20th AFL Team

[Roylion]

I can see going forward the AFL will consist of the 6 clubs named above
With the following Sydney ,GWS,Port Adelaide,Adelaide,West Coast,Fremantle,Brisbane and Gold Coast and Tasmania.
With new teams being the Bunbury Kangaroos ex North Melbourne and amalgamation of St.Kilda,Melbourne or Western Bulldogs and Melbourne to known as Melbourne Centrels.
Can see this happen by 2035 a 16 team competition .

I just can't see this happening at all...let alone by 2035. Its far more likely that we'll have 20 teams by 2035.

 

[Roylion]

I think the AFL needs to seriously think about relocating St Kilda and North, as well as T20.

How's the AFL going to do this exactly? They've never been able to relocate a club against their will.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Other than the current model that's in place, there's four different routes that the AFL must consider taking regarding the future of the smaller Victorian clubs (Melbourne, North Melbourne, St. Kilda and Western Bulldogs) out there and expand the game further in the future:

1) Rebranding clubs into directional regions: If the AFL wants to keep 10 teams, North Melbourne and St. Kilda must follow the Western Bulldogs blueprint of rebranding their club to be more representative of their directional compass in Victoria and taking secondary home games outside of the CBD into country regions.

Northern Kangaroos would encompass the club to represent the Northern suburbs and regions and would take home matches into regions of Bendigo or Albury-Wodonga whereas the Southern Saints (as the VFLW namesake) would represent more in the fast-growing Southern/South-Eastern suburbs and regions and take home matches into Dandenong.

Only problem with the idea is the lack of infrastructure currently in place and it would cost too much to build or upgrade boutique stadiums in the N & S/SE of Victoria these days. Furthermore, it doesn't eliminate the amount of clubs in Victoria compared to interstate ones.

2) Relocating clubs interstate: If the AFL becomes bigger and wants to be anything like American sports, they must consider the prospect of smaller clubs relocating into interstate of growing cities and regions that only have limited representation of the sport and this model has worked in the past with South Melbourne (Sydney Swans) and Fitzroy (Brisbane Lions).

Not going to throw darts of where these small clubs should be relocated in the future but the AFL will not want to have another GC and GWS-sized independent team in regions such as NSW, QLD, NT and possibly NZ someday given there's been minimal support of both teams in those regions nearly 15 years later (even if it's slowly growing and meant to be generationally).

It should be noted that relocating a team into WA3, SA3, TAS and possibly ACT as well would be a mistake given the sport already the sport has a decent footprint in those regions, it's more about expansion into RL states than anything else with relocation and limiting the advantage that Victorian clubs have over the competition.

3) Merging clubs internally: If the AFL wants to limit the amount of clubs in the Victoria without adding interstate, the smaller Victorian clubs (the 4 mentioned above) would have to merge internally and or with the bigger Victorian clubs out there in some frankestein model.

While I joke that the St. North-Western Victorian Demons would be a massive powerhouse in the competition, merging clubs with others in the same state probably won't work in this professional day and age now unless it's some Melbourne Centrals hybrid that Mr north man mentioned.

An example of this model being unsuccessful before is the Northern Eagles of the NRL back in the early 00s. The club lasted 3 years before the license went back to Manly while North Sydney continues playing it's trade back in reserve grade (for now). Even the Wests Tigers have been a failure of a club for the past 10-15 years even though they were created from Balmain and Western Suburbs back in the NSWRL days.

While this does limit Victoria's influence in the AFL landscape and gives them the opportunity to create new teams elsewhere, the AFL won't want either a smaller competition with less games ($$$$$) or small new club licenses like GC and GWS.

4) Eliminating clubs and replacing them elsewhere: As mentioned before, this is the least likely option to happen as the AFL can't force the small Victorian clubs out of the AFL competition given the legal challenges that would occur and it would cause many disheartened fans to leave the sport altogether even if the clubs were demoted into the VFL for example.

