20th AFL Team

[RedV3x]

something that isn't even happening nor has even been suggested by anyone high up at the AFL.

Well not publicly at least.
I've always wondered who's initial idea it was for GWS.
Somebody must have said that we need/could expand by underwriting two new teams with the increased media rights
or was it we need to have a presence in Ws and GC so how do we go about it?

 

[Seedsfan]

It's not like the NRL needed the $billions spent on them for stadiums - the government didd spend $billions on NRL.
including the $ millions in stadiums for the NTL in the ACT.

When did the ACT government spend millions on a stadium for the NRL?

The ground the Raiders play at was built in 77. The Raiders moved to ACT in 1990 after playing from 82-89 at Seiffert Oval the home of the Queanbeyan Blues.

Canberra Stadium then got renovated in 97 so it could host the Olympic soccer in 2000 and hasn’t been renovated since.

So when did the ACT government spend millions on stadiums for the NRL. It simply did not happen

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't care if conferences are popular or not, that's irrelevant to their legitimacy and viability in the future. Doing what is popular instead of smart is not good leadership or business.

It's true that a 24 team playing each other once competition could work as a single-tier, with a top 12 finals system.

Keep going beyond that and you just can't have a season where everyone plays each other once anymore. The very maximum limit it could reach is 26 teams playing 25 games a year, and that's too many games, you'd think.

Of course it's possible it'll never get to that point, and not likely in our lifetime, but I don't see why the AFL would have to shut the door on expansion the day the competition may ever reach 24 teams just in case they upset people who want the competition to always be single-tier.

That's audience capture in a nutshell. Lame.

Conferences aren't the only solution and they can be done poorly, but they are an option. I agree with the problem of teams with a better win-loss record missing finals being a bad thing but that's a problem that can be solved within 10 seconds of thinking about it.

 

[Seedsfan]

I don't care if conferences are popular or not, that's irrelevant to their legitimacy and viability in the future. Doing what is popular instead of smart is not good leadership or business.

It's true that a 24 team playing each other once competition could work as a single-tier, with a top 12 finals system.

Keep going beyond that and you just can't have a season where everyone plays each other once anymore. The very maximum limit it could reach is 26 teams playing 25 games a year, and that's too many games, you'd think.

Of course it's possible it'll never get to that point, and not likely in our lifetime, but I don't see why the AFL would have to shut the door on expansion the day the competition may ever reach 24 teams just in case they upset people who want the competition to always be single-tier.

That's audience capture in a nutshell. Lame.

Conferences aren't the only solution and they can be done poorly, but they are an option. I agree with the problem of teams with a better win-loss record missing finals being a bad thing but that's a problem that can be solved within 10 seconds of thinking about it.

24 teams, 23 rounds, 11 home, 11 away and each year take one round on the road

Also if everyone plays each other once you only need a top 8. 16 sides can miss out it’s not like anyone could have been disadvantaged by the draw.

For years it was 12 teams with a top 4

 

[Coolangatta]

24 teams, 23 rounds, 11 home, 11 away and each year take one round on the road

Also if everyone plays each other once you only need a top 8. 16 sides can miss out it’s not like anyone could have been disadvantaged by the draw.

For years it was 12 teams with a top 4

That's a lot of teams missing the finals which means more dead rubbers, though. Otherwise, it's a good system.

The only problem is if the AFL has their eye on a 25th and 26th market they think is good, it just becomes that much harder to maintain a single-tier system.

I could be wrong, though, and there might only be 6 more viable untapped markets remaining, if that.

 

[RedV3x]

It simply did not happen

It's not like the NRL needed the $billions spent on them for stadiums - the government didd spend $billions on NRL.
including the $ millions in stadiums for the NTL in the ACT.

 

[Aussie in exile]

What, in the lowest depths of the English game in the national leagues?

All the top soccer leagues in the world have P & R I'm surprised you didn't know that

 

[Bjo187]

Here is the answer to all issues:

• Eradicates the issue of 4 smaller Melbourne clubs still requiring a lot of funding 100 years later.
• It creates 2 more powerful clubs in Victoria.
• It reduces the issue of too many teams in Victoria.
• It keeps the competition at 18 teams, but with wider representation across Australia (Tasmania 17, Canberra 18).

I give you the:

• Melbourne Saints (MCG)
• North Western Roodogs (Marvel)

(excuse the crappy mock up's)

 

[Coolangatta]

In addition to Tassie, Sydney 3 (northshore/northern beaches) & Canberra should be genuine options, you can add in the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane 2, Illawarra & Central Coast as they have strong large populations plus the game is growing there too.

WA3, NT, Cairns, North Queensland, SA3, Newcastle & NZ have little chance of longterm success & ongoing viability due to population, participation or in the case of WA & SA, cannibalism.

