Expansion 20th AFL team location

[Howard Littlejohn]

Queensland wouldn't be ready for a third team by the time Team 20 comes in.

But given their overall population, and growth in footy participation, Queensland makes more sense to get a third team before SA does.

But, where? Unlike Perth the footy market still wouldn't be big enough to split the Brisbane CBD area. Sunshine Coast still too small, and the two major north Queensland cities are too far apart to really be a single market.
Some mythical Greater Western Brisbane stretching from Ipswich to Toowoomba? Seems too small still, and logistically unworkable.

 

[Coolangatta]

But, where? Unlike Perth the footy market still wouldn't be big enough to split the Brisbane CBD area. Sunshine Coast still too small, and the two major north Queensland cities are too far apart to really be a single market.
Some mythical Greater Western Brisbane stretching from Ipswich to Toowoomba? Seems too small still, and logistically unworkable.

Yeah, I don't think the Sunshine Coast would be big enough to support a team, even by 2050 or so which is when it's estimated there'd be a 21st team, if there is one.

What I've seen suggested is a northern Brisbane team linked with the Sunshine Coast as a secondary market. Essentially, the Redcliffe Dolphins of the AFL.

Thing is, where's the demand for it?

Financially, a 3rd SEQ team does make more sense than a North Queensland team, but at least Cairns gives a shit. They've put their hand up for the 20th team, let alone a 21st or 22nd. I haven't heard jack shit from the Sunshine Coast.

Things could change, but why bother adding teams to locations that don't want them in the first place?

Of course, that's exactly what the AFL did when they decided to add the Suns and Giants, but they didn't want to add Tasmania, at least not yet.

A 20th team is likely.

"It’s unfavourable for clubs and broadcasters to have teams not playing and that could mean a 20th team is on the horizon sooner rather than later.

“The history of the AFL is we have had five or six years where we’ve had an uneven number of teams and have gone from 12 to now 19,” McLachlan said.

“There’s been a history of growth, there’s been some contraction but it will play out. What I am certain of is at some point there will be an even amount of teams, which will be for someone else to decide.

“I think the most likely is it will go to 20 teams. At some point it will end up with an even number of teams.”

But why rush it? Give it to someone who a) wants in; and b) is viable. At least the NT and NQ are interested but they aren't viable. If ACT, WA3 or SA3 want it, they should come forward and make their case. I doubt Brisbane 2/Sunshine Coast will make a move for team 20, but you never know, if the AFL decide that's what they want, then that's what will happen, but I doubt they see it as a good option in the near future.

 

[Canberra Pear]

But, where? Unlike Perth the footy market still wouldn't be big enough to split the Brisbane CBD area. Sunshine Coast still too small, and the two major north Queensland cities are too far apart to really be a single market.
Some mythical Greater Western Brisbane stretching from Ipswich to Toowoomba? Seems too small still, and logistically unworkable.

If the AFL expands to 22, it'd probably wouldn't be until at least ~2050.

Southeast Queensland will have nearly 6 million people by then. I'm thinking along the same lines as Coolangatta with a northern SEQ team. Sunshine Coast will be approaching 700k by then, and Maroochydore is closer for some in Brisbane's northern suburbs than the Gabba is.

I'm not saying SEQ3 will definitely make sense by then, things still have to go right, but I think they'll make more sense than SA3.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

If the AFL expands to 22, it'd probably wouldn't be until at least ~2050.

Southeast Queensland will have nearly 6 million people by then. I'm thinking along the same lines as Coolangatta with a northern SEQ team. Sunshine Coast will be approaching 700k by then, and Maroochydore is closer for some in Brisbane's northern suburbs than the Gabba is.

I'm not saying SEQ3 will definitely make sense by then, things still have to go right, but I think they'll make more sense than SA3.

It’ll kinda depend how the Lions are faring though in the next 20-30 years and last thing I want (selfishly) is for Brisbane to have two poor clubs in the competition and would rather the Lions being that strong 60-70k member club in the future.

ACT and WA3 deserve Team 20 & 21 slot, but that 22nd team slot will be interesting to watch.

 

[Havoc]

But, where? Unlike Perth the footy market still wouldn't be big enough to split the Brisbane CBD area. Sunshine Coast still too small, and the two major north Queensland cities are too far apart to really be a single market.
Some mythical Greater Western Brisbane stretching from Ipswich to Toowoomba? Seems too small still, and logistically unworkable.

