NT wants a club within 10 years

[Kwality]

I'm not arguing for an NT team at all, only saying I can see the reason why the NT government would push for one.

Tassie is clearly the 19th team. I can't see the AFL wanting to fracture the NSW market any time soon, but it certainly is the right population for it in another 15-20 years. WA does make sense, but in reality it would just be a third team in Perth region, which wouldn't grow the game at all.

The situation in WA is demand exceeds supply & a 3rd team wont resolve that.

 

[Rob]

Auckland would be a chance of getting a team down the line. Football may not be huge there but the game has a long history in the city. It had a population of 1.6 million and with the cricket ground they are developing in Western Springs Auckland city council is looking to attract AFL to the city.

The first game in Auckland was back in 1870

The average crowd for the games played in Wellington was 16k while not great

It also increases the AFL’s foot print and opens up a new market for TV rights

On top of that it gives you another time zone with NZ being ahead of us so you would be able to give the game clear air

A big problem with Auckland is that they just don't attend top level sport. Last year the Blues averaged around 13k, the Warriors 16k. They had an A-League team, but crowds were barely family and friends. This is in a city that's bigger than Adelaide, where the Crows and Power draw 45k and 34k respectively.

If those sports can't draw a crowd, what on earth would make the AFL think they could do better in a market where support levels are far far lower?

We sometimes forget just how well the AFL is attended by world standards. Whilst this is great for the AFL, it makes the barriers to entry for new clubs ridiculously high.

 

[Seedsfan]

A big problem with Auckland is that they just don't attend top level sport. Last year the Blues averaged around 13k, the Warriors 16k. They had an A-League team, but crowds were barely family and friends. This is in a city that's bigger than Adelaide, where the Crows and Power draw 45k and 34k respectively.

If those sports can't draw a crowd, what on earth would make the AFL think they could do better in a market where support levels are far far lower?

We sometimes forget just how well the AFL is attended by world standards. Whilst this is great for the AFL, it makes the barriers to entry for new clubs ridiculously high.

That’s true the current infrastructure in Auckland is poor.

The Blues have been poor for years and so have the warriors. I am too young to remember back when the Blues won three championship in the late 90s but would imagine the support would’ve been better then.

People in general have disengaged from Super Rugby so I think the low level of support reflects that. You have seen average crowds across all markets fall year on year for a while now. They still sell out Eden Park when they get a Union test or T20.

 

[Les Malone]

Those Canberra figures a way out of date, so I'd assume the others would be as well.
Canberra's population is now closer 425-430,000 and Queanbeyan is close to 40,000. Canberra is also around 90 minutes from the Riverina which has a strong footy history. Canberra would be a better option than NT.

SFA industry and sponsorship that goes with it, the NRL team in Canberra survives on the back of a peppercorn rent deal and made/makes its money on pokies with which it bought rental properties, warehouses etc.

Its a Government town that wont change.

Long - long term Darwin is a better option.

 

[Kwality]

Whilst the notion of an NT team sounds nice when you read it in the paper, the reality is that there just isn't enough people up there to support a professional sports team in a national competition.

Darwin is no.17 on the cities by population list with a mere 132K there. The other thing is that they play their sporting codes opposite to the rest of the country (ie. cricket in our winter & footy in our summer) due to the seasonal weather patterns.

Using the cities with populations of 200K or more as a measuring stick, then this is how the competition should be structured in the future :

1. Sydney - 3 teams
2. Melbourne - 5 teams
3. Brisbane - 2 teams
4. Perth - 3 teams
5. Adelaide - 3 teams
6. Gold Coast-Tweed Heads - 1 team
7. Newcastle-Maitland - 1 team
8. Canberra-Queanbeyan - 1 team
9. Central Coast - 1 team
10. Sunshine Coast - 1 team
11. Wollongong-Illawarra - 1 team
12. Geelong - 1 team
13. Hobart - 1 team

Great example of the relevance of population to any sport.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

The only chance they have is if the government spend tens of billions developing the top end.

 

[Les Malone]

The only chance they have is if the government spend tens of billions developing the top end.

It will happen, not if but when.

 

[madmug]

Whilst the notion of an NT team sounds nice when you read it in the paper, the reality is that there just isn't enough people up there to support a professional sports team in a national competition.

