20th AFL Team

[Cunnington Cartel]

The presence of any given AFL fan in Townsville or Mackay is both so miniscule and so distant from the actual ability to generate revenue for a Cairns-based team to be effectively meaningless. So a NQ team would have an academy and have players turn up to junior training a few times. How does that result in the AFL or some government body not having to fund the team tens of millions per year?

Keep in mind that there are a total of just 6 playing AFL clubs representing an entire region that you're claiming - ie there are just not many football players/fans in the area: https://websites.mygameday.app/comp_info.cgi?c=0-3393-0-637401-0&pool=1&a=LADDER

I agree, its got no chance in the short term, and a negligible chance in the medium-term. However, there are 24 clubs spread across the 4 main leagues in that NQ region. The entire Sunshine Coast only has 6 senior clubs and two of them play park footy on a Friday night, so that can hardly be considered an Aussie rules stronghold itself.

The fact of the matter is that any city/region that enters the comp from now on will have a funding gap (except perhaps a 3rd WA club, or Norwood in a few decades). Of the unrepresented areas, a Canberra club would have the smallest funding gap by far. However, all other options would be way behind the 8-ball and operating in the red to the tune of $15m+ per annum.

If expansion continues after #20 then we need to expect that licenses are going to non-traditional locations / smaller market teams in an effort to grow the game. If GWS fails in our largest city then it will be curtains for the future prospects of any potential small market clubs in Qld / NSW.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Me too. Surely 18 teams wouldn’t be enough if NSW and QLD had WA like interest in AFL. You’d have to have had conferences or promotion and relegation or two competing major leagues.

It’ll be interesting to see how the AFL does plan out future expansion 20-30 years from now, with the only slight comment for any timeframe of future expansion team by Dil (after Tasmania) is that NQ can happen in 10-15 years time (which won’t happen mind you).

Currently speaking, there are four main issues that the AFL is having and will continue to experience with future expansion:

1) Ratio between clubs in Victorian and in any other state / territory is far too great and clubs in Melbourne will continue having lesser travel loads compared to their counterparts elsewhere.

2) The Grand Final always being played at the MCG (until 2059 at earliest) regardless of ladder positioning of clubs resulting in Victorian clubs more likely to win than Non-Victorian teams.

3) Lack of merit for clubs finishing mid-table compared to the top and bottom echos, in relation to drafting and trading.

4) Lack of purpose for less-meaningful games between lower placed teams near the completion of the regular season, decreasing the entertainment factor of the competition. As well, the lack of praise given to clubs having constantly success without premiership glory is a bit of a concern (look at St. Kilda drought).

With this proposal that’s been planned recently by me, there would be a normal 22 rounds however 24 clubs would be part of this concept with less emphasis on Victoria (with 3 clubs being merged interstate) and more on the rest of the country.

While the ladder will continue being single-form (personally hate conferences), clubs would be broken up into three groupings depending on locations of the club, which are shown below:

VIC: Carlton Blues, Collingwood Magpies, Essendon Bombers, Geelong Cats, Hawthorn Hawks, Melbourne Demons, New Zealand Saints (merger of St. Kilda), Richmond Tigers

SA/WA: Adelaide Crows, Fremantle Dockers, Joondalup Bulldogs (merger of Footscray), Norwood Scorpions, Perth Sharks, Port Adelaide Power, Tasmania Devils, West Coast Eagles

NSW/QLD: Brisbane Lions, Canberra Kangaroos (merger of North Melbourne), Darwin-NT Wanderers, Gold Coast Suns, Newcastle Hunters, North Queensland Crocodiles, Sydney Swans, Western Sydney Giants

Each club would play everyone in their location grouping in home & away setting (14 matches) before playing four teams each in both of the other two conferences (8 matches) to result in 22 rounds (23 rounds + bye) with the following year allowing clubs to face the four clubs in the other groups they didn’t face season before (once every 4 years for home & away between each team).

As an example to this model, my Lions would face everyone in their NSW/QLD grouping and then hypothetically could play Carlton, Geelong, Melbourne, Richmond, Adelaide, Joondalup, Tasmania and West Coast before playing the other clubs that missed out (either home or away) the following season.

