but that does not necessarily mean more teams in the NRL competition.
The only saving grace is the "not necessary" bit.
Youre trying to read into a political dodge. They are going out of their way to not commit OR rule out anything at this stage...
Which is fair enough. They have only just begun the study, it would be unprofessional to commit to something before they have even seen the recommendations.
If you want to find the "saving grace", be thankful that the are even talking about expansion at this point. It would be so much easier to pull a gallop and just leave it in the desk draw...
However this has now been trotted out by Grant, Smith and this unnamed official. Can be read as one of two ways 1. That their will be relocation or merger to keep number at 16 but bring in new areas or 2. That there will be no new clubs but more games played on the road.
Given how conservative the NRL and commission have been ove rthe last two years it is very hard to think that number 1 is an option they are willing to take on. So that means no new clubs, crumbs being continued to be fed to places like Perth and Gosford and little hope we will see the game grow to any great heights in the next decade.
Would you have prefered their first act back in 2012 to the announcement that all teams were cut and the NRL would immediately begin from scratch A-League style. That would have atleast stamped their authority.
The fact is that the NRL wasnt about to fall apart and they didnt need to do anything dramatic. They focussed on longterm and thought out actions and (if they do decide to place a team in perth) you can thank them for giving you a stable team rather than flogging the licence off to some eccentric billionaire on their first day...
