20th AFL Team

[BigChippa52]

need to make a good Queensland afl league these places would be great and helps test the waters in a way

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I’m not going to give much commentary on this, but using this QLD planning document on the growth of SEQ, three AFL teams could try and base themselves each with a focus on two Local Government areas. I drew in the LG locations using green, and linked the relevant two LG’s with blue, red and pink.

ShapingSEQ 2023

Have your say on the draft ShapingSEQ 2023 Update. The Queensland Government is undertaking a targeted review of the existing regional plan to respond to current housing pressures in context of the significant growth and events our region (local government areas of Brisbane, Gold Coast, Ipswich...

planning.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au

View attachment 1892302

I’m not saying there should be three SEQ AFL teams, but this could be a way to try and make it work with different identities. Essentially, south (Gold Coast and Logan), central (Brisbane and Ipswich) and north (new team for Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay, though this would result in the lowest population).

For sure, it makes a lot of sense to me. I predict that a Moreton Bay - Sunny Coast side would also collect some support from the Northern suburbs of Brisbane LGA as well. Particularly, when the central club (Lions) are basing themselves out at Ipswich. That would make the population distribution between the clubs a bit more even.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I’m not going to give much commentary on this, but using this QLD planning document on the growth of SEQ, three AFL teams could try and base themselves each with a focus on two Local Government areas. I drew in the LG locations using green, and linked the relevant two LG’s with blue, red and pink.

ShapingSEQ 2023

Have your say on the draft ShapingSEQ 2023 Update. The Queensland Government is undertaking a targeted review of the existing regional plan to respond to current housing pressures in context of the significant growth and events our region (local government areas of Brisbane, Gold Coast, Ipswich...

planning.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au

View attachment 1892302

I’m not saying there should be three SEQ AFL teams, but this could be a way to try and make it work with different identities. Essentially, south (Gold Coast and Logan), central (Brisbane and Ipswich) and north (new team for Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay, though this would result in the lowest population).

For sure, it makes a lot of sense to me. I predict that a Moreton Bay - Sunny Coast side would also collect some support from the Northern suburbs of Brisbane LGA as well. Particularly, when the central club (Lions) are basing themselves out at Ipswich. That would make the population distribution between the clubs a bit more even.

Brisbane 2 wouldn’t be a bad option IMO for expansion after 20 teams but the massive concern (as a Lions supporter myself) would be is there enough support for 2 Brisbane clubs financially and support wise especially if either club has a couple of bad seasons like in the past.

As myself and Coolangatta are interstate Lions supporters, we don’t really know the full extent of how rapid the city of Brisbane and SEQ is growing (will have guaranteed population boom after 2032 Olympics though) but things were pretty dire for the Lions in all aspects of the club during the Voss and Leppa era and it wasn’t til Swann, Fages, Daly and co helped reshaped the club to the powerhouse it is.

With the GABBA being unavailable in the next couple of years and the inevitable retirement of those key people above sooner rather than later though, the club is going to struggle financially again and our support base could diminish slightly til the stadium is completed so reckon it’ll depend on how the Lions cope during this future period of time before deciding if another team in Brisbane is viable cause 1 powerhouse club is better than 2 struggling ones IMO (ignoring my club bias).

Outside option could be though is to name the club “Queensland …………….” and play 6x home matches in Brisbane, 4x in Sunshine Coast (new 20k stadium), 1x in Cairns and 1x in Townsville to help try gain as much support as possible in QLD before rebranding the club as “Sunshine Coast” in the future, once it’s suitable to host more matches.

With North Queensland, Victorian Clubs like Hawthorn and St. Kilda (North rumoured to Bendigo) would play 2x home matches in Cairns and Townsville every year respectfully so NQ wouldn’t be neglected in the AFL while
limiting the NRL having success especially in Cairns once the 18th team in PNG-Cairns comes in at the start of 2027.

 

[Walshawk]

Brisbane 2 wouldn’t be a bad option IMO for expansion after 20 teams but the massive concern (as a Lions supporter myself) would be is there enough support for 2 Brisbane clubs financially and support wise especially if either club has a couple of bad seasons like in the past.

As myself and Coolangatta are interstate Lions supporters, we don’t really know the full extent of how rapid the city of Brisbane and SEQ is growing (will have guaranteed population boom after 2032 Olympics though) but things were pretty dire for the Lions in all aspects of the club during the Voss and Leppa era and it wasn’t til Swann, Fages, Daly and co helped reshaped the club to the powerhouse it is.

