DEVILS Advocate : TASSIE+Gather Round is like adding"2 Clubs" to AFL Fixture...so is a 20th Club really worth it ???

[speedpeck23]

Just asking the question......

The idea of 20 AFL Club Comp seems logical at first, creates massive interest , more options for AFL expansion, evens up the ladder standings and byes through the season .

Strangely when you crunch the numbers it may hardly be worth the trouble. Even if you use an existing stadium there doesn't seem much to be gained for all the money and restructuring of the fixture required to set up a 20th Club.

It could even be counter productive. ( Some would say we've already seen this with Giants and Suns )

The reality is Tassie Devils plus the Gather Round forces another 10 matches into the AFL fixture anyway without needing a 20th Club.

Tassie Devils will have a 11 home games. Currently the 18 club AFL home and away season has 207 games. 21 matches will be added when Tassie comes in, so a 228 game season. In you do the numbers a 20 Club comp will have only 2 more matches. 230. Even if you reduce the fixture to 10 home and away matches each in a 19 club comp you would have 209 games......only one more match would be gained in a 20 club comp....210 for the season

In effect a 19 club competition including gather round provides virtually the same amount of footy as a 20 club comp with gather round.

Virtually the same number of matches per AFL season to sell for broadcast rights.....less clubs to finance....more home games for existing non Victorian Clubs and for some Victorian clubs.......capacity to maintain or even increase the number of rivalry/blockbuster matches between current clubs.

From an expansion point of view, it's a choice between bringing in a 20th Club with all the associated costs or simply stay at 19 and simply give an extra home game to the existing expansion clubs ( including Tassie.)

Unless there is a club like Collingwood, West Coast or Adelaide with a ready-made massive support base 19 looks like a better number than 20 for the AFL.

You could even say the introduction of the Tassie Devils into the AFL gives you the benefit of 2 new clubs for the running cost of 1.

This may be a valid argument for the AFL to contribute more to Mac Point Stadium.

20 seems better.....but at what cost ??? The Devils in the detail !!!!

 

[DaTBird187]

One team having a bye every weeks sucks arse.

 

[Colonial]

Yes it’s worth it.

Canberra comes in and we are finally full time in Western Sydney.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Even if you use an existing stadium there doesn't seem much to be gained for all the money and restructuring of the fixture required to set up a 20th Club.

More like especially.

Your general premise is correct. The AFL aren't going to award a licence to the Least Crap option. If a too-good-to-refuse offer isn't made, a new team isn't coming.

This was understood by the Tasmanian task force, conceding a "silver bullet" in the form of a new stadium was required to get an otherwise merely solid bid over the line. It won't be any different for a 20th team.

 

[The Educator]

You might be right that it is not worth it the AFL adding a 20th team all things being considered but there is a bit of a leap in your logic to get to your "only adding 2 games" conclusion

With Tassie coming in, the AFL will have to decide between teams playing 22 or 24 games as you cant play an odd number of games if you have an odd number of teams. They will then also have to decide whether there are two gather rounds or each team gets an extra home game every 2nd year.

But the AFL just as easily stick with a 24 game season if it added a 20th team and have 12 extra games......

Games Per Team	No. of Teams	Total Games
24​	19​	228​
22​	19​	209​
24​	20​	240​
23​	20​	230​
22​	20​	220​

For a given number of games each team plays, evening up the team numbers will add the number of home games that team plays (plus, 0.5 of any neutral gather rounds)

If the AFL goes to 24 games per team, they'll have to compensate the players. Obviously if they go to 20 teams, they'll have to fund a 20th roster.

 

[Canberra Pear]

A 20th team is inevitable.

While we don't immediately need a 20th team, there are inconveniences that a 19th team brings and a 20th team removes (an uneven ladder, the Gather Round bye, an extra bye before finals etc). They're not enough to immediately bring in a team like we did with Team 18, but long-term, it will factor.

Tasmania crowbarred expansion open when the AFL weren't ready to expand. Subsequently, the AFL created an insane amount of hoops for Tasmania to jump through. The bar will be high for the 20th team, but there won't be as many loops as Tasmania have had to jump through.

