20th AFL Team

[threenewpadlocks]

That reminds me of the attitude of members of WAFL club, West Perth.
West Perth moved from their home in Leederville, West Perth to the populous North coastal city of Joondalup.
A new oval and stadium was created close to the city to tap into the new Northern developments.
Joondalup City offered a very generous sponsorship to play under the name "Joondalup".
The rusted on West Perth fans declined this generous offer to play under "Joondalup"
even though the football club retained the old name.
Holding onto traditions probably means not moving forward.

And your assumption that the West Perth fans are stupid and idiotic and irrational is not backed up by any evidence.

Their adherence to tradition here is not invalid.

 

[RedV3x]

And your assumption

Where is my assumption - I'm just relating an anecdote.

that the West Perth fans are stupid and idiotic and irrational

That's your assumption of what any person is going to make upon reading that anecdote.

is not backed up by any evidence.

Well, it's a matter of fact that West Perth continually reject said sponsorship because of the conditions.

Their adherence to tradition here is not invalid.

But it does come at a cost.

 

[Purple Suit]

People need to stop looking at Canberra as so black and white. It's not AFL or NRL in Canberra. A decent proportion like both.

We were chatting footy in my team at work the other day. All six of us in the team had AFL teams, but three also had NRL teams. There will be a large chunk of people who have memberships to both the Raiders and a Canberra team.

How come you don't have a BBL team then, even though Tassie do? The economics for cricket Australia would have been easier than an AFL team as cricket gets the whole summer with barely any competition?

 

[Bjo187]

But vague concepts of being "propped up" when discussing fairness etc. can easily be criticised.

North simply don't get to play as many home games against the big four Vic clubs. It can be argued that distributions are only the financial compensation for that

If I were a dogs fan my agenda wouldn't be what's best for north or the competition either, but sustaining the shield in Victoria which north offers to the dogs and any relocation talk, so I get where you're coming from not wanting to be next in line. The dogs wouldn't get relocated anyway though, coz they cover a massive geographically important area in Victoria and the quickest growing region. They should really be a massive club with the whole of the western suburbs catchment.

I'll also say if North were in Canberra they'd play the big 4 at home most years and wouldn't be shoved off fta and prime time all the time in their local market, like they are now. Also the government tipping in 10 mill would help the bottom line and mean the afl distribution doesn't need to be as high to compensate.

But you're not, and North fans prefer the history of the fact that they're representing the same region and are based out of Arden St etc as their reason for existence.

This doesn't matter anywhere near as much these days. Clubs are national now because everybody has access, far from the local suburban ground, local fan concept of the past. Plus most clubs aren't even based at their original geographic bases anymore. Collingwood, Melbourne, Hawks, Essendon don't train in their old home grounds in the heartland anymore, they seem to be doing ok.

Your assumption that this is true is wrong. What evidence do you have that an ACT team would be more successful than the overall average of one grand final every 9 years? A Canberra team would still be in the bottom half of attendances. Only half of Canberra support AFL. There are going to be tens of thousands of Canberrans who are rusted on Raiders fans who you will never convince to support an AFL team.

Because they'd have the strongest academy region in the competition taking in the ACT and riverina, the latter of which produces more afl players on population than any other region in Australia. It's a handy leg up to say the least.

8 out of 17 other teams playing 11 away games and the fact that any Canberra team will likely play the Sydney teams twice in a year for rivalry/travel reasons means that they'd be playing 5 games a year in Melbourne, not 7. You can't just make up mathematical numbers to prove your point.

If you're gonna be the forum know it all, at least read my posts properly. I've mentioned multiple times in just the last few pages one of the carrots would be retaining 2 home games per year to go along with their Victorian away games.

To roylions point of 'oh but the afl offered us to have 5 Vic games and reneged', well that serves Fitzroy right for not getting that in contract and instead relying upon a 'she'll be right mate' handshake from the afl, those same people that proved they couldn't care less about the club at the time.

That doesn't change the fact that a lot of people support North not for their success (as the last few years are patently obvious) but for the historical and geographic nature of who they represent and their history.

Less relevant now more than ever. Fans come from everywhere for a club, not just Arden st North Melbourne. Why, because of accessibility these days via tv, the internet etc etc.

Who says that North are doing financially unhealthily?

