20th AFL Team

[Aussie in exile]

Interview with Andrew Demetriou on SEN Breakfast this morning about the establishment of a new NT AFL taskforce to try and secure the 20th license. The taskforce will consist of Demetriou, Nathan Buckley, Andrew McLeod, head of AFLNT and members of the territory government.

During the interview, Andrew discussed the decline of indigenous draftees in recent years, the potential for the federal government to get involved with funding due to the positive social impacts associated with sport, as well as the Northern Aus concept previously discussed (encompassing Darwin, Cairns and Alice).

As unpopular as this proposal might be on here, it seems to have a lot of momentum at the moment.

Fat Andy trying to be relevant again, but still won't answer questions on the Essendon drug scadal and his part in the cover up.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

If you listen to that, it's clear that Demetriou hasn't looked that closely into the cons. He isn't even aware of the climate issues ffs.

But it's interesting in regards to NA that it'd basically be Darwin/Cairns/Alice. Townsville and Mackay don't ever get mentioned so I doubt they'd be a part of it. You think it'd be 7-3-1 if 11 home games, 7-4-1 if we go to 12 home games per club.

It's interesting that he mentioned perhaps conferences.

You feel like if NT/NA does get up as team 20, that could be it, but if there's a conference model, it leaves the door open for expansion beyond 20 teams, and that's the only way the ACT are ever gonna have any hope of getting a team if they aren't the 20th.

I have suspected for a while now that the AFL's preference is NT/NA over ACT/WA3/SA3 for the 20th team but preference and viability are two completely different matters altogether.

But then what happens if the feds do commit billions of dollars of funding to it?

What he said about fixturing is right though. At the start of the season (during the back end of the wet season) there’s no reason why they couldn’t have away games scheduled (and a home game in Alice), then play more home games later in the season at night so the heat is less of an issue.

Yes, I agree that the 7-3-1 split seems most likely. They are probably resigned to the fact that Townsville and Mackay are fairly staunch RL areas. If it’s hard to generate a fan base within the 2.5m people of Western Sydney then perhaps the smaller rugby-dominant cities like Townsville are just not worth the time and effort if they’re guaranteed to get more supporters, academy players, sponsors etc from the more AFL-friendly cities like Darwin and Cairns. Also, the team won’t have to travel as often and the governments won’t have to duplicate expensive facilities across a wider range of cities.

I’m anticipating that if the business case demonstrates how an AFL team can have a positive social impact on the territory and get more youth playing sport and staying in school, instead of turning to crime, then the feds will throw a truckload of money towards it. There would have to be some kind of ongoing commitment from the government to ensure that it doesn’t become a burden for the league down the track though.

 

[lordbob]

Please god, no NT team. Every home game would be hot, humid and slippery. Cant imagine it would be great for the health of players going from 14 degrees winter training to play in 30+ humid and hot conditions. Would it have an impact on recovery and ability to back up?
Having to plan the whole fixture around the rainy season also sounds like a major pita. Like we need a new team where the whole fixture has to be planned around catering to them. Im sure adding a team that adds more than proportional complexity to an already complex fixture process is exactly what the AFL needs.

 

[Righteo]

NT team is an impossibility, crazy how many people still think it's viable. I think they're blinded by the romanticism of it maybe

 

[speedpeck23]

NT team is an impossibility, crazy how many people still think it's viable. I think they're blinded by the romanticism of it maybe

They do play footy there. Some great players have come from the NT.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The story on Fox Footy says the funding gap is now almost $19m.

That's ballooned by 26% since the scoping report. If the AFL covers that, the NT will now cost them the same as the Suns and St Kilda combined, every year.

They also want $240m to fix up Alice Springs' stadium. $240m for a town of 25k.

An incredibly optimistic bid.

 

[Cmarsh]

Interview with Andrew Demetriou on SEN Breakfast this morning about the establishment of a new NT AFL taskforce to try and secure the 20th license. The taskforce will consist of Demetriou, Nathan Buckley, Andrew McLeod, head of AFLNT and members of the territory government.

