What i just read that entire article, no where does it say nine stance on anything, its just a guardian reporter jibbering on about his preference or his take on the possible bids or areas the focus could/should be.... all key factors brought up in the article are dribble...
Then the comment section all are pro bears fans, most of which are either want them in perth or central coast, and all want 2-4 games at nso...
This article was click bait at the least, and uninformative at the most, it talks about player pool and quality in players (spreading marquees) but then says perth should be 18th not PNG who has players to add to that pool from the decade long hunters and digicel cup teams, then goes to shit all over NZ prospects as wellington or Christchurch as possible key areas basically coz the warriors have done fk all... thats not a metric for expansion, that just saying that the warriors are shit...
Perth doesn't add any players to the player pool, so how do they end up ahead of wherever the arlc mention? yes perth is worthy of a license, and offers other forms of growth for the game, mainly metro presence, time difference, and population of 2 million and growing, but this article starts to talk about the 20 team plan that will evenuate by 2032, but then talks about how there isn't enough players how we need an extra 100 of them, you telling me you think rl cannot grow 3 teams and garner 100 players within them over a decade? Of course they can, just have create those 3 teams, one year three years in places that play the game, then introduce perth and populate that team with players for arounf the league ala dolphins or just team up with the bears
t.co