With the GABBA being unavailable in the next couple of years and the inevitable retirement of those key people above sooner rather than later though, the club is going to struggle financially again and our support base could diminish slightly til the stadium is completed so reckon it’ll depend on how the Lions cope during this future period of time before deciding if another team in Brisbane is viable cause 1 powerhouse club is better than 2 struggling ones IMO (ignoring my club bias).

Outside option could be though is to name the club “Queensland …………….” and play 6x home matches in Brisbane, 4x in Sunshine Coast (new 20k stadium), 1x in Cairns and 1x in Townsville to help try gain as much support as possible in QLD before rebranding the club as “Sunshine Coast” in the future, once it’s suitable to host more matches.

With North Queensland, Victorian Clubs like Hawthorn and St. Kilda (North rumoured to Bendigo) would play 2x home matches in Cairns and Townsville every year respectfully so NQ wouldn’t be neglected in the AFL while
limiting the NRL having success especially in Cairns once the 18th team in PNG-Cairns comes in at the start of 2027.

I don’t think that splitting Brisbane is a good idea. It hasn’t worked in Sydney. Either everyone sticks with the incumbent club (like in Sydney), and the new club remains a minnow, or you go from one strong club to two weak to mediocre ones.

Let the whole city get behind the Lions. There is value in that approach. Witness the BBL where the one city teams draw much better crowds than split allegiances in Sydney and Melbourne,

 

[Thailander]

2nd Brissy team can be Ipswich. Let's put the final nail into the coffin of Brisbane Rugby League.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Brisbane 2 wouldn’t be a bad option IMO for expansion after 20 teams but the massive concern (as a Lions supporter myself) would be is there enough support for 2 Brisbane clubs financially and support wise especially if either club has a couple of bad seasons like in the past.

As myself and Coolangatta are interstate Lions supporters, we don’t really know the full extent of how rapid the city of Brisbane and SEQ is growing (will have guaranteed population boom after 2032 Olympics though) but things were pretty dire for the Lions in all aspects of the club during the Voss and Leppa era and it wasn’t til Swann, Fages, Daly and co helped reshaped the club to the powerhouse it is.

With the GABBA being unavailable in the next couple of years and the inevitable retirement of those key people above sooner rather than later though, the club is going to struggle financially again and our support base could diminish slightly til the stadium is completed so reckon it’ll depend on how the Lions cope during this future period of time before deciding if another team in Brisbane is viable cause 1 powerhouse club is better than 2 struggling ones IMO (ignoring my club bias).

Outside option could be though is to name the club “Queensland …………….” and play 6x home matches in Brisbane, 4x in Sunshine Coast (new 20k stadium), 1x in Cairns and 1x in Townsville to help try gain as much support as possible in QLD before rebranding the club as “Sunshine Coast” in the future, once it’s suitable to host more matches.

With North Queensland, Victorian Clubs like Hawthorn and St. Kilda (North rumoured to Bendigo) would play 2x home matches in Cairns and Townsville every year respectfully so NQ wouldn’t be neglected in the AFL while
limiting the NRL having success especially in Cairns once the 18th team in PNG-Cairns comes in at the start of 2027.

There’s no way in hell that Brisbane 2 could be a potential option for #20. I’d be thinking along the lines of 21/22 and joining sometime in the mid-to-late 2040’s (provided the Lions keep growing, as I agree with you that one strong club is better than two weak ones).

I don’t think that splitting Brisbane is a good idea. It hasn’t worked in Sydney.

Based on current trends I’d say that SEQ is going to be a larger footy market than Western Sydney. Western Sydney is always promoted as a key market due to the sheer size of the population and economy, although you’d be hard pressed to find many other regions in Australia that would have a smaller care factor for our game than WS.

 

[Walshawk]

2nd Brissy team can be Ipswich. Let's put the final nail into the coffin of Brisbane Rugby League.

The Lions are based in Ipswich, so that makes little sense.

Also, what makes you think that there is a Brisbane RL coffin, let alone one with some nails in it?

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The Lions are based in Ipswich, so that makes little sense.

Also, what makes you think that there is a Brisbane RL coffin, let alone one with some nails in it?

The amount of support the Dolphins received last year (especially in a season where the Broncos and Lions both performed well and made the GF) points to the strength of RL in Brisbane. There’s a chance the gap could close, but even if things go well, we won’t be seeing a coffin in our lifetimes.

