20th AFL Team

[Walshawk]

I like how the Suns have embraced the NT, and the Giants have embraced Canberra. I can also understand that in an ideal world, both of these teams play all their home games in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney respectively.

If it makes them financially healthy, which it should do with help from the AFL, North Melbourne should embrace the NT and play 1 home game in Alice Springs and 3 home games in Darwin per year. A simple rebranding to the Northern, or North Kangaroos. Become the Northern Territories forever team, whilst remaining based at Arden Street and still playing at least 12 games per season in Melbourne. North Kangaroos academies in the top end and Alice Springs, and maybe even a North Kangaroos team based in the SANFL or another State League - mainly made up of NT non-listed AFL players. Stream the NTFL played over summer via North Kangaroos media.

A 20th AFL team full time in Canberra with a new stadium and a new Canberra based BBL team. It's hard to see any 3rd team in WA or SA being anything more than a very little brother to the current set up and anything north of the Brisbane line isn't going to work full time.

Two games in Darwin would be enough for North. Suns are keen to get out. No money to be made in a small town like Alice Springs.

 

[Chip Scab1]

Two games in Darwin would be enough for North. Suns are keen to get out. No money to be made in a small town like Alice Springs.

We are the 4th biggest club by WA AFL Membership, like over 8,500. WA is where need to be for 2games, so those 2 + 1-2 in Darwin should be plenty

 

[speedpeck23]

We are the 4th biggest club by WA AFL Membership, like over 8,500. WA is where need to be for 2games, so those 2 + 1-2 in Darwin should be plenty

It is an interesting discussion.....I think you should aim bigger that just being the 4th club in WA. .

I really think North are in a much stronger bargaining position with the AFL than is apparent. North clearly wants to grow their club. The AFL want to raise the games profile nationally...and particularly in the NT... For the AFL to successfully get a bigger profile in NT and for the game to be a key factor in improving societal issues in the NT would be a massive win for the AFL.

Clearly the NT Govt is wanting to encourage increased connection with professional sport (not just AFL of course). In my view all AFL clubs need to critical to AFL expansion....easier for some than others. North like all clubs needs to get bigger and needs to maintain and also grow it's connection to it's core support base in Melbourne.

The AFL are ripe for a deal re NT.

It's not hard to read between the lines the AFL has re- zoned all NT Academy Pathways to NMFC. Demetriou , Buckley and McLeod are in on going discussion with NT Govt and AFL NT .

If I were North I would offer to be the club that plays out of NT if the AFL is prepared to optimize the clubs fixture in Melbourne to support its growth in Melbourne as well as the NT. ......eg A guaranteed 15 games in Melbourne.... at least 3 at MCG (home or away) in exchange for growing the NT base.....starting with 2 games per season and building to 4 or more.

Abandoning the support base in Melbourne is not negotiable....in fact the strength of North in NT and nationally would depend on on North being strong in Melbourne.....it seems counter intuitive but you are trying to breakdown barriers between NT and urban Australia....you need to connect the two......NMFC could be a critical vehicle in promoting that.

In other words the deal as far as North is concerned grow North in Melbourne and Darwin. Give NMFC an opportunity to have a critical national profile. It would not be a relocation....simply make North more influential off field and hopefully on field.

Its not hard to imagine that the branding of the club can take care of itself.

The AFL currently provides preferential treatment in the fixture to a number of clubs to help grow the game. North could be one of those.....the aim is a win win win...for NMFC, AFL and NT.

 

[RedV3x]

Clearly the NT Govt is wanting to encourage increased connection with professional sport (not just AFL of course).

Clearly the federal Govt has no interest in the N.T. through sport. It would rather help the PNG with r.l.
I imagine a $600 million investment in a N.T. AFL team would go a long ways.

 

[Chip Scab1]

It is an interesting discussion.....I think you should aim bigger that just being the 4th club in WA. .

I really think North are in a much stronger bargaining position with the AFL than is apparent. North clearly wants to grow their club. The AFL want to raise the games profile nationally...and particularly in the NT... For the AFL to successfully get a bigger profile in NT and for the game to be a key factor in improving societal issues in the NT would be a massive win for the AFL.

Clearly the NT Govt is wanting to encourage increased connection with professional sport (not just AFL of course). In my view all AFL clubs need to critical to AFL expansion....easier for some than others. North like all clubs needs to get bigger and needs to maintain and also grow it's connection to it's core support base in Melbourne.

The AFL are ripe for a deal re NT.

It's not hard to read between the lines the AFL has re- zoned all NT Academy Pathways to NMFC. Demetriou , Buckley and McLeod are in on going discussion with NT Govt and AFL NT .

