20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

I can’t see the AFL ever expanding beyond 20 teams. In fact a 19 team fixture works so well that they may stick with 19 for a while. Canberra is the only realistic option but Manuka Oval is not up to scratch (far worse than Bellerive or York Park), and the ACT has no money.

Cricket ACT and the ACT Government is pushing for a redevelopment of Manuka. Cricket ACT is pushing for Sheffield Shield and BBL sides, and hopefully more tests, so would require a redevelopment of the eastern stand.

 

[Coolangatta]

Not so sure about that - the clubs have to vote for it, so any new team will need a very compelling case like Tasmania, and a very willing AFL CEO.

That’s a good point. If the 19th bid were coming from anywhere other than Tassie, I think it would’ve failed.

I think the 20th licence won’t be too much of an issue getting across, but you’re right that a 21st proposal could just be rejected and that’s that.

Ironically, I think NT would be more likely to get up as a 21st team than anywhere else due to the populism and romanticism and all that. Like it’d still be rejected as it’s hard to see how it’d ever be viable but they’d at least look at it because rightly or wrongly it’s considered “footy territory” and right for the game and all that. Clarkson, for instance, wants to see an NT team, misguided as it may be.

But if, say, there was a proposal for NZ to be the 21st team, it wouldn’t have the public backing that Tasmania did and I’m sure the club presidents would be aware of that and reluctant to vote in favour of that.

 

[Walshawk]

Cricket ACT and the ACT Government is pushing for a redevelopment of Manuka. Cricket ACT is pushing for Sheffield Shield and BBL sides, and hopefully more tests, so would require a redevelopment of the eastern stand.

No chance of BBL expansion. I was @ Manuka last week, the whole eastern half of the ground needs to be rebuilt.

 

[BigChippa52]

No chance of BBL expansion. I was @ Manuka last week, the whole eastern half of the ground needs to be rebuilt.

exactly why they are pushing for redevlopment

 

[Demon13304]

Having never been there, is Manuka in a good spot with public transport, parking, walking distance etc.?

 

[Canberra Pear]

Having never been there, is Manuka in a good spot with public transport, parking, walking distance etc.?

Manuka doesn't have good public transport yet, but stage 2b of the light rail will pass pretty close (but is about 10 years away).

Terrible parking, but in a lively medium-density area. Walking distance to plenty of great pubs, restaurants, hotels.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Manuka doesn't have good public transport yet, but stage 2b of the light rail will pass pretty close (but is about 10 years away).

Terrible parking, but in a lively medium-density area. Walking distance to plenty of great pubs, restaurants, hotels.

Just checked it out. The Sydney Ave stop will be the closest - 1km away. By the looks of it, an upgraded Manuka has the potential to be a far superior venue than Heritage Bank Stadium in terms of location, and proximity to public transport and amenities.

In relation to those factors, Manuka shits all over Blundstone Arena (deemed unsuitable by the AFL); although, clearly, it won’t be on the same scale as AO, Optus, Gabba, Mac Point (if it gets built) etc. Hopefully it’s sufficient to appease the powers that be at the AFL. It should be if they really want Canberra to be team 20.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Just checked it out. The Sydney Ave stop will be the closest - 1km away. By the looks of it, an upgraded Manuka has the potential to be a far superior venue than Heritage Bank Stadium in terms of location, and proximity to public transport and amenities.

In relation to those factors, Manuka shits all over Blundstone Arena (deemed unsuitable by the AFL); although, clearly, it won’t be on the same scale as AO, Optus, Gabba, Mac Point (if it gets built) etc. Hopefully it’s sufficient to appease the powers that be at the AFL. It should be if they really want Canberra to be team 20.

I'd be pretty happy with that. That light rail will eventually be the spine of the city, so will be able to get a lot of people directly there, or at least be close enough for a park and ride.

There's also discussions that the light rail will actually divert through Barton to accommodate new offices going in. If so, that'd bring the stop to about 600-700m away (running along John McEwan Cres and Game Court).

