20th AFL Team

[Johnny Bananas]

More Fitzroy-ish. The name 'Fitzroy' likely would have been retained or at least made more prominent. And we'd see the FFC logo jumper much more often (most likely for Melbourne games)

Speaking as a Brisbanite with no connection to Fitzroy, I would be fine with that. Important to remember the past. I think the current Lions ought to use the Fitzroy monogram jumper more in Victoria (if they're allowed) and a previous Bears guernsey at least one a season in Queensland.

Without a doubt. The way the 'merger' was brought about in 1996 angered many Fitzroy supporters. Not one Fitzroy director has ever served on the Brisbane Lions board of directors.

May have been better if it had happened this way then, if it would have left a less bitter taste in the mouth. Though I guess ten more seasons of Fitzroy in Melbourne was nice too.

 

[Roylion]

I think the current Lions ought to use the Fitzroy monogram jumper more in Victoria (if they're allowed) and a previous Bears guernsey at least one a season in Queensland.

Fitzroy wouldn't oppose the Lions wearing the Fitzroy jumper in the AFL in Melbourne.

May have been better if it had happened this way then, if it would have left a less bitter taste in the mouth. Though I guess ten more seasons of Fitzroy in Melbourne was nice too.

There were some good times and good victories for Fitzroy between 1987 and 1996.

Like this one.



And this one.



Make Fitzroy the 20th team!!!!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You'd think they'd have to play the Eagles, Dockers, Hawks, Pies, Bombers, Blues, Tigers, Cats, and 2x SA sides at home for the first 5-10 years of their existence to get good crowds. And 1 home game at Arena Joondalup or wherever, maybe 2.

Playing the Giants/Swans/Lions/Suns/North/Saints/Dees/Dogs at Optus would be a disaster for WA3.

So their home fixture would have to be quite repetitive.

Either way I don't see WA3 happening and I'm glad. I'm not saying it should never happen, but WA3 is more of a chance of happening in the future than ACT is. I feel it's now or never for ACT as the Giants will plant their flag there beyond 2032 I would wager.

The pent up demand for live footy in Perth - especially with their rapidly growing population - is such that the team would cover all expenses, and get 25,000+, if not 30,000+, to all their games. I think that's without debate. It wouldn't be a disaster for them to play random teams, I disagree that hosting North or whatever at home is a bad thing.

It's more to do with WAFC politics and how they organise footy in their state, and the fact that you might cause an imbalance in WA. But the raw footy numbers are there.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Even if this is true, the fact that a third Perth team would play two of its eleven home games against Freo/WC has to count for something - that's sellout blockbuster crowds for both games.

By that logic, we should put the 20th team in Melbourne so they can get big home crowds against Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon.

 

[kranger]

By that logic, we should put the 20th team in Melbourne so they can get big home crowds against Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon.

Because Bulldogs, Roos, Demons and Saints already do that in the Melbourne market.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Because Bulldogs, Roos, Demons and Saints already do that in the Melbourne market.

Exactly my point. The article earlier mentioned how WA doesn't want a North Melbourne of its own.

If "two derbies will boost their crowds" is a genuine argument for WA3, then that would make them the North/Saints/Dees/Dogs of Perth, reliant on crosstown rivals boosting their crowds.

 

[Fletched]

After spending the weekend in Sydney it felt like there just isn't enough AFL games to get things going 1 game a week most weeks... to properly take on NRL you need something crazy like 4 local teams GWS swans, north and south + canberra

 

[Giant YoYo]

After spending the weekend in Sydney it felt like there just isn't enough AFL games to get things going 1 game a week most weeks... to properly take on NRL you need something crazy like 4 local teams GWS swans, north and south + canberra

The footy starvation is real.

It's why I look forward to my trips to Melbourne. 3 live games in a weekend the last two trips.

Coming down for the Dees v Giants game and aiming for 4 games that weekend.

 

[Run n Spread]

1. yes, agree that SA is too big and should have 2 teams. Port are here to stay, but would have been interesting to speculate which SA teams would have been in the VFL/AFL, if Port did not break ranks with the SANFL
2. Yes, unsure why the AFL did not work with Southport to establish the Gold Coast Team 17, when North turned down the relocation offer. Southport are rich enough, and are the only standalone interstate club that is participating in the VFL
3. Unfortunately despite my personal view that there are too many Victorian club, I cannot see any Victorian teams relocating or merging. Someone with more knowledge of Melbourne may have more info, but Bulldogs I think are in a migrant growth corridor and have a long term deal to play games in Ballarat as a secondary market.

