The AFL wants 22 teams. Name your next four.

[calyam]

1. 3rd WA team
2. 3rd NSW team
3. Tasmania
4. New Zealand

Not necessarily in that order.

 

[Rabman]

Can't see Norwood coming in and being sustainable, i think that ship sailed long ago. I know the the battle for the second SA license Norwood proposed merging with sturt back in 1994, that probably have to happen if a 3rd team was to be viable. That would though take fans away from the crows with sturt having the most affiliation out of all the SANFL clubs

 

[Tigger Please!]

Based on populations you'd have to go:

Newcastle
Illawarra
Tasmania
Canberra

All would have to be heavily subsidized by the AFL though.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Have any of the people advocating Newcastle ever seen an Aussie rules game in Newcastle??

 

[NoobPie]

Have any of the people advocating Newcastle ever seen an Aussie rules game in Newcastle??

I've got them as a candidate for the 21st / 22nd team perhaps in a couple of decades.

Haven't seen a game in the BDAFL.... only really seen Isaac Heeney, Troy Luff and the McVeigh's play. Suspect though they'd need quite a few players from elsewhere...radical approach, I know

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I've got them as a candidate for the 21st / 22nd team perhaps in a couple of decades.

Haven't seen a game in the BDAFL.... only really seen Isaac Heeney, Troy Luff and the McVeigh's play. Suspect though they'd need quite a few players from elsewhere...radical approach, I know

Point is, how much Aussie rules is Played there full stop. More likely to get a team in Auckland than Newcastle

 

[The_Reaper]

1. Tassie
2. Canberra
3. Joondalup
4. Norwood

 

[NoobPie]

Point is, how much Aussie rules is Played there full stop. More likely to get a team in Auckland than Newcastle

Well, there's more football played in the Hunter / Central Coast than there is in Auckland.

In fact, there are just 6 men's teams in the Auckland AFL compared to 25 men's teams and 16 women's teams in the BDAFL in 2018

I'm sure your "point" though will morph again as is its want. Go on, amuse me

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Well, there's more football played in the Hunter / Central Coast than there is in Auckland.

In fact, there are just 6 men's teams in the Auckland AFL compared to 25 men's teams and 16 women's teams in the BDAFL in 2018

I'm sure your "point" though will morph again as is its want. Go on, amuse me

Newcastle is a fantasy only delusional pax AR idiots believe in. Look at the city, its people, and its economics. There is a reason only a league side has been consistently sustainable there.

The game is looking at a 1-2 generation fight to make gws and gc succeed. Newcastle will make that look like play time.

Heres a hint, put a side where there is actually demand for it

 

[NoobPie]

Newcastle is a fantasy only delusional pax AR idiots believe in. Look at the city, its people, and its economics. There is a reason only a league side has been consistently sustainable there.

The game is looking at a 1-2 generation fight to make gws and gc succeed. Newcastle will make that look like play time.

Heres a hint, put a side where there is actually demand for it

Dude, if you want to call me an idiot and delusional, grow a spine and call me it directly. I used the term "pax AFL" 12 months ago in a context that was partly tongue in cheek but was also, like most things, beyond your grasp. It really got under you skin as you have dredged it up at least half a dozen times since. But using it as cover to insult just shows you're as gutless as you are simple

Newcastle is a long term candidate for an AFL team. It would not happen if particularly GWS hadn't solidified into viable club in its own right. The more successful (off field) the giants are by, say, the 2030 the more plausible Newcastle will become. Particularly if football's growth continues there at anything like the rate is has. There is a greater footprint there than there was in western Sydney

Most likely I think the next two teams will be Tas and either WA or Canberra. One of the reasons for this is that they would barely cost the AFL much more than the base club allocations which themselves will be absorbed into the AFLPA cba with its 28% revenue agreement.

The 21st / 22nd clubs, for which I have Newcastle as a candidate, would not likely be brought in before the middle of the 2030's when the Giants and the Suns will be 25 years old

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Dude, if you want to call me an idiot and delusional, grow a spine and call me it directly. I used the term "pax AFL" 12 months ago in a context that was partly tongue in cheek but was also, like most things, beyond your grasp. It really got under you skin as you have dredged it up at least half a dozen times since. But using it as cover to insult just shows you're as gutless as you are simple

Newcastle is a long term candidate for an AFL team. It would not happen if particularly GWS hadn't solidified into viable club in its own right. The more successful (off field) the giants are by, say, the 2030 the more plausible Newcastle will become. Particularly if football's growth continues there at anything like the rate is has. There is a greater footprint there than there was in western Sydney

Most likely I think the next two teams will be Tas and either WA or Canberra. One of the reasons for this is that they would barely cost the AFL much more than the base club allocations which themselves will be absorbed into the AFLPA cba with its 28% revenue agreement.

