It's about expanding the game though
Papua New Guinea blows NRL expansion debate wide open with heavyweight support
www.foxsports.com.au
So? What’s the point?
I could put a side in Ballarat and call it expansion but that wouldn’t make it a good decision would it? It would be a bad decision because simply there is not enough people with enough money to support a side. In the case of the Ballarat example there’s not enough people in the area; in the case of PNG there are a lot of people but the vast majority are very poor. It’s the same result.
If they are going to expand it should be based on the following:
1. Is the area sound economically?
2. Does it have the right infrastructure?
3. Are there enough potential supporters and moreover can they go and watch a game, but memberships etc.
4. Does it have commercial value - are people/companies in the area going to invest in it? Will TV increase funding to subsidise the new side? Is there advertising potential?
5. Is it going to detract from other clubs supporter bases?
Realistically at this point in time, the only tick in PNG’s favour is number five. Again if they transform their society and economy, then they are a realistic option but until then they are not.
If I picked Perth, Adelaide, NZ 2 even possibly Brisbane 3/NZ 3 (in ten years or so), it’s possible/probable that they can tick all of those objectives. At least three of those options are also genuine expansion options.