20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

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.

My point is proximity to the primary market.

Devonport and Burnie are as relevant to Hobart and Wagga is to Canberra.

People discuss Tasmania as one market, but in terms of potential attendance, is more like two smaller markets.

So if Hobart is big enough to be a primary market, Canberra definitely is.

 

[Badger17]

My point is proximity to the primary market.

Devonport and Burnie are as relevant to Hobart and Wagga is to Canberra.

People discuss Tasmania as one market, but in terms of potential attendance, is more like two smaller markets.

So if Hobart is big enough to be a primary market, Canberra definitely is.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say that Canberra's population density and growth will make it a stronger market than Tas given time, maybe even as soon as a decade or so from now. Having to split games between Hobart and Launceston will hurt Tas as well, as it devalues season tickets and ticketed memberships, which isn't, or rather shouldn't be, a problem in Canberra. The biggest problem Canberra sides generally have is the lack of a significant corporate base here, but it shouldn't be a big issue to attract national sponsors in a league as big as the AFL.

If the AFL get into Canberra soon the club will grow alongside the city and build some strong intergenerational support within a couple decades, but the longer they leave it the more competitive and harder it will become to genuinely crack the market.

We need to stop the talk of sharing games with disparate country towns like Wagga or Albury though. It's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons that aren't worth getting into here, but it should only be broached if it's a financial necessity or quid pro quo.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say that Canberra's population density and growth will make it a stronger market than Tas given time, maybe even as soon as a decade or so from now. Having to split games between Hobart and Launceston will hurt Tas as well, as it devalues season tickets and ticketed memberships, which isn't, or rather shouldn't be, a problem in Canberra.

If the AFL get into Canberra soon the club will grow alongside the city and build some strong intergenerational support within a couple decades, but the longer they leave it the more competitive and harder it will become to genuinely crack the market.

We need to stop the talk of sharing games with disparate country towns like Wagga or Albury though. It's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons that aren't worth getting into here, but it should only be broached if it's a financial necessity or quid pro quo.

Albury/Wodonga combines as the 20th biggest city in Australia (only a tick below Bendigo and Ballarat) and is AFL mad.

There is also a newly renovated ground sitting there waiting for an AFL club to play for points, much like every other major sporting organisation in Australia already has.

It may seem like a distance, but the Giants themselves already have a nice foothold in the region. If a Canberra side brought the Riverina region along for the ride I have no doubt it would be well supported.

It would take a complete stranglehold of that Barassi line, which basically runs through Wagga anyway.

 

[Badger17]

Albury/Wodonga combines as the 20th biggest city in Australia (only a tick below Bendigo and Ballarat) and is AFL mad.

There is also a newly renovated ground sitting there waiting for an AFL club to play for points, much like every other major sporting organisation in Australia already has.

It may seem like a distance, but the Giants themselves already have a nice foothold in the region. If a Canberra side brought the Riverina region along for the ride I have no doubt it would be well supported.

It would take a complete stranglehold of that Barassi line, which basically runs through Wagga anyway.

Just like GWS in Canberra, every gain you'd make in Albury or Wagga would come at the expense of support and growth back home in Canberra. You'll never convert the overwhelming majority of those people in Albury and/or Wagga into genuine supporters of the Canberra side, and that support would almost completely die out the instant the team moved on, and it'd only be a matter of time before the team moved on.

Things like this have been tried before by the Brumbies and others. It always backfires, often disastrously, unless it's completely cynical like the Raiders sojourn in Wagga in exchange for tens of millions in funding from the NSW government for a new COE. There's a distinct cultural split between the ACT and "Capital Region" more broadly and the rest of Southern NSW, and put simply they just don't jell very well.

The only way it could happen in the first place is if the NSW government stepped in and paid for it, and there's no way they'd agree to a long term relationship similar to GWS's with Canberra or North's and Hawthorn's with Tassie, nor would they offer anywhere near the amount of money for those games that the ACT and TAS governments have historically. There's a good chance they'd also demand that a NSW side is involved which should be two of the biggest draws in Canberra, so you'd be trading what a should be a 20k+ potential sell-out in Canberra for a sub-10k attendance at a bush footy park. Aside from that it'd hurt membership and attendance numbers in Canberra, and would lower the value of season tickets and corporate boxes in Canberra, which could cost the club millions per annum in the longer term.