The 21st / 22nd clubs, for which I have Newcastle as a candidate, would not likely be brought in before the middle of the 2030's when the Giants and the Suns will be 25 years old

I didnt think i was being subtle, i am calling you a fanboi idiot. Your the only one thinking im hinting it

Newcastle is a completely different scenario to western sydney. It isnt just a league stronghold, its an isolated league stronghold. The only pro team that has succeeded long term up there is the knights, and thats because there isnt the local economic support for something else. As much as we are subsidizing gc and gws now, history shows newcastle will be a bigger drain

Focus on regions who want a team, not delusional pipedreams

 

[NoobPie]

I didnt think i was being subtle, i am calling you a fanboi idiot. Your the only one thinking im hinting it

Newcastle is a completely different scenario to western sydney. It isnt just a league stronghold, its an isolated league stronghold. The only pro team that has succeeded long term up there is the knights, and thats because there isnt the local economic support for something else. As much as we are subsidizing gc and gws now, history shows newcastle will be a bigger drain

Focus on regions who want a team, not delusional pipedreams

No, you've owning it now because I've called you out. For some reason me using the term "pax afl" really really got under your skin 12 months ago. Now you're simple but you're not that simple (surely?) to think that anyone else would have been so triggered by such a throw away phase that they'd even remember it let alone still be dredging it up 12 months later? you got really triggered because you like rugby league (each to their own) and are threatened by the Aus football's growth north of the barassi line. Simples

This thread is explicitly about putting forward the next 4 AFL expansion sides. There is only one credible "region that wants a team" - Tasmania. Canberra possibly as well. After that, there is no region with a bigger existing Australian football community than the hunter, baring maybe darwin. Across the Hunter and central coast there are 200 odd Australian football teams (junior and senior) and the growth this decade has been enormous. So Newcastle, as of now, is in the top 4 regions for player numbers without a team in the AFL already, and we are talking about another 15 to 20 years away here.

The AFL (the previous chairman i remember hearing saying this explicitly) has a stated goal of being the dominant code on the east coast over the next 50 (iirc) years. Not easy to shift established sporting culture but I reckon the AFL is structured as well as it could be to achieve it. Either way it is going to eat massive chunks out of it and Newcastle is definitely a long term candidate

 

[Resigned]

I can't see them adding any other teams until GWS and Gold Coast are well and truly settled, I reckon they could implement two new teams in the next 10-15 years from ready made football areas:

Tasmania: Could see them play 7 games in Hobart and 4 in Launceston, with Hobart growing fast this will be viable in the future
East Perth: With the new stadium, 2 million plus population and money a new venture here is inevitable

I can also see them continuing expansion into new regions such as:

A third Sydney team: With such a massive population, it will be impossible for the AFL to ignore.
A second Brisbane team: Assuming that the Gold Coast is capable of sustaining a team, I can see them targeting this area in the long term.
Newcastle/Central Coast: With this being the highest population base in a rugby state without a team I can see them looking here eventually.
Aukland: Would be an audacious move, but is the only slim hope of meaningful growth of the game internationally.
Canberra: Located close to the Barrasi line and in between Melbourne and Sydney.
Third Adelaide team: Will need time for Adelaides population to grow to a level where it can sustain another team, as a traditional football state they along with WA deserve the respect of having another team.

Other options which I don't think are very feasible:
Darwin/NT: With such a low population base and hostile climate would be nice to have a fully national game but will be very difficult to get off the ground.
Regional Vic: With scattered population bases regionally around the state would be hard to pull off, however that boutique stadium in Ballarat could help.
North Queensland: Logistically challenged and not enough people to sustain a football club in rugby heartland.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No, you've owning it now because I've called you out. For some reason me using the term "pax afl" really really got under your skin 12 months ago. Now you're simple but you're not that simple (surely?) to think that anyone else would have been so triggered by such a throw away phase that they'd even remember it let alone still be dredging it up 12 months later? you got really triggered because you like rugby league (each to their own) and are threatened by the Aus football's growth north of the barassi line. Simples

This thread is explicitly about putting forward the next 4 AFL expansion sides. There is only one credible "region that wants a team" - Tasmania. Canberra possibly as well. After that, there is no region with a bigger existing Australian football community than the hunter, baring maybe darwin. Across the Hunter and central coast there are 200 odd Australian football teams (junior and senior) and the growth this decade has been enormous. So Newcastle, as of now, is in the top 4 regions for player numbers without a team in the AFL already, and we are talking about another 15 to 20 years away here.

