WA BEARS

[Perth Red]

You are such a punish

What pvl wants the money to be spent on might be different but getting the govt to pay ongoing costs is copied from Tasmania

The article literally quotes pvl who uses Tasmania as an example

vlad never mentions Tasmania lol, that was the journos take on where this latest brain fart Has come from.
Is it the wa govts job to do twelve times what the nrl is doing in grassroots in WA? They seem to be thinking not.

And in regards to an nrl team that has little bearing on its financial viability. Spending $12mill a year on wa grassroots doesn’t make the nrl club more financially secure!

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Here come the tag team peanuts who hate afl

Talking about afl again.

 

[Wb1234]

vlad never mentions Tasmania lol, that was the journos take on where this latest brain fart Has come from.
Is it the wa govts job to do twelve times what the nrl is doing in grassroots in WA? They seem to be thinking not.

And in regards to an nrl team that has little bearing on its financial viability. Spending $12mill a year on wa grassroots doesn’t make the nrl club more financially secure!

Stop shifting goal posts

The 12 million is for grassroots not to make the club financially secure

And it was a quote from pvl about tassie

 

[The_Wookie]

vlad never mentions Tasmania lol, that was the journos take on where this latest brain fart Has come from.

Its a quote dude.

“We don’t plan to own any new franchise,” he said.

“Any new organisation will be a club governed by members and in the first couple of years, we (the ARLC) will appoint the board, not the members.

“Once the club is established, the members will appoint the board, so a Perth club will always be owned by the members.

“With the AFL, they will run the Tasmanian team … the NRL will not be owning any licence.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-expansion-latest-as-arlc-chair-peter-vlandys-slams-perth-speculation/news-story/b6331ddb3777df55d37b7206aa681acf

(this article was updated early this morning)

 

[Matt_CBY]

You know nothing about me.

I know you’re not as smart as you think you are. I know you’re turning into a whinging prick.

Have you decided yet whether the branding report is worth the paper it's written?

Don't derail the thread.

As you dismissed it when it didn't suit you and then quoted it when it did.

I did not. I dismissed it when the parameters were hidden from the public. But again, don’t detail this thread. Go back to that other thread if you want to discuss that.

 

[MugaB]

They won 2 comps in just under 90 years, and both of those in the early 1920s. So about as successful as a tissue paper diving suit.

And in 1999 their last year they finished 14th. Out of 17. So bottom 4.

I await your usual pic, you're getting more like your mate Tiktok everyday with his laughing emoji.

Yes pick out one year, do a little dance, make a little love, dig up some BS

Over a century in top grade, and you managed to highlight one slim year... the dotted line is the average, yes they weren't world beaters, but they aren't bottom 4 material

 

[Matt_CBY]

That’s the point of the bears partnership isn’t it?

Omg he doesn’t understand any of it.

 

[MugaB]

Here come the tag team peanuts who hate afl

Talking about afl again.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

What V'landys is doing is fine in that he wants to ensure that any expansion has a solid foundation. Whether he's going the right way about it is another story.

Let's hope the bears get up because a WA team has been a lot time coming.


As an added bonus the 8 men and a dog that constitutes the bears fan base can dance around the fig tree once a year.

 

[Wb1234]

Yes pick out one year, do a little dance, make a little love, dig up some BS
View attachment 96098
Over a century in top grade, and you managed to highlight one slim year... the dotted line is the average, yes they weren't world beaters, but they aren't bottom 4 material

Pretty sure it was 91 there was a prelim v Penrith which the bears narrowly lost because halligan missed a few

Penrith went on to be premiers that’s how close the bears were

 

[Iamback]

How does forcing them into a relationship with the Bears, a team that won f**k all while it existed, help keep it out of the bottom 4?

How does taking $20m off them to give to other clubs help them financially?

There is nothing smart about either of those 2 things.

Where did I say it kept them out of the bottom 4?

Until Perth, PNG and NZ 2 can develop and elite spine they will join the Tigers in the bottom 4.

Partnering with the Bears means they can attract NSW based schoolboys. They are in the Perth System but can finish school with their mates.

This increases their player pool and improves the chances they can develop and elite team.

All about getting the team developed.

As for the franchise fee, You realise clubs get their grant as their share of the revenue?

Perth comes in shares in that revenue yet hasn't contributed to it, You don't think the other partners will have an issue with that?

Using current figures for the NRL grant. $15m a year. Means during the 1st broadcast period is in the side gets $75m as a share of the revenue...

