Yeah, but you don't GROW the game - and it's revenue - by concentrating mainly on somewhere that already delivers the vast majority of business.
As far as the games in far flung areas, that's all subject to the whims of clubs - just ask the folk of Adelaide who haven't had a game there in some time, or us in Wellington who've had our one game per year dropped as the Warriors get bedazzled by the prospect of that 1 game a year being in Christchurch's flash new covered stadium.
Why are you so fixated on Adelaide?
It's a rusted on fumbleball market that doesn't give a f**k about rugby league. It's not even very big or rich.
I can understand growing the game in New Zealand. It has the potential to be a RL powerhouse. Put a second, third or even a fourth team there and the game will grow nicely.
Places like Adelaide provide nothing of value.
There's this bizarre thinking on this site, led by pompous know-it-alls from Canberra with delusions of grandeur, that we must shun traditional RL clubs in Brisbane so we can waste hundreds of millions on carving out a small niche in Adelaide and Perth. Their bullshit theory goes against all logic and has no basis in reality.
I find it ironic that the know-it-alls who criticise traditional rugby league clubs from Brisbane and Sydney follow the Raiders.
What have the Raiders done for rugby league?
They have a small fanbase and represent a tiny market with a player base that's behind rugby union and fumbleball. Their stadium is a shithole and the ACT Gov won't upgrade it, yet are willing to build an oval for a fumbleball team that doesn't exist. The windbag-in-chief who leads this crazy agenda has admitted that if AwFuL plonked a team in Canberra it would be bigger than the Raiders.
The broadcasters don't provide much coverage on the Raiders because no one in the main population centres care about them. That's what will happen with teams from Adelaide and Perth.
Yet apparently the game is f**ked if we don't add unwanted teams to small markets like Adelaide and Perth?