I think it’s in danger of becoming either your for or against it which I don’t think it should be - particularly as that then takes on characteristics of hoping it fails for an I told you so moment.As an interst why are those against our current strategy making poorly made arguments yet there is yet to be one genuinely backed up by any evidence, made argument for it?
I’d say the argument is poorly made because you’re referencing investing in local communities and clubs etc which can happen irrespective of playing at Ballarat so the point is largely irrelevant. In fact if incrementally more money is made from Ballarat than Etihad those investments can be pursued with more vigor. Those investments are relatively low cost anyway. If the club is not adequately making them it has nothing to do with Ballarat. The evidence I’d suggest for that is Hawthorn and North both of which seem capable of pursuing Tas while also investing in local communities.
I’d say the reasonable argument for Ballarat is that it is a region inherently linked to the clubs identity of ‘Western’ and makes more money than continuing to play these low key games at Etihad. I’d say the evidence for that is the substantial media coverage of the previous awful deal and the evidence that a better deal under the AFL was not realistic is that no club is pursuing more games there and the implicit logic in the club execs making the decision to move away. Sure execs can make mistakes and should be open to criticism but it’s hard to believe homework wasn’t done by people whose full time job it was to have done so to be comfortable that Ballarat was a better financial outcome.
Of course if it fails or they should’ve known better - including if it loses money or is worse than Etihad - then they should be held accountable.