The only reason such an arrangement should even be considered is if it's an absolute financial necessity or a deal to good to refuse. Even then you're more likely to get a better deal out of somewhere like the NT or potentially even Queensland than the Albury or Wagga councils, and one of the clubs would already be doing it if there was real money to be made in it.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say that Canberra's population density and growth will make it a stronger market than Tas given time, maybe even as soon as a decade or so from now. Having to split games between Hobart and Launceston will hurt Tas as well, as it devalues season tickets and ticketed memberships, which isn't, or rather shouldn't be, a problem in Canberra. The biggest problem Canberra sides generally have is the lack of a significant corporate base here, but it shouldn't be a big issue to attract national sponsors in a league as big as the AFL.

If the AFL get into Canberra soon the club will grow alongside the city and build some strong intergenerational support within a couple decades, but the longer they leave it the more competitive and harder it will become to genuinely crack the market.

We need to stop the talk of sharing games with disparate country towns like Wagga or Albury though. It's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons that aren't worth getting into here, but it should only be broached if it's a financial necessity or quid pro quo.

I think that Tassie is a unique case because it’s a small and decentralised market that also has the historical North-South divide. For example, of the 570k state population, approx 45% is from Greater Hobart, 10% from Southern Tas (non-Hobart), while 45% is North and North West (Launceston, Devonport, Burnie etc).

With a small market of 570k, it’s essential to harness the support of the population from across the entire island. That will not happen very successfully if games are only played in either Hobart / Launceston. For a Tassie club, splitting games will work better than a club based in perhaps any other region of the country. Being a state-based team be a central part of the club’s identity and help them be competitive in an off-field capacity. The proposed split in the business case of 7 Hobart, 4 Launceston seems about right.

Unlike clubs from the Northern markets, a Tassie AFL club will be the hottest ticket in town as well with no competition from other winter codes, so some people might be surprised with the level of support this club receives.

 

[Bjo187]

I think that Tassie is a unique case because it’s a small and decentralised market that also has the historical North-South divide. For example, of the 570k state population, approx 45% is from Greater Hobart, 10% from Southern Tas (non-Hobart), while 45% is North and North West (Launceston, Devonport, Burnie etc).

With a small market of 570k, it’s essential to harness the support of the population from across the entire island. That will not happen very successfully if games are only played in either Hobart / Launceston. For a Tassie club, splitting games will work better than a club based in perhaps any other region of the country. Being a state-based team be a central part of the club’s identity and help them be competitive in an off-field capacity. The proposed split in the business case of 7 Hobart, 4 Launceston seems about right.

Unlike clubs from the Northern markets, a Tassie AFL club will be the hottest ticket in town as well with no competition from other winter codes, so some people might be surprised with the level of support this club receives.

A whole state behind a team is going to be pretty awesome to see, they will dominate all the news and talk in the state forever.

 

[Badger17]

I think that Tassie is a unique case because it’s a small and decentralised market that also has the historical North-South divide. For example, of the 570k state population, approx 45% is from Greater Hobart, 10% from Southern Tas (non-Hobart), while 45% is North and North West (Launceston, Devonport, Burnie etc).

With a small market of 570k, it’s essential to harness the support of the population from across the entire island. That will not happen very successfully if games are only played in either Hobart / Launceston. For a Tassie club, splitting games will work better than a club based in perhaps any other region of the country. Being a state-based team be a central part of the club’s identity and help them be competitive in an off-field capacity. The proposed split in the business case of 7 Hobart, 4 Launceston seems about right.

Unlike clubs from the Northern markets, a Tassie AFL club will be the hottest ticket in town as well with no competition from other winter codes, so some people might be surprised with the level of support this club receives.

For sake of argument lets say I totally agree with all of that; none of it changes the fact that splitting venues can up to halve the value of an individual season ticket and other ticketed memberships, corporate and luxury boxes, sponsorship hoarding and space, etc, etc, whilst also increasing operating costs, and means the club has to make more individual sales to remain commercially viable and competitive.

I can't think of a single club that does it as standard practice where it's worked well over the long term. Wests Tigers, St George, Western United, all of them have struggled, and a significant part of the reason why is the split venues and the knock-on effects of it.

Tasmania's AFL club may be the hottest ticket in town to begin with, but nothing remains novel forever. Sooner or later the team will become mundane and probably taken for granted, especially if they struggle on the pitch for extended periods. That can and will have significant commercial implications over long term in a small market where there's simply less money to go around. It's just part and parcel of operating in a regional market.

 

[Coolangatta]

For sake of argument lets say I totally agree with all of that; none of it changes the fact that splitting venues can up to halve the value of an individual season ticket and other ticketed memberships, corporate and luxury boxes, sponsorship hoarding and space, etc, etc, whilst also increasing operating costs, and means the club has to make more individual sales to remain commercially viable and competitive.

