WA BEARS

[Colk]

I thought it was Illawarra and Newcastle who were asked first not CC, and then newy knocked it back for canberra to enter

That’s my recollection as well

 

[Wb1234]

A lot of regional sides had the same debate. Newcastle did in 1988

Brisbane too.

then when they added teams they didn’t add the strong local club and set up new entries

if Newcastle wests has been admitted from the start the club would’ve been far stronger

and Brisbane they should’ve just given it to easts

the crl qrl all wanted to protect their own little interests

the boss of the qrl was against the nrl giving Brisbane another side when the dolphins came in

 

[Colk]

Brisbane too.

then when they added teams they didn’t add the strong local club and set up new entries

if Newcastle wests has been admitted from the start the club would’ve been far stronger

and Brisbane they should’ve just given it to easts

the crl qrl all wanted to protect their own little interests

the boss of the qrl was against the nrl giving Brisbane another side when the dolphins came in

This is the argument in many ways against the NSWRL and QRL. They are more interested in maintaining their little fiefdoms.

 

[Wb1234]

This is the argument in many ways against the NSWRL and QRL. They are more interested in maintaining their little fiefdoms.

Yep they should be punted into the sun

waste of money

 

[The Great Dane]

Canberra Raiders fans should actually thank the Central Coast for even having a team

Why, because the CC (i.e. Gosford) turned down a license because they knew they'd go broke well before they made it to the next millennium?

You flatter yourself by overstating the CC's impact on the Raiders history (Canberra would have got a license before 1990 with or without the CC taking a license), and you and I both know that the CC and Illawarra were only offered licenses because most of the establishment in Sydney at the time were scared of the impact that potential teams from stronger markets would have on their clubs competitiveness. In other words they tried to handpick weaker opposition, just like News handpicked Redcliffe.

Those fears came to fruition as well, as while Illawarra were broke strugglers for basically all of their existence, Canberra (and later the Broncos) went from strength to strength. Until the establishment tried to handicap them as much as possible in the early 90s, which partially set the stage for SL, but this is an aside.

In other words the CC and Illawarra were only in the discussion because of politics and circumstance, and by rights Newcastle and probably Campbelltown/south west Sydney should have been next in line for the licenses. Of Course Newcastle made it clear at the time that they weren't interested, and the NSWRL wanted to keep Campbelltown as a backup plan for a Sydney club to relocate to, but again I digress.

 

[The Great Dane]

Brisbane too.

then when they added teams they didn’t add the strong local club and set up new entries

if Newcastle wests has been admitted from the start the club would’ve been far stronger

and Brisbane they should’ve just given it to easts

the crl qrl all wanted to protect their own little interests

the boss of the qrl was against the nrl giving Brisbane another side when the dolphins came in

That would have split the market.

Sure in Brisbane's case their were plans to add a second team (and possibly more) as soon as feasible, and if Easts got the license (which is a big if) they would have been forced to rebrand like the Queanbeyan Blues, which would have mitigated the damage. But in Newcastle's case the 'Newcastle Rosellas' would have been a disaster, that would have taken years to play out before they built widespread support across the city.

BTW, the NSWRL and Sydney clubs were protecting their interests just as much as anybody else. They were only going national because they needed too, and their growth at the time was more cannibalisation than an altruistic goal to spread the game.

 

[The Great Dane]

Yep they should be punted into the sun

waste of money

I don't necessarily disagree, in fact I strongly sympathise with the sentiment, however getting rid of the NSWRL, QRL, etc, could seriously backfire considering how V'landys and the current administration treats the lower tiers and anything and anyone that is not directly connected to the NRL clubs.

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for because I wouldn't trust V'landys and Abdo to handle such a transition well.

 

[Wb1234]

That would have split the market.

Sure in Brisbane's case their were plans to add a second team (and possibly more) as soon as feasible, and if Easts got the license (which is a big if) they would have been forced to rebrand like the Queanbeyan Blues, which would have mitigated the damage. But in Newcastle's case the 'Newcastle Rosellas' would have been a disaster, that would have taken years to play out before they built widespread support across the city.

BTW, the NSWRL and Sydney clubs were protecting their interests just as much as anybody else. They were only going national because they needed too, and their growth at the time was more cannibalisation than an altruistic goal to spread the game.

Lmao yeh the nswrl and arl expanded to help the Sydney clubs

this is an epic take

 

[Wb1234]

I don't necessarily disagree, in fact I strongly sympathise with the sentiment, however getting rid of the NSWRL, QRL, etc, could seriously backfire considering how V'landys and the current administration treats the lower tiers and anything and anyone that is not directly connected to the NRL clubs.

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for because I wouldn't trust V'landys and Abdo to handle such a transition well.

I trust the arlc more than I trust the state bodies to run it for the betterment of rugby league.

imagine all the money that’s wasted having these dinosaurs running things.

 

[Canard]

Brisbane too.

then when they added teams they didn’t add the strong local club and set up new entries

if Newcastle wests has been admitted from the start the club would’ve been far stronger

and Brisbane they should’ve just given it to easts

the crl qrl all wanted to protect their own little interests

the boss of the qrl was against the nrl giving Brisbane another side when the dolphins came in

What is this recent obsession with Brisbane Easts on this forum?

