20th AFL Team

[Bjo187]

NT conditions are ******* horrible. Would need to play in a fridge.

If they didn't provide a ball to players that's like a soap sud when it gets wet, it wouldn't be as big of an issue. In saying that, seeing tonight, the conditions, the s**t crowd, just makes me even more sure n.t would be a disaster.

 

[Canberra Pear]

If they didn't provide a ball to players that's like a soap sud when it gets wet, it wouldn't be as big of an issue. In saying that, seeing tonight, the conditions, the s**t crowd, just makes me even more sure n.t would be a disaster.

I'm no NT expert, but this is the dry season, right? So it's still the best the weather gets?

People cite the NT's expected national popularity as an upside for a 20th team, but their home games aren't going to be very watchable.

 

[Roylion]

It’s been explained to you repeatedly that

1. AFL has the legal power to revoke licenses

Which bit of "Yes they do", didn't you understand?

What they don't have is the power to arbitrarily relocate or merge a club, without said club's consent.

Even an AFL commission decision to revoke a licence can be overturned by a two thirds majority of stakeholders (i.e the clubs)

Thereby

3. AFL has the legal ability to lower funding for smaller Vic clubs as the funding model is tailored and voluntary on the AFLs behalf

The AFL could reduce the funding to small Vic clubs whilst simultaneously transferring that funding (and more) to any team that relocated to NT or elsewhere

Yes, they could. Irrespective of that, they do not have the power relocate or merge a club without the consent of the club, under whatever terms of the club's constitution mandate for such approval.

Persisting with the idea that the smaller Vic clubs are ‘safe’ from relocating or loss of licence and demoting to the VFL is factually incorrect

You suggested that you weren't confident that "NM finances would hold up if/when they are still a bottom 4 side 3,4,5 years from now".

I pointed out that they were debt free and that $17 million poured into North's admin and training base at Arden Street since 2018 had meant they have AFL quality training facilities. Added to that they have record membership in 2023, assets of $19.2 million and have also twelve consecutive annual profits. If the level of AFL distribution continues to be maintained, and there is no suggestion that it won't be, then North Melbourne is certain to be in a solid financial position as their level of assets continues to build, even if they remain close to the bottom of the ladder.

There is no AFL appetite to relocate any Melbourne based team and hence, (combined with the above) there is no reason to suggest that North Melbourne's finances will be any worse "in 3,4,5 years from now", even if they remain close to the bottom of the ladder.

Likewise is the idea that they are profitable… when in fact they are being propped up by the AFL

Debt free is the most significant metric.

The AFL… if it wishes… can legally reduce the number of Vic clubs

The league has a duty to its incumbent clubs to look after their interests to a significant extent. No Victorian club is going to the wall while the AFL rakes in money.

If the AFL cuts North's funding to force an expulsion, that will be legally challenged - especially if the same rules aren't then applied to clubs like the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and GWS. Three of those clubs aren't controlled by the league and they are also likely to vote against North's licence being revoked. It sets a dangerous precedent and of course they'd be next on the chopping block.

Moreover clubs challenging explusion due to financial rules in the courts has historical precedent - South Sydney were removed from the NRL and eventually won the right to re-enter the competition. In 1989, when the VFL attempted to remove the Footscray Football Club's licence to compete in the VFL competition, they were slapped with a Supreme Court injunction, claiming that the then VFL had exceeded its powers to force a merger.

The AFL won't want that can of worms opened.

So my original post stands… that NM or the Saints would be wise to attach themselves to a market like NT

It's not going to involve a relocation to that market. Boards are conscious of the wishes of their members and no Victorian club board, elected by their members will accept a relocation where they will be playing in front of their Melbourne based members 4-5 times a season, if they relocate.

Any Vic team that relocated to NT would be safer than here in Melbourne

It won't happen. The club's supporter base will oppose it vehemently in the public arena and in the courts if necessary. We saw that in 1989. The AFL won't want the negative publicity and uproar.

I'd expect to see a 20th AFL club sometime in the next decade.

 

[Bjo187]

Which bit of "Yes they do", didn't you understand?

What they don't have is the power to arbitrarily relocate or merge a club, without said club's consent.

