You cant grow the game in this way!

[Perth Red]

When will the NRL wake up to the fact that hosting one off games in expansion potential cities does very little to help grow a following and interest in the game? This sporadic playing of on the road games at the whims of a club has to stop and an integrated "NRL exposure" strategy put in place for non NRL club based cities.

We have seen the success of games in Adelaide, Perth, Darwin, Gosford and Hobart that shows there is an appetite for NRL but playing one game then not going back for a year, or in some cases three does little to grow the NRLs reach and brand or to develop a passion for the game and the support of a club by RL fans in these areas.

Time for a comprehensive strategy of 3-4 games in each of these cities EVERY year, funded and run by the NRL that hep clubs bottom lines but most importantly grow the NRL across Australia.

 

[Perth Tiger]

You look at the way the NFL is developing the London market and now also Mexico City. They have a long term plan in growing their code. Shouldn't be that hard to at least come up with a medium/long term plan for a couple of cities at head office given the resources they now have

 

[titoelcolombiano]

When will the NRL wake up to the fact that hosting one off games in expansion potential cities does very little to help grow a following and interest in the game? This sporadic playing of on the road games at the whims of a club has to stop and an integrated "NRL exposure" strategy put in place for non NRL club based cities.

We have seen the success of games in Adelaide, Perth, Darwin, Gosford and Hobart that shows there is an appetite for NRL but playing one game then not going back for a year, or in some cases three does little to grow the NRLs reach and brand or to develop a passion for the game and the support of a club by RL fans in these areas.

Time for a comprehensive strategy of 3-4 games in each of these cities EVERY year, funded and run by the NRL that hep clubs bottom lines but most importantly grow the NRL across Australia.

Agreed!

PR, I would like to see a team in Perth as much as you. Would you say that there has been enough regular rugby league there (including rep football) over the last few years to engage fans and potential fans?

Which areas would you book an annual game for? I'd probably go three in Perth, one in Adelaide, one in Tasmania and three in New Zealand outside of Auckland. I would give Darwin a team in the QLD Cup. Paramatta can keep going there for sponsorship reasons if they like but I think a QCup team would help RL in the area.

 

[King hit]

Perth Red. Did you know that Norths were promised a spot in the 2000 season if they moved to Gosford. They were going to move there and become a Central Coast team then shit hit the fan and they got f**ked up by all kinds of people.

 

[The Great Dane]

When will the NRL wake up to the fact that hosting one off games in expansion potential cities does very little to help grow a following and interest in the game? This sporadic playing of on the road games at the whims of a club has to stop and an integrated "NRL exposure" strategy put in place for non NRL club based cities.

We have seen the success of games in Adelaide, Perth, Darwin, Gosford and Hobart that shows there is an appetite for NRL but playing one game then not going back for a year, or in some cases three does little to grow the NRLs reach and brand or to develop a passion for the game and the support of a club by RL fans in these areas.

Time for a comprehensive strategy of 3-4 games in each of these cities EVERY year, funded and run by the NRL that hep clubs bottom lines but most importantly grow the NRL across Australia.

Everything you say is fair and reasonable if you assume that the NRL is planning to expand to those cities and from what I can see from the NRL I doubt that their's any plan to expand to any of those cities anytime soon...

There's no point in having a strategy to play games in these cities if there's no strategy to eventually expand to these cities, and it's neither sustainable or sensible to inevitably have random NRL teams play games in those cities every year and sister city plans always end badly.

 

[Perth Red]

Agreed!

PR, I would like to see a team in Perth as much as you. Would you say that there has been enough regular rugby league there (including rep football) over the last few years to engage fans and potential fans?

Which areas would you book an annual game for? I'd probably go three in Perth, one in Adelaide, one in Tasmania and three in New Zealand outside of Auckland. I would give Darwin a team in the QLD Cup. Paramatta can keep going there for sponsorship reasons if they like but I think a QCup team would help RL in the area.

