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

[Nugett]

That would be absolutely hell for travel. Would make the western teams' travel woes look like Collingwood's.

If they want a Northern team, they would be better off to place the team in Cairns, with designated “home games” in Townsville and Mackay.

Or have the team based in Darwin, with designated home games at Alice Springs.

Have Broome as the base, with games being played at Port Headland and Karratha.

For a Northern team have it State based, rather than scattered across 3 states. It doesn’t make any sense.

In saying that, I still think that Canberra should be the 20th team.

 

[Nugett]

4 games in Broome is.a lot given their population is about 15,000.

3 in Rockhampton is a lot as well.

 

[Nugett]

**** em, they are a Gold Coast based club who doesn’t have a monopoly the rest of Australia’s use for that mascot.

Sunshine Coast Sharks would be perfect.

Got to get one, preferably two Vic clubs playing four games a year there against the Lions and Suns first at an AFL standard ground.

But they’d be perfect for a 21st club option.

On another note, I do agree WA and SA should have first dibs to their state based players, though.

The VFL will never allow it.

This is where, “Academies” should be state based, rather than club based. Have it so that the clubs in that state, can nominate a maximum of 3 players each.

 

[lionshine]

If they did add a third team in SEQ, I’d be looking at promoting/aligning the club with a long-term, successful state league club like the Southport Sharks. Even if they were “Brisbane Sharks” as obviously we won’t see two clubs based on the Gold Coast.

Not sure Southport would be interested but they deserve to play in the AFL and they have a great brand.

Likewise if they added a third SA team I’d be looking at Norwood as opposed to another new franchise.

 

[LionsOrDieTrion]

The afl needs 2 new teams like a hole in the head, personally I hope the Tassie gov doesn't build the stadium and the whole idea is put on a distant back burner.

I agree with this. Why would I want to dilute my teams chances of winning a premiership by adding another team(s)?

 

[GC2015]

Does a ‘Sharks’ identity risk overlapping with Cronulla in a NRL friendly state? Don’t get me wrong, I think it could work, but it would definitely be something the afl could be concerned about.

Stingrays or Marlins would suit the coastal vibe. Dolphins would have been fantastic, but obviously that has ties to the NRL now.

Regarding colours - I’ve lately been thinking something similar to a Miami Dolphins could be cool - aqua, white and orange trims.

I like the idea of focussing on yellow too, but could be difficult to pull off aesthetically. Maybe a two toned yellow and gold jersey?

Alternatively, pink might be a nice focus - maybe pink and royal blue?

The Cronulla Sharks aren't a super popular team and are even less so in Queensland, so I wouldn't be too worried about that. If you were planning on naming the team after one of the big teams like the Rabbitohs then you might have an issue. Sharks not so much IMO.

Predominately yellow with another colour or two is what I'd do if I was picking colours for a Sunshine Coast AFL team. You want locals to identify with it as their own and colours are often very important in achieving that. It's not a coincidence that GWS wear the same colours as the Wests Tigers NRL team.

I also think the AFL fears the top 8 being dominated by interstate teams.

...

Good luck stopping the QLD juggernaut, though.

Why would the AFL fear continuing to grow the game in the third biggest state in Australia? Surely this is one of the AFL's biggest goals and it's happening in real time. It'd be like an American company finally having success in Texas after years of failing and then fearing that it might piss off some people in California/New York. That makes no sense in terms of trying to grow the company.

If they did add a third team in SEQ, I’d be looking at promoting/aligning the club with a long-term, successful state league club like the Southport Sharks. Even if they were “Brisbane Sharks” as obviously we won’t see two clubs based on the Gold Coast.

Not sure Southport would be interested but they deserve to play in the AFL and they have a great brand.

Likewise if they added a third SA team I’d be looking at Norwood as opposed to another new franchise.

Aspley makes a lot more sense than Southport. Wealthy team in northern Brisbane who have many existing ties to the Sunshine Coast. Maybe they could even adopt the Hornets nickname. They already wear yellow so it makes sense in a lot of ways.

 

[delta_magpie]

Relocate GWS first... i saw more people at a dentists waiting room than at their home games.

or at least fix that region.. i mean its been 13 years thats plenty of time to get GWS only fans who have grown up with only one team.

