Its not as simple as numbers of people, there is a number of factors. For example in simple terms you could take taipans argument and say 9 into Sydneys 4.5mill means 500k reach for each club. Of course the reality is very different with geographically isolated clubs like Cronulla, Manly, Penrith etc have far smaller local population and clubs like Souths, Bulldogs, eels etc reaching much bigger parts of Sydney. This is reflected in memberships, crowds and revenue (including appeal to sponsors)
Then you have somewhere like Perth with 2million people but of course only a small % of that will be interested in NRL and there is a lot of competition from other sports in that 2mill population, unlike say NQ who has 250k but little competition in a RL mad area.
Having said that if you don't have a decent size population to target and strong corporate support no amount of money from the NRL is going to help you stay in touch with the clubs who do have big city appeal unless you have a tiered grant system like AFL. Melbourne or Brisbane getting another $5mill extra grant is going to mean they are still way ahead of Cronulla or Manly who will get the same increase.
It would need some very strong corporate or strategic positioning arguments to consider putting a team in a regional city of less than 400k imo.
I agree but when it's in "heartland" areas ,the figures don't have to be 500,000.Why? You have a far better chance of getting 16,000 crowds .You have a far better chance of getting your sponsor boxes full(as happening with the Sharks),and because of FTA coverage in heartland a better chance of securing a major sponsor.
So far the memberships of the Bulldogs is nothing to write home about, and the clubs you have mentioned ,have been around far longer than Penrith and Cronulla.
You continue to assume that populations in Cronulla are either static or not growing, that is far from the truth.Penrith is in a huge growth area, with a huge junior base.
Brisbane a one city club, yes has the biggest crowds and sponsorship but that is roll gold heartland.,but pro rata their memberships and crowds per population base do not stand up to the individual clubs in Sydney.
Whilst I won't argue about the cverall size of the Broncos in terms of crowds,sponsorhips and memberships and profitability.With all that they make a profit not huge, despite having the city to themselves.How many times has the house full sign been put up?
One of the clubs ironically pushing really hard for the increase in grants was the Storm,showing exactly even in a one city team in non heartland areas, the going is extremely tough.Especially with this grant they are talking of breaking even.
The Sharks do not pay one cent in ground rentals ,as opposed to Melbourne and Brisbane.Plus the sponsorship for ground naming rights goes to the Sharks.Plus any home game at the Sharks,the licensed club benefits from grog sales, and patronage of the club after and before.How many other clubs have a ground which they own. and their licenced club next door.
The one negative ATM for the Sharks is their stadium, it will be eventually upgraded that is part of the long term plans.Profitiability of the Licenced club, the 99 year rental on the Retail side ,plus profits from residential development ,provide future funding, coupled with Banks who would be prepared to lend based on asset value.
Bruno Cullen when he completed his shortened audit of the Sharks during the ASADA drama, was quite open with his view ,the Sharks IHO would be among the top 3 or 4 clubs financially in the comp.
I will say this regardless of where a club is situated ,be it traditional ,expansion heartland or non heartland.If the club is not financially strong in the early stages and has a few early lean years, and does not market the club well, they will have a short tenure.
The only area I would not have a club in is Tasmania.
