20th AFL Team

[Aussie in exile]

I'm happy for no sports to get any money including your favourites, it would mean the AFL extend their lead on all competitors, the ones that never put their hand in their own pocket (the afl is the only one and also has the biggest revenue by a big margin on all other Australian sports).

Well I'm glad to see that like me us tax payers money shouldn't go to building sports stadiums and stadium refurbs, and that money should go to schools and hospitals

 

[catters05]

Lol.

If you think that GWS and the Suns are not viable, just wait 'till we put a team in the NT.

As much as I’d love a team in the NT, it’s a waste of money as this stage.

 

[Canberra Pear]

food for thought

View attachment 2352057

[edit] despite what people might think darwin is just not viable (fwiw, neither is cairns - and for the same reasons)

Thanks for posting. A good guide.

No suprise that it looks good for Canberra.

Also looks good for the Sunshine Coast. If they can lay the groundwork (stadium, consistent games), it'd be a decent chance for the 21/22 expansion.

Doesn't reflect well on Darwin. Not only is it small, it's not even growing quickly. Canberra's is expected to grow almost 2.5x faster than Darwin in that period.

Think it also shows how overblown the talk about Southwest growth is. I get that Bunbury is just one part of the region, but it's the central part. A town of 108k is surely too small to host a team.

 

[Coolangatta]

Thanks for posting. A good guide.

No suprise that it looks good for Canberra.

Also looks good for the Sunshine Coast. If they can lay the groundwork (stadium, consistent games), it'd be a decent chance for the 21/22 expansion.

Doesn't reflect well on Darwin. Not only is it small, it's not even growing quickly. Canberra's is expected to grow almost 2.5x faster than Darwin in that period.

Think it also shows how overblown the talk about Southwest growth is. I get that Bunbury is just one part of the region, but it's the central part. A town of 108k is surely too small to host a team.

Agree with most of this.

Only thing I’d say is that with the South West, while I definitely agree they’re too small for team 20, it’s close enough to Perth that I’m not sure they need to have 500k people by the 2050s to be viable for team 22.

They’d get pretty crowds from people who’d drive down and supporters who could fly directly to the airport, if they base them in Busselton.

I don’t think there’s any plans in the future for rail to Busselton from Perth but if there ever was, that’d strengthen their chances of being able to support a club, but not for at least thirty years imo.

In any case, I do think the Sunshine Coast and South West WA would add novelty that Brisbane 2 and Perth 3 could not. Also:

Sunshine Coast Sharks/Stingrays
South West Sharks/Dolphins

We could/should finally have a Sharks mascot in the AFL.

 

[RedV3x]

They’d get pretty crowds from people who’d drive down and supporters who could fly directly to the airport, if they base them in Busselton.

Bunbury is close by and is the only option.I don’t think there’s any plans in the future for rail to Busselton from Perth but if there ever was, that’d strengthen their chances of being able to support a club, but not for at least thirty years imo.

I don’t think there’s any plans in the future for rail to Busselton from Perth but if there ever was, that’d strengthen their chances of being able to support a club, but not for at least thirty years

Bunbury is the end of the passenger rail line, currently suspended but due to re-open this year and connect
I think there is some movement to upgrade this line.
Aussie-in-exile would blow a gasket about taxpayers expense but it would be a great boost for the region
if an AFL team was feasible.

 

[Bjo187]

Well I'm glad to see that like me us tax payers money shouldn't go to building sports stadiums and stadium refurbs, and that money should go to schools and hospitals

And I'm sure you're on forums of your favourite sports pointing out that they're the biggest free loading organisations in Australia and should be more like the AFL in chipping in, as well as actually filling the stadiums with fans like the AFL making the investment worthwhile.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Agree with most of this.

Only thing I’d say is that with the South West, while I definitely agree they’re too small for team 20, it’s close enough to Perth that I’m not sure they need to have 500k people by the 2050s to be viable for team 22.

They’d get pretty crowds from people who’d drive down and supporters who could fly directly to the airport, if they base them in Busselton.