What major league around the world has uneven teams? And any that do have the intention of evening things up. I think it's almost a certainty that we'll see a 20th team within a decade of Tasmania (2038 season). And still likely that we'll see it within five years (2033 season).

 

[Teen Wolf]

Already coming up on 3 years since Tasmania was awarded a licence.

 

[The Educator]

Already coming up on 3 years since Tasmania was awarded a licence.

I think you are right that the AFL will at least position in a way to suggest it is neutral to a 20th team being introduced, but I certainly don't think you can start the clock at when Tasmania received a provisional license.

Until the vote in Tassie Parliament last month, the provisional license never being activated was a live option.

It is certainly the case that, if Tasmania fell over, there would not be more teams for the foreseeable future.

I lean towards Canberra Pear though that, now that Tasmania is locked in, we will ultimately end up with 20 teams (or, heaven forbid, fall back to 18teams)

 

[Teen Wolf]

Until the vote in Tassie Parliament last month, the provisional license never being activated was a live option.

It was a live option in the same sense that a 20th team not being added for many decades is a live option.

At the end of the day, governments that fully commit to investing in world class stadia in this country never end up regretting it.

This informs why the Tassie deal was not going to fall over (as some of us said all along), and it also tells us another government somewhere will inevitably see the value of building their own new venue to secure the 20th licence.

 

[The Educator]

It was a live option in the same sense that a 20th team not being added for many decades is a live option.

At the end of the day, governments that fully commit to investing in world class stadia in this country never end up regretting it.

This informs why the Tassie deal was not going to fall over (as some of us said all along), and it also tells us another government somewhere will inevitably see the value of building their own new venue to secure the 20th licence.

I agree with that

 

[Canberra Pear]

It was a live option in the same sense that a 20th team not being added for many decades is a live option.

At the end of the day, governments that fully commit to investing in world class stadia in this country never end up regretting it.

This informs why the Tassie deal was not going to fall over (as some of us said all along), and it also tells us another government somewhere will inevitably see the value of building their own new venue to secure the 20th licence.

A brand new stadium is obviously going to go a long to helping a bid get over the line, but the importance of the shiny new stadium will be balanced with the market itself.

For instance, even if Darwin managed to get its new stadium signed off, it's such a small market that a heck of a lot more would be needed to be done to get them across the line.

Conversely, if the Gold Coast or Western Sydney were only now just bidding for the 20th team, their current stadiums would suffice (maybe a better located Carrara). The larger (and faster growing) markets wouldn't be expected to build a brand new stadium as a measure to safeguard future crowds.

 

[Walshawk]

GWS and GC are yet to make the AFL more profitable either. Neither will Tassie. Doesn’t mean the 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th club isn’t worth it. The AFL thinks long term sometimes. There is no hurry to add a 20th team, but if one stacks up, and grows the game, I am all for it.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The larger (and faster growing) markets wouldn't be expected to build a brand new stadium as a measure to safeguard future crowds.

The AFL clearly believe there is no new market large enough for a team without ongoing government support.

They also clearly believe there is really only one way to guarantee that support. Getting governments to commit to a brand new stadium is not about safeguarding for future crowds lol, it's about safeguarding for future changes in power.

The 20th licence will go to the market that demonstrates commitment to a new team regardless of the next election result.

 

[hampton]

The biggest issue with team 20 is the talent isn’t there to sustain 2 more clubs than what we have now and maintain competitive and entertaining. The other big negative will be that it will most likely be a club that will need substantial support from the afl which would further skew the fairness of the comp towards these expansion teams - suns, gws, lions, tasmania and then probably Canberra. The last issue is that the twentieth team which would most likely be Canberra is kinda already served by gws and existing Victorian clubs, is it really expanding the afl in any meaningful way.

Probably best to keep it to 19 until it’s a no brainer to make it 20.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The biggest issue with team 20 is the talent isn’t there to sustain 2 more clubs than what we have now and maintain competitive and entertaining.

And yet nobody was complaining about the talent pool in the 1970s when there were 30+ top-level teams across three states.

