Norwood and South Adelaide can merge. It would make the bid stronger. But only at the AFL level. They should still maintain a separate identity at SANFL level unless a reserves league is established.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Ready made rivalry with St Kilda for the worst club in the comp !Haha the same 1 team out of 9 (or 10) that represents the entire southern region of SA, barely ever makes finals, last flag was 1964?
Yeah, get them in.
Norwood would merge with Sturt before south AdelaideNorwood and South Adelaide can merge. It would make the bid stronger. But only at the AFL level. They should still maintain a separate identity at SANFL level unless a reserves league is established.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Norwood and South Adelaide can merge. It would make the bid stronger. But only at the AFL level. They should still maintain a separate identity at SANFL level unless a reserves league is established.
Better growth than Tas, but still slower than everywhere else. When they say they’re going to “steal thousands of members” then you know that they’ll never get the license. Surely the AFL would prefer to admit a club that will grow the game and bring in new members, instead of one that will cause fans to shuffle across and make existing clubs weaker?‘We can steal thousands of crows and power members’. AFL not be impressed by that.
One issue Tassie had to put up with is the state population not growing as fast as some places, how is SA in that respect?
And Collingwood still wouldn't travel and play at KP.
4/10 weak sauce![]()
That's why WA3 should be the next team and they should bring them in 1-2 years after Tassie. WC will still be rebuilding and a new Perth team will definitely steal thousands of members of WC if done right and it will barely affect WC's attendance while boosting a new team up.Better growth than Tas, but still slower than everywhere else. When they say they’re going to “steal thousands of members” then you know that they’ll never get the license. Surely the AFL would prefer to admit a club that will grow the game and bring in new members, instead of one that will cause fans to shuffle across and make existing clubs weaker?
20 teams may not allow for three WA teams to play each other twice every yearThat's why WA3 should be the next team and they should bring them in 1-2 years after Tassie. WC will still be rebuilding and a new Perth team will definitely steal thousands of members of WC if done right and it will barely affect WC's attendance while boosting a new team up.
The net gain will be massive with two extra 60K sell outs a year and a team who will draw 25-30K each game from day 1. Plus the extra revenue from an additional game every week. It'll also mean 1 less trip away a year for the WA teams which would be nice to get some sort of equalization for once instead of constantly getting over looked.
Um 2x WA derbies = 2 double ups if everyone plays once so no issues whatsoever. 21 fits fine into 23. You could even do it at 22 teams but you couldn’t go beyond that unless you expanded to 25 games.20 teams may not allow for three WA teams to play each other twice every year
If each team plays everyone once 19 from 23 games. Only leaves 4
No one seems to factor that in
If it’s every year. Makes the lopsided even mor permanentUm 2x WA derbies = 2 double ups if everyone plays once so no issues whatsoever. 21 fits fine into 23. You could even do it at 22 teams but you couldn’t go beyond that unless you expanded to 25 games.
If it’s every year. Makes the lopsided even mor permanent
Where Bruce McAvaney thinks the AFL must put a 20th team to “complete the jigsaw”
“I say that with my head and not my heart.”www.sen.com.au
McAvaney is a totally correct! always been a smart person.
geographically it's NT v ACT on the jigsaw side of thingsNah, it's always annoyed me that NT is seen as the last piece of the puzzle. Yes, in terms of land size, they're the biggest void on the map, but then so is NQ and as far as territories with large populations go, ACT is most definitely a missing piece of the puzzle.
NT won't happen unless someone's gonna put 2 billion on the table to fund it all. That'd have to be the minimum amount of money you'd need, it'd be a charity club.geographically it's NT v ACT on the jigsaw side of things
ACT probably logistically easier on a lot of fronts, but do have a decent GWS presence.
NT i imagine is a nightmare to setup and run, but it would be cool to have teams "around" the country.
yeah. tyranny of distance, even within the state, makes it a headache.NT won't happen unless someone's gonna put 2 billion on the table to fund it all. That'd have to be the minimum amount of money you'd need, it'd be a charity club.
It's too bad we didn't have faster, more futuristic trains and planes because if you could shorten the distance of travel between NT and pretty much everywhere, then a Northern Australia team would become less of a travel burden on the players than it's going to be for them in reality.
Wish super or hypersonic trains were a real thing, that'd be a game changer.yeah. tyranny of distance, even within the state, makes it a headache.
we should have bullet trains though.
This has been said before, but I'll say it again.Wish super or hypersonic trains were a real thing, that'd be a game changer.
I think Canberra and Perth 3 are the only sustainable teams at the moment.
They could do, say, ACT 2033, Perth 3 2038, leave it at 21 teams for however long it needs to be.
Or they might go Perth 3 in 2032, but then if they do that, bring in ACT 2038, only give the Giants a 5-year extension from 2033-7 and then they can piss off.
The mentality needs to shift from "we have to have an even number of teams" to "we have to have sustainable teams."
This has been said before, but I'll say it again.This has been said before, but I'll say it again.
The fact that we are having this conversation about where to put a 20th team, goes to show we don't need one.
And we certainly don't need two.
Let’s get real. The AFL would really like a third nsw team. It may be held open till a realistic one emerges
Well at least you live in WA, so you know what it's like here, and your opinion on WA3 is valid.This has been said before, but I'll say it again.
The fact that we are having this conversation about where to put a 20th team, goes to show we need more than one.
We certainly need at least 21.
Seriously, though, I don't get your argument. The reason why Canberra and Perth 3 get raised is because they're both viable options, not because neither of them are.
The question is more whether 20 is enough, not where the 20th is going to come from.
That's true. Either that, or a NZ team, if Auckland can get a viable ground going.
I think there'll be enough talent for 22 teams by 2050 so it'd be a shame for Canberra or Perth 3 to miss out. I'd like to see them both come in before 2050 with team 22 being well up in the air, if ever happening at all.