The Tigers were not a powerhouse club of the BRL in the Eighties.

 

[Wb1234]

What is this recent obsession with Brisbane Easts on this forum?

The Tigers were not a powerhouse club of the BRL in the Eighties.

Leagues club
Pretty sure they own their own ground
Central location means they already were a true city team

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Leagues club
Pretty sure they own their own ground
Central location means they already were a true city team

They didn't have pokies back then.

Wynnum Manly were the premier BRL club in the 80s and they almost bankrupted themselves in the process.

Easts Tigers lease the ground that Langlands Park is built on.

Logan City Scorpions signed a 15 year lease with the Logan City Council in 1988 that bankrupted the club into extinction by 2002.

 

[Pippen94]

Odsal was great in winter, not lol. Because it was a big hole in ground you’d be at the carpark and it’d be clear then you’d descend down the stand and by time half way down you’d be in fog lol.

Wait, surbuban

Why, because the CC (i.e. Gosford) turned down a license because they knew they'd go broke well before they made it to the next millennium?

You flatter yourself by overstating the CC's impact on the Raiders history (Canberra would have got a license before 1990 with or without the CC taking a license), and you and I both know that the CC and Illawarra were only offered licenses because most of the establishment in Sydney at the time were scared of the impact that potential teams from stronger markets would have on their clubs competitiveness. In other words they tried to handpick weaker opposition, just like News handpicked Redcliffe.

Those fears came to fruition as well, as while Illawarra were broke strugglers for basically all of their existence, Canberra (and later the Broncos) went from strength to strength. Until the establishment tried to handicap them as much as possible in the early 90s, which partially set the stage for SL, but this is an aside.

In other words the CC and Illawarra were only in the discussion because of politics and circumstance, and by rights Newcastle and probably Campbelltown/south west Sydney should have been next in line for the licenses. Of Course Newcastle made it clear at the time that they weren't interested, and the NSWRL wanted to keep Campbelltown as a backup plan for a Sydney club to relocate to, but again I digress.

There was talk of teams relocating to gosford & the gong as far back as 1979

 

[Pippen94]

Canberra Raiders fans should actually thank the Central Coast for even having a team

North Sydney / central coast would be more valuable to league

 

[MugaB]

Bear-ly begun: WA Bears long way off, says North Sydney boss

North Sydney Bears are open to the radical idea of an alliance with a WA franchise for an NRL expansion side - but say they are determined to go it alone.

thewest.com.au

Anyone got access?

 

[flippikat]

Bear-ly begun: WA Bears long way off, says North Sydney boss

North Sydney Bears are open to the radical idea of an alliance with a WA franchise for an NRL expansion side - but say they are determined to go it alone.

thewest.com.au

Anyone got access?

North Sydney Bears’ WA hopes alive but club pushing for standalone NRL team​

Nick TaylorThe West Australian
Fri, 10 June 2022 6:33PM

North Sydney Bears are open to the radical idea of an alliance with a WA franchise for an NRL expansion side - but say they are determined to go it alone.

The NRL has touted the cross country-plan that would keep one of the game’s oldest clubs alive and open up a new market with home games played at Perth’s HBF Park and North Sydney Oval.

Bears chief executive Gareth Holmes told The West Australian they were happy to talk but said: “At the end of the day, if we are able to do it, we’ll go it alone.

“We are going to work really hard to put ourselves in that position.”

NRL supremo Peter V’Landys, who said three years ago that he would not waste money on “rusted-on AFL states,” said any new franchise would have to prove it could survive.

He told 2GB on Friday that bringing State of Origin II to Optus Stadium later this month was a chance for WA to push its case.

“A lot of people want the 18th team coming out of Perth. This is Perth’s chance to show they like rugby league,” V’Landys said.

“But it’s got to prove itself.

“It’s got to bring new fans, it’s got to bring in new revenues, it’s got to have a strong business case.

“We have to sell the 18th team to the broadcasters. They have to see that they are going to get revenues out of them.”

Holmes said the Bears made it clear they want to be the 18th team after the Dolphins were selected to come into the competition next year.

“What that looks like... if that means it’s with Perth, that is something we’ll look at if that times comes.

“We are not closed off to other opportunities.

“If Perth is one of them then we are happy to entertain that if it that helps our cause.

“But we are mindful of our own priorities, we have a strong brand and it would be an ownership model from our end.

“Perth is only a conversation at the moment.”

Bears and NRL hierarchy had talks with WA Sports minister WA David Templeman and Venueswest chief operating officer Peter Bauchop when they were invited by the NRL to Brisbane for last month’s Magic Round.

It is understood the government will bid to bring the weekend of league to Optus Stadium.

Holmes denied Eastern States reports that the plan is being led by the WA Government and the Bears.

“The NRL have said it’s worth a conversation with no real agenda behind that,” he said.

“It was the NRL that planted that seed.”