After the completion of the regular season, the Top 12 would play off in the finals for the Premiership, while the Bottom 12 would also play off in a Champions Plate (with trophy and cash prize) with both finals groups being played under two 6x team systems, which would work something like this simultaneously with Premiership finals having better time slots than Champions Plate ones:

Premiership

W1: A5 vs. A12 / A7 vs. A10
W2: A1 vs. A7 / A3 vs. A5
W3: A1 vs. A3

W1: A6 vs. A11 / A8 vs. A9
W2: A2 vs. A8 / A4 vs. A6
W3: A2 vs. A4

W4: A1 vs. A2

Champions Plate

W1: A17 vs. A24 / A19 vs. A22
W2: A13 vs. A19 / A15 vs. A17
W3: A13 vs. A15

W1: A18 vs. A23 / A20 vs. A21
W2: A14 vs. A20 / A16 vs. A18
W3: A14 vs. A16

W4: A13 vs. A14

Regarding the Premiership GF, it would be located in the home team state but played at the highest capacity stadium there (I.e: QLD clubs would play at GABBA while NSW/ACT played at SCG or Accor). This model however would mean all of the main stadiums in the 5 biggest cities would need redeveloping to 65-70k at minimum.

While with the Champions GF, it would be the same however for less populated cities like Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Newcastle and Cairns, they can be slight leeway to host GF there providing infrastructure is placed (25-30k) but otherwise same model applies for established clubs.

With having all clubs participating in two different finals with seperate trophies and prizes, this can help continue building competition between all clubs as late as possible in the season and help clubs celebrate success a lot more in having positive seasons or winning the Champions plate.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Yet Cairns/FNQ was in the AFL poll, not the Sunshine Coast. I think it's because SC is seen as an extension of Brisbane and their territory, while Cairns is far away removed from SE-Q and feels far more new and exotic. Also, the SC has never hosted an AFL game and until that changes, they'll never get a look in.

AFL polls don't mean anything.

Hot air or not, these AFL CEOs have just a tad more sway on expansion decisions than any of us do. Rightly or wrongly, Dillon sees way more potential in NQ than we do, and I could see it happening if Darwin ever happens.

Dillon can express whatever brainfarts he likes. When it comes time to actually make financial commitments, I'd bet good money that NQ isn't even a consideration because the AFL knows they'll never, ever make their money back. Cairns doesn't even have the feelgood factor of the NT getting its own team and isn't looked at as being as much of a boost to investment in Indigenous participation in sport.

 

[Coolangatta]

AFL polls don't mean anything.


Dillon can express whatever brainfarts he likes. When it comes time to actually make financial commitments, I'd bet good money that NQ isn't even a consideration because the AFL knows they'll never, ever make their money back. Cairns doesn't even have the feelgood factor of the NT getting its own team and isn't looked at as being as much of a boost to investment in Indigenous participation in sport.

They won't determine where team 20 is, but it says something about the discussions going on, IMO.

If they know that, then why the CEO brainfart? Are you saying he's out of touch with AFL HQ?

 

[Coolangatta]

It’ll be interesting to see how the AFL does plan out future expansion 20-30 years from now, with the only slight comment for any timeframe of future expansion team by Dil (after Tasmania) is that NQ can happen in 10-15 years time (which won’t happen mind you).

Currently speaking, there are four main issues that the AFL is having and will continue to experience with future expansion:

1) Ratio between clubs in Victorian and in any other state / territory is far too great and clubs in Melbourne will continue having lesser travel loads compared to their counterparts elsewhere.

2) The Grand Final always being played at the MCG (until 2059 at earliest) regardless of ladder positioning of clubs resulting in Victorian clubs more likely to win than Non-Victorian teams.

3) Lack of merit for clubs finishing mid-table compared to the top and bottom echos, in relation to drafting and trading.

4) Lack of purpose for less-meaningful games between lower placed teams near the completion of the regular season, decreasing the entertainment factor of the competition. As well, the lack of praise given to clubs having constantly success without premiership glory is a bit of a concern (look at St. Kilda drought).

With this proposal that’s been planned recently by me, there would be a normal 22 rounds however 24 clubs would be part of this concept with less emphasis on Victoria (with 3 clubs being merged interstate) and more on the rest of the country.