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I'd be pretty happy with that. That light rail will eventually be the spine of the city, so will be able to get a lot of people directly there, or at least be close enough for a park and ride.

There's also discussions that the light rail will actually divert through Barton to accommodate new offices going in. If so, that'd bring the stop to about 600-700m away (running along John McEwan Cres and Game Court).

That diversion would take it closer to all the hospo establishments too - perfect

 

[Blackhawk42]

No chance of BBL expansion. I was @ Manuka last week, the whole eastern half of the ground needs to be rebuilt.

The surface and spectator area?

I've only been there once about 11 years ago and actually thought it was a really nice ground to watch footy.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

That diversion would take it closer to all the hospo establishments too - perfect

I really hope there’s some work going on behind the scenes with a Canberra bid. A team from the Canberra-SNSW region will add a lot more to the growth of the game than a 3rd WA club would.

I think most will agree that the establishment of GCS and GWS could have been executed more effectively. Too rushed and too close together. The Tassie timelines probably give a better indication of what’s required to set up a new club in the modern era. The most recent Tassie bid started in 2018, was approved in 2023, and will play in 2028. With this considered, we might get an announcement for #20 by 2027, with a debut season around the 2032 mark (they won’t want to cook the draft for consecutive years by having the new clubs start close together).

Justifying a 20th club is easier than a 19th; a Manuka upgrade would also prevent the drama and BS associated with a new build, so timelines like these should check out so long as the ACT is committed to developing a license bid in the near future. Tassie politics is a minefield, but what do think the chances are of getting ACT government support for stadium upgrades, high performance centres etc?

I imagine at a minimum they could divert the GWS funding to the new club, but it might be a hard sell to up these contributions because it would inevitably result in a whinge fest from the Raiders and the Brumbies. Another possible revenue source could be from NSW councils as a tourism promotion to play a few games in Wagga and Albury (Lavington is virtually AFL-ready as it is).

A BBL franchise and Manuka upgrade would be the best shot in the arm we could hope to receive for a prospective Canberra AFL team.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I imagine at a minimum they could divert the GWS funding to the new club, but it might be a hard sell to up these contributions because it would inevitably result in a whinge fest from the Raiders and the Brumbies.

The Giants currently get $2.85m a year, which is already more than either the Brumbies or Raiders, but it's sold as a business decision as "AFL fans travel more".

The government says the ACT has a positive return on investment from attendance. A Canberra team could bring in more than four times that. Almost four times as many home games (if you including finally hosting finals), plus actually playing large opposition.

I reckon on that alone, they could probably justify $4m a year from the ACT government.

Another possible revenue source could be from NSW councils as a tourism promotion to play a few games in Wagga and Albury (Lavington is virtually AFL-ready as it is).

Definitely another option. Tasmania pays up to a million a game. I think Cairns have paid 650k. I think a Canberra bid would stack up without it, but it's handy to have the options.

There's also a few perks from the ACT government I reckon a Canberra team would get.

Early in the GWS partnership, the ACT government gave the Giants a bunch of perks to entice them as it was expected we'd pull the crowds down. I believe all of those perks were rescinded at the last negotiation as the ACT proved the powerful player.

The ACT government would allow those perks to make a Canberra team more viable.

The Giants were allowed "in-season naming rights" at Manuka. So whenever it was called Startrack or UNSW Oval, that money was going to the Giants. Not sure how much they'd be worth, but they'd probably be even more valuable for a stadium with four times as many games.

The Giants also had ownership of sponsor signage in the stadium. Mitchell Madness mentioned earlier for a similar deal with York Park that Hawthorn nets ~$125k a game, so that add up to $1.375m for 11 games at a similar rate.

The Giants also had pourage rights at Manuka, which I don't know the slightest about, but The Canberra Times called them "lucrative".

So even if the ACT government can't be seen giving more than $3m to an AFL team, they can give another $2m (at a rough guess) through other methods.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The Giants currently get $2.85m a year, which is already more than either the Brumbies or Raiders, but it's sold as a business decision as "AFL fans travel more".