Even an AFL commission decision to revoke a licence can be overturned by a two thirds majority of stakeholders (i.e the clubs)


Yes, they could. Irrespective of that, they do not have the power relocate or merge a club without the consent of the club, under whatever terms of the club's constitution mandate for such approval.


You suggested that you weren't confident that "NM finances would hold up if/when they are still a bottom 4 side 3,4,5 years from now".

I pointed out that they were debt free and that $17 million poured into North's admin and training base at Arden Street since 2018 had meant they have AFL quality training facilities. Added to that they have record membership in 2023, assets of $19.2 million and have also twelve consecutive annual profits. If the level of AFL distribution continues to be maintained, and there is no suggestion that it won't be, then North Melbourne is certain to be in a solid financial position as their level of assets continues to build, even if they remain close to the bottom of the ladder.

There is no AFL appetite to relocate any Melbourne based team and hence, (combined with the above) there is no reason to suggest that North Melbourne's finances will be any worse "in 3,4,5 years from now", even if they remain close to the bottom of the ladder.



Debt free is the most significant metric.

The league has a duty to its incumbent clubs to look after their interests to a significant extent. No Victorian club is going to the wall while the AFL rakes in money.

If the AFL cuts North's funding to force an expulsion, that will be legally challenged - especially if the same rules aren't then applied to clubs like the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and GWS. Three of those clubs aren't controlled by the league and they are also likely to vote against North's licence being revoked. It sets a dangerous precedent and of course they'd be next on the chopping block.

Moreover clubs challenging explusion due to financial rules in the courts has historical precedent - South Sydney were removed from the NRL and eventually won the right to re-enter the competition. In 1989, when the VFL attempted to remove the Footscray Football Club's licence to compete in the VFL competition, they were slapped with a Supreme Court injunction, claiming that the then VFL had exceeded its powers to force a merger.

The AFL won't want that can of worms opened.



It's not going to involve a relocation to that market. Boards are conscious of the wishes of their members and no Victorian club board, elected by their members will accept a relocation where they will be playing in front of their Melbourne based members 4-5 times a season, if they relocate.



It won't happen. The club's supporter base will oppose it vehemently in the public arena and in the courts if necessary. We saw that in 1989. The AFL won't want the negative publicity and uproar.

I'd expect to see a 20th AFL club sometime in the next decade.

Can the clubs vote for a relocation of a club?

 

[Outtatym]

Can the clubs vote for a relocation of a club?

Nope

 

[whiskeytown]

Can the clubs vote for a relocation of a club?

AFL can achieve it informally by cutting funding to a club and incentivising the relocation

Something a couple of the slow learning nongs on here can’t get there heads around is that… if the AFL wants it to happen, it will happen or clubs will end up unviable and playing VFL

 

[Roylion]

AFL can achieve it informally by cutting funding to a club

There are problems with that as I have already described above

and incentivising the relocation

The AFL incentivised a relocation to the Gold Coast for North Melbourne in 2008. Did it happen?

Something a couple of the slow learning nongs on here can’t get there heads around is that… if the AFL wants it to happen, it will happen or clubs will end up unviable and playing VFL

The AFL wanted a Fitzroy-Footscray merger. It didn't happen.

Footscray's licence to compete in the VFL was terminated on the 3rd October 1989. Footscray supporters immediately began a legal response against the merger. Irene Chatfield won a stay of proceedings against the merger in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Under the stay, the club needed to raise $1,500,000 (later increased to $1,800,000) and prove its viability by 25 October to have its VFL licence restored.

The AFL wanted North Melbourne to relocate to the Gold Coast. It also didn't happen.

They couldn't even merge Fitzroy properly. They still exist in their own right in Melbourne.

 

[Roylion]

Can the clubs vote for a relocation of a club?

Against their will? No.

The AFL's constitution says in Clause 24:

"The Commission may grant an entity the status of a Club and the right to representation on AFL and may:

a) relocate the playing, administration and social base of a Club
b) recognise implement and adopt the merger of two or more Clubs

with the consent of the Club or Clubs involved."

Clause 27 says that any Commission decision may be reversed by two thirds of the 18 Appointees (Clubs) at a general meeting of the AFL requisitioned by three Appointees (Clubs) within 14 days of the Commission decision.

 

[Bjo187]

Against their will? No.