I don't buy the idea that there are too many Vic clubs.
The AFL in 2020 was in crisis had to secure a record loan and some clubs only had 6 weeks worth of cash.
Since in not even 3 years after covid the AFL has repaid the money plus some. They are awash with cash so much so salary cap is at record levels and a new team is entering.
Most of that cash is driven by Victorian clubs.
The saints and North are the ones picked on but even the weakest Vic teams perform better than the Giants and suns. (And I'm not saying to get rid of them).
As to growth corridors.
Big one will be places like Ballarat and out Geelong way down the coast. In fact that is growing rapidly as we speak. (Geelong through astute management and luck look like geniuses. If anything they should have gone to town and built a 50-60k stadium Melbourne is becoming over priced and crowded and younger demographics and families will move. Same as Sydney.
The other SE side towards Pakenham and Mornington doesn't have the same growth option. Or has been developed.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I don't buy the idea that there are too many Vic clubs.
The AFL in 2020 was in crisis had to secure a record loan and some clubs only had 6 weeks worth of cash.
Since in not even 3 years after covid the AFL has repaid the money plus some. They are awash with cash so much so salary cap is at record levels and a new team is entering.
Most of that cash is driven by Victorian clubs.
The saints and North are the ones picked on but even the weakest Vic teams perform better than the Giants and suns. (And I'm not saying to get rid of them).
As to growth corridors.
Big one will be places like Ballarat and out Geelong way down the coast. In fact that is growing rapidly as we speak. (Geelong through astute management and luck look like geniuses. If anything they should have gone to town and built a 50-60k stadium Melbourne is becoming over priced and crowded and younger demographics and families will move. Same as Sydney.
The other SE side towards Pakenham and Mornington doesn't have the same growth option. Or has been developed.

Wonder if the Western Bulldogs increase their presence over in Ballarat and country Victoria so one day they have an even split of home games in Ballarat and Docklands.

That type of joint-model could also work for the other smaller Victorian clubs in 20-30 years like North Melbourne in Bendigo and St. Kilda in Dandenong (facilities would need massively improving) instead of selling home games interstate.

 

[Rob]

The pent up demand for live footy in Perth - especially with their rapidly growing population - is such that the team would cover all expenses, and get 25,000+, if not 30,000+, to all their games. I think that's without debate.

I think that would create significant debate. Might get good numbers in the first couple of years, but a club just there so people can watch live footy will not attract hardcore fans.

 

[Walshawk]

The pent up demand for live footy in Perth - especially with their rapidly growing population - is such that the team would cover all expenses, and get 25,000+, if not 30,000+, to all their games. I think that's without debate. It wouldn't be a disaster for them to play random teams, I disagree that hosting North or whatever at home is a bad thing.

It's more to do with WAFC politics and how they organise footy in their state, and the fact that you might cause an imbalance in WA. But the raw footy numbers are there.

That is definitely within debate. How is there pent up demand when there are tickets available for all WC and Freo games (derby excepted)?

Do you think 25k people are going to change teams?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That is definitely within debate. How is there pent up demand when there are tickets available for all WC and Freo games (derby excepted)?

Do you think 25k people are going to change teams?

Part of it is pricing. Tickets are available, but it's because they balance the pricing to maximise revenue.

Even with Optus being an expensive stadium, a bunch of $25 tickets to pad out GA areas in upper seats can create a valid team that wouldn't require additional AFL investment, even if they wouldn't be a rich team.

Pent up demand also just relates to the realities of Perth's population. It's growing. People in the city like footy and even new people living in the city should begin to like footy. It seems silly to split such a large city in 2040 or 2050 in half. Freo's crowds and revenue are growing too, a reflection of Perth's population. There's not an unrealistic scenario that in a 2 team city Freo is one of the biggest and richest clubs by 2040 or 2050 or whtaever.

I think that would create significant debate. Might get good numbers in the first couple of years, but a club just there so people can watch live footy will not attract hardcore fans.

It would be built up over time, presuming that the reserves and AFLW team represent a geographic region. It doesn't have to heavily represent that region though. The identity should be built up over time. Adelaide's supporters don't have a hugely clean geographic split, for instance.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't buy the idea that there are too many Vic clubs.
The AFL in 2020 was in crisis had to secure a record loan and some clubs only had 6 weeks worth of cash.
Since in not even 3 years after covid the AFL has repaid the money plus some. They are awash with cash so much so salary cap is at record levels and a new team is entering.
Most of that cash is driven by Victorian clubs.

Well… yeah, that’s because most clubs are from Victoria.

Part of it is pricing. Tickets are available, but it's because they balance the pricing to maximise revenue.

Even with Optus being an expensive stadium, a bunch of $25 tickets to pad out GA areas in upper seats can create a valid team that wouldn't require additional AFL investment, even if they wouldn't be a rich team.