 

[Coolangatta]

Why would the AFL fear continuing to grow the game in the third biggest state in Australia? Surely this is one of the AFL's biggest goals and it's happening in real time. It'd be like an American company finally having success in Texas after years of failing and then fearing that it might piss off some people in California/New York. That makes no sense in terms of trying to grow the company.

Of course they want to grow the game in Queensland. Doesn’t mean they want a decade of interstate sides winning flags and potentially several all interstate grand finals.

Last time that happened, the AFL investigated the state of the game in Victoria. Too bad they missed a key finding: there’s too many teams in Victoria.

Aspley makes a lot more sense than Southport. Wealthy team in northern Brisbane who have many existing ties to the Sunshine Coast. Maybe they could even adopt the Hornets nickname. They already wear yellow so it makes sense in a lot of ways.

Love this idea if Brisbane 2 is preferred over the Sunshine Coast.

Aspley Hornets and South West Sharks would make great new additions to the league after Canberra.

 

[Coolangatta]

The afl needs 2 new teams like a hole in the head, personally I hope the Tassie gov doesn't build the stadium and the whole idea is put on a distant back burner.

So Tasmania can’t have a team because there’s 10 teams in Victoria?

Got it.

You must be still pissed about the Bombers losing that final in Tassie to the Dogs.

 

[PrancingPony]

That sounds like a terrible idea, they still have plenty of growth to make with the two Queensland teams they have already still.

 

[GC2015]

Of course they want to grow the game in Queensland. Doesn’t mean they want a decade of interstate sides winning flags and potentially several all interstate grand finals.

Last time that happened, the AFL investigated the state of the game in Victoria. Too bad they missed a key finding: there’s too many teams in Victoria.

I think if they were being honest, they would tell you that they regret doing that investigation back in 2006 because the end result was almost complete domination from Victorian teams for close to two decades and that hurt the growth of the game nationally. I think they now understand how important it is to have highly competitive teams in QLD & NSW and how much growth opportunity was wasted in the 2010s because they weren't prioritising growth in the northern states.

It's about finding a balance. Ideally, every state would have at least one team competing in the finals every year so the local media/people remain engaged for the entirety of the season + some of September. You would also want the premiership cup to rotate around Australia every decade, if you could somehow manufacture that e.g. South Australia shouldn't go 20+ years without a premiership, but that's the reality right now.

Having said all that, you still have to maintain a level of integrity when it comes to running a competitive national league. So you can't stack the deck too much either way. Brisbane have gone into the last three GFs as the underdogs and have walked away with the premiership in two of those GFs - so I wouldn't say it's getting out of hand in that sense. Brisbane have literally never won the minor premiership so it'd be hard to argue we're witnessing complete domination right now.

The balance we've got right now seems to be pretty good in terms of growing the game in the northern states and giving other teams around Australia genuine belief that their team can go all the way. I'm sure Adelaide, Collingwood and Geelong fans were all convinced at certain points of this year that their team was going all the way and that's a good thing as opposed to season where it's really obvious which team is going to walk away with the cup.

Love this idea if Brisbane 2 is preferred over the Sunshine Coast.

Aspley Hornets and South West Sharks would make great new additions to the league after Canberra.

I wouldn't enter the Hornets into the AFL, but you could strongly align them with a northern Brisbane/Sunshine Coast AFL team in the same way that the Southport Sharks were initially strongly aligned to the Suns. The Sharks have sponsored the Suns from the very start and they've shared plenty of staff members over the years. That's probably a good way to go about it.

 

[JimmyBC]

That sounds like a terrible idea, they still have plenty of growth to make with the two Queensland teams they have already still.

No point whatsoever when Gold Coast could fit their home crowds in a phone box.

 

[CatsDan]

So Tasmania can’t have a team because there’s 10 teams in Victoria?

Got it.

You must be still pissed about the Bombers losing that final in Tassie to the Dogs.

What a strange and desperate link there.

 

[Coolangatta]

What a strange and desperate link there.

It was a joke.

What wasn’t a joke was that too many teams in Victoria is not a good enough reason to deny Tasmania entry to the AFL.

A valid reason to deny them would be that the stadium doesn’t get built and wishing it fails just for your own selfish desire to stay at 18 teams is ****ing pathetic.

 

[CatsDan]

It was a joke.

What wasn’t a joke was that too many teams in Victoria is not a good enough reason to deny Tasmania entry to the AFL.

