20th AFL Team

[Walshawk]

But it is. Just because you say it's not important doesn't make it so.



If that's the case, then Canberra also makes way more sense. A team representing 1.1m people in southern NSW in a contested area on the Barassi Line. It would represent a great opportunity to shore up support in that region.

It would also create an opportunity to play three more games in huge 5m-person metropolis of Sydney. Or take some games to the nearly 1m-person Hunter/Central Coast.

NSW/ACT has a combined population 35 times that of the NT. That's where the opportunities are.



Once again, I'm not against the NT if it could be pulled off. I just don't think it could be.

Especially considering Team 20 would likely come in the next decade and it just isn't ready at this stage.

As the main base of operations, Darwin needs a massive population boom. Even if optimistic projections of 180k by 2032 come true, it's still a tiny base for an AFL team.

You're right. Things are always changing. But things can't change that quickly.

Darwin’s population is actually declining relative to every other city in Australia. They have no hope of ever being able to support an AFL club.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Darwin’s population is actually declining relative to every other city in Australia. They have no hope of ever being able to support an AFL club.

Yeah, and I think the 180k is optimistic from trends we've seen in recent years.

I know the government wants the north populated, but climate change is definitely going to make things trickier.

 

[Bjo187]

Darwin is the one city in Australia that I haven't been to, well for except the airport, but I saw a documentary on it on tv about a month back. It legit looks like a small country town, but with homelessness, crime and no other population within hours of it. It was actually a bit disturbing how run down and depressing it looked. It would struggle to support an nbl team let alone a team in the biggest sport in the country.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don’t know if Darwin could never support a team, 30 years is a long time, 50 even longer. But there’s no way in Hades they’re viable as the 20th team. Even if they’re funded, how could they ever hope to crack 10k a game, let alone 15 or 20k?

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I'm just being realistic.

At the end of the day, the AFL is a business.

If the NT could sustain a team, I'd love to see it. I'm sure most would. It would be an amazing thing to see.

But what price are we willing to pay for a good news story? Because that needs to be at least an extra $15m every year in perpetuity. The NT will need 60% more distribution than the Suns get without any chance of standing on their own.

I don’t know if Darwin could never support a team, 30 years is a long time, 50 even longer. But there’s no way in Hades they’re viable as the 20th team. Even if they’re funded, how could they ever hope to crack 10k a game, let alone 15 or 20k?

Personally IMO, it will all depend on if the NT team gains state and federal funding, as that should have been the main focus from the AFL and government parties for funding on a new club / stadium up there last year in the future (given the focus of improving First Nations lives) instead of the Tasmania stadium ordeal that was realaly messed up from all parties involved.

If they the AFL do get funding from the current government to develop and sustain an AFL club in Darwin / Northern Territory for socio-economic purposes in improving the lives of the First Nations people up there (similar to NRL - PNG deal to evade China), that will definitely be where the 20th team will be located with home matches being played in Darwin and Alice Springs, while Canberra would continue hosting 3-4 matches per year from GWS or other lower Victorian teams and future expansion would be focused more on rusted states like SA3 / WA3 sooner rather than later by the AFL IMO (due to easy cash grab).

As I’ve alluded to before, Canberra would be my personal choice for that 20th team slot (home matches primarily in Canberra and odd match played in Wagga Wagga / Albury) would be a more financial and ethically choice (without mentioning SA3 / WA3) than NT would ever be on their own but if the NT bid doesn’t get funding or didn’t get selected, still think North Melbourne joint-venturing with NT government as “Northern or NT Kangaroos” wouldn’t be a bad option as they could play their 5 highest-profitable home matches in Melbourne and then play the remaining games in Darwin and Alice Springs to help build a foothold in Northern Territory and creating socio-economic benefits for locals living in NT, while costing half the cost than a running a full-time club there with no more expansion needed until the 2050s or 2060s, at earliest.

Obviously, the talk of relocation is a dirty world in the AFL and know that North Melbourne have rejected it countless of times to relocate or rebrand outside of Melbourne but if the Kangaroos did joint-venture with Northern Territory, it would allow the professional competitions to stay at 20 teams while having a club located in every state and territory.