I don’t think there’s any plans in the future for rail to Busselton from Perth but if there ever was, that’d strengthen their chances of being able to support a club, but not for at least thirty years imo.

In any case, I do think the Sunshine Coast and South West WA would add novelty that Brisbane 2 and Perth 3 could not. Also:

Sunshine Coast Sharks/Stingrays
South West Sharks/Dolphins

We could/should finally have a Sharks mascot in the AFL.

I know I'm a bit harsh on the South West and I don't mean to be negative.

But I still think the South West will be too small for a long time to come. Especially considering it's not a centralised population.

Even as a collective population, it'd have ~275k on that 2045 list above. Still less than Hobart. It'll be scraping 300k by 2055.

I don't think you can rely that heavily on Perth's population. Hands Oval had a great crowd, but it's a bit different for a once-a-year game, against a team whose fans are two hours away. I don't think that would translate to nine games a year against interstate opponents.

We'll see how the South West develops. I do think it would be a much more interesting addition than a third Perth team. Most people would prefer the South West over Perth 3 if they could sustain it. I'm just not confident on its viability.

 

[Coolangatta]

I know I'm a bit harsh on the South West and I don't mean to be negative.

But I still think the South West will be too small for a long time to come. Especially considering it's not a centralised population.

Even as a collective population, it'd have ~275k on that 2045 list above. Still less than Hobart. It'll be scraping 300k by 2055.

I don't think you can rely that heavily on Perth's population. Hands Oval had a great crowd, but it's a bit different for a once-a-year game, against a team whose fans are two hours away. I don't think that would translate to nine games a year against interstate opponents.

We'll see how the South West develops. I do think it would be a much more interesting addition than a third Perth team. Most people would prefer the South West over Perth 3 if they could sustain it. I'm just not confident on its viability.

Yeah, that’s fair enough.

Just looking back on that projected population chart, the only new markets that would have the population to support a club by the 2050s are Newcastle and the Sunshine Coast.

Would be a bold move by the AFL but I could see them wanting 3rd teams in NSW and QLD if they go beyond 20 teams.

One of the challenges will be getting clubs to sell games there and they need AFL standard grounds to play at.

I’d like to see something like Hawthorn host a couple games in Newcastle hosting the Swans and Giants and you could have perhaps North or the Saints hosting a couple games against Brisbane and Gold Coast at the Sunshine Coast.

 

[Diogenes]

Yeah, that’s fair enough.

Just looking back on that projected population chart, the only new markets that would have the population to support a club by the 2050s are Newcastle and the Sunshine Coast.

Would be a bold move by the AFL but I could see them wanting 3rd teams in NSW and QLD if they go beyond 20 teams.

One of the challenges will be getting clubs to sell games there and they need AFL standard grounds to play at.

I’d like to see something like Hawthorn host a couple games in Newcastle hosting the Swans and Giants and you could have perhaps North or the Saints hosting a couple games against Brisbane and Gold Coast at the Sunshine Coast.

The main oval in Newcastle is No. 1 Sports Ground. It used to have a capacity of 20k+ but the grandstands were irreparably damaged during the earthquake. It now has seating for 400 and could possibly hold 10k. Cricket Australia which was the main tenant has not played a game there in 20 years. Exhibition matches in Newcastle are not going to achieve much while there is no viable ground.

 

[Coolangatta]

The main oval in Newcastle is No. 1 Sports Ground. It used to have a capacity of 20k+ but the grandstands were irreparably damaged during the earthquake. It now has seating for 400 and could possibly hold 10k. Cricket Australia which was the main tenant has not played a game there in 20 years. Exhibition matches in Newcastle are not going to achieve much while there is no viable ground.

So in other words, Newcastle doesn’t have an AFL standard ground. It’s the same thing with Auckland.

The Sunshine Coast doesn’t either and that’s unlikely to change for a while.

Perth is the only viable expansion option until Manuka gets an upgrade (it will, I’m sure) and Brisbane has a new stadium (which would put them in team 21-22 talks).