From all that though, the AFL will probably do nothing with possible relocation of smaller Victorian clubs and as Roylion states, we'll have 20 teams more likely by 2035 with 10x in Victoria and 10x non-Victorian. However, the AFL needs to be very carefully in not killing the goose of the competition and it's why North Melbourne and St. Kilda should at least consider the prospect of relocating into bigger markets from themselves especially in growing states and regions.

 

[Roylion]

The AFL would probably face legal challenges even if a decision was ratified to remove them from the league, and they were able to do so with Fitzroy as they were under administration (their death has a lot longer history).

The administrator surrendered the licence.

Not sure if the legal challenges would be valid or would be successful,

Any attempt to "cull" clubs by forcing them to merge would need a very good reason (more than just wanting to keep a certain number of clubs) or there would be prolonged legal action through the courts.

The league has a legal duty to its incumbent clubs to look after their interests to a significant extent.

If, for example, the AFL cuts North's funding to force an expulsion, that will be legally challenged - especially if the same rules aren't then applied to clubs like the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and GWS. The AFL aren't going to remove Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS.

 

[HBFlanker]

Other than the current model that's in place, there's four different routes that the AFL must consider taking regarding the future of the smaller Victorian clubs (Melbourne, North Melbourne, St. Kilda and Western Bulldogs) out there and expand the game further in the future:

1) Rebranding clubs into directional regions: If the AFL wants to keep 10 teams, North Melbourne and St. Kilda must follow the Western Bulldogs blueprint of rebranding their club to be more representative of their directional compass in Victoria and taking secondary home games outside of the CBD into country regions.

Northern Kangaroos would encompass the club to represent the Northern suburbs and regions and would take home matches into regions of Bendigo or Albury-Wodonga whereas the Southern Saints (as the VFLW namesake) would represent more in the fast-growing Southern/South-Eastern suburbs and regions and take home matches into Dandenong.

Only problem with the idea is the lack of infrastructure currently in place and it would cost too much to build or upgrade boutique stadiums in the N & S/SE of Victoria these days. Furthermore, it doesn't eliminate the amount of clubs in Victoria compared to interstate ones.

2) Relocating clubs interstate: If the AFL becomes bigger and wants to be anything like American sports, they must consider the prospect of smaller clubs relocating into interstate of growing cities and regions that only have limited representation of the sport and this model has worked in the past with South Melbourne (Sydney Swans) and Fitzroy (Brisbane Lions).

Not going to throw darts of where these small clubs should be relocated in the future but the AFL will not want to have another GC and GWS-sized independent team in regions such as NSW, QLD, NT and possibly NZ someday given there's been minimal support of both teams in those regions nearly 15 years later (even if it's slowly growing and meant to be generationally).

It should be noted that relocating a team into WA3, SA3, TAS and possibly ACT as well would be a mistake given the sport already the sport has a decent footprint in those regions, it's more about expansion into RL states than anything else with relocation and limiting the advantage that Victorian clubs have over the competition.

3) Merging clubs internally: If the AFL wants to limit the amount of clubs in the Victoria without adding interstate, the smaller Victorian clubs (the 4 mentioned above) would have to merge internally and or with the bigger Victorian clubs out there in some frankestein model.

While I joke that the St. North-Western Victorian Demons would be a massive powerhouse in the competition, merging clubs with others in the same state probably won't work in this professional day and age now unless it's some Melbourne Centrals hybrid that Mr north man mentioned.

An example of this model being unsuccessful before is the Northern Eagles of the NRL back in the early 00s. The club lasted 3 years before the license went back to Manly while North Sydney continues playing it's trade back in reserve grade (for now). Even the Wests Tigers have been a failure of a club for the past 10-15 years even though they were created from Balmain and Western Suburbs back in the NSWRL days.

While this does limit Victoria's influence in the AFL landscape and gives them the opportunity to create new teams elsewhere, the AFL won't want either a smaller competition with less games ($$$$$) or small new club licenses like GC and GWS.

4) Eliminating clubs and replacing them elsewhere: As mentioned before, this is the least likely option to happen as the AFL can't force the small Victorian clubs out of the AFL competition given the legal challenges that would occur and it would cause many disheartened fans to leave the sport altogether even if the clubs were demoted into the VFL for example.