The AFL (the previous chairman i remember hearing saying this explicitly) has a stated goal of being the dominant code on the east coast over the next 50 (iirc) years. Not easy to shift established sporting culture but I reckon the AFL is structured as well as it could be to achieve it. Either way it is going to eat massive chunks out of it and Newcastle is definitely a long term candidate

Ive ridiculed you ever since you started touting your pax ar rubbish, the fact you think it wasnt overt is just scary

Im saying newcastle is the last place for a team. Tassie, perth 3, canberra, cairns, heck warrigal - all before newcastle

Just because you want an afl monoculture across australia doesnt make it possible or viable

Also fwiw, 22 teams is way too many. Any expansion imo should only occur after reducing numbers in melbourne

 

[telsor]

Where have the AFL said this? (not complaining, I just haven't seen any such comment from them)


I've said for a while I think a long term goal of expanding to 23 would work....(22 rounds, 1 team gets a bye each week).

WA 3&4
SA 3
Tas
1 TBD (given that it wouldn't happen for at least 20-30 years, I think we can allow for the options to rise).

 

[Carringbush2010]

Heres a hint, put a side where there is actually demand for it

I'd argue there isn't apart from the current 18 and at least one of those latest franchises is on shaky ground from a supporter base view, in fact probably both of them.

For mine I think this is an unrealistic romantic type thread, the same sort of thinking from Gil & co.

 

[footyfan1978]

Tasmania
Port Melbourne
Fitzroy
Norwood

 

[emuboy]

Tasmania Devils (Green, Red & Gold)
Canberra Comets (Blue, Gold & White)
Darwin Crocodiles (Ochre, Red & Black)
New Zealand Rams (Silver, Black & White)

 

[kaypee]

Newcastle is a fantasy only delusional pax AR idiots believe in. Look at the city, its people, and its economics. There is a reason only a league side has been consistently sustainable there.

The game is looking at a 1-2 generation fight to make gws and gc succeed. Newcastle will make that look like play time.

Heres a hint, put a side where there is actually demand for it

Newcastle is changing rapidly. it's no longer a working class steel town full of ten bob poms. A lot of Sydney young folk are migrating there, its becoming more of a university town. League still rules, but the town is becoming less parochial. plus the north coast is opening up to vic retirees now that byron/ gold coast/ sunny coast has s**t itself.
The hunter might not be ready for AFL just yet, but things change quickly. in 15 - 20 years the opportunity might be there. (coffs harbour, which is sort of in newcastle's sphere of influence, has a reasonable footy scene).

 

[Our Game]

We dont need 22 teams we already have too many!Better to relocate a couple of Melbourne teams to Tassie and NZ

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Newcastle is changing rapidly. it's no longer a working class steel town full of ten bob poms. A lot of Sydney young folk are migrating there, its becoming more of a university town. League still rules, but the town is becoming less parochial. plus the north coast is opening up to vic retirees now that byron/ gold coast/ sunny coast has s**t itself.
The hunter might not be ready for AFL just yet, but things change quickly. in 15 - 20 years the opportunity might be there. (coffs harbour, which is sort of in newcastle's sphere of influence, has a reasonable footy scene).

Issue is also coin. Jets only prospered because they were a tinkler plaything. Without his coin, the ffa had to takeover and ultimately sell to the chinese. Thats not an option available to the afl anymore (i hope)

 

[NoobPie]

Newcastle is changing rapidly. it's no longer a working class steel town full of ten bob poms. A lot of Sydney young folk are migrating there, its becoming more of a university town. League still rules, but the town is becoming less parochial. plus the north coast is opening up to vic retirees now that byron/ gold coast/ sunny coast has s**t itself.
The hunter might not be ready for AFL just yet, but things change quickly. in 15 - 20 years the opportunity might be there. (coffs harbour, which is sort of in newcastle's sphere of influence, has a reasonable footy scene).

Well said. Obviously a tough concept for dipsh!ts with obtuse brains, but demographics and economies change and sometimes rapidly. Newcastle is a classic case in point.

