Expansion 20th AFL team location

[Billy ray]

19 teams means nothing to the AFL finances. They need the extra team to get a a tenth game happening each round, that can then be sold off for TV rights. A 10 game round locks in Thursday nights as well, whereas we have seen that a nine game round does not.

With 20 teams I think the bye will change quite a bit, possibly something like 4 teams resting each week for five weeks. Still allows eight games to be played. One of the games lost can be the boring Sunday afternoon encounter, the other can be a Thursday night or a Saturday arvo.

Given the bleeding of dollars that is still happening at GWS and GCS, and that the Tassie team will have teething issues I think the AFL will look towards a safe market. Canberra is tied too closely to GWS and is a small market. Darwin and Cairns do not have the population or the climate, with concerns about infrastructure as well. Newcastle is "too NSW", strongly rugby and completely virgin territory. Auckland, not sure if serious. So it has to be Perth or Adelaide, the centre of strong, traditional footballing states. Perth has a million more people than Adelaide and possibly more in the way of sponsor support options with the resources and farming industries, so it gets my vote.

Thursday night every week means $$ and losing the crossover Saturday arvo game
So normal week will be (EST)
Thur 720
Fri 720 (or 740 or 810)
Sat 140, 440, two x 730
Sun 110, 320, 440

 

[The 747]

I like the idea of 19 teams

Means clubs can have a bye without shutting down the season like they do mid year

Also means we can be a lot more flexible with when we play games

Running bye would be much better than the vibe killer we have now.

 

[eagleskickass]

Running bye would be much better than the vibe killer we have now.

Issue with the running bye is always that teams who get it early don't really benefit from it. Weeks 1-5 are the worst time to get a bye, there's really no upside.

 

[The 747]

Issue with the running bye is always that teams who get it early don't really benefit from it. Weeks 1-5 are the worst time to get a bye, there's really no upside.

Good point, why not make the teams who finished top 5 cop the bye in weeks 1-5?

 

[Canberra Pear]

At 500,000 people around Canberra, it might just be too small to suggest it can viably support a team. Perhaps Geelong suggests Canberra can. You might say “but Canberra is growing, it will become big enough”, but in that time the other cities will also grow, meaning the existing AFL teams population share in their host cities will also be growing and likely be further getting away from Canberra.

Just an addition to the "Canberra is growing" comment.

We're growing faster than elsewhere.

The ACT was the fastest growing state/territory for the past two censuses (we grew so quickly they undercounted us by 20k), and it's expected to continue.

Over the next four decades, we're expected to grow about 40% quicker than the rest of Australia.

 

[The 747]

Just an addition to the "Canberra is growing" comment.

We're growing faster than elsewhere.

The ACT was the fastest growing state/territory for the past two censuses (we grew so quickly they undercounted us by 20k), and it's expected to continue.

Over the next four decades, we're expected to grow about 40% quicker than the rest of Australia.

I for one will welcome the Canberra Skywhales.

 

[Canberra Pear]

No need for a 20th team. Canberra is a GWS secondary market, and a 3rd WA side would just be doing it for the sake of doing it. The NT hasn't got a hope in hell after the fight Tassie has had to put up.

GWS doesn't represent Canberra any more than North represents Hobart.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I for one will welcome the Canberra Skywhales.

All of our kicks will be floaters.

 

[Engimal v3]

GWS doesn't represent Canberra any more than North represents Hobart.

Agreed, but I think the AFL sees it that way. GWS get decent crowds there, the AFL will be happy that they can placate the Canberrans and get some following behind the Giants.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Agreed, but I think the AFL sees it that way. GWS get decent crowds there, the AFL will be happy that they can placate the Canberrans and get some following behind the Giants.

Sigh.

Hobart fans were able to vote with their feet, but any protest resulting in low crowds in Canberra will just be considered because we're a "rugby state".

 

[bird_man]

Just an addition to the "Canberra is growing" comment.

We're growing faster than elsewhere.

The ACT was the fastest growing state/territory for the past two censuses (we grew so quickly they undercounted us by 20k), and it's expected to continue.

Over the next four decades, we're expected to grow about 40% quicker than the rest of Australia.

Move the Giants down there

I go over to the games regularly at Canberra and it's always a good crowd and a great feel

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Clickbait shit.