Southport should be given the licence! We've seen the difference between a traditional club in Port Adelaide.. and a franchise club in Fremantle!

Southport = Port Adelaide.
GC Suns = Fremantle.

You know it makes sense.. but AFL House lacks common sense.

 

[Coolangatta]

It’ll kinda depend how the Lions are faring though in the next 20-30 years and last thing I want (selfishly) is for Brisbane to have two poor clubs in the competition and would rather the Lions being that strong 60-70k member club in the future.

ACT and WA3 deserve Team 20 & 21 slot, but that 22nd team slot will be interesting to watch.

I still don’t know about WA3, I just don’t see where the support will come from.

I’ve said it before but I could see it maybe working in the south west region, but they need more infrastructure and population first.

Team 21 is just too far away to know yet. Chances are the AFL doesn’t expand if they still have three to four clubs who are a burden to the league.

The NT will keep trying but I doubt they get up as team 21 or ever. If no one wants it, no need to push it, even teams are more needed than odd teams.

If I were the AFL, I’d be putting work into NZ. But again, even if they could develop the game there, would the NZ government come knocking on the AFL doorstep pushing for a team? I doubt it.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I still don’t know about WA3, I just don’t see where the support will come from.

I’ve said it before but I could see it maybe working in the south west region, but they need more infrastructure and population first.

Team 21 is just too far away to know yet. Chances are the AFL doesn’t expand if they still have three to four clubs who are a burden to the league.

The NT will keep trying but I doubt they get up as team 21 or ever. If no one wants it, no need to push it, even teams are more needed than odd teams.

If I were the AFL, I’d be putting work into NZ. But again, even if they could develop the game there, would the NZ government come knocking on the AFL doorstep pushing for a team? I doubt it.

That was my thought too. 2050 is plenty of time to lay the groundwork.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Yeah, I don't think the Sunshine Coast would be big enough to support a team, even by 2050 or so which is when it's estimated there'd be a 21st team, if there is one.

What I've seen suggested is a northern Brisbane team linked with the Sunshine Coast as a secondary market. Essentially, the Redcliffe Dolphins of the AFL.

Thing is, where's the demand for it?

If the game keeps growing in SE QLD then eventually the demand will be determined by raw numbers. Easily the third biggest population centre in the country (and one of the fastest growing), the Lions had 7 x sell outs last season - quite possibility could eclipse that figure this season, their membership was 40k in 2021 (they’re aiming for over 60k this season and I think they’ll get it).

I CBF finding the data for junior player and AusKick registrations over the past 5 years, but I’ve heard the growth there has been huge as well. Nothing will eventuate until the Lions are playing out of a new stadium with huge crowds, although I’m anticipating this will happen at some stage between now and 2050. Then the question will be asked: are two AFL clubs enough for SE QLD?

 

[Coolangatta]

If the game keeps growing in SE QLD then eventually the demand will be determined by raw numbers. Easily the third biggest population centre in the country (and one of the fastest growing), the Lions had 7 x sell outs last season - quite possibility could eclipse that figure this season, their membership was 40k in 2021 (they’re aiming for over 60k this season and I think they’ll get it).

I CBF finding the data for junior player and AusKick registrations over the past 5 years, but I’ve heard the growth there has been huge as well. Nothing will eventuate until the Lions are playing out of a new stadium with huge crowds, although I’m anticipating this will happen at some stage between now and 2050. Then the question will be asked: are two AFL clubs enough for SE QLD?

Yeah, I 100% agree with you that it will make sense in terms of the numbers the way it’s going, especially if there’s a new stadium.

A couple of issues, though. One, is demand - literally. Will Brisbane actually ask for a second team? I don’t know anything about the Redcliffe Dolphins situation with the NRL, whether the NRL took a proactive approach or not.

Do you think the AFL will pull a GC17 GWS18 and try to put a second team in Brisbane? Or will they do a Tassie and leave Brisbane as is unless they’re approached? I’m guessing if the numbers stack up and Brisbane seems too big for one team then they’ll take action and initiate.

The other issue though is rationalisation. We saw the NRL dwindle down from 20 teams at some point to 14. I know they had the super league problem and all that but I think they also said they wanted a 20 team cap.

