Expansion 20th AFL team location

[Cubs2Lions]

NT AFL licence bid

Don’t know how many in the southern states have seen this, but there is a bit of work going into feasibility studies into an NT side.

I work in this space and can confirm that proceedings are a little more advanced then some think. Lots of work to be done, but moving forward constantly.

It is no secret where Andrew Dillons allegiances are placed when it comes to the topic of a 20th side

 

[Coolangatta]

I’d be curious to see what the full article says. You’d think in the unlikely event NT is the 20th team then it just about kills off any chance of a Canberra team. Not sure we’ll ever get to 21 teams. Who knows.

 

[Canberra Pear]

NT AFL licence bid

Don’t know how many in the southern states have seen this, but there is a bit of work going into feasibility studies into an NT side.

I work in this space and can confirm that proceedings are a little more advanced then some think. Lots of work to be done, but moving forward constantly.

It is no secret where Andrew Dillons allegiances are placed when it comes to the topic of a 20th side

AFL NT chair Sean Bowden also spoke to Sportsday: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7mwNsuUn1UyhekItg19d5f?si=ew4UQeZXQSe81P1EG5eGWw

Based on the estimate of 500k people needed to support a team, he was asked if their low population was a serious issue?

"I don't think so. I think the team will work; that's not a number that we're modelling. What's important is can we get the people into the stadium, to the games? Do we have the talent pool? Is the jurisdiction strong enough to support it?"

To me, he still sounds very fanciful. I would answer those as no, maybe, and no.

He kept bringing up the fact that the NT had 50k participants involved in footy (1 in 5 Territorians). But Territorians are split over an area four times as big a Germany. The distance between Darwin and Alice Springs is the same as London to Vienna. You literally can't get them all to the stadium if they have to drive half a day to get there. So that's a no to questions 1 and 3.

In 2018, the AFL had 18 players with an NT affiliation. The number would no doubt go up with a team of their own, but it'd still be a stretch for the NT to produce enough of their own players to fill a team. So question 2 is a maybe.

I commend their push, but a lot of it seems to be based on hope.

 

[Canberra Pear]

"Virtually no one in Perth wants a third team". That's pure hyperbole.

I guarantee there are more fans willing to support WA3 than any other prospective team in Australia.

That's a bold guarantee.

Yes, Canberra isn't 100% AFL, but they'd be the team for a whole new region. WA3 would be coming in as direct competition to many Perth AFL fans' sides.

With the size and entrenchment of West Coast and Freo, WA3 will be lucky to try claim 1/6 of Perth. So, 500k if the population nears 3 million by the 2030s?

The Capital Region will have 850k by then. If Canberra properly engages the Riverina (similar to the Raiders), we'll have a catchment of 1.1 million. It's not as AFL-dominant as Perth, but a bigger total base than WA3 could guarantee. That at least puts Canberra and WA3 on equal footing for potential fans.

 

[Engimal v3]

NT AFL licence bid

Don’t know how many in the southern states have seen this, but there is a bit of work going into feasibility studies into an NT side.

I work in this space and can confirm that proceedings are a little more advanced then some think. Lots of work to be done, but moving forward constantly.

It is no secret where Andrew Dillons allegiances are placed when it comes to the topic of a 20th side

If Tasmania had to fight for decades to get a team, the NT at least than half the population doesn't have a chance.

 

[Dangerousfield]

20th team is not need if Tasmania Labor cans the proposed stadium. If that happens the AFL will withdraw the licence because entry conditions won't be met.

Thread not needed.

 

[peetoo]

If I began the AFL from scratch it’d be 6 Melbourne teams, 2 each Perth and Adelaide, 1 each Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Canberra, Tasmania, Northern Territory and North Queensland.

If I was going to expand to 20 it’d only be if NZ was under consideration plus a third in the south west region of WA. NT would probably play one game in the Kimberley region to cover that area.

If australia had one code, it historically would be dominated by melbourn and sydney, with token teams in other capitals

It'd be 9-8-1-1-1

 

[Roylion]

You've answered your own question with the word "attempted". They cannot force North or any other club to move. North have no debt, unlike Fitzroy. They have 46 000 members. TV payments are much higher now than they used to be, even after accounting for inflation and the rise of player salaries. North are in no danger. If the AFL tried to reduce payments in an attempt to get them to move, there would be a court case and the AFL would lose.

That is correct. No club (other than AFL owned ones) can be forced to move.

And as I'm sure Roylion will be happy to tell you, my club was not a merger, it was a takeover of Fitzroy by Brisbane.

Rebranding from the Bears to Lions using AFL owned intellectual property.

