I probably would if it saved me money. But that doesn't get me emotionally attached to a club, calling me a fan of that club, getting me buying merch of that club, tuning in weekly to see how my club is performing etc etc.
That's exactly why we don't want to go down that path, because inevitably the club has to move on and if the fans are all emotionally attached to the club when they move on, then to them it's the equivalent of if our clubs relocated!
The same sense of abandonment, betrayal, frustration at the games governing body for allowing it to happen, etc. Though I've not experienced it myself when one of the AFL teams have left Canberra (because I wasn't interested in them in the first place) I've seen it happen time and time again (especially in children).
We just want people to take an interest in the sport, not to get to emotionally attached to any particular clubs.
your model would work fine for existing fans of other NRL clubs living in other cities but if you want to generate new fans and get them emotionally invested in the game then you need to give them regular exposure to a club to call their own.!
I agree, but that club should be a club that bares their cities name!
Up until the point that they either get their own team through expansion or relocation all we want to do is get people interested in the game and to a point where they may be ready to pick up a club of their own.
Besides nothing's stopping them from following a team, they don't need the club to be geographically connected to them to follow a club!
There're people all over the world following NRL teams with out having any prior connection to the club, hell long before their was even whispers of the possibility of a Canberran team I followed the club that took my eye, which happened to be the Bears for no other reason then I liked bears more then the other mascots of the time.
There's no reason why other people would not be included to do the same because of my idea.
It is also why your point about commitment creates such a high risk, you want people to feel that club A is their club, if that club walks away after a couple of years then it is more emotionally felt. It's why there needs to be long term commitments, almost to the point it becomes a condition of the license.
Nope, those are problems that your sister cities create.
My idea would see that the games are a promotion of the sport and the competition that is the NRL, marketed with primarily NRL branding and seen as a neutral location for both teams participating as much as is possible.
Also I'd look to have no clubs play more then once (or worst case scenario twice were there're no other options) in any target city every couple of years. For example over a three year period of three games each year Perth would get a schedule similar to this-
.Year 1 Rabbits v Manly, Dogs v Titans and Warriors v Knights.
.Year 2 Storm v Cows, Sharks v Eels and Raiders v Panthers.
.year 3 Broncos v Tigers, Roosters v Dragons and Warriors v Manly.
This'd create a situation where no team is seen as a "home" team in the target cities.
For the price of one new club the NRL could more than adequately financially reward 5 clubs taking up a sister city arrangement, bringing in 5 new major population centers to the NRL. For the Sydney clubs their fans can watch their team in their city up to 18 times a season. Losing 3 is not that big a hardship!
All of that can be achieved without sister city arrangements!
Also using my idea you could more easily involve the non Sydney clubs, where it'd be detrimental for them to lose 3 home games, losing 1 may be manageable. That'd create more flexibility when scheduling and also not make it look like the non Sydney clubs are getting special treatment by being partially or wholly exempt from giving up home games.
