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

[Walshawk]

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.

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. Even without

Manuka is in a good spot - the light rail might eventually go past - about 1km away. Stadium is ok. Currently on a par with Launceston (pre upgrade) and Blundstoe. It is much, much better than Darwin or Cairns. If I were the AFL I would be pushing hard for that upgrade, and increase games there part of a new deal.

 

[Nugett]

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.

If Tasmania needs a roofed stadium, then Canberra will too. Canberra is way colder in winter than Hobart. Truthfully, while I agree that Hobart needs a new stadium, that is more centrally located, I don’t think it really needs a roofed stadium. Think that is over kill.

While Manuka is in a great location, as it is centred around a lot of restaurants and other retail, which makes it easy for parking and if they are adding light rail around the ground, makes it more accessible, especially if you compare it to Bellerive, that is in a residential zone, hardly any parking and crap public transport.

So if the requirement for Tasmania is a roofed stadium, then the requirement for Canberra, is upgrading Manuka to have a roof also, as more games have the potential to be played in the snow and ice in Canberra, then what there will be in Hobart.

 

[Canberra Pear]

If Tasmania needs a roofed stadium, then Canberra will too. Canberra is way colder in winter than Hobart. Truthfully, while I agree that Hobart needs a new stadium, that is more centrally located, I don’t think it really needs a roofed stadium. Think that is over kill.

While I do think a roof in Hobart is overkill, I think it would be even greater overkill in Canberra.

Yes, it gets cold. But generally, our winters are beautiful. Dry and still. We're actually the driest capital through the footy season (March through September).

Just schedule Canberra games in the early afternoon and it will, more often than not, be beautiful footy weather. If anything, a mini-Marvel would just be blocking out our precious sun.

But I would absolutely love some heating to be included into future plans. That would be cheaper than retrofitting a roof. Also, there's no chance we get a roofed Manuka before we get a new rectangular stadium.

While Manuka is in a great location, as it is centred around a lot of restaurants and other retail, which makes it easy for parking and if they are adding light rail around the ground, makes it more accessible, especially if you compare it to Bellerive, that is in a residential zone, hardly any parking and crap public transport.

So if the requirement for Tasmania is a roofed stadium, then the requirement for Canberra, is upgrading Manuka to have a roof also,

I think there's two other major factors why a roof would be less of a factor for Canberra.

1. The AFL really didn't want a 19th team, so they put up ridiculous hurdles. The desire for a 20th team will be greater, so the hurdles won't be as great.

2. The other main difference between Tasmania and Canberra is the market. Tasmania entering is undoubtedly a feelgood story, but the AFL is adding very little to the pie by adding a team in Tasmania. Tasmania is a small market. It's also shrinking as a proportion of Australia's population. Conversely, Canberra is a similar-sized market population-wise (already bigger if you count the whole capital region). Already a substantially bigger economy. And it's growing much quicker. So I think Canberra having more strategic pay-off would also make the AFL less insistent on a roof.

Not saying any of these are fair, but just that I don't think you can paint the two with the same broad brush.

as more games have the potential to be played in the snow and ice in Canberra, then what there will be in Hobart.

The snow game gets overhyped. We've had one game where it snowed.

From what I can tell, the Raiders have also had one game where it snowed. That's more than 40 full seasons with one snow game.

They're much rarer than people think. It was just good/bad timing that we had one for a Giants game.

 

[Nugett]

While I do think a roof in Hobart is overkill, I think it would be even greater overkill in Canberra.

Yes, it gets cold. But generally, our winters are beautiful. Dry and still. We're actually the driest capital through the footy season (March through September).

Just schedule Canberra games in the early afternoon and it will, more often than not, be beautiful footy weather. If anything, a mini-Marvel would just be blocking out our precious sun.

But I would absolutely love some heating to be included into future plans. That would be cheaper than retrofitting a roof. Also, there's no chance we get a roofed Manuka before we get a new rectangular stadium.



I think there's two other major factors why a roof would be less of a factor for Canberra.

1. The AFL really didn't want a 19th team, so they put up ridiculous hurdles. The desire for a 20th team will be greater, so the hurdles won't be as great.

2. The other main difference between Tasmania and Canberra is the market. Tasmania entering is undoubtedly a feelgood story, but the AFL is adding very little to the pie by adding a team in Tasmania. Tasmania is a small market. It's also shrinking as a proportion of Australia's population. Conversely, Canberra is a similar-sized market population-wise (already bigger if you count the whole capital region). Already a substantially bigger economy. And it's growing much quicker. So I think Canberra having more strategic pay-off would also make the AFL less insistent on a roof.

Not saying any of these are fair, but just that I don't think you can paint the two with the same broad brush.



