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]

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 .

It’s our ownership and former management that got us to this point. Perhaps PVL got Lee vibes from the Perth consortium.

 

[gallagher]

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??

That's great if that's what you wanna do. When your told you have to take on another clubs brand then there's always gonna be issues.

 

[BAGNF05]

That's great if that's what you wanna do. When your told you have to take on another clubs brand then there's always gonna be issues.

Is there a brand and colours that the people of WA really want? Just curious.

 

[gallagher]

Is there a brand and colours that the people of WA really want? Just curious.

The Reds or a whole new identity would be way more popular than the bears.
No one here give a crap about them. They talk about their history, 2 premierships 100 years ago. That's a joke and I don't know why it's important that a Perth club needs Sydney fans.

 

[BAGNF05]

The Reds or ac while new identity would be way more popular than the bears.
No one here give a crap about them. They talk about their history, 2 premierships 100 years ago. That's a joke and I don't know why it's important that a Perth club needs Sydney fans.

Fair enough.

 

[rihannafan1]

Paul Smith is not everyone's cup of tea and reading between the lines it sounds like he might not be PVL's.

 

[weststigers]

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.

Badel reported $20 million. That's steep.

The NRL don't "hand it over". That's like saying the NRL generates the revenue and the clubs are gifted cash out of the kindness of their hearts.

The money given to the clubs goes to salaries for the players. The rest is shouldered by the clubs.

Suggesting they walked in with a PowerPoint presentation and their hand out is a little cynical.

You talk about the other clubs bottom line, yet you don't explain how a license fee from one club is going to help them? The extra TV revenue from any new club will increase the TV rights deal. License fee or not.

Think a bit more carefully about what you're arguing. It doesn't make any business sense.

 

[weststigers]

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

Huge discrepancy if true compared with Dolphins bid.

 

[balmain boy]

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.

If Dolphins weren't required to pay one then none of the new clubs will need to pay one either. If the NRL wasn't switched on when it set a precedent that'd their own fault

 

[batboy]

If Dolphins weren't required to pay one then none of the new clubs will need to pay one either. If the NRL wasn't switched on when it set a precedent that'd their own fault

Webby on SEN atm
- Apparently there wasn't any concern with the Dolphins finances....
The WA bid appears to be the opposite, Dunno if the NRL trust some of the fellas involved.

I can't believe we didn't make any noise about them being called the 'Western Bears'
Surely there should only be one Wests or anything similar in the comp?

 

[gallagher]

He wouldn't let them partner with Singo and the Jets and now he reckons they don't have the money. He's balled this up for the sake of few boomers in Cammeray.
He's done some great things, but norths and PNG should have nothing to do with expansion.

 

[BAGNF05]

Badel reported $20 million. That's steep.

The NRL don't "hand it over". That's like saying the NRL generates the revenue and the clubs are gifted cash out of the kindness of their hearts.

The money given to the clubs goes to salaries for the players. The rest is shouldered by the clubs.

Suggesting they walked in with a PowerPoint presentation and their hand out is a little cynical.

You talk about the other clubs bottom line, yet you don't explain how a license fee from one club is going to help them? The extra TV revenue from any new club will increase the TV rights deal. License fee or not.

Think a bit more carefully about what you're arguing. It doesn't make any business sense.

PVL is the one negotiating the $billion dollar rights deal which funds those grants. I fully expect him to know what each club needs to bring to the party. Clearly WA didn’t present a good business case.

 

[weststigers]

PVL is the one negotiating the $billion dollar rights deal which funds those grants. I fully expect him to know what each club needs to bring to the party. Clearly WA didn’t present a good business case.

Dig in

 

[Tiger Tarl]

I'm sure it's all just negotiating tactics but would prefer to see something like the Perth Pirates than Western Bears.

 

[jirskyr]

If Dolphins weren't required to pay one then none of the new clubs will need to pay one either. If the NRL wasn't switched on when it set a precedent that'd their own fault

That's not entirely true - Andrew Webster reports that in lieu of paying a licence, the Dolphins Leagues Club had to guarantee the financial viability of the football team long-term.

So if the Bears bid cannot guarantee that long-term viability, it appears the NRL is making them pay upfront to ensure there is longer-term funding if the venture gets into financial strife early.

That is unfortunately common in the history of the NSWRL, of new clubs running out of money very quickly and vastly over-estimating their club income, early success or underestimating running costs. You don't even need to look afield for an example, it's exactly what happened to the previous Perth team.

 

[jirskyr]

I'm sure it's all just negotiating tactics but would prefer to see something like the Perth Pirates than Western Bears.

Reportedly PVL told the Perth bid to work with the Bears so that the history and branding could be retained, instead of an entirely new entity.

I would then guess that "Perth Bears" is too specific and the new venture would want to appeal to and represent the entire State.

Lucky I guess we are Wests and not Western Tigers.

 

[weststigers]

That's not entirely true - Andrew Webster reports that in lieu of paying a licence, the Dolphins Leagues Club had to guarantee the financial viability of the football team long-term.

So if the Bears bid cannot guarantee that long-term viability, it appears the NRL is making them pay upfront to ensure there is longer-term funding if the venture gets into financial strife early.

That is unfortunately common in the history of the NSWRL, of new clubs running out of money very quickly and vastly over-estimating their club income, early success or underestimating running costs. You don't even need to look afield for an example, it's exactly what happened to the previous Perth team.

If that's the case it should take the form of a bond rather than a fee.

Most businesses would understand if the funds were held in deposit for such a guarantee.

A fee for something that may not even happen is ridiculous.

 

[gallagher]

If that's the case it should take the form of a bond rather than a fee.

Most businesses would understand if the funds were held in deposit for such a guarantee.

A fee for something that may not even happen is ridiculous.

You got to ask that if the Dolphins leagues club guaranteed the finances then why can't norths leagues?

They're contributing nothing else bar the logo.

 

[weststigers]

You got to ask that if the Dolphins leagues club guaranteed the finances then why can't norths leagues?

They're contributing nothing else bar the logo.

Well that's the thing, the NRL didn't ask for a guarantee...they asked for a fee. Very different things.

A guarantee would be monies held on deposit on behalf of the Bears in case of financial disaster. I doubt anyone would be against this. In fact it's not a bad idea. The fee is the problem because it's just an extra 20 million handed over to the NRL. Big difference.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

if the north sydney bears had to kick in a chunk of the 20 million then they would expect more than a few games at North Sydney oval