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

[Canberra Pear]

It's just the way we've interpreted the answer/s from the article because we don't have conclusive proof one way or the other. In my mind, I think the journo adding the part about BNE2 possibly being the 20th team in the AFL leads me to think that at some point the 20th team may have been mentioned and Dillon was responding to the line of thinking that would be obvious if we had the context of the full conversation. We don't have that context so that leaves it open to other interpretations like yours, which may or may not be true. We won't know until something conclusive comes out, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss why we both came to the conclusions that we did. I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, just calling it how I see it, but I certainly accept the possibility that I could be misreading it and am wrong.

I realise that we're interpreting things differently, but the journalist literally never writes 20th team. It's all in the social media.

He just says "prospect of a third team based in the the Sunshine State".

I'm curious, has Andrew Dillon ever commented on Canberra potentially getting an AFL team? If he has and there's some substance to the quote then that might give us some more context over what's going on at AFL HQ.

He's incredibly non-comittal about every area. He's said "never say never" about a second Brisbane team.

He was asked about a Southwest WA team and he said "so who knows". And we all do, the Southwest doesn't have the population.

Ask him about putting a team in Broken Hill and I'm not sure he'd publicly rule it out.

But about 10 months ago, he said:
"We have got interest from the NT, there's interest in North Queensland. People have been talking about a third team out of WA, or Canberra, so it's great that there is interest."

100k members in a 60k stadium is literally what West Coast is currently dealing with and people are constantly talking about their wait list and how Eagles fans miss out on going to games. Having Fremantle as another option to explore in terms of attending a game in Perth would certainly help in terms of footy fans based in Perth getting their AFL fix. I just don't think the AFL would like the idea of potentially 10s of thousands of people living in Brisbane missing out on attending AFL games. That hurts growth up here and we know they are trying to prioritise growth in QLD & NSW. I really hope the people designing Brisbane's Olympic stadium build it in a way where it can be easily upgraded to 70-80k (like Perth Stadium) when the demand becomes obvious. Future proofing the stadium capacity is a very good idea if they don't plan on starting a second AFL team in Brisabne.

The Lions are doing well, but a bit premature comparing yourself to the Eagles.

When you get a few seasons of 55k-plus at the new stadium, then look at a second team. It would be ridiculous to more than triple demand over night.

Remember, the Swans are the biggest club in the land. Support for a first team doesn't mean guaranteed support for a second team.

 

[GC2015]

I realise that we're interpreting things differently, but the journalist literally never writes 20th team. It's all in the social media.

He just says "prospect of a third team based in the the Sunshine State".

It's in the intro sentence below the byline. Go back and read the beginning of the article or even check out the preview on the Courier Mail website that includes the intro sentence:

He's incredibly non-comittal about every area. He's said "never say never" about a second Brisbane team.

He was asked about a Southwest WA team and he said "so who knows". And we all do, the Southwest doesn't have the population.

Ask him about putting a team in Broken Hill and I'm not sure he'd publicly rule it out.

But about 10 months ago, he said:
"We have got interest from the NT, there's interest in North Queensland. People have been talking about a third team out of WA, or Canberra, so it's great that there is interest."

Okay maybe a better question is - has Andrew Dillon publicly acknowledged growth of participation in the ACT and said it was a big part of the league's future goals? I know he's mentioned NSW, which I guess could loosely include the ACT, but I think that's more a comment on the bigger markets that they already have representation in - Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Again, just my interpretation. You may see it differently.

That's why I mentioned that the timing of each comment is important. 10 months ago the AFL was probably thinking the Lions were about to drop off and couldn't fathom (at the time) what the Lions would go on to achieve in September + the corresponding numbers that followed. Assessing the Brisbane market 10 months ago would be VERY different to assessing it now.

The Lions are doing well, but a bit premature comparing yourself to the Eagles.

When you get a few seasons of 55k-plus at the new stadium, then look at a second team. It would be ridiculous to more than triple demand over night.