The afl does by their distributions to them each year to keep their head above water.

They had 50,000 members. That's 50,000 packages that people were willing to stump up financial support for.

And the swans are heading to 70k members and the lions to 65k members in non footy heartlands, in states where club memberships are an after thought. That's not to count that both clubs now have the highest number of fans in Australia in the recent Roy Morgan poll and are selling out or close to most weeks.

The kangaroos could have similar in Canberra over time, or continue running on an oily rag with the inability to become rich, powerful and attract any decent free agents to the club.

Why is their views selfish? It's literally the constitution of the club - the club exists to be member run, and those that make the effort to vote are entirely entitled to have the way the club is run the way that they want. It's the literal purpose of the club's existence and organisation.

Who cares. They buy a membership, adhere to the rules of how the club is formed, and entitled to it.

If you yourself are so convinced that this is the right move for North, buy a North membership, network among other North members, attempt to get on the board yourself, etc.

Oh ok so let's not run the competition off what's best for the actual competition and it's clubs then. It's the reason the afl has an independent commission, so that numpties with self interest or that don't care about what's good for the game aren't the decision makers. It's why the VFL was going broke prior to the independent commission remember.

 

[Roylion]

To roylions point of 'oh but the afl offered us to have 5 Vic games and reneged', well that serves Fitzroy right for not getting that in contract and instead relying upon a 'she'll be right mate' handshake from the afl, those same people that proved they couldn't care less about the club at the time.

The 'Deed of Arrangement' is on the Fitzroy board in full 'guaranteeing' the minimum number of games to be played. Signed by the AFL, the administrator of Fitzroy and the Brisbane Lions.

Not worth the paper its written on.

The kangaroos could have similar in Canberra over time, or continue running on an oily rag with the inability to become rich, powerful and attract any decent free agents to the club.

They have the ability to do that right now in Melbourne.

 

[Canberra Pear]

How come you don't have a BBL team then, even though Tassie do? The economics for cricket Australia would have been easier than an AFL team as cricket gets the whole summer with barely any competition?

That's actually an interesting answer (at least to me).

The BBL is essentially an extension of the old domestic competitions (Sheffield Shield etc). So when the BBL started, the six members (states) got teams.

The ACT has lobbied for membership, but we get blocked. States don't want to give up their power.

But, as the BBL looks to expand, Canberra is in the box seat. The ACT Government is pushing hard for a BBL, WBBL and Sheffield Shield teams. It was even an election promise.

So short answer, politics.

 

[Bjo187]

The 'Deed of Arrangement' is on the Fitzroy board in full 'guaranteeing' the minimum number of games to be played. Signed by the AFL, the administrator of Fitzroy and the Brisbane Lions.

Not worth the paper its written on.

So if it's a contract agreement why didn't the Fitzroy crew sue the AFL for breach of agreement?

They have the ability to do that right now in Melbourne.

Lol this really is your silliest comment. Competition with 9 other clubs in the state, they've never been able to attract a high profile free agent, despite having the biggest war chest in the comp.

The rich, hmmm? very unlikely unless they find other non footy related revenue, and powerful, well they might be successful on field but that will be strictly down to drafting and concessions coz they don't attract free agents. Plus the bigger they grow in Melbourne, the bigger the big clubs grow at about triple the pace, due to both compounding and exposure in the news and on the tv in Melbourne. Why would you not choose to have a monopoly over a whole Australian city and their news and tv, instead of competing with 9 other clubs, in the same city, with a bigger profile.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If I were a dogs fan my agenda wouldn't be what's best for north or the competition either, but sustaining the shield in Victoria which north offers to the dogs and any relocation talk, so I get where you're coming from not wanting to be next in line. The dogs wouldn't get relocated anyway though, coz they cover a massive geographically important area in Victoria and the quickest growing region. They should really be a massive club with the whole of the western suburbs catchment.

I'm confident that neither North or the Bulldogs are candidates for relocation as both teams sell tens of thousands of membership, have healthy financial positions, and a membership base that wants to stay.

Other vague concepts such as the wider geographic region or whatever are only vaguely secondary thoughts.

I'll also say if North were in Canberra they'd play the big 4 at home most years

Says who? Why are you so sure?

