20th AFL Team

[Cunnington Cartel]

Made me wonder about if there should be conferences involved with all this talk of ACT, NT and WA3 again lately given the clubs preferences for more “winners” and trophies, providing one Victorian team leave or merge interstate (which is very unlikely mind you but we can dream).

With 20 teams soon, you could have four divisions of 5 clubs that can consist of:

Victoria 1: 4x Melbourne + 1x Geelong
Victoria 2: 4x Melbourne + 1x Tasmania
North-Eastern: Brisbane + Canberra or Darwin + Gold Coast + Sydney + Western Sydney
South-Western: Adelaide + Darwin or Perth (WA3) + Fremantle + Port Adelaide + West Coast

No pre-season matches would be played and each team would face everyone once (19 rounds) before playing each team again in their conference (4 rounds) and then playing against one team in each of the different conferences (3 rounds*) resulting in a 26 round season (13x home / 13x away).

After the regular season finishes, the Top 2 from each conference would advance to the finals (via knockout or current finals style with overall ladder) and this can then be updated to the 2 best 3rd place teams out of the 4 conferences to make it a 10 team series, if current final series was in place still.

Obviously this proposal is very americanised and doesn’t 100% help the equalisation of travel load of all clubs, as the non-Victorian teams would have to travel more than the Melbourne centric clubs, but it would help ease the load a little while also help clubs celebrate some sort of success more often when they win their conference (trophy involved) or qualify for overall finals.

Conference championships would be one logical way to recognise team success (other than a premiership). It’s also good to structure the conferences like you have to tap into some of the intra and interstate rivalries. Your model is similar to models shared by myself and others on here previously - your proposal might have inadvertently killed off a Victorian club though, because you only have nine listed.

With 20 clubs, they might be able to get away continuing without conferences and having an expanded finals series with a wildcard round. However, if the league continues pushing towards 21+ clubs then, without conferences, it’s just going to get ridiculous for more and more clubs in terms of premiership droughts, lack of success, and dead rubber games towards the end of the season where a greater number of clubs have little to play for.

Look at the excitement at the end of the English Premier League season where there are battles for the league title, relegation, champions league, Europa league spots. We only have making the finals (which is relatively meaningless), and then winning the flag for a league with (soon to be) the same number of teams as the EPL.

There are great teams of yesteryear like St Kilda of 15 years ago, Geelong in the early 90’s that never saluted on the last day of September, but are still considered iconic teams of those eras and for their fanbases. They should never be held in the same regard as premiership sides, although there should be something else for teams of this ilk to achieve during their eras of success.

The national comp has evolved from a 12 team state league with 22 H&A games. Therefore, it’s about time the structure of the league better reflects the number and location of teams across the entire country. If the best way to do this involves having more rounds, holding the GF later in October, having conferences, expanding the number of finals qualifiers etc, then so be it. In this regard, Gather Round is a massive step in the right direction of the AFL developing a new initiative that stimulates interest in the sport, without detracting from some of the great traditions that originated in Victoria and still benefit Victorians and their clubs more so than anyone else.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Conference championships would be one logical way to recognise team success (other than a premiership). It’s also good to structure the conferences like you have to tap into some of the intra and interstate rivalries. Your model is similar to models shared by myself and others on here previously - your proposal might have inadvertently killed off a Victorian club though, because you only have nine listed.

With 20 clubs, they might be able to get away continuing without conferences and having an expanded finals series with a wildcard round. However, if the league continues pushing towards 21+ clubs then, without conferences, it’s just going to get ridiculous for more and more clubs in terms of premiership droughts, lack of success, and dead rubber games towards the end of the season where a greater number of clubs have little to play for.

Look at the excitement at the end of the English Premier League season where there are battles for the league title, relegation, champions league, Europa league spots. We only have making the finals (which is relatively meaningless), and then winning the flag for a league with (soon to be) the same number of teams as the EPL.

There are great teams of yesteryear like St Kilda of 15 years ago, Geelong in the early 90’s that never saluted on the last day of September, but are still considered iconic teams of those eras and for their fanbases. They should never be held in the same regard as premiership sides, although there should be something else for teams of this ilk to achieve during their eras of success.

The national comp has evolved from a 12 team state league with 22 H&A games. Therefore, it’s about time the structure of the league better reflects the number and location of teams across the entire country. If the best way to do this involves having more rounds, holding the GF later in October, having conferences, expanding the number of finals qualifiers etc, then so be it. In this regard, Gather Round is a massive step in the right direction of the AFL developing a new initiative that stimulates interest in the sport, without detracting from some of the great traditions that originated in Victoria and still benefit Victorians and their clubs more so than anyone else.

