth had a team & it went bust.

OK, so the Reds were closed in the aftermath of the Superleague War.. but so were many other clubs that could have been pretty valuable to a NRL growth strategy.. and at least one (the Chargers) was closed despite returning a profit.

You can't look at a current bid through the late 1990s lens of "extreme pruning" that blighted the game in the long term.

 

[Wb1234]

Dump existing NRL fans to create more fans in rusted on afl states. Yeah, that's ribot..

This is an excellent point

that’s not expansion

 

[Wb1234]

OK, so the Reds were closed in the aftermath of the Superleague War.. but so were many other clubs that could have been pretty valuable to a NRL growth strategy.. and at least one (the Chargers) was closed despite returning a profit.

You can't look at a current bid through the late 1990s lens of "extreme pruning" that blighted the game in the long term.

Well tbf the exact same point can be made about Balmain coming back on their own. Or central coast bears

the reds brought about their own demise


there’s a bit of karma to this they don’t have a club.

Perth red calls rugby league in Australia as afraid to expand. The arl did expand to Perth. They had plans to add Melbourne in too

then the broncos decided they wanted to start their own competition so they could basically run the game

not only did they ensure the crushers were killed off, they put a clause that the arlc wereallowed to put a 2nd team in Brisbane until at least 2015

now the arl is in control again little wonder they add brisbane 2 and are looking at nz2 or Perth

if Murdoch had left the game alone I wonder where the game would be today

 

[Colk]

You can't guarantee nothing. All we know that Perth had a team & it went bust.

Brisbane lions made 4 straight grand finals then went bust. Storm & Swans never allowed by respective leagues to have losing seasons - wonder why?! Orange Homebush club playing today in front of 50 ppl despite millions being poured in for a decade.

..but yeah Perth succeeding is a cinch.

Hang on so by your own flawed argument, we shouldn’t be looking at readmitting the Bears (which you constantly go on about) then because guess what - they went bust. Same as Western Suburbs Magpies. Same as Balmain Tigers. Same as Newtown Jets. Same as Glebe. Same as Annandale. Or does going bust only matter when it is not a Sydney team?

To your second point about whether or not Perth would succeed, I agree nothing is guaranteed but it is essentially a risk vs reward decision. If you put in a team in let’s say North Sydney, the risk might be lower but the reward isn’t great. Perth or NZ 2 on the other hand, potentially higher risks but the reward of a completely different market is far greater

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Dumbshit, can't read, or when he does reads negatively on anything regarding sydney, dont waste replying to the twit

You were pushing for the Bears to relocate to Perth for months. Then you started talking down expansion into that market, based on absurd metrics like quality of WA juniors in SG Ball and a lack of a NSW Cup. Don't even deny it as we've all seen your posts. You've been especially negative towards Perth for awhile now.

There were positive posts about this bid on the first page.

hope it works out Pirates is a stupid name, much prefer Reds though... But WA Bears will do me

Agreed. Just get a bloody team there. A mate of mine played 3rd grade there when the reds existed. Said the game really took off. It will again. The infrastructure is there and a competent administration. Country comps will grow there too. It’s a no brainer imho

Great idea. Make it happen

If this eventuates

They should be just called the "Bears" no locality

 

[Colk]

Dump existing NRL fans to create more fans in rusted on afl states. Yeah, that's ribot..

What the hell are you talking about now? Where did I (or anybody else for that matter) talk about dumping sides. Unless you are a time traveller and have come from the 1920’s (which would explain a few things) those teams, I hate to break it to you, are already long gone.

I’ll explain it to you really slowly so even you can understand - we are talking about adding another team.

 

[Colk]

This is an excellent point

that’s not expansion

He is creating an argument in his own mind. Nobody (or indeed not many) have mentioned anything about dumping sides. All we are talking about the merits of this idea

 

[Colk]

Perth has no stroke. Behind Christchurch & PNG right now

PNG? Do you understand the irony of you complaining about wasting money on Perth but then advocating PNG?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Well tbf the exact same point can be made about Balmain coming back on their own. Or central coast bears

the reds brought about their own demise


there’s a bit of karma to this they don’t have a club.

Perth red calls rugby league in Australia as afraid to expand. The arl did expand to Perth. They had plans to add Melbourne in too

then the broncos decided they wanted to start their own competition so they could basically run the game

not only did they ensure the crushers were killed off, they put a clause that the arlc wereallowed to put a 2nd team in Brisbane until at least 2015

now the arl is in control again little wonder they add brisbane 2 and are looking at nz2 or Perth

if Murdoch had left the game alone I wonder where the game would be today

This is some revisionist bullshit.

Reds had no choice but to sign with News Ltd because Arthurson and Quayle made them and the other three expansion clubs fund the accommodation and flight costs for all visiting teams in ARL and reserve grade. It bankrupted all four expansion clubs and made them unviable. For Western Reds it was sign with News Ltd and survive or not be able to see through the 1995 season.