I can't think of a single club that does it as standard practice where it's worked well over the long term. Wests Tigers, St George, Western United, all of them have struggled, and a significant part of the reason why is the split venues and the knock-on effects of it.

Tasmania's AFL club may be the hottest ticket in town to begin with, but nothing remains novel forever. Sooner or later the team will become mundane and probably taken for granted, especially if they struggle on the pitch for extended periods. That can and will have significant commercial implications over long term in a small market where there's simply less money to go around. It's just part and parcel of operating in a regional market.

You might be right.

What are your thoughts on the application of this home ground principle to Victorian clubs, though?

Hawks and Roos play 4 games each in Tassie but they get enough away games in Melbourne that it doesn't really matter, does it? Same as Bulldogs playing in Ballarat, or the Dees playing one Alice Springs game.

But non-Vic teams don't have at least half a dozen interstate rivals to bounce around off.

Do you think going forward, it's imperative that the Suns play all 11 home games at Gold Coast? Ditto the Giants playing 11 home games in Sydney? The latter needs to become big enough eventually that they can move their home ground away from Giants Stadium and play all 11 home games at one ground without ground availability interference, the same way the Swans do at the SCG or the Eagles do at Optus etc.

In a perfect world, Tasmania would be big enough for two teams, one playing 11 games in Hobart, the other playing 11 games in Launceston, but similarly to the NT, a second Tassie club would need to be financially propped up forever to be sustainable. Hobart was never going to be big enough to go it alone, let alone Launceston.

An NT side couldn't play all 11 games in Darwin because of the weather, although perhaps they could just hub in Melbourne and play away for the first three weeks of the year and then just jam in a couple of consecutive home games later in the year. Of course, Darwin is also unviable.

Canberra without the Riverina would struggle more than with, of course, but your concerns about the primary market not getting enough service I think is valid. Canberra Pear isn't keen for a ACT side to replicate GWS and instead give Albury and Wagga 1 game each with Canberra getting 9, but whether that'd be enough or not to make bank remains speculative.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Canberra without the Riverina would struggle more than with, of course, but your concerns about the primary market not getting enough service I think is valid. Canberra Pear isn't keen for a ACT side to replicate GWS and instead give Albury and Wagga 1 game each with Canberra getting 9, but whether that'd be enough or not to make bank remains speculative.

Not sure I agree with this.

Every 10k-crowd in the Riverina means one less 20k-crowd in Canberra. Depending how favourable the Manuka deal is and how much funding Albury and Wagga councils would offer, it'd be pretty breakeven playing games regionally.

But games in the Riverina helps sell the idea of Canberra. Having games in the Riverina is good for the game. It's a good vibe, similar to the romanticism of an NT team.

So I think Canberra would be fine without playing games in the Riverina, but if it takes the Riverina to get a team, then I'd still take that. But I'd be against selling any more than two games.

Badger17 has more NRL knowledge. Do you know how the annual Wagga game affects the Raiders' base in Canberra?

 

[Bjo187]

Not sure I agree with this.

Every 10k-crowd in the Riverina means one less 20k-crowd in Canberra. Depending how favourable the Manuka deal is and how much funding Albury and Wagga councils would offer, it'd be pretty breakeven playing games regionally.

But games in the Riverina helps sell the idea of Canberra. Having games in the Riverina is good for the game. It's a good vibe, similar to the romanticism of an NT team.

So I think Canberra would be fine without playing games in the Riverina, but if it takes the Riverina to get a team, then I'd still take that. But I'd be against selling any more than two games.

Badger17 has more NRL knowledge. Do you know how the annual Wagga game affects the Raiders' base in Canberra?

Badger17 has more nrl knowledge because he is an nrl troll. He fully exposed himself when he cracked the shits when it was suggested Manuka might get an upgrade before his rectangular Bruce stadium.

 

[Coolangatta]

Not sure I agree with this.

Every 10k-crowd in the Riverina means one less 20k-crowd in Canberra. Depending how favourable the Manuka deal is and how much funding Albury and Wagga councils would offer, it'd be pretty breakeven playing games regionally.

But games in the Riverina helps sell the idea of Canberra. Having games in the Riverina is good for the game. It's a good vibe, similar to the romanticism of an NT team.

So I think Canberra would be fine without playing games in the Riverina, but if it takes the Riverina to get a team, then I'd still take that. But I'd be against selling any more than two games.

Badger17 has more NRL knowledge. Do you know how the annual Wagga game affects the Raiders' base in Canberra?