While the ladder will continue being single-form (personally hate conferences), clubs would be broken up into three groupings depending on locations of the club, which are shown below:

VIC: Carlton Blues, Collingwood Magpies, Essendon Bombers, Geelong Cats, Hawthorn Hawks, Melbourne Demons, New Zealand Saints (merger of St. Kilda), Richmond Tigers

SA/WA: Adelaide Crows, Fremantle Dockers, Joondalup Bulldogs (merger of Footscray), Norwood Scorpions, Perth Sharks, Port Adelaide Power, Tasmania Devils, West Coast Eagles

NSW/QLD: Brisbane Lions, Canberra Kangaroos (merger of North Melbourne), Darwin-NT Wanderers, Gold Coast Suns, Newcastle Hunters, North Queensland Crocodiles, Sydney Swans, Western Sydney Giants

Each club would play everyone in their location grouping in home & away setting (14 matches) before playing four teams each in both of the other two conferences (8 matches) to result in 22 rounds (23 rounds + bye) with the following year allowing clubs to face the four clubs in the other groups they didn’t face season before (once every 4 years for home & away between each team).

As an example to this model, my Lions would face everyone in their NSW/QLD grouping and then hypothetically could play Carlton, Geelong, Melbourne, Richmond, Adelaide, Joondalup, Tasmania and West Coast before playing the other clubs that missed out (either home or away) the following season.

After the completion of the regular season, the Top 12 would play off in the finals for the Premiership, while the Bottom 12 would also play off in a Champions Plate (with trophy and cash prize) with both finals groups being played under two 6x team systems, which would work something like this simultaneously with Premiership finals having better time slots than Champions Plate ones:

Premiership

W1: A5 vs. A12 / A7 vs. A10
W2: A1 vs. A7 / A3 vs. A5
W3: A1 vs. A3

W1: A6 vs. A11 / A8 vs. A9
W2: A2 vs. A8 / A4 vs. A6
W3: A2 vs. A4

W4: A1 vs. A2

Champions Plate

W1: A17 vs. A24 / A19 vs. A22
W2: A13 vs. A19 / A15 vs. A17
W3: A13 vs. A15

W1: A18 vs. A23 / A20 vs. A21
W2: A14 vs. A20 / A16 vs. A18
W3: A14 vs. A16

W4: A13 vs. A14

Regarding the Premiership GF, it would be located in the home team state but played at the highest capacity stadium there (I.e: QLD clubs would play at GABBA while NSW/ACT played at SCG or Accor). This model however would mean all of the main stadiums in the 5 biggest cities would need redeveloping to 65-70k at minimum.

While with the Champions GF, it would be the same however for less populated cities like Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Newcastle and Cairns, they can be slight leeway to host GF there providing infrastructure is placed (25-30k) but otherwise same model applies for established clubs.

With having all clubs participating in two different finals with seperate trophies and prizes, this can help continue building competition between all clubs as late as possible in the season and help clubs celebrate success a lot more in having positive seasons or winning the Champions plate.

The rationalisation of Vic clubs would be necessary to avoid conferences should the game grow but unfortunately it's nigh on impossible to do that now.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

They won't determine where team 20 is, but it says something about the discussions going on, IMO.

If they know that, then why the CEO brainfart? Are you saying he's out of touch with AFL HQ?

I'm saying he expresses many things he wouldn't actually follow through on, likely as an attempt to build support for the game and generate media headlines.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I agree, its got no chance in the short term, and a negligible chance in the medium-term. However, there are 24 clubs spread across the 4 main leagues in that NQ region. The entire Sunshine Coast only has 6 senior clubs and two of them play park footy on a Friday night, so that can hardly be considered an Aussie rules stronghold itself.

The fact of the matter is that any city/region that enters the comp from now on will have a funding gap (except perhaps a 3rd WA club, or Norwood in a few decades). Of the unrepresented areas, a Canberra club would have the smallest funding gap by far. However, all other options would be way behind the 8-ball and operating in the red to the tune of $15m+ per annum.

If expansion continues after #20 then we need to expect that licenses are going to non-traditional locations / smaller market teams in an effort to grow the game. If GWS fails in our largest city then it will be curtains for the future prospects of any potential small market clubs in Qld / NSW.

And I would be against a Sunshine Coast team anyway.

