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

AlwaysGreen

Immortal
Messages
49,839
The peanut who at the drop of a hat goes on badly punctuated rants crying about how fumbleball gets more money wah wah wah accusing people of being Karens.

You are almost the bestest rugby league fan eva!
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,536
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
 

Iamback

Referee
Messages
20,162
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

Bears stump up cash then they would be required to have seats on the board
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,536
Bears stump up cash then they would be required to have seats on the board
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?
 

RedVee

First Grade
Messages
6,908
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?
Previously 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!)
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,536
Previously 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!)
It can still be majority WA owned (50+1% at least) with the Bears providing some skin in the game
 

Iamback

Referee
Messages
20,162
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
 

Matt_CBY

Juniors
Messages
1,262
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?
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.

They stated many times they want to be a partner of the game. I’d say they’ve been given direction in how to act throughout this process.
 

wb2027

Juniors
Messages
117
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

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.
 

wb2027

Juniors
Messages
117
Cummins didn’t want any investors associated with the bears

That’s one reason his bid failed
Was 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.
 

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
32,913
Was 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.
Reported by the media no

Apparently the new investors lined up from Sydney include someone whose been a bears fan all his life

The Cummins bid had little involvement with the bears. They lodged their own bid and the bears people weren’t in the front line so to speak it was all Cummins
 

Iamback

Referee
Messages
20,162
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.

If you are dropping say the $30m the Cummins bid had put forward... then you are going want games and so on to keep those investors happy
 

AlwaysGreen

Immortal
Messages
49,839
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.

Perth get the worst end of the stick - see above.
 
Top