That's true.

I was thinking along the lines of Riverina people buying memberships and attending Canberra games to add to the catchment of the Canberra team, but I'm not sure it'd pan out that way.

You could certainly argue Greater Canberra has enough people to go it alone, but as you say, it depends on what Albury and Wagga would bring to the table. Getting the NSW government on board would be a tough ask, but any additional funding given to an ACT club would have to help strengthen its business case.

But I definitely agree with Badger17 about primary markets not getting enough games, so Canberra shouldn't sell more than two games, like you said.

Tasmania may very well struggle as a footy club, but even if they do, a 20th team I think will be preferred and will happen, but if Tasmania doesn't get up and going, or it tapers off, I think whoever the 20th club would be would probably not be a co-located team. I could see it being a third Perth club playing all its games at Optus, or a Canberra club playing all its games at Manuka. The wildcard is a Darwin-based team, but that only potentially happens if there's billions of dollars backing it.

 

[Thailander]

A Canberra team taking over the ACT and Southern NSW would win the code war and destroy the NRL's chances of becoming the no.1 footy in Australia. I support this initiative completely but don't tell Canberra Pear I said that

 

[Coolangatta]

A Canberra team taking over the ACT and Southern NSW would win the code war and destroy the NRL's chances of becoming the no.1 footy in Australia. I support this initiative completely but don't tell Canberra Pear I said that

Nek minnit Perth and Adelaide get NRL teams and go nuclear

 

[Thailander]

Nek minnit Perth and Adelaide get NRL teams and go nuclear

would be a dream come true.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

For sake of argument lets say I totally agree with all of that; none of it changes the fact that splitting venues can up to halve the value of an individual season ticket and other ticketed memberships, corporate and luxury boxes, sponsorship hoarding and space, etc, etc, whilst also increasing operating costs, and means the club has to make more individual sales to remain commercially viable and competitive.

I can't think of a single club that does it as standard practice where it's worked well over the long term. Wests Tigers, St George, Western United, all of them have struggled, and a significant part of the reason why is the split venues and the knock-on effects of it.

Tasmania's AFL club may be the hottest ticket in town to begin with, but nothing remains novel forever. Sooner or later the team will become mundane and probably taken for granted, especially if they struggle on the pitch for extended periods. That can and will have significant commercial implications over long term in a small market where there's simply less money to go around. It's just part and parcel of operating in a regional market.

You have identified some real issues that put the Tasmanian club at a disadvantage compared to existing clubs which are based in larger cities. These issues are not easily overcome; the state’s multiple bids since the early 90’s have been rejected, after all.

The Tas AFL Taskforce who prepared the current business case studied all of the possibilities and their determination was that, despite the issues you identified, a Tasmanian club operating with a two ground model would be less risky than a one ground model. Then the AFL hired Colin Carter to do an independent review of the business case and he supported the two ground model as well.

I think that you’re absolutely right, with the two stadium model, they are banking on the model resulting in more individual sales. I think that’s the right strategy. They’ll undoubtedly have Hobart-only memberships, Launceston memberships, and 11 game memberships for all home games. Based on my experience with Tas footy I don’t think they’ll have an issue in selling a substantial amount of reserved seating memberships at both venues.

There’s significant government investment slated towards both Mac Point and UTAS Stadium to ensure they’re among the best sub-30k stadia in the country. This type of support isn’t always forthcoming in other non-AFL states or for stadium upgrades requested by other codes. The state government is also directing significant amounts of funding towards the club (e.g. $12m annual funding for the first 12 years and a $70m HP centre) to assist them in being more competitive from the get-go. Of course, Tassie will still have down periods (just like every club), although being a traditional footy state, I don’t think the fanbase will be as fickle as it may be in some non-traditional locations.

Not sure if the examples that you have used (NRL clubs formed due to mergers from previously struggling clubs, and Melbourne’s 3rd A-League club that plays all over because it doesn’t have a home ground) are particularly relevant to a Tasmanian AFL club. This will be state-based club that will aim to unite and represent all three of Tasmania’s regions, instead of limiting its accessibility to fans across the state by only focussing on one. Like I said previously, a two ground model is more likely to be successful in Tassie than just about anywhere else in the country. Therefore, some of the comments about the cultural differences between ACT and the Riverina are quite valid and potentially a big reason why a composite club representing both regions might not work particularly well.

Lastly, the Hurricanes and Jack Jumpers also host games in the North of the state, as they realise the benefit of maximising support from across the state. I’m expecting the JJ’s to play even more games each season in Launceston when there’s a better indoor basketball venue built there (which is also currently in the pipeline).