Remember, the Swans are the biggest club in the land. Support for a first team doesn't mean guaranteed support for a second team.

West Coast only averaged home crowds of 32k in 1995 when Fremantle entered the league and 27k the year before that (a premiership year). The Crows averaged home crowds of 39k in 1996 and 1997 (a premiership year) when Port Adelaide entered the AFL. The Swans were averaging home crowds of 24k in 2012 (a premiership year) when GWS entered the league and 26k the year before. Brisbane averaged home crowds of 31k last year and sold out 9 of their 11 home games at the Gabba. These are very comparable numbers to Perth, Adelaide and Sydney when a second team was introduced into those markets. Some may say those markets would have pulled bigger crowds if the stadiums were bigger, but the same can certainly be said about the Lions after 9 sell outs last year.

Requiring an average of 55k to home games before expansion can be looked at is way too high of a bar and no other market in Australia has required that for the AFL to act.

 

[Canberra Pear]

It's in the intro sentence below the byline. Go back and read the beginning of the article or even check out the preview on the Courier Mail website that includes the intro sentence:

That's usually written by the digital editor. Especially in an organisation that big.

Nothing the journalist has written, mentions the 20th team. Even his quote tweet didn't say it. Said everything else, but not that.

"The AFL wants 10m fans and 1m participants by 2033 and Queensland, its largest growth market in recent years, is the key battleground. What that means for the Lions, Suns, Academies, Opening Round and more"

But we're quibbling over the wrong point. If he was asked specifically about the 20th team (which no evidence points to), he was non-committal.

Okay maybe a better question is - has Andrew Dillon publicly acknowledged growth of participation in the ACT and said it was a big part of the league's future goals? I know he's mentioned NSW, which I guess could loosely include the ACT, but I think that's more a comment on the bigger markets that they already have representation in - Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Again, just my interpretation. You may see it differently.

Queensland is more important than Canberra. And he's promoting the two teams you have.

West Coast only averaged home crowds of 32k in 1995 when Fremantle entered the league and 27k the year before that (a premiership year). The Crows averaged home crowds of 39k in 1996 and 1997 (a premiership year) when Port Adelaide entered the AFL. The Swans were averaging home crowds of 24k in 2012 (a premiership year) when GWS entered the league and 26k the year before. Brisbane averaged home crowds of 31k last year and sold out 9 of their 11 home games at the Gabba. These are very comparable numbers to Perth, Adelaide and Sydney when a second team was introduced into those markets. Some may say those markets would have pulled bigger crowds if the stadiums were bigger, but the same can certainly be said about the Lions after 9 sell outs last year.

Requiring an average of 55k to home games before expansion can be looked at is way too high of a bar and no other market in Australia has required that for the AFL to act.

If I had a café, I wouldn't expand the dining area to a second storey, while simultaneously opening up a second two-storey franchise down the street. You just don't expand that fast.

I don't know what's so hard to understand.

The AFL is a cautious organisation. You're simply not going to go from 35k seats to 120k seats within in a year or two. It just doesn't makes sense to do. If you're going to expand with another team, you want it when demand is over-flowing. Demand is over-flowing now, but it won't be when you have an extra 25k seats. It'll pretty much be spot on.

 

[Section 5]

In my opinion Brisbane only needs 1 team for the forceable future.
The Gold Coast will slowly get better support so that covers the other Queensland team.
That leaves only Sunshine Coast and Ipswich with a reasonable population to maybe support a team.
But both better as a recruiting area in my opinion.
I doubt either of those would be successful.
Then your are left with Cairns. Playing AFL in the tropics even in winter i don't see being successful. Once again, a recruiting ground for mine.

Regarding Canberra i think that would be more successful than Tasmania but i am in the minority on that.

 

[GC2015]

If I had a café, I wouldn't expand the dining area to a second storey, while simultaneously opening up a second two-storey franchise down the street. You just don't expand that fast.

I don't know what's so hard to understand.

