WA BEARS

[Perth Red]

Maybe he knows what he needs to do better than you do

Maybe. But his reputation for such things proceeds him.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Maybe. But his reputation for such things proceeds him.

Just ask Racing Victoria ..lol

 

[Red&BlackBear]

Fees, no fees, school fees.

End of the day maybe PVL doesn’t like Cumins or rates him as a business person. Could be as simple as that.

 

[Perth Red]

Fees, no fees, school fees.

End of the day maybe Cumins doesn’t like Cumins or rates him as a business person. Could be as simple as that.

Well it’s a bit bloody late in the day for him to decide that! Not to mething it’s not like they are flush with choices.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Fees, no fees, school fees.

End of the day maybe PVL doesn’t like Cumins or rates him as a business person. Could be as simple as that.

PVL will either continue in his role or be shown the door by the Clubs …

Some turnip here seems to think the opposite applies ! Mind boggling

 

[Red&BlackBear]

PVL will either continue in his role or be shown the door by the Clubs …

Some turnip here seems to think the opposite applies ! Mind boggling

The games in the best position financially, viewership wise and participation that it’s ever been.

The 17 current clubs are eating and eating well and the games stakeholders are seeing money being printed.

So you are right.

 

[BuffaloRules]

The games in the best position financially, viewership wise and participation that it’s ever been.

The 17 current clubs are eating and eating well and the games stakeholders are seeing money being printed.

So you are right.

He needs to keep the clubs happy … I would agree that based on the results to date he seems to be doing so …

Some turnip here seems to think keeping your bosses happy is a “bribe “…

 

[Matt_CBY]

The 5 year license agreement is up in 2 months. Nrl has to renegotiate with clubs who will want their pound of flesh. Trust me this and png license fee is going straight in their pockets.

calling refusal to pay their bribe a poor business case is laughable, even for Vlandys.

The way you’ve carried yourself on here over the last week or so, I don’t trust a word you say.

 

[Iamback]

He needs to keep the clubs happy … I would agree that based on the results to date he seems to be doing so …

Some turnip here seems to think keeping your bosses happy is a “bribe “…

Reports are clubs asked for a fee. Clubs are the boss so why would the ARLC not do what the boss wants?

 

[BuffaloRules]

Reports are clubs asked for a fee. Clubs are the boss so why would the ARLC not do what the boss wants?

Exactly

 

[MugaB]

Reports are clubs asked for a fee. Clubs are the boss so why would the ARLC not do what the boss wants?

They also asked for this very late in negotiations for when the dolphins got admitted... which was rejected by pvl...
I told you guys the arlc don't care about this "fee" they just want to get the new franchises up and running, it's the politis's of the league that are pushing to get a licence fee... and I agree with them, why should some start up receive a slice of revenue pie, from our syndicate, along with them stealing our rookies, and give nothing back? Yes they've stumped up for their initial start up, but that's on them, what's in it for the clubs? What have you done for me lately, Eddie!
Perth Red has rox in his head if he thinks he is speaking about "reality"
Reality is Perth is offering no more than another city like Adelaide, Wellington or another Melbourne side, there's is zero upside for the clubs to vote them in

 

[blue bags]

Remember PVL said there was 2 Perth premiers
F pay up or f Off

 

[Canard]

If Perth goes under so does 20 million. Fee gives NRL funds to step in.

You don't understand how a bank guarantee (surety) works do you?

 

[Trifili13]

You don't understand how a bank guarantee (surety) works do you?

Agree, I think people are getting confused with this. If it's a fee but will be retained by the NRL for a rainy day in case Perth falls over then it acts as a guarantee, but if it will be shared by the clubs or just go into working capital then it's not a guarantee. If the NRL are using the term licence fee then it would suggest the purpose is not to act as a guarantee.

If the NRL wants a licence fee and Perth are offering nil, the NRL should just move on to the next bidder, much like a house auction, but in this case it appears no other bidders are offering anything as well or at least something close to what Perth is bringing to the table with ground upgrades, expansion into a new market, etc.

Now PVL might be able to resurrect Perth, but it's been a balls up and not a good look from all parties.