Darwin is no.17 on the cities by population list with a mere 132K there. The other thing is that they play their sporting codes opposite to the rest of the country (ie. cricket in our winter & footy in our summer) due to the seasonal weather patterns.

Using the cities with populations of 200K or more as a measuring stick, then this is how the competition should be structured in the future :

1. Sydney - 3 teams
2. Melbourne - 5 teams
3. Brisbane - 2 teams
4. Perth - 3 teams
5. Adelaide - 3 teams
6. Gold Coast-Tweed Heads - 1 team
7. Newcastle-Maitland - 1 team
8. Canberra-Queanbeyan - 1 team
9. Central Coast - 1 team
10. Sunshine Coast - 1 team
11. Wollongong-Illawarra - 1 team
12. Geelong - 1 team
13. Hobart - 1 team

Nice but you have to be realistic.

The major determinant is footy politics, followed by economics, then footy culture.

The footy politics of owning a spot in the league. No matter how badly a club performs off or on field, they aren't getting kicked out.

The economics of any possible new teams.

The culture in the area. If people aren't footy people you'd need to spend a fortune over a long period to even begin to turn that around, if ever.

Melbourne/Geelong will always its 1 have its 10 teams.

Brisbane has 1 NRL team & you think it'll have 2 teams? Add GC & Sunshine coast gives 4! WTF?

Illawarra couldn't support its NRL team. So what hope there.

Newcastle & Central coast?? WTF?

Hobart, no. Tasmania, possibly. We'll find out sooner rather than later I guess.

So, In which century & under what circumstances could you possibly imagine this coming to pass?

 

[madmug]

The only chance they have is if the government spend tens of billions developing the top end.

The Feds are near broke so don't hold out hope for that in the near future.

Decades away, maybe.

 

[AuntyBlindEye]

Would the AFL pay the NT for the club in this scenario? Because they certainly won't make much money from gate-takings or memberships.

I can't help feel that they could make more money than GC, or draw more people at least. They were far more footy mad up there in my time living in Darwin, far more so than I noticed anywhere in Qld.

I could be very wrong about the earnings, but I feel like the appetite is far higher there than on the GC.

 

[AuntyBlindEye]

I'd love to see a NT team though.

 

[LordLucifer]

Great example of the relevance of population to any sport.

Okay then, lets put an AFL team in Warrnambool and see how successful it is.

 

[LordLucifer]

Nice but you have to be realistic.

The major determinant is footy politics, followed by economics, then footy culture.

The footy politics of owning a spot in the league. No matter how badly a club performs off or on field, they aren't getting kicked out.

The economics of any possible new teams.

The culture in the area. If people aren't footy people you'd need to spend a fortune over a long period to even begin to turn that around, if ever.

The AFL don't care about those things, all they care about is making money. So the most obvious way to achieve that is by increasing the number of teams which creates more games per weekend which in turn means an even more lucrative broadcasting rights deal.

For clubs to be sustainable, they need a larger population to work with in order to build a membership base. Given that not everyone follows the code (yes, even in Melbourne, Adelaide & Perth) so the bigger the population, the bigger potential audience there is for the club.

 

[Seedsfan]

The AFL don't care about those things, all they care about is making money. So the most obvious way to achieve that is by increasing the number of teams which creates more games per weekend which in turn means an even more lucrative broadcasting rights deal.

For clubs to be sustainable, they need a larger population to work with in order to build a membership base. Given that not everyone follows the code (yes, even in Melbourne, Adelaide & Perth) so the bigger the population, the bigger potential audience there is for the club.

Adding 1 game a weekend isn’t going to bring in enough money to justify having a team in the NT where it will be unsustainable.

If we want more money we have to reduce the amount of games that clash with each other as you split your audience.

The NRL has a Thursday game at 8, a Friday double header at 6 then 8, Saturday 3, 5.30 and 7.30 and then Sunday 4 and 6.

No two games ever go head to head to the maximise the viewership for every game thus maximising the revenue for the networks so they are willing to pay more

If the AFL want to maximise the money they make from TV they have to work out how to reduce the amount of games that overlap

 

[LordLucifer]

Adding 1 game a weekend isn’t going to bring in enough money to justify having a team in the NT where it will be unsustainable.

If we want more money we have to reduce the amount of games that clash with each other as you split your audience.

The NRL has a Thursday game at 8, a Friday double header at 6 then 8, Saturday 3, 5.30 and 7.30 and then Sunday 4 and 6.