Under that proposal, the competitions can withstand a 26 round season (with byes also), which would include each club being other once H/A (19 weeks), their rival + 4 other teams twice H/A (5 weeks) and two Gather Rounds with one located in rusted AFL market (VIC/SA/TAS/WA) and another in developing market (NSW/QLD/NT/ACT/INT) (2 weeks) before a Top 10 final series would commence for the overall premiership (5 weeks).

Regarding the current clubs (outside of North Melbourne) that would be affected from this proposal in the Men’s competition:

• Brisbane while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play the majority of their home matches either at Carrara or Brisbane Showgrounds but would take home match per year to Cairns and Townsville during GABBA rebuild (pre-2032) to continue growing the sport up in FNQ with the Suns. Once redeveloped GABBA is ready, would play majority of their home matches back there again but would take lowest-profitable home match and pre-season camp per year to developing region in QLD either at Ipswich (Springfield) or Sunshine Coast (new stadium funded by AFL / State Government) to help grow and improve the player pool and recognition of the code in QLD, while hindering the growth of NRL around those rusted RL regions.
• Gold Coast would play majority of home matches in Gold Coast still but would take 1-2 matches per year to Cairns and Townsville (redeveloped stadiums) each to build vital support of the club and improve player pool in the sporting code while hindering the NRL that are trying to take over that region with the North Queensland Cowboys and future 18th team coming in at the 2027 season with the rumoured PNG-Cairns side.
• Greater Western Sydney would play majority of home matches at Sydney Showgrounds still but would take 3 matches per year to Newcastle (new stadium) or redeveloped Blacktown stadium to continue growing the club and player pool in the sporting code around the Western Sydney / country NSW regions while limiting the growth of RL/RU in the state, which has dominated over there in the past 5-10 years given the resources available from the sport.
• Hawthorn would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands, pending financially viability. If not, would sell 1-2 home home Docklands matches per year to Auckland (NZ) to help promote the sport and tourism in New Zealand, with AFL to supply funding to provide high-level academy and resources in Auckland to grow international player depth of the sport and hinder support away from RU/RL.
• Melbourne would play all their home matches in Victoria at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, pending financially viability. If not, would sell home match per year to Darwin and Alice Springs again to increase amount of matches being played in Northern Territory while continuing to enhance the lives of First Nations people living in the NT and improving socio-economic benefits up there along with “Northern / NT Kangaroos”.
• St. Kilda would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands, pending financially viability. If not, would sell 1-2 home Docklands matches per year to Wellington (NZ) to help promote the sport and tourism in New Zealand, with AFL to supply funding to provide high-level academy and resources in Wellington to grow international player depth of the sport and hinder support away from RU/RL.
• Sydney while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play the majority of their home matches in New South Wales at the Sydney Cricket Ground but would take lowest-profitable home match and pre-season camp per year to Wollongong (new stadium funded by AFL / State Government) to help grow and improve the player pool and recognition of the code in NSW, while hindering the growth of NRL around those rusted RL regions.
• Western Bulldogs while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands pending financially viability. If not, would sell home Docklands match per year to Ballarat and Bendigo and continue developing talent pathways and opportunities (alongside AFL’s job) in country Victorian regions for players and coaches alike (as for the rest of the clubs around the country).

The other decision that the AFL could make, if they don’t think there are anymore suitable bids outside of 20 teams in the immediate future (unlikely but possible) but still want to expand their horizons and keep the smaller Victorian clubs around such as North Melbourne, St. Kilda, Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs, would be to continue redeveloping country stadiums around Victoria such as Ballarat, Bendigo and Albury and / or create new small boutique stadiums growing towns such as Dandenong and Mildura, even though this idea would be a backwards mistake from the AFL and growing the game more nationally and internationally.

 

[Coolangatta]

Personally IMO, it will all depend on if the NT team gains state and federal funding, as that should have been the main focus from the AFL and government parties for funding on a new club / stadium up there last year in the future (given the focus of improving First Nations lives) instead of the Tasmania stadium ordeal that was realaly messed up from all parties involved.

If they the AFL do get funding from the current government to develop and sustain an AFL club in Darwin / Northern Territory for socio-economic purposes in improving the lives of the First Nations people up there (similar to NRL - PNG deal to evade China), that will definitely be where the 20th team will be located with home matches being played in Darwin and Alice Springs, while Canberra would continue hosting 3-4 matches per year from GWS or other lower Victorian teams and future expansion would be focused more on rusted states like SA3 / WA3 sooner rather than later by the AFL IMO (due to easy cash grab).