The AFL's constitution says in Clause 24:

"The Commission may grant an entity the status of a Club and the right to representation on AFL and may:

a) relocate the playing, administration and social base of a Club
b) recognise implement and adopt the merger of two or more Clubs

with the consent of the Clubs or Clubs involved."

Clause 27 says that any Commission decision may be reversed by two thirds of the 18 Appointees (Clubs) at a general meeting of the AFL requisitioned by three Appointees (Clubs) within 14 days of the Commission decision.

Doesn't that read as though it's possible though. With consent of 'the clubs' or 'the clubs involved', not and the clubs involved.

So say 17 clubs out of 18 vote for a club to be relocated, that reads to me it's possible, unless I'm interpreting it wrong.

 

[Roylion]

Doesn't that read as though it's possible though. With consent of 'the clubs' or 'the clubs involved', not and the clubs involved.

Just rechecked the wording. It should read “Club” not “clubs”.

“with the consent of the Club or Clubs involved."

Altered.

 

[glengowan]

How about Southport as the 20th team? Go all in on the Gold Coast and at the same time use these teams as expansion teams into Northern Territory and Northern Queensland. Their football club already well established and a stadium already built on the Gold Coast.

Gold Coast to continue it's work in the NT. 8 home games in the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Darwin and a 4th "neutral" game in Darwin or Alice Springs against the Crows, who have the Gather Round as a home game.

Southport to establish a home away from home in Cairns. 8 home games on the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Cairns and a 4th "neutral" game in Cairns, Townsville or Mackay against Port Power, who also have the Gather Round as a home ticketed game.

Could rebrand as Gold Coast NT Suns Football Club and Southport NQLD Sharks Football Club.

 

[Canberra Pear]

How about Southport as the 20th team? Go all in on the Gold Coast and at the same time use these teams as expansion teams into Northern Territory and Northern Queensland. Their football club already well established and a stadium already built on the Gold Coast.

Gold Coast to continue it's work in the NT. 8 home games in the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Darwin and a 4th "neutral" game in Darwin or Alice Springs against the Crows, who have the Gather Round as a home game.

Southport to establish a home away from home in Cairns. 8 home games on the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Cairns and a 4th "neutral" game in Cairns, Townsville or Mackay against Port Power, who also have the Gather Round as a home ticketed game.

Could rebrand as Gold Coast NT Suns Football Club and Southport NQLD Sharks Football Club.

So two teams half-arsing it on the Gold Coast and splitting support?

 

[BigChippa52]

How about Southport as the 20th team? Go all in on the Gold Coast and at the same time use these teams as expansion teams into Northern Territory and Northern Queensland. Their football club already well established and a stadium already built on the Gold Coast.

Gold Coast to continue it's work in the NT. 8 home games in the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Darwin and a 4th "neutral" game in Darwin or Alice Springs against the Crows, who have the Gather Round as a home game.

Southport to establish a home away from home in Cairns. 8 home games on the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Cairns and a 4th "neutral" game in Cairns, Townsville or Mackay against Port Power, who also have the Gather Round as a home ticketed game.

Could rebrand as Gold Coast NT Suns Football Club and Southport NQLD Sharks Football Club.

should have just been Southport from the start

 

[Coolangatta]

How about Southport as the 20th team? Go all in on the Gold Coast and at the same time use these teams as expansion teams into Northern Territory and Northern Queensland. Their football club already well established and a stadium already built on the Gold Coast.

Gold Coast to continue it's work in the NT. 8 home games in the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Darwin and a 4th "neutral" game in Darwin or Alice Springs against the Crows, who have the Gather Round as a home game.

Southport to establish a home away from home in Cairns. 8 home games on the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Cairns and a 4th "neutral" game in Cairns, Townsville or Mackay against Port Power, who also have the Gather Round as a home ticketed game.

Could rebrand as Gold Coast NT Suns Football Club and Southport NQLD Sharks Football Club.

It's not too late for the Suns to rebrand as the Sharks in a merger with Southport. Would almost guarantee their financial viability.

Red, gold and blue with a shark jumping out of the water against the backdrop of a sun on their jumper.

I do like your idea of incorporating the top end as secondary markets, but I'd rather do it through a top end round since we will go to 24 games.

