20th AFL Team

[Perry Pie]

19 teams will not last long. An uneven fixture is not viable, imagine your team is in the finals and has a bye this week. A 2 week break running into the finals for 1 team just feels wrong.

So, lets assume team 20 will be Canberra. There are two key questions. First, when do Canberra join?

Earliest possible year is for Canberra 2029, the year after Tassie join. Cannot see 19 teams lasting beyond 2032. So we are talking 2029 - 2032.

I see no point in waiting, its best to get it done quickly so my suggestion is Canberra for 2030. Manuka is OK to play games from day 1 (it should be upgraded, but that should not delay the team), so that leaves building a performance centre as the big infrastructre investment for the team.

Its time for the AFL to crack on with this. (GWS can either play more games in Sydney or still play the handful of games in Canberra for the first couple of years).

The second question is what do we do about finals with 20 sides? But that is another debate...

 

[The_Reaper]

19 teams will not last long. An uneven fixture is not viable, imagine your team is in the finals and has a bye this week. A 2 week break running into the finals for 1 team just feels wrong.

So, lets assume team 20 will be Canberra. There are two key questions. First, when do Canberra join?

Earliest possible year is for Canberra 2029, the year after Tassie join. Cannot see 19 teams lasting beyond 2032. So we are talking 2029 - 2032.

I see no point in waiting, its best to get it done quickly so my suggestion is Canberra for 2030. Manuka is OK to play games from day 1 (it should be upgraded, but that should not delay the team), so that leaves building a performance centre as the big infrastructre investment for the team.

Its time for the AFL to crack on with this. (GWS can either play more games in Sydney or still play the handful of games in Canberra for the first couple of years).

The second question is what do we do about finals with 20 sides? But that is another debate...

Would that not be covered by the AFL not finalising the dates for the last rounds until mid season?

 

[jdeezy]

Would that not be covered by the AFL not finalising the dates for the last rounds until mid season?

Probably not, you would imagine like now the match ups (and therefore who has the bye) would be set, just without times locked in.

 

[Walshawk]

19 teams will not last long. An uneven fixture is not viable, imagine your team is in the finals and has a bye this week. A 2 week break running into the finals for 1 team just feels wrong.

So, lets assume team 20 will be Canberra. There are two key questions. First, when do Canberra join?

Earliest possible year is for Canberra 2029, the year after Tassie join. Cannot see 19 teams lasting beyond 2032. So we are talking 2029 - 2032.

I see no point in waiting, its best to get it done quickly so my suggestion is Canberra for 2030. Manuka is OK to play games from day 1 (it should be upgraded, but that should not delay the team), so that leaves building a performance centre as the big infrastructre investment for the team.

Its time for the AFL to crack on with this. (GWS can either play more games in Sydney or still play the handful of games in Canberra for the first couple of years).

The second question is what do we do about finals with 20 sides? But that is another debate...

There are some advantage of a 19 team fixture. Makes scheduling Thursdays easier. It also allows for the ladder to be split after teams have played each other once (better version of the flawed 17/5 idea, such as 18/4 or 18/6), and ways to avoid finals teams having two byes before finals.

The AFL won’t accept a substandard proposal just to even up the numbers. For example, Canberra is the obvious next inclusion, but if there is no funding for an appropriate stadium or upgrade, they will kick it down the road. I think the AFL will want to assess the impact of team 19 on the playing pool, draft, crowds, and the stadium (mid 2029) before making any decisions. So, 2032 is too soon.

 

[Rob]

Probably not, you would imagine like now the match ups (and therefore who has the bye) would be set, just without times locked in.

Could always just schedule the previous years wooden spooners in for the bye in the last round.
They're probably unlikely to make the finals anyway, but even if they do, well you shouldn't have come last.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

There are some advantage of a 19 team fixture. Makes scheduling Thursdays easier. It also allows for the ladder to be split after teams have played each other once (better version of the flawed 17/5 idea, such as 18/4 or 18/6), and ways to avoid finals teams having two byes before finals.

The AFL won’t accept a substandard proposal just to even up the numbers. For example, Canberra is the obvious next inclusion, but if there is no funding for an appropriate stadium or upgrade, they will kick it down the road. I think the AFL will want to assess the impact of team 19 on the playing pool, draft, crowds, and the stadium (mid 2029) before making any decisions. So, 2032 is too soon.

I’ve incorporated a few of the ideas raised during this year’s competitive balance review, as well as a few of my own, to develop a fixture proposal for a 19 club comp.

The AFL said that they have a 32 week window to stage their season, so I’ve ensured there are proper games for the whole 32 weeks and buggered off preseason games entirely. Overall, there’d be slightly fewer games, but many of the games being held would be bigger, better and more competitive than what we have now (with fewer clashes as well).

19 Club Structure (2028)

By the end of the season.