As I’ve alluded to before, Canberra would be my personal choice for that 20th team slot (home matches primarily in Canberra and odd match played in Wagga Wagga / Albury) would be a more financial and ethically choice (without mentioning SA3 / WA3) than NT would ever be on their own but if the NT bid doesn’t get funding or didn’t get selected, still think North Melbourne joint-venturing with NT government as “Northern or NT Kangaroos” wouldn’t be a bad option as they could play their 5 highest-profitable home matches in Melbourne and then play the remaining games in Darwin and Alice Springs to help build a foothold in Northern Territory and creating socio-economic benefits for locals living in NT, while costing half the cost than a running a full-time club there with no more expansion needed until the 2050s or 2060s, at earliest.

Obviously, the talk of relocation is a dirty world in the AFL and know that North Melbourne have rejected it countless of times to relocate or rebrand outside of Melbourne but if the Kangaroos did joint-venture with Northern Territory, it would allow the professional competitions to stay at 20 teams while having a club located in every state and territory.

Under that proposal, the competitions can withstand a 26 round season (with byes also), which would include each club being other once H/A (19 weeks), their rival + 4 other teams twice H/A (5 weeks) and two Gather Rounds with one located in rusted AFL market (VIC/SA/TAS/WA) and another in developing market (NSW/QLD/NT/ACT/INT) (2 weeks) before a Top 10 final series would commence for the overall premiership (5 weeks).

Regarding the current clubs (outside of North Melbourne) that would be affected from this proposal in the Men’s competition:

• Brisbane while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play the majority of their home matches either at Carrara or Brisbane Showgrounds but would take home match per year to Cairns and Townsville during GABBA rebuild (pre-2032) to continue growing the sport up in FNQ with the Suns. Once redeveloped GABBA is ready, would play majority of their home matches back there again but would take lowest-profitable home match and pre-season camp per year to developing region in QLD either at Ipswich (Springfield) or Sunshine Coast (new stadium funded by AFL / State Government) to help grow and improve the player pool and recognition of the code in QLD, while hindering the growth of NRL around those rusted RL regions.
• Gold Coast would play majority of home matches in Gold Coast still but would take 1-2 matches per year to Cairns and Townsville (redeveloped stadiums) each to build vital support of the club and improve player pool in the sporting code while hindering the NRL that are trying to take over that region with the North Queensland Cowboys and future 18th team coming in at the 2027 season with the rumoured PNG-Cairns side.
• Greater Western Sydney would play majority of home matches at Sydney Showgrounds still but would take 3 matches per year to Newcastle (new stadium) or redeveloped Blacktown stadium to continue growing the club and player pool in the sporting code around the Western Sydney / country NSW regions while limiting the growth of RL/RU in the state, which has dominated over there in the past 5-10 years given the resources available from the sport.
• Hawthorn would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands, pending financially viability. If not, would sell 1-2 home home Docklands matches per year to Auckland (NZ) to help promote the sport and tourism in New Zealand, with AFL to supply funding to provide high-level academy and resources in Auckland to grow international player depth of the sport and hinder support away from RU/RL.
• Melbourne would play all their home matches in Victoria at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, pending financially viability. If not, would sell home match per year to Darwin and Alice Springs again to increase amount of matches being played in Northern Territory while continuing to enhance the lives of First Nations people living in the NT and improving socio-economic benefits up there along with “Northern / NT Kangaroos”.
• St. Kilda would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands, pending financially viability. If not, would sell 1-2 home Docklands matches per year to Wellington (NZ) to help promote the sport and tourism in New Zealand, with AFL to supply funding to provide high-level academy and resources in Wellington to grow international player depth of the sport and hinder support away from RU/RL.
• Sydney while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play the majority of their home matches in New South Wales at the Sydney Cricket Ground but would take lowest-profitable home match and pre-season camp per year to Wollongong (new stadium funded by AFL / State Government) to help grow and improve the player pool and recognition of the code in NSW, while hindering the growth of NRL around those rusted RL regions.
• Western Bulldogs while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands pending financially viability. If not, would sell home Docklands match per year to Ballarat and Bendigo and continue developing talent pathways and opportunities (alongside AFL’s job) in country Victorian regions for players and coaches alike (as for the rest of the clubs around the country).