Some rationalisation of the Melbourne-based clubs has to take place too.

That's 25 teams, though.

If you wanted to keep it to 24, Sunshine Coast/Brisbane 2 could just be a North Brisbane team playing out of the new Gabba and 2-3 at the Sunshine Coast. North Brisbane Bears would be ironic.

If Illawarra got a team, gotta call them the Illawarra Gorillas.

What you've outlined is probably a more accurate depiction of the future. Aside from Tassie which just about everyone was behind getting a team, the AFL are likely to just target NSW and QLD after that, with hopefully ACT in the mix.

 

[Coolangatta]

Here is the answer to all issues:

• Eradicates the issue of 4 smaller Melbourne clubs still requiring a lot of funding 100 years later.
• It creates 2 more powerful clubs in Victoria.
• It reduces the issue of too many teams in Victoria.
• It keeps the competition at 18 teams, but with wider representation across Australia (Tasmania 17, Canberra 18).

I give you the:

• Melbourne Saints (MCG)
• North Western Roodogs (Marvel)

(excuse the crappy mock up's)
View attachment 1630668

Brave man posting that here.

Not digging the Melbourne-Saints but North-Western Roodogs is pretty bad ass; I think that'd be the only Vic merger that could get across the line if they were desperate and struggling and it went to a vote.

 

[Bjo187]

Well not publicly at least.
I've always wondered who's initial idea it was for GWS.
Somebody must have said that we need/could expand by underwriting two new teams with the increased media rights
or was it we need to have a presence in Ws and GC so how do we go about it?

I think the latter. If you listen to interviews from Demetriou after the Tv rights bonanza at the time, the commission decided to be more ambitious and take risks, they had always wanted to put an extra team in Sydney and identified the demographics of GWS perfect for a club. Gold Coast was growing and they wanted to get in before the boom. So it was mostly Demetriou that championed GWS from what I have heard.

I also think at the time they were likely spooked by soccer after the 2006 world cup and the fact the nrl were putting a team on the gold coast, so wanted to rush through getting into those markets before the other 2 competitions got a foothold there (ie. titans in gc, wandereres in WS).

 

[Seedsfan]

It's not like the NRL needed the $billions spent on them for stadiums - the government didd spend $billions on NRL.
including the $ millions in stadiums for the NTL in the ACT.

Troll

 

[RedV3x]

Troll

Tell me just how much and in what waus you love Australian Football and the AFlL

 

[RedV3x]

I also think at the time they were likely spooked by soccer after the 2006 world cup and the fact the nrl were putting a team on the gold coast, so wanted to rush through getting into those markets before the other 2 competitions got a foothold there (ie. titans in gc, wandereres in WS).

IMO. the AFL identified the G.C. as quickly growing area that was popular with expats to leverage off.
Canberra was probably still fresh on their minds as a missed opportunity.
IMO, the ASFL WS as a purely population potential exercise.
It's extremely funny that the Sydney media saw it as a NRL codes war when in fact it was a soccer codes war.
I was always disappointed that sporting clubs embracing different football codes didn't eventuate.

 

[Coolangatta]

Cannot believe WA3 is nearly neck and neck with Canberra in the poll.

If there are concerns about there being too many teams in the AFL, then surely you'd be looking at the areas who don't have teams and ignoring the already occupied:

ACT: 0
NT: 0
NZ: 0

ACT 20, maybe NZ in the 2040s or 2050s, NT in the 2050s or 2060s with fed assistance; depending on when NZ is ready (I'm bullish about them).

Beyond that you could look at the two strongest interstate markets if you wanted teams 23 and 24, which I'm guessing in 40+ years will be WA and QLD, but you never know what could happen. NSW 3 if NZ or NT or both aren't good, could throw in SA 3 depending on what happens.

Just seems strange to me to target markets we've already got captured.

 

[Warwick]

All the top soccer leagues in the world have P & R I'm surprised you didn't know that

You do realise divisions with promotion / relegation are completely different to conferences?

 

[LordLucifer]

That's 25 teams, though.

If you wanted to keep it to 24, Sunshine Coast/Brisbane 2 could just be a North Brisbane team playing out of the new Gabba and 2-3 at the Sunshine Coast. North Brisbane Bears would be ironic.

If Illawarra got a team, gotta call them the Illawarra Gorillas.

What you've outlined is probably a more accurate depiction of the future. Aside from Tassie which just about everyone was behind getting a team, the AFL are likely to just target NSW and QLD after that, with hopefully ACT in the mix.

Reduction of three Melbourne based clubs to have a maximum of 22 clubs playing a 21-round season.

 

[RedV3x]

Reduction of three Melbourne based clubs to have a maximum of 22 clubs playing a 21-round season.

Why do people keep mentioning this.
The smallest Melbourne clubs are still big.