Top 16 clubs:

• 21 game season over 27 weeks: 9/10 home, 9/10 away, 2 gather rounds.

Bottom 3 clubs:

• 20 game season, 8 home, 8 away, 2 gather rounds.

Phase one (R1-18):

• Play every club once (18 games - 8 home, 8 away, 2 GR)
• 3 clubs have a bye each week and players from each club get 4-5 byes throughout the season (takes 24 weeks to complete - with a mid-season, split round and SoO included)
• Every week there are 8 games, times: Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday early, Saturday twilight, Saturday night, Sunday early, Sunday arvo, Sunday twilight - no clashes.

Regional Rounds:

• Round One - Early March (home games for the NSW and Qld teams, all other clubs to play a regular H&A game in their respective states)
• Gather Round 1 - April school holidays (SA)
• Western Duels - June long weekend - 2 x double headers on consecutive weeks involving two Victorian clubs playing against West Coast, then Freo and vice versa. Different Vic clubs to rotate through every season (WA)
• Gather Round 2 - July school holidays (Tas & Regional Vic) e.g Mac Point, Blundstone/UTAS, GMHBA, Mars Stadium.

Mid season (3 Week Period):

• Round 11a - 4-5 games split round, half of the teams to get a rest (W1).

• State of Origin - one week, mid season. States are promoted or relegated between divisions each year based on results. Hosting rights between particular states to alternate according to where their most recent match was played (W2).

e.g. Year 1

• Div 1 - Vic v WA
• Div 2 - SA v NSW
• Div 3 - Tas v Qld
• Div 4 - NT v ACT

• Round 11b - 4-5 games, the remaining clubs get a rest (W3). Therefore, all players to either get a one week break before or after SoO, as a way to maximise the involvement of the game’s best players.

Phase two (R19-21):

• Broken up into four pools of 4 teams and one pool of 3 teams based on ladder position.
• Teams in each pool of 4 to play each other once = 3 games. The two top ranked teams in each pool play 2h and 1a game, while the third and fourth ranked teams in each pool play 1h and 2a.
• 1-4 play each other but are fixed into the top 4 as a reward for their superior records in the first 18 rounds. Their positions within the top 4 can vary depending on their results.
• 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-19 only play the teams in their pool, but their position on the ladder can advance or regress outside of their pool ‘range’ based on results.
• Unlike phase one, there are nine games per week during phase two. The last three teams (17-19) only play two games in phase two (they will each have a turn at being a sole ‘bye’ team for R19-21.

Finals Series - 10 teams over 5 Weeks:

W1 - Wildcard Round (7 v 10, 8 v 9) - the top 6 teams have a bye this week.

W2 - Qualifying and Elimination finals

W3 - Semi Finals

W4 - Prelims

W5 - GF


Proposed fixture model

Phase 1: 171 games

Phase 2: 27 games

198 H&A games

11 finals over 5 weeks

4 SoO games

213 games over 32 weeks


Current model

207 H&A games

9 finals over four weeks

0 SoO games

216 games over 29 weeks

 

[threenewpadlocks]

With the Swans growing, it'll be interesting to see if there's any logic in having a team play weekly out of the SCG with two Sydney-branded teams every week.

Sydney are growing fast among the yuppie, inner city types, and it's a bit more fashionable than being an NRL supporter for many. Especially as a more international city, the diversity of Australia's international student population, people wanting true unique Australian experiences.

Understand that the Swans basically have control over both the AFL played at the SCG, the name Sydney, branding in the northern/eastern suburbs etc. But at the same time Pridham etc. can't continue to bleat on and on about "we're going to be the biggest club in Australia" and so forth and for it not to lead to the logical question of if that's true, maybe it's good for the sport and the code as a whole for another team representing the exact same market and demograhpic to also be created in order to have 22 home games played out of the SCG per year and not just 11?

I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, obviously, the support for a new team wouldn't be there and the Swans' support has been bulit slowly. But if the Swans do indeed become a bigger and bigger club, growing quicker relative to the rest of the league (even with stadium capacity constraints) and a ticket harder and harder to get, it's not illogical to think about in the future.

 

[Fire]

With the Swans growing, it'll be interesting to see if there's any logic in having a team play weekly out of the SCG with two Sydney-branded teams every week.

Sydney are growing fast among the yuppie, inner city types, and it's a bit more fashionable than being an NRL supporter for many. Especially as a more international city, the diversity of Australia's international student population, people wanting true unique Australian experiences.

Understand that the Swans basically have control over both the AFL played at the SCG, the name Sydney, branding in the northern/eastern suburbs etc. But at the same time Pridham etc. can't continue to bleat on and on about "we're going to be the biggest club in Australia" and so forth and for it not to lead to the logical question of if that's true, maybe it's good for the sport and the code as a whole for another team representing the exact same market and demograhpic to also be created in order to have 22 home games played out of the SCG per year and not just 11?