The other decision that the AFL could make, if they don’t think there are anymore suitable bids outside of 20 teams in the immediate future (unlikely but possible) but still want to expand their horizons and keep the smaller Victorian clubs around such as North Melbourne, St. Kilda, Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs, would be to continue redeveloping country stadiums around Victoria such as Ballarat, Bendigo and Albury and / or create new small boutique stadiums growing towns such as Dandenong and Mildura, even though this idea would be a backwards mistake from the AFL and growing the game more nationally and internationally.

NT could very well be team 20 if they get funding, if the AFL decide they want to do what's popular and not what's smart, because even with funding, this NT side would struggle to crack 10k at games.

As for secondary markets, I still think it's more up to the clubs than the AFL. I think if Vic clubs need the money, they may look interstate, but if not, they'll likely play all their games in Victoria. Hawthorn seems to be the only exception to this, and see selling a few games not only worthwhile financially but as a chance to capture some extra support outside of Melbourne.

Regarding your predictions, I think the Lions will still play in Brisbane, even when the Gabba is unavailable, probably at a redeveloped Brighton Homes Arena, who knows. But they won't want to take the majority of their games away from Brisbane.

I think once the Suns are done with Darwin, they'll play all their games at Gold Coast. Giants may well do the same and play all their games in Sydney after Canberra, and if they do play in Newcastle, I can't see it being more than two games per year.

Hawks will either do 1 in Launceston, 1 in Cairns, or move out of Launceston and do Cairns.

Dees I think will either stay in Alice Springs or move their game back to Melbourne, but if they still need the money, who knows. Saints will probably stay in Vic, Dogs could stick with Ballarat.

Swans I was told were contracted to play all games at the SCG until 2047.

I'm not sure we'll see much more secondary market games in the future than we do now.

 

[Canberra Pear]

NT could very well be team 20 if they get funding, if the AFL decide they want to do what's popular and not what's smart, because even with funding, this NT side would struggle to crack 10k at games.

As for secondary markets, I still think it's more up to the clubs than the AFL. I think if Vic clubs need the money, they may look interstate, but if not, they'll likely play all their games in Victoria. Hawthorn seems to be the only exception to this, and see selling a few games not only worthwhile financially but as a chance to capture some extra support outside of Melbourne.

Regarding your predictions, I think the Lions will still play in Brisbane, even when the Gabba is unavailable, probably at a redeveloped Brighton Homes Arena, who knows. But they won't want to take the majority of their games away from Brisbane.

I think once the Suns are done with Darwin, they'll play all their games at Gold Coast. Giants may well do the same and play all their games in Sydney after Canberra, and if they do play in Newcastle, I can't see it being more than two games per year.

Hawks will either do 1 in Launceston, 1 in Cairns, or move out of Launceston and do Cairns.

Dees I think will either stay in Alice Springs or move their game back to Melbourne, but if they still need the money, who knows. Saints will probably stay in Vic, Dogs could stick with Ballarat.

Swans I was told were contracted to play all games at the SCG until 2047.

I'm not sure we'll see much more secondary market games in the future than we do now.

Worth noting that the Dees' relationship has become more cultural than financial: Blues snare Good Friday game as part of blockbuster first month

Meanwhile, Melbourne will keep selling a home game a year to Alice Springs despite being in the best financial health the club has enjoyed.

The Demons recorded the biggest operating profit in the club’s history - $3.5million - a year after their drought-breaking flag.

Chief executive Gary Pert said that the club had decided to continue playing games in the Northern Territory for cultural reasons despite no longer needing to sell the games for the financial help.

Where they previously sold the games for the financial return they needed, now they want to sell the game for the non-financial benefit they glean.

“We will continue with the Alice Springs game,” Pert said. “It’s something that the players and the whole club understands, the importance of the work up there, and we have been playing there for a long time. We always give supporters a replacement home game to go to.

“When we played two games in the NT we needed to because we were in financial trouble, then we improved our financial position, and we cut back to one game.

“There is not a financial need now, but as a choice - we talked about it, and we involved the footy department as well - and we have no plans to stop playing that game. It’s something that we think is culturally important for the club. We are invested in that decision.”

I assume it's not entirely out of the goodness of their hearts, and they're still getting paid, but it's interesting they look intent to stay regardless of their financial situation.

 

[weewilly]

If a 20th team is admitted it would be time to have two conferences of ten teams playing each other twice during the H&A season with the winner of each conference GF playing off for a Super GF at the MCG!

