20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

A short stretch of eastbound Parkes Way gets shifted south and then there's plenty of space for an oval stadium in the city.

If Canberra ever gets its own AFL team, guaranteed they'll be playing on the old pool site in a 25k roofed venue.

I'd love a Canberra AFL team playing there, but I reckon it'd be fifth or so down the list of likely options.

 

[Coolangatta]

Would they be able to build a strong supporter base by keep playing at different venues?

I don't know, but realistically, you couldn't have 11 games in Darwin and Cairns.

They're meant to be NT and NQ teams, so the respective games in Alice, Townsville and Mackay would help build more support from those areas to contribute to overall support.

NT probably works better with a buy in from Alice as does NQ with a bit of exposure in Townsville and Mackay.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Norwood seems to be stating that they will be ready to enter at the same time as Tasmania

And where have you heard this? I'm close to the Norwood FC and haven't heard a word.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

From 7news Sports and AFL reporters..

But Money said Norwood believed they could join the AFL at the same time as Tasmania, if they were to get the go ahead, and they also think they could “steal thousands of members from both the Crows and the Power”.

“This is set to become a huge talking point and one that could potentially change the shape of football in the state and also in the country,” Money said

Footy club in ‘audacious’ plot to change AFL around the country

The local powerhouse has serious corporate muscle and believes it can ‘steal’ thousands of fans from its rivals.

7news.com.au

 

[Badger17]

A short stretch of eastbound Parkes Way gets shifted south and then there's plenty of space for an oval stadium in the city.

If Canberra ever gets its own AFL team, guaranteed they'll be playing on the old pool site in a 25k roofed venue.

Moving or tunnelling Parkes Way to build a stadium on the Civic Pool site has been thrown around for over a decade at this point and it's simply not feasible.

The last study into Civic pool site showed that moving the eastbound lanes south still wouldn't create enough room to fit a stadium in the right orientation. From memory the site would barely fit a 20k rectangular stadium in the correct orientation, so there's no chance it'll fit a 25k oval. To make the plot large enough you'd need to relocate all the lanes south, which would mean moving them into Commonwealth Park which is NCA land, or tunnel a portion of Parkes Way, both of which would be significant projects in their own right and blow out costs significantly.

The fact of the matter is that there simply isn't room for a stadium in Civic anymore unless the government is willing to realign major roads or knock down buildings, which is why only the dreamers are still talking about building the rectangular stadium in Civic.

 

[Badger17]

The multi-use stadium is a bit of a political hot potato here.

We have two, possibly three, full-time rectangular teams, so any push for a multi-use is rallied against by them. It's still an option that's being floated, but it's not the popular option. On the plus side, it would likely be a higher capacity than Manuka.

One of the main negatives of the multi-use is the size. A theoretical city stadium is only on a small parcel, barely big enough for a rectangular stadium. A city stadium equals no oval. If it ends up at Bruce, it's easier to make multi-use.

So, I'm not opposed to playing in a multi-use stadium, I just think it's the lesser likely of the options.

There's no chance that the Raiders and Brumbies agree to a multipurpose. They destroy the viewing experience and suck all the atmosphere out of rectangular sports. The Raiders and NRL ideally need 30k seats as well, so there'd be conflict there as well if the AFL wants a smaller ground.

Pushing for a multipurpose would only end in conflict both between the sports and politically.

You don't want the stadium built in Bruce either. Bruce is a terrible spot for a multitude of reasons, both Manuka and Phillip Oval would be infinitely better locations.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Moving or tunnelling Parkes Way to build a stadium on the Civic Pool site has been thrown around for over a decade at this point and it's simply not feasible.

The last study into Civic pool site showed that moving the eastbound lanes south still wouldn't create enough room to fit a stadium in the right orientation. From memory the site would barely fit a 20k rectangular stadium in the correct orientation, so there's no chance it'll fit a 25k oval. To make the plot large enough you'd need to relocate all the lanes south, which would mean moving them into Commonwealth Park which is NCA land, or tunnel a portion of Parkes Way, both of which would be significant projects in their own right and blow out costs significantly.

The fact of the matter is that there simply isn't room for a stadium in Civic anymore unless the government is willing to realign major roads or knock down buildings, which is why only the dreamers are still talking about building the rectangular stadium in Civic.

Your memory is incorrect. A rectangular stadium would easily fit if the road was moved. An oval stadium would be tighter, but still fit:


That's a 130m x 160m oval, 232m x 236m stadium footprint (same as the figures given for Macquarie Point), still leaving heaps of room for a concourse and moving the road without encroaching on the park.

The effort involved for this site would logically not be deemed worthy of a rectangular stadium, as it would not alter the number of local professional teams. Hence such proposals have never got off the ground.

The effort involved for an oval stadium on this site would be necessary, however, if the objective is to add a silver bullet to Canberra's bid for at least two new professional teams (one AFL, one BBL).

