The precedent was set with the Northern Eagles being allowed to fold and making way for Manly to return. The Wests CEO is confirming nothing will effect the Wests Group or Wests Tigers if Balmain fold. The NRL licence is between WT and NRL, yes like every other team, every year teams get a invite to play in the NRL. It's also stating the obvious that neither shareholder is connected to the WT licence as legally they'd be owners, but technically it's a marriage of Balmain and the Magpies. Should the NRL cease the JV, a massive legal challenge would follow. The case will heavily favour the shareholder, on what grounds are they omitted from taking part in the NRL as per the merger agreement. Like I said the precedent was set years ago. The final conclusion would be, the licence reverts to the Wests group if Balmain can't provide support as part of the original agreement, No partner can claim rights to WT name, colours or any association or rights owned by the WT.
I take back the porkies.
_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
Northern Eagles were a completely different scenario.
The bears were already broke at the time the JV was put in place, so the license went to Manly from the very beginning.
Unlike our situation were the JV itself was appointed the license and continues to hold it.
_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
j
So let's work this one out. Manly held the licence and decided to change their original colours, logo, name and take half their games away from Brookvale, to combine with a team that was broke, for what reason. The licence means little without an invite from the NRL. So was it a JV, a merger or a take over. As far as I know Manly/Notths had the same deal as Wests/Balmain, St George/Illawarra, take $8 million, combine and be safe from relocation. It was the final solution for all these clubs and the carrot was taken. You don't set your own rules here. In Manly's case they took all the players they wanted, split home games with Gosford, but most importantly took the carrot. You think the NRL gave them a get out clause and a licence, I don't think so. What might of happened is Manly disbanded from the merger and requested re entry to the NRL which was granted, so we now look back and see where the NRL set the precedent for other mergers to also use the same pathway. If Manly's position in the two party's coming together was a take over, with a broke Norths, Manly could of kept operating as normal with only relocating home games just to expand its catchment area. Wests group cannot be forced into continuing a partnership with Balmain if Balmain are in the same boat as the Bears. You tell me, how can it possibly work. As both clubs are 50% shareholders, no one can buy in without first approaching the other partner, and should the other partner decide against obtaining a greater share, they can block any move from an outside party getting involved as it's not in their best interest. Really what is the 50% share worth.
_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
We are obviously dealing with historical events, but from Manly's perspective is was quite simple. Volunteer to enter the JV, with the license to be given directly to them (and not the northern eagles, which is the big difference between what happened with the Wests Tigers and St George Illawarra), and pocket a cool $10m or whatever the figure was.
Two years later, things aren't working out, sorry Norths but the licence is ours and we are reverting back to the Manly Sea Eagles.
I don't recall there being any reapplication, the point is the licence was Manly's all along and they simply decided to change their name and logo (just like Balmain changed to Sydney Tigers for a while, or Easts becoming the Sydney City Roosters etc).
Anyway, arguing over what happened to the Northern Eagles is pointless, since we all know the facts concerning the NRL licensing agreement with the Wests Tigers.