A round of footy up north with 4 games in Darwin, 1 in Alice Springs, 3 in Cairns, and 1 each in Townsville and Mackay. That's five games of footy per year for NT and NQ.

ACT as team 20, with maybe the Saints playing a game or two in Albury/Wagga if the Auckland ground doesn't work out.

Roos play 2 in Bendigo, Dogs keep 2 in Ballarat, and if you could somehow convince the Hawks to play a game or two in Newcastle and Dees to play one at the Sunshine Coast, you could test two new markets.

Giants should go all in on Sydney after 2032 and the Suns should eventually leave Darwin and play all their home games at the Gold Coast if they ever do something like a top end round.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Southport are only relevant because of ridiculous pokies money. Not exactly the base in which to form an AFL team.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

AFL can achieve it informally by cutting funding to a club and incentivising the relocation

Something a couple of the slow learning nongs on here can’t get there heads around is that… if the AFL wants it to happen, it will happen or clubs will end up unviable and playing VFL

But this would never happen, because the AFL would have no justification for it. The distribution is almost entirely made up of North's near-equal contribution to the value of the TV deal, their contribution to central AFL revenue (AFL membership, signage at Docklands, etc) and an equity payment for not given blockbuster fixtures like Anzac day etc.

If the AFL ever sincerely wanted to cut funds for the sake of cutting funds, there are plenty of other ways that they can save literal millions (such as the various ways that they develop U18 competitions, run a national championships etc) that don't have to be as expensive to run as they currently are.

 

[Bjo187]

Southport are only relevant because of ridiculous pokies money. Not exactly the base in which to form an AFL team.

I think it's a pretty good base, significant revenue, a hotel, better location, it's how most clubs run up in nsw and qld.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

AFL have the power to revoke licenses

NM, St Kilda and WB need to keep in the black financially and not spend years on the bottom of the ladder… or they become susceptible to ultimatums regarding licensing I.e relocation or move to the VFL

You confident NM finances will hold up if/when they are still a bottom 4 side 3,4,5 years from now ? I wouldn’t be

Eddie talks a lot but serves as the mouthpiece for AFL presidents.

The interstate presidents wouldn’t give a rats about NM, St Kilda or WB relocating or having their license revoked

there’s 8 of 17 other clubs… add in a Vic based club or two who figure they’ll absorb more of the fans, draft pool etc from having less Vic clubs… suddenly a majority of the comp is asking the AFL action to reduce Vic teams

And… NM especially is in a precarious position going forward.

FWIW I’ve got nothing against NM

Of the two I’d sooner see the Saints relocate or merge with the hawks

And when have the AFL revoked licenses previously? Having the power to do something and actually doing it are two entirely different things. Rival leagues all across Australia are in expansion mode, the AFL is hardly going to start contracting its number of clubs and reducing their capacity to sell more content to broadcasters. Furthermore, NM is debt free and has had record membership the past few years (despite being s**t). There’s no unrepresented community/region in the country that would be more sustainable than NM and be a chance to get anywhere near 50k members, so talk of relocation (like most of the speculations in your post) is just nonsense.

 

[Walshawk]

How about Southport as the 20th team? Go all in on the Gold Coast and at the same time use these teams as expansion teams into Northern Territory and Northern Queensland. Their football club already well established and a stadium already built on the Gold Coast.

Gold Coast to continue it's work in the NT. 8 home games in the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Darwin and a 4th "neutral" game in Darwin or Alice Springs against the Crows, who have the Gather Round as a home game.

Southport to establish a home away from home in Cairns. 8 home games on the Gold Coast, 3 home games in Cairns and a 4th "neutral" game in Cairns, Townsville or Mackay against Port Power, who also have the Gather Round as a home ticketed game.

Could rebrand as Gold Coast NT Suns Football Club and Southport NQLD Sharks Football Club.

Southport wouldn’t have 1000 fans. Pass.

 

[whiskeytown]

But this would never happen, because the AFL would have no justification for it. The distribution is almost entirely made up of North's near-equal contribution to the value of the TV deal, their contribution to central AFL revenue (AFL membership, signage at Docklands, etc) and an equity payment for not given blockbuster fixtures like Anzac day etc.