I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, obviously, the support for a new team wouldn't be there and the Swans' support has been bulit slowly. But if the Swans do indeed become a bigger and bigger club, growing quicker relative to the rest of the league (even with stadium capacity constraints) and a ticket harder and harder to get, it's not illogical to think about in the future.

I'm not sure if having two 'Sydney' teams is necessarily a good thing, as you are always going to have a big v small outcome. And if they are trying to vie for the exact same market, then that's the only identity they will both have.

Western Sydney has its own market and potential identity. Yes, you will probably end up with a big v small too, like in WA and SA, but because they have different markets and goals and communities, that's just one facet of their identity. Even in discussions about WA3, where it is based/its unique market is a key part of the discussion, and 'Perth' is just one (IMO weak) option.

If there was to be a third Sydney team, I imagine giving it a market and identity of its own will be needed to give it a chance to be anything other than a plastic/casual BBL-style franchise. What that identity is, i.e North Shore, I would let Sydneysiders educate me on lol.

 

[Aussie in exile]

If the 20th team isn't Canberra we are looking at another GWS and Suns which are huge financial blackholes for the game.
Canberra or nobody it has to be.

 

[neogh]

Canberra Pear Raiders has the second longest League premiership drought, only Eels having a longer drought, and both sides has not won one in an unified national competition.

How has that impacted their popularity and if their drought continues to the 2030s, will that be advantageous for the Canberra/ACT expansion?

 

[Canberra Pear]

Canberra Pear Raiders has the second longest League premiership drought, only Eels having a longer drought, and both sides has not won one in an unified national competition.

How has that impacted their popularity and if their drought continues to the 2030s, will that be advantageous for the Canberra/ACT expansion?

The Raiders have still been moderately successful over the past decade though. They've made finals five times in that time, including a grand final appearance in 2019.

The Raiders crowds have been pretty healthy since about 2017, but I think that more coincides with the dip in Super Rugby.

With the decline of Super Rugby, the Raiders are essentially the only legitimate Canberra side, so their support has increased with that.

The Brumbies' decline is probably more advantageous for a Canberra AFL team than a Raiders' drought.

 

[Badger17]

Canberra Pear Raiders has the second longest League premiership drought, only Eels having a longer drought, and both sides has not won one in an unified national competition.

How has that impacted their popularity and if their drought continues to the 2030s, will that be advantageous for the Canberra/ACT expansion?

Nobody cares about the 97 spilt season. NSWRL/ARL and the NRL are viewed as a single contiguous competition, and their records are the only ones that matter.

Newcastle are recognised as the 97 premiers despite at least 2/3, arguably even 4, of the Super League sides being better than them, and the fact that the Super League premiers (Broncos) were the 98 NRL premiers as well.

 

[Badger17]

The Raiders have still been moderately successful over the past decade though. They've made finals five times in that time, including a grand final appearance in 2019.

The Raiders crowds have been pretty healthy since about 2017, but I think that more coincides with the dip in Super Rugby.

With the decline of Super Rugby, the Raiders are essentially the only legitimate Canberra side, so their support has increased with that.

The Brumbies' decline is probably more advantageous for a Canberra AFL team than a Raiders' drought.

RU dying on it's arse, and taking the Brums down with it, has had little impact on the Raiders support in real terms.

The Raiders support base was always roughly as big as it is now, but for a host of reasons that I won't get into for sake of brevity, a lot of it went dormant in the post SL era. 2016 and 2019 awoke that fanbase and got it reengaged with the club, but it was always there.

The only major benefit to the Brumbies struggling has been that it's given the Raiders an almost complete monopoly on the local junior rugby talent pool. The Brumbies going under would likely hurt the Raiders more than it benefits them, at least in the short-mid term, by cutting investment into local junior RU and rectangular infrastructure.

 

[Canberra Pear]

RU dying on it's arse, and taking the Brums down with it, has had little impact on the Raiders support in real terms.

The Raiders support base was always roughly as big as it is now, but for a host of reasons that I won't get into for sake of brevity, a lot of it went dormant in the post SL era. 2016 and 2019 awoke that fanbase and got it reengaged with the club, but it was always there.

The only major benefit to the Brumbies struggling has been that it's given the Raiders an almost complete monopoly on the local junior rugby talent pool. The Brumbies going under would likely hurt the Raiders more than it benefits them, at least in the short-mid term, by cutting investment into local junior RU and rectangular infrastructure.

You definitely have better insight to the rugby codes than me, but it's an interesting intersection of Brumbies crowds dropping at the same time the Raiders rose. But correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[RedV3x]

If the 20th team isn't Canberra we are looking at another GWS and Suns

that'd be fantastic then.

 

[glengowan]

Norwood book themselves another SANFL Grand Final spot yesterday, chasing their 32nd premiership. The largest, most successful club outside the AFL, with a boutique stadium and national level sponsors already in place.