 

[flippikat]

The key take-outs seem to be the "NRL as matchmaker" thing, that Norths say the NRL is leading the two parties to talk to each other (despite their *extremely clear* preference to go it alone).. and that V'Landys is putting the ball in the WA court... quotes from him in the article:

--

“A lot of people want the 18th team coming out of Perth. This is Perth’s chance to show they like rugby league,” V’Landys said.

“But it’s got to prove itself.

“It’s got to bring new fans, it’s got to bring in new revenues, it’s got to have a strong business case.

“We have to sell the 18th team to the broadcasters. They have to see that they are going to get revenues out of them.”

--

But hang on, hasn't Perth ALREADY shown good turnout for games, and decent interest in the NRL?

What more can they do in the time we have before decision is made on team 18 ??

 

[Colk]

The key take-outs seem to be the "NRL as matchmaker" thing, that Norths say the NRL is leading the two parties to talk to each other (despite their *extremely clear* preference to go it alone).. and that V'Landys is putting the ball in the WA court... quotes from him in the article:

--

“A lot of people want the 18th team coming out of Perth. This is Perth’s chance to show they like rugby league,” V’Landys said.

“But it’s got to prove itself.

“It’s got to bring new fans, it’s got to bring in new revenues, it’s got to have a strong business case.

“We have to sell the 18th team to the broadcasters. They have to see that they are going to get revenues out of them.”

--

But hang on, hasn't Perth ALREADY shown good turnout for games, and decent interest in the NRL?

What more can they do in the time we have before decision is made on team 18 ??

Analysis

1. The Bears are clearly deluded, although imI already knew that. There can be no more NSW sides and they need to be told this forcefully. Where’s Nathan Brown when you need him?
2. The ARLC might want a Perth side or at least are open to it (positive - they are definitely toning down their talk about them) but are still conservative enough that they don’t think it can be done without a relocation (negative)
3. I agree what more do they need to do?

 

[flippikat]

My thoughts on V'Landys comments are that it could be one of two scenarios.

The conservative V'Landys scenario:

Basically, what you see is what it is. He's conservative, NSW-centric, and means what he says because he severely doubts that the reward from WA is worth the risk. He'll make NRLWA bend over backwards to state their case, as his preference is clearly to add a heartland team as #18.. and IF Perth make the cut, they'll have to wear the Bears as a brand, as a sop to traditionalists - with some pretty onerous joint venture conditions that hamstring their true potential.

OR

The "chessmaster" (aka "Hidden Progressive") V'Landys scenario:

In this scenario, V’landys is acting and talking as a conservative in public (interviews, press releases, speeches), to give the impression he's "Heartland first", BUT he knows that the game needs expansion - and promptly. He knows rationalization of Sydney will just make enemies (hence the Sharks bailout early in his tenure), so he's a pragmatist in that regard.. BUT if he can get Perth & NZ 2 bids up to an irresistible standard, maybe he can move the dial for those NSWRL & Qld tragics to accept that Perth AND NZ 2 are the future, and not the Central Coast or Central Qld or a 3rd Brisbane team.
In short, is he being tough to whip Perth into an irresistible proposition for OTHERS to see that?

I'm leaning towards the first scenario (Occam's Razor, and all that..), BUT I can't discount the 2nd scenario to a degree... maybe he's coming round to Perth, but realises they need to do more work to impress others (not necessarily him)?

 

[Colk]

My thoughts on V'Landys comments are that it could be one of two scenarios.

The conservative V'Landys scenario:

Basically, what you see is what it is. He's conservative, NSW-centric, and means what he says because he severely doubts that the reward from WA is worth the risk. He'll make NRLWA bend over backwards to state their case, as his preference is clearly to add a heartland team as #18.. and IF Perth make the cut, they'll have to wear the Bears as a brand, as a sop to traditionalists - with some pretty onerous joint venture conditions that hamstring their true potential.

OR

The "chessmaster" (aka "Hidden Progressive") V'Landys scenario:

In this scenario, V’landys is acting and talking as a conservative in public (interviews, press releases, speeches), to give the impression he's "Heartland first", BUT he knows that the game needs expansion - and promptly. He knows rationalization of Sydney will just make enemies (hence the Sharks bailout early in his tenure), so he's a pragmatist in that regard.. BUT if he can get Perth & NZ 2 bids up to an irresistible standard, maybe he can move the dial for those NSWRL & Qld tragics to accept that Perth AND NZ 2 are the future, and not the Central Coast or Central Qld or a 3rd Brisbane team.
In short, is he being tough to whip Perth into an irresistible proposition for OTHERS to see that?

I'm leaning towards the first scenario (Occam's Razor, and all that..), BUT I can't discount the 2nd scenario to a degree... maybe he's coming round to Perth, but realises they need to do more work to impress others (not necessarily him)?

Good summation.

I probably agree with you in that it is more likely the former than the latter, Occam’s Razor based on his previous statements and actions et al but there is a slight change of tone in so much that he recognises that there is a lot of support for it.

One thing about V’Landys that I have noticed is he is quite malleable. There is a fair bit of the politician in him (although he is better at it than most politicians in regards to this sense) in so far as he can shift his opinion based on what the base want.