In what way? Im not sugetsing its a good idea but interested why people think it isnt. Only down side I can think of are lack of FTa covg as Sydney media will juts want to show sydney games, and makes signing players a bit inequitable as sydney clubs will do much less travel than other clubs.
Potentially you could have two conferences, one NSW with clubs playing 5 clubs in their comp home and away, the other 4 home or away alternating each year, then every club in the other conference home or away alternating each year. Measn you will play every club at home and every club within every two years.
So say Im souths in NSW conf
I play in my conference
Roosters H&A
Bulldogs H&A
Eels H&A
Wests H&A
Penrith H&A
Knights A
Manly H
Cronulla A
St George H
And the other conference
Melbourne A
Perth H
Brisbane A
Warriors H
Christchurch A
Dolphins H
NQ A
Canberra H
PNG A
Gold Coast H
Politis spoke about he clubs being happy with the money they're getting from the ARLC.
Most of the ARLC's revenue is provided by the broaddcasters.
Politis is suggesting we move to a system that will devalue the worth of the broadcast rights.
Running Sydney vs Sydney games will produce terrible ratings in Queensland. Running non-Sydney vs non-Sydney games will produce terrible ratings in NSW.
Does he think the broadcasters will continue to pay what they're paying?
The odds of a non-Sydney club winning the premiership will drop substantially due to the extra travel they'll have to perform. The only way to balance it out would be to play all inter-conference games outside of Sydney. None of the Sydney clubs will accept that proposal.