 

[Coolangatta]

If a 20th team is admitted it would be time to have two conferences of ten teams playing each other twice during the H&A season with the winner of each conference GF playing off for a Super GF at the MCG!

So the Victorian teams don’t travel at all? So you only play half the teams in the competition each year?

Yeah, nah.

 

[neogh]

So the Victorian teams don’t travel at all? So you only play half the teams in the competition each year?

Yeah, nah.

Nah they'll have us, Carlton and Collingwood in a conference with WA and SA teams.

 

[Bjo187]

If a 20th team is admitted it would be time to have two conferences of ten teams playing each other twice during the H&A season with the winner of each conference GF playing off for a Super GF at the MCG!

Yes at 20 teams you'd have to have 2 conferences. It also brings in the 3 grand finals debate being pushed by Craig Kelly, Andrew Ireland and the AFL.

If you have divisional champions, then you have a best of 3 grand final. This year for example you'd have gone mcg, the gabba and then optus stadium in Perth for game 3 if needed. The amount of money the league would make would be massive (government bidding approx 30 mil, actual game tickets 20 mil, ch7 2 extra games let's say 15 mil).

 

[Walshawk]

If a 20th team is admitted it would be time to have two conferences of ten teams playing each other twice during the H&A season with the winner of each conference GF playing off for a Super GF at the MCG!

What would be the point of that?

 

[weewilly]

What would be the point of that?

A much fairer draw for starters and more finals matches.

 

[Bjo187]

A much fairer draw for starters and more finals matches.

Plus 19 of the 20 teams other than the premier actually have something to play for, meaning divisional champions get a reward for a great season and are recognised for it with their own grand final, mini trophy, cash reward etc.

Also the ladder, I feel like if it's broken up into two divisions with a top 4 (5 if they have wildcard), it appears more achievable to make finals than being in a 20 team ladder. Imagine seeing your club 16th on the ladder behind 15 other clubs in the back half of the season, the casual fan probably tunes out. Where as 8th trying to get to 5 appears like they still have a chance.

 

[kranger]

NSW has a population over 8m. With ACT it is close to 9m. Here is how that compares to the other states and territories.

National, state and territory population, June 2025

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia and its states and territories

www.abs.gov.au

Ignoring current levels of interest in Aussie Rules in NSW, that’s a lot of people.

The Electoral Map for NSW shows a good break down of where this population is located.

2021 Redistribution - NSW Electoral Commission

Find out more about the 2021 determination of the names and boundaries of New South Wales state electoral districts.

elections.nsw.gov.au

I’ve hatched over the core area for possible teams.

If the Swans and Giants were to focus on Sydney and the area to its west that is 65 electorates or about 5.6m people. 2.8m people each (this includes Wollongong and Gosford since they are so close).

A new team could be based in Canberra, as a hub for southern NSW and play 2 games a year in Albury and also capture north east Victoria. This represents 8 NSW electorates, and the ACT’s population is equivalent to 5 more electorates. This would put a Canberra team at the heart of 1.1m people, more if including north east Vic.

There is still a lot of people in the north of NSW. A Newcastle team that plays 2 games in Port Macquarie would represent the Hunter and Mid North Coast areas which is 15 electorates. That’s 1.3m people in an area similar to the Canberra team’s region.

The two electorates in western NSW are just too far away and sparse to be included. And the three electorates near the QLD border can be consider Gold Coast Suns territory.

 

[Bjo187]

NSW has a population over 8m. With ACT it is close to 9m. Here is how that compares to the other states and territories.

National, state and territory population, June 2025

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia and its states and territories

www.abs.gov.au

View attachment 1882999

Ignoring current levels of interest in Aussie Rules in NSW, that’s a lot of people.

The Electoral Map for NSW shows a good break down of where this population is located.

2021 Redistribution - NSW Electoral Commission

Find out more about the 2021 determination of the names and boundaries of New South Wales state electoral districts.

elections.nsw.gov.au

View attachment 1883006

I’ve hatched over the core area for possible teams.

If the Swans and Giants were to focus on Sydney and the area to its west that is 65 electorates or about 5.6m people. 2.8m people each (this includes Wollongong and Gosford since they are so close).