I would argue that would not continue to be the case as long as there's a priority for these teams to play each other twice a year, by definition, that reduces the chance relative to fair proportion that they play all the other teams in the league.

wouldn't be shoved off fta and prime time all the time in their local market, like they are now.

Why is this of relevancy to current ongoing North members? Why does an average North member have any interest in the footy-watching demands of a Canberran?

Also the government tipping in 10 mill would help the bottom line and mean the afl distribution doesn't need to be as high to compensate.

Yet, North had an average home Docklands attendance of 32,000 in 2024. That's a bigger number than the capacity of any Canberra venue, so any additional funding isn't a bonus, it would be to make up the difference in revenue generation from home games (assuming that their Tasmania deal gives them revenue roughly equivalent to the average of the Docklands games).

This doesn't matter anywhere near as much these days. Clubs are national now because everybody has access, far from the local suburban ground, local fan concept of the past.

Kangaroos (national brand) 1999-2007.

Funny how the club and members wanted to go back to officially calling themselves North Melbourne in 2008. It's almost as if the local history matters again.

Actual evidence goes exactly opposite what you're proclaiming.

The afl does by their distributions to them each year to keep their head above water

Only because they get dudded in a fair capacity to generate revenue - bad timeslots, and disproportionate (ie all but mathematically impossible if due to chance) lack of scheduling against high-drawing opposition fans. The difference between a home game vs. Collingwood or not in a single season is literally worth millions, and North have had, what, four home games against Collingwood in a decade, when a purely fair schedule would have it as a (11 divided by 17) chance in any given year, with 11 home games against any of the 17 other opposiiton (and actually teensy bit higher as the interstate teams all play the other team in their market twice a year).

Because they'd have the strongest academy region in the competition taking in the ACT and riverina, the latter of which produces more afl players on population than any other region in Australia. It's a handy leg up to say the least.

But you're assuming an average North member would care about this,=.

They don't.

If you're gonna be the forum know it all, at least read my posts properly. I've mentioned multiple times in just the last few pages one of the carrots would be retaining 2 home games per year to go along with their Victorian away games.

Why would the ACT agree to not playing all 11 home games there? Why would they fund a stadium upgrade if it's only going to be used for 9 home games and not 11?

Fitzroy right for not getting that in contract and instead relying upon a 'she'll be right mate' handshake from the afl,

They didn't have a legal say because they were in administration. They were effectively forced into administration from AFL politicking in preventing them from raising alternate revenue sources, through things like terrible stadium deals and not supporting their attempts to generate revenue from outside AFL, as part of their rationalisation process.

North are not currently in administration.

Your fact that you don't understand the legal ins and outs of this highlights your qualification about talking about this.

Less relevant now more than ever. Fans come from everywhere for a club, not just Arden st North Melbourne. Why, because of accessibility these days via tv, the internet etc etc.

No, the majority of North fans still come in from a region that they represent geographically.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/the-victorian-suburbs-where-all-18-afl-clubs-have-their-most-members/news-story/779f1969f6f81dedbe54f602b6220f56

And the swans are heading to 70k members and the lions to 65k members in non footy heartlands, in states where club memberships are an after thought. That's not to count that both clubs now have the highest number of fans in Australia in the recent Roy Morgan poll and are selling out or close to most weeks.

The kangaroos could have similar in Canberra over time, or continue running on an oily rag with the inability to become rich, powerful and attract any decent free agents to the club.

Your belief that Canberra with its population - even accepting that half of its population is naturally more a footy supporter - would result in a team that also isn't in the bottom half of the league for size it's bizarre. Other than just the raw population numbers, it simply cannot generate revenue and therefore be a powerhouse if it will play in a stadium that holds less than 20-25k seats (that a redeveloped Manuka would hold). Ticket sales and associated premium seating/memberships have a natural limit

Oh ok so let's not run the competition off what's best for the actual competition and it's clubs then.

But you seem to miss the logical conclusion of what's best for the clubs being what they clubs themselves want for themselves, of which the member-owned and member-run institition of North Melbourne Football Club want to stay in North and maintain their history and geograhpic representation. Their members are entitled to their view. Whether your or I agree with it shouldn't be relevant, that's the view of people who have invested their emotional and financial support into the club and therefore have the moral license to drive its direction forward. Even if I disagreed with the view of North members (which I don't), and wanted them relocate, I accept that it's not my battle, as I don't have the same license as their members to determine what's best for their club.