Who’s to say the AFL won’t want the same? They might end up trying and leaving it as is but if by chance the Suns and Giants are stronger teams by then (plus Brissy) of course and there’s a couple struggling Victorian clubs and rationalisation is needed…

That said, I can’t see Tasmania or Canberra being bigger than any of the Vic clubs. Well, maybe Canberra. And of course, TV ratings would factor in. Don’t know how much that did for the NRL. And debt.

You and I don’t mind going beyond 20 and some others too but I can see why others would, including the club presidents who have to vote on it. They might take issue with it.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Yeah, I 100% agree with you that it will make sense in terms of the numbers the way it’s going, especially if there’s a new stadium.

A couple of issues, though. One, is demand - literally. Will Brisbane actually ask for a second team? I don’t know anything about the Redcliffe Dolphins situation with the NRL, whether the NRL took a proactive approach or not.

Do you think the AFL will pull a GC17 GWS18 and try to put a second team in Brisbane? Or will they do a Tassie and leave Brisbane as is unless they’re approached? I’m guessing if the numbers stack up and Brisbane seems too big for one team then they’ll take action and initiate.

The other issue though is rationalisation. We saw the NRL dwindle down from 20 teams at some point to 14. I know they had the super league problem and all that but I think they also said they wanted a 20 team cap.

Who’s to say the AFL won’t want the same?

It’s hard to say when we’re looking decades into the future, but I suspect that if a third club was justified by the numbers then it would be AFL Queensland and the AFL leading the charge, as opposed to local/state government. However, if an expensive new stadium is built then I’m sure the government would be supportive in attracting more major events to the new venue.

In terms of rationalisation, I cannot see it happening anytime soon. The AFL won’t want to be in a position where they’re offering less content to broadcasters. They’ve just announced $1b investment into GR footy over the next decade and they have set a goal of doubling participation over that period. If they get close to achieving this then it will also go some way towards alleviating concerns that some fans currently have with the talent pool.

On the other side, the NRL have been quite transparent regarding their aim of having a 20-team comp. If their biggest rival is expanding then I cannot see the AFL rationalising and potentially giving them a competitive advantage with more content to sell to broadcasters.

As we’ve said before, there must be a tipping point somewhere in terms of max clubs, I’m just not convinced the AFL would replace a current club to bring in another from somewhere else. There are no other Port Adelaide’s around the country waiting to be promoted with a readymade fanbase and able to step up. There also isn’t a Fitzroy in the league that’s currently miles behind every other club. As Colin Carter said, the league’s wealth ladder is essentially carved up into 3 groups of 6 clubs. Of course, this could all change in the future, but this is how I see the state of play ATM.

 

[Coolangatta]

It’s hard to say when we’re looking decades into the future, but I suspect that if a third club was justified by the numbers then it would be AFL Queensland and the AFL leading the charge, as opposed to local/state government. However, if an expensive new stadium is built then I’m sure the government would be supportive in attracting more major events to the new venue.

In terms of rationalisation, I cannot see it happening anytime soon. The AFL won’t want to be in a position where they’re offering less content to broadcasters. They’ve just announced $1b investment into GR footy over the next decade and they have set a goal of doubling participation over that period. If they get close to achieving this then it will also go some way towards alleviating concerns that some fans currently have with the talent pool.

On the other side, the NRL have been quite transparent regarding their aim of having a 20-team comp. If their biggest rival is expanding then I cannot see the AFL rationalising and potentially giving them a competitive advantage with more content to sell to broadcasters.

As we’ve said before, there must be a tipping point somewhere in terms of max clubs, I’m just not convinced the AFL would replace a current club to bring in another from somewhere else. There are no other Port Adelaide’s around the country waiting to be promoted with a readymade fanbase and able to step up. There also isn’t a Fitzroy in the league that’s currently miles behind every other club. As Colin Carter said, the league’s wealth ladder is essentially carved up into 3 groups of 6 clubs. Of course, this could all change in the future, but this is how I see the state of play ATM.

Yeah, it’s hard to tell.

I see Canberra and a 3rd Perth team as financially viable.

I see a 2nd Brisbane team as potentially viable the way it’s tracking.

If they crack the NSW market, surely you’d look at 3rd Sydney and Newcastle.

And maybe New Zealand if the work is put into it.

But that’s 24-25 teams. 22-24 feels like the max but more than that could actually be justified if the game takes off in NSW and not just QLD like it seems to be.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Yeah, it’s hard to tell.

I see Canberra and a 3rd Perth team as financially viable.

I see a 2nd Brisbane team as potentially viable the way it’s tracking.