A new team could be based in Canberra, as a hub for southern NSW and play 2 games a year in Albury and also capture north east Victoria. This represents 8 NSW electorates, and the ACT’s population is equivalent to 5 more electorates. This would put a Canberra team at the heart of 1.1m people, more if including north east Vic.

There is still a lot of people in the north of NSW. A Newcastle team that plays 2 games in Port Macquarie would represent the Hunter and Mid North Coast areas which is 15 electorates. That’s 1.3m people in an area similar to the Canberra team’s region.

The two electorates in western NSW are just too far away and sparse to be included. And the three electorates near the QLD border can be consider Gold Coast Suns territory.

Good break down. I definitely would like to see team 20 named Canberra SNSW. It would help draw in those footy mad areas in southern nsw, which significantly adds to the population catchment area. 9 games in Canberra, 1 in Albury, 1 in wagga, or even Illawarra if they have a ground. It also helps creep the barrassi line up a bit further via stealth.

 

[Coolangatta]

Plus 19 of the 20 teams other than the premier actually have something to play for, meaning divisional champions get a reward for a great season and are recognised for it with their own grand final, mini trophy, cash reward etc.

Also the ladder, I feel like if it's broken up into two divisions with a top 4 (5 if they have wildcard), it appears more achievable to make finals than being in a 20 team ladder. Imagine seeing your club 16th on the ladder behind 15 other clubs in the back half of the season, the casual fan probably tunes out. Where as 8th trying to get to 5 appears like they still have a chance.

I don't see the point in going to conferences unless you're gonna go past 20 teams because a single-tier competition still works fine at 20 teams, just increase the top 8 to a top 10 where the finalists are broken up into two groups of five and the winner of those groups play off in the GF.

I'd only switch to conferences if I knew we were going to continue expanding beyond 20.

If WA3:

A: 5 Vic
B: 5 Vic
C: 3 WA, 2 SA
D: 2 NSW, 2 QLD, 1 TAS

If ACT:

A: 5 Vic
B: 5 Vic
C: 2 WA, 2 SA, 1 TAS
D: 2 NSW, 2 QLD, 1 ACT

It's not rocket science to shuffle conference teams around where necessary, and add more conferences if you go beyond 24 teams, the idea being you don't have more than 6 teams in any conference at any given time. You could shift Tasmania to a Victorian conference, and eventually introduce New Zealand to the other Victorian conference.

In any case, at least it gives something for your team to play for beyond a premiership by rewarding you financially and with a strong finals spot, and it keeps your team in the season longer than a single-tier 24 team comp where your team is lingering at 19th on the ladder.

Of course, there are those who say just stop at 20 and maybe they're right but I think it's a naive view and if the AFL sees $$$ in continuing expansion then they will.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Personally IMO, it will all depend on if the NT team gains state and federal funding, as that should have been the main focus from the AFL and government parties for funding on a new club / stadium up there last year in the future (given the focus of improving First Nations lives) instead of the Tasmania stadium ordeal that was realaly messed up from all parties involved.

If they the AFL do get funding from the current government to develop and sustain an AFL club in Darwin / Northern Territory for socio-economic purposes in improving the lives of the First Nations people up there (similar to NRL - PNG deal to evade China), that will definitely be where the 20th team will be located with home matches being played in Darwin and Alice Springs, while Canberra would continue hosting 3-4 matches per year from GWS or other lower Victorian teams and future expansion would be focused more on rusted states like SA3 / WA3 sooner rather than later by the AFL IMO (due to easy cash grab).

As I’ve alluded to before, Canberra would be my personal choice for that 20th team slot (home matches primarily in Canberra and odd match played in Wagga Wagga / Albury) would be a more financial and ethically choice (without mentioning SA3 / WA3) than NT would ever be on their own but if the NT bid doesn’t get funding or didn’t get selected, still think North Melbourne joint-venturing with NT government as “Northern or NT Kangaroos” wouldn’t be a bad option as they could play their 5 highest-profitable home matches in Melbourne and then play the remaining games in Darwin and Alice Springs to help build a foothold in Northern Territory and creating socio-economic benefits for locals living in NT, while costing half the cost than a running a full-time club there with no more expansion needed until the 2050s or 2060s, at earliest.

Obviously, the talk of relocation is a dirty world in the AFL and know that North Melbourne have rejected it countless of times to relocate or rebrand outside of Melbourne but if the Kangaroos did joint-venture with Northern Territory, it would allow the professional competitions to stay at 20 teams while having a club located in every state and territory.

