So ergo supporters are all the same no matter where they are based, which is precisely the point you were refuting earlier by characterising one set of supporters as somehow superior to others (you wouldn’t understand because you don’t follow a Sydney club- you follow a plastic club) )
The only thing that matters ultimately is how many supporters you have and whether you are financially viable. That’s it. If a club relocates because they can get more supporters and pay their bills which is what happened to the Lions and the Swans then that is ultimately a good decision. It’s not likely to happen but if it were to happen, inductive reasoning suggests that it I should highly possible that it would work
Another point which I found interesting is not trying to compete with the AFL. Why do some supporters want us to be second fiddle? Even if we never catch up to AFL shouldn’t we at least try? You shouldn’t run a business against your main competitor and not try to outdo them - it seems incredibly defeatist
The AFL is a domestic competition for a sport exclusively played in Australia, the NRL is a domestic competition for a sport that has an international game (albeit a small one). One would think our main competitor is rugby union if we're wanting to catch up to anything.
Heck I think we should be focusing more on expanding outside of Australia (ie. a second NZ team and the Pacific) than trying to compete with a competition that does not nor will ever have an international game.
As stated before putting up the Swans as the poster child of relocation working is a nonsense. We're talking about a club that was flat broke a decade after moving and had to be bailed out by the league financially twice.
South Melbourne had absolutely no choice but to move to Sydney as they were on the brink of extinction and the then VFL realised the league who was rooted financially themselves had to go national otherwise the game would've died decades later.
Last time I checked the NRL is not struggling financially.