The tourism food and wine sectors will see a massive opportunity in an AFL club in Newcastle. The sectors that employ the more rusted on working class are either gone or in long term decline. In 20 years Newcastle could be ripe for the taking.

Issue is also coin. Jets only prospered because they were a tinkler plaything. Without his coin, the ffa had to takeover and ultimately sell to the chinese. Thats not an option available to the afl anymore (i hope)

The Jets! Gold.

Among other things, you clearly have no understanding of the AFL business model and sports economics generally. It is possible that no pro sport on the planet has its costs under control as much as the AFL...this is partly due to the lack of private ownership. This is why, in 2009, it could make a decision to fund two new expansion clubs into non traditional markets at the same time

The Giants had over $14 million in it own revenues in 2016 (not including match receipts) of which $10M was in sponsorship. That would be more than the entire turnover than Wanderers. It is also twice what the chinese business interests paid outright for the jets!This of course does not include the $23 million (including match receipts) from the AFL. The $10M "overs" the giants got is less than 1/80th of the AFL's entire turnover and 1/40th of its TV rights money.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Well said. Obviously a tough concept for dipsh!ts with obtuse brains, but demographics and economies change and sometimes rapidly. Newcastle is a classic case in point.

The tourism food and wine sectors will see a massive opportunity in an AFL club in Newcastle. The sectors that employ the more rusted on working class are either gone or in long term decline. In 20 years Newcastle could be ripe for the taking.



The Jets! Gold.

Among other things, you clearly have no understanding of the AFL business model and sports economics generally. It is possible that no pro sport on the planet has its costs under control as much as the AFL...this is partly due to the lack of private ownership. This is why, in 2009, it could make a decision to fund two new expansion clubs into non traditional markets at the same time

The Giants had over $14 million in it own revenues in 2016 (not including match receipts) of which $10M was in sponsorship. That would be more than the entire turnover than Wanderers. It is also twice what the chinese business interests paid outright for the jets!This of course does not include the $23 million (including match receipts) from the AFL. The $10M "overs" the giants got is less than 1/80th of the AFL's entire turnover and 1/40th of its TV rights money.

$14m? and the rest is coming from AFL house. it will be exactly the same with newcastle, just worse

any new teams have to be able to be financially independently viable at some stage, the afl cannot keep adding to the list of clubs it subsidizes significantly

and as for the jets, thats my point. if the town cant financially support a shitty cheap a league team, how will it sustain an afl side that costs 4 times as much to run

 

[Lyttelton Ranger]

NZ with enough ground work could actually be successful. It's the only country I could see having an AFL team.

Barring some radical technological breakthrough in air transport technology....

Once we master the science of teleportation, then I would think that the logical expansion teams would be 2 from Ireland, 1 from London and 1 from Auckland. Until that day comes, it is pointless trying to expand into anywhere O/S other than New Zealand.

What I think would be fair, as opposed to suiting the AFL's expansion policies, would be a demotion / promotion system like they have in most soccer leagues around the world. Every year, the 4 lowest ranked AFL teams would be replaced by the respective winners of the VFL, SANFL, WAFL and NEAFL comps.

With the threat of demotion, tanking would no longer be an issue.

 

[telsor]

The Giants had over $14 million in it own revenues in 2016 (not including match receipts) of which $10M was in sponsorship. That would be more than the entire turnover than Wanderers. It is also twice what the chinese business interests paid outright for the jets!This of course does not include the $23 million (including match receipts) from the AFL. The $10M "overs" the giants got is less than 1/80th of the AFL's entire turnover and 1/40th of its TV rights money.

Yeah, you might want to look into that a bit more closely.

Firstly getting $14M of it's own revenues out of $38M isn't a great boast. (especially when $38M is very much on the small side)

There is also the not insubstantial point that gross revenue matters a lot less than net revenues, and GWS spends an awful lot earning that money. For example in earning $1.25M in 'membership and merchandise', GWS *PAID* $2.16M in related expenses....Yes, they lose, substantially, on members.

You also need to consider that such revenue isn't all 'new money'...How much of that membership/sponsorship would have gone to Sydney (or other clubs)? nb. This is both directly, and by forcing them out of media time they would otherwise have had.

Now, that's all fine in that it's basically the AFL paying to grow the market share as part of a long term strategy. But don't try and paint it as a massive achievement. It's still very early days, and much of what GWS has, even it's supposedly 'own revenues' is merely what the AFL keeps pushing at them.