The other big negative will be that it will most likely be a club that will need substantial support in terms from the afl which would further skew the fairness of the comp towards these expansion teams - suns, gws, lions, tasmania and then probably Canberra.

Tasmania's pitch to the AFL was heavily based on not needing the same level of AFL financial support as GC & GWS. Similar will be expected of a 20th team.

The last issue is that the twentieth team which would most likely be Canberra is kinda already served by gws and existing Victorian clubs, is it really expanding the afl in any meaningful way.

Every expansion in the past 30 years has taken place in a market that was already hosting AFL games annually.

 

[hampton]

And yet nobody was complaining about the talent pool in the 1970s when there were 30+ top-level teams across three states.

Comparing the 1970s to today is a really odd take. Even at 18 teams there’s a clear split between the top 8 and the rest which will only widen with two more teams.

Tasmania's pitch to the AFL was heavily based on not needing the same level of AFL financial support as GC & GWS. Similar will be expected of a 20th team.

Tasmania will be another drain on the afl which is why the afl never wanted them. But the Tasmanian government sweetened the deal (at tax payers expense) to make it more palatable, but they’re not going to be growing the afl coffers in any meaningful way - neither tv eyeballs, gate or sponsors.

Every expansion in the past 30 years has taken place in a market that was already hosting AFL games annually.

There’s millions of people in western Sydney and Gold Coast, and most don’t/didn’t follow afl. The opportunity there is massive and worth the cost. However for team 19/20 there’s just a few hundred thousand in Tasmania and they are already afl fans. Same kinda deal in Canberra to a lesser extent.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The AFL clearly believe there is no new market large enough for a team without ongoing government support.

They also clearly believe there is really only one way to guarantee that support. Getting governments to commit to a brand new stadium is not about safeguarding for future crowds lol, it's about safeguarding for future changes in power.

The 20th licence will go to the market that demonstrates commitment to a new team regardless of the next election result.

Does the AFL "clearly believe" that?

I think you're only seeing in black and white and not recognising the nuances of each circumstance.

Tasmania is a small market. Proportionally, it's only getting smaller. The commitment was needed for a new stadium (and the rest) to make is sustainable long term.

If you had a market, that in 2050, was expected to be nearly triple Hobart, would you expect the same guarantees? You'd expect some, but the growth potential and sustainability are both already greater, so less guarantees are needed.

 

[Canberra Pear]

There’s millions of people in western Sydney and Gold Coast, and most don’t/didn’t follow afl. The opportunity there is massive and worth the cost. However for team 19/20 there’s just a few hundred thousand in Tasmania and they are already afl fans. Same kinda deal in Canberra to a lesser extent.

But I thought you said Canberra was an NRL heartland?

 

[hampton]

But I thought you said Canberra was an NRL heartland?

There’s plenty of afl fans in Canberra today. That won’t change or grow significantly with a new afl team. Whether it stays ‘nrl heartland’ or not is irrelevant, there’s not a tonne of growth in terms of net new fans for afl in Canberra.

That’s in comparison to the other expansion teams mentioned gws and suns, where there were millions of new potential fans and participants.

Im sure the afl would rather be spending money and attention in those areas than in places like Hobart and Canberra.

If anything the afl would’ve wished gws was doing better so they could be looking at a third Sydney team by now given the population. I’m sure they would at least be looking at adding second Brisbane team, if given the right circumstances. They might just hold on team 20 Canberra to see if seq might be closer to being ready, seq and Sydney are way more attractive markets.

If team 20 comes sooner it will be in Canberra mainly because of two things.. tv revenue with more content, and ‘perception of nationalism’ that the afl craves by putting a team in the capital. It would be a sore point that the nrl has had a team in the capital for 40 years but the afl hasn’t.

 

[Canberra Pear]

There’s plenty of afl fans in Canberra today. That won’t change or grow significantly with a new afl team. Whether it stays ‘nrl heartland’ or not is irrelevant, there’s not a tonne of growth in terms of net new fans for afl in Canberra.