No two games ever go head to head to the maximise the viewership for every game thus maximising the revenue for the networks so they are willing to pay more

If the AFL want to maximise the money they make from TV they have to work out how to reduce the amount of games that overlap

I'm advocating an increase of six teams overall meaning that there are 11-games per week.

As for the TV scheduling, if every game was to be on individually (ie. no overlaps or double-ups), then the schedule might have to look something like this :

Thurs - 7:30pm
Fri - 6:00pm & 9:00pm
Sat - 12noon, 3:00pm, 6:00pm & 9:00pm
Sun - 12noon, 3:00pm, 6:00pm & 9:00pm

Some of the 9pm games could be based in Perth to assist with the time difference for TV audiences on the eastern side, if there was three WA-based teams it would certainly assist that issue. The Sunday night will be a difficult one for some.

 

[Seedsfan]

I'm advocating an increase of six teams overall meaning that there are 11-games per week.

As for the TV scheduling, if every game was to be on individually (ie. no overlaps or double-ups), then the schedule might have to look something like this :

Thurs - 7:30pm
Fri - 6:00pm & 9:00pm
Sat - 12noon, 3:00pm, 6:00pm & 9:00pm
Sun - 12noon, 3:00pm, 6:00pm & 9:00pm

Some of the 9pm games could be based in Perth to assist with the time difference for TV audiences on the eastern side, if there was three WA-based teams it would certainly assist that issue. The Sunday night will be a difficult one for some.

We don’t have the talent for that many teams at the moment

 

[Kwality]

Adding 1 game a weekend isn’t going to bring in enough money to justify having a team in the NT where it will be unsustainable.

If we want more money we have to reduce the amount of games that clash with each other as you split your audience.

The NRL has a Thursday game at 8, a Friday double header at 6 then 8, Saturday 3, 5.30 and 7.30 and then Sunday 4 and 6.

No two games ever go head to head to the maximise the viewership for every game thus maximising the revenue for the networks so they are willing to pay more

If the AFL want to maximise the money they make from TV they have to work out how to reduce the amount of games that overlap

Why?

 

[LordLucifer]

We don’t have the talent for that many teams at the moment

There are more than enough players playing the sport within the country to populate another 6-teams.

If it's the overall standard you are referring to then that may be a valid discussion, however, if the talent dips a bit initially then so be it. Lots of people still follow and enjoy the VFL, SANFL & WAFL so that should be as low as it would ever get.

Besides, what better way is there to improve the overall playing talent than having them train in an elite system and play in an elite system ??

 

[DEVO]

SFA industry and sponsorship that goes with it, the NRL team in Canberra survives on the back of a peppercorn rent deal and made/makes its money on pokies with which it bought rental properties, warehouses etc.

Its a Government town that wont change.

Long - long term Darwin is a better option.

Interesting. Not entirely true, but interesting. Our employment profile is different to other states because it is more knowledge based and orientated towards service delivery, ICT, Defence and public administration but that doesn't mean we couldn't support a AFL team. On average we have the highest disposable income the country and we are also one of the fastest growing cities in the country, according to the ABS we are expected to reach half a million around 2030 and 1 million sometime between 2080 and 2090.

 

[Seedsfan]

Why?

Because you split your potential viewership with two games on at once, leaving less people watching each game.

 

[footyfan1978]

It is too small and too far away from rest of the clubs to make much sense. It is like another world up there for weather and everything.
Give me a Tassie team and be done with it.

 

[Kram]

Yeah, and I want a toilet made out of solid gold.

 

[Seedsfan]

There are more than enough players playing the sport within the country to populate another 6-teams.

If it's the overall standard you are referring to then that may be a valid discussion, however, if the talent dips a bit initially then so be it. Lots of people still follow and enjoy the VFL, SANFL & WAFL so that should be as low as it would ever get.

Besides, what better way is there to improve the overall playing talent than having them train in an elite system and play in an elite system ??

I would prefer quality over quantity also with Gold Coast and GWS a drain on the game a few of the small Melbourne clubs struggling financially it may backfire

 

[caloschwaby]

I'd bet my house on a third WA team before Tasmania,

Better get used to sleeping with cardboard as your blanket

 

[Kwality]

Because you split your potential viewership with two games on at once, leaving less people watching each game.

If TV wanted that it would have it years back.