That’s about it at this stage.

 

[Bjo187]

I think the closeness or lack of this year, indicates that the more teams you have, the more fanbases lose interest in a long season, coz more teams are outta the running for finals and a flag earlier on.

Even going from 16 to 18 this was noticeable and the difficulties for some bottom teams to get back up the ladder coz the draft has so many clubs competing for picks also becomes more of an issue. 16 was the exact sweet spot, 18 is too many, let alone 20, but 22 would be even more dilution in interest, particularly now whereby people have so many options via streaming.

 

[Coolangatta]

I think the closeness or lack of this year, indicates that the more teams you have, the more fanbases lose interest in a long season, coz more teams are outta the running for finals and a flag earlier on.

Even going from 16 to 18 this was noticeable and the difficulties for some bottom teams to get back up the ladder coz the draft has so many clubs competing for picks also becomes more of an issue. 16 was the exact sweet spot, 18 is too many, let alone 20, but 22 would be even more dilution in interest, particularly now whereby people have so many options via streaming.

I wish we could have the VFL, WAFL, SANFL and NEAFL act as second divisions.

Bottom four AFL teams relegated, state premiers promoted.

But the worst AFL club would flog the best state club in the country.

If significant investment went into professional development of the state leagues then by 2050, who knows, but the AFL want the big guns playing each other every year.

 

[big_e]

I wish we could have the VFL, WAFL, SANFL and NEAFL act as second divisions.

Bottom four AFL teams relegated, state premiers promoted.

But the worst AFL club would flog the best state club in the country.

If significant investment went into professional development of the state leagues then by 2050, who knows, but the AFL want the big guns playing each other every year.

The AFL is literally just the current 18 clubs. And no club will ever vote for themselves to potentially be relegated.

 

[Coolangatta]

The AFL is literally just the current 18 clubs. And no club will ever vote for themselves to potentially be relegated.

Then if it’s deemed that expansion must have a limit to prevent fans from losing interest, then cap it at 20-22.

Give licence 20 to ACT.

What would happen after that I expect is that nobody left is going to beg the AFL for a team like Tassie are except for the NT. No one else will be asking for a 21st licence.

So consider it, might take about 50 years from now but never say never.

If they can find a way to make it work, get the funding they need and all that, then do it.

Then WA3 in the South West for team 22. If any state should have a third team, it’s us.

22 teams playing each other once + two rivals. Pretty good set up.

Do not underestimate the AFL’s appetite for future expansion, though, regardless of whether anyone’s asking for it or not. Western Sydney weren’t.

 

[RedV3x]

I think the closeness or lack of this year, indicates that the more teams you have, the more fanbases lose interest in a long season, coz more teams are outta the running for finals and a flag earlier on.

But you have more in the mix as well.

Even going from 16 to 18 this was noticeable and the difficulties for some bottom teams to get back up the ladder coz the draft has so many clubs competing for picks also becomes more of an issue. 16 was the exact sweet spot, 18 is too many, let alone 20, but 22 would be even more dilution in interest, particularly now whereby people have so many options via streaming.

That's why 2 conferences of 10 is necessary
That's two grand finals and one "superbowl".
.

 

[Coolangatta]

They could always expand the finals system, tool, to maintain interest.

You could, long term, have 24 teams playing each other once and a top 16 finals system.

Week 1: 1v8, 2v7 etc as QFs; 9v16, 10v15 etc EFs.

Week 2: QF losers v EF winners

Week 3: QF winners v Week 2 winners

Week 4: Preliminary finals

Bye

Week 5: GF (Melbourne host every second year rather than every year)

 

[Pivot Piece]

But you have more in the mix as well.



That's why 2 conferences of 10 is necessary
That's two grand finals and one "superbowl".
.

Nah it’s two prelims and a GF lol.

 

[RedV3x]

Nah it’s two prelims and a GF lol.

You have to look at the NFL, which has 32 teams with 8 conferences of four. not 4 conferences of 8 which would be the Australian way.
The yanks promote (glorify) conference winners and teams with a positive win/loss ration.
The Australian traditional way of thinking just has to change.