From all that though, the AFL will probably do nothing with possible relocation of smaller Victorian clubs and as Roylion states, we'll have 20 teams more likely by 2035 with 10x in Victoria and 10x non-Victorian. However, the AFL needs to be very carefully in not killing the goose of the competition and it's why North Melbourne and St. Kilda should at least consider the prospect of relocating into bigger markets from themselves especially in growing states and regions.

Really like point 1. Think that makes complete sense for both North Melbourne and St.Kilda to do that.

 

[Roylion]

it's why North Melbourne and St. Kilda should at least consider the prospect of relocating into bigger markets from themselves especially in growing states and regions.

They're not going to, apart from perhaps following the Dogs direction and playing the odd home game in regional Victorian centres.

Talking realistic interstate relocations and mergers of smaller Melbourne clubs is largely pointless. It's just not going to happen. There will be a 20th team entering the AFL from outside Victoria somewhere - most likely in the early to middle 2030's.

 

[Roylion]

My understanding is they can't if it just goes to a member vote at the said club, like the north/gold coast situation, however all the other clubs can vote for a team to be effectively folded or relocated and it supersedes that.

Other clubs cannot force any other club to relocate against their will. All the AFL can do is withdraw a licence.

I think the afl would be able to sell it as the best thing for North and the best thing for the competition (which in my opinion it would be), you could even say they retain 3 Melbourne home games.

North members will never agree to that and without the agreement of the board who are elected by the members, it just won't happen.

 

[RedV3x]

amalgamation of St.Kilda,Melbourne or Western Bulldogs and Melbourne to known as Melbourne Centrels.

Amalgamation doesn't really achieve anything except less teams.
Your team identity is lost in an amalgamation.
Relocation help keeps a large part of the club intact.

 

[RedV3x]

They're not going to, apart from perhaps following the Dogs direction and playing the odd home game in regional Victorian centres.

N.M. aren't even doing that. It's like they're continually looking for a the magic fix.

FYI

Ballarat. Bendigo and Albury Wodonga are roughly the same size each as Bunbury and Busselton combined.

 

[Roylion]

N.M. aren't even doing that. It's like they're continually looking for a the magic fix.

FYI

Ballarat. Bendigo and Albury Wodonga are roughly the same size each as Bunbury and Busselton combined.

But the QEO in Bendigo and Albury Sports ground have very low capacities of 10,000 and 7,000 compared to Optus Stadium of slightly over 60,000.

 

[RedV3x]

But the QEO in Bendigo and Albury Sports ground have very low capacities of 10,000 and 7,000 compared to Optus Stadium of slightly over 60,000.

And Optus has a low capacity compared with the MCG.
J.E. Hands memorial Park has a capacity of 5,000
Ballarat and bendigo are closer to Melbourne than Bunbury is to Perth.
What's your point ?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And Optus has a low capacity compared with the MCG.
J.E. Hands memorial Park has a capacity of 5,000
Ballarat and bendigo are closer to Melbourne than Bunbury is to Perth.
What's your point ?

And Busselton has an airport with direct flights to the east coast and is the fastest growing tourism sector in Australia. What's your point?

 

[The_Reaper]

Bunbury and Busso are not getting an AFL team in the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

 

[Bjo187]

The administrator surrendered the licence.

Any attempt to "cull" clubs by forcing them to merge would need a very good reason (more than just wanting to keep a certain number of clubs) or there would be prolonged legal action through the courts.

The league has a legal duty to its incumbent clubs to look after their interests to a significant extent.

If, for example, the AFL cuts North's funding to force an expulsion, that will be legally challenged - especially if the same rules aren't then applied to clubs like the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and GWS. The AFL aren't going to remove Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS.

I don't think cutting any clubs is beneficial as you would lose a whole supporter base to the game. However, relocation with the same branding and now days the ability to still see every game of your team on tv, even if you lived on the other side of the world, makes it a much more attractive option.

Bigger fan base, greater growth potential, a whole city to yourself, a whole academy region to yourself, potentially millions in government funding. The likelihood of greater wealth, fanbase and on field performance should be a significant carrot. Particularly compared to existing on the smell of an oily rag and constantly having your future brought into question.

