Expansion 20th AFL team location

[JohnZ]

24 teams, 23 rounds; that'd be my long-term goal.

24 teams, 2 divisions of 12 teams playing a full 22 game H+A season.

 

[Purple Suit]

Why's the ACT too early? What numbers do we have to reach?

Gil mentioned a five or six year period of odd teams. That'd bring in Team 20 in 2033/34. Not far off 2040 by that point anyway.

My thought is just not be a drain on the comp while other teams are. 500K of AFL support would do it which you might need to be at 1m population to get that. Otherwise once the AFL becomes more financially stable with other teams, the 1m target reduces as your population grows and then your in.

 

[Walshawk]

Perth is a no brainer for a 3rd team.

From a broadcast perspective alone, it makes scheduling Friday double headers (2nd game at 7pm Perth/9pm East) and Sunday night games (5pm Perth/7pm East) much easier week in week out, which could both be Ch7 games if they wanted it. You would only need to play one of those timeslots each week, so 22 total. Minus 3-4 Sunday nights in interstate for PH eves (like Easter Sunday, Anzac Eve, KB eve), that's ~18/3 = ~6 per team, which still gives them 5 at other times like Saturday Arvo for example.

The talent and stadium are set. Just need to spend $20m on a training facility. Could enter the comp same year as Tassie which would eliminate the awkwardness of a team having a bye during gather round. Plus I'm sure the AFL has a clause in their contract with 7/fox to get extra money if a 10th game is introduced (which needs 2 new teams). That return on the $50m startup costs would be paid back in a year.

edit: Having two friday games also makes it easier to schedule Thursday games, as it gives you a pool of 6 teams on 6/7 day breaks for the next week. The AFLPA currently only allows one 5 day break per club which is what is limiting the scheduling of Thursday games.

But virtually no one in Perth wants another team. Not footy fans. Not the clubs. Not the governing body. And if the WAFL are against it, it has zero chance of happening.

 

[whiskeytown]

24 teams, 2 divisions of 12 teams playing a full 22 game H+A season.

24 teams is probably 20 years away but despite what the naysayers say… by then the population will be more than big enough to sustain a 24 team comp

 

[JohnZ]

But virtually no one in Perth wants another team. Not footy fans. Not the clubs. Not the governing body. And if the WAFL are against it, it has zero chance of happening.

Thats fair. From a HQ perspective its highly attractive and thus the front runner

24 teams is probably 20 years away but despite what the naysayers say… by then the population will be more than big enough to sustain a 24 team comp

I dont see 24 teams for another 20 years or so too. But it becomes mighty attractive when it stacks up

 

[illegaleagle]

3rd team in the West lol. the 2 sides now cannot play footy,

Eagles had 48k against Carlton when there playing like garbage once there decent again will be 55k averages. they have over 100k members and 40k of those cant go week in an week out to the footy, so I'm sure some would go watch a third team play. There's a lot of support for big Victorian teams here as well so plenty of them would go watch the games for the new team as well as Eagles and Freo supporters as well when there teams not playing that weekend, and if they can make the tickets much cheaper than eagles games heaps would go. I think the team would average bigger crowds than gold coast and GWS easily in there first year. Eventually people would jump on and then after 5 to 10 years would have a decent fanbase. Would also reduce travel for WA teams as they can have an extra game in Perth by playing each other twice a season. Makes the most sense out of any new team tbh

 

[Canberra Pear]

My thought is just not be a drain on the comp while other teams are. 500K of AFL support would do it which you might need to be at 1m population to get that. Otherwise once the AFL becomes more financially stable with other teams, the 1m target reduces as your population grows and then your in.

I dont think it's really fair to assume Canberra will be a drain. We're a much stronger footy area than GWS or GC. Our off-field numbers will be healthier than both of them.

By the time Team 20 comes in, the Capital Region will have a catchment of ~850k people, so not far off your 1m target.

Out of curiosity, do you know what the break even attendance is at Optus? I assume WA3 averaging 20k in a 60k stadium wouldn't be overly profitable.

 

[Coolangatta]

I dont think it's really fair to assume Canberra will be a drain. We're a much stronger footy area than GWS or GC. Our off-field numbers will be healthier than both of them.

By the time Team 20 comes in, the Capital Region will have a catchment of ~850k people, so not far off your 1m target.

Out of curiosity, do you know what the break even attendance is at Optus? I assume WA3 averaging 20k in a 60k stadium wouldn't be overly profitable.