Ideally speaking, would rather have a normal H & A season if there are only 20 teams involved but given interstate clubs have been whinging due to excess travel compared to Victorian clubs (which is a fair argument mind you), the competition only getting bigger in the future (post 20 teams) and the AFL culture fascination over America in recent times, conferences will happen sooner rather than later IMO and we all should be prepared for it given the clubs wanting to celebrate more success cause as you said those droughts will only get longer with the more teams and and less travel involved especially for clubs in WA / QLD clubs

Regarding an Victorian club being axed, as much as it’s cold hearted to some but there are just too many teams in Melbourne CBD and wouldn’t be thinking twice of getting rid of one right now (we know who by now) or getting them to relocate with an interstate club.

Let’s say Saints gets relocated to NT and WA3 comes in (not proposing this to happen IRL), we would have a team represent Darwin and surrounding regions (10-15k home match averagely) ans WA3 would probably get 30-40k per home match at Optus Stadium. Now would that be better for the overall competition and Saints or would it more beneficial them having a smaller base in Melbourne where they continue to stall and have small crowds in an over saturation market.

The other factor I didn’t mention in my original proposal with the expansion of conferences (post 20 teams) and this can be done with 22-24 teams playing in 4 conferences of 6 teams with the same fixture details minus play another team in conference once, which would look something like:

Victoria 1: 4x Melbourne + 1x Geelong + 1x Auckland (NZ)
Victoria 2: 4x Melbourne + 1x Canberra (ACT) + Tasmania
North-Eastern: Brisbane + Darwin (NT) + Gold Coast + Newcastle / North Sydney (NSW3) + Sydney + Western Sydney
South-Western: Adelaide + Fremantle + Norwood (SA3) + Perth (WA3) + Port Adelaide + West Coast

This proposal could also go to 26-28 teams which I might share tomorrow but that won’t happen until the beginning of the 22nd century, but it’s nice to think about the hypotheticals of the future.

 

[Coolangatta]

Ideally speaking, would rather have a normal H & A season if there are only 20 teams involved but given interstate clubs have been whinging due to excess travel compared to Victorian clubs (which is a fair argument mind you), the competition only getting bigger in the future (post 20 teams) and the AFL culture fascination over America in recent times, conferences will happen sooner rather than later IMO and we all should be prepared for it given the clubs wanting to celebrate more success cause as you said those droughts will only get longer with the more teams and and less travel involved especially for clubs in WA / QLD clubs

Regarding an Victorian club being axed, as much as it’s cold hearted to some but there are just too many teams in Melbourne CBD and wouldn’t be thinking twice of getting rid of one right now (we know who by now) or getting them to relocate with an interstate club.

Let’s say Saints gets relocated to NT and WA3 comes in (not proposing this to happen IRL), we would have a team represent Darwin and surrounding regions (10-15k home match averagely) ans WA3 would probably get 30-40k per home match at Optus Stadium. Now would that be better for the overall competition and Saints or would it more beneficial them having a smaller base in Melbourne where they continue to stall and have small crowds in an over saturation market.

The other factor I didn’t mention in my original proposal with the expansion of conferences (post 20 teams) and this can be done with 22-24 teams playing in 4 conferences of 6 teams with the same fixture details minus play another team in conference once, which would look something like:

Victoria 1: 4x Melbourne + 1x Geelong + 1x Auckland (NZ)
Victoria 2: 4x Melbourne + 1x Canberra (ACT) + Tasmania
North-Eastern: Brisbane + Darwin (NT) + Gold Coast + Newcastle / North Sydney (NSW3) + Sydney + Western Sydney
South-Western: Adelaide + Fremantle + Norwood (SA3) + Perth (WA3) + Port Adelaide + West Coast

This proposal could also go to 26-28 teams which I might share tomorrow but that won’t happen until the beginning of the 22nd century, but it’s nice to think about the hypotheticals of the future.

It certainly is. I like thinking about how different scenarios could play out. I doubt any Vic club ever folds, relocates, or merges, and I'm not certain there'll ever be a WA3/SA3, as I think the AFL would prefer expanding into new markets.

After Canberra, Auckland and Newcastle would be the biggest populations to target. After them, Sunshine Coast and Central Coast/Wollongong.

You'd expect after that, North Queensland and one of CC/Wollongong.

That would pretty much complete NSW and QLD.

That's a whopping 26 teams, with NT probably being a part of a NA side if transport gets much faster in the future.

If not, NT could come in as team 27 and I'd say only then when they need a 28th they'll probably pluck one down in SW-WA which could be way bigger in 100+ years than now.