Do you think they're more likely to vote to move somewhere now, with no debt, compared to 15 years ago when they had a significant debt? 15 years in which Melbourne has grown massively and North has been marketing itself in some of the highest growth areas?

You're correct. North won't be going anywhere.

 

[Coolangatta]

If australia had one code, it historically would be dominated by melbourn and sydney, with token teams in other capitals

It'd be 9-8-1-1-1

Hmm yeah nah, if NRL didn't exist:

6 Melbourne and 6 Sydney, 3 SE-QLD, 1 NQLD, 2 each Perth and Adelaide, 1 Geelong, 1 TAS, 1 ACT, 1 NT would've been the best way to go.

24 teams, probably two divisions would've been established from the get go as the AFL would've been too big when it started out if it were much bigger in NSW and QLD. Or it would've been a merger of the VFL and eastern state leagues with tacked on teams from other regions.

 

[lumpinee]

they'll keep 19 and play a thursday night game every week,take it to the bank

 

[Coolangatta]

they'll keep 19 and play a thursday night game every week,take it to the bank

Nah, it’ll be 18 or 20, most likely 20. Gill seems to think so. I know it’s not his call to make but there must been some in house discussions about it.

Hope we’ll get a Canberra team as the 20th but we’ll see. 2033 is perfect timing for them.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This may sound a bit left field but is there anything between Adelaide and Melbourne/Geelong that night attract people? We have the same land mass as the US yet we all cram ourselves into the same handful of cities.

Now here's a topic I enjoy thinking about! We could definitely have more cities if we really wanted to decentralise and voted accordingly. The climate around Mount Gambier is a pretty good one by global standards (similar to the climate on the California coast, Portugal and Cape Town), and climate change might make it slightly warmer, so it might be even nicer to live in. If the government wanted to build up some regional towns into decently-sized cities, Mount Gambier would be near the top of my list (the others are Coffs Harbour, Albany, Geraldton and Warwick, Queensland).

 

[peetoo]

Hmm yeah nah, if NRL didn't exist:

6 Melbourne and 6 Sydney, 3 SE-QLD, 1 NQLD, 2 each Perth and Adelaide, 1 Geelong, 1 TAS, 1 ACT, 1 NT would've been the best way to go.

24 teams, probably two divisions would've been established from the get go as the AFL would've been too big when it started out if it were much bigger in NSW and QLD. Or it would've been a merger of the VFL and eastern state leagues with tacked on teams from other regions.

Australia was dominated by Melbourne and Sydney. Others only recently caught up.


Waaaaa but we want teams spread out even if thers only a few guys and their dodgs watching

 

[Coolangatta]

Australia was dominated by Melbourne and Sydney. Others only recently caught up.


Waaaaa but we want teams spread out even if thers only a few guys and their dodgs watching

Waaaa there’s too many teams!

That’s a complaint I’ve seen.

Melbourne can keep their 9 teams, but bring on more teams elsewhere when/if there’s a good case for them.

I don’t buy this shit it can’t be over 20. Change the structure of the comp if necessary. It’s not as important as growing the game.

 

[GC2015]

You've answered your own question with the word "attempted". They cannot force North or any other club to move. North have no debt, unlike Fitzroy. They have 46 000 members. TV payments are much higher now than they used to be, even after accounting for inflation and the rise of player salaries. North are in no danger. If the AFL tried to reduce payments in an attempt to get them to move, there would be a court case and the AFL would lose.

What's stopping the AFL from attempting to relocate again? Not saying they can force it, just that they may continue to attempt. It remains a talking point because an attempt to relocate (like they did 15 years ago) remains a possibility based on what Gil said at the Tasmanian press conference a week ago. Sure, North may be financially secure these days but St Kilda are currently in $18m debt and what's stopping the AFL from offering the Saints a package to relocate to a place like Canberra should they decide the Giants will be based in western Sydney full time?

Do you think they're more likely to vote to move somewhere now, with no debt, compared to 15 years ago when they had a significant debt? 15 years in which Melbourne has grown massively and North has been marketing itself in some of the highest growth areas?

No I don't, but I think the Saints are more likely than they were 15 years ago. The AFL is very methodical about these things and they wait to strike when a team is vulnerable. Fitzroy were vulnerable in 1996 and the AFL took advantage of that.

Except none of those places are as attractive financially as Tasmania or the Gold Coast.

I'd argue Canberra is just as financially appealing as Tasmania and serves more than one purpose given it's above the Barassi Line.

Gil is leaving. And he can wish for contraction as much as he likes, but he and his successor are unable to force it to happen.

