WA BEARS

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Phil Gould says a lot of dumb shit.

We shouldn't expand because we don't have enough "good halfbacks" is just ridiculous. And that we should contract the current comp by 4 teams?

It's the local pub drunk stuff.

There are arguments for and against expansion and contraction. The Bradley Report recommended a 26 round 14 team competition with Sydney fielding no more than five teams.

NRL could expand to 20 teams, but it will lead to an increase in lopsided games that have a negative effect on television ratings. They could contract the league, but it will create a backlash from fans of clubs who are cut.

The bulk of the game's revenue is provided by the broadcasters, so they will have the final say on how many teams are in the league and when the matches are played.

I'm not convinced that the current model is sustainable. Australia is a market of 26 million people and we are competing with three other codes of football for customers. We dwarf two of those codes, but the other one has a strong share of the market and is growing stronger every year. FTA TV and Foxtel are struggling. Our main competitor is in a better position to survive in a world where FTA and Foxtel are no longer strong enough to pay $400m per annum for the broadcast rights of a sport. If our broadcast revenue takes a hit then a few clubs are in danger of folding.

Looks and sounds like Mike Whitney.

 

[Colk]

There are arguments for and against expansion and contraction. The Bradley Report recommended a 26 round 14 team competition with Sydney fielding no more than five teams.

NRL could expand to 20 teams, but it will lead to an increase in lopsided games that have a negative effect on television ratings. They could contract the league, but it will create a backlash from fans of clubs who are cut.

The bulk of the game's revenue is provided by the broadcasters, so they will have the final say on how many teams are in the league and when the matches are played.

I'm not convinced that the current model is sustainable. Australia is a market of 26 million people and we are competing with three other codes of football for customers. We dwarf two of those codes, but the other one has a strong share of the market and is growing stronger every year. FTA TV and Foxtel are struggling. Our main competitor is in a better position to survive in a world where FTA and Foxtel are no longer strong enough to pay $400m per annum for the broadcast rights of a sport. If our broadcast revenue takes a hit then a few clubs are in danger of folding.


Looks and sounds like Mike Whitney.

I have heard this argument many times before and from the perspective of quality of each individual game played then it has merit, however, essentially from a commercial perspective, wherein money or funds are derived from broadcasters, it is difficult to argue that you are going to gain more from them by selling less content.

Now obviously there is a point wherein supply meets demand and there is a perfect number to be determined; however, I wouldn’t suggest we have reached that point or gone over that point, because the game is still growing and there are markets that you don’t have any presence in.

 

[Perth Red]

You think that’s negative for Perth ? Lmao

Yes in that it’s clear they will not change the brand and want to own the club, two things that would be disastrous for a perth club.

 

[Perth Red]

There are arguments for and against expansion and contraction. The Bradley Report recommended a 26 round 14 team competition with Sydney fielding no more than five teams.

NRL could expand to 20 teams, but it will lead to an increase in lopsided games that have a negative effect on television ratings. They could contract the league, but it will create a backlash from fans of clubs who are cut.

The bulk of the game's revenue is provided by the broadcasters, so they will have the final say on how many teams are in the league and when the matches are played.

I'm not convinced that the current model is sustainable. Australia is a market of 26 million people and we are competing with three other codes of football for customers. We dwarf two of those codes, but the other one has a strong share of the market and is growing stronger every year. FTA TV and Foxtel are struggling. Our main competitor is in a better position to survive in a world where FTA and Foxtel are no longer strong enough to pay $400m per annum for the broadcast rights of a sport. If our broadcast revenue takes a hit then a few clubs are in danger of folding.


Looks and sounds like Mike Whitney.

Times have changed and the bulk of the money comes from content. Who knows into the future if more content equals more dollars or not.

ultimately if the nrl keeps upping the club grant and salary cap then that in itself will limit number of clubs based on revenue. If clubs spent less money, players got less money then the nrl could afford 22 clubs now on the revenue it has.

 

[Wb1234]

Yes in that it’s clear they will not change the brand and want to own the club, two things that would be disastrous for a perth club.

You think they want to be called north Sydney bears whilst they are playing in Perth ? lol

 

[Perth Red]

You think they want to be called north Sydney bears whilst they are playing in Perth ? lol

No, they want to be called THE Bears. As if one dumb arse club in the comp called THE isn’t enough!