Of course, that's all predicated on the endless pursuit of growth. Frankly, the Giants experiment is looking grim and it will kill expansion in a lot of the locations I mentioned.

Expansion probably ends at around 20-22 teams.

P.S. I'd hate that, I'd much rather 3 teams each in WA/SA/NSW/QLD if we're going to go big on expansion in the next 50 years. That's 23 teams, plus throw in NZ, ACT, NT, and you've got a max of 26.

I'd prefer NQ for a 3rd QLD side over SC/Brisbane 2, and Newcastle over Sydney 3.

But I do suspect that if things go well in the northern states, another NSW/QLD combo could be on the cards for team 21/22, with WA3 being either team 20 or no WA3 at all.

 

[Coolangatta]

My prediction.

20. Canberra (reckon AFL poured cold water over WA3 and didn't mean it as a ploy)
21. Newcastle (predicated on Giants doing well and playing 1-2 games there after ACT)
22. Cairns/FNQ (they're interested in growth there)

If they go beyond 22, I could see:

23. NZ (will need a lot of time IMO)
24. NT

They'd probably stop after that, unless they think they can squeeze out NSW4/QLD4 but I doubt it.

 

[Walshawk]

It certainly is. I like thinking about how different scenarios could play out. I doubt any Vic club ever folds, relocates, or merges, and I'm not certain there'll ever be a WA3/SA3, as I think the AFL would prefer expanding into new markets.

After Canberra, Auckland and Newcastle would be the biggest populations to target. After them, Sunshine Coast and Central Coast/Wollongong.

You'd expect after that, North Queensland and one of CC/Wollongong.

That would pretty much complete NSW and QLD.

That's a whopping 26 teams, with NT probably being a part of a NA side if transport gets much faster in the future.

If not, NT could come in as team 27 and I'd say only then when they need a 28th they'll probably pluck one down in SW-WA which could be way bigger in 100+ years than now.

Of course, that's all predicated on the endless pursuit of growth. Frankly, the Giants experiment is looking grim and it will kill expansion in a lot of the locations I mentioned.

Expansion probably ends at around 20-22 teams.

P.S. I'd hate that, I'd much rather 3 teams each in WA/SA/NSW/QLD if we're going to go big on expansion in the next 50 years. That's 23 teams, plus throw in NZ, ACT, NT, and you've got a max of 26.

I'd prefer NQ for a 3rd QLD side over SC/Brisbane 2, and Newcastle over Sydney 3.

But I do suspect that if things go well in the northern states, another NSW/QLD combo could be on the cards for team 21/22, with WA3 being either team 20 or no WA3 at all.

Sure, but where will team 29 be?

Do you really think pro - NRL areas like Central Coast or Wollongong that cannot even support an NRL team, will ever be able to support an AFL team?

 

[speedpeck23]

If NT does get team 20, the Suns should move their two games to Cairns and cover NQ.

Roos won’t play home out of Vic after Hobart so that leaves the Hawks.

Get them to play 3-4 games a year in Canberra while the Giants retain their three (plus an away game against the Hawks there).

So that’s 6-7 games a year for Canberra which is not as good as 9-11 but better than three.

I still think they’d be making a mistake to favour NT ahead of ACT but you could see it happening given the rhetoric in the media (they’ve mentioned NT as team 20 a couple times tonight in the Suns game).

And the political points etc.

But I still think they should just hold off on teams in Darwin and Cairns for 30+ years. I like them as choices for teams 21-22 because they’ve actually shown interest and don’t have teams.

I think people are underestimating how little the AFL give a s**t about giving WA and SA more representation in the league to balance it out.

I agree, there are many aspects to the whole ACT, NT or other options. When you made the point in a previous post that ACT is not NSW (in AFL it is lumped together) it suddenly struck me there is, in my opinion, an interesting option for the AFL to explore with Canberra...which could create multiple wins....Here me out on this....thinking laterally.. This idea relies on seeing the unique profile/image/character/reality/history of Canberra.

Unlike any other City in Australia, , Canberra's whole reason for being is initially a compromise between Melbourne and Sydney as to which city should be the Capital of Australia. In addition Canberra's function is to allow representation of all States and Territories on a National level.

The two major protagonists and antagonists in this traditionally have been Melbourne and Sydney. Melbourne was the original Capital City of Australia from 1901 until sometime in the 1920's. The push was massive from Sydney of course but a compromise was reached....Canberra....

It seems to me the AFL should work with what they have and add to it in Canberra in keeping with the history and function of the ACT/Canberra.

