Dazz...the Wildcats had to move from the PEC to Challenge Stadium to survive the spiralling costs of the PEC.
They were bleeding money.
No, the reverse is true.
They had to leave PEC because it closed.
(It was old, required too much maintenance, and was more valuable as real estate, but end result it closed.)
They beld money at Challenge, which is why Vlahov had to bring Bendat in.
Paul, this isn't the 80's.
At the inception of the NBL most teams local clubs stepping up, or otherwise had similar venues and budgets. There's a reason NONE of those teams are left.
In the 80's I bought a new car. It had vinyl seats, 4 spd manual, 1.3l carburettor engine, painted metal on the inside, no aircon, no power steer, no power windows, no ABS, no airbags, and no stereo. When I went to the footy as a kid, we STOOD.
People won't put up with the same things they did 30 years ago.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the idea of starting in a smaller venue, PROVIDED it is part of a long-term plan. Maybe their plan is to concentrate initially on building a roster and getting some on-court stability, establish a small core of fans, then in say their 3rd or 4th year move to a better venue with an accompanying big push in marketing and memberships. That might work (I'm no expert.) However starting in a crappy venue on the premise of moving only when crowds warrant, won't.
Nor is it only about numbers, size is NOT the key. If you had a choice between a 7,500 capacity shed out in the burbs, or a 4,500 premium venue in the city, go for the premium venue. (Although anything smaller may not be viable.)
And forgetting Brisbane for a moment, if you're a regional team then a smaller venue may be all you can get (or all you can fill.) My point there is that you STILL need to have a (different) plan. Smaller venue means either a much smaller budget for your team, OR a significant alternative income stream.