Expansion A third team in Queensland? AFL acknowledges QLD3 as a 20th licence option

[Badger17]

Were you there during the Chargers years? The Seagulls had just died after 1995, and as I was moving there a wacko businessman backed a replacement team...all sorts of pre-season turmoil, and they parted ways just as the season started, getting away with a few breaches because the ARL had bigger fish to fry...8 teams forfeited matches in Round 1 because the ARL had just beaten Super League in court to stop them starting in 1996...

Chargers sucked in 1996, but when Superleague began in 1997, RL was split right down the middle and the Chargers were able to capitalise. A second half of the season winning streak, and suddenly the whole Coast went nuts in following them...sellouts at Carrara, and probably the only feelgood story for the entire season...the sport was gutted Australia-wide, but they had an underdog hero in the middle of it all...

They were out after the following season, unable to beat Rupert Murdoch off field...I'm wondering where the tidy $4m they had in profits went after that...! I honestly think though that the Chargers had a hand in GC's transformation from a backwater with skyscrapers into today's burgeoning big city, and the mentality behind it all. It was the only time I was there that you could sense a united GC, and not that other crap we both described above...

True story; the Chargers loaned the money they had in the bank after being rationalised to the Newcastle Knights.

What happened to it after the Knights paid the loan back IDK, but the Chargers were effectively owned by the ARL, so I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up back in the NRL's coffers.

That's interesting to read. I always wondered why the Chargers folded. Seemed like very short term thinking from the NRL/ARL.

Super League/News Ltd. demanded that the Broncos have exclusivity in SEQ as part of any reunification, that meant the Chargers had to go or no peace. It's not a coincidence that the Titans played their first season in 07, exactly 10 years after Super League.

Believe it or not, the Chargers and Adelaide Rams were the only teams with money in the bank after 1997 and well placed to be successful in the coming years had they not ended up being sacrificed (murdered) as part of the peace deals.

There's an alternate reality out there where the Chargers and Rams used that money to sweep up the top free agents after the war and went on to be the two of the most successful teams of the 2000s.

 

[Nugett]

Not to mention that there are serious questions about whether all of the 36 umpires now required to umpire 9 games each week are up to AFL standard. Would only get worse if we need 40 or more as the AFL expands.

Which is why the umpires need to become full time. Have their own recovery, reviews, training ect. and build on being more consistent. It will also mean that they are being paid more than what they are currently being paid now to turn it into a profession rather than a hobby.

 

[Cam Payne]

The Joondalup Rockingham Expats would capture a ready made supporter base. They could have blue rings on their jumpers and colloquially be known as the Occys.

 

[Nugett]

For what to happen? Supporters of the old clubs to start supporting the new entity? I doubt that will happen. Because players from the old team happen to be in the new team for 4-5 yearsa is not the reason why supporters would transfer their support to the new team.

The late Ian Ridley said one of his biggest mistakes in negotiating the Melbourne-Hawks merger in 1996 is that Melbourne ignored a key price of research advice in that members and supporters see as the enduring symbols of their club, their colours, the tradition [things like history, club song etc.] and the club emblem and will reject a merger if there wasn't enough of their original club's identity retained in the new entity.

In other words, members and supporters of the two original clubs will not necessarily support the new merged club.


And how will they do that?


I doubt that would happen.

A survey conducted in 1997 found that only 27% of Fitzroy supporters had switched their support to the Brisbane Lions, after Fitzroy exited in 1996.

Another estimation by a Fitzroy author after conducting hundred of interviews with supporters concluded that 40% of Fitzroy supporters were lost permanently to football, another 5% went to support another club and 5-10% of Fitzroy supporters now follow another code or lower levels of Australian Rules football. That leaves 45-50% supporting the new club. Depending on the new club's identity those figures - from supporters of the two former clubs - could be altered.



Why would they?

I think you underestimate the level of angst, vitriol and negative publicity that accompanied each of the three serious merger proposals in the late 80's and 90s and how much there would be with any future merger proposal. The AFL is well aware of this.

I look back at the proposed Melbourne/ Hawthorn merger. If that merger had occurred, I would have stopped following footy altogether, as the team that I supported as a kid, would have been lost. I also know that I wasn’t the only Hawthorn supporter that felt that way. So for me the choice was either Hawthorn or nothing. So people who are saying that both club supporters will remain loyal to the combined club, are delusional if anything the combined club will most likely lose members and become a bigger issue.

