Several times you've reacted negatively to suggestions that RL would be more prosperous if we promoted enjoyment of the game over the simple appeal of winning.
I drew a comparison between a proposed 20-team NRL and the 20-team EPL, pointing out that the latter generates and maintains interest at both ends of the table. Fighting like hell to escape relegation from the EPL is on a different planet from avoiding the NRL wooden spoon.
In a comp without promotion/relegation the inordinate emphasis on winning is a threat to NRL ambition. Can you doubt that if the Dolphins had lost their first two games the media would have gone into Phil Gould dismal overdrive bemoaning a botched expansion?
Wouldn't be true, but it could dampen the enthusiasm for further growth.
The first part is a little obtuse. I don’t know what examples you are referring to?
Is it about my feelings on Leichhardt? If it is, I just don’t think it serves the game well but most particularly the Tigers
Putting aside the quality of the ground and the limited possibility of the government severely pumping money into the ground to make it better, how does playing at Leichhardt help the Tigers? They play at multiple grounds, how does that help their brand/identity? How is the club going to compete with other clubs if they are blanketed by those with modern stadia and better corporate facilities?
Sometimes reality is cold but reality is still reality. Also, the history and tradition of the ground just doesn’t disappear into some sort of void because it is not played in the NRL. Look at Henson Park and NSO, they are popular in NSW Cup for those who want a nostalgia trip.
Also, promotion/relegation won’t work in Australia.