20th AFL Team

[Coolangatta]

I think personally 22 is the perfect number. Even though I rather cap at 20 teams due to the diminishing of the fan experience. Because I agree with your points. We need a team in Canberra, a WA3, and another team likely end up North somewhere (though SA3 in another footy mad state be better). And also it will bring us on the edge of a "fair" fixture AFL fans sook hard for.

Another option is the AFL cuts or relocates one Vic team, make the other Vic teams stronger, to fit in both Canberra and WA3. Keep it at 20. Which won't happen as the team will take it to court fighting tooth and nail, and likely win to stay in. So that will not happen.

22 teams by 2050, and capped at that should be the long term goal. Personally I like to see TAS, Canberra, WA3, SA3, another Northern team, and one less Vic team. Two football mad states enhanced, and a more nationalized competition.

Yeah, Canberra Kangaroos and WA3 then NT (with funding) and SA3 by 2050 would be perfect.

And while NT would actually have a chance if it was a Roos relocation, playing 9 in Darwin, 2 in Melbourne; then 8 away Melbourne, 4 road trips hence North still get 10 Melbourne games per year… I think it’s more important for the NT to have their own team for cultural reasons than ACT. But a relocation might be the only way the NT could ever have a viable team.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

If we reach 22 teams, for 21 games and a derby round takes it to two double ups at the most. If fans are still sooking.... Never known any sporting base to complain about fixture as much as the AFL base does.

Lets not turn it into "team A won two more games than team B, and are not playing finals, this system is rigged".

Given that no Victorian club will relocate, then it’s probably for the best to cap the comp at 22 teams.

I don’t like the idea of stopping at 20 because I think we need WA3 and ACT.

I’d prefer ACT first in case 20 is the last team and then in about 30 years, WA3 and someone else. That someone else should be the NT if they can secure funding but if they’re ever ruled out then a third team in SA or a second team in Brisbane is probably the next best bet.

I also think that 22 clubs is an ideal number. My next 3 would be Canberra-Riverina, North Perth/WA3, and Moreton Bay (North Brisbane with 3 games on the Sunny Coast). Would stop at that. NT will never be viable as a standalone so a few games each year for them will be about right. It’s highly likely that SA’s population growth won’t justify a third club (e.g. SE Qld is projected to have over 5m people before Adelaide has 2m and Qld has passed SA this year for # of footy participants).

Maintain the 23 game season, play everyone once and then two rivals twice. That way, with their 3 clubs each, WA, QLD, and NSW-ACT can always have 6 x derbies per season. Victorian clubs can rotate their double ups each year. Tassie could be lumped in with the the SA clubs for derbies - not perfect, but not a shocking result either, since the flight distance isn’t too far and they are both traditional footy states.

 

[_Cerberus_]

Yeah, Canberra Kangaroos and WA3 then NT (with funding) and SA3 by 2050 would be perfect.

And while NT would actually have a chance if it was a Roos relocation, playing 9 in Darwin, 2 in Melbourne; then 8 away Melbourne, 4 road trips hence North still get 10 Melbourne games per year… I think it’s more important for the NT to have their own team for cultural reasons than ACT. But a relocation might be the only way the NT could ever have a viable team.

NT will likely to be the last to come in I reckon. Purely because there needs to be significant development to turn Darwin and the Northern area into a proper city that people actually want to live in, to enhance growth and opportunities. Current Aus population predictions points to almost 40 million by 2050. You'd think by then, Darwin will have a significant enough population to support its own team with less assistance needed than they would if they came in at 2030. Which studies have pointed to them being expensive to manage and keep afloat. Would be great to have a team there, but sadly its looks more a long term prospect.

 

[Bjo187]

I also think that 22 clubs is an ideal number. My next 3 would be Canberra-Riverina, North Perth/WA3, and Moreton Bay (North Brisbane with 3 games on the Sunny Coast). Would stop at that. NT will never be viable as a standalone so a few games each year for them will be about right. It’s highly likely that SA’s population growth won’t justify a third club (e.g. SE Qld is projected to have over 5m people before Adelaide has 2m and Qld has passed SA this year for # of footy participants).

Maintain the 23 game season, play everyone once and then two rivals twice. That way, with their 3 clubs each, WA, QLD, and NSW-ACT can always have 6 x derbies per season. Victorian clubs can rotate their double ups each year. Tassie could be lumped in with the the SA clubs for derbies - not perfect, but not a shocking result either, since the flight distance isn’t too far and they are both traditional footy states.

