If the following is correct, I wonder if the NRL retained ‘ownership’ of the licence and the club only holds stewardship, and thus would the NRL be able to reallocate or transfer a licence.
No NRL club paid a license fee for its original entry into the league; rather, the league was built on the clubs themselves, and the initial entry was not a financial transaction in the way a modern franchise fee would be. Modern expansion teams, such as the Dolphins, have also not paid a licensing fee, which has been a point of contention for some existing clubs.
post super league, the ARLC has essentially unilateral power to remove a license. It’s easier if the club is financially failing (knights, titans, Balmain) but it can also be for governance a mismanagement issue. We are the worst performing club of the NRL era and we have annual governance coups. If not now then when for the NRL to step in and appoint an administrator.
I am a little hesitant about wests group because I don’t know much about them or their governance (anyone here an expert?) but they can’t be worse than the current mob or god forbid a consortium owned by Hagipantalis. I’d be happy to rename the club the western tigers or the MacArthur tigers and go all in on the south west, as long as a new owner could show they would be strong stewards of the club.
