I’m hoping it won’t end up being a generally suboptimal arrangement all around as it seems like it could be. It’s all 20 years too late to make a Swans-style strategy work as well as it could have, all the focus around the Bears being back and hyping up the idea that they’ll play at NSO runs the risk of putting off parochial WA types and the North Shore will likely continue to be a poor cousin of its neighbouring regions, with little interaction with an NRL team and no good reason for North Shore kids with no ties to the Bears to support them.
Manly would be my preference in that scenario, but someone like the Roosters getting the area would be far superior than the Bears continuing to hold the area. If Manly upsets you, imagine the Roosters getting the North Shore in that scenario. The Bears get their name and colours back in the NRL, the focus around Sydney will be limited and on WA where it should be and kids on the North Shore can grow up with the Roosters developing the area.
If we get PNG and Perth Bears as the next two teams then I fear the game will be setting itself up for a very uncertain future. So much could go wrong and set the game back if the worse case scenario becomes reality.
Imagine if the funding for PNG is scrapped by an LNP Gov midway through a broadcast rights cycle?
What happens if the PNG club cannot lure quality players?
What happens if Cumins' claims about Western Australians' parochialism leads to the Perth Bears drawing limited support?
What if the Perth Bears is a financial disaster due to poor crowd support in a parochial fumbleball market?
What happens if the talent pool is diluted so much that there's not enough quality players to keep Melbourne and Perth competitive?
We know the clubs don't want PNG.