Not my number one preference but I don't mind this suggestion. I reckon the right time to add a new club in Perth is soon as there will be a whole bunch of new arrivals that wouldn't support west coast or Freo that would be looking for a new option to jump on.

It's simply annoying that we can't scratch that and the Canberra itch and stay at 20, if we could the competition could put their feet up for another 30 years and not worry about any new clubs.

 

[Coolangatta]

Not my number one preference but I don't mind this suggestion. I reckon the right time to add a new club in Perth is soon as there will be a whole bunch of new arrivals that wouldn't support west coast or Freo that would be looking for a new option to jump on. It's simply annoying that we can't scratch that and the Canberra itch and stay at 20, as if we could the competition could put their feet up for another 30 years after and not worry about new clubs.

Yeah, if it were somehow possible, Roos play three in Canberra when Tassie comes in. So Canberra gets six games per year until 2033. Giants pull out and the Roos play full time in Canberra, 9 games per year there.

WA3 comes in 2031, Perth Sharks, playing all games at Optus. In time, with a strong mascot like that in a footy state, with the Perth name, they could grow into a strong club.

No new teams until 2060.

Try to make NT viable with financial backing and bring them in as team 21. Cunnington Cartel makes a good case for Brisbane 2 but Adelaide 3 is equally as strong as despite the smaller population, they are a footy state. But it’ll be tempting to use the new Gabba more frequently than 11 games.

So either one of those would be fine; I think it would be cool to see Norwood promoted to the AFL and they could poach Crows supporters. You could always have them both if the NT is ruled out.

 

[Coolangatta]

But if I were a betting man, the AFL will have its sights set on East Coast expansion.

If ACT is team 20 and there is a team 21 and 22, I bet they’ll come from NSW and QLD, a third in Sydney and second in Brisbane the likely targets.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

But if I were a betting man, the AFL will have its sights set on East Coast expansion.

If ACT is team 20 and there is a team 21 and 22, I bet they’ll come from NSW and QLD, a third in Sydney and second in Brisbane the likely targets.

I agree with this. WA will be the next state to have three clubs; however, I think that on current trends, we’re more likely to see a second Brisbane club before a third Sydney club. I live in Brisbane and interest in footy is growing rapidly across SE QLD.

I can foresee a time where demand for the Lions will outstrip supply (even with the new Gabba) - they had 7 x sell outs this year. This outcome is plausible, especially when you consider there are only 2 x NRL clubs in Brisbane as opposed to 10 x clubs in Sydney (if you include St George-Illawarra). Tapping into Brisbane’s Northern corridor and including the Sunny Coast is the obvious location for a new club with the Lions now being based at Springfield, which sets them up to be the club for the Southside, Ipswich and extending out to Darling Downs.

Canberra could be considered as a pseudo third NSW club if they have an identity that adequately incorporates Southern NSW. The Giants have a lot more growing to do before a third Sydney club could ever be contemplated.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Yeah, if it were somehow possible, Roos play three in Canberra when Tassie comes in. So Canberra gets six games per year until 2033. Giants pull out and the Roos play full time in Canberra, 9 games per year there.

You’re aware of my thoughts on NM. We’re always proposed as a solution to these kind of issues. The reality of the situation is that with our constitutional amendments of a few years back, it will be virtually impossible for us to relocate or merge. I cannot see 75% of any club’s members ever voting in favour of any relocation or merger proposals.

Look at what happened with the Melbourne Hawks and GC relocation proposals - even getting 50% approval is tough, so 75% is simply not going to happen. Melbourne is on track to become the biggest city in the country. We’ll be fine as a Melbourne-based club, especially when our performances eventually improve.

 

[Coolangatta]

I agree with this. WA will be the next state to have three clubs; however, I think that on current trends, we’re more likely to see a second Brisbane club before a third Sydney club. I live in Brisbane and interest in footy is growing rapidly across SE QLD.

I can foresee a time where demand for the Lions will outstrip supply (even with the new Gabba) - they had 7 x sell outs this year. This outcome is plausible, especially when you consider there are only 2 x NRL clubs in Brisbane as opposed to 10 x clubs in Sydney (if you include St George-Illawarra). Tapping into Brisbane’s Northern corridor and including the Sunny Coast is the obvious location for a new club with the Lions now being based at Springfield, which sets them up to be the club for the Southside, Ipswich and extending out to Darling Downs.