A valid reason to deny them would be that the stadium doesn’t get built and wishing it fails just for your own selfish desire to stay at 18 teams is ****ing pathetic.

Ok

 

[loco3]

I think if they were being honest, they would tell you that they regret doing that investigation back in 2006 because the end result was almost complete domination from Victorian teams for close to two decades and that hurt the growth of the game nationally. I think they now understand how important it is to have highly competitive teams in QLD & NSW and how much growth opportunity was wasted in the 2010s because they weren't prioritising growth in the northern states.

It's about finding a balance. Ideally, every state would have at least one team competing in the finals every year so the local media/people remain engaged for the entirety of the season + some of September. You would also want the premiership cup to rotate around Australia every decade, if you could somehow manufacture that e.g. South Australia shouldn't go 20+ years without a premiership, but that's the reality right now.

Having said all that, you still have to maintain a level of integrity when it comes to running a competitive national league. So you can't stack the deck too much either way. Brisbane have gone into the last three GFs as the underdogs and have walked away with the premiership in two of those GFs - so I wouldn't say it's getting out of hand in that sense. Brisbane have literally never won the minor premiership so it'd be hard to argue we're witnessing complete domination right now.

The balance we've got right now seems to be pretty good in terms of growing the game in the northern states and giving other teams around Australia genuine belief that their team can go all the way. I'm sure Adelaide, Collingwood and Geelong fans were all convinced at certain points of this year that their team was going all the way and that's a good thing as opposed to season where it's really obvious which team is going to walk away with the cup.


I wouldn't enter the Hornets into the AFL, but you could strongly align them with a northern Brisbane/Sunshine Coast AFL team in the same way that the Southport Sharks were initially strongly aligned to the Suns. The Sharks have sponsored the Suns from the very start and they've shared plenty of staff members over the years. That's probably a good way to go about it.

Wonder how’d you locate a north Brisbane team…

Would you choose Petrie for your base and game day stadium? It’s located on the fork of the train line, close to the USC Uni campus, close-ish to the freeway. Seems central enough to the expanding Moreton Bay region.

Maybe a couple of games in the Sunshine Coast and a couple of big games at the new Olympic stadium?

 

[GC2015]

Wonder how’d you locate a north Brisbane team…

Would you choose Petrie for your base and game day stadium? It’s located on the fork of the train line, close to the USC Uni campus, close-ish to the freeway. Seems central enough to the expanding Moreton Bay region.

Maybe a couple of games in the Sunshine Coast and a couple of big games at the new Olympic stadium?

If it was up to me, I'm playing the majority of the home games at the new Olympic stadium and 2-3 a year on the Sunshine Coast. I think that's the best model for growing the game in Queensland. I'd also have their academy zone run from the northern suburbs of Brisbane all the way up to central QLD around Rockhampton. As for the home training base, I'd just see which local council out of Brisbane, Moreton Bay and the Sunny Coast would be willing to fund the best facilities and then go from there.

 

[Freomaniac]

The northern teams DID have an issue with retention and recruitment. Only GWS has issues.

Brisbane had 8 players under 22 in a winning grand final team with Draper, Allen and top 5 pick coming into the side.

Gold Coast made the top 6 with some many players with massive upside. They will be getting three first round picks in this draft and potentially a premiership AA midfielder.

Both Queensland teams will be top 6 for ten years. Doesn’t leave a lot of spots for other teams to challenge for a flag.

A solid post.... But I highly doubt Both Queensland sides will make finals for 10 years in a row.

Contend for finals for 10 years in a row maybe like Port Adelaide from 2013 to 2024.

Eagles had their finals run from 1990 to 1999. But back then it was easy for them to draft and develop local WAFL talent.

Equalization in the AFL means the average AFL side will spend 5 or 6 or even 7 years in a row of no finals then at best have a 4 or 5 year window of finals contention

 

[Freomaniac]

Surely having two, maybe three new clubs on AFL life support will mean they look to the self-sustaining Perth market for number 20?

Maybe 4 new clubs on life support.

I mean the AFL currently have a tv rights deal from 2025 to 2031. That's 4.5 billion dollars in that 7 year deal.