No I don't think so, or at least not consistent enough. We never know year on year, if, who or when we will see games. Mainly because it is left to the clubs to decide and organise. We have gone from one year having 4 games, to some years having one. It is hard to sustain an interest and build enthusiasm when, like this year, we have a major event in Rd 1 then wont see the NRL in Perth again until probably June 2019! I get it is expensive and a pain for clubs to travel, and they need to be financially compensated for giving up a home game, but of the NRL wants to be seen as anything other than just an East Coast comp then it needs to get serious about this, especially if there are no plans to introduce clubs in these cities.

You need to start, be consistent and then build. So one in Adelaide last year and this year, then two then three. Perth should be hosting 3-4 games every year by now. Hobart a pre season and regular season, same with Darwin.

 

[Perth Red]

Everything you say is fair and reasonable if you assume that the NRL is planning to expand to those cities and from what I can see from the NRL I doubt that their's any plan to expand to any of those cities anytime soon...

There's no point in having a strategy to play games in these cities if there's no strategy to eventually expand to these cities, and it's neither sustainable or sensible to inevitably have random NRL teams play games in those cities every year and sister city plans always end badly.

Disagree, I think it is even more important if they don't plan to expand! If they expand the city will grow a interest and fanbase around the new club. No expansion the NRL needs a regular and consistent presence in every major population centre if it wants to grow its customer base beyond the East Coast.

I think Souths have shown with Perth that if you commit and engage you can build secondary membership bases with just one game a year, as long as there is long term commitment. Last I heard Souths have around 3500 one game members in WA. That's around 10% of their membership base. Not bad for playing one game that also makes them a healthy profit every year!

 

[The Great Dane]

Disagree, I think it is even more important if they don't plan to expand! If they expand the city will grow a interest and fanbase around the new club. No expansion the NRL needs a regular and consistent presence in every major population centre if it wants to grow its customer base beyond the East Coast.

I think Souths have shown with Perth that if you commit and engage you can build secondary membership bases with just one game a year, as long as there is long term commitment. Last I heard Souths have around 3500 one game members in WA. That's around 10% of their membership base. Not bad for playing one game that also makes them a healthy profit every year!

Those arrangements always end badly, and it's only matter of time before the one with Souths in Perth ends badly...

There's two main reasons why they end badly, firstly the clubs come to rely on the area and consider it theirs and become a road block to any growth in the region independent of them as they try to keep control of the region for their own purposes, and the main reason that they end badly is that from the fans perspective the arrangements are always predicated on the hope that it'll lead to a local team on some level, and when that doesn't turn out to be the case it upsets and/or offends the fans in the region and sets back the growth in that region.

These arrangements can also turn into an excuse for the governing bodies not to expand into the region, as they consider it a covered market because of the club with the arrangement to play games in the region, or they see that the club with an arrangement in the region has become reliant on that arrangement for it's survival but refuses to completely commit to the new region and adding a new club in the region would threaten the others existance.

It's one of those things that on paper seems like a good idea and looks good on the surface, but in practice and once you actually look at the situation closely it is a poisoned chalice with unforeseen consequences, and all you have to do is to see all the negative effects of these arrangements and how these arrangments go sour is look at the AFL's almost 30 year on and off relationship with Canberra and how it's affected Aussie Rules in the ACT.

The deals can also turn incredibly predatory, which personally I find to be quite repulsive and often morally wrong (for example the AFL knowingly using a corrupt politician in the ACT to siphon public resources and taxpayer money too help fund one of their expansion clubs in another region), but that isn't necessarily a inherent problem with the arrangements, just a possible consequence.

Long story short, there's other ways of doing it without the clubs tying themselves to a region or city that have smaller less risks but achieve the same outcome, for example playing rep games regularly in the cites in question, and playing the odd one off or event round in the cities in question.

 

[Perth Red]

Might be the case for regional NSW but not for Perth. Sure we hope we will get a team, and I suspect the current dwindling of interest in NRL games may be reflective of the frustration of 8 years of false hope, but that is easily resolved by the NRL being upfront about plans. If the club works with the state body then no reason it cant be harmonious and to everyone's advantage. There is no doubt the work Souths do whilst in perth benefits the NRLWA and the game financially benefits Souths. The only time it is likely to go pear shaped is if clubs blow in and out never to be seen again like has happened to Adelaide and lessor degree Hobart.