That’s a good question. I can understand the argument for a third Perth team but I’m not sure why it needs to be the 20th. When they’re confident they’re going to break even at Optus on the regular, especially if the new teams fixture is generous, then it seems plausible.

 

[Purple Suit]

I dont think it's really fair to assume Canberra will be a drain. We're a much stronger footy area than GWS or GC. Our off-field numbers will be healthier than both of them.

By the time Team 20 comes in, the Capital Region will have a catchment of ~850k people, so not far off your 1m target.

Out of curiosity, do you know what the break even attendance is at Optus? I assume WA3 averaging 20k in a 60k stadium wouldn't be overly profitable.

They’ll get over 25k average, I recon close to 30k. Two games will be sold out at 60k, others should average 20-25k which puts them at 30k home attendance at the upper number.

With a generous hand out they would be breaking even in no time.

I have no idea what the break even number is at Optus but it must be way less than those numbers otherwise the scorchers wouldn’t have made any money hosting 20k games there instead of 13k at the WACA.

 

[Coolangatta]

In any case, Canberra and Perth are clearly the best two choices for teams 20 and 21 and I'm of the opinion that we should keep adding clubs if they're financially viable and just adjust the fixture/structure/format of the competition as we go.

A 3rd team in SA could be viable in 15-20 years, etc.

I agree with those saying no third teams in NSW or QLD until the Suns and Giants are up and running.

If Canberra isn't the 20th team then I hope someone like Hawthorn signs a deal to play 3 games a year in Canberra instead of the Giants from 2033 onwards.

 

[Tbonefreo]

Who gives a **** about the afl and making profit?
Just put in games that don't ****ing suck. Gc and gws are monster fails.

 

[Coolangatta]

Who gives a * about the afl and making profit?
Just put in games that don't ******* suck. Gc and gws are monster fails.

In terms of financial failure it's too early to say, but in terms of on-field competitiveness they've been failures. Even the Giants who made prelims and a GF were a basket case in their first few years. I hope this new Tassie side can bank 6-8 wins in their first year and not get West Coasted every week.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

In any case, Canberra and Perth are clearly the best two choices for teams 20 and 21 and I'm of the opinion that we should keep adding clubs if they're financially viable and just adjust the fixture/structure/format of the competition as we go.

A 3rd team in SA could be viable in 15-20 years, etc.

I agree with those saying no third teams in NSW or QLD until the Suns and Giants are up and running.

If Canberra isn't the 20th team then I hope someone like Hawthorn signs a deal to play 3 games a year in Canberra instead of the Giants from 2033 onwards.

The only reason why I think NSW3 & QLD3 has a very “slight” chance is because they are both growing markets for the sport and would increase the player pool all across Australia.

But 100%, the 20th, 21st and 22nd teams have to go to Canberra, WA3 & SA3 before any further talk occurs with future expansion beyond that point.

 

[Coolangatta]

The only reason why I think NSW3 & QLD3 has a very “slight” chance is because they are both growing markets for the sport and would increase the player pool all across Australia.

But 100%, the 20th, 21st and 22nd teams have to go to Canberra, WA3 & SA3 before any further talk occurs with future expansion beyond that point.

Yep. ACT, WA3 and SA3 before NSW3, QLD3, NT, and possibly NZ. I'm not going to comment on what will and won't work, the AFL can decide that.

 

[Chinacats]

Can NT get it done?

 

[Coolangatta]

Can NT get it done?

Nah. If/when they reach 500k and can pull 20k per game (tough ask and might not be enough of a crowd to sustain a club in the future), maybe. Unless the feds prop them up forever as a social/health project (and that would probably be too controversial for politicians to touch), I just don't think it'll happen for another 30+ years.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

I think we have to see how the Tassie team goes first, as well as how GWS and Gold Coast progress in the next 7 years or so.
I don't wish Tassie to not be successful, but they might have trouble retaining players due to the weather ( they might be more or less successful in this area than GWS/ GC, time will tell).
It might be obvious that going back to 18 is better, or 19 works very well.
The only downside I see is the bye in rounds 1,2,3 is a bit of a waste, but that should only affect a club once in 6 years.

 

[whiskeytown]

I’m all for team 20 in conjunction with team TAS.

And eventually team 21 & 22 given the population by then will be able to sustain it

Side note though… what does everyone think teams 20… 21,22… do for the weaker Melbourne teams in the comp like WB, NM and Saints?