 

[The Great Dane]

No, they want to be called THE Bears. As if one dumb arse club in the comp called THE isn’t enough!

I tried to warn you and stop you from getting your hopes up...

What did I say; they'll want at least a 50/50 split or more likely a controlling share, complete control over the brand with no major changes too it, multiple games played at NSO a year and once they get the team they'll try to increase that number, etc, etc, it's all turning out to be true because it was all so predictable.

It's what they always demand in these discussions, and there're strong historical, and frankly understandable, reasons why they think that way.

 

[The Great Dane]

They aren’t stupid they know this is their last real chance.

As a Bears fan they absolutely are that delusional, and they'll face a sizable fan revolt if they do partner with Perth, or anybody else, under reasonable terms.

The best thing the Bears could do would be to focus on creating the best second tier club in the country, with a strong juniors system. Instead they've more or less wasted 20 years on delusions of grandeur and fantasies of a fairy tale second coming where they can ride a wave of success after running out onto NSO oval in the NRL once again with "everybody" behind them.

Many of them, inside the actual club and out, truly believe that they'd be one of the biggest club's in the league if they could just get back in, and as such they truly believe that they and their brand is an invaluable asset and that they don't need to partner with anybody.

 

[The Great Dane]

No, they want to be called THE Bears. As if one dumb arse club in the comp called THE isn’t enough!

It's two dumb arse clubs BTW.

The Warriors are just the Warriors and have been for a while now.

 

[Canard]

There are arguments for and against expansion and contraction. The Bradley Report recommended a 26 round 14 team competition with Sydney fielding no more than five teams.

NRL could expand to 20 teams, but it will lead to an increase in lopsided games that have a negative effect on television ratings. They could contract the league, but it will create a backlash from fans of clubs who are cut.

The bulk of the game's revenue is provided by the broadcasters, so they will have the final say on how many teams are in the league and when the matches are played.

I'm not convinced that the current model is sustainable. Australia is a market of 26 million people and we are competing with three other codes of football for customers. We dwarf two of those codes, but the other one has a strong share of the market and is growing stronger every year. FTA TV and Foxtel are struggling. Our main competitor is in a better position to survive in a world where FTA and Foxtel are no longer strong enough to pay $400m per annum for the broadcast rights of a sport. If our broadcast revenue takes a hit then a few clubs are in danger of folding.


Looks and sounds like Mike Whitney.

There isn't a code in the world that "waits" until all its clubs are on a level playing field before expansion. Mainly because that's an impossible to obtain, and individual teams success is cyclical.

The AFL in the last Decade is clear testament to this, they have added two teams that on field have done very little, and have at least 3 or 4 more that are struggling results wise.

 

[Perth Red]

It's two dumb arse clubs BTW.

The Warriors are just the Warriors and have been for a while now.

I thought they were from the city of vodaphone?

 

[Wb1234]

No, they want to be called THE Bears. As if one dumb arse club in the comp called THE isn’t enough!

They just want the bears name and colours and an ownership share

but you keep throwing a tanty it’s good to see the old you back

 

[Wb1234]

As a Bears fan they absolutely are that delusional, and they'll face a sizable fan revolt if they do partner with Perth, or anybody else, under reasonable terms.

The best thing the Bears could do would be to focus on creating the best second tier club in the country, with a strong juniors system. Instead they've more or less wasted 20 years on delusions of grandeur and fantasies of a fairy tale second coming where they can ride a wave of success after running out onto NSO oval in the NRL once again with "everybody" behind them.

Many of them, inside the actual club and out, truly believe that they'd be one of the biggest club's in the league if they could just get back in, and as such they truly believe that they and their brand is an invaluable asset and that they don't need to partner with anybody.

Well if you want to say you are delusional who am I to argue with you ?

 

[Canard]

They just want the bears name and colours and an ownership share

You say that like its no big deal.

 

[Perth Red]

They just want the bears name and colours and an ownership share

but you keep throwing a tanty it’s good to see the old you back

“we have a strong brand and it would be an ownership model from our end”

dI’d you even read the article and watch the video? Lol

yeh it might be bluster to keep the old brigade happy, and yeh they might concede ownership to the west and some brand changes to make it a perth club, but that’s not what he’s currently saying.
Your appetite to ignore what’s being put out by the bears would suggest you’re very much in favour regardless, which no one is surprised about given how Sydney centric you are.

simply put there are there key factors, the club must be owned by WA people,Nat least 11 games must be in perth and the brand must strongly represent perth or wa. Those are non negotiables imo and would seem are the same for north Sydney so the likelihood of it happening seem pretty slim at this point,

seems Dane was right, which I was hoping he wasnt as I could see some strong beneficial outcomes to a west coast bears.

