No, I was thinking more the same self-interests that said that any money spent on an ARC should have been spent "introducing new schools to rugby" [Sydney University]. The Premier clubs were asked for their input on the ARC at Cap Gemini and they were against it. They wanted a model that promoted a couple of selected clubs, so how do you then resolve the differences in opinion between that and a "rep club" model if you think that playing favourites would ultimately cause massive harm to the teams left behind? Someone has to make a call somewhere along the line and the ARU did, but did everyone then get in behind the decision?
Perhaps I have misinterpreted, but I thought your position was that "if the comp proves itself to be a marketable product they sign a new and larger contract" but that that would be based on the East Coast market as "WA contributes very little to broadcast revenue, so expanding to Perth so early doesn't really achieve anything but increase costs." I think that would certainly be a position that could be realistically argued, as there would be no way to definitively disprove it without actually going ahead. It would also be a very difficult position for the ARU to ignore unless the broadcaster had specifically stated that they would get $X now that the product was proven, but $XX if it also got expanded to include teams from other states. Even then, while Victoria wouldn't be much trouble, I could absolutely (and understandably) see them trying to avoid flying to Perth, especially if they have already established that any professionally contracted player in WA has to play in the East.
It is almost certainly me misunderstanding the point, but you've completely lost me on the club amalgamation issue. When you say that "NRL and AFL are both based on club competitions, [and] theres no reason why rugby couldnt follow a similar path", I would interpret that in the AFL context as the Premier clubs remaining as they are with some others introduced from outside - i.e an expansion of Premier rugby into a national comp, just as the VFL became the AFL. So if the rugby union club system would see a max of 5 in Sydney and 2 in Brisbane, they would either be all that remained of the existing Premier clubs (armaggedon for the amateurs) or they would be newly created clubs sitting above the existing clubs. If it is the latter then it is more of a Super rugby path. That said, either way would still result in a domestic competition structure where clubs tied to regional locations would play across a wide geography and be marketed across multiple states. If that is what you meant, FFS don't let beige hear you say that it makes them the same...