Canberra would have a minimal funding gap if they had an upgraded stadium. They would average upwards of 20k per game, no reason to think average figures would be worse than the Raisers (probably better given the AFL's attendance culture and more travelling fans).

WA3 and SA3 as you point out would not have a gap.

Swans are selling out every game now. Lions are selling out every game now. Doesn't have to be a team there now, but in 20 years time if both teams have 20 years of selling out their stadiums you can see the idea of a game at the new Olympic Stadium/Upgraded Gabba and the SCG every week, rather than every second week, as appealing, as both teams are attracting young yuppie people-who-can-afford-the-cost-of-living types rather than rusted on footy supporters. Lions/Swans fans are much younger than in other states and the footy-enjoying population can be peeled off the existing supporter base in a way that's easier than in Perth or Adelaide.

As I've pointed out before, provided it's in a world class cricket stadium, Auckland isn't out of the question either.

The game can be "grown" by playing the odd game in the region, and funding youth developments and academies and senior competitions. Teams in regional areas will need tens of millions spent to be sustainable. On the other hand, you can run an entire senior comp and waive registration and junior fees with that same money, upgrade facilities and outbid other sports in renting grounds. A better way of developing the game I would have thought.

Placing any failure of GWS to wider NSW is a bit silly. The counterfactual of the growth of the Swans is an equal argument.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They won't determine where team 20 is, but it says something about the discussions going on, IMO.

If they know that, then why the CEO brainfart? Are you saying he's out of touch with AFL HQ?

Because the AFL will be in a much better position to understand the Canberra/GWS contract expiring in 2031 to understand what the future of both GWS and a Canberra team will be, at roughly the time that the Tassie team enters.

This lines up with the TV deal in 2031. The nature of the AFL's revenue generation might change from 2032 onward, and we'll have a much better idea of the media landscape in 2032, in 2028, than in 2024 (now).

It also gives the AFL time to work through a relationship with the WAFC over the next three years for the possibility of a third Perth team, even if unlikely.

The type of people busy with working on expansion will be busy enough with Tassie. Until then, 2027/2028, any discussion is just hot air. Common sense dictates that any team 20 will be in 2032, at the earliest, both because of the Canberra/GWS contract as well as the media rights deal. Having four or five years of 17 teams and weird byes is not the end of the world. Fixturing is not going to be significantly worse, despite some grumbling, than this year, with opening rounds, some teams getting two byes before other teams have one, etc. 17 teams will not be worse than that.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Canberra would have a minimal funding gap if they had an upgraded stadium. They would average upwards of 20k per game, no reason to think average figures would be worse than the Raisers (probably better given the AFL's attendance culture and more travelling fans).

WA3 and SA3 as you point out would not have a gap.

If Canberra had a funding gap, it would definitely be smaller than SA3. I would argue potentially smaller than WA3.

The ACT Government funds all local national league teams. The $2.85m to the Giants would likely get transferred straight to our own team.

The ACT Government initially gave the Giants Stadium perks (such as in-season naming rights and signage rights). There's a good chance they would do the same if it'd clinch the 20th license. Over 11 games, they'd equal a bit over $2m.

That's $5m a year that SA3 and WA3 aren't getting.

Playing in a smaller stadium also means lower costs. Optus needs north of 20k to breakeven.

That's all without going into the spending power of Canberrans.

 

[Run n Spread]

A team with 17-plus interstate trips every season. More than 50% more than the Perth teams. Absolutely brutal.

Just like plenty like playing in front of no one at gws and prefer anonymous lifestyles and a community so will plenty building north Australia. They will be pioneers. It's new original and needs to happen
What better opportunity for a young draftee.
Get grafted to a bottom club. Get monstered and defeated. Or play at a waste land?
Or go to the premiership club? Play 2 years without a game and be unceremoniously chucked on the dole queue without a game in the most expensive city in the world.
Or be paid a shit load to build a new life Nd community.
I know what I'd rather do. This needs to happen for the good of the sport and the country

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If Canberra had a funding gap, it would definitely be smaller than SA3. I would argue potentially smaller than WA3.

Perth's population will grow in absolute terms more than the entirety of Canberra's population over the next 25-30 years. Issues with a 3rd WA team is more to do with WAFC politics and the location/branding of the team.