The government says the ACT has a positive return on investment from attendance. A Canberra team could bring in more than four times that. Almost four times as many home games (if you including finally hosting finals), plus actually playing large opposition.

I reckon on that alone, they could probably justify $4m a year from the ACT government.



Definitely another option. Tasmania pays up to a million a game. I think Cairns have paid 650k. I think a Canberra bid would stack up without it, but it's handy to have the options.

There's also a few perks from the ACT government I reckon a Canberra team would get.

Early in the GWS partnership, the ACT government gave the Giants a bunch of perks to entice them as it was expected we'd pull the crowds down. I believe all of those perks were rescinded at the last negotiation as the ACT proved the powerful player.

The ACT government would allow those perks to make a Canberra team more viable.

The Giants were allowed "in-season naming rights" at Manuka. So whenever it was called Startrack or UNSW Oval, that money was going to the Giants. Not sure how much they'd be worth, but they'd probably be even more valuable for a stadium with four times as many games.

The Giants also had ownership of sponsor signage in the stadium. Mitchell Madness mentioned earlier for a similar deal with York Park that Hawthorn nets ~$125k a game, so that add up to $1.375m for 11 games at a similar rate.

The Giants also had pourage rights at Manuka, which I don't know the slightest about, but The Canberra Times called them "lucrative".

So even if the ACT government can't be seen giving more than $3m to an AFL team, they can give another $2m (at a rough guess) through other methods.

That is interesting. If they’re able to obtain $2m from those sources and the government increases their contribution to $4m, then it’s already halfway to the Tasmanian shortfall of $12m p.a. that was guaranteed by their state government.

IMO, it would just make sense to incorporate SNSW, if possible. For example, 8 games Canberra and 3 lower-drawing games (GC, Freo, Brisbane, Tassie etc) in Wagga and Albury. Each year, those cities could alternate which hosts two games. With 2032 dollars, it’s not inconceivable that they could get $1m+ per game if both councils and tourism bodies got on board. The cities are only 130km from each other as well so a 3 game ‘Riverina’ membership could provide the club with a significant uptick of members from that region as well.

In the end, all of these funding sources would add up to help make the club financially sustainable.

 

[Canberra Pear]

That is interesting. If they’re able to obtain $2m from those sources and the government increases their contribution to $4m, then it’s already halfway to the Tasmanian shortfall of $12m p.a. that was guaranteed by their state government.

IMO, it would just make sense to incorporate SNSW, if possible. For example, 8 games Canberra and 3 lower-drawing games (GC, Freo, Brisbane, Tassie etc) in Wagga and Albury. Each year, those cities could alternate which hosts two games. With 2032 dollars, it’s not inconceivable that they could get $1m+ per game if both councils and tourism bodies got on board. The cities are only 130km from each other as well so a 3 game ‘Riverina’ membership could provide the club with a significant uptick of members from that region as well.

In the end, all of these funding sources would add up to help make the club financially sustainable.

I had a similar thought of a Riverina membership. My thought was one game each in Wagga and Albury, then an AFLW and preseason game alternating between the two.

I know eight games a year has been disruptive for the Giants' season and I'd be cautious to replicate that.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I had a similar thought of a Riverina membership. My thought was one game each in Wagga and Albury, then an AFLW and preseason game alternating between the two.

I know eight games a year has been disruptive for the Giants' season and I'd be cautious to replicate that.

I don’t have too much of an issue with 3 games for a small market team. Provided they’re spaced out appropriately then they won’t have too much of an impact.

The Giants are a unique case. I think a big issue with GWS is that the unavailability of Giants Stadium means they miss a big chunk of games quite early into the season and they can’t build up any momentum in their home town.

For example; this year they play a R2 game at Giants Stadium on 16th March and don’t play there again until 18th May. The Canberra games, Gather Rd, byes etc are all packed in before and after the Easter show and their only game in Sydney for two months is an away game against the Swans on 4th May.