During the interview, Andrew discussed the decline of indigenous draftees in recent years, the potential for the federal government to get involved with funding due to the positive social impacts associated with sport, as well as the Northern Aus concept previously discussed (encompassing Darwin, Cairns and Alice).

As unpopular as this proposal might be on here, it seems to have a lot of momentum at the moment.

The reasons given sound more like an attempt at social rehabilitation than a genuine attempt at a viable professional sporting club. Completely the wrong reasons for a 20th team.

 

[Cmarsh]

I just don't see how you could have games in Darwin or Cairns in March and April.

I'd go with 3 Alice games, then 3 Adelaide games (including GR) for an NT side, with the rest of their home games in Darwin from May onwards.

For NQ, 2 Townsville games, then a Mackay game, then off to Adelaide for 3 games (including GR), with the rest of their home games in Cairns from May onwards.

But Canberra first, then do NT and NQ for teams 21 and 22 if we commit the cardinal sin of going beyond 20.

And how would all that travel with no real home base possibly attract players?

 

[errant bounce]

Not sure why there's this fear of the weekly bye.

The current situation is a mess: took about six weeks for all the teams to be on equal games played and I think the mid-season bye rounds, which is surely when attendance dips and broadcast tips, stretch over four weeks don't they (it's at least three). then the end of season bye which must be calculated into salaries. throw in the skewing of Gather Round, too.

Other major issue is actually slotting in ten games. the AFL and individual broadcasters clearly don't like too much of an overlap with start times and Thursday is hard work for anyone who isn't 25 and single. crowds are going nuts and no one's rocking up for weird time slots (I went to the Freo - Richmond game and that began bang on 1pm and I had to leave the house at around 11am, and I'm only 30 minutes from the city) while late Sunday starts kill your Monday morning.

Players will get a comfy week off and with the season inevitably growing, they'll need the extra break.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Not sure why there's this fear of the weekly bye.

The current situation is a mess: took about six weeks for all the teams to be on equal games played and I think the mid-season bye rounds, which is surely when attendance dips and broadcast tips, stretch over four weeks don't they (it's at least three). then the end of season bye which must be calculated into salaries. throw in the skewing of Gather Round, too.

Other major issue is actually slotting in ten games. the AFL and individual broadcasters clearly don't like too much of an overlap with start times and Thursday is hard work for anyone who isn't 25 and single. crowds are going nuts and no one's rocking up for weird time slots (I went to the Freo - Richmond game and that began bang on 1pm and I had to leave the house at around 11am, and I'm only 30 minutes from the city) while late Sunday starts kill your Monday morning.

Players will get a comfy week off and with the season inevitably growing, they'll need the extra break.

Expand club lists and piss the bye off.

If clubs want to rest players, feel free to do it.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Here is the NT’s strategic business case for the 20th AFL license. The taskforce/advisory group with Demetriou, Buckley and McLeod, has been formed to guide the implementation of recommendations provided in the business case.

AFL Taskforce

Find out about the Territory AFL Team Taskforce objectives, members and read the NT AFL Club Licence Strategic Business Case.

tfhc.nt.gov.au

 

[Teen Wolf]

Tasmania and Team 20 are completely different circumstances.

It's crap that Tasmania had to jump through so many hoops. But the AFL didn't want to expand, and they wouldn't have if Tasmania hadn't jumped through those hoops.

But a 20th team will be sought after. Fair or not, the hoops won't be the same for Tasmania and whoever comes in as Team 20 (unless it's somewhere ridiculous like Darwin or Cairns who'll need air-conditioned stadiums).

This is delusional.

Tasmania had to jump through hoops because it's a small market with small projected growth. Like Canberra. The AFL is only going to grant a new licence in such circumstances if it's assured of long-term government support. The best way to secure this support is via huge investment in a new stadium of the class previously outlined.