The snow game gets overhyped. We've had one game where it snowed.

From what I can tell, the Raiders have also had one game where it snowed. That's more than 40 full seasons with one snow game.

They're much rarer than people think. It was just good/bad timing that we had one for a Giants game.

All very fair and valid points. Especially the point that Tasmania was more or less pushed onto them.

 

[Canberra Pear]

All very fair and valid points. Especially the point that Tasmania was more or less pushed onto them.

Yeah, I think the roof ultimatum was partially the AFL expecting Tasmania to back down.

But I also think, if somehow Darwin were to get the 20th team, they'd be forced to build a roofed stadium, too.

 

[Coolangatta]

Yeah, I think the roof ultimatum was partially the AFL expecting Tasmania to back down.

But I also think, if somehow Darwin were to get the 20th team, they'd be forced to build a roofed stadium, too.

NT has no chance of building a shed, let alone a roofed stadium, unless the federal government is going to pay for the lot and other infrastructure they’d need.

 

[Purple Suit]

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.

WA3 won't increase travel for anybody, still the same number of home and away games. Maybe some slightly longer plane rides 1/2 a game a year but it's a drop in the ocean so the eastern state teams can suck it up.

WA3 would decrease the travel for WA teams who get shafted by travel every year. I think that's the way it should be looked at, the other way as a negative is ridiculous.

 

[Football Tragic]

I'm a firm believer that the new stadium, the new district that grows up around it and the new exposure an AFL team will give Tassie, will be sensational for its economic growth. I think the aging, insula, neigh-sayers down there, are not grasping the bigger picture or are actively resisting it. It's strange to me, that from a state that has desperately petitioned the competition for decades for a license, would be now be so eager to try and renegotiate their entry. If it was me, I'd strip them of their license and award it to another state that really wants it like Canberra, WA or even NT.

 

[Canberra Pear]

WA3 won't increase travel for anybody, still the same number of home and away games. Maybe some slightly longer plane rides 1/2 a game a year but it's a drop in the ocean so the eastern state teams can suck it up.

After the western teams, the most travelled teams are Brisbane and Gold Coast. And the difference is 1h45 to 5h35.

I get your disdain if Victorian teams were to complain about travel, but the northern teams still have a pretty big travel burden, and a Canberra team helps alleviate that.

WA3 would decrease the travel for WA teams who get shafted by travel every year. I think that's the way it should be looked at, the other way as a negative is ridiculous.

WA3 doesn't decrease interstate travel for West Coast and Freo any more than the current arrangement with North. It's shown that we don't need to bring in a third Perth team just to bring their travel down.

 

[Purple Suit]

After the western teams, the most travelled teams are Brisbane and Gold Coast. And the difference is 1h45 to 5h35.

I get your disdain if Victorian teams were to complain about travel, but the northern teams still have a pretty big travel burden, and a Canberra team helps alleviate that.



WA3 doesn't decrease interstate travel for West Coast and Freo any more than the current arrangement with North. It's shown that we don't need to bring in a third Perth team just to bring their travel down.

WA3 can give North three games over here or move gather round when they want a break.

It’s been a smart move from North, they won’t get an away game in WA while they do it.

 

[Canberra Pear]

WA3 can give North three games over here or move gather round when they want a break.

It’s been a smart move from North, they won’t get an away game in WA while they do it.

I agree that it's been a smart move from North. A good way to transition from Tasmania.

But I can't see North and WA3 playing both home games in WA. It'd be one or the other.

 

[Badger17]

While I do think a roof in Hobart is overkill, I think it would be even greater overkill in Canberra.

Yes, it gets cold. But generally, our winters are beautiful. Dry and still. We're actually the driest capital through the footy season (March through September).

Just schedule Canberra games in the early afternoon and it will, more often than not, be beautiful footy weather. If anything, a mini-Marvel would just be blocking out our precious sun.

But I would absolutely love some heating to be included into future plans. That would be cheaper than retrofitting a roof. Also, there's no chance we get a roofed Manuka before we get a new rectangular stadium.



I think there's two other major factors why a roof would be less of a factor for Canberra.

1. The AFL really didn't want a 19th team, so they put up ridiculous hurdles. The desire for a 20th team will be greater, so the hurdles won't be as great.

2. The other main difference between Tasmania and Canberra is the market. Tasmania entering is undoubtedly a feelgood story, but the AFL is adding very little to the pie by adding a team in Tasmania. Tasmania is a small market. It's also shrinking as a proportion of Australia's population. Conversely, Canberra is a similar-sized market population-wise (already bigger if you count the whole capital region). Already a substantially bigger economy. And it's growing much quicker. So I think Canberra having more strategic pay-off would also make the AFL less insistent on a roof.