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Wonder if anywhere in this screenshot would be worth it.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Your memory is incorrect. A rectangular stadium would easily fit if the road was moved. An oval stadium would be tighter, but still fit:
View attachment 1982807

That's a 130m x 160m oval, 232m x 236m stadium footprint (same as the figures given for Macquarie Point), still leaving heaps of room for a concourse and moving the road without encroaching on the park.

The effort involved for this site would logically not be deemed worthy of a rectangular stadium, as it would not alter the number of local professional teams. Hence such proposals have never got off the ground.

The effort involved for an oval stadium on this site would be necessary, however, if the objective is to add a silver bullet to Canberra's bid for at least two new professional teams (one AFL, one BBL).

Canberra and Hobart are very different towns. A multi-use stadium makes for a less enjoyable experience for league/union/soccer fans, and they are the current full-time stakeholders (assuming the A-League team enters 2024/25).

Yes, it would be nice to have a city stadium, and it would strengthen our bid. But if I were a betting man, I'd put money on a 20th team playing at Manuka ahead of a multi-use stadium at Civic.

View attachment 1983021


Wonder if anywhere in this screenshot would be worth it.

If you move the screen just above the word Griffith, you'll see Manuka Oval.

Unless we're miraculously included in Civic, it's the most central we'll get an AFL stadium and better placed than any of the green area in the screenshot.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Canberra and Hobart are very different towns. A multi-use stadium makes for a less enjoyable experience for league/union/soccer fans, and they are the current full-time stakeholders (assuming the A-League team enters 2024/25).

Yes, it would be nice to have a city stadium, and it would strengthen our bid. But if I were a betting man, I'd put money on a 20th team playing at Manuka ahead of a multi-use stadium at Civic.



If you move the screen just above the word Griffith, you'll see Manuka Oval.

Unless we're miraculously included in Civic, it's the most central we'll get an AFL stadium and better placed than any of the green area in the screenshot.

Hmmm.

I was trying to think of a way to have it built somewhere fresh instead of redoing somewhere existing or favouring centrality over something new.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Perhaps any of the verdant spots would be better for a training base.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Just thinking.

Could the next 3-4 years be spent considering the pros and cons for spots and a thesis be knocked up at the end of it?

Perhaps this could help appease the public.

Perhaps use this time to make considerations on those places and be somewhat movable on any compromises?

You don't want another Tassie where one or 2 of the criteria become sticking points and becomes this vs that where a stalemate might be reached.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Suspect extreme insincerity of anybody who downplays the significance of a 23k-capacity roofed stadium in the CBD. Such an investment would not merely "strengthen" a bid for an AFL team, it would take the bid's chance of approval from near-zero to a sure thing.

Up until about a year ago, there was no meaningful difference between Hobart and Canberra, in terms of meeting requirements for an AFL licence. Now there's one meaningful difference.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Suspect extreme insincerity of anybody who downplays the significance of a 23k-capacity roofed stadium in the CBD. Such an investment would not merely "strengthen" a bid for an AFL team, it would take the bid's chance of approval from near-zero to a sure thing.

Up until about a year ago, there was no meaningful difference between Hobart and Canberra, in terms of meeting requirements for an AFL licence. Now there's one meaningful difference.

Nobody's downplaying the significance a roofed oval stadium in the CBD would have for a Canberra team.

It's just not likely that it will happen.

You're completely ignoring the nuances between Hobart and Canberra.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Hmmm.

I was trying to think of a way to have it built somewhere fresh instead of redoing somewhere existing or favouring centrality over something new.

I think centrality is importantly for a stadium. Transport connections, pubs, restaurants etc. The lack of those are the main complaints of Bruce.

Look at the crowds difference between Footy Park and Adelaide Oval. Location can definitely make a difference.

Personally, I'm not fazed where they train. I assume it'll be a redeveloped Phillip Oval, but a new ground would also be fine for that.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Nobody's downplaying the significance a roofed oval stadium in the CBD would have for a Canberra team.

It's just not likely that it will happen.

You're completely ignoring the nuances between Hobart and Canberra.

The AFL and club presidents aren't going to care about the nuances when weighing up support for the 20th team. The conditions for Canberra will be the same for Hobart. If anything in this thread is being ignored, it's that, by you.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Personally, I'm not fazed where they train. I assume it'll be a redeveloped Phillip Oval, but a new ground would also be fine for that.

A redeveloped Phillip Oval would be worth something.

Not sure why there's a bus depot just off the ground.

Can relocate that somewhere else to cater for the redevelopment of the ground.

Can do likewise with any other adjacent businesses or notables.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Interview with Andrew Demetriou on SEN Breakfast this morning about the establishment of a new NT AFL taskforce to try and secure the 20th license. The taskforce will consist of Demetriou, Nathan Buckley, Andrew McLeod

Andrew Mcleod

Age

47

Ht

181cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.8

5star

K

13.1

5star

HB

6.7

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

2.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

10.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

1.0

1star

T

1.6

4star

, head of AFLNT and members of the territory government.

