Could also bring in more Queensland teams after a second Brisbane team looking at places such as Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville and Cairns. NRL is going to get hurt by the new R360 competition it'll be like the Super League war all over again and the AFL are going to be licking their lips.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Expansion A third team in Queensland? AFL acknowledges QLD3 as a 20th licence option
- Thread starter GC2015
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Don’t think so, rugby league isn’t going anywhere but upwards. But it doesn’t stop afl from also growing in qld.
A third team in qld still a bit of stretch right now, a fourth team and in a regional area is pie in the sky thinking.
Don’t believe the hype, if it even gets off the ground it will be dead after a year or two. Union are more exposed than the nrl.
How newest footy factory stole Aus’ ‘best athletes’ from rival codes… and other AFL clubs can benefit
How footy factory stole Aus’ ‘best athletes’ from rival codes… and other AFL clubs can benefit
www.foxsports.com.au
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Sep 10, 2010
- 18,144
- 25,254
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I don't understand the claims that there isn't enough talent. How do you measure this? There are plenty of talented prospects that don't get drafted each year due to the lack of spaces on AFL lists, and mature age players are still getting drafted out of the VFL every year.
GC is very close to Brisbane, sort of how Freo is close to Perth. They basically have 2 teams already and they both have Capacity.
Melbourne has 1 NRL team with 5m people. This is because it’s an AFL state, just like Brisbane is an NRL one.
That's a very black and white assessment.
Queensland has more footy participants than SA, and isn’t far off WA. Queensland is clearly more pro-AFL than Victoria is pro-NRL.
I don’t think anyone in SEQ would consider Gold Coast as part of the greater Brisbane metro. They are two distinct cities. The suns aren’t servicing Brisbane in any meaningful way and there is merit in having a Brisbane-based rivalry in what will become a very large city quite quickly.
Introducing a North Brisbane team would be the equivalent of Freo - obviously second to Brisbane, but with a clear identity (Northern, Coastal) compared to the Lions.
And yep, as Canberra Pear says, Brisbane is much more pro-AFL than Melbourne is pro-rugby.
Canberra is a no-brainer, which is why the league won't do it.
Probably too late now anyway (Raiders) and it's being used to prop up GWS anyway.
A third SA/WA team would rely on enough supporters jumping ship to support them. Are there any? I live in the wrong state to judge.
It's just sad that we don't put teams where the passion is. An NT team, for example, is difficult but not impossible.
Probably too late now anyway (Raiders) and it's being used to prop up GWS anyway.
A third SA/WA team would rely on enough supporters jumping ship to support them. Are there any? I live in the wrong state to judge.
It's just sad that we don't put teams where the passion is. An NT team, for example, is difficult but not impossible.
smasha
It's Time!
Southport Sharks.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,330
- 59,284
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I doubt an overseas rugby union competition that is expected to target around 10 of the current 510 NRL listed players - and by all reports has already missed out on two of its prime targets including the one who would have hurt the most (Payne Haas) is going to hurt like a war between two factions of rugby league itself which forced all 20 existing clubs at the time to pick a side and resulted in two competing competitions going head to head with one another, and new teams being formed in the same cities as existing teams during 1997, forcing sides to fold when the competition reunited.
Definitely not too late. Still a huge AFL supporter base in Canberra and it's continuously growing.
Canberra is also doing more harm to the Giants than good. They need to focus full-time on Western Sydney.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Not really?
Brisbane and GC are distinct cities. A person from the northern suburbs of Perth can drive or get public transport to Burswood easily to watch a Freo game. A person from the northern suburbs of Brisbane isn't going to GC to watch a game. The stadium doesn't represent them.
Offhand equalising "AFL state" and "NRL state" is untrue - there are far more AFL fans north of the Barassi line even in heavy NRL areas than there are NRL fans even in AFL areas.
- Thread starter
- #765
That's very true in terms of the dynamic in south east Queensland. Two distinctly different cities that barely crossover. The Suns aren't contributing to the growth of the game in Brisbane in any significant way and the same would be true the other way. The Suns are doing far more to grow the game in Cairns than they are in Brisbane and the same can be said about the Lions on the Sunshine Coast. Outside of what the Lions are doing, a second team based in Brisbane would be needed to grow the game in Brisbane in a significant way.
It’s simple. If you expand from 18 teams to 20, that means that across all teams, 46 players who are currently no good enough to be getting a game will be playing each week. So, on average, each team will have two or three players in their 23 that are currently not good enough to get a game.
Isn't the fact the gold coast are producing more elite talent per capita than anywhere else in Australia and the lions selling out nearly every week and playing in grand finals each year across men's and women's proof enough the experiment is working? The problem there with funding is, the ridiculous cost bases of running an AFL club compared to other sports in Australia.
- Thread starter
- #768
You're not taking into account the draft pool growth that's occurring in Queensland, New South Wales and likely Tasmania once they get their academy up and running. The overall quality of say pick 18 in the draft should be getting better due to more high end picks coming out of non-traditional markets.
Overall the number of boys playing footy is not increasing. The talent pool is not expanding nearly enough fill 23 or 46 weekly spots. The academy kids could come on a limitless more quickly, but there is less than a handful of kids being drafted via academies who would not be playing footy anyway.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #770
It's certainly growing in Queensland. I believe I read we had a 12% increase in junior male participation last year, but it's not just the participation numbers that are important. The end of goal of turning some of these QLD juniors into high end draft picks is also very important because that's significantly improving the AFL draft pool and we saw 5 Queenslanders drafted in the first 18 picks this year so it's undoubtedly working. Get NSW and Tasmania on board in the same way and we should have enough high end talent to justify 20 teams.
- Sep 10, 2010
- 18,144
- 25,254
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
They're just not good enough to get a game currently. But the exact same thing would be true if we had 8 teams and were looking to expand to 10. This point has no bearing on the quality of the players who would instead be getting a game. That's an independent variable that is measured separately.
- Sep 10, 2010
- 18,144
- 25,254
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I presume you have statistics to back this assertion. Please post them.
There's less than a handful of kids being drafted via the academies to begin with. And you have no way of knowing whether they'd be playing footy otherwise, unless it's reported they were made offers by NRL clubs.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
But apparently there was enough talent to go around when we decided to go to 16 teams in 1997, even though the Aussie Rules participation base was about two-thirds of what it was now, and AFL salaries are much higher so there's clearly more motivation for people to become and continue to be an AFL player. Throw in the northern academies contributing a few players and a few Irish etc. players around that weren't in the 90s and it makes the difference even more extreme.
This argument has never made sense to me. We've added only 2 new teams since 1997 when the overall talent pool has clearly increased by more than 1/8th
Union is worldwide while League is local so of course League is going to be more exposed. Papua New Guinea and Cook Islands are the only countries in the world where League is the national sport.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,330
- 59,284
- AFL Club
- Geelong
And?
How is that going to do the same to league as what super league did, which is what was being discussed.
Union being a worldwide sport (sort of). means it’s going to target mostly union players. It will of course try and target some NRL players: given the talent there it would be crazy not to.
Losing a few players is not going to damage the NRL in comparison to a war within the actual code itself in this country that ultimately ended with four teams merging to become two, another two doing likewise which resulted in the extinction of one, and a handful of other teams disappearing as well.