I would continue to play the Giants out of Canberra 3 home games and give them a rival from a Melbourne. club...obviously.. North Melbourne 3 homes games in ACT after they bow out of Tassie. ( I know theyve tried this before but this has a different emphasis.)..

In effect Nth MELB will be Victoria representative team in Canberra , Greater Western SYDNEY will be NSW rep. They basically become the rival clubs in ACT. They play each other and only clubs representing QLD, WA,SA and eventually Tassie and maybe NT....make up their opposition.

There is no round robin etc or gather round and no other NSW or VIC clubs play in Canberra. With that combination Canberra could get from to 7 to 11 matches per season....2 rival "home "clubs...and every other state gets representation thru the season with one of their clubs. There would be stacks of opportunities to promote all sorts of issues to Canberra from the states via AFL....Lets face it Canberra is always in the news..

Interestingly also it raises the profile for all of these matches as the combo of clubs struggles to get a major crowd except maybe in WA and SA.

Not trying to get carried away but North Melbourne is a natural for this....the club existed before Federation and was there when Australia first Federated Parliament was open in Melbourne Exhibition Buildings 1901..and Melbourne became the Australian Capital.............only a Malcolm Blight Torpedo from Arden Street.

And the logo of course is a laydown misere... Australia's iconic symbol The Kangaroo. In my opinion it would finally give North a really valid position in the AFL expansions.. Of course the GIANTS work because they have some sort of base now in Canberra... and they do represent the biggest state, NSW. (population wise.)

I think there is a real opportunity for the AFL to not throw the baby out with the bathwater with both GWS and North....re-invent the whole AFL Canberra image... Call it the Canberra AFL Bubble or whatever,,,, ..Nowhere near as big as State of Origin but it does promote a NSW v VIC rivalry which doesn't happen with Swans and Dees.

In addition ,in my opinion it's a more effective way of getting better traction in NSW and ACT.... Don't take the Raiders head on....just bring a bunch of AFL Clubs ...competition within a competition,, The more clubs involved the more likely you will have at least one or two or three top teams playing a match in Canberra every season....one team towns can flatten the whole image of a game if they're not going well.

In effect you significantly raise the profile of Canberra as an AFL City..... but in a unique way.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I agree, there are many aspects to the whole ACT, NT or other options. When you made the point in a previous post that ACT is not NSW (in AFL it is lumped together) it suddenly struck me there is, in my opinion, an interesting option for the AFL to explore with Canberra...which could create multiple wins....Here me out on this....thinking laterally.. This idea relies on seeing the unique profile/image/character/reality/history of Canberra.

Unlike any other City in Australia, , Canberra's whole reason for being is initially a compromise between Melbourne and Sydney as to which city should be the Capital of Australia. In addition Canberra's function is to allow representation of all States and Territories on a National level.

The two major protagonists and antagonists in this traditionally have been Melbourne and Sydney. Melbourne was the original Capital City of Australia from 1901 until sometime in the 1920's. The push was massive from Sydney of course but a compromise was reached....Canberra....

It seems to me the AFL should work with what they have and add to it in Canberra in keeping with the history and function of the ACT/Canberra.

I would continue to play the Giants out of Canberra 3 home games and give them a rival from a Melbourne. club...obviously.. North Melbourne 3 homes games in ACT after they bow out of Tassie. ( I know theyve tried this before but this has a different emphasis.)..

In effect Nth MELB will be Victoria representative team in Canberra , Greater Western SYDNEY will be NSW rep. They basically become the rival clubs in ACT. They play each other and only clubs representing QLD, WA,SA and eventually Tassie and maybe NT....make up their opposition.

There is no round robin etc or gather round and no other NSW or VIC clubs play in Canberra. With that combination Canberra could get from to 7 to 11 matches per season....2 rival "home "clubs...and every other state gets representation thru the season with one of their clubs. There would be stacks of opportunities to promote all sorts of issues to Canberra from the states via AFL....Lets face it Canberra is always in the news..

Interestingly also it raises the profile for all of these matches as the combo of clubs struggles to get a major crowd except maybe in WA and SA.

Not trying to get carried away but North Melbourne is a natural for this....the club existed before Federation and was there when Australia first Federated Parliament was open in Melbourne Exhibition Buildings 1901..and Melbourne became the Australian Capital.............only a Malcolm Blight Torpedo from Arden Street.

And the logo of course is a laydown misere... Australia's iconic symbol The Kangaroo. In my opinion it would finally give North a really valid position in the AFL expansions.. Of course the GIANTS work because they have some sort of base now in Canberra... and they do represent the biggest state, NSW. (population wise.)

