How many of those examples where long term, say three years or more
All of those examples were expected to go for prolonged periods, most didn't last the length of their first contracts, many ended up being only one game played in the city/region when it was intended to
3-5 games.
and pretty much every single one of the examples I gave ended on bad terms with either the club, the local government, or the fans unhappy...
, and what were the benefits and expectations over the period?
Can't speak for all of the examples but for the ones that I can speak for there was a minor growth in interest in the sport during the novelty factor or if the team was successful, and most of the patrons of the games were already interested in the sport/league before the team came to town, but all of that was built on false hope, broken promises and out right lies, and all of those benefits and more were lost overnight when things turned sour and they all eventually turned sour.
You also fail to accept that once again they were city link ups at the clubs doing, not part of an overall AFL or NRL strategic plan.
Well actually all of the AFL example (including the current deals that they have going on with Canberra and Tasmania) have the AFLs fingers all over them.
But again I fail to see how such deals could be brokered by the NRL as there's no mechanism for it in the NRL and the NRL clubs wouldn't accept the introduction of one.
The only real examples of long term commitments we have in NRL are Souths - Perth ,working well for both parties
Eels - Darwin appears to be working well with good support and Darwin grassroots getting stronger
BS.
All the deals by different teams with Adelaide were intended to be long term but feel apart, the Cowboys and Titans deals with either Cains ot Darwin were intended to be long term, multiple clubs have had agreements to play in Gosford that have fallen through, the Warriors have had multiple deals with multiple cities in NZ, the Bulldogs have talks with multiple cities in NZ as well...
There is no reason anyone has to feel upset when the deal finishes, especially if the NRL has another club lined up ready for the next period of time.
Put in place 4-5 year agreements and some KPI's for clubs who want to put their hands up and it can work and will work.
How would they do any of that?
They don't have the power to force something like that, and with out the power to force clubs to take games on the road it's inevitable that eventually a time will come when none of the clubs want to take games to a city and then the deal would fall apart, then once it's fallen apart (especially under circumstances like that) is when all the problems I alluded to earlier occur (which BTW you haven't explained how you'd avoid those problems)
I don't expect anything from Souths after this current 3 year deal is up with Govt and are just very grateful they have been as committed as they have to supporting the game grow in WA, they have arguably done more for the profile of the game in WA than the NRL over the last 4 years and have won me over as my second club.
That's nice but what happens if they do what most clubs have done and simply don't honor their contract after a while (Sharks/Dogs-Adelaide, Western Bulldogs/Swans-Canberra, North Melbourne- GC, etc, etc, etc), then what happens?
And to the broader public it looks very, very dodgy when you've spent the last 3-5 years saying that you are the towns team, that you are committed to the town, and that if you just keep showing up you'll get your own team, and then they don't renew their contract or demand a double in the value of the contract, never show up again and you're no closer to a local club. Cause that's how it goes down...
Rep games are important, Perth getting its first Kangaroos test and selling out was great, SOO will be amazing I'm sure but cities need regular exposure, not one off games every 2-3 years. Nothing generates interest in the NRL like being able to go and watch NRL games regularly!
You're not understanding the nature of the deals that CA, ARU, etc, make with governments, they make deals that they'll play x-amount of games/events a year in a city over an extended period, for example CA had a deal with the ACT government to play one Test or the BBL grand final a year for 4 or 5 years (I can't remember how long the deal was for off the top of my head).
There's no reason that the NRL couldn't make deals like this with governments (in fact they have made similar deals in the past, like the recent deal to ensure that the GF is in Sydney for stadium upgrades), and they actually have the power to do something like that.
There's no reason that the NRL and WA government couldn't strike some sort of deal with the NRL to play two games or whatever a year in Perth, out of the All Stars, Nines, SOO, Tests, whatever, and a deal like that would have all the positives that the club deals have, would be more reliable, and have almost none of the negatives that the clubs deals have.