 

[Walshawk]

For sake of argument lets say I totally agree with all of that; none of it changes the fact that splitting venues can up to halve the value of an individual season ticket and other ticketed memberships, corporate and luxury boxes, sponsorship hoarding and space, etc, etc, whilst also increasing operating costs, and means the club has to make more individual sales to remain commercially viable and competitive.

I can't think of a single club that does it as standard practice where it's worked well over the long term. Wests Tigers, St George, Western United, all of them have struggled, and a significant part of the reason why is the split venues and the knock-on effects of it.

Tasmania's AFL club may be the hottest ticket in town to begin with, but nothing remains novel forever. Sooner or later the team will become mundane and probably taken for granted, especially if they struggle on the pitch for extended periods. That can and will have significant commercial implications over long term in a small market where there's simply less money to go around. It's just part and parcel of operating in a regional market.

Tas will have the same 7/4 split that Hawthorn has run for the past 20 years. Hawthorn is as wealthy as any club. Yes, its match day revenue is less than WC or Collingwood, but having two markets means more members than one market, which means more sponsorship dollars.

And anyway, both grounds are in Tasmania. Carlton and Essendon both chose to split their games between two venues. It can work.

 

[Walshawk]

Albury/Wodonga combines as the 20th biggest city in Australia (only a tick below Bendigo and Ballarat) and is AFL mad.

There is also a newly renovated ground sitting there waiting for an AFL club to play for points, much like every other major sporting organisation in Australia already has.

It may seem like a distance, but the Giants themselves already have a nice foothold in the region. If a Canberra side brought the Riverina region along for the ride I have no doubt it would be well supported.

It would take a complete stranglehold of that Barassi line, which basically runs through Wagga anyway.

Albury should be hosting an AFL games, but Melbourne is actually marginally closer than Canberra. So people from Albury already have 100 opportunities each season to travel here for a game. Not sure Albury adds a lot of value to Canberra. Maybe one game plus a pre-season in Wagga.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Albury should be hosting an AFL games, but Melbourne is actually marginally closer than Canberra. So people from Albury already have 100 opportunities each season to travel here for a game. Not sure Albury adds a lot of value to Canberra. Maybe one game plus a pre-season in Wagga.

That's somewhat my point actually. People make that trip to Melbourne every weekend as if it's nothing. Canberra isn't much longer as a drive, so if a new team was entering and a Riverina link was created, it wouldn't be a huge ask for border residents to make the journey.

 

[Badger17]

You might be right.

What are your thoughts on the application of this home ground principle to Victorian clubs, though?

Hawks and Roos play 4 games each in Tassie but they get enough away games in Melbourne that it doesn't really matter, does it? Same as Bulldogs playing in Ballarat, or the Dees playing one Alice Springs game.

But non-Vic teams don't have at least half a dozen interstate rivals to bounce around off.

Do you think going forward, it's imperative that the Suns play all 11 home games at Gold Coast? Ditto the Giants playing 11 home games in Sydney? The latter needs to become big enough eventually that they can move their home ground away from Giants Stadium and play all 11 home games at one ground without ground availability interference, the same way the Swans do at the SCG or the Eagles do at Optus etc.

In a perfect world, Tasmania would be big enough for two teams, one playing 11 games in Hobart, the other playing 11 games in Launceston, but similarly to the NT, a second Tassie club would need to be financially propped up forever to be sustainable. Hobart was never going to be big enough to go it alone, let alone Launceston.

An NT side couldn't play all 11 games in Darwin because of the weather, although perhaps they could just hub in Melbourne and play away for the first three weeks of the year and then just jam in a couple of consecutive home games later in the year. Of course, Darwin is also unviable.

Canberra without the Riverina would struggle more than with, of course, but your concerns about the primary market not getting enough service I think is valid. Canberra Pear isn't keen for a ACT side to replicate GWS and instead give Albury and Wagga 1 game each with Canberra getting 9, but whether that'd be enough or not to make bank remains speculative.

Those clubs and GWS get paid handsomely to move their home games interstate, effectively underwriting the games and guaranteeing a profit. The same won't be true of the Tasmanian team splitting games between Hobart and Launceston, or a hypothetical Canberran team taking games to Wagga, Albury, or anywhere else in broader Southern NSW, so it's not really comparable.

The Raiders don't need the Riverina. The Brumbies attempts to expand their appeal outside of the ACT into broader Southern NSW, including the Riverina, is partially responsible for their current struggles. No other Canberran sports team that's been successful has needed the Riverina. So I see no reason why a Canberran AFL team would need them, and have very good reason to believe that any sort of serious official link would actually be a detriment to the club in the long term.

