NZ has more than 20 times the population of the NT.
It only needs 5% of the level of support that the NT has, to be more viable than the NT.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
20th AFL Team
- Thread starter lionshine
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
NZ has more than 20 times the population of the NT.
It only needs 5% of the level of support that the NT has, to be more viable than the NT.
I see NZ as high risk, high reward, much like western Sydney.
If they really do have thousands of registered amateur players, then I think it’s worth the AFL investing in the development of a semi pro league in NZ.
Plus if NZ redevelops that oval in Auckland, the Saints could play a game there, but I think Auckland needs at least two games a year to test the market for.
If things take off with the Auckland games and the semi pro league, then NZ might be worth a punt.
That said, it could take a long time to set up and so perhaps NZ would be a more realistic chance of being team 23-24 instead of 21-22.
Given Andrew Dillon’s determination to grow the game in NSW and QLD, it wouldn’t shock me to see team 21 and 22 coming from there (Newcastle and North Queensland).
Where did you hear this about Dillon?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Nothing about teams 21 and 22 but you could see them coming from NSW and QLD if it gets to that many.
As for growth, why do you think they introduced the “opening round 0” this year for exclusive NSW and QLD games?
Attachments
Oh all good. Yeah I don't think it's a specific interest area of his though, i just know the nsw clubs were relieved gill was finishing up because they felt neglected, so Dillon was made aware of improvements that needed doing and appeared more approachable.
Don't think Dillon will be all that interested in a solo Canberra club. The AFL clearly want the Giants v Swans to grow as big as possible.
Tandy
Brownlow Medallist
The AFL are happy enough with GWS just milking Canberra dry. Glad the city gets some games but I think the whole area had so much more potential. Instead of GC and GWS it should have been Tas and Canberra.
Exactly.
But for the Giants and Swans to grow as big as they can, you need 22 games a year in Sydney.
A Canberra club is the best thing that can happen for the growth of the Giants.
- Jun 23, 2021
- 2,808
- 3,143
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- LA dodgers LA Kings Melbourne Aces
Let's hope Dillions realises this and knows a Canberra club will be great for many reasons, it will hopefully make the parliament less rugby-biased
It absolutely baffles me how no one in footy media points that out. Not only that but they imply the Giants need Canberra to grow their brand when it’s the complete opposite!
Imagine if the Dockers played 3 games a year in Darwin when they started out and didn’t play in Perth until round 6. It’s madness.
Imagine if the Dockers played 3 games a year in Darwin when they started out and didn’t play in Perth until round 6. It’s madness.
Or Gold Coast playing two games in Darwin. Madness. If you want to grow the game in NSW and QLD here is a tip - have the NSW and QLD teams play more games in NSW and QLD.
Cunnington Cartel
All Australian
- Nov 18, 2022
- 837
- 1,340
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
The AFL must view secondary markets for expansion clubs as an equalisation strategy; in terms of additional members, funding for playing FiFo games, and player ID and retention.
When Colin Carter wrote his review on the Tasmanian business case, he gave three options: a relocated club, a co-located club, and a new club. His preferred option was a relocated club - which no one down there wanted. His justification was that Sydney’s connections to South Melbourne and having a sizeable supporter base in a secondary location helped them to be amongst the middle tier on the ‘wealth ladder’ of clubs. Carter said that is much more difficult for clubs in the bottom 1/3 of the wealth ladder to be competitive in the league and said that as a standalone club, Tassie would be in the middle of the bottom 1/3.
If we look at the situation with GWS and Gold Coast they are the smallest clubs by far and sit smack bang at the bottom of the wealth ladder. They do not have the benefits of $12m annual government sponsorship like Tassie will. Therefore, in the AFL’s eyes, GWS (for example) playing in the ACT gets them 6k members, $3m annually from the government, and access to ACT and Riverina players via their academy (to reduce the possibility of player retention issues). Without a secondary market, the club would need to find another way to replace these resources.
The GCS are less reliant on Darwin as the Giants are on Canberra and the Riverina, but it’s the same concept on a smaller scale. I agree with you that this strategy is like a handbrake to their growth in their primary markets, but this is obviously the reason the AFL is pursuing the strategy. It’s also why I think that the AFL will be reluctant to put the 20th Club in Canberra or Darwin unless GC and GWS are viewed to becoming more self-sufficient in their own areas. After all, Sydney and SEQ are far bigger markets that are more strategically important for the AFL, so they will have no issues using smaller regions that are passionate about footy to prop them up (irrespective of how misguided we think that is).
Yes, if the Suns and Giants were relocated clubs from the beginning, they would’ve been better off. If Tassie struggles then there’s probably not going to be anymore expansion apart from trying to relocate a club or two, or doing this new club propped up by a secondary market model.
The problem with removing the Suns and Giants from their respective markets is who’s going to replace them. Wouldn’t it be a shame if Canberra and Darwin had no games at all? You can’t expect the Vic clubs to pick up the slack, just like you can’t expect them to move without applying some serious pressure.