Not saying any of these are fair, but just that I don't think you can paint the two with the same broad brush.



The snow game gets overhyped. We've had one game where it snowed.

From what I can tell, the Raiders have also had one game where it snowed. That's more than 40 full seasons with one snow game.

They're much rarer than people think. It was just good/bad timing that we had one for a Giants game.

You can't play every game in the early afternoon timeslots, it's just not how it works. It'd be wise to learn from the mistakes that have been made at Bruce as well.

Canberra doesn't need an enclosed roof, but Manuka could definitely use better coverage over the stands. If you could build new stands to enclose the eastern side and bring coverage over all the seating up to somewhere around 75-80% it'd make the whole place much cosier and warmer. Outdoor heating solutions for open stadiums suck by the way, it's almost always a complete waste of money.

The light rail is a total non-issue as well. It won't be effective for moving significant crowds for major events until the whole network is effectively complete, which literally won't happen for generations. Even then I can't see the line to Tuggeranong ever being completed outside of wild circumstances, and the Molonglo line is long odds of ever happening as well.

Nah, the bus network will continue to carry the lion's share of public transport for major events for decades, and it's already well connected to Manuka. Build a dedicated mini-bus terminal in Manuka as part of the upgrades to the oval and call it a day. Not only would it be more efficient, but you'll save hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

You're also wrong about the rectangular stadium; a new rectangular stadium is precisely 0% chance of happening so long as Andrew Barr is chief minister.

Labour-Greens might chuck another layer of lipstick on Bruce, but a new stadium isn't happening anytime in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, I'm not sure how they'd react if the AFL demanded a brand new stadium similar to Macquarie Point in exchange to for an AFL license, but I guarantee that Barr would put more effort into getting it done than he has the new rectangular stadium.

 

[catters05]

Maybe the AFL and govt could sort out to build 2 roofed stadiums at a discounted price, exact same design etc for both Hobart and Canberra…

 

[Bird Man]

Could do south sydney as the grass roots is really growing down near the Illawarra region.

Could partner with Wollongon University in building a stadium and sports science centre. The only issue i reckon would be public transport

 

[Canberra Pear]

You can't play every game in the early afternoon timeslots, it's just not how it works. It'd be wise to learn from the mistakes that have been made at Bruce as well.

I know it's not possible to play them all in the afternoon, but they should be able to prioritise them.

Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights are the coveted slots by other teams, so it's not like every other team is bustling for the afternoon slots.

Canberra doesn't need an enclosed roof, but Manuka could definitely use better coverage over the stands. If you could build new stands to enclose the eastern side and bring coverage over all the seating up to somewhere around 75-80% it'd make the whole place much cosier and warmer. Outdoor heating solutions for open stadiums suck by the way, it's almost always a complete waste of money.

Agreed, more coverage would make a huge difference, but I would expect that's already part of the plans for the eastern side.

The light rail is a total non-issue as well. It won't be effective for moving significant crowds for major events until the whole network is effectively complete, which literally won't happen for generations. Even then I can't see the line to Tuggeranong ever being completed outside of wild circumstances, and the Molonglo line is long odds of ever happening as well.

Nah, the bus network will continue to carry the lion's share of public transport for major events for decades, and it's already well connected to Manuka. Build a dedicated mini-bus terminal in Manuka as part of the upgrades to the oval and call it a day. Not only would it be more efficient, but you'll save hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

Light rail isn't a silver bullet to public transport. It'll complement busses.

Around the time Team 20 comes in, the light rail will reach Woden. That means there'll 120-130k people with the light rail going through their suburb. There'll be another ~100k in a short park-and-ride distance.

So that'll complement the bus network.

Agreed though that a dedicated bus terminal would be a good idea.

You're also wrong about the rectangular stadium; a new rectangular stadium is precisely 0% chance of happening so long as Andrew Barr is chief minister.

I didn't mean it as a rectangular stadium was coming, I meant it that a roofed Manuka is even less likely.

 

[loco3]

Could do south sydney as the grass roots is really growing down near the Illawarra region.

Could partner with Wollongon University in building a stadium and sports science centre. The only issue i reckon would be public transport

Yes, I understand the Southern corridor or Sydney and Wollongong are quite different to Western Sydney. Patchier NRL allegiances, more grassroots participation for AFL. A new team could have better initial success than GWS.

