It is a dumb idea though, from Mascord. On one hand he is saying they are not being strategic like Arko and Quayle with expansion to new areas, and then the next he wants market forces to decide the long term design of Sydney teams. Imagine if you lost Penrith, Parramatta, Manly Cronulla and StG-Ill? And were left with Tigers, Souths, Sydney City, Bulldogs. Relocation is fine, and I support a funded model to do that if a club decides that. Merging really isn't much better than folding IMO. Lets be honest, St George was more of a takeover and Wests/Balmain and Manly/Norths didn't/don't work.
The reason an arms race is a bad idea isn't just that it thins clubs, it thins the cash and assets of all clubs. It pushes the money to the players entirely like the super league war period, and the game doesn't recover from it. Those cash supplies don't ever come back to the game, and revenue across the board probably falls. There are less interesting games, and TV ratings fall as well. Who wants to turn up to see your side pummeled by a rep side?
Crowds are terrible across Sydney. Wollongong is averaging better than both SFS and Stadium Australia.... And the big stadiums are not drawing much better than a lot of suburban grounds. And this is the future plan? If you insist on playing large venues, make double headers more frequently against local sides. If you want to go down the path of a criteria, than you also have to make game time zones even. Some teams draw terrible times that work for TV, but not the average family. It is incredibly unfair to expect a side with a crap draw, to actually get bums on seats. The early Friday time is impossible to fill, for example.
The NRL needs to peg wage growth with the RLPA to a % of revenue. When they threaten industrial action, than wages may fall the next year. It keeps them in line and promoting the game, rather than dragging it along trying to hold out for more money.