I think there is a real opportunity for the AFL to not throw the baby out with the bathwater with both GWS and North....re-invent the whole AFL Canberra image... Call it the Canberra AFL Bubble or whatever,,,, ..Nowhere near as big as State of Origin but it does promote a NSW v VIC rivalry which doesn't happen with Swans and Dees.

In addition ,in my opinion it's a more effective way of getting better traction in NSW and ACT.... Don't take the Raiders head on....just bring a bunch of AFL Clubs ...competition within a competition,, The more clubs involved the more likely you will have at least one or two or three top teams playing a match in Canberra every season....one team towns can flatten the whole image of a game if they're not going well.

In effect you significantly raise the profile of Canberra as an AFL City..... but in a unique way.

A-plus for imagination.

I'd prefer it over the status quo. More games is always good and it's a clever way to frame it.

Obviously, a team of our own would still be preferable to the scraps of two teams, but six games is better than three.

The big hurdle is that everything gets split. I doubt the ACT Govt would be willing to increase their funding for another interstate team, they already get flak for the money they give the Giants. And Canberrans then have to buy two lots of memberships, two lots of merch etc.

I appreciate the lateral thinking, but most Canberrans would just rather that money spent on a team of our own.

 

[Coolangatta]

Sure, but where will team 29 be?

Do you really think pro - NRL areas like Central Coast or Wollongong that cannot even support an NRL team, will ever be able to support an AFL team?

I said the comp will probably max out at 20-22.

To be honest, I completely forgot about the NRL, but you're right. Now it's debatable whether CC and Gong could support an NRL team or not (if Steelers fans have anything to say about it), but it's true that anywhere where the NRL struggles, the AFL is unlikely to pursue.

But also I suspect they like to muscle in and compete with the NRL, as it appears that's what happened with the Suns to stop the Titans from dominating the GC market.

I could see a similar situation play out with Cairns/PNG. An 18th NRL team is likely there. What if the AFL panics and doesn't want the NRL to dominate Cairns, so they try and set up a side based in Cairns/NQ with some kind of PNG academy?

Is it viable? No. But could they get funding for it? Yes. Would it be the sort of competitive knee-jerk thing for the AFL to do? Probably.

I'd be livid if I were in the NT's shoes, though. They'd be thinking the funding should go to them, a region that's actually produced far more players than NQ ever has.

But the NRL has no interest in expanding to Darwin/NT and unless that changes, I could see the AFL being happy to use NT as a secondary market/academy zone for now.

On another note, I do remember you saying NZ struggles in the NRL. If that's the case, a team there does look unlikely. As for Newcastle, they've been far too entrenched as an NRL city by now, ditto Townsville.

Lastly, I don't think the Giants experiment is going well either. Unless you count ACT as a 3rd NSW club, there won't be one the way it's going at the moment.

A-plus for imagination.

I'd prefer it over the status quo. More games is always good and it's a clever way to frame it.

Obviously, a team of our own would still be preferable to the scraps of two teams, but six games is better than three.

The big hurdle is that everything gets split. I doubt the ACT Govt would be willing to increase their funding for another interstate team, they already get flak for the money they give the Giants. And Canberrans then have to buy two lots of memberships, two lots of merch etc.

I appreciate the lateral thinking, but most Canberrans would just rather that money spent on a team of our own.

If I understood his post correctly I think he's advocating for 7 Canberra games. At least that's how I'd do it if they don't get their own team. Roos could play 4 in Canberra and host the Giants in one of their games.

So both games get to play 4 times per year in Canberra.

It won't happen, though, as the Roos will look to Bendigo after Hobart, and the Hawks will look to Cairns.

Best bet is Canberra gets their own team.

 

[Walshawk]

I said the comp will probably max out at 20-22.

To be honest, I completely forgot about the NRL, but you're right. Now it's debatable whether CC and Gong could support an NRL team or not (if Steelers fans have anything to say about it), but it's true that anywhere where the NRL struggles, the AFL is unlikely to pursue.

But also I suspect they like to muscle in and compete with the NRL, as it appears that's what happened with the Suns to stop the Titans from dominating the GC market.

I could see a similar situation play out with Cairns/PNG. An 18th NRL team is likely there. What if the AFL panics and doesn't want the NRL to dominate Cairns, so they try and set up a side based in Cairns/NQ with some kind of PNG academy?

Is it viable? No. But could they get funding for it? Yes. Would it be the sort of competitive knee-jerk thing for the AFL to do? Probably.

I'd be livid if I were in the NT's shoes, though. They'd be thinking the funding should go to them, a region that's actually produced far more players than NQ ever has.