Canberra could be considered as a pseudo third NSW club if they have an identity that adequately incorporates Southern NSW. The Giants have a lot more growing to do before a third Sydney club could ever be contemplated.

Agree with all of that but I don’t know if there’ll be a third club in WA if they aren’t the 20th team.

I suppose they could be, say Canberra is team 20 and then by the 2050s the Eagles and Dockers are both selling out games and have waiting lists so a third Perth club could be seen as the safe and much needed option as team 22 following a second Brisbane team as team 21.

But I could easily envision an outcome where WA3 comes before ACT and they come in along with Brisbane 2.

There’s so many different avenues for future expansion that I’d honestly be surprised if 20 teams is the max. Money talks.

 

[Coolangatta]

Also, the New York metro area has nearly the same population as Australia and they only have 2 NFL teams. We can't keep on adding new teams to the league, the AFL might be content with Perth, Adelaide, and Sydney having a max of two teams. It makes sense for them to add a second to Brisbane, though, given their population and growing interest in the game, plus you get a derby out of it. So I could see ACT and Brisbane 2 happening and if the AFL behind the scenes is keen on NT if not for anything but PR reasons, they'll find a way to make them happen.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Agree with all of that but I don’t know if there’ll be a third club in WA if they aren’t the 20th team.

I suppose they could be, say Canberra is team 20 and then by the 2050s the Eagles and Dockers are both selling out games and have waiting lists so a third Perth club could be seen as the safe and much needed option as team 22 following a second Brisbane team as team 21.

But I could easily envision an outcome where WA3 comes before ACT and they come in along with Brisbane 2.

There’s so many different avenues for future expansion that I’d honestly be surprised if 20 teams is the max. Money talks.

Freo were pretty dreadful this year and their average home crowds exceeded the Crows, Swans and nearly the Bombers. If they put together a few consecutive seasons of great footy then I’m anticipating that they’ll become a big club, pretty quickly.

AFL Tables - Crowds 2023

afltables.com

Agree with that. When future growth in the major population centres is considered, I cannot see them shutting up shop after #20. Unless, as you said, the impossible occurs and the AFL can somehow engineer a merger or relocation to bring in ACT and WA3.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Also, the New York metro area has nearly the same population as Australia and they only have 2 NFL teams. We can't keep on adding new teams to the league, the AFL might be content with Perth, Adelaide, and Sydney having a max of two teams. It makes sense for them to add a second to Brisbane, though, given their population and growing interest in the game, plus you get a derby out of it. So I could see ACT and Brisbane 2 happening and if the AFL behind the scenes is keen on NT if not for anything but PR reasons, they'll find a way to make them happen.

The difference with the US though is that New York teams are competing against plenty of single team markets of 5-10m people (e.g. Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Miami etc). LA is the only other metro area with 10m+ and they have two teams for most professional leagues, so there’s relative parity there for those bigger population centres.

On a side note, since we’re discussing the US, I compared the climate data of Darwin with major US cities located in the Gulf of Mexico’s hurricane zone. It made the prospects of a Darwin-based club seem even more remote. Of the cities I looked at, Miami had the highest rainfall and most rainy days throughout their summer. The Miami Dolphins have a fully-sized indoor training field worth an insane amount of money - possible for a huge club, in the biggest league on the planet, representing a metro area of 6m people.

In comparison, Darwin over summer is hotter, has more rainfall and more rainy days - probably equates to a higher likelihood of extreme weather events too. The more you analyse it, the more far-fetched it becomes as a genuine option.

 

[Coolangatta]

Freo were pretty dreadful this year and their average home crowds exceeded the Crows, Swans and nearly the Bombers. If they put together a few consecutive seasons of great footy then I’m anticipating that they’ll become a big club, pretty quickly.

AFL Tables - Crowds 2023

afltables.com

Agree with that. When future growth in the major population centres is considered, I cannot see them shutting up shop after #20. Unless, as you said, the impossible occurs and the AFL can somehow engineer a merger or relocation to bring in ACT and WA3.

Even if they did, I think a third side in Adelaide becomes more likely if there's a third in Perth, and a second in Brisbane isn't far fetched. I doubt it'll stay at 20 teams.

