bazza said:
The other point to consider is that in Melbourne - all the the teams are essentially inner city suburbs - so moving their games to the city was not very far
In Sydney, most fans live in the area that the team is from e.g. I would expect at least 80% of Penrith fans live around Penrith. It would be silly for them to travel for "home" games
That's a good point. If you look at the Melbourne clubs:
Melbourne
Carlton
Hawthorn
Richmond
Collingwood
Essendon
Western Bulldogs
St.Kilda
Kangaroos
Most of these clubs are actually representing suburbs not regions. For example if the Sydney competition was based on this we would have such clubs like Strathfield, Newtown, Hurstville, Ashfield, Randwick, Rockdale, Botany etc.
Having said this AFL clubs have a stronger ties to their community even though they might not play at a 'traditional' home ground. I'm not being picky but take the Bulldogs and West Tigers for example.
The bulldogs used to be known as Canterbury-Bankstown. They had strong links with the area. They still do to some extent. But not like before.
It is known in league circles that the tigers represent the Campeltown and Balmain areas. However they train at concord. The tigers are in a unique predicament because they have to cater for two groups of fans.
This point was raised in the Sunday Telegraph by Paul Kent. I think all clubs should keep it's ties with the region it's from. I would love for the roosters to go back to being known as Easts. Bulldogs back to Canterbury. What sounds better: Bulldogs V Roosters or Canterbury V Easts. That's how you really build tribalism and rivarly. Right now there are some nomadic clubs in the NRL.