If the AFL were as afraid of odd numbers as you seem to think, they'd already have clear plans for a 20th team. They aren't actively seeking a 20th team, but rather leaving the spot open for potential bidders to enter an arms race of sorts... which has already begun.

 

[Bjo187]

The reasons given sound more like an attempt at social rehabilitation than a genuine attempt at a viable professional sporting club. Completely the wrong reasons for a 20th team.

I agree, but the afl love a good virtue signal is the worry.

 

[fargothegreat]

The best way to make this 'North' team viable would be to send the existing North up there.

Drop the word Melbourne from their name and become the North Kangaroos, playing games in Darwin, Cairns and Melbourne.

Then give the 20th license to Canberra and you've got a truly national league.

 

[Coolangatta]

And how would all that travel with no real home base possibly attract players?

Well, the games could be upped to 9 each in Darwin and Cairns for each respective team, with Alice getting 2 instead of 3 games and Townsville getting 1 game instead of 2.

The hubs would minimise travel. Alice Springs then to Adelaide is one trip in five games, two home, three away. That leaves 18 games, 9 at home, so nine more trips and you’re looking at 11 plane trips in total, one before the season begins from Darwin to Alice. It’d be a similar ordeal for NQ.

But the cold hard truth is, if the AFL wants to cap at 20, one or both of NT and ACT misses out.

Unless as suggested here, a godfather offer can get North to move. 7 games in Darwin, 3 in Cairns, 1 in Alice, 3 in Adelaide, and a guaranteed 7 away games in Melbourne with extra access for Melbourne based members and free Kayo.

 

[Canberra Pear]

This is delusional.

Tasmania had to jump through hoops because it's a small market with small projected growth. Like Canberra. The AFL is only going to grant a new licence in such circumstances if it's assured of long-term government support. The best way to secure this support is via huge investment in a new stadium of the class previously outlined.

If the AFL were as afraid of odd numbers as you seem to think, they'd already have clear plans for a 20th team. They aren't actively seeking a 20th team, but rather leaving the spot open for potential bidders to enter an arms race of sorts... which has already begun.

We'll obviously have to jump through hoops, but not the same ones.

1. The Tasmanian expansion has initiated this round of expansion. The AFL did not want to expand yet and they gave ridiculous demands to Tasmania. The AFL will be fine with a few years of odd teams, but as you said, there's already plans for a 20th team. The desire for a 20th team will be greater than it was for a 19th team. So, fairly or not, the demands places on a potential 20th bid will likely be more reasonable.

2. Canberra and Tasmania are different markets. Greater Canberra has all of Tasmania's population in the one centralised area. If you include the distance from Hobart to Launceston, we've got nearly 900k. As for the market factors, Canberrans have a median income 70% higher than Tasmanians. Both markets are small, but Canberra's market is still a lot bigger than Tasmania.

3. "small projected growth". Not sure if you're referring to population or support, but neither is true for Canberra. We've been the fastest growing state/territory for the past two censuses and that growth is expected to continue. As for support, we're a mixed code town, a lot of neutral support to grow into. The long-term upside is greater for a Canberra team.

4. Manuka v Bellerive. This is the most important factor. If we had some crappy stadium in the sticks, then a new central stadium might be a necessary hoop. But Manuka is well-placed, central, amongst pubs and restaurants, and soon to be somewhat along the light rail. It will need an upgrade, I'm not denying that, but we don't need a shiny new roofed stadium. It's overkill.

5. We will still likely have long-term government assurance. All ACT teams get millions in funding. As I've previously mentioned, the ACT government seems keen on giving further perks such as in-season naming rights and signage rights at Manuka. Collectively, they'll be about $5-6 million in government assurances.

I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest between Canberra and Tasmania. Just pointing out that they will be trying to enter in quite different circumstances.

I would love a new city AFL stadium, but I don't think it's likely in Canberra's political climate. And a new roofed stadium is not as important as it is for bids like Darwin or Cairns.