But the numbers are in Perth's favour. Canberra is about 55% football support in a greater city of about 900,000 in 2050, so about 500,000 footy fans. Greater Perth will be about 3 million in 2050, so you need 1/6 support (16%) of the supporters to support the team. Even with the issues of branding/location/peeling off supporters, I can see that happening.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Perth's population will grow in absolute terms more than the entirety of Canberra's population over the next 25-30 years. Issues with a 3rd WA team is more to do with WAFC politics and the location/branding of the team.

But the numbers are in Perth's favour. Canberra is about 55% football support in a greater city of about 900,000 in 2050, so about 500,000 footy fans. Greater Perth will be about 3 million in 2050, so you need 1/6 support (16%) of the supporters to support the team. Even with the issues of branding/location/peeling off supporters, I can see that happening.

Long-term, WA3 has some great numbers. But it's often spoken as the "easy option" financially for Team 20. But I don't think it'd have any financial advantage over Canberra in the first two decades.

West Coast and Freo are truly embedded in Perth. It may genuinely take until 2050 to capture 1/6 of Perth.

And economically, Canberrans just have more money to spend. The ACT has a 40% higher median income than Greater Perth. And I assume the wealthiest Perth fans will cling to West Coast, so that disparity will be even greater. WA3 might gain a larger fanbase, but the average Canberran fan will be able to better pay for memberships and merch.

I think the Tasmania FC foundation members is a good example. Spending $90-$100 on what will be a second or third team is a good indicator on both AFL support and disposable income. Per capita, Canberrans bought 29% more than West Aussies. Which shows either your 55% is an underestimate, or our AFL fans have more than twice the buying power of Perth AFL fans.

WA3, after 30 years to catch up to Freo and West Coast, should be a decent-sized club. But the wealth and current AFL support of Canberrans, plus likely government incentives, make WA3 no more financially viable in the short-to-medium term. And SA3 shouldn't even be in the viability conversation.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Long-term, WA3 has some great numbers. But it's often spoken as the "easy option" financially for Team 20. But I don't think it'd have any financial advantage over Canberra in the first two decades.

West Coast and Freo are truly embedded in Perth. It may genuinely take until 2050 to capture 1/6 of Perth.

And economically, Canberrans just have more money to spend. The ACT has a 40% higher median income than Greater Perth. And I assume the wealthiest Perth fans will cling to West Coast, so that disparity will be even greater. WA3 might gain a larger fanbase, but the average Canberran fan will be able to better pay for memberships and merch.

I think the Tasmania FC foundation members is a good example. Spending $90-$100 on what will be a second or third team is a good indicator on both AFL support and disposable income. Per capita, Canberrans bought 29% more than West Aussies. Which shows either your 55% is an underestimate, or our AFL fans have more than twice the buying power of Perth AFL fans.

WA3, after 30 years to catch up to Freo and West Coast, should be a decent-sized club. But the wealth and current AFL support of Canberrans, plus likely government incentives, make WA3 no more financially viable in the short-to-medium term. And SA3 shouldn't even be in the viability conversation.

Agree, plus the other issue WA3 has is where to locate it and would possibly be quite the mouthful if it was called Joondalup IMO compared to Canberra (which everyone should know where that is compared to Joondalup).

 

[blackducks]

TNP perth is likely to be well north of 3m by 2050. As at 30 June 2023 the population was circa 2.3m.

 

[Bjo187]

Agree, plus the other issue WA3 has is where to locate it and would possibly be quite the mouthful if it was called Joondalup IMO compared to Canberra (which everyone should know where that is compared to Joondalup).

You'd just call it Perth surely, it's weird there are two Perth clubs and none with that name already.

 

[Coolangatta]

You'd just call it Perth surely, it's weird there are two Perth clubs and none with that name already.

Perth Sharks, black jumper, light blue sash. Reverse away.

That branding would develop a good following in 20-30 years.

That’s what I’d go with if Canberra doesn’t end up happening, which would be a mistake.

 

[Bjo187]

Perth Sharks, black jumper, light blue sash. Reverse away.

That branding would develop a good following in 20-30 years.

That’s what I’d go with if Canberra doesn’t end up happening, which would be a mistake.