If the AFL ever sincerely wanted to cut funds for the sake of cutting funds, there are plenty of other ways that they can save literal millions (such as the various ways that they develop U18 competitions, run a national championships etc) that don't have to be as expensive to run as they currently are.

Money will need to be raised for an NT team

Some of this will come from governments, expanding TV rights deal, sponsors, etc

The AFL is responsible for the rest

They could raise tickets and merch prices to a degree before it hurts demand

And cutting money for academies, development, marketing etc is counterproductive

Alternatively they can legally cut the 130-140mill they are putting into Vic clubs by 10-15% across the board… generating significant annual funds for a NT team

They have the legal right to do this

This will immediately hurt the bottom line of a handful of vic clubs with NM, Saints and Dogs being most vulnerable

Those gloating about NM being in profit and debt free have no idea that that is all contingent on the club receiving 19-20mill a season…

Cut that money 10-15% and they start haemorrhaging money

Their existence at AFL level is entirely at the behest of the AFL funding model being overly generous to them

Which in my opinion will change once an NT team comes in… now that the AFL have essentially ruled out Canberra as Giants territory and downplayed the prospect of a 3rd team in Perth… the NT or Northern Australia team becomes the only real prospect for team 20

If NM had any brains they get in on that NT team and relocate on terms that are preferable and beneficial rather than dying a slow death once the Vic team’s funding is reduced

 

[Roylion]

Money will need to be raised for an NT team

The AFL's not running out of money, that it needs to make cuts to raise money for a possible 20th team, which is unlikely before 2031 at the earliest. In September 2022 the AFL signed a seven year $4.5 billion TV rights deal to run between 2025 and 2031.

The TV rights deal is worth $643 million a season - an upgrade on the $473 million per season under the terms of the current two-year deal that ends after the 2024 season.

So there's going to be an extra $170 million per year in AFL coffers for the next seven years. Approximately $115 million was given out in extra AFL distributions to clubs above the base level in 2023.

North Melbourne received $8.6 million more than West Coast in 2023, but not as much as GWS, Gold Coast, Brisbane and St Kilda. There's no reason to think that AFL distributions will be reduced or cut to any club for any reason, other than a lack of need as club's financial positions improve.

Alternatively they can legally cut the 130-140mill they are putting into Vic clubs by 10-15% across the board… generating significant annual funds for a NT team

There is no proposal for a 20th team to enter the AFL before 2031 at the earliest. If and when that does happen we can expect the next TV rights deal to be even more lucrative given there will be ten matches per week to broadcast, instead of the current nine.

Those gloating about NM being in profit and debt free have no idea that that is all contingent on the club receiving 19-20mill a season…

All clubs receive at least $15 million per year from the AFL. The lowest amount in 2023 was West Coast which received $15.711 million

Cut that money 10-15% and they start haemorrhaging money

There's no reason to "cut that money".

Which in my opinion will change once an NT team comes in…

That won't be until 2031 at the very least. And there's no absolute guarantee that 20th team will be from the NT. Yes I know there's a business plan being put together for a 20th team.

If NM had any brains they get in on that NT team and relocate on terms that are preferable and beneficial rather than dying a slow death once the Vic team’s funding is reduced

If North Melbourne rejected a lucrative AFL offer to go to the Gold Coast in 2008, they're not going to go to the NT. Their members, shareholders and board know the future for their Melbourne based supporters, if that happens. 4-5 games per year in Melbourne at the most and effectively AFL ownership of their club to do with as they will.

 

[Puddy]

Darwin doesn't start getting really humid until November.

Their dry seasons are a bit muggy but not hugely so

 

[whiskeytown]

The AFL's not running out of money, that it needs to make cuts to raise money for a possible 20th team, which is unlikely before 2031 at the earliest. In September 2022 the AFL signed a seven year $4.5 billion TV rights deal to run between 2025 and 2031.

The TV rights deal is worth $643 million a season - an upgrade on the $473 million per season under the terms of the current two-year deal that ends after the 2024 season.

So there's going to be an extra $170 million per year in AFL coffers for the next seven years. Approximately $115 million was given out in extra AFL distributions to clubs above the base level in 2023.

North Melbourne received $8.6 million more than West Coast in 2023, but not as much as GWS, Gold Coast, Brisbane and St Kilda. There's no reason to think that AFL distributions will be reduced or cut to any club for any reason, other than a lack of need as club's financial positions improve.



