None have been offically broke though.
Sharks have always owned their home ground for example.
Is an investor going to sell a house or a company to fund the team if need be or will they walk away?
Option 2 always. Hence why you need something more secure behind it as well
So the only new NRL clubs to be admitted must be owned by LC's? Well that's going to discount expansion beyond 3 states lol
Pretty sure the Balmain and Illawarra sides of NRL clubs had to bail when no longer able to afford the ownership? Newcastle were broke hence why they sold to Tinkler. Tigers have been a basket case for years despite rich LC ownership, Sharks just survived selling off assets as they went broke effectively.
Financial risk is easily resolved by either a financial lump sum guarantee that the NRL holds, or a bank surety like Dolphins were made to get (NRL clearly didn't trust the LC model enough in their case).
You still haven't answered who pays the license fee and start up costs if no private investors?