That’s in comparison to the other expansion teams mentioned gws and suns, where there were millions of new potential fans and participants.

Im sure the afl would rather be spending money and attention in those areas than in places like Hobart and Canberra.

Team 20 will come and it will be in Canberra mainly because of two things.. tv revenue with more content, and ‘perception of nationalism’ that the afl craves by putting a team in the capital. It would be a sore point that the nrl has had a team in the capital for 40 years but the afl hasn’t.

Canberra is remarkably similar to the Gold Coast.

When the Suns entered, the Gold Coast was a mixed code city, of around 500k and a high growth rate.

That's literally Canberra. Except we'll have a higher population by the time we enter, we're slightly more AFL friendly, and we're richer.

Canberra is much more comparable to the Gold Coast than Tasmania.

 

[hampton]

Canberra is remarkably similar to the Gold Coast.

When the Suns entered, the Gold Coast was a mixed code city, of around 500k and a high growth rate.

That's literally Canberra. Except we'll have a higher population by the time we enter, we're slightly more AFL friendly, and we're richer.

Canberra is much more comparable to the Gold Coast than Tasmania.

Only comparable by a couple of loose factors you mentioned otherwise hardly conparable at all.

Gold coast was another foot in the door in the SEQ basin, a place overall booming and much larger in population than Canberra and a more attractive lifestyle conditions to attract players and fans. Also less afl fans proportionally than Canberra therefore more growth opportunities.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Only comparable by a couple of loose factors you mentioned otherwise hardly conparable at all.

Gold coast was another foot in the door in the SEQ basin, a place overall booming and much larger in population than Canberra and a more attractive lifestyle conditions to attract players and fans. Also less afl fans proportionally than Canberra therefore more growth opportunities.

Compared to the pre-Suns Gold Coast, Canberra had similar centralised population, similar population growth, similar mixed-code support.

What does it have in common in Tasmania? The Gold Coast is clearly a closer comparison.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Comparing the 1970s to today is a really odd take. Even at 18 teams there’s a clear split between the top 8 and the rest which will only widen with two more teams.

Even if that turned out to be true, they can cut list sizes from 40 to 36 and keep the number of players at 720. Likewise go from 18-a-side to 16. Blows the talent pool argument out of the water, doesn't it.

Tasmania will be another drain on the afl which is why the afl never wanted them. But the Tasmanian government sweetened the deal (at tax payers expense) to make it more palatable

Clear blueprint for what the 20th team needs to do.

There’s millions of people in western Sydney and Gold Coast, and most don’t/didn’t follow afl. The opportunity there is massive and worth the cost. However for team 19/20 there’s just a few hundred thousand in Tasmania and they are already afl fans. Same kinda deal in Canberra to a lesser extent.

And the AFL are still putting a new team in Tasmania. Why? Because the government has committed to building a new stadium. So, I repeat, that makes it pretty clear what the 20th team needs to do.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Does the AFL "clearly believe" that?

I think you're only seeing in black and white and not recognising the nuances of each circumstance.

Tasmania is a small market. Proportionally, it's only getting smaller. The commitment was needed for a new stadium (and the rest) to make is sustainable long term.

If you had a market, that in 2050, was expected to be nearly triple Hobart, would you expect the same guarantees? You'd expect some, but the growth potential and sustainability are both already greater, so less guarantees are needed.

A market of roughly that size already exists right now in the Hunter Valley. They could get the 20th AFL team by making a bid which includes a new and fully funded 25k stadium. Otherwise no chance.

 

[hampton]

Even if that turned out to be true, they can cut list sizes from 40 to 36 and keep the number of players at 720. Likewise go from 18-a-side to 16. Blows the talent pool argument out of the water, doesn't it.

Are those things likely to happen? You’re proposing some huge changes there. Very unlikely.

Clear blueprint for what the 20th team needs to do.

Not all states will be willing to bend their tax payers over to get them to fund a 1B stadium and ongoing team costs.

And the AFL are still putting a new team in Tasmania. Why? Because the government has committed to building a new stadium. So, I repeat, that makes it pretty clear what the 20th team needs to do.

See above.