If you think Gil is the only higher up at the AFL that holds these views then you're kidding yourself. Ross Oakley wanted contraction, Andrew Demetriou wanted contraction, Gillon McLachlin seemed to suggest contraction was still possible in his presser. What's the likelihood of Andrew Dillon taking a completely different view on this topic when he's been groomed by guys like Demetriou and McLachlin?

If it succeeds financially, it isn't too many.

Is it financially succeeding for all Melbourne teams though? Collingwood are making huge amounts of money but St Kilda are in $18m debt right now. I understand people will respond that Gold Coast doesn't stand on its own two feet at the moment and that's true but the AFL are using the Suns as a vehicle to grow the game in an emerging northern market so the investment is worthwhile for them beyond gaining a financial return. The Saints were also offering this last year when they sold a home game to Cairns but then they decided to stop selling home games this year, so where's the return on investment for the AFL now?

You may or may not have seen this, a few years back when your club was doing worse on-field, I made many posts on here defending their right to exist in the league, against several mouth-breathers who wanted to move them to Tasmania. It always struck me as odd that someone wanted to kill off someone else's club even though they were in decent financial health. So it's a little sad to see that now from a Suns fan.

I'm not trying to kill any team off. I do believe 9 teams in Melbourne is too many but that's just a personal opinion I hold and I'm not saying any team in particular should relocate/fold. People are going to have differing opinions on the right amount of teams that should be based in Melbourne and that's fine. Ultimately, I'm just pointing out that the AFL CEO stated last week the "retraction" was still on the table going forward and then gave an example of a recent attempt to do so as well as the current debt situation for one team in Melbourne. That's a talking point whether you like it or not and I know my club is just one loss away from opposition supporters sharing their opinion that the Suns should be moved to Canberra, Darwin etc. We were hearing those opinions being shared as recently as a few weeks ago.

That's great that you stuck up for the existence of my club but I've also met other Lions supporters who believed that the Suns should have moved to Tasmania. I've literally read comments from supporters of every club share their opinion on this forum that the Suns shouldn't exist at some point over the last few years so people from all parts of the country have shared their two cents on my team's existence but we're still alive despite all the bs that's been written by the media and opposition supporters. Don't take offence to this but when thousands of AFL supporters from all around the country digging the heels in (including Lions fans) then one random Brisbane fan comes along and defends our existence, it isn't going prevent the topic from being a talking point. The AFL community and media are going to push narratives and, whether we agree with it or not, there's not much you or I can do about it.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

What's stopping the AFL from attempting to relocate again? Not saying they can force it, just that they may continue to attempt. It remains a talking point because an attempt to relocate (like they did 15 years ago) remains a possibility based on what Gil said at the Tasmanian press conference a week ago. Sure, North may be financially secure these days but St Kilda are currently in $18m debt and what's stopping the AFL from offering the Saints a package to relocate to a place like Canberra should they decide the Giants will be based in western Sydney full time?

They can offer packages all they like, it's useless unless they have serious leverage (which they don't in the age of high TV rights and tens of thousands of members at each club) and the ability to withhold funds (which would never stand up in court). I can offer Gil a package to become my personal pancake chef once he steps down from the AFL executive, it's similarly useless unless I have serious leverage over him or he's really desperate for employment.

Your figure for St Kilda is incorrect, their last financial report had their debt at $7m. It's also worth noting that a lot of that debt was taken on to build the Danny Frawley Centre, which is an income-producing asset, not just a financial black hole.

No I don't, but I think the Saints are more likely than they were 15 years ago. The AFL is very methodical about these things and they wait to strike when a team is vulnerable. Fitzroy were vulnerable in 1996 and the AFL took advantage of that.

If you say so. I think conditions for clubs have changed so much since 1996 that it feels like two completely different leagues that can't be compared. Fitzroy had 8000 members in its last few seasons and St Kilda currently has 55 000.

I'd argue Canberra is just as financially appealing as Tasmania and serves more than one purpose given it's above the Barassi Line.

I wouldn't. Canberra has well-established competition from the NRL and Super Rugby. Tasmania does not.

If you think Gil is the only higher up at the AFL that holds these views then you're kidding yourself.

I don't recall saying that.

Ross Oakley wanted contraction, Andrew Demetriou wanted contraction, Gillon McLachlin seemed to suggest contraction was still possible in his presser. What's the likelihood of Andrew Dillon taking a completely different view on this topic when he's been groomed by guys like Demetriou and McLachlin?

How many of them got their wish?

Is it financially succeeding for all Melbourne teams though?