There was a plan in place from the 1970s to rationalise Sydney.

"On May 8 1973, new NSWRL boss Kevil Humpries told the Sydney Morning Herald about his vision for the future of the NSWRL, including a reduction of teams from twelve to six through amalgamation. Kevin also wanted to add teams in Newcastle, Illawarra, Canberra, Wagga and Brisbane.

By the early 1980s, many NSWRL clubs were no longer financially viable. The newly incorporated NSWRL made a decision that clubs would have to meet certain criteria to compete. The league kicked out Western Suburbs and Newtown at the end of 1983. Western Suburbs took the NSWRL to court and were reinstated.

In July 1986, Ken Arthurson proposed a “Super League” to replace the current KB Cup with four or fives from Sydney, two from Brisbane, three Country New South Wales teams, Queensland Country and Auckland.

On April 9 1992, a blueprint for the expansion of Rugby League was tabled by the Premiership Policy Committee of the NSWRL, followed in August by an Organisation Review, by Dr G. Bradley, which was distributed to the premiership clubs. The Bradley Report, as it became known, was central to the ARL replacing the NSWRL as the governing body of the premiership. The report concluded that:

“…to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long-playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term, this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process. In the long term, I believe that the ARL should be looking to reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen, thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney.”​

Expansion, Relocation, The Bradley Report and Haven’t We Been Here Before?

1895 Blog’s latest look at the history of rationalization plans of the NSWRL and the clubs who want to join the NRL

1895blog.wordpress.com

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

He is creating an argument in his own mind. Nobody (or indeed not many) have mentioned anything about dumping sides. All we are talking about the merits of this idea

I've advocated the removal of two or three poorly supported Sydney clubs. I'm yet to see a strong argument for retaining all nine clubs.

 

[Menaiduck]

I've advocated the removal of two or three poorly supported Sydney clubs. I'm yet to see a strong argument for retaining all nine clubs.

You’ve advocated the removal of Sydney clubs unconvincingly and I’m yet to see a strong argument for not having 9 Sydney clubs.

 

[siv]

This is some revisionist bullshit.

Reds had no choice but to sign with News Ltd because Arthurson and Quayle made them and the other three expansion clubs fund the accommodation and flight costs for all visiting teams in ARL and reserve grade. It bankrupted all four expansion clubs and made them unviable. For Western Reds it was sign with News Ltd and survive or not be able to see through the 1995 season.

There was a plan in place from the 1970s to rationalise Sydney.

"On May 8 1973, new NSWRL boss Kevil Humpries told the Sydney Morning Herald about his vision for the future of the NSWRL, including a reduction of teams from twelve to six through amalgamation. Kevin also wanted to add teams in Newcastle, Illawarra, Canberra, Wagga and Brisbane.​

​

By the early 1980s, many NSWRL clubs were no longer financially viable. The newly incorporated NSWRL made a decision that clubs would have to meet certain criteria to compete. The league kicked out Western Suburbs and Newtown at the end of 1983. Western Suburbs took the NSWRL to court and were reinstated.​

​

In July 1986, Ken Arthurson proposed a “Super League” to replace the current KB Cup with four or fives from Sydney, two from Brisbane, three Country New South Wales teams, Queensland Country and Auckland.​

​

On April 9 1992, a blueprint for the expansion of Rugby League was tabled by the Premiership Policy Committee of the NSWRL, followed in August by an Organisation Review, by Dr G. Bradley, which was distributed to the premiership clubs. The Bradley Report, as it became known, was central to the ARL replacing the NSWRL as the governing body of the premiership. The report concluded that:​

​

“…to reduce the number of clubs in Sydney, will be very hard for the League to implement given the long-playing traditions of some of those clubs. In the long term, however, it is likely that Sydney is not going to be able to support eleven clubs as it does at present. Therefore in the long term, this is the only viable solution. Sydney based clubs are going to have to move to new areas, merge or be relegated from the League. This is going to be a painful process. In the long term, I believe that the ARL should be looking to reduce the number of clubs in the National Competition to fourteen, thus allowing clubs to play two complete rounds. This will mean, assuming that only four new clubs are admitted from areas outside Sydney, that there will be only five clubs based in Sydney.”​

Expansion, Relocation, The Bradley Report and Haven’t We Been Here Before?

1895 Blog’s latest look at the history of rationalization plans of the NSWRL and the clubs who want to join the NRL

1895blog.wordpress.com

So where is a copy of this report. All we have is hand me down quotes

You also fail to mention after 1985 Wests court case - they reverted to let clubs die naturally

So the clubs that died naturally rather than as a result of the SL War and the flawed criteria cull - were Gold Coast and Auckland