If you were told you can have either NZ2 or West Coast Pirates but not both, who would you support?
It's all well and good saying we should prioritise new markets, but the reality is there's only 1-3 licences available. No one is going to sacrifice themselves for a rival bid.
The poor participation rate in Canberra and Melbourne isn't a ringing endorsement for expansion.
All of the arguments about the benefits of taking a "top down" approach are shot to pieces by the dearth of players from Canberra and Melbourne. Raiders have had 40 years to generate interest amongst children. Storm have had 25. If there's no fruit on the tree after 40 years then it's time to chop it down.
I do see the irony of Dane's team having f**k all juniors in its catchment. It's hard to take his argument about investing into new markets seriously when his side has produced f**k all participation in Canberra after 40 years.
Ideally I’d like to see both but for selfish reasons I’d pick NZ2, however I can concede someone from Perth would vote them if given the same choice (like I’m sure you’d probably favour Bris 3).
Theres a good episode of “The Rugby League Digest” podcast that looks into the local scene prior to the Rams which suggest there could be an appetite there.
Agree it’s a shame that Melbourne hasnt translated their on field success into participation and I believe Canberra benefits from a more symbiotic relationship to union similar to NZ but under performance in these markets doesn’t automatically mean failure in new markets. Apart from the obvious financial and exposure opportunities Melbourne has I believe Perth and Adelaide have greater potential and start up from a player and fan perspective than Melbourne, less competitors from rival codes and Adelaide without a professional Rugby team currently.
Although its come from successful models the strength of NSW and QLD, the code needs to expand from the safety net to grow