Pent up demand also just relates to the realities of Perth's population. It's growing. People in the city like footy and even new people living in the city should begin to like footy. It seems silly to split such a large city in 2040 or 2050 in half. Freo's crowds and revenue are growing too, a reflection of Perth's population. There's not an unrealistic scenario that in a 2 team city Freo is one of the biggest and richest clubs by 2040 or 2050 or whtaever.

It would be built up over time, presuming that the reserves and AFLW team represent a geographic region. It doesn't have to heavily represent that region though. The identity should be built up over time. Adelaide's supporters don't have a hugely clean geographic split, for instance.

If Melbourne can support 9 sides, then Perth can support 3. The math checks out.

But if it comes down to a choice between Canberra and WA3 for team 20, I’d choose Canberra.

Now, if the AFL wanted to, they could move the Giants to Canberra and make WA3 team 20.

I don’t think the AFL will ever let go of Western Sydney, though.

 

[Rob]

Part of it is pricing. Tickets are available, but it's because they balance the pricing to maximise revenue.

Even with Optus being an expensive stadium, a bunch of $25 tickets to pad out GA areas in upper seats can create a valid team that wouldn't require additional AFL investment, even if they wouldn't be a rich team.

What? 20,000 crowds at $25 would require significant AFL investment. That's pretty much the same business plan as the smaller Vic clubs that need millions extra a year and they get a much cheaper stadium than Optus.

Pent up demand also just relates to the realities of Perth's population. It's growing. People in the city like footy and even new people living in the city should begin to like footy. It seems silly to split such a large city in 2040 or 2050 in half. Freo's crowds and revenue are growing too, a reflection of Perth's population. There's not an unrealistic scenario that in a 2 team city Freo is one of the biggest and richest clubs by 2040 or 2050 or whtaever.

I don't dispute any of this or that longer term a 3rd team would be good for footy over here.
But it's going to be decades before the team is self sufficient and I don't think anyone is prepared to pay for it in the meantime.

 

[Coolangatta]

What? 20,000 crowds at $25 would require significant AFL investment. That's pretty much the same business plan as the smaller Vic clubs that need millions extra a year and they get a much cheaper stadium than Optus.


I don't dispute any of this or that longer term a 3rd team would be good for footy over here.
But it's going to be decades before the team is self sufficient and I don't think anyone is prepared to pay for it in the meantime.

Exactly. People will go to the footy, sure, but they won’t abandon their club. New supporters can only come from the kids.

Canberra would have supporters from day one. They would become like GC, a niche club but with better crowds and funding. It would be a relatively safe expansion choice.

The AFL won’t move GWS. 2032 is not when I’d pull the plug on them. They need to play in Sydney 11x a year first. Give them 10 years of that and if they’re still a failure, why not move them to NT? Couldn’t be a much worse outcome.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The 20th team is a question in the latest fans' survey.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The 20th team is a question in the latest fans' survey.
View attachment 2022586

I guess we now know what the possible candidates for Team 20 will be (assuming of course there is to be a team 20). No New Zealand, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast, Brisbane or Sydney 3. Would have liked a question to get fans views on mergers/ relocation but I guess that’s not on the agenda.

 

[Bjo187]

The 20th team is a question in the latest fans' survey.
View attachment 2022586

I did Canberra, unfortunately a lot of clueless nuffies will do the survey too.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I did Canberra, unfortunately a lot of clueless nuffies will do the survey too.

I fully expect the NT to win, but it'll still be an interesting insight to see if public sentiment has shifted at all since past surveys.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I guess we now know what the possible candidates for Team 20 will be (assuming of course there is to be a team 20). No New Zealand, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast, Brisbane or Sydney 3. Would have liked a question to get fans views on mergers/ relocation but I guess that’s not on the agenda.

Yeah it's interesting. If they had any other preferred Team 20, you think they'd be trying to subtly push it out there, so it must be out of these five.

They probably could have narrowed it down to three, but you need more options for the survey. SA3 has probably only been included because of the Norwood bid and for comparisons to WA3. NQ is a real wildcard. Neither are realistically in the race.

 

[Bjo187]

I fully expect the NT to win, but it'll still be an interesting insight to see if public sentiment has shifted at all since past surveys.

I thought the questions were better than usual.

I think the quarters are slightly too long, 18 mins would be perfect, the floating fixture works so you don't have crap games on prime time late in the season. The sub I'm not too phased by either way, the video review can be annoying, but I prefer it than incorrect decisions.

Mid season trade yes but with a lot of restrictions, I'd personally prefer a twilight grand final, it's better for engaging the casual viewer than the dead time of 2pm Saturday.

Anyway they were my thoughts on some of the questions, but I tend to sit on the side of what's best for the growth of the game nationally, most people tend to care about their own club and tradition and that's about the end of it, so I'm sure I sit in the minority .