Where does the side sit if they pay a zero franchise fee and gets no grant until the next broadcast deal?

 

[Trifili13]

Honestly if Perth were a standalone bid without the bears they would stilll succeed eventually like dogs panthers sharks etc who struggled for decades before getting there

Joining with the bears lessens that time plus gives them juniors and members / cash from Sydney

That already would’ve been a strong bid

What pvl is doing now is the cherry on top

Agree with your last comment. It's PVL/NRL trying to screw as much money from government as they can. To argue that the 12m pa is for grassroots, why have the Bears then? Aren't the Bears bringing established pathways? Surely just having a team in Perth would attract locals to take up the sport that otherwise wouldn't if there was no local team, in addition to what budget is being allocated to grassroots in WA.

I would suggest the TV stations also see Perth as a good option for them as surely they would have told the NRL forget about it and get another team in QLD or NZ by now as that's where the ratings and advertising dollars are. After all, the broadcasters pay the most money.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Yes pick out one year, do a little dance, make a little love, dig up some BS
View attachment 96098
Over a century in top grade, and you managed to highlight one slim year... the dotted line is the average, yes they weren't world beaters, but they aren't bottom 4 material

Um, nice graph. You do know in the early years and into the 80s there were 12 teams or less. So if you finish 9th in 1968 for example you're bottom 4.

Peanuts get your Peanuts.

 

[The_Wookie]

Not sure how you don't see it being the same...
Both states want a licence from those respective sports, AFL got their wishes, by bullying tactics, but if PVL does it, bad bad bad..

Everything people accuse the AFL of being bullies for in regard to Tasmania...was irst proposed by Tasmania, whether in its feasibility study, the gemba report, or the taskforce report.

In Tasmanias case, they are literally trying to con the AFL into putting an unprofitable team in Tasmania by subsidising the cost of the actuaal team after being knocked back constantly for 40 years.

WA are somewhat less desperate. While third parties have tried to get bids off the ground since 2012, the Government really only got involved 4 years ago to support third party bids (AFL Tasmania is a Government bid), that may have changed recently.

 

[MugaB]

Where did I say it kept them out of the bottom 4?

Until Perth, PNG and NZ 2 can develop and elite spine they will join the Tigers in the bottom 4.

Partnering with the Bears means they can attract NSW based schoolboys. They are in the Perth System but can finish school with their mates.

This increases their player pool and improves the chances they can develop and elite team.

All about getting the team developed.

As for the franchise fee, You realise clubs get their grant as their share of the revenue?

Perth comes in shares in that revenue yet hasn't contributed to it, You don't think the other partners will have an issue with that?

Using current figures for the NRL grant. $15m a year. Means during the 1st broadcast period is in the side gets $75m as a share of the revenue...

Where does the side sit if they pay a zero franchise fee and gets no grant until the next broadcast deal?

Who cares lamback, we want to give Perth a free ride, but giving on to a 3rd world png is fkd, we can't have that

 

[Wb1234]

Everything people accuse the AFL of being bullies for in regard to Tasmania...was irst proposed by Tasmania, whether in its feasibility study, the gemba report, or the taskforce report.

In Tasmanias case, they are literally trying to con the AFL into putting an unprofitable team in Tasmania by subsidising the cost of the actuaal team after being knocked back constantly for 40 years.

WA are somewhat less desperate. While third parties have tried to get bids off the ground since 2012, the Government really only got involved 4 years ago to support third party bids (AFL Tasmania is a Government bid), that may have changed recently.

Afl been happy for Tasmanian taxpayer to pay millions for hawks and north Melbourne to play games there

Finances of tassie are good then lol

 

[MugaB]

Um, nice graph. You do know in the early years and into the 80s there were 12 teams or less. So if you finish 8th in 1968 for example you're bottom 4.

Peanuts get your Peanuts.

Look at the graph again. The grey parts are the amount of teams dipshit

 

[mave]

Well this is the first time I've ever seen someone try and argue the Bears were even a remotely successful club.

 

[Wb1234]

Look at the graph again. The grey parts are the amount of teams dipshit

Should do the same graph with the raiders side by side

That would shut him up

 

[MugaB]

Should do the same graph with the raiders side by side

That would shut him up

Everyone loves the raiders, and I was joking the bears are a bottom 4 team... but that's besides the point, point is they had their spikes of success, just like the sharks of now