I see people talking about money when discussing moving to a larger venue.
I'm not sure if this was taken into consideration or not but money generated from gates during finals does not go to Clubs but to the NRL.
The NRL sacrifices potential revenue (from some Sydney games) in order to give Top 4 teams the advantage they have earned throughout the season. In order to reap the revenue you have to potentially disadvantage Top 4 Clubs. As such, you would need to give them something else in return.
So, do we go to 1v4, 2v3, 5v8, 6v7 in order to ensure that the Top 4 are definitely going to be alive in Week 2? Is this their advantage?
The problem here is that it seriously disadvantages Teams 5 and 6. Team 5 could end up in their spot (below Team 4) due to nothing more than a 1 point differential, yet all of a sudden they are in sudden death against the team that scraped into the finals by, potentially, a 1 point differential. In addition, they no longer get a home game as some sort of compensation.
But it gets worse. We're only talking about shifting Sydney games. A game involving Melbourne, NZ, Cowboys etc won't be shifted so only the 9 Sydney Clubs are potentially disadvantaged.
Thus, if you come first and Melbourne come 4th then you play it at your home ground. Unfortunately, if Dragons and Parra are 2nd and 3rd then they have their game forcibly shifted.
Look, I dig it. Parra v Dragons would sell out SFS and it would be a great atmosphere that would generate huge buzz, produce a great advertisement for the game and bring in the cash for the NRL.
Unfortunately, I see it as creating too many potential problems. Games would be picked individually a week at a time and this is not fair. Sydney Clubs would get disadvantaged while non-Sydney Clubs wouldn't and this is not fair.
However, if someone could come up with a system that actually worked and was fair to all then I'd be more than willing to support it.