Id have thought Storm playing a pre season game in Hobart every year plus some coaching clinics and meet the stars during the season plus an "away" game their would be only advantageous to Tassie RL and Storm building another membership base.

 

[The Great Dane]

Might be the case for regional NSW but not for Perth. Sure we hope we will get a team, and I suspect the current dwindling of interest in NRL games may be reflective of the frustration of 8 years of false hope, but that is easily resolved by the NRL being upfront about plans. If the club works with the state body then no reason it cant be harmonious and to everyone's advantage. There is no doubt the work Souths do whilst in perth benefits the NRLWA and the game financially benefits Souths. The only time it is likely to go pear shaped is if clubs blow in and out never to be seen again like has happened to Adelaide and lessor degree Hobart.

Which is inevitable, and the fall out from them leaving isn't worth the relatively minor gains that their presence makes every year. Simply put these arrangements are a case of short term gain (and the gain is primarily for the clubs) and long term pain.

The negative effects may not have been seen in Perth yet but they inevitably will be seen, cause eventually for whatever reasons the Rabbitohs wont come back, and that's when the trouble starts.

Id have thought Storm playing a pre season game in Hobart every year plus some coaching clinics and meet the stars during the season plus an "away" game their would be only advantageous to Tassie RL and Storm building another membership base.

Frankly the Storm have enough to worry about in growing their brand and the sport in Melbourne without adding the extra responsibilities and problems of Tasmania onto their shoulders...

 

[Perth Red]

Which is inevitable, and the fall out from them leaving isn't worth the relatively minor gains that their presence makes every year. Simply put these arrangements are a case of short term gain (and the gain is primarily for the clubs) and long term pain.

The negative effects may not have been seen in Perth yet but they inevitably will be seen, cause eventually for whatever reasons the Rabbitohs wont come back, and that's when the trouble starts.



Frankly the Storm have enough to worry about in growing their brand and the sport in Melbourne without adding the extra responsibilities and problems of Tasmania onto their shoulders...

I've yet to meet a successful business that doesn't want more customers! A lot of the risk of blow in mentality is due to it being left to the clubs, if the Govt sponsorship dries up (say in NT and Eels case) or a year of bad crowds (in previous Adelaide case) clubs pull the pin. If the NRL was in control, was funding it and was developing the agreements between club, stadium/govt etc then there is no reason this would be an issue. Say Souths had an iron clad agreement to play in Perth for 5 years. No fan would complain if after 5 years another club took up the opportunity if Souths decided their commitment wasn't to continue. Id buy a membership to any club that committed to 5 years in perth just as a thank you to that club. As I said Souths have 3500 WA members now, that's not relatively minor gain for Souths or the NRL or the NRLWA.

The alternative is not to bother and have NRL just an East coast sport with no interest in some of Australia and Nz's major population centres, good luck competing with AFL in the future in that scenario.

 

[The Great Dane]

I've yet to meet a successful business that doesn't want more customers! A lot of the risk of blow in mentality is due to it being left to the clubs, if the Govt sponsorship dries up (say in NT and Eels case) or a year of bad crowds (in previous Adelaide case) clubs pull the pin. If the NRL was in control, was funding it and was developing the agreements between club, stadium/govt etc then there is no reason this would be an issue. Say Souths had an iron clad agreement to play in Perth for 5 years. No fan would complain if after 5 years another club took up the opportunity if Souths decided their commitment wasn't to continue. Id buy a membership to any club that committed to 5 years in perth just as a thank you to that club. As I said Souths have 3500 WA members now, that's not relatively minor gain for Souths or the NRL or the NRLWA.