 

[kranger]

To consider where possible future teams might be, it is good to know where the people are. Wikipedia lists the populations of different urban areas, but this is also hard to conceptualise.

Sydney has 10 times the population of Canberra, but we generally talk about a new team for Canberra in a similar vein as a third team for Sydney. The focus on Canberra tends to be its percentage growth and surrounding regions. Neglecting the fact that Sydney grows in total number by the size of Canberra and is more concentrated.

Anyway, a good way to visualise Australia’s population is to look at the divisions of the Federal electorates.

So this isn’t total population in the area, and some electorates have greater populations than others, but it’s a pretty handy tool:

2022 federal election enrolment statistics

www.aec.gov.au

And it is very interesting when you see it on a map:

Electorates of the Australian House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So I drew up how many electorates each of the cities currently have and showed that number divided up by their number of teams.

I included the Lions and the Suns in SEQ, rather than Brisbane and Gold Coast separately. I also included Geelong and some surrounding electorates in Melbourne.

I also indicated what the split of the area would be if we added a new team into the following locations:
TAS;
NT;
Canberra;
Sydney basin (including Wollongong, Central Coast and Newcastle); and
SEQ.



NT and TAS have 2 and 5 electorates respectively. However they actually have low populations in their electorates, that if they were more evenly redistributed, they might end up with only 1 and 3 electorate’s respectively.

TAS is borderline as being big enough to sustain a team, but surely NT just wouldn’t be viable, with such a low population so spread out.

Canberra again would be a struggle, as it only really has 3 electorates, 4 if you include the one in NSW that surrounds it. But unlike TAS, Adelaide and Melbourne, there is the competition for attention from the Rugby codes.

SEQ and the Sydney basin which includes Wollongong, Central Coast and Newcastle have such a massive population that you could divide them and still have massive populations. The problem is the level of interest.

I would think, the Sydney basin should get a third team before SEQ just due to its sheer size. It would just be a matter of how to get it to work.

I would suggest the team should avoid its name containing Sydney. And this is where any suggestion is for the team name and focus is open to ideas. But maybe something vague like Northern Koala’s with a focus on the North Sydney, Northern Shore and Northern Beaches area as well as further north to Central Coast and Newcastle.

Play 8 games at Showgrounds as co-tenants with the Giants (which is a suitable sized venue in a central location). Then play 3 games in Newcastle, again similar to the Giants with their secondary market of Canberra.

 

[Canberra Pear]

NT and TAS have 2 and 5 electorates respectively. However they actually have low populations in their electorates, that if they were more evenly redistributed, they might end up with only 1 and 3 electorate’s respectively.

TAS is borderline as being big enough to sustain a team, but surely NT just wouldn’t be viable, with such a low population so spread out.

Canberra again would be a struggle, as it only really has 3 electorates, 4 if you include the one in NSW that surrounds it. But unlike TAS, Adelaide and Melbourne, there is the competition for attention from the Rugby codes.

While they may have similar populations, the difference between Canberra and Tasmania is concentration.

Some people will undoubtably make the longer trek, but realistically, an hour-or-so radius is your primary market. Within that circle, you expect more frequency of people attending home games. And in that measure, Canberra has double the population of Hobart. Queanbeyan's only 15 mins from Manuka.

Wagga is closer to Canberra than Burnie or Devonport are to Hobart. If Canberra had the same market radius as Hobart including all of Tasmania, we'd have a million people in our catchment (which is what the Raiders and Brumbies currently have).

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

While they may have similar populations, the difference between Canberra and Tasmania is concentration.

Some people will undoubtably make the longer trek, but realistically, an hour-or-so radius is your primary market. Within that circle, you expect more frequency of people attending home games. And in that measure, Canberra has double the population of Hobart. Queanbeyan's only 15 mins from Manuka.

Wagga is closer to Canberra than Burnie or Devonport are to Hobart. If Canberra had the same market radius as Hobart including all of Tasmania, we'd have a million people in our catchment (which is what the Raiders and Brumbies currently have).

I think that interest in the sport should be a factor as well though, particularly for small market teams. When analysing Google trends for interest in AFL (and other similar search terms) Tasmania is always rated as the #1 or 2 state in the country (similar levels to SA). Whereas ACT is always rated 6th (just ahead of QLD). Engaged fans are more likely to buy memberships, merchandise and indeed, travel to watch games. In saying that I also understand the appeal of targeting new areas to find new fans and grow the game.