 

[Canard]

Agree, I think people are getting confused with this. If it's a fee but will be retained by the NRL for a rainy day in case Perth falls over then it acts as a guarantee, but if it will be shared by the clubs or just go into working capital then it's not a guarantee. If the NRL are using the term licence fee then it would suggest the purpose is not to act as a guarantee.

If the NRL wants a licence fee and Perth are offering nil, the NRL should just move on to the next bidder, much like a house auction, but in this case it appears no other bidders are offering anything as well or at least something close to what Perth is bringing to the table with ground upgrades, expansion into a new market, etc.

Now PVL might be able to resurrect Perth, but it's been a balls up and not a good look from all parties.

It's all very circular to.

"They should pay, the NRL is a money making machine, and people are lining up to join"

"Why do they need a fee then?"

"To go to the clubs revenue?"

Putting aside all this mess, it's pretty concerning that if it wasn't for geopolitics and taxpayers there are exactly Zero bids that meet this criteria. And that Perth has only one bid, which was reliant on a long dead Sydney team.

 

[BuffaloRules]

It's all very circular to.

"They should pay, the NRL is a money making machine, and people are lining up to join"

"Why do they need a fee then?"

"To go to the clubs revenue?"

Putting aside all this mess, it's pretty concerning that if it wasn't for geopolitics and taxpayers there are exactly Zero bids that

They might have to stay at 18 teams then

 

[Maximus]

It's all very circular to.

"They should pay, the NRL is a money making machine, and people are lining up to join"

"Why do they need a fee then?"

"To go to the clubs revenue?"

Putting aside all this mess, it's pretty concerning that if it wasn't for geopolitics and taxpayers there are exactly Zero bids that meet this criteria. And that Perth has only one bid, which was reliant on a long dead Sydney team.

Don't forget

"The NRL and its clubs are money making machines with a licence to print money"

"Why do they need a fee then?"

"In case it goes bust."

There's no consistency in the arguments.

 

[MugaB]

Agree, I think people are getting confused with this. If it's a fee but will be retained by the NRL for a rainy day in case Perth falls over then it acts as a guarantee, but if it will be shared by the clubs or just go into working capital then it's not a guarantee. If the NRL are using the term licence fee then it would suggest the purpose is not to act as a guarantee.

If the NRL wants a licence fee and Perth are offering nil, the NRL should just move on to the next bidder, much like a house auction, but in this case it appears no other bidders are offering anything as well or at least something close to what Perth is bringing to the table with ground upgrades, expansion into a new market, etc.

Now PVL might be able to resurrect Perth, but it's been a balls up and not a good look from all parties.

No it's not a bank surety fee, it's a licence fee, straight up bribe to divie between all the current stakeholders, they are risking having a team that holds zero efforts in creating new blood, from the get go, and already balking at paying for admission, these clubs are to waste their time travelling across the Nullarbor for the perth consortium pockets to be filled at their expense, what's in it for the clubs? They could save that time and effort, and just admit the east tigers, not sure why this is such a difficult aspect to understand, you want in, you pay, then you can reap the rewards when every club gets paid their share, it's a syndicate, it always has been, bring something to the table, Perth isn't bringing anything that another bidder couldn't, infact it brings in "zero" as stated by wa consortium leader cumins

 

[Pippen94]

Don't forget

"The NRL and its clubs are money making machines with a licence to print money"

"Why do they need a fee then?"

"In case it goes bust."

There's no consistency in the arguments.

Are you talking about Perth red saying western bears didn't need big money backing because they'd support themselves on game day profits?!

 

[Pippen94]

Agree, I think people are getting confused with this. If it's a fee but will be retained by the NRL for a rainy day in case Perth falls over then it acts as a guarantee, but if it will be shared by the clubs or just go into working capital then it's not a guarantee. If the NRL are using the term licence fee then it would suggest the purpose is not to act as a guarantee.

If the NRL wants a licence fee and Perth are offering nil, the NRL should just move on to the next bidder, much like a house auction, but in this case it appears no other bidders are offering anything as well or at least something close to what Perth is bringing to the table with ground upgrades, expansion into a new market, etc.

Now PVL might be able to resurrect Perth, but it's been a balls up and not a good look from all parties.

WA government & bears are too good partners to throw away.