I don't see how the NRL could possibly pull off deals like that for the clubs if the clubs didn't want to be part of them or wanted to abruptly end them, as I don't see how the NRL could force the clubs to take games on the road if they didn't want to, there's no mechanism for that and doubt that one could be created without the clubs going into an all out revolt (and they'd be right to do so in my opinion).
So you'd end up with situations where if no clubs wanted to play games in Perth that year then no games would get played in Perth that year and the whole deal would fall apart, and inevitably that would eventually happen and you wouldn't have avoided the negatives that I went into earlier.

However I can see governments going into arrangements with the NRL to play a certain amount of rep games or exhibition events in their city/state over a certain time frame (the CA, ARU, and FFA all do this already or have done it in the past), and you'd get the exact same benefits that you'd get from clubs going into those deals without almost all the negatives and with games that the NRL own and run.

That sort of arrangement with the NRL seems not only to be the safer route but also the more practical route to go down to me, and I don't see why you'd be for such a deal with the clubs but against such a deal with the NRL.

The alternative is not to bother and have NRL just an East coast sport with no interest in some of Australia and Nz's major population centres, good luck competing with AFL in the future in that scenario.

This is a false dichotomy, it's not either we have these kind of sister city deals or we don't do anything outside of the NRL clubs catchment areas, there're plenty of options that aren't being explored, all with their own positives and negatives.

 

[siv]

You will only start growing the game when NSWRL and QRL have veto rights removed

 

[Perth Red]

I don't see how the NRL could possibly pull off deals like that for the clubs if the clubs didn't want to be part of them or wanted to abruptly end them, as I don't see how the NRL could force the clubs to take games on the road if they didn't want to, there's no mechanism for that and doubt that one could be created without the clubs going into an all out revolt (and they'd be right to do so in my opinion).
So you'd end up with situations where if no clubs wanted to play games in Perth that year then no games would get played in Perth that year and the whole deal would fall apart, and inevitably that would eventually happen and you wouldn't have avoided the negatives that I went into earlier.

However I can see governments going into arrangements with the NRL to play a certain amount of rep games or exhibition events in their city/state over a certain time frame (the CA, ARU, and FFA all do this already or have done it in the past), and you'd get the exact same benefits that you'd get from clubs going into those deals without almost all the negatives and with games that the NRL own and run.

That sort of arrangement with the NRL seems not only to be the safer route but also the more practical route to go down to me, and I don't see why you'd be for such a deal with the clubs but against such a deal with the NRL.



This is a false dichotomy, it's not either we have these kind of sister city deals or we don't do anything outside of the NRL clubs catchment areas, there're plenty of options that aren't being explored, all with their own positives and negatives.

There would be no need to force anyone, a large number of clubs already recognise some value in this and are doing it off their own back. All this would do would give some financial security to the clubs who put their hand up and some long term benefit to the city involved. As I have said sporadic uncoordinated games being played here and there if and when is doing nothing for long term strategic growth of the game. Bring it under NRL control, lets have a strategy around NRl exposure via first grade games for Perth, Adelaide, Darwin, Hobart, Gosford, Wellington and Dunedin/Christchurch. There is clearly going to be no expansion clubs in these cities for many years to come so lets have the next best thing, regular and sustained NRL games being played in them.

You say sister city arrangements fail yet the only example of anything like this is working extremely well with Souths in Perth. Its not the be all and end all but it is benefitting everyone.

 

[The Great Dane]

There would be no need to force anyone, a large number of clubs already recognise some value in this and are doing it off their own back. All this would do would give some financial security to the clubs who put their hand up and some long term benefit to the city involved. As I have said sporadic uncoordinated games being played here and there if and when is doing nothing for long term strategic growth of the game. Bring it under NRL control, lets have a strategy around NRl exposure via first grade games for Perth, Adelaide, Darwin, Hobart, Gosford, Wellington and Dunedin/Christchurch. There is clearly going to be no expansion clubs in these cities for many years to come so lets have the next best thing, regular and sustained NRL games being played in them.

You say sister city arrangements fail yet the only example of anything like this is working extremely well with Souths in Perth. Its not the be all and end all but it is benefitting everyone.