The whole idea of a Canberra side linking with the Riverina seems to come exclusively from outsiders who don't really have a good understanding about either region. It's like they've looked at a map, seen that both regions are reasonably close to each other, and assumed that a partnership would be a good idea on that basis alone.

 

[Badger17]

You have identified some real issues that put the Tasmanian club at a disadvantage compared to existing clubs which are based in larger cities. These issues are not easily overcome; the state’s multiple bids since the early 90’s have been rejected, after all.

The Tas AFL Taskforce who prepared the current business case studied all of the possibilities and their determination was that, despite the issues you identified, a Tasmanian club operating with a two ground model would be less risky than a one ground model. Then the AFL hired Colin Carter to do an independent review of the business case and he supported the two ground model as well.

I think that you’re absolutely right, with the two stadium model, they are banking on the model resulting in more individual sales. I think that’s the right strategy. They’ll undoubtedly have Hobart-only memberships, Launceston memberships, and 11 game memberships for all home games. Based on my experience with Tas footy I don’t think they’ll have an issue in selling a substantial amount of reserved seating memberships at both venues.

There’s significant government investment slated towards both Mac Point and UTAS Stadium to ensure they’re among the best sub-30k stadia in the country. This type of support isn’t always forthcoming in other non-AFL states or for stadium upgrades requested by other codes. The state government is also directing significant amounts of funding towards the club (e.g. $12m annual funding for the first 12 years and a $70m HP centre) to assist them in being more competitive from the get-go. Of course, Tassie will still have down periods (just like every club), although being a traditional footy state, I don’t think the fanbase will be as fickle as it may be in some non-traditional locations.

Not sure if the examples that you have used (NRL clubs formed due to mergers from previously struggling clubs, and Melbourne’s 3rd A-League club that plays all over because it doesn’t have a home ground) are particularly relevant to a Tasmanian AFL club. This will be state-based club that will aim to unite and represent all three of Tasmania’s regions, instead of limiting its accessibility to fans across the state by only focussing on one. Like I said previously, a two ground model is more likely to be successful in Tassie than just about anywhere else in the country. Therefore, some of the comments about the cultural differences between ACT and the Riverina are quite valid and potentially a big reason why a composite club representing both regions might not work particularly well.

Lastly, the Hurricanes and Jack Jumpers also host games in the North of the state, as they realise the benefit of maximising support from across the state. I’m expecting the JJ’s to play even more games each season in Launceston when there’s a better indoor basketball venue built there (which is also currently in the pipeline).

I'm not going to give you an in depth history lesson, but the NRL mergers weren't formed from struggling clubs per se. In fact it was much more political than that, and St. George, Balmain, and Manly were among the clubs that were better off after the SL war. The failure of the mergers have been on multiple fronts, but a major problem all three of them faced was/has been their failure to pick a homebase and choosing to spilt games between grounds. Sure the Tasmanian AFL side's situation won't be exactly the same as the mergers, but it will suffer from similar issues where it pertains to home grounds, and could stand to learn a lot from them as a result.

We'd need to look at the Super Rugby Clubs if we want to talk about how successful 'state-based' clubs have been traditionally, and that discussion wouldn't be great for your argument either. I'm not really interested in that discussion though.

I don't really have a strong opinion on Tasmania or the Tasmanian side, nor am I saying that a Tasmanian AFL side is a bad idea, that the team is doomed to failure, or anything of the sort. The only reason this discussion came up is because I said that I think Canberra will be a stronger market than Tasmania in the not too distant future, maybe as soon as 15-20 years from now, and I stand by that and think the facts bear that out.

 

[Badger17]

Not sure I agree with this.

Every 10k-crowd in the Riverina means one less 20k-crowd in Canberra. Depending how favourable the Manuka deal is and how much funding Albury and Wagga councils would offer, it'd be pretty breakeven playing games regionally.

But games in the Riverina helps sell the idea of Canberra. Having games in the Riverina is good for the game. It's a good vibe, similar to the romanticism of an NT team.

So I think Canberra would be fine without playing games in the Riverina, but if it takes the Riverina to get a team, then I'd still take that. But I'd be against selling any more than two games.

Badger17 has more NRL knowledge. Do you know how the annual Wagga game affects the Raiders' base in Canberra?

A Canberra AFL side would have it's hands full making itself a success in Canberra, and it shouldn't be their job to sell the game in the Riverina. Splitting games with the Riverina may sell the idea to clueless people, but it's at the expense of weakening it's viability as a concept. You're right though, it is like the idea of an NT team; impractical romanticism.