If they crack the NSW market, surely you’d look at 3rd Sydney and Newcastle.

And maybe New Zealand if the work is put into it.

But that’s 24-25 teams. 22-24 feels like the max but more than that could actually be justified if the game takes off in NSW and not just QLD like it seems to be.

Yeah I agree. Super long term that would have to be the max. Can’t see any viable alternatives at this stage and even some of those options are indeterminable ATM.

 

[Coolangatta]

Yeah I agree. Super long term that would have to be the max. Can’t see any viable alternatives at this stage and even some of those options are indeterminable ATM.

Yeah, as for the currently indeterminable, I wouldn't rule out the NT either. The Tasmania club is more about the social, health, and economic benefits it'll bring to the community. Long-term, I can't see Tasmania being bigger than any other club in the league, not even the Suns or Giants.

I think the NT could be a future possibility because of all the good that it'd do them. They'd need a world-class stadium so that the conditions are playable, though, because they'd certainly add value to the TV rights as they'd be a popular team to watch, but not if it's so dewy, wet, and humid resulting in ugly play.

But yes, a 3rd Sydney and certainly not Newcastle side has any chance if the Giants can't become a strong club; plus the Swans have to keep growing, too, they're not that big of a club.

Lions are tracking well but we'll see how long it lasts. Weren't we doing well in the glory days of the early 2000s and then we dropped off and struggled badly? Without sustained on-field success, support and interest could drop off again, but the amount of talent coming out of SEQ now compared to two decades ago should keep us more competitive for longer in the future. Footy's usually cyclical, though.

And as Canberra Pear and I have discussed, NZ needs work put into it first to be viable. Obviously, a playable ground in Auckland would be a good start. They'd need more than just good crowds to make a case, though, because most of those could just be flyovers not locals.

 

[Philth]

Southport should be given the licence! We've seen the difference between a traditional club in Port Adelaide.. and a franchise club in Fremantle!

Southport = Port Adelaide.
GC Suns = Fremantle.

You know it makes sense.. but AFL House lacks common sense.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Freo are a healthy club with a large support base - at least as big as Port's.

Comparing them to GC is ludicrous.

 

[Bjo187]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Freo are a healthy club with a large support base - at least as big as Port's.

Comparing them to GC is ludicrous.

Port have more of an identity though imo. Like I actually dislike port, Freo I don't really think about. I also think Southport should have been the gold coast club, success, financial clout and they'd have formed their own identity with new colours in the afl competition anyway.

 

[Coolangatta]

Port have more of an identity though imo. Like I actually dislike port, Freo I don't really think about. I also think Southport should have been the gold coast club, success, financial clout and they'd have formed their own identity with new colours in the afl competition anyway.

Yeah, I mean if some compromise were made where it was basically the Gold Coast Sharks managed by the Southport people, wearing blue, red, and gold, then I think it could've worked and not alienated the people who hate Southport. Would be guaranteed to have never been a financial burden on the league. Plus I've always said we should have a Sharks mascot in the league damn it. If it ain't gonna be Gold Coast then I hope it's the Moreton Bay Bullsharks or the South West Sharks in 25-30 years.

 

[neogh]

Readers have their say on third WA team

Dozens of WAtoday readers have sent in their thoughts about what the new WA team in the AFL should be called, while others believe status quo should be retained.

www.watoday.com.au

An article 15 years prior.

Not sure if any of the opinions are reflective of WA.

 

[neogh]

Yeah, I mean if some compromise were made where it was basically the Gold Coast Sharks managed by the Southport people, wearing blue, red, and gold, then I think it could've worked and not alienated the people who hate Southport. Would be guaranteed to have never been a financial burden on the league. Plus I've always said we should have a Sharks mascot in the league damn it. If it ain't gonna be Gold Coast then I hope it's the Moreton Bay Bullsharks or the South West Sharks in 25-30 years.

Or even Yellow and Red

What Gold Coast needs is a rebrand. Either lighten the existing colours and/or reverse it. The current scheme seems to be pretty meh.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Readers have their say on third WA team

Dozens of WAtoday readers have sent in their thoughts about what the new WA team in the AFL should be called, while others believe status quo should be retained.

www.watoday.com.au

An article 15 years prior.

Not sure if any of the opinions are reflective of WA.

Haha, dozens! I guess online polls weren't too big back then.

