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

Canard

Immortal
Messages
36,521
There was no super league was in 94 when they were already financially in the red prior to commencing on field in 95. The club was originally set up pretty well as a business in very late 92 and into 93 but something started heading south in 94 and only spiralled worse into 95-97.

In the end the costs associated with keeping them afloat far exceeded that of other bleeding clubs. To the people who were forking out the cash, it was simply irreversible. News Ltd lost faith, and as stated before in a separate post, they were on the cusp of closing Reds down for a new Melbourne based franchise months before the peace deal with ARL came to fruition.

The SL War has masked a lot of truths and embellished many false statements. Too many people to this day still run with these false statements.
The issue is people are clearly trying to claim that events of 30 years ago are somehow analogous to today, and insinuating that they will suffer the same fate.

Context is everything. The mad overspend of SL hurt everyone, especially expansion teams, but the money in the game is now bigger than ever.

The Cowboys and Warriors all went bust within 4 or 5 years of the SL war also. I doubt anyone would consider them to now be a failure.
 

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
39,801
There was no super league was in 94 when they were already financially in the red prior to commencing on field in 95. The club was originally set up pretty well as a business in very late 92 and into 93 but something started heading south in 94 and only spiralled worse into 95-97.

In the end the costs associated with keeping them afloat far exceeded that of other bleeding clubs. To the people who were forking out the cash, it was simply irreversible. News Ltd lost faith, and as stated before in a separate post, they were on the cusp of closing Reds down for a new Melbourne based franchise months before the peace deal with ARL came to fruition.

The SL War has masked a lot of truths and embellished many false statements. Too many people to this day still run with these false statements.

All that aside I do feel like if Perth was given a chance to steady their ship in an united competition from 98 onwards, I thoroughly believe that they would have eventually crawled into the black, financially, and then prospered. Even with the terrible commercial and operational initial start that they had. I don’t agree that their woes were irreversible, I think they only required some time to find their feet. It’s a big what if, but here we are now.


Yep good read and I meant to say Coleman, not Gibson, as per my post.
Western reds had an awful ground in the wacca

Even in its current state hbf park is light years ahead of that and better than storms Olympic park dump

Plus nrl funding for clubs means it’s almost impossible for clubs to fail
 

Trifili13

Juniors
Messages
1,450
The issue is people are clearly trying to claim that events of 30 years ago are somehow analogous to today, and insinuating that they will suffer the same fate.

Context is everything. The mad overspend of SL hurt everyone, especially expansion teams, but the money in the game is now bigger than ever.

The Cowboys and Warriors all went bust within 4 or 5 years of the SL war also. I doubt anyone would consider them to now be a failure.
And didn't the Storm need millions of extra funding from News to survive?
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
36,521
For reference: this means it will likely be functionally the same as the AFL and Giants/Suns/Swans/Crows/Power. The Swans "transition period" has been going since the early 90s. The Crows will leave AFL control in 2028 (in the constitution), while no fixed dates are known for the others.

In these cases, the club is member owned, but the AFL is the only actual member with voting rights.
What does "member owned" even mean in this context though?

Surely its NRL owned, but run by an "independent" board?
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
36,521
And didn't the Storm need millions of extra funding from News to survive?
Yep.

Although I assume most clubs circa 2000s required quite a lot of money tipped in from their owners/leagues clubs to fund footy operations.

Because of their ownership of the game, News reported it more openly.
 

Trifili13

Juniors
Messages
1,450
Yep.

Although I assume most clubs circa 2000s required quite a lot of money tipped in from their owners/leagues clubs to fund footy operations.

Because of their ownership of the game, News reported it more openly.
Most clubs were run poorly and relied on grants from their leagues clubs. If News decided to save Perth and let the Storm die, we would be having the same discussion just in reverse. News probably saw Melbourne as a bigger market and hence more subscribers than Perth and decided to back Storm instead of the Reds.
 

Dragonwest

Juniors
Messages
1,844
News
Most clubs were run poorly and relied on grants from their leagues clubs. If News decided to save Perth and let the Storm die, we would be having the same discussion just in reverse. News probably saw Melbourne as a bigger market and hence more subscribers than Perth and decided to back Storm instead of the Reds.
News Limited insisted on a Melbourne team as they didn't have AFL or any penetration into Victoria.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
16,348
News Ltd going to close them up and put their license in Melbourne to maintain 10 team comp in 98 had SL gone into a second season.

Reds were $1.4m in the red by the end of 94 before they had even commenced on the field. They were over $10m in the red by 3/4 way of the year in 97. News Ltd were spending more on them to keep them afloat than half the combined SL comp clubs. They were always going to shut shop.

It is kind of bizarre that they were in the red to that degree before they even played a game … and before they started paying their players … must have been a lot of expense around acquiring and moving/housing admin and coaching…

I also heard that they had a really crappy deal to play at the WACA which was big overs …have you heard anything around that ?
 
Last edited:

The_Wookie

Bench
Messages
3,686
What does "member owned" even mean in this context though?

Surely its NRL owned, but run by an "independent" board?

In this context its likely the NRL will be listed as THE transitional member with all the voting rights - needed to appoin the board, but theoretically un at arms length
 

mongoose

Coach
Messages
12,151
incorrect.
chargers and crushers were true victims because of broncos exclusivity deal in the war ending.
bears were asked to relocate, they did all the ground work and then the criteria worked against them because they had their money tied up in bluetongue stadium gosford.

i knows some here try to re-write history to fit their narrative but geez the info is literally available for all to read. maybe try doing that instead of thinking ya's some experts. newsflash ya not experts, just blokes with NFI
yeah thats my point. The anti-expansionist crowd have long argued that because Perth were folded up in 1997 or whatever year it was League can't be successful there, same on the Gold Coast. Those same people are always full of excuses for the Sydney clubs that folded/merged though.
 

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
39,801
yeah thats my point. The anti-expansionist crowd have long argued that because Perth were folded up in 1997 or whatever year it was League can't be successful there, same on the Gold Coast. Those same people are always full of excuses for the Sydney clubs that folded/merged though.
So using that logic since Perth Brisbane and Gold Coast got second or third chances then Sydney clubs should too
 

SirPies&Beers

Juniors
Messages
1,518
yeah thats my point. The anti-expansionist crowd have long argued that because Perth were folded up in 1997 or whatever year it was League can't be successful there, same on the Gold Coast. Those same people are always full of excuses for the Sydney clubs that folded/merged though.
how is recognised sports brands relocated to new areas a bad thing? by your way of thinking all the sports leagues in america would have half if not more of their teams gone by now.

no one said league cant be successful in perth or gc or anything like that, people especially here only been saying there were red flags before super leagues even started! not sure what ya arguing here,?
 

SirPies&Beers

Juniors
Messages
1,518

Sam Burgess emerges as a contender to coach NRL expansion club​

The Rabbitohs great has a number of high-profile individuals pushing his case behind the scenes.
By Joel Gould

Sam Burgess is aiming to return to the NRL as a head coach, with the Perth expansion job high on the agenda.
AAP has been told the 2014 premiership winner has high-profile individuals pushing his case behind the scenes, for when the NRL expands to Perth in 2027 and PNG in 2028.
Ex-Parramatta coach Brad Arthur has been touted as the front-runner for the Perth job, but AAP has been told that his candidacy is yet to be formally discussed by the ARL Commission
 
Top