 

[speedpeck23]

The reasons given sound more like an attempt at social rehabilitation than a genuine attempt at a viable professional sporting club. Completely the wrong reasons for a 20th team.

Why ?

 

[Walshawk]

The best way to make this 'North' team viable would be to send the existing North up there.

Drop the word Melbourne from their name and become the North Kangaroos, playing games in Darwin, Cairns and Melbourne.

Then give the 20th license to Canberra and you've got a truly national league.

Forget Cairns. It has no relationship to the NT. The Hawks are looking to play a game there when they leave Tassie so it is covered and is an NRL town anyway.

North Kangaroos playing three games in Darwin and maybe one in Alice. Give them an academy and access to NT players (maybe outside the first round).

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Why ?

Because it's not good for the competition. A perennial basket case where no one will want to go to, funded indefinitely by the league, draining resources that could be spent on improving the game or fan experience. What a disaster, anyone who thinks NT is a serious option is delusional.

 

[Teen Wolf]

We'll obviously have to jump through hoops, but not the same ones.

1. The Tasmanian expansion has initiated this round of expansion. The AFL did not want to expand yet and they gave ridiculous demands to Tasmania. The AFL will be fine with a few years of odd teams, but as you said, there's already plans for a 20th team. The desire for a 20th team will be greater than it was for a 19th team. So, fairly or not, the demands places on a potential 20th bid will likely be more reasonable.

2. Canberra and Tasmania are different markets. Greater Canberra has all of Tasmania's population in the one centralised area. If you include the distance from Hobart to Launceston, we've got nearly 900k. As for the market factors, Canberrans have a median income 70% higher than Tasmanians. Both markets are small, but Canberra's market is still a lot bigger than Tasmania.

3. "small projected growth". Not sure if you're referring to population or support, but neither is true for Canberra. We've been the fastest growing state/territory for the past two censuses and that growth is expected to continue. As for support, we're a mixed code town, a lot of neutral support to grow into. The long-term upside is greater for a Canberra team.

4. Manuka v Bellerive. This is the most important factor. If we had some crappy stadium in the sticks, then a new central stadium might be a necessary hoop. But Manuka is well-placed, central, amongst pubs and restaurants, and soon to be somewhat along the light rail. It will need an upgrade, I'm not denying that, but we don't need a shiny new roofed stadium. It's overkill.

5. We will still likely have long-term government assurance. All ACT teams get millions in funding. As I've previously mentioned, the ACT government seems keen on giving further perks such as in-season naming rights and signage rights at Manuka. Collectively, they'll be about $5-6 million in government assurances.

I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest between Canberra and Tasmania. Just pointing out that they will be trying to enter in quite different circumstances.

I would love a new city AFL stadium, but I don't think it's likely in Canberra's political climate. And a new roofed stadium is not as important as it is for bids like Darwin or Cairns.

Saying the requirements for Tasmania were "ridiculous" is an admission of ignorance, and a clear sign of somebody who should not bother predicting the AFL's next move.

Same goes for the assumption that $5-6m in supposed "assurances" from the government is going to impress the AFL, for two reasons: 1) without a world class stadium enabling sufficient premium season ticket holders, the team will need $11m from the government each year, and 2) governments change, so the only real assurance is a proper stadium which can't be taken away with the stroke of a pen.

Simply put, the AFL view will be that you do have a crappy stadium, removed from the CBD in the same way as Bellerive. And adding a projected 300k people in the next 50 years is not going to be interpreted as a high-potential growth market.

but as you said, there's already plans for a 20th team. The desire for a 20th team will be greater than it was for a 19th team. So, fairly or not, the demands places on a potential 20th bid will likely be more reasonable.

Btw I did not say this. I said the race is on among potential bidders because the AFL have not made any plans for a 20th team. The implication is potential bidders will have to strive to outdo each other, which would include promises of attention-grabbing stadia.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Simply put, the AFL view will be that you do have a crappy stadium, removed from the CBD in the same way as Bellerive.