 

[Fire]

Norwood book themselves another SANFL Grand Final spot yesterday, chasing their 32nd premiership. The largest, most successful club outside the AFL, with a boutique stadium and national level sponsors already in place.

As much as I'd love more traditional clubs in the AFL, three Adelaide/SA teams would saturate the market more than 10 melb/vic teams do. There is no way someone can argue for fewer melbourne teams and more SA teams at the same time.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Norwood book themselves another SANFL Grand Final spot yesterday, chasing their 32nd premiership. The largest, most successful club outside the AFL, with a boutique stadium and national level sponsors already in place.

It would've been great if there were two historical clubs from SA, but Norwood missed that boat.

Unless Adelaide has a Perth-like population boom, there's no room for a third team.

 

[RedV3x]

WTF is Canberra doing, or more importantly what is Canberra not doing.
The Liberals just promised $600~$700 million for a rectangular stadium.

 

[Canberra Pear]

WTF is Canberra doing, or more importantly what is Canberra not doing.
The Liberals just promised $600~$700 million for a rectangular stadium.

Doesn't really matter, Liberals won't be getting in power in the ACT any time soon.

But I don't mind them pissfarting around trying to settle on rectangular stadium. Manuka's upgrade is relatively independent of that.

 

[Bjo187]

Doesn't really matter, Liberals won't be getting in power in the ACT any time soon.

But I don't mind them pissfarting around trying to settle on rectangular stadium. Manuka's upgrade is relatively independent of that.

Just read about it, they chose a site you can't even build on.

 

[RedV3x]

Doesn't really matter, Liberals won't be getting in power in the ACT any time soon.
But I don't mind them pissfarting around trying to settle on rectangular stadium.

While they are "pissfarting" on a rectangular stadium they aren't looking at an oval upgrade.

Manuka's upgrade is relatively independent of that.

No. If a government spends $600~$700 million on a rectangular stadium there is no way there is any budget left for an oval upgrade within a decade or two..

It's not as if the raiders need an upgrade but an AFL bid would certainly hinge on a stadium like Tasmania did.
The Liberals quoted some b.s. on how a rectangular upgrade would add to Canberra;s standing.
Well somebody has got to stand up and say a Canberra AFL team would be a huge boost to Canberra's standing with a world class oval stadium.

 

[Canberra Pear]

While they are "pissfarting" on a rectangular stadium they aren't looking at an oval upgrade.

Governments are capable of doing multiple things at once. A tender has already gone out for the design work for Manuka.

No. If a government spends $600~$700 million on a rectangular stadium there is no way there is any budget left for an oval upgrade within a decade or two..

The ACT Govt is looking to replicate Tasmania and package the stadiums together. Expensive new stadium, cheaper redeveloped stadium, like Hobart and Launceston.

The Liberals quoted some b.s. on how a rectangular upgrade would add to Canberra;s standing.

They're not wrong though. Look at Adelaide Oval and Optus. A roofed stadium in the city where we could see Matildas games, host concerts etc, would still be great for the city, regardless of whether it can host footy.

Well somebody has got to stand up and say a Canberra AFL team would be a huge boost to Canberra's standing with a world class oval stadium.

I agree. The economic benefits of an AFL team would be great to Canberra. We're already getting an ROI from the Giants.

The return would be massive in comparison for our own team. Would put us in contention for bigger cricket tests too.

 

[Badger17]

While they are "pissfarting" on a rectangular stadium they aren't looking at an oval upgrade.

It's the ACT Liberals, all they can do is "pissfart".

There's more chance of one of us spending the night with Gal Gadot than them getting elected.

No. If a government spends $600~$700 million on a rectangular stadium there is no way there is any budget left for an oval upgrade within a decade or two..

It's not as if the raiders need an upgrade but an AFL bid would certainly hinge on a stadium like Tasmania did.
The Liberals quoted some b.s. on how a rectangular upgrade would add to Canberra;s standing.
Well somebody has got to stand up and say a Canberra AFL team would be a huge boost to Canberra's standing with a world class oval stadium.

Setting aside the fact that Bruce is a decrepit dump, Canberra absolutely needs a new rectangular stadium if it ever wants to host rep and international football or other major events ever again.

We also need a new arena, a convention centre, an ice rink, Olympic diving boards, investment into half a dozen major roads around the city, et cetera, et cetera, and all sorts of other major projects that've been neglected by Labour and the Greens for the last two decades.

That's what happens in de facto one party states.

 

[Purple Suit]

If the 20th team isn't Canberra we are looking at another GWS and Suns which are huge financial blackholes for the game.
Canberra or nobody it has to be.

Not if you pick WA3, it’ll make more money than anywhere else including Canberra.

Remember, when Canberra has a team, GWS will struggle even more.