20th club is a very, very long way off.

Whatever benefit they have is more than offset by having yet another startup money pit. They already have multiple clubs hemorrhaging money.

 

[Football Tragic]

Hobart will use the Geelong model in terms of size, stadium deal and code interest. Their will be teething issues with Taswegians changing from teams they have supported for generations but it will happen.

With GWS and GC still decades off developing into what the Swans and Lions have become, the AFL are unlikely to take a risk building the 20th franchise in a non-AFL area. Despite the predicted growth, Canberra would be a risk. It might pay off eventually but the AFL can't afford to heavily support another team while they develop.

The ONLY real option is a 3rd WA team. Perhaps they will link them with a strong WAFL club (or multiple clubs if possible) to drag people away from their alignment with the Eagles and Dockers. Maybe they could use the old WACA stadium or another smaller venue (I have no idea what's there).

The AFL will want to cash in on another televised game so another team is likely. I can't see it happening for 3 or 4 years after the Tassie team enters the competition though, so almost a decade away. Always great to see more games, have more exposure and generate more revenue but the team needs to be in a AFL state for it work.

 

[Football Tragic]

Clickbait s**t.

20th club is a very, very long way off.

Whatever benefit they have is more than offset by having yet another startup money pit. They already have multiple clubs hemorrhaging money.

I think clubs will always be losing money because they are trying to compete with the bigger, more profitable clubs around them. All clubs could be debt free if they chose to but its the competition to succeed that causes the over spending.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Turns out Victorian sides don't want to merged. Any other ideas?

Financial aid to clubs that aren't growing the game and supporting its long term financial health won't be politically sustainable.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Colonial]

Hopefully Canberra so the Giants can concentrate on WS.

 

[Engimal v3]

Financial aid to clubs that aren't growing the game and supporting its long term financial health won't be politically sustainable.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

St Kilda is really the only Vic club in the last decade to be a financial drain on the AFL. I like referring to this post as to why, it's a good summary:

[SNIP]
Total AFL Broadcast and media cash income since 2011 has come in at 3.291 billion. The average value per club comes in at 183.422m over the last 11 years. We're told that all AFL clubs are viable due to their being covered by the broadcast rights.

Several clubs have exceeded that 183m distribution target. Gold Coast 195.9m, GWS 193.07m, St Kilda 189.44m. Brisbane are just under at 182.247m, Bulldogs further back at 175m. North way back on 163m.

Distributions are only about 2/3rds of the rights revenue, so i guess the statement that all clubs are covered is correct in that regard.

While the Suns and Giants will have taken lots of revenue and that might be acceptable to the clubs, St Kilda is receiving double the additional revenue over the base of say your Pies/Blues/Bombers & Tigers, and more than 3 times that of West Coast./Adelaide/Freo/Hawks & Cats - and this is where some clubs are arcing up.

 

[Danw0w]

Could we have a team based in Cairns that also play a home game in each of Townsville, Alice Springs and Darwin?

Maybe a Canberra side with GWS moving it's secondary market to Newcastle?

 

[Philth]

If we absolutely had to have a 20th team, then the only option is Canberra.

Those who put forward WA3 must be based outside of the state. It just wouldn't work.

As others have said in this post earlier, the fact we are scratching our heads over this means a 20th team is not really wanted or viable.

 

[projectv]

It would have to be Canberra surely. No other option would be remotely viable.

 

[M Malice]

The answer is obvious - The Shanghai Marxists.

 

[BF Tiger]

If we absolutely had to have a 20th team, then the only option is Canberra.

Those who put forward WA3 must be based outside of the state. It just wouldn't work.

As others have said in this post earlier, the fact we are scratching our heads over this means a 20th team is not really wanted or viable.

I liked it at 16 teams, and I thgink we scratched our heads there but still went to 17, 18 and now 19 teams.

 

[projectv]

Could we have a team based in Cairns that also play a home game in each of Townsville, Alice Springs and Darwin?

Maybe a Canberra side with GWS moving it's secondary market to Newcastle?

Cairns has 150k people, which for comparison is 3 times smaller than Canberra and 4 times smaller than the Gold Coast.

If they had an AFL club they'd be on life support from day one.

 

[Feraligatr]

Canberra.

 

[CCurnow3picks]

Canberra.

The Canberra c***’s?