The Western Bears bid is dead: NRL severs ties with consortium after ‘low-ball’ proposal

The NRL has informed the Western Australian government that they refuse to consider or work with the consortium behind the Western Bears bid in a major hurdle to the game’s expansion plans.
NRL officials are privately fuming over what sources with knowledge of the situation talking under the condition of anonymity due to confidentiality told this masthead was a perceived attempt from the consortium to “low-ball” the NRL in the business proposal they recently submitted.

NRL bosses Andrew Abdo and Peter V’landys.Credit:Nick Moir
The NRL now wants to work directly with the WA government to formulate a potential ownership model that doesn’t involve the Western Bears consortium.
The NRL have since informed the Western Australian government that the bid, run by Cash Converters deputy chairman Peter Cumins, was now out of the running for one of three potential new licenses head office is looking at handing out in their push towards a 20-team competition.

This masthead recently reported that colourful Sydney Kings part-owner Paul Smith and former NRL executive Paul Kind, who run Total Sport and Entertainment, were in secret negotiations with the consortium. Their inclusion as owners in the proposal blindsided the NRL.
The NRL expansion submission also included a question about potential licence fees that bids would be willing to pay. The Western Bears consortium indicated they wouldn’t stump up a licence fee.

Bears fans Craig Gray and Josh Averell at North Sydney Oval in excitement for a potential marriage with a Perth team.Credit:Steven Seiwert
Cumins has not responded to attempts to contact him for comment. The NRL declined to comment.
The NRL has been clear that a prerequisite for a team in Perth will be a link with the North Sydney Bears, and that won’t change under new negotiations with government.

Advertisement

They have informed North Sydney officials that their decision to cut ties with the consortium will not impact on their hopes of returning to the competition, should a Perth team be introduced in the competition from as early as 2027.
ARLC chairman Peter V’landys hinted at the drama in an interview on radio on Sunday when asked about the nine expansion proposals that were submitted to the NRL.
“Look, we have run into a bit of a hiccup at the moment in relation to the bids weren’t as good as we hoped they would be, except for the Papua New Guinea bid,” V’landys said on Triple M just hours out from Sunday’s NRL grand final.
“That was exactly like we expected but the others weren’t. That has probably slowed us up a bit but we will certainly be looking nevertheless in trying to expand in the next few years because we need to have our content right when we go to the broadcasters to get our maximum broadcast deal.”
The Western Bears consortium recently agreed to a partnership with the North Sydney Bears that included the use of the red and black colours with gold to represent WA, the use of the Bears name as well as the potential for one North Sydney director to sit on the NRL club board.
The consortium was originally reluctant to partner the Bears but begrudgingly agreed to a partnership deal after the NRL highlighted they wouldn’t budge on the Bears being a prerequisite for a license.

 

[BAGNF05]

Was Pascoe involved in this? Sounds like his work.

 

[balmain boy]

Just dump the bears and let WA run their own team ffs

 

[BAGNF05]

Just dump the bears and let WA run their own team ffs

I think a lot of fans would love to see the Bears back, sounds like the bid team were taking tips off former Tigers management.

 

[Craegus]

The big confusion or at least the lack of actual information really surrounds PVL and the expansion fee. Some say the Bears went cheap and didn't cover it, others are that PVL threw it in last minute, after the bids were received, and the Bears consortium then said no as the Dolphins paid nothing to enter the comp.

I am certainly in the side of PVL trying to get more money out of people and them fairly saying no, so he threw around his power and tossed the bid.

 

[weststigers]

You can't ask for license fees if no one else paid them. Seems a silly way to burn what was a good bid.

 

[BAGNF05]

You can't ask for license fees if no one else paid them. Seems a silly way to burn what was a good bid.

Haggling over a presumably small fee when you’re trying to convince the commission your bid is going to be viable financially seems pretty ridiculous.

 

[TurnStyle]

Well thank God there won't be a team called the Western Bears.

Shame for all involved to have all their hard work amount to nothing, but it really never seemed a good idea to me.

 

[BAGNF05]

Well thank God there won't be a team called the Western Bears.

