Leave the clubs who want to be confined by their suburban grounds to it. Over the next couple of decades other clubs will be up over the 25-30K mark and those others will financially be left behind. !
This is making some huge and false conclusions.
1. That suburban grounds won't be able to accomodate 25k to 30k in the future.
2. That gate takings are the primary revene stream of football clubs.
3. That crowd sizes are the only thing that determines gate takings.
As long as the NRL doesn't base its decisions on lowest denominators then it is their own look out. To suggest the clubs in the EPL who are in sub 30k grounds are somehow challenging the ones in 40K+ grounds is ludicrous.
Um, who suggested this? Unless you expect RL clubs to be the kind of economic powerhouses that Man Utd and its ilk are I also don't see your point. My point is that you can be a highly succesful football club (which any team that qualifies for the EPL is) without an 80k stadium.
Hull went up with a 25k stadium, two years later they went back down with a 40million quid debt!
What precisely does this prove? One particular club with a small stadium didn't succeed in one of the most expensive club competitions in the world.
Economics would suggest that selling 30k tickets is more profitable than selling 18K!
Economics suggests nothing of the sort. That's a nonsense argument that anyone with any sort of business background can see through immediately.
Go and luck up the concept of diminishing returns.