It's the reason the afl has an independent commission

But it's not fully independent, as the club delegates still can decide on things such as the admittance, expulsion and relocation of teams.

The constitutional purpose of the AFL isn't just for the code and isn't just for the competition, they fit alongside the fact that they also have to operate in the interests of the existing clubs. That's written into the constitution of the AFL.

so that numpties with self interest or that don't care about what's good for the game aren't the decision makers

The self-interest of the clubs though ahead of the game recognises the role that they had in developing the competition. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that.

It's why the VFL was going broke prior to the independent commission remember.

Largely because of lack of political organisation to work with government, lack of financial controls such as a salary cap and lack of fan interest with a lack of competitive balance, and an arms race in buying players from interstate.

The clubs agreed that they needed to remove delegate control to introduce measures such as a draft, salary cap, and to work towards how they communciate with councils and governments etc. But they never intended to, and never did, remove the delegate system for things such as the introduction of new clubs. Even the early years of the independent commission era is laden with the AFL commission playing politics with existing clubs to convince them of the benefits of expansion.

 

[Purple Suit]

That's actually an interesting answer (at least to me).

The BBL is essentially an extension of the old domestic competitions (Sheffield Shield etc). So when the BBL started, the six members (states) got teams.

The ACT has lobbied for membership, but we get blocked. States don't want to give up their power.

But, as the BBL looks to expand, Canberra is in the box seat. The ACT Government is pushing hard for a BBL, WBBL and Sheffield Shield teams. It was even an election promise.

So short answer, politics.

They will probably try and give Freo a BBL team at the same time to avoid bye's, break the strangle hold the Scorchers have on the comp and give Freo fans PTSD.

 

[Outtatym]

That's actually an interesting answer (at least to me).

The BBL is essentially an extension of the old domestic competitions (Sheffield Shield etc). So when the BBL started, the six members (states) got teams.

The ACT has lobbied for membership, but we get blocked. States don't want to give up their power.

But, as the BBL looks to expand, Canberra is in the box seat. The ACT Government is pushing hard for a BBL, WBBL and Sheffield Shield teams. It was even an election promise.

So short answer, politics.

Didn't the Comets get the boot from the mercantile one day comp as no one was turning up to watch?

 

[Purple Suit]

Didn't the Comets get the boot from the mercantile one day comp as no one was turning up to watch?

According to wiki - The ACT Comets were participants in the Australian domestic limited-overs Mercantile Mutual Cup competition. They did not, however, field a team in the four-day Sheffield Shield competition. Their Mercantile Mutual Cup involvement lasted from the 1997–98 season to the 1999–2000 season. It was found that there was insufficient local support at that time to be financially viable in the first-class and list-A competitions. Former Australian Test bowler Merv Hughes was brought out of retirement to help ACT, as was former Test batsman Mike Veletta.[1]

ACT population in 2000 - 344K

Currently - 478K

To be fair, no one actually watched much state cricket at that stage before T20 started. The international games were the crowd pullers so I suppose Canberra was an extra cost with no real return. The gun players could just be shipped off to other states & developed there.

If Canberra is the fastest growing city, it's likely due to people moving there. Probably people with existing sporting teams, which might make a new team less viable unless they switch or become members just to go to the footy. Supply and demand might play a part.

 

[Canberra Pear]

They will probably try and give Freo a BBL team at the same time to avoid bye's, break the strangle hold the Scorchers have on the comp and give Freo fans PTSD.

Shame purple's already taken in the BBL! Would've been a good synergy.

I think Gold Coast is the leading choice for the 10th BBL slot, but a second Perth team would be a solid option.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Didn't the Comets get the boot from the mercantile one day comp as no one was turning up to watch?

Adding on from Purple Suit, it was admittedly before my time, but from what I read, it was a new team competing against decades-old teams. They were plundered and didn't get much chance to get off the ground.

 

[Roylion]

So if it's a contract agreement why didn't the Fitzroy crew sue the AFL for breach of agreement?

Fitzroy was removed from the AFL in 1996 when the administrator voluntarily surrendered the licence to the AFL after doing a deal with the AFL to repay creditors.