But the NRL has no interest in expanding to Darwin/NT and unless that changes, I could see the AFL being happy to use NT as a secondary market/academy zone for now.

On another note, I do remember you saying NZ struggles in the NRL. If that's the case, a team there does look unlikely. As for Newcastle, they've been far too entrenched as an NRL city by now, ditto Townsville.

Lastly, I don't think the Giants experiment is going well either. Unless you count ACT as a 3rd NSW club, there won't be one the way it's going at the moment.


If I understood his post correctly I think he's advocating for 7 Canberra games. At least that's how I'd do it if they don't get their own team. Roos could play 4 in Canberra and host the Giants in one of their games.

So both games get to play 4 times per year in Canberra.

It won't happen, though, as the Roos will look to Bendigo after Hobart, and the Hawks will look to Cairns.

Best bet is Canberra gets their own team.

NRL is up in NZ, just like it is everywhere. Still no reason for the AFL to panic, or worry about NRL expansion plans.

Get GC and Western Sydney working first.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I agree, there are many aspects to the whole ACT, NT or other options. When you made the point in a previous post that ACT is not NSW (in AFL it is lumped together) it suddenly struck me there is, in my opinion, an interesting option for the AFL to explore with Canberra...which could create multiple wins....Here me out on this....thinking laterally.. This idea relies on seeing the unique profile/image/character/reality/history of Canberra.

Unlike any other City in Australia, , Canberra's whole reason for being is initially a compromise between Melbourne and Sydney as to which city should be the Capital of Australia. In addition Canberra's function is to allow representation of all States and Territories on a National level.

The two major protagonists and antagonists in this traditionally have been Melbourne and Sydney. Melbourne was the original Capital City of Australia from 1901 until sometime in the 1920's. The push was massive from Sydney of course but a compromise was reached....Canberra....

It seems to me the AFL should work with what they have and add to it in Canberra in keeping with the history and function of the ACT/Canberra.

I would continue to play the Giants out of Canberra 3 home games and give them a rival from a Melbourne. club...obviously.. North Melbourne 3 homes games in ACT after they bow out of Tassie. ( I know theyve tried this before but this has a different emphasis.)..

In effect Nth MELB will be Victoria representative team in Canberra , Greater Western SYDNEY will be NSW rep. They basically become the rival clubs in ACT. They play each other and only clubs representing QLD, WA,SA and eventually Tassie and maybe NT....make up their opposition.

There is no round robin etc or gather round and no other NSW or VIC clubs play in Canberra. With that combination Canberra could get from to 7 to 11 matches per season....2 rival "home "clubs...and every other state gets representation thru the season with one of their clubs. There would be stacks of opportunities to promote all sorts of issues to Canberra from the states via AFL....Lets face it Canberra is always in the news..

Interestingly also it raises the profile for all of these matches as the combo of clubs struggles to get a major crowd except maybe in WA and SA.

Not trying to get carried away but North Melbourne is a natural for this....the club existed before Federation and was there when Australia first Federated Parliament was open in Melbourne Exhibition Buildings 1901..and Melbourne became the Australian Capital.............only a Malcolm Blight Torpedo from Arden Street.

And the logo of course is a laydown misere... Australia's iconic symbol The Kangaroo. In my opinion it would finally give North a really valid position in the AFL expansions.. Of course the GIANTS work because they have some sort of base now in Canberra... and they do represent the biggest state, NSW. (population wise.)

I think there is a real opportunity for the AFL to not throw the baby out with the bathwater with both GWS and North....re-invent the whole AFL Canberra image... Call it the Canberra AFL Bubble or whatever,,,, ..Nowhere near as big as State of Origin but it does promote a NSW v VIC rivalry which doesn't happen with Swans and Dees.

In addition ,in my opinion it's a more effective way of getting better traction in NSW and ACT.... Don't take the Raiders head on....just bring a bunch of AFL Clubs ...competition within a competition,, The more clubs involved the more likely you will have at least one or two or three top teams playing a match in Canberra every season....one team towns can flatten the whole image of a game if they're not going well.

In effect you significantly raise the profile of Canberra as an AFL City..... but in a unique way.

Interesting idea but I don’t think North will ever be interested in this. They have only played ONE game in Canberra since 2006, and see their future in Victoria. Once they leave Hobart, I believe they will look at playing games in Bendigo/ Albury/ Melbourne rather than Canberra. Also, given the $ spent on the Trams, I don’t think our ACT Government will want to spend additional $ on a Victorian team - as it is they only reluctantly spent $200,000 in an election year to save our Canberra United female soccer team from folding, and that too just before the Liberals were going to announce a $300k rescue package.

