I feel like some posters are being real hypocrites, namely Perth Red and it's based entirely on a hatred of Sydney (like that's the only reason people are unhappy with ground selection). How can you post so incessantly about how awful suburban grounds are for the NRL and completely change your stance for the WC? So playing regular season NRL matches in suburban grounds is totally unacceptable and a terrible look for the game but playing games in them at the WC, supposedly the most prestigious tournament in RL, is completely acceptable? Not only that but playing double headers as well. It's complete double standards.
Also whilst I think a lot of us think that Sydney deserved more games, or at least should have gotten at least 1 big match lets not frame the entire argument around that.
If anything the main argument is around the size of stadiums chosen moreso than just whether or not Sydney deserved more. There will only be 2 crowds in this WC with more than 30K people attending, that is just unacceptable. We were planning to play the opener at the MCG but have now just settled for Aami, surely there was a better compromise. Playing a semi final at a ground that holds 30K or less is just laughable as well. At some point we have to show just a little ambition. I understand that playing at big grounds that are empty can be a bad look and lose money but we didn't have to be this conservative.
I'm not convinced that the double headers were a good idea or that they'll even attract bigger crowds than they would have as individual events. Time will tell I guess but I think the matches should have been kept separated. I think that certain areas missed out when they would have made ideal locations (Newcastle and SEQ come to mind). I'm not sure how much thought was put into demographics either, France vs Lebanon (plus some of the games involving the islander teams) could have drawn well in Sydney IMO.
The travelling part of the tournament has been poorly handled. Teams are being made to travel too much which is going to increase the costs dramatically. That plus it decreases the ability for people to travel with the teams and watch all the matches which will have a negative impact on crowds.
In terms of the bidding process and how matches are allocated it's hard to have a discussion without a more transparent process. How much money did each area actually bid? How long did the negotiations last and with whom did they occur? My guess is that we haven't made as much money from the bidding process as we would like to believe and that in general they were handled poorly. I guess the proof will be in the pudding, supposedly the stadium selections were made on the basis of guaranteeing the tournament profit. Well this tournament better be incredibly profitable to the point of making up for the lack of big crowds throughout the event. Maybe it's because I have become incredibly sceptical as a fan of RL and international RL but I'm not that optimistic.