 

[Coolangatta]

You have to look at the NFL, which has 32 teams with 8 conferences of four. not 4 conferences of 8 which would be the Australian way.
The yanks promote (glorify) conference winners and teams with a positive win/loss ration.
The Australian traditional way of thinking just has to change.

They should have a long term plan for conferences, like this:

5 Victoria

5 Victoria

2 NSW, 2 QLD, 1 ACT

2 WA, 2 SA, 1 TAS



Add 3rd WA, move TAS to Vic conference

Add 3rd SA

Add NZ to Vic conference

Add 3rd QLD to NSW conference



So you’d have 4 conferences of 6



5 Vic, 1 NZ

5 Vic, 1 TAS

3 QLD, 2 NSW, 1 ACT

3 WA, 3 SA



You could even branch it out to 4 conferences of 7



6 Vic, 1 NZ

5 Vic, 1 TAS, 1 NT

3 QLD, 3 NSW, 1 ACT

4 WA, 3 SA

 

[Coolangatta]

Or just do what the Champions League now does and have some seeded mega league.

So 23-24 games might be the maximum number of games you play against other clubs in the season, which is fine with 24 teams because everyone plays each other once.

But if you ever got to 26 teams, instead of drawing out an arguably already long season, and having 25 games, they still play 23-24 games and you just don’t play everyone once anymore.

You could even have conference like double ups but instead of conferences split up into X number of teams per you just have one singular ladder.

I guess there’s less prizes to win, though, but I suspect Aussie culture will remain flag or nothing mentality.

You’d have to increase the finals series to at least 16 teams, though. I think you could possibly maintain some interest that way by having say a shorter season of 20 games and a longer finals series.

 

[RedV3x]

They should have a long term plan for conferences, like this:

10 teams each for the AFL and VFL - what could be simpler.
22 teams would see Tasmania move into the VFL.

For crossover,
Each team would play 9 games against each of the same conference teams.
Each team would play 5 games against 5 of the other conference teams alternating each year..
Each team would play 6 games against 6 of the same conference teams alternating over 3 years..

 

[Coolangatta]

10 teams each for the AFL and VFL - what could be simpler.
22 teams would see Tasmania move into the VFL.

For crossover,
Each team would play 9 games against each of the same conference teams.
Each team would play 5 games against 5 of the other conference teams alternating each year..
Each team would play 6 games against 6 of the same conference teams alternating over 3 years..

Interesting to see how it’d work for 24 teams. NZ into the VFL.

And then absolute max 26 teams could either have NT in the VFL or a regional Vic club so we have 13 in each.

Edit: I do wonder if they couldn’t have just had the WAFL and SANFL merge back in the 80s and the VFL expand into the northern states and Tassie and we would possibly have had something like the NFL today.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

food for thought

View attachment 2352057

[edit] despite what people might think darwin is just not viable (fwiw, neither is cairns - and for the same reasons)

Is this using the ABS' projections? Do you have data on how the five mainland state capitals are going to change also?

I think the closeness or lack of this year, indicates that the more teams you have, the more fanbases lose interest in a long season, coz more teams are outta the running for finals and a flag earlier on.

They will just increase the finals to ten teams.

 

[Aussie in exile]

The AFL is literally just the current 18 clubs. And no club will ever vote for themselves to potentially be relegated.

Correct.Turkeys don't vote for Christma.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The main oval in Newcastle is No. 1 Sports Ground. It used to have a capacity of 20k+ but the grandstands were irreparably damaged during the earthquake. It now has seating for 400 and could possibly hold 10k. Cricket Australia which was the main tenant has not played a game there in 20 years. Exhibition matches in Newcastle are not going to achieve much while there is no viable ground.

No. 1 Sportsground is probably pretty comparable to Hands Oval in Bunbury. A couple of temporary stands would be fine for one game a year to get the ball rolling.

They probably wouldn't even get more than 10k for starters. And if that's too small, then it looks like a great sellout.