Expansion Proposals for a Truly National AFL

[Roylion]

That's why I wouldn’t be surprised if the AFL decides to go down that route of relocation Victorian clubs in our lifetime again (at the very least),

How do you see the AFL approaching this?

as there is not enough talent in Australia to have more than 22-24 teams in the AFL during that period

Is anyone really seriously suggesting adding any more than two more clubs in the next 20-30 years? Maybe longer.

We'd be sticking to 18 teams in the medium term if Tasmania wasn't a football state pushing for its own club. It may well be that a bye is seen as desirable and we have one each week. However a 19th team seems to give impetus to the thought of a 20th team, so if this is the case it seems that one of Darwin / Alice Springs or Canberra is the logical place for a 20th licence.

Currrently we have 18 clubs playing 22 times in a season for a total of 396 Home and Away matches plus 8 finals matches for a total of 404 matches.

20 clubs playing 19 times (play each other once equals 380 Home and Away matches) with perhaps a final series of a top 10 making up 13 finals games over a five week finals series. 10 teams (5 matches) reduced to eight teams the second week (4 matches), six teams the third week (two matches and two top placed teams byes), four teams the penultimate week and the GF as usual. Total: 393 matches. Down 11 games.

Or keep the 22 games for each of the 20 teams making a total of 440 games + a final eight as it currently stands. Total: 448 games. Up 44 games.

 

[Coolangatta]

How do you see the AFL approaching this?



Is anyone really seriously suggesting adding any more than two more clubs in the next 20-30 years? Maybe longer.

We'd be sticking to 18 teams in the medium term if Tasmania wasn't a football state pushing for its own club. It may well be that a bye is seen as desirable and we have one each week. However a 19th team seems to give impetus to the thought of a 20th team, so if this is the case it seems that one of Darwin / Alice Springs or Canberra is the logical place for a 20th licence.

Currrently we have 18 clubs playing 22 times in a season for a total of 396 Home and Away matches plus 8 finals matches for a total of 404 matches.

20 clubs playing 19 times (play each other once equals 380 Home and Away matches) with perhaps a final series of a top 10 making up 13 finals games over a five week finals series. 10 teams (5 matches) reduced to eight teams the second week (4 matches), six teams the third week (two matches and two top placed teams byes), four teams the penultimate week and the GF as usual. Total: 393 matches. Down 11 games.

Or keep the 22 games for each of the 20 teams making a total of 440 games + a final eight as it currently stands. Total: 448 games. Up 44 games.

I'd give Tassie the licence this year and bring them in as early as 2025 or as late as 2028. I'd give Canberra a licence and bring them in as early as 2028 or as late as 2032. 20 teams, 22 rounds, top 10 finals series.

Don't add any new teams after Canberra until 2050. By that stage, we'll know how the minnow clubs in Victoria are doing and how the markets are in Queensland and New South Wales. That should guide what happens beyond team 20, but if any clubs from those markets are really struggling, they may fold before then.

It's hard to say, but I'm certain that if Tassie goes ahead, the AFL will want team 20, and as much as I'd love an NT team, it's way too soon, so the ACT is a better bet.

 

[madmug]

I'd give Tassie the licence this year and bring them in as early as 2025 or as late as 2028. I'd give Canberra a licence and bring them in as early as 2028 or as late as 2032. 20 teams, 22 rounds, top 10 finals series.

Don't add any new teams after Canberra until 2050. By that stage, we'll know how the minnow clubs in Victoria are doing and how the markets are in Queensland and New South Wales. That should guide what happens beyond team 20, but if any clubs from those markets are really struggling, they may fold before then.

It's hard to say, but I'm certain that if Tassie goes ahead, the AFL will want team 20, and as much as I'd love an NT team, it's way too soon, so the ACT is a better bet.

As mentioned lots of times, I fail to understand how our 2nd biggest footy market, a growing city with over 2million people, which has a magnificent new stadium, still only has 2 teams.

And people talk about Sydney3!!!!!!

 

[Coolangatta]

As mentioned lots of times, I fail to understand how our 2nd biggest footy market, a growing city with over 2million people, which has a magnificent new stadium, still only has 2 teams.

And people talk about Sydney3!!!!!!

