The Bears might not be back, but they might be getting more airtime than they have at any point since departing first grade rugby league in 1999.
One week they’re in Perth, the next they’re in a non-specific part of the Pacific that might actually be in Cairns.
Peter V’landys said last week that they would return “in some capacity”; though they already exist in the capacity of a second grade side (and a very successful one at that) so it’s unclear what that means.
Panthers CEO Matt Cameron opined that they should be a travelling carnival that goes around the bush (charging two bits a gander) to revive country football, though that would involve a team with Country at the start insisting that they play multiple home games a year in the heart of inner city Sydney.
Justin Olam doesn’t care as long as they don’t call themselves Papua New Guinean while basing themselves out of Australia, which sounds about right, but again would look a little weird on the famously Kumul-dense Lower North Shore.
This isn’t to say that the Bears shouldn’t come back – indeed, perhaps the opposite.
If we’ve learned anything from the latest round of NRL expansion, it’s that established brands with good fanbases are a lot easier to integrate.
There is, however, a question of why the Bears are so prominent in the expansion narrative when they are far from the only team that have excelled in second grade, have a strong brand and could survive easily in the top grade, especially if a geographic shift is required.
The debate is currently raging in England, where the argument about who deserves to play in the Super League is as old as the competition itself.
Just before the Bears were kicked out in Australia, the Super League went through the same discussions around ‘rationalisation’ by trying to merge teams, which fans roundly rejected in favour of the promotion and relegation format.
Since 1996, 12 teams have played in the competition who are no longer in it – as many as currently are – including former powerhouses like Bradford, Wakefield and Widnes and expansion sides like the Crusaders, Paris and Toronto.
After sports marketing firm IMG invested in the comp in 2022, a major shake-up was announced, with the 12 teams who get to play in the Super League to be selected by a grading system that took in not only their on-field performance, as it was under pro/rel, but also off-field characteristics.
Wigan Warriors celebrate with the Super League trophy. (Photo by Richard Sellers/PA Images via Getty Images)
Clubs were assessed as follows: by how many fans they have, across the stadium, online, social media and watching on TV (five points); their on-field performance in terms of average league position over three years and with extras for Grand Final or Challenge Cup triumphs (also five points), their finances (4.5); their stadium and other facilities (3) and their catchment, which took in how many fans they had the potential to reach (2.5) based on local population and the number of other clubs nearby.
Leeds came out on top, with 17.49 of a potential 20 points, and the usual suspects of Wigan, Saints, Catalans, Warrington and the Hull clubs all were given A grades, which would guarantee Super League status almost permanently.
From place 8 (Salford) down to 24 (London), however, everyone was a Grade B and thus, theoretically, eligible to play Super League in 2025 but in direct competition, off the field as well as on it, with the other 16 teams for what will almost certainly be just four top tier spots.
The first edition, in 2023, was merely a guideline, but the second, due to be assessed over this year for next season, will directly influence who can and can’t participate in 2025 season.
That means, slightly farcically, that the newly promoted London Broncos, are essentially on a hiding to nothing all year as their ranking of 24th all but assures that they will not be maintained.
Toulouse, however, who lost to London in the Championship Grand Final, were listed as 10th on the IMG gradings and are thus in pole position to be promoted on off-field infrastructure alone.
It also means that some clubs, like Salford and Castleford, would probably be better off not investing in their squads in 2024 and instead spending first team budget on other aspects of the business which have a better chance of impressing IMG.
There’s a strong argument that this is the sort of thing they should have been doing all along, of course, and that the constant drive just to finish 11th and not get relegated was what was holding plenty of clubs back from ever kicking on further up the league.
Joseph Suaalii (Photo by Mark Evans/Getty Images)
A system like IMG’s is probably not a million miles away from what the powers-that-be are already doing in assessing who gets the 19th and 20th franchises to play in the NRL.
They, obviously, are not going to release a ranking, but it doesn’t stop us from speculating who might do very well under a similar five point criteria, or ranking where the Bears might fit into that.
On the fanbase part, there’s a strong argument they would be top of the pile.
While the 200,000 fans line that has been trumpeted probably comes will a little embellishment, there are a lot of Bears fans out there from back in the day.
In the stadium, however, they’d be behind Newtown, who the best supported standalone team in the NSW Cup (though not to the level of the 8,972 they jokingly announce each week) and while Queensland Cup sides don’t regularly publish attendances, it would be surprising if several sides, not least the PNG Hunters, don’t get close to the numbers who rock up to Bear Park.
On Twitter, too, they trail the Bluebags and on Facebook, they’re well behind the Hunters, who have a mammoth 68,000 fans.