For mine I foresee one or more than merging or relocating.

The market becomes tighter in terms of revenue because new teams in their infancy and perennial teenagers in GC and GWS will all require significant AFL funding

Perhaps expanded TV rights make up for this.

But I sense the days of significantly propping up Melbourne teams for years on end might be over

 

[Coolangatta]

I’m all for team 20 in conjunction with team TAS.

And eventually team 21 & 22 given the population by then will be able to sustain it

Side note though… what does everyone think teams 20… 21,22… do for the weaker Melbourne teams in the comp like WB, NM and Saints?

For mine I foresee one or more than merging or relocating.

The market becomes tighter in terms of revenue because new teams in their infancy and perennial teenagers in GC and GWS will all require significant AFL funding

Perhaps expanded TV rights make up for this.

But I sense the days of significantly propping up Melbourne teams for years on end might be over

Depends on where they’re located. Teams 20-22 could just be ACT, WA, and SA. Maybe they don’t touch NSW or QLD again until we get to 23-24, although in 10 years now you never know how the Suns and Giants might be faring.

 

[GossipBoy]

Collingwood will ask for a second team so they can play themselves at the G every week.

Look as much as I dislike the Pies (and I really do), their VFL team would get better crowds at Marvel or the MCG then the Saints or North so financially..

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The only reason why I think NSW3 & QLD3 has a very “slight” chance is because they are both growing markets for the sport and would increase the player pool all across Australia.

But 100%, the 20th, 21st and 22nd teams have to go to Canberra, WA3 & SA3 before any further talk occurs with future expansion beyond that point.

I doubt SA3 will happen. WA4 makes more sense than that, financially. Mind you, WA4 makes more sense than TAS1 from that point of view.

Tas makes sense from the viewpoint of history, sentiment, and contribution to the sport of Australian Football, but is a tiny market (even tinier on an economic basis than a population one) that already follows the AFL on a per capita basis beyond what Vics do - and due to its unusual regionalism is not really able to be treated as a single market.

 

[amazingjoshy]

No one

Far more likely to go back/stay at 18 than go to 20 imo

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't think the AFL has a set maximum number of teams they don't want to go past, say 20-24. They'd be silly to think that way. More teams = more money IF they're financially viable. The only reason the AFL would consider contraction is if their limit is stretched on how many teams they think they can support. If the Suns and Giants were successful overnight, no one would be talking about going down to 18 teams.

I love expansion, and quite frankly if the AFL can succeed at having 19 financially viable clubs then I would love to see a future where each of WA, SA, NSW and QLD have 3rd teams. And maybe the NT and NZ. I'm not advocating an "Oprah Winfrey you get a team, everyone gets a team" thing here; I just think the AFL should ignore populism and do what's good from a business perspective. If the single-tier structure of the competition has to be changed to accomodate new teams in the future, then so be it.

I'd be surprised if we didn't see third teams in QLD and NSW if the Suns and Giants no longer need handouts in the future.

Edit: the only good argument I've seen against not capping expansion is how much longer it'll take for fans to see their team win a premiership. Well, we already have that problem with St Kilda, North, Freo, etc; we always will whether there's 14 teams or double that.

 

[peetoo]

I’m all for team 20 in conjunction with team TAS.

And eventually team 21 & 22 given the population by then will be able to sustain it

Side note though… what does everyone think teams 20… 21,22… do for the weaker Melbourne teams in the comp like WB, NM and Saints?

For mine I foresee one or more than merging or relocating.

The market becomes tighter in terms of revenue because new teams in their infancy and perennial teenagers in GC and GWS will all require significant AFL funding

Perhaps expanded TV rights make up for this.

But I sense the days of significantly propping up Melbourne teams for years on end might be over

Isn’t that an argument for not expanding? Implicitly agreeing expansion teams aren’t sustainable.

If the afl goes rationalist, the traditional Melbourne team supporters fight back. The franchises just fold

 

[whiskeytown]

Isn’t that an argument for not expanding? Implicitly agreeing expansion teams aren’t sustainable.

If the afl goes rationalist, the traditional Melbourne team supporters fight back. The franchises just fold

It’s not that expansion teams are not sustainable… it’s that the comp is becoming more national

Therefore the welfare of the smaller Melbourne teams will come second to the welfare of teams that broaden the reach of the game at grass roots level…