This is such a ridiculous situation to find the Giants in. How the hell are they supposed to build a Sydney fanbase under those circumstances?

The Suns do it differently again. They stay up in Darwin, train, do some community work and then pump out their two games in the space of 6 days. Canberra could potentially do likewise in say, Albury, then play a game in Wagga months later into the season. Alternate the following year. It certainly wouldn’t result in Giants-level engagement issues.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don’t have too much of an issue with 3 games for a small market team. Provided they’re spaced out appropriately then they won’t have too much of an impact.

The Giants are a unique case. I think a big issue with GWS is that the unavailability of Giants Stadium means they miss a big chunk of games quite early into the season and they can’t build up any momentum in their home town.

For example; this year they play a R2 game at Giants Stadium on 16th March and don’t play there again until 18th May. The Canberra games, Gather Rd, byes etc are all packed in before and after the Easter show and their only game in Sydney for two months is an away game against the Swans on 4th May.

This is such a ridiculous situation to find the Giants in. How the hell are they supposed to build a Sydney fanbase under those circumstances?

The Suns do it differently again. They stay up in Darwin, train, do some community work and then pump out their two games in the space of 6 days. Canberra could potentially do likewise in say, Albury, then play a game in Wagga months later into the season. Alternate the following year. It certainly wouldn’t result in Giants-level engagement issues.

It’s not a bad proposal, like your 2nd Brisbane and Sunshine Coast one. You could sell Sunny a three game membership just like your Riverina suggestion.

Only difference is, they’d get 9 Brisbane games because of the derby, Canberra would get 8. Is it going to be enough? For a city more engaged in footy than Western Sydney, maybe, but is the Riverina population big enough relative to Greater Canberra to justify them getting 27% of the games? Not sure.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I don’t have too much of an issue with 3 games for a small market team. Provided they’re spaced out appropriately then they won’t have too much of an impact.

The Giants are a unique case. I think a big issue with GWS is that the unavailability of Giants Stadium means they miss a big chunk of games quite early into the season and they can’t build up any momentum in their home town.

For example; this year they play a R2 game at Giants Stadium on 16th March and don’t play there again until 18th May. The Canberra games, Gather Rd, byes etc are all packed in before and after the Easter show and their only game in Sydney for two months is an away game against the Swans on 4th May.

This is such a ridiculous situation to find the Giants in. How the hell are they supposed to build a Sydney fanbase under those circumstances?

The Suns do it differently again. They stay up in Darwin, train, do some community work and then pump out their two games in the space of 6 days. Canberra could potentially do likewise in say, Albury, then play a game in Wagga months later into the season. Alternate the following year. It certainly wouldn’t result in Giants-level engagement issues.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Suns playing away in Darwin either. They're playing 9 games on the Gold Coast to the Titans' 12. That's not how you win a market.

Same as Canberra. It's a fine line to walk to bring on the Riverina and capture Canberra, but also we've got to compete against the Raiders. Playing three fewer home games than the Raiders would not be ideal.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

It’s not a bad proposal, like your 2nd Brisbane and Sunshine Coast one. You could sell Sunny a three game membership just like your Riverina suggestion.

Only difference is, they’d get 9 Brisbane games because of the derby, Canberra would get 8. Is it going to be enough? For a city more engaged in footy than Western Sydney, maybe, but is the Riverina population big enough relative to Greater Canberra to justify them getting 27% of the games? Not sure.

That’s the main consideration and it’s not an easy one to answer, because 3 might work in some contexts, but not others. Tasmania is going with a 7-4 split, that does make sense though considering the population split between North and South Tas and footy being particularly strong in the North and North West.

The Riverina would become part of Canberra’s academy zone, so it’s fair to say that a significant % of their playing list will come from that region. In terms of facility upgrades, it would be easier to sell the benefits to governments and councils if each venue was guaranteed 3 games every two years instead of one per season.