The AFL is a cautious organisation. You're simply not going to go from 35k seats to 120k seats within in a year or two. It just doesn't makes sense to do. If you're going to expand with another team, you want it when demand is over-flowing. Demand is over-flowing now, but it won't be when you have an extra 25k seats. It'll pretty much be spot on.

What I'm trying to point out is that the numbers are potentially already good enough to justify further expansion (as per what was happening in Perth, Adelaide and Sydney when they expanded) in Brisbane right now. The creation of the new Olympic stadium in Brisbane is really just a very convenient date that happens to fall around the time we expect the 20th team to enter the league, but if the Olympics weren't coming to Queensland then I'd still say we should be investigating the possibility of a second team in Brisbane given how well the Lions are going right now and the fact that the two-team per city model seems to work well in the other major cities of Australia.

Don't foget - West Coast were playing at Subiaco when Fremantle entered the league, Adelaide were playing at Footy Park when Port Adelaide entered the league and Sydney were playing in a smaller SCG when the Giants entered the league. None of them were playing in 55-60k stadiums at the time like they are now. I'd even be tempted to start a second team before the Olympic stadium is ready and have them play at the Gabba for a year or two so they can build their fanbase and the local rivalries with the Lions & Suns before moving into the larger Olympic stadium.

 

[Canberra Pear]

What I'm trying to point out is that the numbers are potentially already good enough to justify further expansion (as per what was happening in Perth, Adelaide and Sydney when they expanded) in Brisbane right now. The creation of the new Olympic stadium in Brisbane is really just a very convenient date that happens to fall around the time we expect the 20th team to enter the league, but if the Olympics weren't coming to Queensland then I'd still say we should be investigating the possibility of a second team in Brisbane given how well the Lions are going right now and the fact that the two-team per city model seems to work well in the other major cities of Australia.

I'm not countering against anything you've said about the growth. Point made. In fact, I already agreed with you before you started.

But you don't seem to be getting my point about more than tripling demand. New stadium, or new team. You can't do both at once. It's as simple as that.

Don't foget - West Coast were playing at Subiaco when Fremantle entered the league, Adelaide were playing at Footy Park when Port Adelaide entered the league and Sydney were playing in a smaller SCG when the Giants entered the league. None of them were playing in 55-60k stadiums at the time like they are now. I'd even be tempted to start a second team before the Olympic stadium is ready and have them play at the Gabba for a year or two so they can build their fanbase and the local rivalries with the Lions & Suns before moving into the larger Olympic stadium.

The fact that you've used those examples makes me think you've repeatedly missed my point.

Freo also spent 23 years building up demand at Subiaco.

Adelaide Oval is pretty much the same capacity as Footy Park. And the move also happened two decades after Port joined the AFL.

The SCG has increased by about 4k. Not 25k.

 

[strand_victor]

Yes, Gold Coast still needs to succeed. Think a Sharks rebrand would help with that, but that’s neither here nor there.

A 2nd Brisbane team is a good idea, but for team 21.

By the 2050s we may yet see the Lions with 100k members selling out a 60k stadium like the Eagles do. You’d have to seriously consider the third largest market in Australia as a location to have one game per week if that happens.

Give a Licence to Southport they are a Real Club with Real History.

 

[Roylion]

The only way the AFL could really make it happen is to stop funding North and let them go bankrupt

So expel them from the competition?

so they can sell their IP to a Queensland/interstate consortium (essentially what they did to Fitzroy).

Not quite. The AFL transferred their AFL owned IP to an existing AFL club.

Truth be told, I think they'd also like to move St Kilda to a place like Canberra and have just eight teams based in Victoria.

How do you know this?

 

[Bjo187]

So expel them from the competition?

Not quite. The AFL transferred their AFL owned IP to an existing AFL club.


How do you know this?

Not being smart here mate, I respect your knowledge on the topic, but do you ever post outside of merger and relocation chatter? I don't think i see you in other threads.

 

[GC2015]

I'm not countering against anything you've said about the growth. Point made. In fact, I already agreed with you before you started.

