WA BEARS

[Matt_CBY]

Unbelievable

 

[Iamback]

I think you're 100% correct.

That's why this brain fart of an idea from gambling Pete is unworkable

Where has this proposal had North Sydney Leagues Club as an investor?

The proposal has been since Norths don't host games

Private investors and Bears continue the lower grade spend to feed into the NRL side.

 

[Perth Red]

Im still trying to figure out why he doubled down on the members owned club statement if it it will largely be owned by investors, just different ones to the original perth bid consortium?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Norths will increase their spend on juniors once they get their team back in

And those juniors will provide the team actual nrl players unlike Perth

And these imaginary juniors aren't going to Perth.
The so called mythical wonder brand is the North Sydney Bears. Not the WA Bears. No rich kid from Mosman is dreaming of moving to Perth to play for the bears.

Anyone who believes that is an imbecile, on meth or has been dropped on their head.

If you think this whole ridiculous idea is a good one at least come up with a rational reason why rather than this fantasy.

 

[Wb1234]

Im still trying to figure out why he doubled down on the members owned club statement if it it will largely be owned by investors, just different ones to the original perth bid consortium?

My guess is the nrl will own a chunk of it at first with wa and Sydney investors the rest

Once the club is established the nrl share will go to members

As lambuck says like souths

Turning away investors would be crazy and the nrl owning a club will be something the other clubs would hate

 

[Perth Red]

My guess is the nrl will own a chunk of it at first with wa and Sydney investors the rest

Once the club is established the nrl share will go to members

As lambuck says like souths

Turning away investors would be crazy and the nrl owning a club will be something the other clubs would hate

Thats not what he said, in fact he specifically said NRl wont own any of it but will be responsible for appointing the board for first few years then members will appoint the board. No mention at all of investors in his statement.

“Any new organisation will be a club governed by members and in the first couple of years we (the ARLC) will appoint the board, not the members,” V’Landys said.
“Once the club is established the members will appoint the board, so a Perth club will be owned by the members.”

 

[Wb1234]

Thats not what he said, in fact he specifically said NRl wont own any of it but will be responsible for appointing the board for first few years then members will appoint the board. No mention at all of investors in his statement.

“Any new organisation will be a club governed by members and in the first couple of years we (the ARLC) will appoint the board, not the members,” V’Landys said.
“Once the club is established the members will appoint the board, so a Perth club will be owned by the members.”

He said a lot of things

Perth members arent going to be coming up with the 50 million set up costs

 

[Perth Red]

He said a lot of things

Perth members arent going to be coming up with the 50 million set up costs

yeh thats the bit I cant make sense of! someone's got to front up start up costs.

 

[Maximus]

And these imaginary juniors aren't going to Perth.
The so called mythical wonder brand is the North Sydney Bears. Not the WA Bears. No rich kid from Mosman is dreaming of moving to Perth to play for the bears.

Anyone who believes that is an imbecile, on meth or has been dropped on their head.

If you think this whole ridiculous idea is a good one at least come up with a rational reason why rather than this fantasy.

No, you see, kids only play for clubs where they played their juniors, so that kid in Mosman is going to have to go to Perth, not just sign for a different club down the road.

 

[Wb1234]

yeh thats the bit I cant make sense of! someone's got to front up start up costs.

Unless the nrl pays for it themselves

Which is why I ignored that article as bs it doesn’t make sense to be wholly member owned

I think in the past two weeks everything pvl has been saying is bs to impact the wa govt and the nz bid teams

Souths model does make sense where it’s 75 percent ? Private investors and members keeping 25 percent

Same with nz is he going to pass on the bids which have already found investors for a members owned club ? Cant see it

 

[Matt_CBY]

Just like I said the NRL could go ahead with a Perth club without that consortium. I wonder if PVL has a different meaning when referring to “members” in this context.

 

[Perth Red]

Unless the nrl pays for it themselves

Which is why I ignored that article as bs it doesn’t make sense to be wholly member owned

I think in the past two weeks everything pvl has been saying is bs to impact the wa govt and the nz bid teams

Souths model does make sense where it’s 75 percent ? Private investors and members keeping 25 percent

Same with nz is he going to pass on the bids which have already found investors for a members owned club ? Cant see it

But then they havent got anything to sell to recoup costs? Can you really see NRL dropping $50mill on a club?

That would kind of make sense but there is no way members get to choose the board in that sort of ownership split. The power lies with the investors. No tto mention would you as an investor drop $50mill of your money into a new start up that you had no control of the initial board set up?

 

[Wb1234]

But then they havent got anything to sell to recoup costs? Can you really see NRL dropping $50mill on a club?

That would kind of make sense but there is no way members get to choose the board in that sort of ownership split. The power lies with the investors. No tto mention would you as an investor drop $50mill of your money into a new start up that you had no control of the initial board set up?

FMD it’s eerie when me and you are thinking the same thing about a topic independently lol

Your first paragraph is something I’ve been thinking about and can’t answer