If there was real money to be made in playing games in Wagga or Albury one of the existing clubs would already be doing it, but they're not because the reality is that there isn't. That might change in the future with a change in policy or government, but that's unpredictable, and even then one of the Melbourne sides, or GWS if they're desperate, would likely be better placed to benefit from it than Canberra, and you'd hope the Canberra side wasn't struggling and in need of the cash injection.

On the Raiders games in Wagga; most people didn't care, but that was because everybody knew that it was a short term relationship and quid pro quo for the NSW government helping fund the new centre of excellence in Braddon. The only way the NSW government could justify the expense was if they got something back from the Raiders. Playing some games in the bush, boosting tourism in the region in the process, was agreed as a fair trade, and after a bit of back and forth they agreed to play them in Wagga.

There wasn't even a discussion about an extension once the contract concluded last year, as the Raiders would have lost money on them despite the sell-outs if it wasn't for the grants, the NSW gov wasn't interested in underwriting more, and Wagga council couldn't afford it even if they wanted it.

Change that scenario and make it a permanent situation, or a requirement for the Raiders to maintain their license, and things would be very different.

 

[Walshawk]

A Canberra AFL side would have it's hands full making itself a success in Canberra, and it shouldn't be their job to sell the game in the Riverina. Splitting games with the Riverina may sell the idea to clueless people, but it's at the expense of weakening it's viability as a concept. You're right though, it is like the idea of an NT team; impractical romanticism.

If there was real money to be made in playing games in Wagga or Albury one of the existing clubs would already be doing it, but they're not because the reality is that there isn't. That might change in the future with a change in policy or government, but that's unpredictable, and even then one of the Melbourne sides, or GWS if they're desperate, would likely be better placed to benefit from it than Canberra, and you'd hope the Canberra side wasn't struggling and in need of the cash injection.

On the Raiders games in Wagga; most people didn't care, but that was because everybody knew that it was a short term relationship and quid pro quo for the NSW government helping fund the new centre of excellence in Braddon. The only way the NSW government could justify the expense was if they got something back from the Raiders. Playing some games in the bush, boosting tourism in the region in the process, was agreed as a fair trade, and after a bit of back and forth they agreed to play them in Wagga.

There wasn't even a discussion about an extension once the contract concluded last year, as the Raiders would have lost money on them despite the sell-outs if it wasn't for the grants, the NSW gov wasn't interested in underwriting more, and Wagga council couldn't afford it even if they wanted it.

Change that scenario and make it a permanent situation, or a requirement for the Raiders to maintain their license, and things would be very different.

Yes it is amusing that some of the same people that say ‘GWS need to play all their games in Sydney or they will never be successful. Canberra needs its own team’, are also advocating for Canberra to play games in other markets.

Wagga does not have a suitable venue, but if a team like North/Saints/Dees wanted to take a home game v Canberra to Albury, that would be a good result.

 

[Coolangatta]

Yes it is amusing that some of the same people that say ‘GWS need to play all their games in Sydney or they will never be successful. Canberra needs its own team’, are also advocating for Canberra to play games in other markets.

Wagga does not have a suitable venue, but if a team like North/Saints/Dees wanted to take a home game v Canberra to Albury, that would be a good result.

I was thinking the same thing, Canberra could still play in the Riverina as the away team. GWS could play away in Wagga if they ever build a suitable viable.

I do think the Victorian sides should cover the secondary markets and if they can't/won't then they just don't play there until they can. I don't see anyone playing there for a long time, if ever, though.

Giants have Canberra until 2032. Canberra could come in by 2033 and play all 11 home games there. Maybe they could have access to Riverina players if the Giants don't need them anymore while the Giants get the NT academy as I still think they'll need players.

If the Hawks want to maintain a Launceston presence they could just play Tassie twice a year, once in Melbourne and once as the away side in Launceston.

Hawks should play in Cairns instead of the Suns, the Suns should play all 11 games in GC once they leave Darwin. Unless the club is renamed the Queensland Suns, which would be silly because GC has everything it needs to be successful on its own, NQLDers don't give a **** about the Gold Coast.

I do think if Darwin is available that the Hawks should play there instead of Cairns, though, because otherwise the Suns are stuck there or no one plays there at all.

You've said the Roos could play in Darwin and would because of the money, but they could be looking at Bendigo next if their community camp setup is anything to go by. Not sure if Bendigo has an AFL standard ground or not, though.

