MugaB
Coach
- Messages
- 14,772
What a shit graph, you didn't put donkey on the bottom of any of them.... bwahahaha
What a shit graph, you didn't put donkey on the bottom of any of them.... bwahahaha
He had me higher than youWhat a shit graph, you didn't put donkey on the bottom of any of them.... bwahahaha
Fake newsHe had me higher than you
So it’s not too bad
Now we know its absolute BullsheeeeeeeeeetHe had me higher than you
So it’s not too bad
Why aren't the Bears offering to stump up any serious cash into this?
And even if they aren't (their choice), all the conditions mentioned by the people re: The Dolphins (junior pathways, assets, heritage etc) exist also.
Currently it seems like the Bears want there brand back, but aren't going to be financially invested in doing so
Yes, and I don't see a problem with that.Bears stump up cash then they would be required to have seats on the board
Previously wasn’t it a “WA Consortium” the NS not have any shareholding or board representation?Yes, and I don't see a problem with that.
It seems like the Bears are really hedging their bets here, and still are hoping that come back in another form.
Surely the Bears having a 49% share would be alleviate the NRL issue?
$20M is far less than a 49% stage, but would be worth one seat on the board?
It can still be majority WA owned (50+1% at least) with the Bears providing some skin in the gamePreviously wasn’t it a “WA Consortium” the NS not have any shareholding or board representation?
We don’t know what will come from the WA Govt - ARLC talks.
(But I hope they get a move on!)
Yes, and I don't see a problem with that.
It seems like the Bears are really hedging their bets here, and still are hoping that come back in another form.
Surely the Bears having a 49% share would be alleviate the NRL issue?
$20M is far less than a 49% stage, but would be worth one seat on the board?
Cummins didn’t want any investors associated with the bearsPreviously wasn’t it a “WA Consortium” the NS not have any shareholding or board representation?
We don’t know what will come from the WA Govt - ARLC talks.
(But I hope they get a move on!)
The Bears have been in discussions with the NRL over what expansion looks like for teams 18-20 since before the Dolphins won their licence.Yes, and I don't see a problem with that.
It seems like the Bears are really hedging their bets here, and still are hoping that come back in another form.
Surely the Bears having a 49% share would be alleviate the NRL issue?
$20M is far less than a 49% stage, but would be worth one seat on the board?
Except everything has said that all parties want 100% Perth team.
Bears owning 49% wouldn't they want a chunk of games in Sydney? That then makes it not a Perth team
Was that reported anywhere?Cummins didn’t want any investors associated with the bears
That’s one reason his bid failed
Reported by the media noWas that reported anywhere?
If the Norths side had investors that could've resulted in a figure being jot down in the Licence Fee section then he's shot himself in the foot.
I don't believe the Bears would want a detrimental number of games in Sydney. Any number akin to what other clubs lose to country games, magic round or Vegas is pretty much all that would make sense.
That last part never went away.The bears get the logo, the illusion that their juniors are on a convoluted pathway to an nrl team and an annual circle jerk around the fig tree.