WA BEARS

[MugaB]

The bid have stated they are regrouping and intend to go back to the NRL with a counter offer. Despite WA govt wanting to remain agnostic in their position they ultimately hold all the cards now.

They could support the bid financially to be able to offer a substantial license fee (a big chunk of the bids money was going to be spent on interim facilities until Govt CofE was built, that is something the Govt could legit pick the tab up for freeing up cash for the bid).
or just in putting pressure back on Vlandys to accept what they are offering,
or they could offer to pay start up costs to support NRL running the club, though they've been pretty adamant they wont directly fund the club in the past.

Vlandys Plan B was the Govt pay and run it but they will def not agree to that.

Still a ways to go before this is decided one way or the other. Perth remains NRL's best opportunity for club 18 for the next tv deal negotiations. Selling the value of PNG and NZ2 to Australia tv providers would be a very hard sell Id suggest.

It funny, how you think they wouldn't fund a bid, they've said they won't fund "this" bid fairly sure if they want the tourism revenue, they'd fund whoever to get it to happen, which might be happening now

 

[Perth Red]

It funny, how you think they wouldn't fund a bid, they've said they won't fund "this" bid fairly sure if they want the tourism revenue, they'd fund whoever to get it to happen, which might be happening now

They never said that, they have said time and again they wont directly fund or own a club. Doesnt matter who owns that club that is their position.

 

[Wb1234]

They never said that they have said time and again they wont directly fund or own a club. Doesnt matter who owns that club that is their position.

So bears 100 percent then

 

[Perth Red]

So bears 100 percent then

eh?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Do idjits really think that the NRL would waste everyone's time asking them to submit bids and then kiboshing them by saying you have to pay a licence fee?

The peanut gallery might be that petty but normal human beings aren't.

 

[warriors 95]

So is this bid officially dead or is PVL just playing hardball for more $$$?

 

[Perth Red]

So is this bid officially dead or is PVL just playing hardball for more $$$?

Time will tell

 

[MugaB]

They never said that, they have said time and again they wont directly fund or own a club. Doesnt matter who owns that club that is their position.

People have non negotiables all the time, push come to shove, everything is negotiable

 

[BuffaloRules]

So is this bid officially dead or is PVL just playing hardball for more $$$?

We were told the bid “was in the bin” , but maybe the bin hasn’t been emptied into the garbage truck just yet

 

[warriors 95]

We were told the bid “was in the bin” , but maybe the bin hasn’t been emptied into the garbage truck just yet

Sounds like he’s keeping the door slightly ajar.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Why won't the V'landys sycophants answer the security not fee question?

A $20M Bank Guarantee is a sensible idea.

That's a really good point - and just asking for a lump sum of cash which (at least in part) goes to incumbent clubs doesn't sound like a security against "worst case" potential losses at all.

My take, and just an opinion because I really don't know, is that the licence fee and security payment in case of a bad run for the club are the same thing.

It really doesn't matter if the NRL hands it to clubs as a membership fee, sticks it in the bank or buys a hotel with it, because the game as a whole is on the hook for bailing out a new club if they go broke.

This is why a new entity like Perth has to pay and a rich, existing club like the Dolphins didn't, because they clearly demonstrated that if things go badly, they had their own significant cash reserves and asset base to fall back on.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

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.

Well yes, the other clubs are responsible for the value that's accrued in the league so they deserve a newcomer to pay to join.

 

[Maximus]

My take, and just an opinion because I really don't know, is that the licence fee and security payment in case of a bad run for the club are the same thing.

It really doesn't matter if the NRL hands it to clubs as a membership fee, sticks it in the bank or buys a hotel with it, because the game as a whole is on the hook for bailing out a new club if they go broke.

This is why a new entity like Perth has to pay and a rich, existing club like the Dolphins didn't, because they clearly demonstrated that if things go badly, they had their own significant cash reserves and asset base to fall back on.

The Dolphins were required to have a bank guarantee, so based on your explanation, they aren't the same thing.

 

[Maximus]

Well yes, the other clubs are responsible for the value that's accrued in the league so they deserve a newcomer to pay to join.

Except for the Dolphins. Are they not entitled to the accrued value since they didn't pay to join?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

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.

Both of these things are true, yes the existing clubs should be rewarded by a newcomer with a fee to join a lucrative comp that they helped build.

And yes the game has to bail out Perth if they go broke so at least if that happens there has been money paid upfront by the new club

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The Dolphins were required to have a bank guarantee, so based on your explanation, they aren't the same thing.

And they were able to secure a bank guarantee based on? Redcliffe Dolphins asset base and existing businesses.

Perth don't have that asset base unless Norths were willing to do it which wasn't the case.

 

[MugaB]

And they were able to secure a bank guarantee based on? Redcliffe Dolphins asset base and existing businesses.

Perth don't have that asset base unless Norths were willing to do it which wasn't the case.

Comparing oranges and apples, all coz pokies don't exist in WA, either way NRL sets the terms, the bidder wants a licence, they'll need to pay, as I mentioned before Politis and the other club Ceos, got together right before dolphins were to be announced and wanted a licence fee, of which PVL and the arlc said "too late"
This time there's been fkn plenty of time to ensure the next licence has a fee attached to it, so if they are going to start asking for a fee it's now, PNG already has a fee worked into their bid, God help the 20th team if the fee rises with inflation from 18ths fee(approx20m) to the 19th (60mil) to whatever the 20th will need to pay, and rest assured a club like easts tigers will pay it, which means the NRL will see this as a driver to go to 22-24 teams and not be so strategic in where the bids are based like they are now, knowing they can add a few seq teams and reap the rewards.

I mean the NRL can add 2 more Seq and 2 more NZ teams if the money is there and not have an issue with it

There's options to get funding for Fiji (same way they did for png, 》pat conroy =govt)
aswell as Adelaide being just as much out of the loop as Perth has been, that's 6 possible teams to expand to

 

[Wb1234]

So is this bid officially dead or is PVL just playing hardball for more $$$?

Perth bears will happen just maybe not with the Cummins bid

 

[Pippen94]

The Dolphins were required to have a bank guarantee, so based on your explanation, they aren't the same thing.

Dolphins have existed since the 1930's. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[Pippen94]

Time will tell

It's dead.