I wouldn't mind the New Orleans saints colours, or if not, green and red or green and black.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Just like plenty like playing in front of no one at gws and prefer anonymous lifestyles and a community so will plenty building north Australia. They will be pioneers. It's new original and needs to happen

So Fremantle and West Coast complain about interstate travel for 11 games, and your logic is that players will want to travel 17 times to be a pioneer?

What better opportunity for a young draftee.
Get grafted to a bottom club. Get monstered and defeated. Or play at a waste land?
Or go to the premiership club? Play 2 years without a game and be unceremoniously chucked on the dole queue without a game in the most expensive city in the world.
Or be paid a shit load to build a new life Nd community.

So your logic is players that wouldn't get a game elsewhere go play for the NT team? So build a team on AFL rejects?

 

[Run n Spread]

So Fremantle and West Coast complain about interstate travel for 11 games, and your logic is that players will want to travel 17 times to be a pioneer?



So your logic is players that wouldn't get a game elsewhere go play for the NT team? So build a team on AFL rejects?

West coast complain freo don't. If you are bringing in a 20th team the talent pool will be spread thin anyway. Teams will need a point of difference.
Plenty of players particularly the aboriginal boys from there would love to live in the NT. It is a more attractive proposition than living in Canberra. How will they attract players?

 

[Purple Suit]

Long-term, WA3 has some great numbers. But it's often spoken as the "easy option" financially for Team 20. But I don't think it'd have any financial advantage over Canberra in the first two decades.

West Coast and Freo are truly embedded in Perth. It may genuinely take until 2050 to capture 1/6 of Perth.

And economically, Canberrans just have more money to spend. The ACT has a 40% higher median income than Greater Perth. And I assume the wealthiest Perth fans will cling to West Coast, so that disparity will be even greater. WA3 might gain a larger fanbase, but the average Canberran fan will be able to better pay for memberships and merch.

I think the Tasmania FC foundation members is a good example. Spending $90-$100 on what will be a second or third team is a good indicator on both AFL support and disposable income. Per capita, Canberrans bought 29% more than West Aussies. Which shows either your 55% is an underestimate, or our AFL fans have more than twice the buying power of Perth AFL fans.

WA3, after 30 years to catch up to Freo and West Coast, should be a decent-sized club. But the wealth and current AFL support of Canberrans, plus likely government incentives, make WA3 no more financially viable in the short-to-medium term. And SA3 shouldn't even be in the viability conversation.

Not sure where you got your figures from but WA has the highest average wage due to mining. Are you assuming the new team fans will only come from the outer suburbs?

It has several massive advantages over Canberra.

A big stadium that does not need to be built, 60k capacity & guaranteed 2 sell outs a year.

Football state that charges a lot for footy so more cash flow / scope to have an acceptable price point. There is no financial argument over WA3 being next, it is more viable than Tasmania.

WA3 would also remove 1 interstate travel a year for WA teams so it would solve 2 issues.

 

[Run n Spread]

Everyone is stuck in today's thinking and not looking at what Australia will be like 15-20 years down the track especially for young people. Even 40 years once a team is embedded.
The major cities (I include Canberra in this) are becoming over priced and enclaves of generational wealth/old money that are pricing out young people and families who have no option but to move.
The major areas of development attraction are the South West corner and Northern Australia. By putting an afl team where there is a major appetite these areas will only grow and the afl team with it. Happening with the suns
Contrast with GWS. The AFL saw 2 million people dumped a team which no one wanted and it has not made any discernible traction.
Any growth in Sydney is driven Northern beaches and east which is swans territory. Not even the GWS players themselves want to live there. They live in the east and commute to west sydney. Pretty soon west sydney will price out and people will leave. Giants will be a white elephant for years.
Northern Australia is the optimal choice for the future. Even look not just 15 years but 20 and 50 years to the future. We will told to wait 20 years to measure the GWS. Past half way and **** all progress. Why doesn't the nt/nq get the same latitude?