 

[Roylion]

I look back at the proposed Melbourne/ Hawthorn merger. If that merger had occurred, I would have stopped following footy altogether, as the team that I supported as a kid, would have been lost. I also know that I wasn’t the only Hawthorn supporter that felt that way. So for me the choice was either Hawthorn or nothing. So people who are saying that both club supporters will remain loyal to the combined club, are delusional if anything the combined club will most likely lose members and become a bigger issue.

And in that case what was the point of the merger in the first place?

 

[Nugett]

Just like Greater Western Sydney and Canberra?

NQ and Northern Territory couldn't be anymore different, and lumping those two areas as a single team would spell disaster.

A four drive between Sydney and Canberra.
A 6 hour drive between Melbourne to Canberra.

A 16 hour drive between Darwin to Alice Springs.
A 12 hour drive between Alice Springs and Mt. Isa. Mt. Isa is not a town/city that would be viable to have a team.

If you’re talking about the more populated areas of FNQ, then you need to travel to the East coast, to the more populated areas of Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and to a lesser extent Rockhampton. Which is then adding at least an extra 10 hours of travelling.

So comparing a FNQ and NT combined team to a stand alone Canberra team is vastly different, in any measure and metric. a FNQ/NT team would not be viable. Where as a Canberra team would.

If you want a NT team, you might be able to have a team based in Darwin, that would play a certain amount of games in Alice Springs could be viable. Likewise with a FNQ team, you could base a team in Townsville, with some games being played in Cairns/Mackay. You can’t have a combined team.

IMO the 20th team should be Canberra.

 

[Mr north man]

Well it all depends on Tasmania as new stadium and training centre are both well over budget to be built and the AFL have already said no new stadium no team.
So with that does the AFL stick with 18 teams to let’s say to 2030 for example or do they look at potential 19th team for Cairns with new roofed ground for let’s say 25k seat stadium or do they go with Darwin same deal a new roofed stadium with 25k seat stadium or go with either a 3rd WA team based at Bunbury but then if you have 19 teams then when do you go with 20 teams.
But yet again politicians and do gooders will destroy any hope of expansion unless they change their minds about a new stadium.
Just hope for this sport Tasmania is the 19th team and if it doesn’t and they don’t get in they will never get in.

 

[Nugett]

And in that case what was the point of the merger in the first place?

In Melbourne’s case, I think it was a lack of recent success and also being in a strong financial situation at the time. In Hawthorn’s case, poor administration at that time that wasted money on being frivolous and being in debt. Add in the AFL (Ross Oakley) offering financial bonuses for clubs to merge.

Also most supporters of Hawthorn at the time were not members, so what it did do after the failed merger, was able to convert supporters into members.

 

[Cleric]

Bring back Fitzroy, Brisbane can go back to being the bears…

If anything they should call one more Vic team, most likely North.

 

[Cleric]

Seem some suggestions about Far North Queensland… the last game played there in 2022 got 6,600 people (50% capacity). This is what after 10 years of exhibition games in Cairns. They just don’t like AFL up there.

North Qld is rugby territory and isn't viable for an AFL team.

 

[Coolangatta]

Well it all depends on Tasmania as new stadium and training centre are both well over budget to be built and the AFL have already said no new stadium no team.
So with that does the AFL stick with 18 teams to let’s say to 2030 for example or do they look at potential 19th team for Cairns with new roofed ground for let’s say 25k seat stadium or do they go with Darwin same deal a new roofed stadium with 25k seat stadium or go with either a 3rd WA team based at Bunbury but then if you have 19 teams then when do you go with 20 teams.
But yet again politicians and do gooders will destroy any hope of expansion unless they change their minds about a new stadium.
Just hope for this sport Tasmania is the 19th team and if it doesn’t and they don’t get in they will never get in.

They won’t expand in the unlikely event Tassie falls over.

 

[Coolangatta]

A four drive between Sydney and Canberra.
A 6 hour drive between Melbourne to Canberra.

A 16 hour drive between Darwin to Alice Springs.
A 12 hour drive between Alice Springs and Mt. Isa. Mt. Isa is not a town/city that would be viable to have a team.

If you’re talking about the more populated areas of FNQ, then you need to travel to the East coast, to the more populated areas of Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and to a lesser extent Rockhampton. Which is then adding at least an extra 10 hours of travelling.

So comparing a FNQ and NT combined team to a stand alone Canberra team is vastly different, in any measure and metric. a FNQ/NT team would not be viable. Where as a Canberra team would.