The Giants are Canberra’s AFL team, and the sold out crowds for their home games here indicate that there is no overwhelming desire to change the status quo, where the Giants play 3 AFL games annually (as well as 2 AFLW games and a preseason match) here till at least 2032 here.

Hawthorn and St Kilda maybe persuaded to play games in Canberra (including against the Giants as the away team) but I doubt that they will agree. St Kilda did not even agree to the extension of their one game contract in Cairns after 2022, and are now looking to play more games in MCG going forward.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The Giants are Canberra’s AFL team, and the sold out crowds for their home games here indicate that there is no overwhelming desire to change the status quo.

That's one interpretation. It could also be argued that consecutive sold out games means that supply isn't meeting demand.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

That's one interpretation. It could also be argued that consecutive sold out games means that supply isn't meeting demand.

How would you increase the number of games in Canberra leading upto 2032?

 

[Aussie in exile]

NRL is up in NZ, just like it is everywhere. Still no reason for the AFL to panic, or worry about NRL expansion plans.

Get GC and Western Sydney working first.

My opinion is that the GC will be a better long term bet for the AFL than Western Sydney, but just my opinion.

 

[Walshawk]

How would you increase the number of games in Canberra leading upto 2032?

From 2027, unless the AFL scraps Gather Round, we will move to 24 games and therefore 10 more neutral games. Play four or five of them in Canberra and shift the Giants back to Sydney.

 

[Coolangatta]

From 2027, unless the AFL scraps Gather Round, we will move to 24 games and therefore 10 more neutral games. Play four or five of them in Canberra and shift the Giants back to Sydney.

Not 10 more, 9 until there’s ever a 20th team.

I like it. I’d focus on Canberra, Darwin and Cairns, **** NSW and regional Victoria. Roos will cover Bendigo anyway, and a Canberra side could always play one home or away in the Riverina. That's enough coverage for them.

4 Canberra games, 3 Darwin, 2 Cairns -- all have one thing in common, all mentioned by Dillon in regards to 20th licence bids. Not a peep about NZ, Newcastle or anywhere else from AFL HQ at this rate.

Giants stay in Canberra until 2032, so Canberra gets 7 games a year from 2027-2032, then 10-11 with their own team from 2033 onwards.

Darwin gets 3 games per year, 5 if the Suns extend beyond (2026 I think? I bet they will extend), 2 in Cairns, which might be 3+ if the Hawks play a game up there.

Sets up the NT and NQ quite nicely as a secondary market. And from 2033 onwards, they could turn that extra round into a top end round: 4 Darwin games, 3 Cairns, 1 Townsville, 1 Mackay, 1 Alice Springs (something like that).

I don't think there's any real need to play secondary market games in Auckland, Newcastle, or wherever else. Would be one of those things that's nice to have if you can but otherwise not important.

 

[Walshawk]

Not 10 more, 9 until there’s ever a 20th team.

I like it. I’d focus on Canberra, Darwin and Cairns, heck NSW and regional Victoria. Roos will cover Bendigo anyway, and a Canberra side could always play one home or away in the Riverina. That's enough coverage for them.

4 Canberra games, 3 Darwin, 2 Cairns -- all have one thing in common, all mentioned by Dillon in regards to 20th licence bids. Not a peep about NZ, Newcastle or anywhere else from AFL HQ at this rate.

Giants stay in Canberra until 2032, so Canberra gets 7 games a year from 2027-2032, then 10-11 with their own team from 2033 onwards.

Darwin gets 3 games per year, 5 if the Suns extend beyond (2026 I think? I bet they will extend), 2 in Cairns, which might be 3+ if the Hawks play a game up there.

Sets up the NT and NQ quite nicely as a secondary market. And from 2033 onwards, they could turn that extra round into a top end round: 4 Darwin games, 3 Cairns, 1 Townsville, 1 Mackay, 1 Alice Springs (something like that).

I don't think there's any real need to play secondary market games in Auckland, Newcastle, or wherever else. Would be one of those things that's nice to have if you can but otherwise not important.

10 more. We will have 19 neutral games if we have 24 games. Each club will have 11 home, 11 away and 2 neutral. We currently have 9 (gather round).

 

[Coolangatta]

10 more. We will have 19 neutral games if we have 24 games. Each club will have 11 home, 11 away and 2 neutral. We currently have 9 (gather round).

Yeah whoops, you're right.

In that case, bring on neutral games of Canberra 4, Darwin and Cairns 3 each.