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Yeah it's interesting. If they had any other preferred Team 20, you think they'd be trying to subtly push it out there, so it must be out of these five.

They probably could have narrowed it down to three, but you need more options for the survey. SA3 has probably only been included because of the Norwood bid and for comparisons to WA3. NQ is a real wildcard. Neither are realistically in the race.

Yes, agree. Notwithstanding the wishes of WAFC, I cannot see SA3 getting it over WA3. Also if NT cannot be team Team 20, I find it hard to see how North Queensland can then be Team 20.

I personally think NT (or a combined NT/ North Queensland) side will be the preferred candidate - but only if the Commonwealth comes to the party with significant $$ to add to the NT Government $. The NT AFL option will also be the media/ casual fan favourite - despite by most objective metrics being inferior to Canberra.

WA3 would also be the short/ medium term safe choice for the AFL - but I don’t think the AFL, which seems to have no appetite for a fight with a Victorian club to “encourage” a merger/ relocation, will want to take on the WAFC when there are other equally viable alternatives. The language of the AFL CEO seems to be discouraging the WA3 option.

And that leaves Canberra…

 

[Coolangatta]

Yes, agree. Notwithstanding the wishes of WAFC, I cannot see SA3 getting it over WA3. Also if NT cannot be team Team 20, I find it hard to see how North Queensland can then be Team 20.

I personally think NT (or a combined NT/ North Queensland) side will be the preferred candidate - but only if the Commonwealth comes to the party with significant $$ to add to the NT Government $. The NT AFL option will also be the media/ casual fan favourite - despite by most objective metrics being inferior to Canberra.

WA3 would also be the short/ medium term safe choice for the AFL - but I don’t think the AFL, which seems to have no appetite for a fight with a Victorian club to “encourage” a merger/ relocation, will want to take on the WAFC when there are other equally viable alternatives. The language of the AFL CEO seems to be discouraging the WA3 option.

And that leaves Canberra…

Yeah I think the favourite will be the Northern side, 7 games in Darwin, 3 in Cairns, 1 in Alice, and a fixture that's going to be designed to cut the number of plane trips down.

I think NT doesn't happen without fed money and Cairns factoring in. I don't think the AFL will seriously ever consider a NQ team on its own, but I do think they'd be keen to get something out of Cairns to try and "compete" with this PNG/Cairns NRL team coming in. It'd be very... AFL of them.

I think (sadly) they'd be happy with Cairns and Canberra as 3 game, secondary markets, when the latter has so much potential.

I'd love to see Canberra as team 20, and then another round of expansion in the future where a NT/NQ team does get up as team 21 with funding (but if they're willing to fund it for 20, it could very well happen at the expense of Canberra).

But I'd prefer Canberra as 20 for a more national game, then Northern Australia, and a 3rd team in the south-west of WA. These 21st and 22nd teams wouldn't happen for another 30 years or so.

Sounds awful but I'm really hoping the feds say yeah nah to any funding of NT/Northern Australia and kill the bid. Given the AFL's lack of interest in WA3 they'd then have to go with Canberra if they want a 20th team, or no team at all.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Yeah I think the favourite will be the Northern side, 7 games in Darwin, 3 in Cairns, 1 in Alice, and a fixture that's going to be designed to cut the number of plane trips down.

I think NT doesn't happen without fed money and Cairns factoring in. I don't think the AFL will seriously ever consider a NQ team on its own, but I do think they'd be keen to get something out of Cairns to try and "compete" with this PNG/Cairns NRL team coming in. It'd be very... AFL of them.

I think (sadly) they'd be happy with Cairns and Canberra as 3 game, secondary markets, when the latter has so much potential.

I'd love to see Canberra as team 20, and then another round of expansion in the future where a NT/NQ team does get up as team 21 with funding (but if they're willing to fund it for 20, it could very well happen at the expense of Canberra).

But I'd prefer Canberra as 20 for a more national game, then Northern Australia, and a 3rd team in the south-west of WA. These 21st and 22nd teams wouldn't happen for another 30 years or so.

Sounds awful but I'm really hoping the feds say yeah nah to any funding of NT/Northern Australia and kill the bid. Given the AFL's lack of interest in WA3 they'd then have to go with Canberra if they want a 20th team, or no team at all.

The $600 million that Albo is supposed to be giving for the PNG NRL bid, would make it hard for him to not give significant $ to a NT AFL team - especially if it’s viewed as being beneficial to indigenous Australians?. The Liberals and Nationals also seem very keen on helping North Queensland, and I can very easily believe in your 7 Darwin, 3 Cairns and 1 Alice games model coming true. The AFL might need to have travel hubs and creative fixtures to make this happen- but with the influential people in the NT taskforce this will happen if required.

I personally don’t think NT/NA is a better option than WA3 or Canberra though.