During the interview, Andrew discussed the decline of indigenous draftees in recent years, the potential for the federal government to get involved with funding due to the positive social impacts associated with sport, as well as the Northern Aus concept previously discussed (encompassing Darwin, Cairns and Alice).

As unpopular as this proposal might be on here, it seems to have a lot of momentum at the moment.

 

[Bjo187]

Interview with Andrew Demetriou on SEN Breakfast this morning about the establishment of a new NT AFL taskforce to try and secure the 20th license. The taskforce will consist of Demetriou, Nathan Buckley, Andrew McLeod, head of AFLNT and members of the territory government.

During the interview, Andrew discussed the decline of indigenous draftees in recent years, the potential for the federal government to get involved with funding due to the positive social impacts associated with sport, as well as the Northern Aus concept previously discussed (encompassing Darwin, Cairns and Alice).

As unpopular as this proposal might be on here, it seems to have a lot of momentum at the moment.

Ffs that's some heavy hitters.

 

[Coolangatta]

Interview with Andrew Demetriou on SEN Breakfast this morning about the establishment of a new NT AFL taskforce to try and secure the 20th license. The taskforce will consist of Demetriou, Nathan Buckley, Andrew McLeod, head of AFLNT and members of the territory government.

During the interview, Andrew discussed the decline of indigenous draftees in recent years, the potential for the federal government to get involved with funding due to the positive social impacts associated with sport, as well as the Northern Aus concept previously discussed (encompassing Darwin, Cairns and Alice).

As unpopular as this proposal might be on here, it seems to have a lot of momentum at the moment.

If you listen to that, it's clear that Demetriou hasn't looked that closely into the cons. He isn't even aware of the climate issues ffs.

But it's interesting in regards to NA that it'd basically be Darwin/Cairns/Alice. Townsville and Mackay don't ever get mentioned so I doubt they'd be a part of it. You think it'd be 7-3-1 if 11 home games, 7-4-1 if we go to 12 home games per club.

It's interesting that he mentioned perhaps conferences.

You feel like if NT/NA does get up as team 20, that could be it, but if there's a conference model, it leaves the door open for expansion beyond 20 teams, and that's the only way the ACT are ever gonna have any hope of getting a team if they aren't the 20th.

I have suspected for a while now that the AFL's preference is NT/NA over ACT/WA3/SA3 for the 20th team but preference and viability are two completely different matters altogether.

But then what happens if the feds do commit billions of dollars of funding to it?

 

[Coolangatta]

I just don't see how you could have games in Darwin or Cairns in March and April.

I'd go with 3 Alice games, then 3 Adelaide games (including GR) for an NT side, with the rest of their home games in Darwin from May onwards.

For NQ, 2 Townsville games, then a Mackay game, then off to Adelaide for 3 games (including GR), with the rest of their home games in Cairns from May onwards.

But Canberra first, then do NT and NQ for teams 21 and 22 if we commit the cardinal sin of going beyond 20.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I had thought that WA3 would be Team 20, as it’s a less riskier option (at least in the short to medium term) for an AFL that is still financially supporting some clubs in the expansion markets and Victoria. WA3 is in an AFL heartland, and would result in 6 local derbies as well as less interstate travel for WA teams and greater usage of Optus stadium.

However, with the AFL CEO and the WAFC not interested in WA3, I had thought ACT would be the logical alternative as Team 20 - despite the lack of a visible grassroots campaign, stadium issues and our budgetary constraints due to Barr’s Trams.

I am surprised that with ACT so much superior to NT and Northern Australia (NA) in many metrics, that so much influential people are lobbying for NT/NA as Team 20.

I get it if WA3 is chosen as Team 20, but NT/NA over ACT?

 

[glengowan]

With regards to the climate in Darwin, is the main reason football is played from March-October more because cricket can't be played in the wet season? Would the dry season actually suit professional football more, given they'd have sprinklers to maintain a decent surface etc.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The AFL and club presidents aren't going to care about the nuances when weighing up support for the 20th team. The conditions for Canberra will be the same for Hobart. If anything in this thread is being ignored, it's that, by you.

Tasmania and Team 20 are completely different circumstances.

It's crap that Tasmania had to jump through so many hoops. But the AFL didn't want to expand, and they wouldn't have if Tasmania hadn't jumped through those hoops.

But a 20th team will be sought after. Fair or not, the hoops won't be the same for Tasmania and whoever comes in as Team 20 (unless it's somewhere ridiculous like Darwin or Cairns who'll need air-conditioned stadiums).

 

[Canary]

Honeslty the so-called climate issues are a pro for an NT team. Creates a genuine home ground advantage which gives them a competitive edge - no-one complains that GC seems to play Darwin better than any other team. As for the time of year, yeah you could probably avoid playing Darwin games too early - maybe one in April - but otherwise starting with 1 or 2 in Alice before a stretch in Darwin.