Canberra is just such an appealing option for relocation compared to all previous proposals, due to close distance, academy area strength and their government funds all their professional sports teams. If my club were small I'd be all for it. I wouldn't have been for a move to the gold coast though, a bit too far away.

 

[Roylion]

And Optus has a low capacity compared with the MCG.

Yeah...but Optus is where North are going to play for a possible $1.2 million return per year. North obviously think the monetary opportunity is greater in the west than in regional Victoria as they transition out of Tasmania completely after 2025, ahead of the entry of the Tasmania Devils. Two of the matches they played in Tasmania are now to be played in WA.

J.E. Hands memorial Park has a capacity of 5,000

The Kangaroos will play two home games in Perth for each of the next three seasons. Bunbury is speculated as a possible venue.

Ballarat and bendigo are closer to Melbourne than Bunbury is to Perth.
What's your point ?

At this point in time they're not going to make $6 million in revenue over the next three years by playing games in regional Victoria.

 

[RedV3x]

And Busselton has an airport with direct flights to the east coast

Really only Melbourne.
So if you are are a regular Melbourne footy fan and you want to see some footy action are you more likely to drive to Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury Wodonga or a re you going to catch a plane to Busselton, hire a car and drive the 100km round trip to Bunbury ?

and is the fastest growing tourism sector in Australia.

"fastest growing" equates to "smallest".if you disregard the advertising hype.
OK, how does "the fastest growing tourism sector in Australia" help an AFL club.
That was basically the pitch for the Gold Coast.
It's great for the one-off tourist and great for the government but a bit irrelevant for the basis of an AFL club.

What's your point?

Why would you travel all the way to W.A. when there is so much football at your fingertips in Victoria ?
If people aren't travelling to the established tourism hubs of Ballart and Bendigo
then how do you expect people to travel further to Bunbury/Busselton.

 

[RedV3x]

The Kangaroos will play two home games in Perth for each of the next three seasons. Bunbury is speculated as a possible venue.

You're talking about a short contract which we're saying is wrong.
We're saying get away from these add hoc deals and find a more permanent solution.
You're not going to continue getting these sweetheart deals.
At some point N.M. is going to have to commit.
Commitment is the issue, always has bee and I suspect always will.

 

[EconomicDecline]

Northern Kangaroos would encompass the club to represent the Northern suburbs and regions and would take home matches into regions of Bendigo or Albury-Wodonga whereas the Southern Saints (as the VFLW namesake) would represent more in the fast-growing Southern/South-Eastern suburbs and regions and take home matches into Dandenong.

VFLW team is changing from Southern Saints to Sandringham Zebras

Southern Saints to become Sandringham Zebras

www.sandringhamfc.com.au

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Really only Melbourne.
So if you are are a regular Melbourne footy fan and you want to see some footy action are you more likely to drive to Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury Wodonga or a re you going to catch a plane to Busselton, hire a car and drive the 100km round trip to Bunbury ?

And soon Sydney.

And it's not really the point about what's more preferable about an AFL fan, it's about Busselton and the SW region making the already existing growing tourism grow even faster. The fact that it has an AFL game might be the tipping point for people already interested in going, or may even educate people about why it's a desirable tourism location in the first place. Promotion. Advertising.

"fastest growing" equates to "smallest".if you disregard the advertising hype.

https://mrbta.com/resources/margaret-river-region-latest-visitation-2/

It's not just "hype", its actual documented visitation numbers, the above being an example.

OK, how does "the fastest growing tourism sector in Australia" help an AFL club.

Because the desire for them wanting to maintain and accelerate that growth means that they are purchasing a home game from North Melbourne. North Melbourne are helped by the fact that they are getting money for it.

That was basically the pitch for the Gold Coast.
It's great for the one-off tourist and great for the government but a bit irrelevant for the basis of an AFL club.

