Well if we are dealing in absolutes you are wrong about the NSWRL. Before Super League the NSWRL had already expanded to Newcastle, Canberra, Brisbane, Perth, Auckland, Gold Coast, North Queensland and South Queensland by 1996.
Aside from Perth (which was dropped just as quickly as any British attempt at expansion), all of those areas had existing regional leagues that had become increasingly dwarfed by the NSWRL. Comparing British RL to Australian RL, especially with expansion is like comparing apples to oranges.
After the Super League War the need for the NRL to rationalise was accepted in principle by the ARL and News Corps. 7 of the traditional Sydney teams either agreed to merge or stripped of First Grade status. That was a course of action that was endorsed by the ARL and by extension its member clubs. Perth, Adelaide and South Queensland were victims of financial mismanagement and the desire for News Corps to get the Melbourne Storm in the competition more than anything. The rationalisation process affected both the ARL and Super League clubs.
Can you imagine 6 of the small heartland clubs in England agreeing to merge for the greater good? Not in a month of Sundays.
Let's just ignore the fact that there was a Super League War in the first place. You seem to completely miss the point that the War was fought purely because of what you would class as parochialism. If the Aussie clubs were so noble and forward thinking, there would have been no war in the first place!
None of those clubs merged for the greater good and there is a good argument that with all the mergers it just led to the demise of one of the clubs. Wests tigers are more Balmain, St George-Illawarra are basically St George and Manly squeezed out the North Sydney Bears.
Our game has made tough decisions too that have affected many smaller clubs.
Also you are wrong about the BRL too. Up until the creation of the Broncos BRL players were still being picked for the Kangaroos in significant numbers. The creation of the Canberra Raiders, who relied heavily on BRL talent, and then the Broncos killed the BRL as a first grade competition. Within a couple of years the crowds, sponsorship and quality of the players had collapsed.
My point was correct. You are trying to make out like the noble BRL clubs sacrificed themselves for the greater good by becoming a feeder competition. They didn't. Their decline was precipitated by the growth of the NSWRL, they basically lost out to a bigger partner which killed off the competition's prestige. That's like making out that Leigh, Halifax and Featherstone have nobly stepped by so that Super League can be a success.
Also getting back to the original topic the NSWRL clubs also allowed the State of Origin to be created and allowed their players to be used in the games.
The Australian game and the Australian clubs have been much more dynamic and forward thinking than their British counterparts.
Back to the original point, there has been a yearly series between Queensland and NSW since 1910. Not as long as we've had Roses clashes mind. They didn't decide to release their players for the greater good, they had always done it. They just changed which side they had to play for. By the time Arthur Beetson got to play for Queensland in a modern style Origin, he had already played 18 games for NSW.
It's laughable to claim that Australia are more forward thinking than us. They took the dollar just as much, if not more than we did in 1995.
We face regular reluctance from them over a number of things that would help the international game. They let their international players have a year off last year, what other sports do this? Our clubs would take part in an extended WCC in a heartbeat, it is they who see no value in it. They shortened the Ashes tours into just a 3 game series. There are many more instance where their reluctance causes considerable problems.
Edited by Maximus Decimus, 02 August 2013 - 10:28 AM.