But you don't seem to be getting my point about more than tripling demand. New stadium, or new team. You can't do both at once. It's as simple as that.



The fact that you've used those examples makes me think you've repeatedly missed my point.

Freo also spent 23 years building up demand at Subiaco.

Adelaide Oval is pretty much the same capacity as Footy Park. And the move also happened two decades after Port joined the AFL.

The SCG has increased by about 4k. Not 25k.

I get what you're saying but you seem to have ignored my suggestion that they could potentially bring in a second Brisbane team BEFORE the Olympic stadium has been completed in 2032. That's seven years away. Have both Brisbane teams play in the Gabba for a few years and then start the process of assessing whether one or both should move into the new stadium. The option does exist for one Brisbane team (the Lions) to play at the new Olympic stadium and the other to continue playing at the Gabba until they build a bigger fanbase to justify playing at the Olympic stadium.

So expel them from the competition?

If that's what they really want to do, which I don't think they do. I just think if it somehow played out that way then the AFL wouldn't be unhappy about it. The AFL hasn't exactly made a secret of their desire to move North out of Victoria in the past. However, North appear to be safe these days - they will just have to continue playing home games interstate to make sure their finances remain on track. Playing home games in Perth should be a real windfall for them.

Not quite. The AFL transferred their AFL owned IP to an existing AFL club.

Yeah, so essentially the same outcome - transferring of IP to new owners. It's just this hypothetical situation could involve some money if a consortium is keen on it.

How do you know this?

I don't. That's why I wrote "I think..." Just my opinion on what I think the AFL would prefer the competition to look like in an ideal world. Their preferred model and the actual model are two very different things. In all likelihood, the AFL ends up expanding to 20 teams over the next 10 years and all existing Victorian clubs remain in the competition in their current form.

 

[Roylion]

If that's what they really want to do, which I don't think they do. I just think if it somehow played out that way then the AFL wouldn't be unhappy about it.

It won't play out that way.

The AFL hasn't exactly made a secret of their desire to move North out of Victoria in the past.

Nearly twenty years ago? They worked to actively reduce Melbourne based clubs but that was thirty years ago. There's no desire to do that now, so any talk of relocation or removal of a Melbourne based club is pie in the sky fantasy.

Yeah, so essentially the same outcome - transferring of IP to new owners. It's just this hypothetical situation could involve some money if a consortium is keen on it.

So the AFL would have to engineer an expelling of an existing member owned AFL club with all the public angst and legal ramifications that would result and then receive offers from a cashed up consortium to establish a new club with the same IP in a different location. I doubt that's going to happen. A 20th-21st-22nd licence is far more likely.

Just my opinion on what I think the AFL would prefer the competition to look like in an ideal world.

I'm asking what's the basis of your conclusion. Other than gut-feel.

In all likelihood, the AFL ends up expanding to 20 teams over the next 10 years and all existing Victorian clubs remain in the competition in their current form.

Virtually certain.

 

[Roylion]

Not being smart here mate, I respect your knowledge on the topic, but do you ever post outside of merger and relocation chatter? I don't think i see you in other threads.

Why do you care?

You should look more widely. Or do a search. Or both.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I get what you're saying but you seem to have ignored my suggestion that they could potentially bring in a second Brisbane team BEFORE the Olympic stadium has been completed in 2032. That's seven years away.

Two years before, or two years after, it doesn't matter. It's still too close together.

For a stadium increase that big, you'd need at least 15-20 years before expansion.

Have both Brisbane teams play in the Gabba for a few years and then start the process of assessing whether one or both should move into the new stadium. The option does exist for one Brisbane team (the Lions) to play at the new Olympic stadium and the other to continue playing at the Gabba until they build a bigger fanbase to justify playing at the Olympic stadium.

Will the Gabba still be in use after 2032? I thought its useful lifespan was past by then. Won't be popular to keep it upgraded when there's a perfectly good stadium 4km away.