Sydney Swans-Canberra colossal failure, North Melbourne-Canberra failed, Western Bulldogs-Canberra massive failure, North Melbourne-Gold coast massive failure, St Kilda-Tasmania failure, Fitzroy-Tasmania failure, St Kilda-Wellington laughably massive failure, Cronulla-Adelaide colossal failure, Bulldogs-Adelaide massive failure, Parra-Darwin comparatively minor failure but still a failure none the less, etc, etc, etc.

All of those failures (except maybe Darwin) had roughly the same results, massive disappointment in the community, feelings of betrayal in the community, minor drops in participation, anger at the governing bodies and the clubs, suspicion towards any future attempts to play games or expand the sport in the city, etc, etc, etc...

I still don't see why you're so attached to the idea that it must be club games and clubs with sister city arrangements, when the same sort of arrangements have been made with governing bodies in the past to hold rep and exhibition games and events in cities that have been very successful and haven't resulted in the same fallout when things have wrapped up, seems more logical to me to go down the route that provides all the benefits without most of the drawbacks.

 

[Perth Red]

How many of those examples where long term, say three years or more, and what were the benefits and expectations over the period? 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. 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

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.

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.

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!

 

[The Great Dane]

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.

 

[Perth Red]

You've kind of made my point for me! If left to clubs they rarely follow through on the initial commitment which leaves a bad taste when they pull out prematurely. If it was NRL run that would not happen.

There may be no mechanism now but again that's my point, there should be and the NRl should be taking lead on it.

Again the carrot is mightier than the stick. Make it worth a clubs while and they'll sign up, they are doing it sporadically at their own risk now anyways. I can pretty much 100% guarantee that if NRL said to Manly say, "we want you to commit to one game a year in Perth for next 4 years and will pay you $250k to go plus whatever you can make out of it", they'd be signed up like a shot! NRl can then do its thing to recoup some of that money fro the State Govt's involved.

Again the issue of clubs reneging on their commitments is because it is left to clubs, NRL controls it clubs don't pull out.

Problem with your suggestion is we don't have rep games to take, we have one SOO every two years and one friendly test match a year, that's it! Pray do tell how you will spread them around 7 cities every year who are crying out for NRL action? With the best will in the world watching an all stars pre season friendly every three years is going to do nothing to grow the interest in the NRL.

I really don't understand how you can not see that the Souths - Perth relationship over the last 4 years has been very successful for everyone and is the blueprint for dealing with the NRLs lack of ability to expand the game?

 

[Stormwarrior82]

When will the NRL wake up to the fact that hosting one off games in expansion potential cities does very little to help grow a following and interest in the game? This sporadic playing of on the road games at the whims of a club has to stop and an integrated "NRL exposure" strategy put in place for non NRL club based cities.

We have seen the success of games in Adelaide, Perth, Darwin, Gosford and Hobart that shows there is an appetite for NRL but playing one game then not going back for a year, or in some cases three does little to grow the NRLs reach and brand or to develop a passion for the game and the support of a club by RL fans in these areas.

Time for a comprehensive strategy of 3-4 games in each of these cities EVERY year, funded and run by the NRL that hep clubs bottom lines but most importantly grow the NRL across Australia.

Your Perth team agenda is blaringly obvious.

Nrl dont host weekly nrl games. The clubs themselves do, depending on home team advantage. Origins, tests and Nrl finals are different kettle of fish obviously. So now you want the Nrl to dictate to clubs who and where they should play? You can’t see the multitude of problems just in that? You say the Nrl should fund the costs to get the clubs on board. I guess they could dip into the grassroot funds or the state/affiliates money or better yet the magic money tree.

What incentives do clubs have to play games in Perth or Adelaide apart from the short term financial gain or membership increase? Because we all know that 90% of any money on the table or interstate memberships will move to the shiny new expansion club when it arrives.

With all your constant Nrl bashing and agendas not once have you spoke about your WA teams playing in the comps below the Nrl. Throwing some money at the Warl marketing and media team to promote the local team and get there name it there would be the most affective outcome both short and long term.