 

[Coolangatta]

Everyone is stuck in today's thinking and not looking at what Australia will be like 15-20 years down the track especially for young people. Even 40 years once a team is embedded.
The major cities (I include Canberra in this) are becoming over priced and enclaves of generational wealth/old money that are pricing out young people and families who have no option but to move.
The major areas of development attraction are the South West corner and Northern Australia. By putting an afl team where there is a major appetite these areas will only grow and the afl team with it. Happening with the suns
Contrast with GWS. The AFL saw 2 million people dumped a team which no one wanted and it has not made any discernible traction.
Any growth in Sydney is driven Northern beaches and east which is swans territory. Not even the GWS players themselves want to live there. They live in the east and commute to west sydney. Pretty soon west sydney will price out and people will leave. Giants will be a white elephant for years.
Northern Australia is the optimal choice for the future. Even look not just 15 years but 20 and 50 years to the future. We will told to wait 20 years to measure the GWS. Past half way and **** all progress. Why doesn't the nt/nq get the same latitude?

I get where you're coming from, and I'd be all for the Northern Crocs (Darwin 7, Cairns 3, Alice 1) and South West Sharks (WA3) as teams 21 and 22. Canberra as team 20. That's about as national a competition as you could ever get.

But you're looking at 16+ plane trips for that northern club. That's insane, unless between now and 2050 there's some revolution in plane travel speeds that's affordable. If you could get from Darwin to Cairns in like 45-60 minutes, then sure, but that sounds like pure fantasy to me.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Not sure where you got your figures from but WA has the highest average wage due to mining. Are you assuming the new team fans will only come from the outer suburbs?

I got my figures from the ABS from the 2021 census.

Median wage, not average.

Median income is much more important than average income. Average is inflated by the high end, but a higher median income means a higher percentage of our overall population can afford to participate.

The personal median weekly income for Greater Perth is $859. The median weekly income in the ACT is $1,203.

Line up everybody in Perth by income, then everybody in Canberra by income. The person in the very middle of the Canberra line will earn 40% more than the person in the middle of the Perth line.

It has several massive advantages over Canberra.

A big stadium that does not need to be built, 60k capacity & guaranteed 2 sell outs a year.

If Manuka gets upgraded for cricket, which is looking more and more likely, that advantage evaporates.

WA3 will get two sell outs, but what will the average crowd outside of that be? The crowds will look empty in the 60k stadium against the Suns and Giants.

Football state that charges a lot for footy so more cash flow / scope to have an acceptable price point. There is no financial argument over WA3 being next, it is more viable than Tasmania.

As just pointed out, Canberrans have significantly more cash flow, so this is at least an even point between the two bids.

Just earlier I mentioned how many more foundation jumpers we bought (more per capita than WA), which shows both an appetite for AFL, and how much disposable income we have.

The acceptable price point for Canberra, the only AFL team in the wealthiest town, will be just as high, if not more, than the third Perth team desperately trying to fill a stadium too big for them.

WA3 would also remove 1 interstate travel a year for WA teams so it would solve 2 issues.

Fair, it would mean one less travel game per team. But overall, it would mean a further 17 long-haul trips a season. Which is more costly than a trip to Canberra.

 

[Canberra Pear]

West coast complain freo don't. If you are bringing in a 20th team the talent pool will be spread thin anyway. Teams will need a point of difference.
Plenty of players particularly the aboriginal boys from there would love to live in the NT. It is a more attractive proposition than living in Canberra. How will they attract players?

You mean how will the second most liveable city in the world, only an hour flight from Melbourne, attract players over the small and isolated Darwin?

There'd definitely be a few that would choose the lifestyle of Darwin, but I'd says the majority of Victorian players would choose Canberra.

As for local talent, from my count there are 17 current AFL players from the NT. In Canberra and Southern NSW, there are 40 players. Canberra would become a magnet for players from the Riverina wanted to stay close to home.

 

[Run n Spread]

You mean how will the second most liveable city in the world, only an hour flight from Melbourne, attract players over the small and isolated Darwin?

There'd definitely be a few that would choose the lifestyle of Darwin, but I'd says the majority of Victorian players would choose Canberra.

As for local talent, from my count there are 17 current AFL players from the NT. In Canberra and Southern NSW, there are 40 players. Canberra would become a magnet for players from the Riverina wanted to stay close to home.

How will you be the second most liveable city in the world? You're turning into another Melbourne or Sydney?
Cairns Darwin and lifestyle factors are where it's at.
Loving this debate btw