The AFL avoided a costly legal fight by getting the administrator to also sign an undertaking preventing Fitzroy's directors from taking any future legal action when they took back control of the club in December 1997.

The agreement says that Fitzroy will "...release AFL from all claims connected with its AFL Licence and such termination and surrender;"

Lol this really is your silliest comment. Competition with 9 other clubs in the state, they've never been able to attract a high profile free agent, despite having the biggest war chest in the comp.

They'll do what Brisbane did when Chris Fagan arrived at Brisbane when they were at the bottom of the ladder in 2016.

Draft well. Darcy Gardiner (2013) Harris Andrews (2014), Eric Hipwood (2014) were at Brisbane before Fagan. Hugh McCluggage (2016), Jarrod Berry (2016), Oscar McInerney (2016), Cam Rayner (2017), Zac Bailey (2017), Brandon Starcevich (2017) Jack Payne (2017), Noah Answerth (2018), Keidean Coleman (2019) Darcy Wilmot (2021) and Kai Lohmann (2021) were drafted during his tenure. Retain those draft picks and as they move up the ladder, attract free agents to top up the list.

2017 Charlie Cameron, Luke Hodge,
2018 Lachie Neale
2020 Joe Daniher
2022 Josh Dunkley

Trade for players such as Lincoln McCarthy and Callum Ah Chee.

The rich, hmmm? very unlikely unless they find other non footy related revenue, and powerful, well they might be successful on field but that will be strictly down to drafting and concessions coz they don't attract free agents.

Not yet.

Plus the bigger they grow in Melbourne, the bigger the big clubs grow at about triple the pace, due to both compounding and exposure in the news and on the tv in Melbourne.

Hence the variable funding model. As has already been said, the bigger clubs receive greater opportunities to generate revenue, including better timeslots, larger venues and advantageous scheduling to maximise AFL revenue and TV exposure.

Why would you not choose to have a monopoly over a whole Australian city and their news and tv, instead of competing with 9 other clubs, in the same city, with a bigger profile.

A very small Australian city in terms of relative population. Would much rather be in Melbourne than Canberra for a whole host of reasons.

 

[RedV3x]

How come you don't have a BBL team then, even though Tassie do? The economics for cricket Australia would have been easier than an AFL team as cricket gets the whole summer with barely any competition?

You should ask C.A.

 

[Badger17]

That's actually an interesting answer (at least to me).

The BBL is essentially an extension of the old domestic competitions (Sheffield Shield etc). So when the BBL started, the six members (states) got teams.

The ACT has lobbied for membership, but we get blocked. States don't want to give up their power.

But, as the BBL looks to expand, Canberra is in the box seat. The ACT Government is pushing hard for a BBL, WBBL and Sheffield Shield teams. It was even an election promise.

So short answer, politics.

That's more or less the reason why.

The Territories aren't full voting members of Cricket Australia and the states have blocked Cricket ACT from participating in those competitions. The main argument that gets thrown around is that the ACT doesn't have the talent to support teams, but that's in no small part because any decent cricketer has to leave the ACT and Southern NSW to progress their career at the moment.

The truth is that the other states, particularly NSW, are happy with the status quo where they can use the ACT as a talent pool instead of them being a competitor in the market.

The exact same thing used to happen in RU BTW. The Brumbies only exist because the NSWRU were having financial troubles at the time that Super Rugby was being formed and the QRU were the dominant member in the ARU. The NSWRU were staunchly opposed to an ACT side and preferred two NSW sides, North and South, both based out of Sydney, one built around the bones of the Waratahs team and other around the Canberra Kookaburras. Queensland decided an ACT team would be better for them in the long run.

According to wiki - The ACT Comets were participants in the Australian domestic limited-overs Mercantile Mutual Cup competition. They did not, however, field a team in the four-day Sheffield Shield competition. Their Mercantile Mutual Cup involvement lasted from the 1997–98 season to the 1999–2000 season. It was found that there was insufficient local support at that time to be financially viable in the first-class and list-A competitions. Former Australian Test bowler Merv Hughes was brought out of retirement to help ACT, as was former Test batsman Mike Veletta.[1]

ACT population in 2000 - 344K

Currently - 478K

To be fair, no one actually watched much state cricket at that stage before T20 started. The international games were the crowd pullers so I suppose Canberra was an extra cost with no real return. The gun players could just be shipped off to other states & developed there.

