I think you've completely misunderstood my first post. I wasn't implying anything at all. I was simply asking why certain clubs merged, and asked about the affects of proximity in those decisions. I'm not quite sure how you've taken that as what you've said above?
Sorry, I think you may be putting carts befire horses.
Firstly, your OP wrongly implies the merger of some Sydney rugby league clubs was a grand strategy of geographic necessity when in fact in most cases were merely reactive attempts to make the best of a bad lot in the aftermath of the Superleague wars.
I never said it was good. I just said it's a route they could have gone down had they wanted to keep traditional clubs and stay away from mergers.
Secondly, I don't see what's great about your conference concept, bogged down by an over representation of metro Sydney teams?
Based on what? When was the last time an NRL club was relocated? How on Earth can you not only make such a claim, but pass it off as "pretty clear"?!
Luckily for Rugby League the NRL's concept for expansion is not pins in maps atomisation of playing talent into more smaller teams. It seems pretty clear they are much more likely to push for some Sydney "franchises" to be re-located. Perth Sharks?
Would a Cronulla fan rather see their club merge with another Sydney club or relocate 4,000km to the other side of the country?!
I see no evidence of the NRL looking to push out anymore Sydney clubs. They're looking to expand to more teams (18) from all the stories I've read, but haven't decided when.