Isn't Freo something like 11th or 12th on the membership ladder? 50 odd k? That's not peanuts in a two-team state, but until Freo gets more love and WA isn't a one-way Eagles juggernaut (they certainly aren't on the field right now), then I don't see a 3rd WA team as necessary. I mean, sure, I don't think 10 Victorian teams are necessary either, but I don't want to be the arsehole who has to fold or relocate clubs that have been around for over 100 years. If worst comes to worst, you take two or three of the struggling Vic sides and relocate them to Queensland and NSW, but that's a long way off, depending on several factors.

While a 3rd team in WA could probably work just fine, I'd rather nationalise the competition as much as possible, so that's why Canberra would be on my team 20 radar, not WA, and I say that as a West Aussie. With Tassie and ACT, you are one step closer to a competition with a team in every state and every major territory in the country (obviously, you can't have teams where no one lives or only 300 people live).

 

[Roylion]

It's hard to say, but I'm certain that if Tassie goes ahead, the AFL will want team 20, and as much as I'd love an NT team, it's way too soon, so the ACT is a better bet.

It's my view that a NT team is closer than Canberra.

If a 19th licence comes in, then North Melbourne could well look at playing four home games in Canberra to replace their Tasmanian deal. The AFL could schedule four Giants games and four Kangaroos games at Manuka to give Canberra eight games a season.

 

[Coolangatta]

It's my view that a NT team is closer than Canberra.

If a 19th licence comes in, then North Melbourne could well look at playing four home games in Canberra to replace their Tasmanian deal. The AFL could schedule four Giants games and four Kangaroos games at Manuka to give Canberra eight games a season.

Or North end up being relocated to Canberra in 5-10 years.

 

[Roylion]

Or North end up being relocated to Canberra in 5-10 years.

That’s very unlikely. Why would North want to do that?

 

[Coolangatta]

That’s very unlikely. Why would North want to do that?

Yeah, I don't think they'd go for it, but if the AFL wants a Canberra team, I think they'll offer North a relocation deal like they did Gold Coast and Tasmania before they opt for a 20th licence.

 

[RedV3x]

When fans talk about expansion they are usually talking about a wish list.
Instead people should be focussing on what type of model they want.
Soccer replaced their ethnic competition with one that went nowhere until attention was paid to population distribution.
NRL has the extended NSWRL model and AFL has the extended VFL model.
The AFL has paid a lot of attention to population distribution.
All the non-Victorian clubs are in large population areas or in the case of G.C., potentially large growth areas.
Many people say that "Melbourne has too many AFL clubs".
This is not strictly true. It's the uneven support of teams that is the problem and besides, those "small" clubs are still relatively big.
If the desired model is to go with big teams then that suggests re-locations and 18 teams.
If we go with boutique stadiums then stand-alone teams make sense.
There is the private model which i think will come in only in part at best.
There is a new model - the government model. Now governments already invest a huge amount in football indirectly
but The Tasmanian and N.T. governments see an expanded role for football in their regions - tourism and social.
I see a Tasmanian team as very likely because the desire is there.
I see the Northern Kangaroos in Canberra as the last lifeline N.M.
I don't quite see how the model for the N.T. would work (even with the money)
I see the increasing importance of regional hookups like the "Ballarat" Bulldogs.
Because of the current situation I see other potential options like N.Z remaining on the back-burner.

 

[RedV3x]

That’s very unlikely. Why would North want to do that?

Because North are struggling and historically have made a series of half-hearted decisions.
North have no future in Melbourne and need an injection of inspiration.
North have to fully commit to one last sensible option.
IMO, Canberra is a many times better option than Tasmania as North has links there, transport is better
and quite frankly Canberrans will accept any team whilst Tasmainias don't want a relocated team.

 

[Coolangatta]

Because North are struggling and historically have made a series of half-hearted decisions.
North have no future in Melbourne and need an injection of inspiration.
North have to fully commit to one last sensible option.
IMO, Canberra is a many times better option than Tasmania as North has links there, transport is better
and quite frankly Canberrans will accept any team whilst Tasmainias don't want a relocated team.

I honestly can’t believe the AFL hasn’t figured this out. Why are they even considering moving them to Tassie when they could do this instead? Unless muppet Eddie was just speaking for himself.

 

[Roylion]

Because North are struggling and historically have made a series of half-hearted decisions.

You need to distinguish between struggling on-field and struggling off-field.

North have no future in Melbourne and need an injection of inspiration.

Debt free with own home base, but no future. Yeah ok.

North have to fully commit to one last sensible option.

They’ve already said they’re committing to Melbourne. Several times.