 

[Seedsfan]

Why do people keep mentioning this.
The smallest Melbourne clubs are still big.

Especially with the rapidly growing population in Melbourne. It doesn’t make any sense to reduce the representation of teams here

 

[Coolangatta]

Why do people keep mentioning this.
The smallest Melbourne clubs are still big.

Many people don't want the AFL to ever get so big that not everyone can play each other once a year, so the first market they look to is the one with 10 teams to cut down, but I'd rather see the AFL have the balls to change the structure of the competition if it believes there are several markets in the future that will be viable for a team eventually.

If the only guarantee conference winners get are bonus points and a wild card entrance if their win-loss record isn't good enough to automatically qualify, then I don't see what the problem with conferences would be.

There's nothing you can do about not every team being able to play each other once if the league gets too big for that.

Hypothetical:

10 Victoria
7 (4 WA, 3 SA) South-West
5 (4 QLD,1 NT) Northern
7 (4 NSW, 1 ACT, 1 TAS, 1 NZ) Eastern

• Vic teams play each other once every year + one rival double up; this way you never lose the Anzac day game, King's birthday, Dreamtime etc
• South-West play each other twice
• Northern play each other twice
• Eastern play each other twice
• You play every other team once, but since there are 28 teams, you play every team once every two to three years
• Conference winners do NOT automatically qualify for the finals, but they are awarded two bonus points and a wild-card finals entry if their win-loss record isn't good enough to automatically qualify for the top 12
• 28 teams are arranged into one single ladder by the end of the season, organised by W-L record and percentage
• The 12 teams with the best W-L record qualify for finals, even if 10 of them are from the same conference
• 8 teams play off for the last four finals spots (top 16); including the conference winners if they don't make the top 12; I doubt conference winners would miss the top 20 cut off, especially with the two bonus points
• This system addresses the main complaint of American conferences which is that teams with inferior win-loss records can qualify for finals ahead of teams with better records

 

[Seedsfan]

Many people don't want the AFL to ever get so big that not everyone can play each other once a year, so the first market they look to is the one with 10 teams to cut down, but I'd rather see the AFL have the balls to change the structure of the competition if it believes there are several markets in the future that will be viable for a team eventually.

If the only guarantee conference winners get are bonus points and a wild card entrance if their win-loss record isn't good enough to automatically qualify, then I don't see what the problem with conferences would be.

There's nothing you can do about not every team being able to play each other once if the league gets too big for that.

Hypothetical:

10 Victoria
7 (4 WA, 3 SA) South-West
5 (4 QLD,1 NT) Northern
7 (4 NSW, 1 ACT, 1 TAS, 1 NZ) Eastern

• Vic teams play each other once every year + one rival double up; this way you never lose the Anzac day game, King's birthday, Dreamtime etc
• South-West play each other twice
• Northern play each other twice
• Eastern play each other twice
• You play every other team once, but since there are 28 teams, you play every team once every two to three years
• Conference winners do NOT automatically qualify for the finals, but they are awarded two bonus points and a wild-card finals entry if their win-loss record isn't good enough to automatically qualify for the top 12
• 28 teams are arranged into one single ladder by the end of the season, organised by W-L record and percentage
• The 12 teams with the best W-L record qualify for finals, even if 10 of them are from the same conference
• 8 teams play off for the last four finals spots (top 16); including the conference winners if they don't make the top 12; I doubt conference winners would miss the top 20 cut off, especially with the two bonus points
• This system addresses the main complaint of American conferences which is that teams with inferior win-loss records can qualify for finals ahead of teams with better records

That’s 29 teams. There is no way we can add another 11 teams

 

[Coolangatta]

That’s 29 teams. There is no way we can add another 11 teams

Ah s**t, yeah you're right, I did that in a hurry.

Make it 30, add a Goldfield team, or North Tassie, or both + someone else.

Yeah, we won't see that many teams in my lifetime, so we won't have to worry/bother about how to structure the comp; I just don't think the AFL should ever say never to more expansion if it's viable just because people hate conferences and never want to see single-tier change.

 

[Seedsfan]

Ah s**t, yeah you're right, I did that in a hurry.

Make it 30, add a Goldfield team, or North Tassie, or both + someone else.

Yeah, we won't see that many teams in my lifetime, so we won't have to worry/bother about how to structure the comp; I just don't think the AFL should ever say never to more expansion if it's viable just because people hate conferences and never want to see single-tier change.

If you could make 30 teams profitable then 100% do it. Just doubt I will be alive to do it

 

[Aussie in exile]

You do realise divisions with promotion / relegation are completely different to conferences?

Of course i do

 

[Aussie in exile]

If you could make 30 teams profitable then 100% do it. Just doubt I will be alive to do it

You could live to 200 years old and you will never see it