In any case, I do hope Darwin has a presence once the Suns leave. We know Canberra is covered, whether that'll be by the Giants or their own team eventually. You can bet the Giants will not leave Canberra if WA3 gets the 20th licence instead.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I was thinking the same thing, Canberra could still play in the Riverina as the away team. GWS could play away in Wagga if they ever build a suitable viable.

I do think the Victorian sides should cover the secondary markets and if they can't/won't then they just don't play there until they can. I don't see anyone playing there for a long time, if ever, though.

Giants have Canberra until 2032. Canberra could come in by 2033 and play all 11 home games there. Maybe they could have access to Riverina players if the Giants don't need them anymore while the Giants get the NT academy as I still think they'll need players.

If the Hawks want to maintain a Launceston presence they could just play Tassie twice a year, once in Melbourne and once as the away side in Launceston.

Hawks should play in Cairns instead of the Suns, the Suns should play all 11 games in GC once they leave Darwin. Unless the club is renamed the Queensland Suns, which would be silly because GC has everything it needs to be successful on its own, NQLDers don't give a * about the Gold Coast.

I do think if Darwin is available that the Hawks should play there instead of Cairns, though, because otherwise the Suns are stuck there or no one plays there at all.

You've said the Roos could play in Darwin and would because of the money, but they could be looking at Bendigo next if their community camp setup is anything to go by. Not sure if Bendigo has an AFL standard ground or not, though.

In any case, I do hope Darwin has a presence once the Suns leave. We know Canberra is covered, whether that'll be by the Giants or their own team eventually. You can bet the Giants will not leave Canberra if WA3 gets the 20th licence instead.

Only way North Melbourne would be able to play in Bendigo is if they redeveloped the Queen Elizabeth Oval there to 10k min, which would interesting to see if the AFL and state government fork out the $$$ for that to happen.

It’s why possibly the Kangaroos should rebrand as “Northern Kangaroos” and play a couple of home games up in Darwin and Alice Springs while keeping majority in Victoria until it is more feasible for them to play mostly in NT with blockbusters in Melbourne to have a national presence up in the Top End without committing full time.

Besides that, agree with everything else that has been mentioned above and Canberra definitely would be hot favourites to become that 20th team, providing GWS can find another suitable secondary home in NSW like Newcastle.

 

[Coolangatta]

Only way North Melbourne would be able to play in Bendigo is if they redeveloped the Queen Elizabeth Oval there to 10k min, which would interesting to see if the AFL and state government fork out the $$$ for that to happen.

It’s why possibly the Kangaroos should rebrand as “Northern Kangaroos” and play a couple of home games up in Darwin and Alice Springs while keeping majority in Victoria until it is more feasible for them to play mostly in NT with blockbusters in Melbourne to have a national presence up in the Top End without committing full time.

Besides that, agree with everything else that has been mentioned above and Canberra definitely would be hot favourites to become that 20th team, providing GWS can find another suitable secondary home in NSW like Newcastle.

I see.

Yes, they could start off with 3 games in Darwin and 1 in Alice Springs against the Dees, as the Dees want to play in Alice for the good of the NT community. That's pretty much exchanging their 4 Hobart games for 4 NT games. So with the Dees also playing in Alice Springs, the NT would get 5 games per year.

It would be cool to see North move up to something like 9 Darwin games, 1 Alice Springs, 1 Melbourne, and one away Alice Springs game against the Dees. Have 8 away games in Melbourne against big drawing clubs, giving their members free Kayo and more access to away games. That's 9 Melbourne games. Not sure the Dees would want to continue to play the Roos in Alice Springs though, as by that stage, the Roos would probably get access to the best available NT talent and would play the conditions much better than Melbourne would.

But if you could have 11 games per year in the NT and ACT while sticking to 20 teams, you'd probably want to do it, as you can keep the comp to 20 teams while being truly national.

That said, this is the reason the Roos don't want to play in the NT. We aren't the only ones who'd think that over time, they could slowly increase their NT presence.

In a perfect world, we'd have Tassie, ACT, and NT in a 20 team comp, but since it isn't, I wouldn't mind seeing them go to 22, with NT and WA3 being the last two teams. If NT just cannot get the funding, then either stick to 20 teams or go Brisbane 2 and WA3 instead.

As for the Giants and Newcastle, maybe, but what is the link between Newcastle and Western Sydney? If it's just about money, then sure, why not, but it's probably for the best for GWS to just play all their games in WS. There's been suggestions of upgrading Henson Park, and looking at Blacktown, or a combination of both, to ensure WS has a full-time presence there.