Yes. You're welcome to check the financial reports if you don't believe me.

I'm not trying to kill any team off. I do believe 9 teams in Melbourne is too many but that's just a personal opinion I hold and I'm not saying any team in particular should relocate/fold.

Could have fooled me with the way you're specifically pointing to North and St Kilda.

People are going to have differing opinions on the right amount of teams that should be based in Melbourne and that's fine. Ultimately, I'm just pointing out that the AFL CEO stated last week the "retraction" was still on the table going forward and then gave an example of a recent attempt to do so as well as the current debt situation for one team in Melbourne.

The AFL has no leverage, 15 years isn't recent, that offer was rejected, any future offer won't be as financially lucrative, and you're using incorrect data on the debt situtation.

That's great that you stuck up for the existence of my club but I've also met other Lions supporters who believed that the Suns should have moved to Tasmania. I've literally read comments from supporters of every club share their opinion on this forum that the Suns shouldn't exist at some point over the last few years so people from all parts of the country have shared their two cents on my team's existence but we're still alive despite all the bs that's been written by the media and opposition supporters. Don't take offence to this but when thousands of AFL supporters from all around the country digging the heels in (including Lions fans) then one random Brisbane fan comes along and defends our existence, it isn't going prevent the topic from being a talking point. The AFL community and media are going to push narratives and, whether we agree with it or not, there's not much you or I can do about it.

You've missed the point of my paragraph. I'm well aware it isn't going to prevent the topic from being a talking point. It's just that I would have hoped that seeing the constant baying for your team to die would have influenced you to think twice before perpetuating that same narrative for other people's teams. There but for the grace of god go I, and all that.

I also don't understand why I'm being compared to other Lions supporters here. This topic has nothing to do with the Lions.

 

[theasian]

NT AFL licence bid

Don’t know how many in the southern states have seen this, but there is a bit of work going into feasibility studies into an NT side.

I work in this space and can confirm that proceedings are a little more advanced then some think. Lots of work to be done, but moving forward constantly.

It is no secret where Andrew Dillons allegiances are placed when it comes to the topic of a 20th side

Will be even more unfeasible than Tassie.

 

[SUNS]

Will be even more unfeasible than Tassie.

From an immediate financial standpoint perhaps. But for the socioeconomic benefits a team would provide, it makes perfect sense for the government to buy in. Both from a state and federal perspective.

 

[theasian]

From an immediate financial standpoint perhaps. But for the socioeconomic benefits a team would provide, it makes perfect sense for the government to buy in. Both from a state and federal perspective.

What about player retention and the Heat??

 

[SUNS]

What about player retention and the Heat??

Player retention will never be as bad as what it is made out to be. Plus the pathways it opens up to tap in to the copious amounts of talent running around remote communities will be incredibly beneficial to the AFL.

The heat provides a distinct home ground advantage much as the cool, miserable climate does in the southern states.

 

[Canberra Pear]

From an immediate financial standpoint perhaps.

Not just immediate. Incredibly long-term. I don't imagine any of us will live long enough to see an NT team becoming financially feasible.

It'd be cool, with probable great social effects, but it would an economic blackhole for decades and decades.

 

[whiskeytown]

No to a NT team. Will be a big financial saddle weight on the competition

Just drop the Gold Coast name and have a rebranded Suns play 3-4 home plus 3-4 away games a year out of Darwin and Townsville

Poorer Melbourne teams and some interstate teams will happily sell these home games as playing the suns at MCG or Marvel barely turns a profit

 

[Coolangatta]

Does the AFL have a strict anti private ownership/financing policy on clubs? Only way the NT can happen before 2050. Relying on the feds to fund it indefinitely is risky.

 

[Thailander]

Glenelg should make a bid to join the AFL. They're clearly becoming the most popular SANFL club in recent times.

And just to piss Port off, they should go in as the Glenelg Tigers.

Glenelg v Richmond matches can be known as the "Tiger derby' which can also be a mini state of origin as you'd have the Vic Tigers against the SA Tigers (an opportunity the AFL missed out on with Port Magpies!)

I hope Brisbane Tigers manage the same thing with the NRL.

 

[dino_67]

Glenelg should make a bid to join the AFL. They're clearly becoming the most popular SANFL club in recent times.

And just to piss Port off, they should go in as the Glenelg Tigers.

Glenelg v Richmond matches can be known as the "Tiger derby' which can also be a mini state of origin as you'd have the Vic Tigers against the SA Tigers (an opportunity the AFL missed out on with Port Magpies!)

I hope Brisbane Tigers manage the same thing with the NRL.

Yesn't