If you want a NT team, you might be able to have a team based in Darwin, that would play a certain amount of games in Alice Springs could be viable. Likewise with a FNQ team, you could base a team in Townsville, with some games being played in Cairns/Mackay. You can’t have a combined team.

IMO the 20th team should be Canberra.

Agree with all of this although a NQ team should be based in Cairns as they’re more AFL friendly than Townsville. I’d go with 9 home games in Cairns with 1 each in Townsville and Mackay, call them the North Queensland Crocodiles.

For NT: Northern Territory Thunder, 9 home games in Darwin, 2 in Alice Springs.

But they are both too small, so bring on the Canberra Rams with 11 home Manuka games. Ramettes would make a cool AFLW name

 

[Bjo187]

Tony Cochrane, who should be on the AFL commission but likely has too much initiative, spoke on the n.t and team 20 today. Refreshing to hear someone speak truthfully about the proposal.

5.20 min the n.t, he also makes some good points about the nrl expansion.

 

[Coolangatta]

Tony Cochrane, who should be on the AFL commission but likely has too much initiative, spoke on the n.t and team 20 today. Refreshing to hear someone speak truthfully about the proposal.

5.20 min the n.t, he also makes some good points about the nrl expansion.

Finally someone said it, good to hear.

Pity no one mentioned the viability of Canberra.

It’s gonna come down to them or WA3 as we all expected.

And as cool as the North Perth Sharks would be to have as a team IMO, it has to be Canberra because they’ll never get a team if it’s not 20.

 

[Coolangatta]

These are only estimates but at an annual growth rate of 0.9% it’ll take Greater Darwin 77 years to reach 500k people.

1.5% 47 years, 2.0% 36 years, 2.5% 30 years.

I doubt their growth rate will change much so 30 years is fanciful, ~80 more realistic.

Can’t see them getting a team in my lifetime.

Maybe they’re a chance for team 25 or 26

 

[Canberra Pear]

Finally someone said it, good to hear.

Agreed. Refreshing to hear someone with a high profile say it. Too small, a bid relying on emotion. It's almost like he's been on this thread.

Pity no one mentioned the viability of Canberra.

It’s gonna come down to them or WA3 as we all expected.

And as cool as the North Perth Sharks would be to have as a team IMO, it has to be Canberra because they’ll never get a team if it’s not 20.

Yeah it's a shame they moved on so quickly. Would've been a good opportunity to get his thoughts on other options.

 

[Coolangatta]

Agreed. Refreshing to hear someone with a high profile say it. Too small, a bid relying on emotion. It's almost like he's been on this thread.



Yeah it's a shame they moved on so quickly. Would've been a good opportunity to get his thoughts on other options.

I suspect he would see Canberra as a risk and challenge the same way Gold Coast has been but I’m certain he would see the merit in the numbers and financial capacity.

I mean it’s not like he said Darwin could never have a team, just that they were a long off, far longer than Canberra are.

And the proximity argument is a strong one. Not sure how keen he’d be on WA3 because it’s a long trip on both sides of the coin.

ACT as an away game is far more appealing to northern and especially eastern teams which dominate the league.

Surely most of the club presidents would prefer Canberra on the travel factor alone let alone other reasons.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I suspect he would see Canberra as a risk and challenge the same way Gold Coast has been but I’m certain he would see the merit in the numbers and financial capacity.

I mean it’s not like he said Darwin could never have a team, just that they were a long off, far longer than Canberra are.

And the proximity argument is a strong one. Not sure how keen he’d be on WA3 because it’s a long trip on both sides of the coin.

ACT as an away game is far more appealing to northern and especially eastern teams which dominate the league.

Surely most of the club presidents would prefer Canberra on the travel factor alone let alone other reasons.

Exactly. He was saying how bad the Gold Coast to Perth travel is. WA3 would increase that 50% for the Suns. Whereas Canberra would be the fourth closest away game for them.

 

[GC2015]

ACT as an away game is far more appealing to northern and especially eastern teams which dominate the league.

Surely most of the club presidents would prefer Canberra on the travel factor alone let alone other reasons.

This is a good point. The drive from Melbourne to Canberra is approximately 8.5 hours so you've potentially got as many as 12 supporter bases (including the Sydney teams) that can realistically drive to games in Canberra (16 supporter bases if there are REALLY keen supporters in Adelaide/Brisbane/Gold Coast willing to do the 12 hour drive) or they take the short flight to the nation's capital. Plus, it should really activate the footy rich area of the Riverina into attending games and supporting the game more.

