The main problem that I see with that article (and others here have touched on it) is that it doesn't show causality.
Even if the numbers were statistically valid (they're not, for reason already discussed) can you be certain that the location of the grounds are the sole reason for the poor ranking. The article doesn't prove the point it is trying to make.
Crowds may increase if capacity is increased and facilities improved. Public transport can be improved and increased on game days etc..
The other problem that I have is that the discussion is about where to spend money on upgrading grounds. So why include a whole lot of grounds in the comparison table that are not up for consideration of an upgrade (including grounds located interstate). If it were limited to only those grounds that might be considered for an upgrade, then the range of average attendance will reduce considerably.
The purpose of this article is to advance an agenda. (Liverpool?)
But, it would still be nice to have one home ground with good public transport links and adjacent entertainment and restaurant facilities.
Agreed, he makes an argument for why certain grounds should not be made into mini Bankwests, then proceeds to show how good Bankwest is at drawing crowds.
Who ever would have thought that grounds in need of an upgrade aren't tremendously popular with crowds? But Ramy tells us that's not a reason to give them an upgrade. Deny them an upgrade because that's exactly what they need.
And who is to say that a local ground upgrade isn't part of a greater plan to boost local business, cafes, dining etc. as a "precinct" rather than just a refurbished ground?