It's a shame they didn't give the numbers. They mentioned some preferred the status quo of a two-team town, would've been interesting to have that insight from back then.

 

[catters05]

redcliffe dolphins of the afl would be great, another stadium like Carrara on the Sunshine Coast…. but afl still have plenty of work to do with Gold Coast Suns before bringing another one up to qld.

 

[Coolangatta]

I think this would be a good way to do a top 10 finals system.

No pre-finals bye otherwise 1st and 2nd would have two weeks off plus potentially another week off = too many byes.

Week 1:

A1: 8th v 9th
B1: 4th v 5th
A2: 7th v 10th
B2: 3rd v 6th

Week 2:

C1: Loser of B1 v Winner of A1 (i.e. 5th v 8th)
D1: 1st v Winner of B1 (i.e. 1st v 4th)
C2: Loser of B2 v Winner of A2 (i.e. 6th v 7th)
D2: 2nd v Winner of B2 (i.e. 2nd v 3rd)

Week 3:

E1: Loser D1 v Winner C2 (i.e. 4th v 6th)
E2: Loser D2 v Winner C1 (i.e. 3rd v 5th)

Week 4:

F1: Winner D1 v Winner E2 (i.e. 1st v 3rd)
F2: Winner D2 v Winner E1 (i.e. 2nd v 4th)

Week 5:

Winner F1 v Winner F2 (i.e. 1st v 2nd)


If it ever got to 24 teams, top 12 finals system, pre-finals bye comes back:

Week One:

A1: 8th v 9th
B1: 5th v 12th
C1: 1st v 4th
A2: 7th v 10th
B2: 6th v 11th
C2: 2nd v 3rd

Week Two:

D1 and D2: C losers v lowest ranked A-B winners (i.e. 3rd v 8th, 4th v 7th)
E1 and E2: C winners v best ranked A-B winners (i.e. 1st v 6th, 2nd v 5th)

Week Three:

F1 and F2: Losers E v Winners D rank-based (i.e. 3rd v 6th, 4th v 5th)

Week Four:

G1 and G2: Winners E v Winners F rank-based (i.e. 1st v 4th, 2nd v 3rd)

Week Five:

H: Winner G1 v Winner G2 (i.e. 1st v 2nd)

 

[Coolangatta]

You could, quite possibly, if it got to 22 teams, do a top 16 finals system, where the top 8 gets a double chance.

Week One:

QF: 1st v 8th
QF: 2nd v 7th
QF: 3rd v 6th
QF: 4th v 5th
EF: 9th v 16th
EF: 10th v 15th
EF: 11th v 14th
EF: 12th v 13th

Week Two:

QF losers v EF winners sorted by ranking (i.e. 5th v 12th, 6th v 11th, etc)

Week Three:

QF winners v Week two winners sorted by ranking except if they've already played in week one (i.e. 1st v 7th instead of 8th, 2nd v 8th instead of 7th, etc)

Week Four:

Four week three winners v each other based on ranking except if they've already played each other (i.e. 1st v lowest ranked winner apart from 8th, etc)

Week Five:

Two Week Four winners play off in GF

 

[Colonial]

If the Mighty Giants can go full time up here and get going with the locals, why not a 3rd team, and this time a club that has been around forever. The North Shore Footy club. One of the oldest clubs of any code in Sydney.
Also has more players and sides in divisions than any other club in Australia supposedly.

And before you say "They are the Bombers, no" they were originally known as The Bears.

 

[Coolangatta]

If the Mighty Giants can go full time up here and get going with the locals, why not a 3rd team, and this time a club that has been around forever. The North Shore Footy club. One of the oldest clubs of any code in Sydney.
Also has more players and sides in divisions than any other club in Australia supposedly.

And before you say "They are the Bombers, no" they were originally known as The Bears.

I mean, I'd personally prefer to see Canberra be the 20th team, then the Giants can go full time in Sydney by 2033. If they do go nuclear, I think a 3rd Sydney and 2nd Brisbane side would be good 21st and 22nd additions to the competition by the 2050s.

 

[Colonial]

I mean, I'd personally prefer to see Canberra be the 20th team, then the Giants can go full time in Sydney by 2033. If they do go nuclear, I think a 3rd Sydney and 2nd Brisbane side would be good 21st and 22nd additions to the competition by the 2050s.

I’m all for a Canberra team as it gets the Giants full time in Sydney.

So Tassie, Canberra, Perth 3, North Shore?