I wonder if part of the reason Tasmania was approved had to do with it being a short distance from Melbourne. If the league does choose to add Canberra as the 20th team then that would be potentially as many as 6 away opponents in Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart/Launceston for the Melbourne teams to fly to that would only require the players to stay on the plane for 90 minutes or less each way. Brisbane/Gold Coast to Canberra is also under 2 hours on the plane each way so that's another positive in terms of reducing travel.

Perhaps the only issue with introducing a Canberra team is that the league would become even more east coast centric than it already is. Although flights from Perth to Canberra are essentially the same amount of time as flights from Perth to Melbourne so it shouldn't really affect the WA teams in terms of their total travel. With a Canberra team added in there's no increase in total away games for the Perth teams, just slightly different distances. So it essentially becomes the same scenario in terms of total travel time throughout the season for the WA teams.

 

[Canberra Pear]

This is a good point. The drive from Melbourne to Canberra is approximately 8.5 hours so you've potentially got as many as 12 supporter bases (including the Sydney teams) that can realistically drive to games in Canberra (16 supporter bases if there are REALLY keen supporters in Adelaide/Brisbane/Gold Coast willing to do the 12 hour drive) or they take the short flight to the nation's capital. Plus, it should really activate the footy rich area of the Riverina into attending games and supporting the game more.

I wonder if part of the reason Tasmania was approved had to do with it being a short distance from Melbourne. If the league does choose to add Canberra as the 20th team then that would be potentially as many as 6 away opponents in Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart/Launceston for the Melbourne teams to fly to that would only require the players to stay on the plane for 90 minutes or less each way. Brisbane/Gold Coast to Canberra is also under 2 hours on the plane each way so that's another positive in terms of reducing travel.

I'm not at my computer where I did the maths, but I worked out that WA3 entering as Team 20 would cost roughly $300k more a year in flights than Canberra.

 

[catters05]

They can still focus on West Sydney at the grassroots level and play some home games at the SCG to tap into the eastern suburbs as well. Both are possible.

Why play at the SCG if you are trying to win hearts and minds out west?

West Sydney needs a lot of effort, get the giants totally focused on that as they could win a lot of support, and I feel that will grow when Canberra20 comes in with the giants 100% committed to west Sydney.

 

[Walshawk]

Why play at the SCG if you are trying to win hearts and minds out west?

West Sydney needs a lot of effort, get the giants totally focused on that as they could win a lot of support, and I feel that will grow when Canberra20 comes in with the giants 100% committed to west Sydney.

Games needs to be played somewhere during the Easter Show. The SCG is 300km closer to Homebush than Canberra. One or two games there would be ok.

 

[Walshawk]

Most people on here look at AFL’s popularity with rose coloured glasses. They overestimate the popularity of FL in the northern states. For example, NRL dominates northern Queensland, even Cairns (though not as much). Even Darwin has solid NRL support. It might be 65/35 AFL’s way, but it is nothing like Melbourne, Adelaide or Tassie. Canberra also leans towards NRL, but that could possibly be reversed with their own team. But, like Darwin, Canberra cannot afford a stadium.

I think the AFL will stick to 19 teams for longer than we all think. The 19 team fixture offers some advantages. There doesn’t need to be a rush on team 20.

 

[Coolangatta]

Most people on here look at AFL’s popularity with rose coloured glasses. They overestimate the popularity of FL in the northern states. For example, NRL dominates northern Queensland, even Cairns (though not as much). Even Darwin has solid NRL support. It might be 65/35 AFL’s way, but it is nothing like Melbourne, Adelaide or Tassie. Canberra also leans towards NRL, but that could possibly be reversed with their own team. But, like Darwin, Canberra cannot afford a stadium.

I think the AFL will stick to 19 teams for longer than we all think. The 19 team fixture offers some advantages. There doesn’t need to be a rush on team 20.

You’re probably 100% on the ball with that but does Canberra need a new stadium?

I wouldn’t have thought so because apparently Manuka is in a great location and will have light rail.

Plus it could spark a good hot rivalry with Tasmania if they get pissed off that they needed a new stadium (they do) and Canberra doesn’t.

 

[Canberra Pear]

But, like Darwin, Canberra cannot afford a stadium.

Darwin and Canberra are in very different situations stadium-wise.

Unlike Darwin, and apparently Hobart, Canberra doesn't a new stadium. Manuka just needs an upgrade.

And that upgrade is already in the early stages of planning. There's a very real chance Manuka will get that upgrade in the next decade.