I don't see how it's in the Roosters best interests, it was nothing more than a cash grab.
I think its in the best interest of any struggling Sydney Club to promote the game in so-called "new" areas and possibly build up a small but solid support in another area outside of their own and have that support build up over time. South Sydney seem to have plenty of support in Perth because of their efforts.
Roosters taking a game to Darwin, IMO, was a good idea poorly executed.
1. Don't use the Cowboys game. Results-wise (RL is a results-driven sport, remember), it was diabolical for them, they never recovered after that loss.
We are not talking about what's in the clubs best interest for a certain season, we are talking about something much bigger, the game's long-term best interests.
This will be our 1st year in a long time that we haven?t relocated a game and the draw isn?t out yet, I wouldn?t be surprised to see a game re-located.
Thanks for your thought-out reply, not many on here do without adding trigger words or lines to take the subject off topic.
Why should it just be Sydney teams anyways? Brisbane, the warriors, Newcastle, Cowboys etc. have benefited due to teams taking ?home? games to areas close to where those teams are based.
In my opinion it should just be Sydney teams because it limits the amount of lost opportunities for fans. How many chances do Sydney fans get to go see their team every year? Generally there is the 12 home games and all away games a Sydney clubs plays in Sydney.
The locations of those other teams only get a limited opportunity as it is to see games and in my opinion we shouldn't limit that further. It's a blight that Brisbane only gets 14 games a season and Townsville, Canberra, Gold Coast have 12 games each.
As it stands the cities of Auckland & Melbourne have 12 games each as well. In the case of Melbourne I feel that they can lose a max of one game and New Zealand should be spreading their games all around New Zealand more.