For example CEO Ben Amarfio stated in March 2021: "Our footy club has been in North Melbourne for over 150 years. We are invested in staying at Arden Street and looking forward to being an active participant with the Victorian government and the City of Melbourne in the exciting development going on in this precinct.”

 

[Outtatym]

I honestly can’t believe the AFL hasn’t figured this out. Why are they even considering moving them to Tassie when they could do this instead? Unless muppet Eddie was just speaking for himself.

Who said they are considering it? Eddie? Load of s**t.

 

[Canberra Pear]

It's my view that a NT team is closer than Canberra.

If a 19th licence comes in, then North Melbourne could well look at playing four home games in Canberra to replace their Tasmanian deal. The AFL could schedule four Giants games and four Kangaroos games at Manuka to give Canberra eight games a season.

As cool as it would be, I just don't see the NT being viable any time soon. Their own feasibility study said they'll be $15m short every year.

The NT is definitely the frontrunner publicly, but I imagine if the AFL did have Canberra in mind, they couldn't say anything publicly yet as it would jeopardise the GWS deal in the meantime.

If it came to Canberra just hosting more interstate teams, my preference would be one Vic team playing six or seven, rather than two teams. It's a bit of whiplash going between supporting two teams and GWS can't expect fans to support any more games out of Sydney.

 

[Roylion]

If it came to Canberra just hosting more interstate teams, my preference would be one Vic team playing six or seven, rather than two teams. It's a bit of whiplash going between supporting two teams and GWS can't expect fans to support any more games out of Sydney.

I doubt any Vic. team would dilute their Melbourne presence so much as to play seven of their home games in Canberra. Four would be the limit.

 

[Coolangatta]

I doubt any Vic. team would dilute their Melbourne presence so much as to play seven of their home games in Canberra. Four would be the limit.

Given that North are always the ones on the relocation table, it sounds like they’d be the most in trouble if they don’t find a second home after Hobart.

If Canberra gets their own team (I’d like to see it happen), where does that leave North with games to play? Darwin? Cairns?

What will they do if the lack of money from selling some home games starts to bite them on the arse?

GWS and Gold Coast aren’t going anywhere, but North could be in deep s**t. But I respect them for wanting to stay in Melbourne. * Eddie and his proposal. Stay or fold.

 

[RedV3x]

You need to distinguish between struggling on-field and struggling off-field.

It doesn't take long for onfield drought to lead to financial drought.

 

[madmug]

I doubt any Vic. team would dilute their Melbourne presence so much as to play seven of their home games in Canberra. Four would be the limit.

Yes, I think apart from getting their own team at some stage, having 2 teams play different opposition sounds like a good way to expand the game & increase interest.

The problem in Tas is we have 2 areas to 'service'. Certain groups, in reality Politicians & locally 'engaged' persons, started a problem by pushing the 'cricket in the south, footy in the north' policy/mantra.

I grew up watching local TFL footy, but going to state finals in both N&S. Also Rep footy games Tassie v whoever. And state cricket matches in Devonport, Launy & Hobart. That changed for no reason other than political gain. Supported by the national body, especially the AFL.

Getting sport used like that caused unnecessary angst. Pollies & others thrive on division. Very sad.

Its taken a lot to try & change the situation, but also convince those who use that contrived division against Tas getting a team.

Its still a perception.

Parochialism is considered a dirty word. It is just having a bias towards being 'local'. Collingwood supporters ar 'parochial', as are every other lot of supporters. It can be a power for good. Having One team for us will cause parochial/partisan feelings. But for the whole state instead of a contrived N/S thing.

The social benefits/unity that one sees in smaller communities like Geelong, Newcastle/Townsville NRL will become the situation in Tasmania.

I hope.

 

[RedV3x]

As cool as it would be, I just don't see the NT being viable any time soon.

Not under the usual model but there seems to be support for what I call a government model.
Even so, money isn't everything. Just to get 13k attendances you'd need 10% of the population.
You'd need every person to attend to get 25k at Alice springs.
These regional games may be feel good in nature but they lack the atmosphere for television presentation.
IMO, a northern team with Cairns, Townsville and even Mackay as venues.

 

[Roylion]

It doesn't take long for onfield drought to lead to financial drought.

The onfield drought will end. With the cyclical nature of teams’ fortunes, aitded by the AFL's equalisation policies, there’s a good enough chance it will be North's turn in the upper reaches of the ladder soon enough.

So given the above, and the fact that North are a debt free, profitable club, there is absolutely no way North will be relocating.