Shame for all involved to have all their hard work amount to nothing, but it really never seemed a good idea to me.

Apparently they’re still working with WA govt and the Bears is a not-negotiable, seems a few muppets railroaded the bid.

 

[gallagher]

Apparently they’re still working with WA govt and the Bears is a not-negotiable, seems a few muppets railroaded the bid.

The Muppet is whoever made the bears a non negotiable. Norths have nothing to do with Perth.

 

[weststigers]

Haggling over a presumably small fee when you’re trying to convince the commission your bid is going to be viable financially seems pretty ridiculous.

Well if it was a small fee to cover costs or something AND it is reasonable then I doubt they would have scuttled their bid over $50,000 or under. Just seems strange the NRL would attach a fee to a licence when no other team has ever had to pay it.

I think most business people would have asked the same question. From a business to business point of view, the NRL is the one in the wrong and needs to explain why a fee is charged when no one else has had to pay it.

 

[gallagher]

Well if it was a small fee to cover costs or something AND it is reasonable then I doubt they would have scuttled their bid over $50,000 or under. Just seems strange the NRL would attach a fee to a licence when no other team has ever had to pay it.

I think most business people would have asked the same question. From a business to business point of view, the NRL is the one in the wrong and needs to explain why a fee is charged when no one else has had to pay it.

$20mill over the first 2 years according to Peter Badel.

 

[BAGNF05]

Well if it was a small fee to cover costs or something AND it is reasonable then I doubt they would have scuttled their bid over $50,000 or under. Just seems strange the NRL would attach a fee to a licence when no other team has ever had to pay it.

I think most business people would have asked the same question. From a business to business point of view, the NRL is the one in the wrong and needs to explain why a fee is charged when no one else has had to pay it.

Doesn’t the NRL grant clubs around $15 million per year?

I think they’re going to want some pretty serious commitments before handing that much moola over to a few blokes with a PowerPoint presentation. Also I’m sure Peter has to convince 17 other CEO’s it’s good for their bottom line.

Good on V’Landys.

 

[69-05-41]

You can't ask for license fees if no one else paid them. Seems a silly way to burn what was a good bid.

Didn't Albo pay PNG a $600m license fee? Now Abdo wants to get in on the action. Love how the NRL is such a level playing field, until it isn't.

 

[BAGNF05]

Didn't Albo pay PNG a $600m license fee? Now Abdo wants to get in on the action. Love how the NRL is such a level playing field, until it isn't.

NRL has never been a level playing field. In the words of Brandy Alexander on NRL360

“Since when is the NRL fair?”

 

[Lestronge]

I reckon this has more to do with the lcloak and dagger of minority ownership , than it does this fee . Especially if as others have said , no other team has had to pay it .

 

[gallagher]

I reckon this has more to do with the lcloak and dagger of minority ownership , than it does this fee . Especially if as others have said , no other team has had to pay it .

Something is going on. Only a few weeks ago PVL called the submission a 10 out of 10. Norths will end up with part ownership, seats on the board and more games in Sydney.
Just what the comp needs, another wests tigers.

 

[Lestronge]

Something is going on. Only a few weeks ago PVL called the submission a 10 out of 10. Norths will end up with part ownership, seats on the board and more games in Sydney.
Just what the comp needs, another wests tigers.

Why does norths have to be shoehorned ? Why can’t they just get the Reds back up and running . I feel like adding norths can undermine the whole thing . It’s good to have the bears back , they were always my second team , but still . This doesn’t feel right IMO

 

[BAGNF05]

The Muppet is whoever made the bears a non negotiable. Norths have nothing to do with Perth.

Tying yourself to 100 years of history and a ready made following in Sydney is a decent trade off for an emblem and colours. Not like you’d need to give up many home games or anything. I doubt anyone over there is that concerned about the name anyway??

 

[Lestronge]

Tying yourself to 100 years of history and a ready made following in Sydney is a decent trade off for an emblem and colours. Not like you’d need to give up many home games or anything. I doubt anyone over there is that concerned about the name anyway??

As long as it’s done in the same way south Melbourne is “connected” to the swans .
Like Gallagher said , we are a big enough schmozzle without adding a second one .