What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

WA BEARS

Maximus

Coach
Messages
13,670
The NRL also deemed the Dolphins being able to survive by themselves with their assets. This has been stated publicly.
They obviously do not deem the WA consortium in the same light. Which I remind you is their right to do so. It would be negligent of them not to look into perspective bids financial situations.

How does forcing a bid to pay a $20m licence fee help a team survive on its own. You are placing any bid at a bigger risk of failure.

A bank guarantee that they will eventually get back does that. Forcing them to pay a fee that will likely take them a decade to see a return on does not.
 
Messages
15,166
How does forcing a bid to pay a $20m licence fee help a team survive on its own. You are placing any bid at a bigger risk of failure.

A bank guarantee that they will eventually get back does that. Forcing them to pay a fee that will likely take them a decade to see a return on does not.
Really, you are asking this question where I’ve already answered it?
I‘ll make it simple for you,
Once they are in they are part of the NRL.
The NRL pays for all the players and staff. It pays for travel and excess.
This goes on for the whole period of the clubs existence. They also get part of the spoils once other new teams join.
How long would $20M last if they were paying for all these expenses? not one year is the correct answer.
No club now is in danger of closing, all make profit thanks to being part of the NRL.
This is a private consortium trying to get into the NRL.
the NRL as a business has decided that if this private consortium want in there is a fee to be paid. They are looking after the partners, ie: the ARLC, the clubs etc.

I honestly think there are a few people here who want to argue for the sake of it, just as it’s always been here, some want real discussion, and even with different opinions can discuss without asking pretty stupid questions.
 

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
33,577
When a license fee is finally agreed upon it will be shown yet again what a good negotiator pvl is

From a refusal to pay anything he will have gotten the best result for the game (again)

He’s stared down both the wa govt and Cummins in the exact same way he did with the feds over png

And nrl clubs will be around 80 million dollars better off for it
 

Kurt Angle

First Grade
Messages
9,723
so was this approach successful ?

In your business .. do you think what happened the last time will automatically happen this time?
In my line of business I do look at recent pricing yes. I don't think it will be automatic but if there is scope for adjustment, it's usually a private negotiation

With the Titans and Knights transferring their license for $2 mil, and the Dolphins going from $5 mil to then be waived, I'm confident the reasoning behind the Bears raising $4 million was sound

I'm also confident when they put in zero, they were expecting to the negotiate.

The fact every other team fell well short of $20 million (bar PNG, but they've got a 'money us no issue' backing) indicates to me this assumption was widespread

If anything, this looks to me with PNG stumping up $60 million of taxpayer money, the NRL have said;
i) Let's squeeze more than $5 million
ii) Lets put it through the media to bulky then out if formal negotiations

I may be wrong, but I'm neither assigning incompetence or complacency upon the Bears bid no
 

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
33,577
In my line of business I do look at recent pricing yes. I don't think it will be automatic but if there is scope for adjustment, it's usually a private negotiation

With the Titans and Knights transferring their license for $2 mil, and the Dolphins going from $5 mil to then be waived, I'm confident the reasoning behind the Bears raising $4 million was sound

I'm also confident when they put in zero, they were expecting to the negotiate.

The fact every other team fell well short of $20 million (bar PNG, but they've got a 'money us no issue' backing) indicates to me this assumption was widespread

If anything, this looks to me with PNG stumping up $60 million of taxpayer money, the NRL have said;
i) Let's squeeze more than $5 million
ii) Lets put it through the media to bulky then out if formal negotiations

I may be wrong, but I'm neither assigning incompetence or complacency upon the Bears bid no
Not listening to the arlc twice is fairly incompetent

As was adding an investor who was sacked by the nrl
 

Kurt Angle

First Grade
Messages
9,723
Simple. If they want to be part of the NRL, and it's competition they have to pay something. Offering $0 was stupid.

I'd be very confident they weren't accepting a bid of zero to be accepted, but to be negotiated.

But like every other bid outside of PNG, it seems $20 million wasn't on anyone's radar
 

Kurt Angle

First Grade
Messages
9,723
Not listening to the arlc twice is fairly incompetent

So what figure did the NRL indicate was suitable before the tender process was finalised?

As was adding an investor who was sacked by the nrl

Why?

You can be sacked for many reasons without being blacklisted. Jonathan Thurston was effectively sacked before he went to the Bulldogs

If there isn't a criminal background to it, hiring someone with that much inside knowledge is far from incompetent
 

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
33,577
So what figure did the NRL indicate was suitable before the tender process was finalised?



Why?

You can be sacked for many reasons without being blacklisted. Jonathan Thurston was effectively sacked before he went to the Bulldogs

If there isn't a criminal background to it, hiring someone with that much inside knowledge is far from incompetent
Why is adding someone who was sacked by the nrl and not telling the arl before hand not stupid ? lol

Have you heard of the fit and competent test for directors

Figure of 20 million was suggested payable over 2 years
 

Pippen94

First Grade
Messages
7,105
In my line of business I do look at recent pricing yes. I don't think it will be automatic but if there is scope for adjustment, it's usually a private negotiation

With the Titans and Knights transferring their license for $2 mil, and the Dolphins going from $5 mil to then be waived, I'm confident the reasoning behind the Bears raising $4 million was sound

I'm also confident when they put in zero, they were expecting to the negotiate.

The fact every other team fell well short of $20 million (bar PNG, but they've got a 'money us no issue' backing) indicates to me this assumption was widespread

If anything, this looks to me with PNG stumping up $60 million of taxpayer money, the NRL have said;
i) Let's squeeze more than $5 million
ii) Lets put it through the media to bulky then out if formal negotiations

I may be wrong, but I'm neither assigning incompetence or complacency upon the Bears bid no

We're all anonymous here which is good. People saying they're an expert in things doesn't give their argument extra weight. I just assume everybody is lying most the time anyway.
 

Maximus

Coach
Messages
13,670
Really, you are asking this question where I’ve already answered it?
I‘ll make it simple for you,
Once they are in they are part of the NRL.
The NRL pays for all the players and staff. It pays for travel and excess.
This goes on for the whole period of the clubs existence. They also get part of the spoils once other new teams join.
How long would $20M last if they were paying for all these expenses? not one year is the correct answer.
No club now is in danger of closing, all make profit thanks to being part of the NRL.
This is a private consortium trying to get into the NRL.
the NRL as a business has decided that if this private consortium want in there is a fee to be paid. They are looking after the partners, ie: the ARLC, the clubs etc.

I honestly think there are a few people here who want to argue for the sake of it, just as it’s always been here, some want real discussion, and even with different opinions can discuss without asking pretty stupid questions.

And some people just defend the NRL no matter what they do and make pretty stupid posts defending the indefensible.

If what you're saying is the reason for the licence fee, why didn't the Dolphins need to pay one? Why do Perth need $30m plus the $20m? Why do they need to pay a fee to prove they can survive on their own (which is what you said in the previous post), if you are now saying they couldn't survive on that fee?
 

blue bags

First Grade
Messages
9,583
Or....

NRL investors may be a bit more savvy than to invest along A-League lines "spend $20 million, and you too can lose $4 million per year"

The A-League being full of dopes isn't the reason to participate in poor spending too
Full of Dope. Cocaine ?
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,500
There used to be a saying about the North Sydney Bears always snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The NRL bid submitted by Cummins just followed the same routine
All looking good in their eyes then lost the plot near the finish.
 
Top