There probably won't be a third in Sydney or a team in Newcastle if the game doesn't grow much in NSW, and I'm not sure about NZ.

NT and NQ probably just too hot and too small.

 

[Coolangatta]

I agree with this. WA will be the next state to have three clubs; however, I think that on current trends, we’re more likely to see a second Brisbane club before a third Sydney club. I live in Brisbane and interest in footy is growing rapidly across SE QLD.

I can foresee a time where demand for the Lions will outstrip supply (even with the new Gabba) - they had 7 x sell outs this year. This outcome is plausible, especially when you consider there are only 2 x NRL clubs in Brisbane as opposed to 10 x clubs in Sydney (if you include St George-Illawarra). Tapping into Brisbane’s Northern corridor and including the Sunny Coast is the obvious location for a new club with the Lions now being based at Springfield, which sets them up to be the club for the Southside, Ipswich and extending out to Darling Downs.

Canberra could be considered as a pseudo third NSW club if they have an identity that adequately incorporates Southern NSW. The Giants have a lot more growing to do before a third Sydney club could ever be contemplated.

Would actually be pretty cool to have a third Adelaide and third Sydney club as a 23-24 team cycle of expansion, but the latter would need big crowds and waiting lists before being considered. But it’d be a good way to bring in Newcastle as a secondary market (play 2 games there, 2 away Sydney derbies = 11 Sydney games for new Sydney team).

Of course, heads would explode if we get to 22 teams, let alone 24, but hey, it makes more sense than NT or NQ.

NZ would still be worth a shot, too.

 

[Rob]

No two conferences of 10 is perfect, you play each team in your own conference twice and half the teams in the other conference once. Then the following year you play the other half of teams in the other conference once. It's a much fairer system. Plus you get reward for being conference champions so each team isn't waiting 50 years for some form of acknowledgment, because there are now so many bloody teams in the comp, a number of teams will go 100 years with zero silverware.

That doesn't seem to be much fairer than 1 ladder with every club playing 19 + 3/4 double ups.

 

[Bjo187]

That doesn't seem to be much fairer than 1 ladder with every club playing 19 + 3/4 double ups.

I'm not too worried about fairness, as I believe commercially the fixture needs to be manipulated to keep the money coming in and half the clubs in the competition afloat.

I'm more about the fan and keeping them invested in the season for as long as possible. That's easier to do if you're in a group of 10 trying to make it into the top 5, compared to a group of 20 trying to make it into the top 10. Not technically, but perception wise it definitely helps. Also, it opens up some good options with the finals and grand finals.

 

[Rob]

I'm not too worried about fairness, as I believe commercially the fixture needs to be manipulated to keep the money coming in and half the clubs in the competition afloat.

Surely the biggest beneficiaries of a rigged draw are the big clubs though? If Essendon plays Collingwood twice every year, both teams benefit through a higher gate, what benefit does the AFL get other than good publicity? I can't imagine they'd get any more in TV rights.

I'm more about the fan and keeping them invested in the season for as long as possible. That's easier to do if you're in a group of 10 trying to make it into the top 5, compared to a group of 20 trying to make it into the top 10. Not technically, but perception wise it definitely helps. Also, it opens up some good options with the finals and grand finals.

Maybe marginally. I doubt it's anything significant enough to be radically changing the fixture for though.

 

[Bjo187]

Surely the biggest beneficiaries of a rigged draw are the big clubs though? If Essendon plays Collingwood twice every year, both teams benefit through a higher gate, what benefit does the AFL get other than good publicity? I can't imagine they'd get any more in TV rights.

I actually don't see us as a beneficiary because we lose to Collingwood twice a year pretty much every year since about 2008. They are always good, we are always ordinary. We don't play twice every year though, but the majority.

Now on the monetary side you only get paid for a home game, but yes it would help the bottom line a bit.

The AFL's key number one metric internally is attendance and if they hit crowd numbers at the mcg, the mcc pay them bonus payments.

Essendon and Collingwood also help with tv ratings, both big clubs that draw big eyeballs even if they aren't playing well, so I'm sure ch7 want games like that as often as possible. So yes the more big games, the more it contributes to the AFL coffers, via bonus payments and tv ratings and therefore higher commercial dollars for the likes of ch7 (which then means they are willing to pay more).