Edit: I could still see the Suns extending their Darwin deal beyond 2026, so that would potentially leave Darwin with 5 games per year if they went with those choices. Reckon Giants will not get out of Canberra before 2032, so they'd be getting 7 games per year if they gave them 4 additional neutral ones.

Doubt Hawks play any in Cairns if they get 3 neutral games per year, they'd probably take their 11 home games all back to Melbourne.

 

[Canberra Pear]

How would you increase the number of games in Canberra leading upto 2032?

I'm not sure how the mechanics would work, but if another team did start playing home games alongside the Giants, I'd say the majority of Canberran AFL fans would be appreciative of more live footy.

 

[Coolangatta]

I'm not sure how the mechanics would work, but if another team did start playing home games alongside the Giants, I'd say the majority of Canberran AFL fans would be appreciative of more live footy.

Well if they turned the 24th game into a top end round, the Hawks could play three in Canberra instead of Cairns. Four would be even better but they probably wouldn’t get that. Six ACT games leading up to their own team in 2033.

Sellouts at Hawks games in Canberra would kill the myth that the Giants are their most popular team. And that’s got to help with a bid.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Well if they turned the 24th game into a top end round, the Hawks could play three in Canberra instead of Cairns. Four would be even better but they probably wouldn’t get that. Six ACT games leading up to their own team in 2033.

Sellouts at Hawks games in Canberra would kill the myth that the Giants are their most popular team. And that’s got to help with a bid.

That needs to be their play. However, it’s all about investment. The government will need to open up their chequebook. If the league and rugby fans are already sooking about the Giants deal then imagine the tears if that funding was doubled to buy home games from a Victorian club

 

[Coolangatta]

That needs to be their play. However, it’s all about investment. The government will need to open up their chequebook. If the league and rugby fans are already sooking about the Giants deal then imagine the tears if that funding was doubled to buy home games from a Victorian club

Now I really want to see a Hawks-Canberra deal.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

That needs to be their play. However, it’s all about investment. The government will need to open up their chequebook. If the league and rugby fans are already sooking about the Giants deal then imagine the tears if that funding was doubled to buy home games from a Victorian club

Yes, Barr is extremely unlikely to spend additional $ to attract Hawthorn even though he is a Hawthorn supporter. The ACT government does seem to be financially constrained due to the expenditures on the Trams, and in this election year there seems to be no agitation for more AFL games in Canberra by any of the major parties.

 

[Aussie in exile]

From 2027, unless the AFL scraps Gather Round, we will move to 24 games and therefore 10 more neutral games. Play four or five of them in Canberra and shift the Giants back to Sydney.

NO. Give Canberra its own team and let GWS play all their games in Sydney.

 

[Dirty Bird]

With 20 teams soon, you could have four divisions of 5 clubs that can consist of:

Victoria 1: 4x Melbourne + 1x Geelong
Victoria 2: 4x Melbourne + 1x Tasmania
North-Eastern: Brisbane + Canberra or Darwin + Gold Coast + Sydney + Western Sydney
South-Western: Adelaide + Darwin or Perth (WA3) + Fremantle + Port Adelaide + West Coast

Every time I see a suggestion like this I just about have an aneurysm. **** off with ideas which maintain the status quo for non-victorians while consolidating Victoria.

How about this

Australian Division
Adelaide, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Carlton, Essendon
National Division
Sydney, West Coast, Geelong, Melbourne, St Kilda
Commonwealth Division
Canberra, Port Adelaide, Gold Coast, Collingwood, Western Bulldogs
Pacific Division
Brisbane, Greater Western Sydney, Tasmania, Richmond, North Melbourne

Play everyone in your division twice (8 games) then everyone else once (15 games) plus 1 "protected rivalry" where you play 1 team out of your division in a double up game (1 game) - 24 game season.

Protected rivalries
Adelaide-Port Adelaide
Fremantle-West Coast
Hawthorn-Geelong
Carlton-Collingwood
Essendon-Richmond
Sydney-Greater Western Sydney
Gold Coast-Brisbane
Canberra-Tasmania
St Kilda-Western Bulldogs
Melbourne-North Melbourne

This will get you your rivalry games which you're so set in getting, while being fair for all and not forcing non-vic teams to jetset around the country while letting the Vic teams sit back and relax.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Fair-minded Crows supporter adds a needless rivalry round for the benefit of others, not purely to satisfy the selfish desire for two Showdowns per season.

Adelaide with 13 games at their home ground every year, but Tasmania and Canberra only 12 at theirs... The concern for jet-setting "non-Victorians" as a whole suddenly vanishes when it suits, eh.