18: PNG - govt funded, further expands nrl into the pacific, creates a point of differentiation, makes NRL more important politically, taps into a league stronghold area
19: NZ South Island - taps into growing demand for RL in NZ, creates local rivalries with the warriors and PNG, great new stadium in Christchurch, opportunity to steal market share from union
20: Perth (dependant on stadium upgrade or new rectangle stadium ) - tackle a new market, expand the comp nationally
20 alternative: Brisbane 3 - if having a strong financial backing and supporter backing is more important than a new market and Perth doesn’t get a stadium upgrade then let’s go with Brisbane 3
I think it will be a huge mistake to take the "dots on map" option of putting a team in Perth.
1. It'll never provide star players capable of representing Australia. There's a limit on how many people will play the game in Western Australia. The standard of the Western Australian competitions will never be at the same level as the ones in Queensland and NSW.
2. The team will draw terrible ratings in Perth and across the country unless it's a runaway success like the Storm, consigning it to poor coverage on 9Gem in its home market.
3. Western Australians are socially conservative and resistant to change. There's no way rabid fumbleball fans will give an RL team the time of day because they will see it as an attack on the Eagles and Dockers. Plenty of bogans with mullets and missing teeth over there who see games like rugby league as "unAustralian".
4. The WA Gov is too greedy and in bed with AwFuL to build a proper stadium for an NRL team.
5. If an NRL team was put in Perth then there's a good chance AwFuL will counter it by putting a third team in Western Australia. There's more support in Perth for a third AwFuL club than one in the NRL.
Don't let the empty rhetoric from Perth Rat fool you into thinking there's a huge groundswell of support for the game in Perth. It's just a few expatriates pushing for a team because they miss being back home.