If I were North I would offer to be the club that plays out of NT if the AFL is prepared to optimize the clubs fixture in Melbourne to support its growth in Melbourne as well as the NT. ......eg A guaranteed 15 games in Melbourne.... at least 3 at MCG (home or away) in exchange for growing the NT base.....starting with 2 games per season and building to 4 or more.

Abandoning the support base in Melbourne is not negotiable....in fact the strength of North in NT and nationally would depend on on North being strong in Melbourne.....it seems counter intuitive but you are trying to breakdown barriers between NT and urban Australia....you need to connect the two......NMFC could be a critical vehicle in promoting that.

In other words the deal as far as North is concerned grow North in Melbourne and Darwin. Give NMFC an opportunity to have a critical national profile. It would not be a relocation....simply make North more influential off field and hopefully on field.

Its not hard to imagine that the branding of the club can take care of itself.

The AFL currently provides preferential treatment in the fixture to a number of clubs to help grow the game. North could be one of those.....the aim is a win win win...for NMFC, AFL and NT.

Yeah maybe, finer deets are important.

We got rolled on GC & Hobart, so maybe.

Still reckon whilst I agree with the general 'sentiment', we ought to see if/when our membership can grow (if we're any good).

You were ****ed in ~1998, look at you now.

Not saying we can mirror you, just there is a long history between us and WA, the supporters there are rusted on Norfies. Like 10,000 of them whose parents were Norf because of Rossco, Kraks, Winston, Bell, Cable, Wells, Swallow et al - and currently Hardeman - You kinda have to see where it goes before pivoting to something similar to your option.

Some of our very greatest Premiership stars are from Perth. We actually go ok over there and often have very decent support. More than we get anywhere else that's for sure.

 

[Walshawk]

We are the 4th biggest club by WA AFL Membership, like over 8,500. WA is where need to be for 2games, so those 2 + 1-2 in Darwin should be plenty

Do you want to give up home ground advantage two extra times? The best thing for North’s finances is to win games. WA makes that harder.

 

[Chip Scab1]

Do you want to give up home ground advantage two extra times? The best thing for North’s finances is to win games. WA makes that harder.

We play better on the larger ground. Don't ask me why, we just do. We weren't terrible at G this year either. I'm telling you the bigger grounds suit us.

 

[Walshawk]

We play better on the larger ground. Don't ask me why, we just do. We weren't terrible at G this year either. I'm telling you the bigger grounds suit us.

Playing in WA v WA clubs is suicide. Any team doing that is not trying to make finals. I am surprised the AFL allowed it.

You might as well shut up shop now.

 

[RedV3x]

We play better on the larger ground. Don't ask me why, we just do. We weren't terrible at G this year either. I'm telling you the bigger grounds suit us.

I believe that Perth stadium was modelled on the MCG arena.

 

[Chip Scab1]

Playing in WA v WA clubs is suicide. Any team doing that is not trying to make finals. I am surprised the AFL allowed it.

You might as well shut up shop now.

Dude we beat WCE and lost to Freo by 5 points in Perth. What are you actually talking about?

WCE are gonna struggle for 3-5 years and Freo are hardly world beaters.

Let's pick up a few WCE fans who have had it with the Big Birds cos they're never in a big game, expensive and lose often.

We could have 18,000 WA members in 24 months.

Just you wait and see.

 

[Walshawk]

Dude we beat WCE and lost to Freo by 5 points in Perth. What are you actually talking about?

WCE are gonna struggle for 3-5 years and Freo are hardly world beaters.

Let's pick up a few WCE fans who have had it with the Big Birds cos they're never in a big game, expensive and lose often.

We could have 18,000 WA members in 24 months.

Just you wait and see.

My point exactly. Freo are terrible away. Play that game at Marvel and you win.

 

[Purple Suit]

My point exactly. Freo are terrible away. Play that game at Marvel and you win.

This isn’t true, you’re just making up stuff at this point.

North should sell games in WA as it means good money and the AFL are less likely to give them 3-4 games here. Last year they got 2 only anyway, well played. If they get WC twice then it’s 2 wins because they are shit and getting worse before they improve.

 

[Walshawk]

This isn’t true, you’re just making up stuff at this point.

North should sell games in WA as it means good money and the AFL are less likely to give them 3-4 games here. Last year they got 2 only anyway, well played. If they get WC twice then it’s 2 wins because they are shit and getting worse before they improve.

So you don’t think your team is better at home than away? Every team in the AFL has a better record at home. Your winning % is 58% at home and 34% away. Massive difference.

 

[Chip Scab1]

So you don’t think your team is better at home than away? Every team in the AFL has a better record at home. Your winning % is 58% at home and 34% away. Massive difference.