Tasmania’s two home ground model will somewhat provide a solution to the issue that you identified as well. This is because fans from Devonport and Burnie will still be able to purchase 4 game memberships and attend games in Launceston if it’s too hard for them to drive down to Hobart for games. This concept is another reason why I’d support Canberra representing the Riverina as well (albeit with a smaller split of games).

 

[Bjo187]

I think that interest in the sport should be a factor as well though, particularly for small market teams. When analysing Google trends for interest in AFL (and other similar search terms) Tasmania is always rated as the #1 or 2 state in the country (similar levels to SA). Whereas ACT is always rated 6th (just ahead of QLD). Engaged fans are more likely to buy memberships, merchandise and indeed, travel to watch games. In saying that I also understand the appeal of targeting new areas to find new fans and grow the game.

Tasmania’s two home ground model will somewhat provide a solution to the issue that you identified as well. This is because fans from Devonport and Burnie will still be able to purchase 4 game memberships and attend games in Launceston if it’s too hard for them to drive down to Hobart for games. This concept is another reason why I’d support Canberra representing the Riverina as well (albeit with a smaller split of games).

That's exactly right, population is overrated in some senses. Would you prefer to have a catchment of 3 million people with near zero interest and zero media attention in that area to help spark the interest? Or a place with 500k people where it's the biggest and most important thing in town with saturation coverage. I think the AFL's old method was 1, but might be more towards 2 now after seeing some difficulties with 1.

An extreme example I've seen before is, why not put a team in Tokyo, you'd only need 0.1 percent of the population to care and it would still be popular enough.

 

[speedpeck23]

I don’t think that splitting Brisbane is a good idea. It hasn’t worked in Sydney. Either everyone sticks with the incumbent club (like in Sydney), and the new club remains a minnow, or you go from one strong club to two weak to mediocre ones.

Let the whole city get behind the Lions. There is value in that approach. Witness the BBL where the one city teams draw much better crowds than split allegiances in Sydney and Melbourne,

Therefore lucky the Giants have Canberra ???

 

[Canberra Pear]

I think that interest in the sport should be a factor as well though, particularly for small market teams. When analysing Google trends for interest in AFL (and other similar search terms) Tasmania is always rated as the #1 or 2 state in the country (similar levels to SA). Whereas ACT is always rated 6th (just ahead of QLD). Engaged fans are more likely to buy memberships, merchandise and indeed, travel to watch games. In saying that I also understand the appeal of targeting new areas to find new fans and grow the game.

Interest is definitely a factor. But combining concentrated population and interest mean that Hobart and Canberra are probably pretty similar-sized markets in terms of existing AFL fans.

Tasmania’s two home ground model will somewhat provide a solution to the issue that you identified as well. This is because fans from Devonport and Burnie will still be able to purchase 4 game memberships and attend games in Launceston if it’s too hard for them to drive down to Hobart for games. This concept is another reason why I’d support Canberra representing the Riverina as well (albeit with a smaller split of games).

I'm still apprehensive about multiple grounds.

It boosts membership numbers, but it means memberships are worth less.

Unless there's a good deal with a local government, I think teams are better playing as many games at their primary home ground as possible. And then selling larger memberships packages to their primary base.

 

[speedpeck23]

That's exactly right, population is overrated in some senses. Would you prefer to have a catchment of 3 million people with near zero interest and zero media attention in that area to help spark the interest? Or a place with 500k people where it's the biggest and most important thing in town with saturation coverage. I think the AFL's old method was 1, but might be more towards 2 now after seeing some difficulties with 1.

An extreme example I've seen before is, why not put a team in Tokyo, you'd only need 0.1 percent of the population to care and it would still be popular enough.

Depends on the competing issues as far as the AFL is concerned. Growing the Game versus Giving representation to Smaller Populations who are Traditional Supporters.... you need to do both...

 

[Aussie in exile]

2nd Brissy team can be Ipswich. Let's put the final nail into the coffin of Brisbane Rugby League.

If the Cairns based NRL/PNG team doesn't happen the NRL will switch their attentions to Brisbane 3. Think about it.

 

[Bjo187]

Depends on the competing issues as far as the AFL is concerned. Growing the Game versus Giving representation to Smaller Populations who are Traditional Supporters.... you need to do both...

Yes I agree, but 2 clubs is already a lot to grow the game. I don't think you'd wanna use that method again until those clubs are fully bedded down.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

If the Cairns based NRL/PNG team doesn't happen the NRL will switch their attentions to Brisbane 3. Think about it.