On the field, the Bears were Minor Premiers last year but lost to Souths in the Grand Final, whereas Newtown won in 2019 – just about in the recording period of three seasons, given Covid calloffs – and North Devils and Easts Tigers, both from Brisbane, have picked up Q Cup titles.
Finances get very interesting indeed. The Bears are still linked to the Norths group, but they are far from alone in having that sort of backing – plenty of clubs in Queensland could boast it – and in any event, a theoretical standalone in Perth or New Zealand could trump them on potential revenue, or a PNG option with the potential huge investment from central government.
The stadium is a non-starter, because nobody proposes that they use North Sydney Oval as anything other than a heritage location, but the catchment is certainly interesting in the sense that Perth, PNG and New Zealand have huge ties to local areas that exist with or without the Bears, who are themselves a base for other NRL clubs’ juniors.
If the IMG criteria were applied, one could make just as strong an argument for Newtown being the branding vehicle to give a new franchise old cache, and that still would lag behind the well-established, high potential PNG Hunters or the pre-existing Western Reds/West Coast Pirates branding.
That said, brand is all about perception, and there’s a reason we keep talking about the Bears all the time. Much as the club has gone away, the dream hasn’t, at least in the media.
The idea of a club that re-engages with one of Sydney’s wealthiest areas while actually existing somewhere else as a viable football concern is a dream that doesn’t die for a reason.
‘Bring back the Bears’ is a good enough slogan that it has persevered across decades and, if we’re being honest, a bit of logic.
It’s hard to draw a counterfactual for what a Perth Bears might be versus a native, Western Australian branding, but it will be up to the NRL to decide who new club exists for, or if they can have their cake and eat it.
It would be highly ironic for the most geographically-specific expansion possible – hint, you can see their well-funded Leagues Club on the TV coverage – not to be tied to anywhere but for a very niche local brand to move to the other side of the country and take their name, but you wouldn’t count it out.
The idea might be so mad that it actually works.
Hellhound
Roar Rookie
I’m not totally opposed to the idea of a relegation and promotion system however if we adopt that system I think the NRL should be reduced to a 14 team competition where every club plays each other twice in a home and away format. Which would mean 3 of the current clubs would be relegated and join the North Sydney Bears in a second tier competition.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
How many fans they got and whether they were financially viable or not would be a matter for that club and that club alone. Wrong. Nearly all the money comes from TV deals arranged by the NRL. So it would be the principal problem of the NRL, not any new club.
Dionysus
Roar Rookie
I think that might be they way they will go and I don't mind that as long as the conferences are made up in a manner that switches teams around every year and is based on something like geography.
Dionysus
Roar Rookie
My choice of Geelong was merely demonstrative and not a serious suggestion. The point I was making was that if there was sufficient demand in Geelong and a club was formed then that club could have a hope of entry into an NRL division. How many fans they got and whether they were financially viable or not would be a matter for that club and that club alone. Right now we have genuine demand for a club in the NRL going on for decades with little chance of inclusion. To be a die hard rugby league fan living in Perth must be immensely frustrating.
criag
Roar Rookie
LRB are another legal mess.
Lucifer
Roar Rookie
Considering he technically is a Blue.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
I get where you are coming from but the problem is that we have so many areas not represented and trying to get into the NRL that 20 teams won’t cut it. Its OK if you happen to live in Sydney where you have a choice of “local” teams to support but what if you live in Adelaide, Perth or Christchurch ? Um, tough! The idea of an Adelaide team is insane. There are about 6 fans there. Where the heck does a Geelong rugby league team get a) fans and b) money from? And where do they play? I think the biggest rectangle ground in Geelong seats about 250 people. Hardly something that can generate match day ticket revenue...and for what, the 9 fans of the NRL who happen to live in Geelong? The NRL can't be everywhere. You are frankly making up a link between being a fan of a sport and demand for local representation. There are literally tens of thousands of NFL fans in Australia...do you reckon the NFL is going to create an "Australia Jackaroos" franchise simply to placate what would be a fractional size of the total US fan base in Australia?
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
The obvious was so important it actually completely negates the author's argument. You are right to mention it Andrew. The feeder clubs live off the teat of the bigger club. There could also be the utter farce of, say the Wests Tigers in the NRL finishing last, but Wests in the NSW Cup finishing first. Because under this points system, Wests Tigers would be very, very low and would be eligible for relegation. Would anyone not think it to be anything but a hilarious joke if the feeder club got promoted at the expense of the parent club? Of course not. If some of these clubs had to become stand alone (i.e. actually pay the players salaries and not the NRL club), they'd go broke in a week.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
True. They had a massive impact on the culture at large at the time. I believe an up and coming jazz artist, Louie Armstrong was writing songs about them! Infact, speaking of culture - I can confirm that Taylor Swift, was not yet born when the Bears last won a competition.... Nor was her mother... Nor was her grandmother...
