Jump to content

North Sydney could link up with Perth in NRL bid


Recommended Posts

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2022-perth-north-sydney-bears-buzz-peter-vlandys-western-australia-18th-team/news-story/4f73bf81edba37166f12ced97cf46128

Talk on the NRL streets is that North Sydney Bears want to link up with Perth in a bid to become the 18th NRL team. It would mean most games being played in Perth but up to 6 home games being played at North Sydney Oval.

My view.... Norths had their time in the top flight, they're a nostalgic club but no way in hell should they have any involvement with Perth or any other bid to become the 18th NRL team. Sports fans in western Australia will not embrace any club that appears as though it's been planted from somewhere else. 

It's concerning that some commentators are in favour of this, did anyone not learn a thing from the Northern Eagles debacle? Any merger with Norths to become 18th team will end the same way. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The St George - Illawarra is a joint venture that succeeded but that was an exception and the scale of travel is on a different level. The was talk some time back IIRC of Manly combining with the Central Coast and sharing matched. Perth doesn’t need a joint venture, it’s big enough to do it all by itself. 

  • Like 2

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norths were hugely screwed over in the amalgamation process, it's why they are still hanging around.

Norths did the right thing by moving to the Central Coast. They couldn't build there stadium in time due to adverse weather conditions. 

So Norths got terrible crowds in 1999 because they had no home games, so they got thrown out it was completely the wrong thing to do. 

So because of the stupid ###### backwards way they chose which teams were to merge and which to throw out. 

Norths removal will always be a black spot in the game, 

Unfortunately there is no real way to fix this, because they left certain clubs as stand alone clubs they shouldn't have. The only way to rectify this is either bring them back or a dumb idea like this. 

It all stems back from 1998/9 when they didn't use any foresight when merging teams. 

Norths should still be in the NRL and so should Perth, but unfortunately there is no foresight.

Unfortunately there is no real way of fixing the Norths situation.

They should be aiming for 20 teams in the NRL they need to find more areas to get junior talent, Perth, New Zealand, PNG. Adelaide. 

Junior development is the key factor to any new club and ironically it wasn't used as a factor in 1999 when determining who should stay in the competition. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They shouldn't play half their games in Sydney but Fitzroy and South Melbourne would like a word if you think such a thing couldn't work in reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, RayCee said:

The St George - Illawarra is a joint venture that succeeded but that was an exception and the scale of travel is on a different level.

St. George Illawarra has worked better than the other mergers because it was less a merger and more a hostile takeover...

The Steelers were always minor partners whom were expected to be seen and not heard, right up until they were pushed out of team completely of course.

Edited by The Great Dane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, M j M said:

They shouldn't play half their games in Sydney but Fitzroy and South Melbourne would like a word if you think such a thing couldn't work in reality.

I honestly can't be bothered to give you a history lesson that you probably don't really care about anyway, but the Bears merging with a Perth based bid, or being incentivised by the WA state govt to play games in Perth, isn't at all comparable to the Swans or Lions situations.

It'd honestly be more palatable if the proposed 'Perth Bears' situation was a copy of the Swans relocation to Sydney or Fitzroy's assets being sold to the Brisbane Bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perth Bears with a couple of nostalgia games at the Oval, and Norths as the talent pathway in NSW Cup, I’m on board with. Any more than that and there’s not enough matches in Perth to build a sustainable audience, so would be totally counter-productive.

 

Do think the next side should be in Perth tho. There’s the WARL junior base, WA corporate market, a new million person market, and the TV time slot opportunity to take because of the time difference. No brainier really. Given there’s already Sydney clubs with 12,000 attendances so the bar for that aspect is low, its merits are obvious. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Can not see this. 

It has to be one or the other surely. TBH it has to be Perth. 

And then (coughs) they could apply for the SL than the NRL perhaps. 🙃

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/02/12/perth-may-have-more-chance-of-joining-super-league-than-the-nrl/

Well that aged well. At least Toulouse are still here and got to Super League!:

In contrast to the NRL's approach, England's Rugby Football League is in the biggest expansion drive since the code began in 1895, with the Toronto Wolfpack and Toulouse Olympique playing in this season's second-tier Championship.

A New York franchise is expected to enter the third-tier League One next year, as Toronto did in 2017, and those behind the bid have approached Salford Red Devils and Catalans Dragons about taking a Super League match to the US city on June 24.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Perth Bears with a couple of nostalgia games at the Oval, and Norths as the talent pathway in NSW Cup, I’m on board with. Any more than that and there’s not enough matches in Perth to build a sustainable audience, so would be totally counter-productive.

Playing any games at NSO would be totally counter productive to building a team Perth/WA can get behind, which should be the goal.

It'd also be a massive mistake as playing games in the old market is a massive red flag to the new market that the team isn't committed to it, which is commercial cancer.

As a Bears fan there's no way you could trust the club not to focus on NS over Perth anyway. In other words such a move to Perth will only work if it's a merger where the Bears are minority partners with no say in the day to day running of the NRL club, which the Bears (as well as the supporters group) will never agree to after their experiences with the Northern Eagles.