Under that proposal, the competitions can withstand a 26 round season (with byes also), which would include each club being other once H/A (19 weeks), their rival + 4 other teams twice H/A (5 weeks) and two Gather Rounds with one located in rusted AFL market (VIC/SA/TAS/WA) and another in developing market (NSW/QLD/NT/ACT/INT) (2 weeks) before a Top 10 final series would commence for the overall premiership (5 weeks).

Regarding the current clubs (outside of North Melbourne) that would be affected from this proposal in the Men’s competition:

• Brisbane while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play the majority of their home matches either at Carrara or Brisbane Showgrounds but would take home match per year to Cairns and Townsville during GABBA rebuild (pre-2032) to continue growing the sport up in FNQ with the Suns. Once redeveloped GABBA is ready, would play majority of their home matches back there again but would take lowest-profitable home match and pre-season camp per year to developing region in QLD either at Ipswich (Springfield) or Sunshine Coast (new stadium funded by AFL / State Government) to help grow and improve the player pool and recognition of the code in QLD, while hindering the growth of NRL around those rusted RL regions.
• Gold Coast would play majority of home matches in Gold Coast still but would take 1-2 matches per year to Cairns and Townsville (redeveloped stadiums) each to build vital support of the club and improve player pool in the sporting code while hindering the NRL that are trying to take over that region with the North Queensland Cowboys and future 18th team coming in at the 2027 season with the rumoured PNG-Cairns side.
• Greater Western Sydney would play majority of home matches at Sydney Showgrounds still but would take 3 matches per year to Newcastle (new stadium) or redeveloped Blacktown stadium to continue growing the club and player pool in the sporting code around the Western Sydney / country NSW regions while limiting the growth of RL/RU in the state, which has dominated over there in the past 5-10 years given the resources available from the sport.
• Hawthorn would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands, pending financially viability. If not, would sell 1-2 home home Docklands matches per year to Auckland (NZ) to help promote the sport and tourism in New Zealand, with AFL to supply funding to provide high-level academy and resources in Auckland to grow international player depth of the sport and hinder support away from RU/RL.
• Melbourne would play all their home matches in Victoria at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, pending financially viability. If not, would sell home match per year to Darwin and Alice Springs again to increase amount of matches being played in Northern Territory while continuing to enhance the lives of First Nations people living in the NT and improving socio-economic benefits up there along with “Northern / NT Kangaroos”.
• St. Kilda would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands, pending financially viability. If not, would sell 1-2 home Docklands matches per year to Wellington (NZ) to help promote the sport and tourism in New Zealand, with AFL to supply funding to provide high-level academy and resources in Wellington to grow international player depth of the sport and hinder support away from RU/RL.
• Sydney while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play the majority of their home matches in New South Wales at the Sydney Cricket Ground but would take lowest-profitable home match and pre-season camp per year to Wollongong (new stadium funded by AFL / State Government) to help grow and improve the player pool and recognition of the code in NSW, while hindering the growth of NRL around those rusted RL regions.
• Western Bulldogs while not immediately affected from the expansion proposal, would play all their home matches in Victoria with their 5 highest-profitable matches at Melbourne Cricket Ground and rest of matches at Docklands pending financially viability. If not, would sell home Docklands match per year to Ballarat and Bendigo and continue developing talent pathways and opportunities (alongside AFL’s job) in country Victorian regions for players and coaches alike (as for the rest of the clubs around the country).

The other decision that the AFL could make, if they don’t think there are anymore suitable bids outside of 20 teams in the immediate future (unlikely but possible) but still want to expand their horizons and keep the smaller Victorian clubs around such as North Melbourne, St. Kilda, Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs, would be to continue redeveloping country stadiums around Victoria such as Ballarat, Bendigo and Albury and / or create new small boutique stadiums growing towns such as Dandenong and Mildura, even though this idea would be a backwards mistake from the AFL and growing the game more nationally and internationally.

I agree with all of that but there are too many obstacles to NT working in the short term from weather conditions to lack of corporate investment, not a big enough population base to support the crowds needed to sustain the team financially. Due to a lot of socio economic reasons there are large amounts of people living at or below the poverty line in NT that dont have the disposable income to support a footy team in ways that other capital cities do. Then theres the issue of stadiums and travel. I would love to see a team in the NT as we need that for a truly national comp but economically i dont think its viable at least not in the next 10 years.