They don't need to, so why would they want to. Any conjecture to the contrary is merely wishful thinking driven by an agenda. Hello Caroline Wilson.

 

[Roylion]

Given that North are always the ones on the relocation table, it sounds like they’d be the most in trouble if they don’t find a second home after Hobart.

North are debt free with their own Melbourne base. They also made a profit of $819,000 on revenue of $39.268 million in 2021.

North were granted more than $7 million by the Victorian State Government in 2020 to complete Stage 2 of its Arden Street redevelopment. This is due for completion in August 2022. Stage 1, completed in 2019, saw the delivery of new training and match day facilities for the club.

So North are a debt free, profitable club in Melbourne and yet they're supposedly "on the relocation table."

What will they do if the lack of money from selling some home games starts to bite them on the arse?

What are St Kilda doing with their just below $10 million debt, which was reduced by $3 million in 2021?

Fitzroy's maximum debt ever was $2.7 million.

 

[Coolangatta]

North are debt free with their own Melbourne base. They also made a profit of $819,000 on revenue of $39.268 million in 2021.

North were granted more than $7 million by the Victorian State Government in 2020 to complete Stage 2 of its Arden Street redevelopment. This is due for completion in August 2022. Stage 1, completed in 2019, saw the delivery of new training and match day facilities for the club.

So North are a debt free, profitable club in Melbourne and yet they're supposedly "on the relocation table."



What are St Kilda doing with their just below $10 million debt, which was reduced by $3 million in 2021?

Fitzroy's maximum debt ever was $2.7 million.

Then why was North even mentioned in the Carter Report? That I don’t get, although Gil did say it’s about a 19th licence, not a relocation. So, hopefully just a media beat up.

Not under the usual model but there seems to be support for what I call a government model.
Even so, money isn't everything. Just to get 13k attendances you'd need 10% of the population.
You'd need every person to attend to get 25k at Alice springs.
These regional games may be feel good in nature but they lack the atmosphere for television presentation.
IMO, a northern team with Cairns, Townsville and even Mackay as venues.

Hmm, once Darwin hits about 200k, a northern team might work. Can’t play early season games there but the team could hub in North Queensland for six weeks, playing four home games there. Then off to the NT and 7 games in Darwin. Northern Crocodiles or Boomerangs in Indigenous flag colours. Imagine their Indigenous round jumpers.

 

[Coolangatta]

Long term you could have 24 teams, 24 rounds: 10 Vic, 3 SA/NSW/WA, 2 QLD, 1 NT/NQLD, 1 TAS, and 1 ACT.

Team 19: Tasmania: mid-late 2020s, 7 Hobart, 4 Launceston
Team 20: Canberra: 3-5 years after Tassie
Team 21/22: Northern Team (NT/NQLD): 7 Darwin, 4 Cairns (2045)
Team 21/22: 3rd Western Australia Team: could be regional north/south split, or Perth based with a couple of games north and south WA, leaning towards regional alliance team like the Western Bushrangers. (Late 2040s, early 2050s)
Team 23/24: Northern Sydney (2050s)
Team 23/24: South Australia team: again, not sure where but probably in or near Adelaide and based on Norwood (late 2050s, early 2060s)

order could be changed but instead of a solo team in NQLD which I have doubts about, a Darwin/Cairns based club could be strong and financially viable. 3rd WA team is doable and long-term I think SA can get another. ACT is definitely doable as is Tassie, and if NSW market goes well, northern Sydney would be the next location. I don't think you keep expanding forever, though, we like our footy to start in March and finish in September. You can still achieve this with 24 teams but beyond that I don't think you can.

 

[Roylion]

Then why was North even mentioned in the Carter Report?

Have you read the 24 page Carter Report?

North Melbourne was mentioned in the Carter report but only in the context - and along with Hawthorn - of the fact they currently play home games in Tasmania.

In the section on 'relocation' on pages 20-21 of the report North Melbourne was not mentioned.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

You keep going on and on about this national competition you want and also keep bringing up getting rid of or merging Vic clubs.

I think you will find, your version of a nation league would go bankrupt, get rid of Melbourne teams, then you are watering down tv revenue, Melbourne is where the money is.

We need to wait for at least another 50 years IMO before 1 or both the Queensland and or NSW market takes off, before even thinking about getting rid of Vic supporters.

North does not offer the comp money.

The Club is OK financially at present but few of their fans/members bother to go to games anymore. Their on field future is bleak.

North's existence distorts the Comp. There may come a time when other teams boycott them to force them out.