You bring in a 19th and 20th team. That's 20 sides with a playing list salary cap of 20 million dollars each. So 400 million dollars on player wages

 

[loco3]

If it was up to me, I'm playing the majority of the home games at the new Olympic stadium and 2-3 a year on the Sunshine Coast. I think that's the best model for growing the game in Queensland. I'd also have their academy zone run from the northern suburbs of Brisbane all the way up to central QLD around Rockhampton. As for the home training base, I'd just see which local council out of Brisbane, Moreton Bay and the Sunny Coast would be willing to fund the best facilities and then go from there

Do you think a mixed identity between North Brisbane/Moreton Bay LGA and the Sunshine Coast as a secondary market would be a problem for the club?

Agree in principle that the Olympic stadium should be utilised, but I wonder if 8-9 games a year in a 60k capacity stadium is not a great fit. Surely they need 10+ years in a boutique 20k stadium, potentially in the northern suburbs?

 

[GC2015]

Do you think a mixed identity between North Brisbane/Moreton Bay LGA and the Sunshine Coast as a secondary market would be a problem for the club?

Agree in principle that the Olympic stadium should be utilised, but I wonder if 8-9 games a year in a 60k capacity stadium is not a great fit. Surely they need 10+ years in a boutique 20k stadium, potentially in the northern suburbs?

I think it would be in their best interests to position themselves as a northern Brisbane team (mainly because of the population difference) and the Moreton Bay/Sunshine Coast are viewed as secondary markets for them. The NRL's Dolphins are essentially doing the same thing right now and they get pretty good crowds to Suncorp Stadium, despite the overwhelming popularity of the Broncos in the marketplace.

As for the stadium, it really depends on what kind fo crowd number you'd expect to show up to games most weeks. Right now the Lions seem to sell out just about every home game so it's probably fair to say they'd be averaging at least 40k if they were playing in a bigger stadium. Would a second Brisbane team get close to that? Maybe average 25-30k? I think that would be enough to justify playing as the second tenant at the Olympic stadium.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

If you want a nickname for a new Queensland club, and especially a second Brisbane club, why not the Bears?

Potentially, you'd have the Northside Brisbane Bears representing Redlands, the Sunshine Coast, and the suburbs north of the river.

And then the Southside Brisbane Lions representing Logan and the suburbs south of the river.

 

[Elixuh]

It doesn’t make much sense at present unless it’s just for the TV rights and you don’t care about having a money sink club. The obvious locations are North Qld, Sunshine Coast or Ipswich.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

It doesn’t make much sense at present unless it’s just for the TV rights and you don’t care about having a money sink club. The obvious locations are North Qld, Sunshine Coast or Ipswich.

Another you'd want it is to shore up the Brisbane market for when the Lions aren't doing so well.

That's not so much of an issue right now, but think back to the era between the threepeat and Chris Fagan joining as coach.

Crowds were down in Brisbane, TV viewership was down, local media coverage was poor, and as a result grassroots footy didn't grow as fast as it could have.

Two teams in Perth and Adelaide means when the Crows or Eagles are down, hopefully the other us up and about.

The Crows are in the finals while Port's down the ladder, and vice-versa.

Freeo nearly makes the finals while the Eagles rebuild, and vice versa.

In Sydney, it also means the clubs focus on growing thd game in different parts of the metropolitan area.

The added bonus, if they share a stadium, is you get better economies of scale. It means 22 regular season games at the oval stadium instead if 11, plus more frequent finals.

 

[Elixuh]

Another you'd want it is to shore up the Brisbane market for when the Lions aren't doing so well.

That's not so much of an issue right now, but think back to the era between the threepeat and Chris Fagan joining as coach.

Crowds were down in Brisbane, TV viewership was down, local media coverage was poor, and as a result grassroots footy didn't grow as fast as it could have.

Two teams in Perth and Adelaide means when the Crows or Eagles are down, hopefully the other us up and about.

The Crows are in the finals while Port's down the ladder, and vice-versa.

Freeo nearly makes the finals while the Eagles rebuild, and vice versa.

In Sydney, it also means the clubs focus on growing thd game in different parts of the metropolitan area.

The added bonus, if they share a stadium, is you get better economies of scale. It means 22 regular season games at the oval stadium instead if 11, plus more frequent finals.

Ipswich playing at the new 63k stadium maybe.

Alternatively, the cheaper solution is just to make sure Bris never go into the death spiral they were in for 15 years prior to Fagan. The AFL can’t afford for Brisbane to be as bad as they were in the 2010s again.