 

[Bjo187]

Why do you care?

You should look more widely. Or do a search. Or both.

Alright I just had a look and went back to December last year. It's all just posts on history based stuff, no actual footy. I care coz I'm interested if you have any interest in the modern game or just the history of the merger and other things. Plus if you have little interest in the modern game to barely ever post about it, why is that?

 

[Walshawk]

Two years before, or two years after, it doesn't matter. It's still too close together.

For a stadium increase that big, you'd need at least 15-20 years before expansion.



Will the Gabba still be in use after 2032? I thought its useful lifespan was past by then. Won't be popular to keep it upgraded when there's a perfectly good stadium 4km away.

No. The Gabba will be demolished.

 

[WilloTree]

Freo also spent 23 years building up demand at Subiaco.

Not they didn't. Below is the attendance for the round Freo played their first home game.


Fremantle were successful off field from Day 1.

 

[Roylion]

Alright I just had a look and went back to December last year. It's all just posts on history based stuff, no actual footy.

So what.

I haven't posted much on football since December last year? In the off-season? Well that's a surprise.

I care coz I'm interested if you have any interest in the modern game or just the history of the merger and other things.

Why does it matter? I don't have to post on everything.

Plus if you have little interest in the modern game to barely ever post about it, why is that?

When I've got something to say about the 'modern game', I'll say it. I go to plenty of Lions games, but don't need to post incessantly about who played well or why games were won or lost. I'll leave it to the other experts on here to comment on that. I'll say something if I feel the need or desire to do so. For example last season I commented on what should be the white shorts policy. Go and do a search on the Brisbane forum.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Not they didn't. Below is the attendance for the round Freo played their first home game.

View attachment 2245925
Fremantle were successful off field from Day 1.

My point was that Freo had 23 years of pent up demand. They didn't bring in Freo and Optus at the same time.

 

[Foreign Legion]

I think the starting point of any discussion should be to rule out Darwin/Alice Springs as anything more than 2 or 3 games a year sold by clubs paid for by NT Govt.

There is virtually no prospect of any significant population growth in either place. The NT is in the worst net debt position of any Australian jurisdiction and that's with the Fed's throwing shitloads at it all the time. The only way it would work would be to treat it the way New Guinea was treated - stacks more Fed money.

W.A. 3rd team is going to get pushback on a travel basis but population is there. Not sure where it would be located.

Canberra would be an easy option if Manuka has a bit more undercover areas. Population is there for sure and support.

My opinion is Sunshine Coast. The pop stats alluded to earlier omitted to mention that SC LGA doesn't include Noosa. So add in another 60-70K plus there and also areas in the North of Brisbane. Airport for easy access. Probably get a lot of fly-in tourists for games mid winter. Need an AFL Stadium though. The League should be looking at that now. Play BIG games at new Olympic Stadium - say 2-3 a year.

I'm going to be the one to say it - a lot of non pacific-island background kids are not suited to modern Rugba League. There are tons of athletic kids around who need another sport. And forget Ipswich - harder to crack than Western Sydney IMHO.

 

[Coolangatta]

I think the starting point of any discussion should be to rule out Darwin/Alice Springs as anything more than 2 or 3 games a year sold by clubs paid for by NT Govt.

There is virtually no prospect of any significant population growth in either place. The NT is in the worst net debt position of any Australian jurisdiction and that's with the Fed's throwing shitloads at it all the time. The only way it would work would be to treat it the way New Guinea was treated - stacks more Fed money.

W.A. 3rd team is going to get pushback on a travel basis but population is there. Not sure where it would be located.

Canberra would be an easy option if Manuka has a bit more undercover areas. Population is there for sure and support.

My opinion is Sunshine Coast. The pop stats alluded to earlier omitted to mention that SC LGA doesn't include Noosa. So add in another 60-70K plus there and also areas in the North of Brisbane. Airport for easy access. Probably get a lot of fly-in tourists for games mid winter. Need an AFL Stadium though. The League should be looking at that now. Play BIG games at new Olympic Stadium - say 2-3 a year.