There is no proposal for a 20th team to enter the AFL before 2031 at the earliest. If and when that does happen we can expect the next TV rights deal to be even more lucrative given there will be ten matches per week to broadcast, instead of the current nine.


All clubs receive at least $15 million per year from the AFL. The lowest amount in 2023 was West Coast which received $15.711 million


There's no reason to "cut that money".


That won't be until 2031 at the very least. And there's no absolute guarantee that 20th team will be from the NT. Yes I know there's a business plan being put together for a 20th team.



If North Melbourne rejected a lucrative AFL offer to go to the Gold Coast in 2008, they're not going to go to the NT. Their members, shareholders and board know the future for their Melbourne based supporters, if that happens. 4-5 games per year in Melbourne at the most and effectively AFL ownership of their club to do with as they will.

You’re wrong on several fronts

- Several clubs received 11mill or so from AFL in 2023

- GC and Giants money wouldn’t be cut because they are growth markets

- NT team is tipped to run at a far greater loss than Suns and Giants

- NM in AFL sights clearly as they’ve twice been encouraged to relocate to GC and TAS whilst Saints haven’t

- models for a 20th team vary from standalone, combined NT and North Queensland team… and a relocated Melbourne team.

This is being spoke of already as the bottom of this article states

AFL 2024: Northern Territory steps up its push to be the AFL’s 20th club after Tasmania Devils join; Gold Coast Suns; Melbourne Demons

amp.theage.com.au

Honestly, I don’t rate your opinion or your knowledge on the matter

You seem emotionally invested in the topic moreso than logically or factually aware

 

[Roylion]

You’re wrong on several fronts

- Several clubs received 11mill or so from AFL in 2023

I'm well aware of what each received. Where do you think I got the figures I quoted earlier?

- GC and Giants money wouldn’t be cut because they are growth markets

Of course not. Where did I suggest that?

- NT team is tipped to run at a far greater loss than Suns and Giants

North Melbourne won't touch that with a bargepole.

- NM in AFL sights clearly as they’ve twice been encouraged to relocate to GC and TAS whilst Saints haven’t

They received an AFL offer to relocate to the Gold Coast, which was rejected. A possible relocation to Tasmania was media speculation, after the business case for Tasmania was released, canvassing the possibility of a relocated Melbourne club. North was playing four games in Tasmania already. St Kilda wasn't.

Ben Amarfio had to come out strongly in 2022 stating: "Our footy club has been in North Melbourne for over 150 years. We are invested in staying at Arden Street and looking forward to being an active participant with the Victorian government and the City of Melbourne in the exciting development going on in this precinct."

- models for a 20th team vary from standalone, combined NT and North Queensland team… and a relocated Melbourne team.

This is being spoke of already as the bottom of this article states

AFL 2024: Northern Territory steps up its push to be the AFL’s 20th club after Tasmania Devils join; Gold Coast Suns; Melbourne Demons

amp.theage.com.au

Spoken of by who? The media?

The business case for Tasmania also detailed several possibilities for a club there, including a relocated club from Melbourne. What happened there?

Honestly, I don’t rate your opinion or your knowledge on the matter

Likewise.

You seem emotionally invested in the topic moreso than logically

I don't support North Melbourne. Paid up 2024 member of the Brisbane Lions and have been since 1997.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

It’s all a matter of funding

NT team would cost a lot but that can be mitigated by

• AFL cutting funding to other teams
• Feds putting money into a stadium to help set up
• Feds allocating money to team annually (as they give grants to the territories governments to bolster their revenue)

The AFL will be motivated to add a 20th team

or return the comp to 18 teams by relocating a heavily subsidised Melbourne club and better balancing out the competition

- the NT govt are motivated by what a team will generate in economic activity

- the Feds will be motivated by votes and populist appeal of NT team

And motivated by the prospect of a NT or Northern Australian club helping to address the social issues up there

Beyond the numbers… the NT have contributed just as much as TAS has to the national game

The AFL didn’t grant TAS a licence cause it was the the best economic thing to do

For similar reasons I think a NT or Northern Australia team gets a license at some point in the next 5 years

Glad you're not running the game.