 

[Coolangatta]

I agree with all of that but there are too many obstacles to NT working in the short term from weather conditions to lack of corporate investment, not a big enough population base to support the crowds needed to sustain the team financially. Due to a lot of socio economic reasons there are large amounts of people living at or below the poverty line in NT that dont have the disposable income to support a footy team in ways that other capital cities do. Then theres the issue of stadiums and travel. I would love to see a team in the NT as we need that for a truly national comp but economically i dont think its viable at least not in the next 10 years.

Yeah I'm never say never with the NT, but am a never sayer if we're talking about them as the 20th team.

But just on this point, I'd love to see an ACT team as we need that for a truly national comp. Show me an elite sporting competition in the world that doesn't feature at least one team from the capital city apart from the AFL.

 

[Rob]

Darwin is the one city in Australia that I haven't been to, well for except the airport, but I saw a documentary on it on tv about a month back. It legit looks like a small country town, but with homelessness, crime and no other population within hours of it. It was actually a bit disturbing how run down and depressing it looked. It would struggle to support an nbl team let alone a team in the biggest sport in the country.

TBH I reckon that assessment is unfair. The city itself is actually quite nice with very good infrastructure. Very easy to get around as well. But there is a bit of an underbelly with a few too many empty shopfronts - some with signs out the front saying they've had to close due to excessive break ins. That you need to show ID just to buy alcohol is a bit of a giveaway of that as well.

I get the impression that it's a place the government just throws money at. Everywhere. The roads are brilliant including a 6 lane highway (totally unnecessary for such a small city), the waterfront is sensational, and then I remember driving past a local community that looked pretty sad yet there were 2 brand new cars, one of which was completely totalled. I suspect it'll be replaced with another one pretty soon.

Compared to other similar sized cities - Cairns, Albury Wodonga, Launceston, Ballarat, Bunbury - Darwin shapes up pretty well IMO. Shame you can't swim in the ocean though. But for an AFL team - just not big enough. By a fair way too.

 

[Coolangatta]

TBH I reckon that assessment is unfair. The city itself is actually quite nice with very good infrastructure. Very easy to get around as well. But there is a bit of an underbelly with a few too many empty shopfronts - some with signs out the front saying they've had to close due to excessive break ins. That you need to show ID just to buy alcohol is a bit of a giveaway of that as well.

I get the impression that it's a place the government just throws money at. Everywhere. The roads are brilliant including a 6 lane highway (totally unnecessary for such a small city), the waterfront is sensational, and then I remember driving past a local community that looked pretty sad yet there were 2 brand new cars, one of which was completely totalled. I suspect it'll be replaced with another one pretty soon.

Compared to other similar sized cities - Cairns, Albury Wodonga, Launceston, Ballarat, Bunbury - Darwin shapes up pretty well IMO. Shame you can't swim in the ocean though. But for an AFL team - just not big enough. By a fair way too.

Will they ever be big enough? How many people do you think Darwin would need?

 

[Rob]

Will they ever be big enough? How many people do you think Darwin would need?

At least double I would have thought, but it's relative to the rest of Australia. If the population of everywhere else doubles, then Darwin is no more likely to be able to support a team.

The money is there though, it's not some third world country.

 

[Coolangatta]

At least double I would have thought, but it's relative to the rest of Australia. If the population of everywhere else doubles, then Darwin is no more likely to be able to support a team.

The money is there though, it's not some third world country.

Is it though? As the population of Tasmania increased to eventually support a team, was the rest of Australia’s population just stagnant? It wasn’t. I think Darwin will eventually be big enough, and even if there are more financially lucrative choices, it’ll be as popular as Tasmania is, if not more.

 

[Walshawk]

A much fairer draw for starters and more finals matches.

In what way do conferences make for a fairer draw? You would still play some teams once and some twice. In fact it would likely make the draw less fair, as one conference would inevitably be stronger than the other. And if you want more finals matches (we don’t), just add them anyway.

 

[Walshawk]

Is it though? As the population of Tasmania increased to eventually support a team, was the rest of Australia’s population just stagnant? It wasn’t. I think Darwin will eventually be big enough, and even if there are more financially lucrative choices, it’ll be as popular as Tasmania is, if not more.

It is. If the population elsewhere doubles then the cost of running a team increases and Darwin is even further behind.