I'm going to be the one to say it - a lot of non pacific-island background kids are not suited to modern Rugba League. There are tons of athletic kids around who need another sport. And forget Ipswich - harder to crack than Western Sydney IMHO.

Out of all of those, Canberra is the only viable one.

So is Perth but two team city model is a good one.

South West, Top End and Sunshine Coast (for the next foreseeable two decades) are too small.

 

[Foreign Legion]

Out of all of those, Canberra is the only viable one.

So is Perth but two team city model is a good one.

South West, Top End and Sunshine Coast (for the next foreseeable two decades) are too small.

Sunshine Coast is basically the same size as Canberra Population wise. 10 year pop growth % in right column. BTW Hobart is a lot smaller - I know it is Tasmania but it is not a 40min drive from Launceston to Hobart.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Sunshine Coast is basically the same size as Canberra Population wise. 10 year pop growth % in right column. BTW Hobart is a lot smaller - I know it is Tasmania but it is not a 40min drive from Launceston to Hobart.

View attachment 2245956

Sponsorship and bribery (I mean, corporate box demand) more readily available in Canberra. The secondary and tertiary sponsorships are the lifeblood of clubs.

Unless government cracks down on all the soft core bribery known as lobbyists using tools such as dinners, corporate boxes, etc as part of their sales pitches to MPs and their staff Canberra has almost unending amounts to splash. Spending a few million to buy - sorry, as part of pointing out the benefits of your company being used on - a contract worth a few billion is well worth it. Its a problem Sunshine Coast and Tassie face, very few mutlibillion dollar projects to buy into and no meaningful decision makers to bribe at corporate or government level.

 

[Foreign Legion]

Sponsorship and bribery (I mean, corporate box demand) more readily available in Canberra. The secondary and tertiary sponsorships are the lifeblood of clubs.

Unless government cracks down on all the soft core bribery known as lobbyists using tools such as dinners, corporate boxes, etc as part of their sales pitches to MPs and their staff Canberra has almost unending amounts to splash. Spending a few million to buy - sorry, as part of pointing out the benefits of your company being used on - a contract worth a few billion is well worth it. Its a problem Sunshine Coast and Tassie face, very few mutlibillion dollar projects to buy into and no meaningful decision makers to bribe at corporate or government level.

Going to need a lot of money for Heavy rail from Brisbane to Maroochydore - which was promised by both sides before last State Election - finished by Olympics. Not going to happen that quickly now. I think deep down most Aussie Rules supporters know that at least 1 club in Melbourne - maybe 2 - need to re-locate to survive long term. If private ownership comes in (which I'm against) it will only speed up this process. Not going to nominate the clubs as mine already got moved in 1981.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Sunshine Coast is basically the same size as Canberra Population wise. 10 year pop growth % in right column. BTW Hobart is a lot smaller - I know it is Tasmania but it is not a 40min drive from Launceston to Hobart.

View attachment 2245956

I know you're adding Noosa to that, but Canberra's also got about ~80k within about an hour that's not included in Canberra-Queabeyan.

 

[wormy]

The league would have a 30 year plan in mind. I reckon they are gonna do 22 teams max.

Canberra is a lock.

Then there's 2 more spots available to reach 22:
Options include:

• 2nd Brisbane team or Sunshine Coast team
• "northern" team playing games in Darwin/Cairns
• stand-alone NT team
• Newcastle area
• 3rd WA team
  -3rd SA team
  
  In my opinion, well have:
  1) 3rd QLD (to coincide with new Brisbane stadium)
  2) Canberra (could be delayed because rugby team in Canberra wants a stadium which might delay afl stadium, also GWS cant sell many seats in West Sydney at the moment)
  3) Northern - Cairns/Darwin
  
  
  That way there are 3 teams in NSW/ACT, 3.5 teams in QLD. NT gets genuine representation whilst having some help by being split across cities to give it a larger market.