You feel Canberra is ready in 2033 but if the AFL feels the Giants aren’t ready to go it alone which I think is the wrong way of looking at it, then I guess WA3 is going to be the 20th team. The irony is that Walshawk is not wrong about teams using their own state to grow their brand and if the Giants aren’t in a much better position next decade then the AFL will have learned the wrong lessons by leaving them in Canberra.
edit: If the AFL still feels the Giants need propping up, if they were smart, it'd be:
Canberra 20; Giants play 2 games in Newcastle; Suns play 2 in Cairns (but looks like Hawks are gonna play 3 there eventually). Hawks could take up 3 in Darwin if the AFL wants NT service as they'd seem willing. Roos and Saints aren't gonna play there.
it's probably gonna end up Giants stay with Canberra, Suns stay with Darwin, Hawks service Cairns, WA3 team 20.
Last edited:
Cunnington Cartel
All Australian
- Nov 18, 2022
- 837
- 1,340
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Agree with everything that you’ve said here, can definitely see things panning out that way. Newcastle will obviously not be anywhere near as lucrative for GWS as Canberra and the Riverina, and SNSW will become part of any new Canberra club’s territory. Therefore, I’m predicting that I’ll come down to how much GWS grows in the Western suburbs of Sydney.
If the AFL isn’t satisfied with how many members, supporters, playing talent etc they are generating in their core market then they’ll maintain the Giants’ relationship with Canberra and SNSW and go with WA3 for #20 like you said. It sucks for Canberra, but I feel that it’s the reality of the situation.
This is why Gill referred to it as “Giants territory now” a few years ago. That’s AFL corporate speak for “the Giants are still too reliant on this region for us to take it away from them anytime soon”.
Yes, and while you could make the case that the Giants should've played 11 games in Sydney from the start, the AFL wanted something out of the ACT market, and who else was going to field the void? Hawks and Roos had Tassie, Saints briefly had Cairns but want Auckland or nothing, Dees have Alice Springs, who knows for how much longer... there was simply no one else to get something out of ACT and NT except for the new expansion clubs.
The AFL have also previously said that the game feels "complete" with Tasmania entering, meaning they see all states having full-time representation being a key priority, not the major territories. It is quite possible that the Giants and Suns will always be co-located teams, with the ACT, NT, and NQ (if the Hawks commit long-term) only ever being part-timers.
I do, however, see SA3 as being more likely to happen if WA3 happens, though, which would mean expansion after 20 teams could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.
6k members sounds like a lot, but they're limited memberships.
In comparison, Sydney has 20-22k Giants members. Many of which are for more games.
If those three Canberra games were in Sydney, they could make more money upselling their larger membership base to 11 games a year.
Of all the Southern NSW/ACT players linked to the Giants currently playing, only a quarter have remained at the Giants.
Wagga is pretty much equidistant between Melbourne and Sydney, and the towns closest to the border are even closer to Melbourne, so there's no reason for these players to stay at the Giants (a Canberra team, conversely, would be a much closer option for these players).
I think the best option would be transferring the NT academy to the Giants when Canberra comes in.
The Gold Coast academy is going great guns at the moment, they won't need the NT soon.
Canberra is actually close to the Riverina, so will stop the exodus of players to Victoria.
And more NT players would help the Giants field more Indigenous players, which would more closely match the area they represent.
That sounds like a solid plan, ensures the NT still get something since they can't rely on the Vic clubs for anything in the future. Giants could sign a 15 year deal to play 2 games per year in Darwin, then get out and the NT can have their own team along with WA3. NT could take Hawthorn's 3 Cairns games and do a split of 8 games in Darwin, and 3 in Cairns, as the NT won't be able to support their own team and NQ gov money will help fund them. Forget Alice Springs, just play a pre-season game there.
Last edited:
I think the Giants should be aligned with the NT for the academy, but not for games.
Similar to how NQ is aligned to the Suns, but other teams host there.
I firmly believe the Gold Coast and Western Sydney should both be hosting 11 games as soon as possible. Can't win a market part-time.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I rewrote my post, but yes, I suppose you're right.
Hawks will probably play 3 in Cairns like you've heard, but who's going to play 2-3 games in Darwin after the Suns leave? Preferably a Vic club to keep the Suns and Giants focused on their own markets, but it's a tough ask.
Did I mention this one on here previously? Coz I mentioned it to the person I know at the giants that basically runs the joint and he liked the idea.
I used the example to him though that Blacktown has the highest indigenous population in Australia and the giants haven't tapped into that at all, so acquiring the n.t academy off the suns would give young aboriginal kids some hero's to look up to and it would help them tap into the demographics of their own area better. Which was one of the main reasons behind their existence in the first place, producing multicultural talent out of the massive pool of talented athletes in western sydney.
Ahh sorry, I missed that. I was too quick!
I know the Saints rejected Cairns, but who knows in a decade's time. Especially as more clubs divest from pokies.
- Feb 5, 2018
- 17,079
- 43,168
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Blackhawks Melb Renegades
A lot of chatter about Hawthorn moving games to Cairns in here. There was a rumour of a link going around, but I think the majority of Hawks supporters (and players) are hopeful it isn't actually happening. And 3 games a year would be a LOT to commit to an area so far from the homebase. Tassie took some time to develop as a genuine second home, but geographically at least it was close.
I knew it wasn't an original idea of mine, I think I did hear it from you first.
The latest Suns' haul just makes it make even more sense.
Hawks won’t be playing three in Cairns. One maybe plus one in Launceston (for a limited time hopefully). It is a shame we are not willing to go for as many Melbourne games as possible like the big clubs.
North to Darwin for two games works.
North to Darwin for two games works.