As a footy fan I’ve never thought twice about driving for an hour or two to see a game. I understand that’s not everyone’s preference though so there’s a lot going for a 9-2 split as well, especially if Manuka is developed into a quality venue.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Suns playing away in Darwin either. They're playing 9 games on the Gold Coast to the Titans' 12. That's not how you win a market.

Same as Canberra. It's a fine line to walk to bring on the Riverina and capture Canberra, but also we've got to compete against the Raiders. Playing three fewer home games than the Raiders would not be ideal.

All of us on here are in vehement agreement that the Suns should not be playing in Darwin. If it’s essential for them to sell, those two games should be played in Cairns instead. Darwin is only happening because the AFL are gifting it to the Suns as an academy zone to help with their player retention and on field performance. In time, the Suns will be fine though. The region is literally charging towards 1m ppl and footy is going ahead in leaps and bounds, which is why they will prove to be an inspired choice for team #17.

My main argument is in relation to small market teams. The reality is that this league is highly competitive with some wealthy, powerful clubs. Canberra, Hobart, Darwin etc would already be in the league if they could stand on their own two feet but they can’t. Hobart can’t so they need to include their whole state (and government support) to help them be viable.

What will Canberra do to bridge the gap? For me, I see including the Riverina as a massive opportunity for them and if they can integrate in a meaningful way then it positions that bid (if put forward) as the clear standout for team #20. I’m aware that Canberra is a significantly bigger city than the other examples I listed. There’s also more competition for them though. You believe that many locals will buy multiple memberships, that may be the case, may be difficult to convince the commission and club presidents of that though.

 

[Bjo187]

I agree completely, Canberra has to engage the RIVERINA to meet its potential. Minimum 2 games in those regions. There is a powerful footy community in those parts you wanna bring them on board fully from the start.

 

[Thailander]

As much as I dislike Port Adelaide Fans, Canberra Pear has a point.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I agree completely, Canberra has to engage the RIVERINA to meet its potential. Minimum 2 games in those regions. There is a powerful footy community in those parts you wanna bring them on board fully from the start.

Hawthorn was able to secure over 10k Tassie members and they’re a bloody Victorian team that many Tasmanians, who support other clubs, despise. If a new Canberra club fully embraced the Riverina region, so they viewed it as their own club, then there’s no reason why they couldn’t build a decent supporter base in that footy heartland.

 

[Walshawk]

That is interesting. If they’re able to obtain $2m from those sources and the government increases their contribution to $4m, then it’s already halfway to the Tasmanian shortfall of $12m p.a. that was guaranteed by their state government.

IMO, it would just make sense to incorporate SNSW, if possible. For example, 8 games Canberra and 3 lower-drawing games (GC, Freo, Brisbane, Tassie etc) in Wagga and Albury. Each year, those cities could alternate which hosts two games. With 2032 dollars, it’s not inconceivable that they could get $1m+ per game if both councils and tourism bodies got on board. The cities are only 130km from each other as well so a 3 game ‘Riverina’ membership could provide the club with a significant uptick of members from that region as well.

In the end, all of these funding sources would add up to help make the club financially sustainable.

Albury yes - Lavington can hold 11k already and it is close enough for people to drive up from Melbourne. Not sure about Wagga - no stadium.

 

[Walshawk]

The surface and spectator area?

I've only been there once about 11 years ago and actually thought it was a really nice ground to watch footy.

It had a poke around during the week. The whole eastern side is old, really basic and quite run down compared to other AFL stadiums. It is quite depressing at the back of the stands. They have to bump in all the amenities such as toilets, food and drink. That whole half of the ground needs a bulldozer and $150m

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Albury yes - Lavington can hold 11k already and it is close enough for people to drive up from Melbourne. Not sure about Wagga - no stadium.

Good to hear. I heard they wanted to make it compliant for regular season games. Wagga is preseason compliant. Has held 7k crowds. A bit of work to do though.

Robertson Oval | Austadiums

Everything you need to know about Robertson Oval in Wagga Wagga, including venue layout, history, records, events, maps, tickets, directions and accommodation.

www.austadiums.com