If Canberra is the fastest growing city, it's likely due to people moving there. Probably people with existing sporting teams, which might make a new team less viable unless they switch or become members just to go to the footy. Supply and demand might play a part.

It's a long story that I'm not the best to tell, but the Comets were never given a chance to succeed.

It honestly seemed cynical, like they were set up to fail.

 

[Run n Spread]

No Victorian club is moving or going broke.
Not even close. Only 2 clubs that are insolvent are GWS and GC but the extra tv $$ mean they can be fully subsidised.
There is some weird vic bias crap that gets floated around that we need to cull Victorian teams but it's not happening. It's the heart beat and cash cow of the comp.
Cut any distribution and you have to cut it all off. GWS and GC wouldn't last a day

 

[Fire]

If Canberra is the fastest growing city, it's likely due to people moving there. Probably people with existing sporting teams, which might make a new team less viable unless they switch or become members just to go to the footy. Supply and demand might play a part.

Every AFL team is generational.

Its why they are so successful at expansion.

 

[Canberra Pear]

If Canberra is the fastest growing city, it's likely due to people moving there. Probably people with existing sporting teams, which might make a new team less viable unless they switch or become members just to go to the footy. Supply and demand might play a part.

Anywhere they put a new team will rely on people who already support another team.

Most future potential Tasmania/Canberra/NT/WA3 fans already have a team.

The advantage of somewhere like Canberra, or somewhere else that doesn't have a team, is that it unites those other fans behind one team. It'll become the focal point. That's one aspect I miss from living in Adelaide is having a common team with people.

Whereas potential WA3 fans also already have a team, but most of them already follow a team from the same city. People are more likely to get behind a new team than represents the city, than get behind a new team in a city where they already support that team. It's a bit why the Giants have struggled; the Swans have snapped up most of the AFL support in Sydney.

 

[RedV3x]

It's a bit why the Giants have struggled; the Swans have snapped up most of the AFL support in Sydney.

Not really. The Swans located themselves at the SCG closet to the maximum available support.
It would have been a different story if they had located at Homebush.
But yes, the Giants don't have the luxury of incumbent support.

 

[Rob]

Adding on from Purple Suit, it was admittedly before my time, but from what I read, it was a new team competing against decades-old teams. They were plundered and didn't get much chance to get off the ground.

Yeah they were set up to fail. They could only field players that didn't have state contracts, so effectively it was a bunch of grade cricketers trying to compete against state cricketers.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The question of a 20th team has been asked (again) on reddit.

To me, Canberra reads as the most frequent and upvoted answers. WA3 is definitely sprinkled in there. There's been a few mentions for the NT, but they haven't gained a lot of traction.

It's interesting the difference from the SEN poll. The SEN poll was very quick fire, asking a bunch of questions, but when people are invested in the single question, they're less likely to pick the NT.

 

[Run n Spread]

The 19 team comp is going to cause all sorts of issues with byes gather rounds etc (can't have odd games so will need 24 games). Would need 28 rounds to cover all byes which is ridiculous.
Just launch team 20 at the same time.
NT is ready to go. First as a boutique club than the potential to grow massively. Low overheads to start. North and South launching at the same time is the way to go.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The 19 team comp is going to cause all sorts of issues with byes gather rounds etc (can't have odd games so will need 24 games). Would need 28 rounds to cover all byes which is ridiculous.
Just launch team 20 at the same time.
NT is ready to go. First as a boutique club than the potential to grow massively.

What do you define "ready to go"? TIO is probably the least developed of all the expansion options. Darwin would have the least developed training facilities, infrastructure etc.

Low overheads to start. North and South launching at the same time is the way to go.

What do you define as overheads? Because I would consider the NT bid to have higher overheads than WA3 or Canberra, too.

 

[The Educator]

What do you define "ready to go"? TIO is probably the least developed of all the expansion options. Darwin would have the least developed training facilities, infrastructure etc.



What do you define as overheads? Because I would consider the NT bid to have higher overheads than WA3 or Canberra, too.

I really wouldn't bother engaging with him. He is coming from an alternative conceptual map of reality. This phrases could mean anything in his head.