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
The Bears had a winning culture - in 1922! :happy:
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I've not lived in a major capital city for over 40 years and it's quite amazing how people in rural or remote areas will gravitate to certain football teams. In my circle of friends, all have an NRL team we support and all have an AFL team - yet no two of us have the same teams! You're right about the advantages to relegation & promotion but I still can't get past the the sort of imbalance that comes with this system. We both know there are tremendous costs involved in running a functioning, competitive Club, but those costs are significantly different between the top level and the next tier down. Sponsors want certainty and teams on the cusp of promotion/relegation don't offer that. There's also the issue of putting together a squad that's genuinely competitive from the minute the whistle blows in round 1 of the next season. The gap between top grade NRL and the second tier comps is huge, so unless that gap was closed, teams would simply yo-yo between divisions.
Tony
Roar Guru
I often wondered if he even understood his most memorable prepared line......"Queenslander"
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
Take It Easy On Me, Albo! :happy:
Don
Roar Rookie
The NRL would be more likely to add another 7 clubs to make 24 and split into conferences of 2 x 12 teams than introduce promotion and relegation.
Panthers
Roar Rookie
This is only you saying that about the requirements of an NRL expansion side. It doesn’t go along with any stories from last year or the year before about what was required of the Dolphins by the NRL? That was spoken about by the Panthers, for starters. No one questioned if what the Panthers said was true ? What you say about the Broncos. Just makes them a soulless behemoth . Makes me feel more comfortable about Melbourne, Roosters, South’s coming in their & taking over clubs / schools as junior & senior feeder clubs . Take it from former Sydney clubs though. Develop your own players, juniors & a wide love of your club within your local area. Or fade away. ( I can add South Sydney to that. It was only through the work of supporters, former players, South’s juniors. That saved SS from oblivion. Why would you need a juniors system & juniors development says you ? Look no further. )
Don
Roar Rookie
It was part of becoming an NRL club, that the Dolphins assured the NRL that it could supply many of its own junior talent. That it has a healthy local competition. Whether that’s from a wider geographical area , from its own competition. Makes no difference. Nope. It wasn't. The Dolphins license was issued because the NRL saw the region as an area lacking in NRL fan engagement, the club was ready to go and required little financial support from the NRL, and it would have the least impact on the Broncos. So not as much cannibalisation of existing fans and corporate support. It was a commercial decision and based around growth of the NRL fan support and economies of scale. Junior support and having their own juniors filling their teams was not a criteria. I was across the Easts Brisbane bid and they presented a far wider and larger junior base with Ipswich included and it was not a consideration in the bid. See Abdo's comments on the Redcliffe bid: Abdo said that key to the decision was the Dolphins bid's focus on growing the game in the northern Brisbane corridor, where research showed there were fans of the game who did not currently support a team. The Dolphins had been the unanimous choice of the expansion committee, and Abdo said that the league needed to know that the new team would be ready to go from day one, not requiring huge league investment. "This is not something we wanted to invest tens of millions [of dollars] into," he said.
Albo
Roar Rookie
Just thinking how "curiosity killed the cat" BG !
Panthers
Roar Rookie
So those clubs & there’s a lot of them around Brisbane that are affiliated with the Broncos. They are in fact their junior clubs. Brisbane have feeder clubs. Cowboys have quite a few feeder clubs . Might be a bit of a different system, but they still have juniors. It was part of becoming an NRL club, that the Dolphins assured the NRL that it could supply many of its own junior talent. That it has a healthy local competition. Whether that’s from a wider geographical area , from its own competition. Makes no difference. Manly & Parramatta junior sides. They do play in the same competitions. Manly’s just go by the name Blacktown for example. Their players may also be playing for Westfield Sports High, from Fairfield.
Don
Roar Rookie
A high number of registered junior players was not a criteria for Redcliffe to enter the NRL. Redcliffe has just 1000 juniors. There's clubs with more than that. My small Rugby union club has 1100 registered juniors. Sydney is actually a bit unique where the district junior competitions are each aligned with the NRL clubs. EG the Penrith district, the Manly district, Wests McArthur etc... So "local juniors" is seen as a benchmark and a bit of a badge of honour. In Brisbane all junior clubs fall under the RLB association (Rugby League Brisbane) and don't always play against teams in their own area in regular competition. EG a Logan junior side can be in the same comp as a Redcliffe side (45 km away) which is like having a Parramatta and a Manly junior side in the same competition. Interest in Rugby League and potential audience are different metrics to junior registrations. You can have a lot of interest, a huge market opportunity and a very viable club without having your own juniors. The Broncos don't have any juniors...Just clubs they affiliate with and provide support.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
That a great link redcap. Tons of detail.