 

[The Great Dane]

You've kind of made my point for me! If left to clubs they rarely follow through on the initial commitment which leaves a bad taste when they pull out prematurely. If it was NRL run that would not happen.

There may be no mechanism now but again that's my point, there should be and the NRl should be taking lead on it.

Again the carrot is mightier than the stick. Make it worth a clubs while and they'll sign up, they are doing it sporadically at their own risk now anyways. I can pretty much 100% guarantee that if NRL said to Manly say, "we want you to commit to one game a year in Perth for next 4 years and will pay you $250k to go plus whatever you can make out of it", they'd be signed up like a shot! NRl can then do its thing to recoup some of that money fro the State Govt's involved.

Again the issue of clubs reneging on their commitments is because it is left to clubs, NRL controls it clubs don't pull out.

This is all well and good, but you still haven't explained how the mechanism would work or how the NRL could create one without an all out war with the clubs that they'd lose!

And I don't buy the carrot and stick argument, no matter how good an offer is there's no way to force the NRL clubs to take it, and even just given time it's inevitable that there will be times when all the clubs refuse the deals on offer and the whole deal would fall apart.
Hell it's been tried before and it was a disaster.

Remember a few years back when John Grant said there'ed be 3 games in Perth (or however many) but only two were planned, and then the NRL went around desperately trying to get a club to commit a home game to Perth. They threw out all sorts of offers and stuff at the clubs and not one agreed to any of the deals.

I remember that the Raiders were one of the only clubs willing to come to the table and talk about it with the NRL even though the NRL had screwed the Raiders around on junior development funds or whatever only a few months earlier, I remember you being pissed right off at the Raiders when they refused mainly cause they have a deal with the ACT government that dictates that they must play 12 games in the ACT and the NRL refused to replace one of those games so that the Raiders could take a game to Perth, etc.

It didn't work then, and though it might work for a while in the future eventually it'd fall flat again when none of the clubs are interested.

Problem with your suggestion is we don't have rep games to take, we have one SOO every two years and one friendly test match a year, that's it! Pray do tell how you will spread them around 7 cities every year who are crying out for NRL action? With the best will in the world watching an all stars pre season friendly every three years is going to do nothing to grow the interest in the NRL.

Firstly the NRL have plenty more then just one SOO every three years and the test against the Kiwis every year, they have the All Stars, they'll have the Nines after next year, they'll have the Four Nations every time it comes down here, they have the Pacific tests, they'll have Lions/England tours once they start up again in a few years, etc, and their's no reason why they can add more events when necessary to fill the quota, in fact it may force them to play more tests and try more ideas for rep games, or expand on previous rep games or series, or even bring back some old ones, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but I digress.

And they wouldn't have to spread those games around to 7 cities cause the NRL would be mad to go into deals with seven cities when they couldn't meet the requirements of all those deals, that's just a logistics thing, nothing can be done about that sort of thing except adding more content... But even so there'd still be nothing stopping the clubs from taking games on the road, and it's probably inevitable that there will always be clubs that take the odd game on the road anyway, there's noway that the NRL could stop them from doing so even if they wanted to (and I see no evidence that the NRL wants to BTW), unless the NRL didn't approve any games that are suggested to be taken on the road, which would cause a lot of issues in of it's self.

And again there's no reason why the WA government couldn't go into a deal with the NRL that dictates that they play 1, 2, or 3 games a year in Perth, it's a perfectly reasonable idea, you just don't seem to like the idea cause you aren't interested in attending games like the All Stars, which is whatever do you, but it isn't an argument against the idea.

I really don't understand how you can not see that the Souths - Perth relationship over the last 4 years has been very successful for everyone and is the blueprint for dealing with the NRLs lack of ability to expand the game?

I haven't said that the Souths-Perth deal over the last few years hasn't been successful, only that it'll inevitably come to an end and the fallout from when these deals come to an end is pretty much always not worth the gains made during the deal... Those are two very different things.