The most likely option will be that PNG-Cairns are the 18th team especially with the federal government already promising funding to support the club for a sustained period of time for socio-economic purposes alone.

However post 18 teams, other bids and options that the NRL are considering include Brisbane 3 (Firehawks/Ipswich), Perth (Possible joint partnership with North Sydney or Newtown) New Zealand 2 (Christchurch/Wellington), Melbourne 2 or Pasifika (Island countries).

 

[Aussie in exile]

The most likely option will be that PNG-Cairns are the 18th team especially with the federal government already promising funding to support the club for a sustained period of time for socio-economic purposes alone.

However post 18 teams, other bids and options that the NRL are considering include Brisbane 3 (Firehawks/Ipswich), Perth (Possible joint partnership with North Sydney or Newtown) New Zealand 2 (Christchurch/Wellington), Melbourne 2 or Pasifika (Island countries).

If the money stays in place i agree that the 18th team will be PNG-Cairns. After that i think they go New Zealand 2 and then Brisbane 3, and in my opinion all within 10 years.
If the money is withdrawn from the PNG-NRL bid I think they will go Brisbane 3 and then New Zealand 2

 

[speedpeck23]

Yes I agree, but 2 clubs is already a lot to grow the game. I don't think you'd wanna use that method again until those clubs are fully bedded down.

The 2 clubs is about having at least one AFL game each week in QLD + NSW/ACT. It's not only about growing those local clubs....it's about growing the traditional Victorian clubs in those states. In particular Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong and Carlton have significant supporter bases in Qld + NSW....you get a crowd when those teams play...if they appear twice a season in both those states it amplifies those clubs, the local clubs and the game.

The potential for AFL growth in Qld and NSW has only been partly realized the opportunities for the game remain significant. That's why Peter V'Landy is doing somersaults to keep NRL at the forefront. I think he will achieve that but the AFL presence in NSW + QLD will very likely continue to expand. In my view the best profile for the AFL to aim for is to have the biggest national footprint at the elite level for any sport in Australia. That raises the profile of any AFL club wherever they are based and of course optimizes the growth of the game.

In turn the only way to really achieve that is for the AFL to give club representation to all communities who are critical contributors to the game. This will be almost complete when the Tassie AFL club comes on board.

 

[Thailander]

The most likely option will be that PNG-Cairns are the 18th team especially with the federal government already promising funding to support the club for a sustained period of time for socio-economic purposes alone.

However post 18 teams, other bids and options that the NRL are considering include Brisbane 3 (Firehawks/Ipswich), Perth (Possible joint partnership with North Sydney or Newtown) New Zealand 2 (Christchurch/Wellington), Melbourne 2 or Pasifika (Island countries).

If Brisbane Tigers get the bid they should ditch the Firehawks crap and go in as something more ferocious.

Brisbane Jaguars - the closest thing to a Tiger.

 

[Badger17]

While they may have similar populations, the difference between Canberra and Tasmania is concentration.

Some people will undoubtably make the longer trek, but realistically, an hour-or-so radius is your primary market. Within that circle, you expect more frequency of people attending home games. And in that measure, Canberra has double the population of Hobart. Queanbeyan's only 15 mins from Manuka.

Wagga is closer to Canberra than Burnie or Devonport are to Hobart. If Canberra had the same market radius as Hobart including all of Tasmania, we'd have a million people in our catchment (which is what the Raiders and Brumbies currently have).

The Raiders and Brumbies have most or all of Southern NSW within their catchments on paper for promotional and player development reasons, but the reality is that the further you move away from Canberra the more support for the Canberran teams dies off.

RU and the Brumbies is a bit more complex, but you could basically draw a circle starting at Goulburn in the North, down around Braidwood in the East on to Cooma in the South, then back up to Yass in the North West, and that's roughly the region where the Raiders are most popular. Even then the Raiders wouldn't necessarily be as popular as some of the Sydney teams in those towns, and I don't see why it'd be any different for a Canberran AFL side.

At the same time though the majority of the away support at an average Raiders game travels from the broader Southern NSW region to watch their favourite team. So the local clubs still benefit from that broader support base even if it's just as away supporters, and I imagine that'd be the same for a Canberran AFL side as well.

 

[Walshawk]

To consider where possible future teams might be, it is good to know where the people are. Wikipedia lists the populations of different urban areas, but this is also hard to conceptualise.