 

[Wb1234]

“we have a strong brand and it would be an ownership model from our end”

dI’d you even read the article and watch the video? Lol

yeh it might be bluster to keep the old brigade happy, and yeh they might concede ownership to the west and some brand changes to make it a perth club, but that’s not what he’s currently saying.
Your appetite to ignore what’s being put out by the bears would suggest you’re very much in favour regardless, which no one is surprised about given how Sydney centric you are.

simply put there are there key factors, the club must be owned by WA people,Nat least 11 games must be in perth and the brand must strongly represent perth or wa. Those are non negotiables imo and would seem are the same for north Sydney so the likelihood of it happening seem pretty slim at this point,

seems Dane was right, which I was hoping he wasnt as I could see some strong beneficial outcomes to a west coast bears.

Negotiation and placating the die hards

his emphasis on the brand as opposed to the location should tell you what he means

he actually sounded modern and reasonable not the dinosaur I expected

 

[Perth Red]

Unless a bid is totally irresistible in all likelihood our tv masters will largely decide what city the next team is, then nrl will call for bids from that city. That’s when bears will have to decide.
It’s interesting there has been no comment on this from the three potential perth consortium bid leaders.

 

[MugaB]

Unless a bid is totally irresistible in all likelihood our tv masters will largely decide what city the next team is, then nrl will call for bids from that city. That’s when bears will have to decide.
It’s interesting there has been no comment on this from the three potential perth consortium bid leaders.

There's no comment, coz there is no news from either of them, unless you are reading it locally, and we have not seen any of the other perth millionaires say squat... the only time i hear about puddy is when you mentioned him, i dont see any articles regarding any other bids floating.
Im not against any of those bids, i welcome anything coming from that area, but i just know the preference for ARLC will be a club ready to roll, not a complete new franchise..
Which puts the bears in the box seat, and to me as long as they agree to to 10 games minimum in WA, then im not caring to much how they run things from afar or if they are just called "the bears"... should be west coast bears, and have west coast pirates run underneath in reserve grade... but that to me is a no brainer

 

[Perth Red]

There's no comment, coz there is no news from either of them, unless you are reading it locally, and we have not seen any of the other perth millionaires say squat... the only time i hear about puddy is when you mentioned him, i dont see any articles regarding any other bids floating.
Im not against any of those bids, i welcome anything coming from that area, but i just know the preference for ARLC will be a club ready to roll, not a complete new franchise..
Which puts the bears in the box seat, and to me as long as they agree to to 10 games minimum in WA, then im not caring to much how they run things from afar or if they are just called "the bears"... should be west coast bears, and have west coast pirates run underneath in reserve grade... but that to me is a no brainer

Think Oct was last time we heard from Puddy. Cummins was a couple of years ago. Sage last year where it was reported his bid had ruled out any interest in joining with the Bears.
I wonder if media are asking them for comments now? probably not knowing how ltd journalism is in RL.

Puddy

NRL urged to have second crack at Perth in 18-team competition

"It would take us two years."

www.zerotackle.com

Cummins

'Players love the place': Perth businessman heads new bid for NRL team in west

Peter Cumins will front the latest consortium striving for a Perth-based NRL team and the push will start at the NRL Nines on Friday and Saturday.

www.smh.com.au

Sage

NRL news | West Coast Quokkas name registered as potential expansion club - Samachar Central

In an exclusive for Wide World of Sports, The NRL Economist reveals the name chosen by the wealthy investors of a Perth-based expansion bid. While the race for the NRL’s 17th license heats up in Brisbane, another expansion group is watching with interest, keen to invest $30 million in order to...

samacharcentral.com

 

[Perth Red]

We know that Puddy has already had dialogue with the Bears a few years ago.

'Western Bears': North Sydney Bears back in hunt for NRL return after secret talks with WA group

The North Sydney Bears and a Western Australian consortium are exploring the prospect of joining forces to create a "Western Bears" franchise seeking inclusion in an expanded NRL competition.

www.smh.com.au