The locations of Manuka and Bellerive are incomparable.

Manuka is a premier destination. It's literally less than 1km from Parliament House. And it will be serviced by the light rail. It's a crappy stadium, but nothing like Bellerive in location.

A new stadium is nice, but should only be one factor. The NT is offering a shiny new stadium, but will cost the AFL $45m a year in distribution. Whereas Canberra could play in an upgraded Manuka and cost them less than half of that in distribution.

And adding a projected 300k people in the next 50 years is not going to be interpreted as a high-potential growth market.

You framed it as if Canberra had similar growth to Tasmania. The medium projections have Tasmania growing by 5%, and the ACT growing by 57% in that time.

Not sure how you can frame that as not high-potential growth.

 

[Coolangatta]

The AFL probably wants another team in Sydney and will just wait another 20-30 years until it can do so. I don't know if they want a 20th team for the sake of a 20th team and bidding wars are not the way they do things. They'll put one where they want.

I think they'd prefer the NT like Demetriou, Clarkson, and many other big figures in footy because of the popularity and politics of it all, but they won't do it unless it's viable, which it's not. So I could see it staying on 19 teams for a long time. I want to believe they'll seriously consider Canberra, but the cynic in me says they're going to ignore them.

Need to make Canberra Pear the next CEO.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The locations of Manuka and Bellerive are incomparable.

Manuka is a premier destination. It's literally less than 1km from Parliament House. And it will be serviced by the light rail. It's a crappy stadium, but nothing like Bellerive in location.

A new stadium is nice, but should only be one factor. The NT is offering a shiny new stadium, but will cost the AFL $45m a year in distribution. Whereas Canberra could play in an upgraded Manuka and cost them less than half of that in distribution.



You framed it as if Canberra had similar growth to Tasmania. The medium projections have Tasmania growing by 5%, and the ACT growing by 57% in that time.

Not sure how you can frame that as not high-potential growth.

Well we know what you think "should" happen. It just has no relevance to what will actually happen. And as for your figure of $45m... let's file that claim under Laughable Fabrications, since clubs turn profits off $50m income.

The difference in population growth between Tas and ACT is projected to be at most a couple hundred thousand by 2071. Small fry numbers. Not exactly dealing with western Sydney's millions which is what it takes for the AFL to recognise a high-potential growth market.

But if we're to persist with this point about the ACT's projected growth (a whopping 6-10k people per year), it should be pointed out the vast majority of it will take place either in the CBD, or on the other side of the city from the current crappy stadium. In other words, give up the pretence that Manuka Oval is well-placed and central.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Well we know what you think "should" happen. It just has no relevance to what will actually happen. And as for your figure of $45m... let's file that claim under Laughable Fabrications, since clubs turn profits off $50m income.

The $45m is distribution. Clubs like GWS and Gold Coast require $25m. The NT will require a further $19m.

So $44m if the AFL covers that funding gap.

The difference in population growth between Tas and ACT is projected to be at most a couple hundred thousand by 2071. Small fry numbers. Not exactly dealing with western Sydney's millions which is what it takes for the AFL to recognise a high-potential growth market.

Nobody has ever claimed that we're going to be the next Western Sydney in population. I don't know why that's even a factor.

But we are growing much quicker than Tasmania, and you originally compared our growth to Tasmania, which it's clearly not comparable.

But if we're to persist with this point about the ACT's projected growth (a whopping 6-10k people per year), it should be pointed out the vast majority of it will take place either in the CBD, or on the other side of the city from the current crappy stadium. In other words, give up the pretence that Manuka Oval is well-placed and central.

Such a weird hill to die on. Manuka is well-placed and central. Just ask anybody having to trek out to Bruce.

It's also closer for the NSW suburbs that aren't often factored in.

A lot of that growth is also on the light rail, which will tie in perfectly with Manuka.

 

[Peacock]

Should have stuck with 16 teams, this is just getting embarrassing now.