Sydney has 10 times the population of Canberra, but we generally talk about a new team for Canberra in a similar vein as a third team for Sydney. The focus on Canberra tends to be its percentage growth and surrounding regions. Neglecting the fact that Sydney grows in total number by the size of Canberra and is more concentrated.

Anyway, a good way to visualise Australia’s population is to look at the divisions of the Federal electorates.

So this isn’t total population in the area, and some electorates have greater populations than others, but it’s a pretty handy tool:

2022 federal election enrolment statistics

www.aec.gov.au

And it is very interesting when you see it on a map:

Electorates of the Australian House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So I drew up how many electorates each of the cities currently have and showed that number divided up by their number of teams.

I included the Lions and the Suns in SEQ, rather than Brisbane and Gold Coast separately. I also included Geelong and some surrounding electorates in Melbourne.

I also indicated what the split of the area would be if we added a new team into the following locations:
TAS;
NT;
Canberra;
Sydney basin (including Wollongong, Central Coast and Newcastle); and
SEQ.

View attachment 1892643

NT and TAS have 2 and 5 electorates respectively. However they actually have low populations in their electorates, that if they were more evenly redistributed, they might end up with only 1 and 3 electorate’s respectively.

TAS is borderline as being big enough to sustain a team, but surely NT just wouldn’t be viable, with such a low population so spread out.

Canberra again would be a struggle, as it only really has 3 electorates, 4 if you include the one in NSW that surrounds it. But unlike TAS, Adelaide and Melbourne, there is the competition for attention from the Rugby codes.

SEQ and the Sydney basin which includes Wollongong, Central Coast and Newcastle have such a massive population that you could divide them and still have massive populations. The problem is the level of interest.

I would think, the Sydney basin should get a third team before SEQ just due to its sheer size. It would just be a matter of how to get it to work.

I would suggest the team should avoid its name containing Sydney. And this is where any suggestion is for the team name and focus is open to ideas. But maybe something vague like Northern Koala’s with a focus on the North Sydney, Northern Shore and Northern Beaches area as well as further north to Central Coast and Newcastle.

Play 8 games at Showgrounds as co-tenants with the Giants (which is a suitable sized venue in a central location). Then play 3 games in Newcastle, again similar to the Giants with their secondary market of Canberra.

Sure, but what is more important is knowing where the footy fans are. You 8now the old saying ‘fish where the fish are’. There are very few fish in western Sydney and (so far) fewer than we thought on the Gold Coast. The are plenty of fish in Tassie (a lot more than anywhere in Sydney outside of the inner suburbs) and probably fewer in Canberra than GC.


Western Sydney never asked for a team, neither did GC. And neither has Canberra. At least Tassie pushed. And pushed. And pushed. Unless there is passion from politicians or some well connected Canberrans for a team, they should not get one. WA footy have said that they do not want another team. Darwin is miles off being able to support a team.

So we stay at 19 until somewhere demands a team with as much passion, and support as Tassie. I reckon it is a fair way off.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The Raiders and Brumbies have most or all of Southern NSW within their catchments on paper for promotional and player development reasons, but the reality is that the further you move away from Canberra the more support for the Canberran teams dies off.

RU and the Brumbies is a bit more complex, but you could basically draw a circle starting at Goulburn in the North, down around Braidwood in the East on to Cooma in the South, then back up to Yass in the North West, and that's roughly the region where the Raiders are most popular. Even then the Raiders wouldn't necessarily be as popular as some of the Sydney teams in those towns, and I don't see why it'd be any different for a Canberran AFL side.

At the same time though the majority of the away support at an average Raiders game travels from the broader Southern NSW region to watch their favourite team. So the local clubs still benefit from that broader support base even if it's just as away supporters, and I imagine that'd be the same for a Canberran AFL side as well.

I absolutely agree. The further from Canberra, the weaker support will get. That's why is keep using the hour's drive measurement.

My point was a comparison to how widespread the population is in Tasmania compared to the concentrated population in Canberra, with Burnie and Devonport being even further away than Wagga is.

 

[Walshawk]

I absolutely agree. The further from Canberra, the weaker support will get. That's why is keep using the hour's drive measurement.

My point was a comparison to how widespread the population is in Tasmania compared to the concentrated population in Canberra, with Burnie and Devonport being even further away than Wagga is.

Devonport is just over an hour from Launceston and Burnie just over an hour and a half. Wagga is 2hrs 45 mins from Canberra.

But none of this regional towns are particularly relevant for the success of either potential club. Canberra has eight times the population of Canberra. At best you might get a few hundred come from Wagga to Canberra for a game.