 

[Walshawk]

No two conferences of 10 is perfect, you play each team in your own conference twice and half the teams in the other conference once. Then the following year you play the other half of teams in the other conference once. It's a much fairer system. Plus you get reward for being conference champions so each team isn't waiting 50 years for some form of acknowledgment, because there are now so many bloody teams in the comp, a number of teams will go 100 years with zero silverware.

Please explain how that is fairer.
And anyway, if the AFL wanted fairer, they could do it better without a conference system anyway.

 

[Bjo187]

Please explain how that is fairer.
And anyway, if the AFL wanted fairer, they could do it better without a conference system anyway.

Well as I stated above, fairness isn't my biggest concern, however it's fairer in the sense that:

• You play each team in your own division home and away each year (currently some teams get home games against certain opposition almost every year, some clubs barely travel to certain clubs ground over years).
• you play each team in the other division at least once over a 2 year period (this evens it out better than the random 5 double ups each year, often the same clubs get double ups).
• Basically it's much fairer because the fixture system is basically set each year, it's mostly just plug in the dates for the AFL.

 

[Tandy]

I see images and film from Darwin pre 1990s particularly pre Tracy and you'd think it's like any other big regional city. But it's got it's issues, the whole state does. In 20 yrs it'll be closer to what Alice Springs is right now which is sad. Lived in the NT for awhile and loved it but things are changing for the worse when you'd think it would naturally be changing for the better. I'm not going into it because it's not the board for it and people aren't able/don't want to hear why it is like it is. But no way they will ever have an AFL team. Including them into a Northern Australia team with Northern Queensland would imo be the only solution. But even then, they'll struggle to retain players worse than Tas. It'll have to be Cairns based. I wouldn't even worry about that. Just give them a charity couple of games

 

[Coolangatta]

Well as I stated above, fairness isn't my biggest concern, however it's fairer in the sense that:

• You play each team in your own division home and away each year (currently some teams get home games against certain opposition almost every year, some clubs barely travel to certain clubs ground over years).
• you play each team in the other division at least once over a 2 year period (this evens it out better than the random 5 double ups each year, often the same clubs get double ups).
• Basically it's much fairer because the fixture system is basically set each year, it's mostly just plug in the dates for the AFL.

Currently, there's 23 games per season. I think everyone should play each other once until it's impossible, only then would conferences factor in, but we'll probably never get to that point.

Within the next, say, 50 years, I do see teams in Canberra, third teams in Perth, Sydney, Adelaide, and a second in Brisbane as viable options with a good chance of financial success. New Zealand and Newcastle would be big snags but it's rugby heartland, so good luck; the latter could always just be a juicy secondary market for a third Sydney side.

NT sounds more and more pie in the sky the more I hear; as Tandy said, the best Darwin could get is maybe a few charity games. A NQLD side that plays 8 games in Cairns and 3 in Darwin, perhaps, as NQ is probably too small to go it alone, too.

All in all, it's difficult to imagine the AFL ever having more than 24 teams; I think in 50 years time we'll have 22-24 teams and there'll come a point where expansion will be complete.

If it doesn't ever go to 26, we won't need conferences-- just expand the finals series. 20 teams, top 10, 24 teams, top 12.

 

[Walshawk]

I can’t see the AFL ever expanding beyond 20 teams. In fact a 19 team fixture works so well that they may stick with 19 for a while. Canberra is the only realistic option but Manuka Oval is not up to scratch (far worse than Bellerive or York Park), and the ACT has no money.

 

[Coolangatta]

I can’t see the AFL ever expanding beyond 20 teams. In fact a 19 team fixture works so well that they may stick with 19 for a while. Canberra is the only realistic option but Manuka Oval is not up to scratch (far worse than Bellerive or York Park), and the ACT has no money.

Well, if they don't, it won't be because more teams makes it harder for teams to win a premiership, leading to longer droughts. I don't think the AFL gives a shit about that, it's a money making business. They'll only stop at 20 if they don't see any financially viable options in the future.

 

[Walshawk]

Well, if they don't, it won't be because more teams makes it harder for teams to win a premiership, leading to longer droughts. I don't think the AFL gives a s**t about that, it's a money making business. They'll only stop at 20 if they don't see any financially viable options in the future.

Not so sure about that - the clubs have to vote for it, so any new team will need a very compelling case like Tasmania, and a very willing AFL CEO.