So in other words it shouldn't, and almost certainly won't, happen. If it does and they get the license it'll be an even more regressive decision than Redcliffe, and would further cement RL's image in Australia as a deeply Sydney centric game.

Perth doesn't need the Bears anyway, and shouldn't be used as a backdoor way for a handful of nostalgic old men (including myself BTW) to backdoor the Bears back into the comp.

Edited by The Great Dane
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, The Daddy said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2022-perth-north-sydney-bears-buzz-peter-vlandys-western-australia-18th-team/news-story/4f73bf81edba37166f12ced97cf46128

Talk on the NRL streets is that North Sydney Bears want to link up with Perth in a bid to become the 18th NRL team. It would mean most games being played in Perth but up to 6 home games being played at North Sydney Oval.

My view.... Norths had their time in the top flight, they're a nostalgic club but no way in hell should they have any involvement with Perth or any other bid to become the 18th NRL team. Sports fans in western Australia will not embrace any club that appears as though it's been planted from somewhere else. 

It's concerning that some commentators are in favour of this, did anyone not learn a thing from the Northern Eagles debacle? Any merger with Norths to become 18th team will end the same way. 

It's not going to happen.

My money would be on another club from Queensland as the 18th club. I'm not saying I'm in favour of it, but in my opinion that's what going to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

It's not going to happen.

My money would be on another club from Queensland as the 18th club. I'm not saying I'm in favour of it, but in my opinion that's what going to happen

Where else could they base another Queensland club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t be against a club linking with the Bears as their feeder team, how the Storm have linked previously to QCup teams. As for taking games to Sydney, they’d be playing enough games there already, would they need “home” games too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I wouldn’t be against a club linking with the Bears as their feeder team, how the Storm have linked previously to QCup teams. As for taking games to Sydney, they’d be playing enough games there already, would they need “home” games too?

The Roosters use North Sydney as their feeder team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Playing any games at NSO would be totally counter productive to building a team Perth/WA can get behind, which should be the goal.

It'd also be a massive mistake as playing games in the old market is a massive red flag to the new market that the team isn't committed to it, which is commercial cancer.

As a Bears fan there's no way you could trust the club not to focus on NS over Perth anyway. In other words such a move to Perth will only work if it's a merger where the Bears are minority partners with no say in the day to day running of the NRL club, which the Bears (as well as the supporters group) will never agree to after their experiences with the Northern Eagles.

So in other words it shouldn't, and almost certainly won't, happen. If it does and they get the license it'll be an even more regressive decision than Redcliffe, and would further cement RL's image in Australia as a deeply Sydney centric game.

Perth doesn't need the Bears anyway, and shouldn't be used as a backdoor way for a handful of nostalgic old men (including myself BTW) to backdoor the Bears back into the comp.

Fair play. I agree Perth works on its own. Likewise I don’t think Bears is ever an option in the NRL outside of some sort of new market franchise angle like this. No more teams needed in Sydney, and Gosford isn’t a big enough market. I just thought this was quite an elegant way to achieve both goals, especially giving a new club an emotional and heritage link to an additional player pool. But probably wishful thinking, you’re probably right

 

As a former Manly resident and Sea Eagles member I’d be the last person anyone should listen to on Norths future anyway… 😂  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Cairns or Ipswich

And like the redcliffe based ‘dolphins’ they will play most of their games at….Suncorp?

Brisbane Roar looking to move back there, Dolphins playing games there….any more Queensland expansion will see games there 7 days a week

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

And like the redcliffe based ‘dolphins’ they will play most of their games at….Suncorp?

Brisbane Roar looking to move back there, Dolphins playing games there….any more Queensland expansion will see games there 7 days a week

Ipswich possibly could play some home games at Suncorp, but no way would Cairns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Ipswich possibly could play some home games at Suncorp, but no way would Cairns

There's no NRL standard stadiums in Ipswich, and no realistic plans to build one anytime soon. So where would they play if not Suncorp?

With the possible exceptions of QSAC and the Gabba in the south, both of which iare terrible experiences for rectangular sports, the only NRL standard stadium in Brisbane is Suncorp.

In other words the only way that the 18th license makes sense in Brisbane is if the club is based either centrally or in the south, not out west in Ipswich. Which, BTW, is where the 17th license should have gone, but that is neither here nor there.

Edited by The Great Dane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

And like the redcliffe based ‘dolphins’ they will play most of their games at….Suncorp?

Brisbane Roar looking to move back there, Dolphins playing games there….any more Queensland expansion will see games there 7 days a week

I doubt Redcliffe will keep Suncorp as their 'main home' for too long.

Obviously I don't know this for sure, but I'd be surprised if they don't plan to use their status as an NRL club to get Dolphin Stadium developed into a roughly 20k NRL standard stadium as soon as possible. At that point they'll only play their big games at Suncorp.

Playing regularly at Suncorp will hurt their support base in the mid-long term just like the Roar playing out of Redcliffe hurt theirs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Ipswich possibly could play some home games at Suncorp, but no way would Cairns

It was ‘ tongue in cheek’, about Cairns, but the question remains, were would a Cairns based team play.  Not sure that another Government funded stadium would be on the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...