What you're saying is logical. It's just the AFL isn't a rational competition. You're talking as if all clubs are treated equally, they're not. If all clubs played every team twice, you'd be correct... but they don't.

Farcical competition, and to make matters worse, bonuses are linked to outcomes which are controlled, can be altered to suit whatever needs and are.

 

[Purple Suit]

So you don’t think your team is better at home than away? Every team in the AFL has a better record at home. Your winning % is 58% at home and 34% away. Massive difference.

That is not what you said and our 30 year history is hardly relevant to your comment.

You said we were terrible away yet we won 60% of our away games in 25. Most teams would be happy with that record and a long way from terrible

 

[Blackhawk42]

Does Canberra's projected population of
700 000 by 2050 help its case?

The nation's capital city with a population that large NOT having representation in its country's biggest sport doesn't really seem right.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

We are the 4th biggest club by WA AFL Membership, like over 8,500. WA is where need to be for 2games, so those 2 + 1-2 in Darwin should be plenty

I’ll be pissed off with the club if they do this and put a foot in both markets. Like what’s the strategy here - are we just going to keep whoring ourselves around for the next 50 years? If that’s the plan, then we’ll run out of locations to play in well before then.

Whatever is decided, our split of home games needs to strike the balance between:

1. Growing our brand in Melbourne/Victoria.

2. Maximising our chances of on-field success.

3. Increasing home game attendances.

4. Increasing membership numbers.

5. Reducing our reliance on ASD funding.

The WA deal is good for some of these points and bad for others. If we are serious about addressing those five points, then they should aim to focus on no-more-than one secondary location for the next 20 years.

If, as you’re suggesting, we are chips in on WA (and need to sell a third game), then wouldn’t it make more sense for us to sell that to Bunbury instead of Darwin?

We have an away game at Optus this year, so the deal could look like this:

Trip 1 - West Coast (A) @ Optus, Giants/Suns (H) @ Bunbury.

Trip 2 - Fremantle (H) @ Bunbury, West Coast (H) @ Optus.

I am envious of the setup that the Dogs have in Ballarat. It ticks way more boxes than the paths we’re going down atm.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

It's not hard to read between the lines the AFL has re- zoned all NT Academy Pathways to NMFC.

This hasn’t actually happened. Tom Morris had a story about it 18 months ago and said that it was being considered, but it wasn’t part of the new changes announced a few weeks back.

The Suns have lost Darwin as an academy zone and AFLNT will be running it now for players aged 10-15.

Every club's new NGA zone confirmed after AFL review

AFLNT to launch new Darwin-based Top End Youth Academy - Play AFL

The new Top End Youth Academy will focus on boys and girls aged 10-15

play.afl

 

[Chip Scab1]

I’ll be pissed off with the club if they do this and put a foot in both markets. Like what’s the strategy here - are we just going to keep whoring ourselves around for the next 50 years? If that’s the plan, then we’ll run out of locations to play in well before then.

Whatever is decided, our split of home games needs to strike the balance between:

1. Growing our brand in Melbourne/Victoria.

2. Maximising our chances of on-field success.

3. Increasing home game attendances.

4. Increasing membership numbers.

5. Reducing our reliance on ASD funding.

The WA deal is good for some of these points and bad for others. If we are serious about addressing those five points, then they should aim to focus on one secondary location for the next 20 years.

If, as you’re suggesting, we are chips in on WA (and need to sell a third game), then wouldn’t it make more sense for us to sell that to Bunbury instead of Darwin?

We have an away game at Optus this year, so the deal could look like this:

Trip 1 - West Coast (A) @ Optus, Giants/Suns (H) @ Bunbury.

Trip 2 - Fremantle (H) @ Bunbury, West Coast (H) @ Optus.

I am envious of the setup that the Dogs have in Ballarat. It ticks way more boxes than the paths we’re going down atm.

Probably, but we're different. I would prefer 11x home games at Marvel. 2nd option has to be as you alluded to, 2x trips to Perth for 4 games.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Probably, but we're different. I would prefer 11x home games at Marvel. 2nd option has to be as you alluded to, 2x trips to Perth for 4 games.

I agree that 11 home games in Melbourne is what we want and should be working towards. If we have to sell games then I’d rather it be somewhere much closer to home and where we aren’t giving up home advantage.

Albury has an AFL standard venue. It might not bring in enough cash and the AFL may not support due to it being Giants zone, but I’d be disappointed if they hadn’t explored options like that before WA.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Does Canberra's projected population of
700 000 by 2050 help its case?

The nation's capital city with a population that large NOT having representation in its country's biggest sport doesn't really seem right.

And that's just the ACT. Doesn't include our NSW suburbs or commuter towns (Queanbeyan, Googong etc).

Will be more like 850-900k within an hour of Canberra.