Lots of people do travel to the GC for away games. When their team plays there. For instance, several thousand Richmond fans flew up for Opening Round year. GC are becoming more sustainable because their fixturing is slowly being shaped toward maximising away supporters, their attendance levels were very high because of it this year. It's not irrelevant at all.

Why would you travel all the way to W.A. when there is so much football at your fingertips in Victoria ?

People like travelling to different places for different reasons

If people aren't travelling to the established tourism hubs of Ballart and Bendigo

Ah yes, why go do the beautiful landscapes of the Margaret River wineries region when I can go to Bendigo.

then how do you expect people to travel further to Bunbury/Busselton.

Because it's a more desirable tourism location than Bendigo/Ballarat.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

VFLW team is changing from Southern Saints to Sandringham Zebras

Southern Saints to become Sandringham Zebras

www.sandringhamfc.com.au

Interesting, didn't know about that so it's interesting to hear about the name change.

Thanks for the pickup on that

 

[Blackhawk42]

But the QEO in Bendigo and Albury Sports ground have very low capacities of 10,000 and 7,000 compared to Optus Stadium of slightly over 60,000.

Albury's ground is in Lavington, and would hold a tick over 12 000 at capacity I'd say.

Had just shy of that for the two BBL games played there.

Still not 60 000 though of course.

 

[Roylion]

You're talking about a short contract which we're saying is wrong.

The Kangaroos will renew the contract at the end of the three years. When they transition out of their remaining two Tasmanian games maybe they will make a decision to move into regional Victoria with those games similar to the Dogs. However that will obviously depend how much revenue they think they can generate from that.

Even the Bulldogs only play a maximum of two games in Ballarat per season.

We're saying get away from these add hoc deals and find a more permanent solution.

The 'adhoc deals' generate a fair bit of revenue. A extra $6 million between 2025-2027.

You're not going to continue getting these sweetheart deals.

That's not necessarily the case. Clearly, they are at the moment. And until the end of 2027 at least.

At some point N.M. is going to have to commit.

To what?

Commitment is the issue, always has bee and I suspect always will.

That remains to be seen. The entry of a 19th team has obviously meant North has had to change their interstate home game strategy.

 

[RedV3x]

And it's not really the point about what's more preferable about an AFL fan,

It's the whole point - you're wanting regular attendees.

So if you are are a regular Melbourne footy fan and you want to see some footy action are you more likely to drive to Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury Wodonga or are you going to catch a plane to Busselton, hire a car and drive the 100km round trip to Bunbury ?

What you're saying is great for the region, great for the government but only minimally beneficial to an AFL club.
People go to the G.C. and what are the Suns crowds and what proportion of that from tourists?
People go to the G.C. presumeably because it's warm and sunny.
Have you been to the S.W. in winter ?

 

[RedV3x]

Even the Bulldogs only play a maximum of two games in Ballarat per season.

The Bulldogs "only" play two games.
The Kangaroos "only" play zero games (in regional Vic)

Look i don't care too much for N.M. and I'm only making suggestions as a neutral observer.
If N.M. want to continue on in the same fashion then I have no sympathy for them.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's the whole point - you're wanting regular attendees.

Says who?

So if you are are a regular Melbourne footy fan and you want to see some footy action are you more likely to drive to Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury Wodonga or are you going to catch a plane to Busselton, hire a car and drive the 100km round trip to Bunbury ?

Sure. Doesn't pay North Melbourne's bills though if those places are offering less cash to North.

What you're saying is great for the region, great for the government but only minimally beneficial to an AFL club.

Except for the benefit of the cold hard cash going to North. That's of a benefit. Clearly North don't think it's minimal.

People go to the G.C. and what are the Suns crowds and what proportion of that from tourists?
People go to the G.C. presumeably because it's warm and sunny.

Cool. So you agree you can base a team in GC permanently because there's always going to be an element of consistency of away attendances for all home games contributing to crowds and financial stability. Nobody's suggesting a SW full time team (yet).

Have you been to the S.W. in winter ?

Probably the reason that they're buying a game in the first place is that they want to spread out the tourism more evenly throughout the year rather than just in summer. That is also of a benefit to the SW other than just additional tourism numbers.