• Around the time GWS was introduced, the AFL commissioned internal and external strategic reviews looking at long-term growth zones.
• These often highlighted South-West Sydney and Wollongong as “next-phase” targets if the GWS model became sustainable.
• Over the last decade, several AFL insiders and journalists have flagged South Sydney as a likely long-term market, including:
  • Jake Niall (The Age) – named the Liverpool/Wollongong corridor as next cab off the rank in 2021.
  • Greg Denham (The Australian) – noted AFL was planting seeds in the Illawarra as early as 2013.

Not saying it would be easy, but certainly one area to keep an eye on.

Should the AFL be playing a game in Wollongong and/or South West Sydney?

 

[Coolangatta]

Yes, I understand the Southern corridor or Sydney and Wollongong are quite different to Western Sydney. Patchier NRL allegiances, more grassroots participation for AFL. A new team could have better initial success than GWS.

• Around the time GWS was introduced, the AFL commissioned internal and external strategic reviews looking at long-term growth zones.
• These often highlighted South-West Sydney and Wollongong as “next-phase” targets if the GWS model became sustainable.
• Over the last decade, several AFL insiders and journalists have flagged South Sydney as a likely long-term market, including:
  • Jake Niall (The Age) – named the Liverpool/Wollongong corridor as next cab off the rank in 2021.
  • Greg Denham (The Australian) – noted AFL was planting seeds in the Illawarra as early as 2013.

Not saying it would be easy, but certainly one area to keep an eye on.

Should the AFL be playing a game in Wollongong and/or South West Sydney?

If they want to put a team there one day then it’s essential they play 2-3 games in South Sydney/Wollongong first.

Otherwise, forget about it.

Not the most ludicrous suggestion for team 21-22 if there’s ever, though.

But it has to be off the table until the giants can ever become a strong club which is decades away, if ever from happening.

 

[loco3]

If they want to put a team there one day then it’s essential they play 2-3 games in South Sydney/Wollongong first.

Otherwise, forget about it.

Not the most ludicrous suggestion for team 21-22 if there’s ever, though.

But it has to be off the table until the giants can ever become a strong club which is decades away, if ever from happening.

Oh absolutely. No way you’re putting them in without Giants being full time in Sydney and they certainly won’t be team 20. But looking forward, that south west/Illawarra corridor is supposed to hit something like 1.5 million people by 2050, many of them young families. It’s probably the only logical place for a 3rd Sydney team and I’m sure it’s in the AFL’s radar long term.

 

[Coolangatta]

Oh absolutely. No way you’re putting them in without Giants being full time in Sydney and they certainly won’t be team 20. But looking forward, that south west/Illawarra corridor is supposed to hit something like 1.5 million people by 2050, many of them young families. It’s probably the only logical place for a 3rd Sydney team and I’m sure it’s in the AFL’s radar long term.

Yeah, I’m no expert on where a 3rd NSW team should be but if the south west/Illawarra corridor makes more sense than Newcastle and north Sydney then that’s where they should target if the Giants can tick the right boxes. Whatever has the best chance of succeeding, essentially.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least for the AFL to target NSW and QLD if there’s teams 21-22.

I know a lot of people would say 3rd WA and 3rd SA before NSW/QLD 3 but the growth potential for the game in the north dwarves what the traditional footy states have to offer.

A second Brisbane team with ties to northern corridor/Sunshine Coast and third Sydney team with ties to south west/Illawarra could make a lot of sense in 25-30 years.

I mean I can’t see Vic clubs ever relocating but North to northern Brisbane and Saints to South Sydney wouldn’t spell doom for those clubs if the game grows in those areas but I can see the fans who run the clubs wanting to cling to Melbourne at all costs even if neither of them win a flag for the next 30 years and remain small relative to their Vic counterparts.

 

[loco3]

Yeah, I’m no expert on where a 3rd NSW team should be but if the south west/Illawarra corridor makes more sense than Newcastle and north Sydney then that’s where they should target if the Giants can tick the right boxes. Whatever has the best chance of succeeding, essentially.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least for the AFL to target NSW and QLD if there’s teams 21-22.

I know a lot of people would say 3rd WA and 3rd SA before NSW/QLD 3 but the growth potential for the game in the north dwarves what the traditional footy states have to offer.

A second Brisbane team with ties to northern corridor/Sunshine Coast and third Sydney team with ties to south west/Illawarra could make a lot of sense in 25-30 years.

I mean I can’t see Vic clubs ever relocating but North to northern Brisbane and Saints to South Sydney wouldn’t spell doom for those clubs if the game grows in those areas but I can see the fans who run the clubs wanting to cling to Melbourne at all costs even if neither of them win a flag for the next 30 years and remain small relative to their Vic counterparts.

Yes, I’ve had the exact same thought regarding those relocations. Again, I know it’s unlikely to happen, but St Kilda testing the waters with a game in Wollongong and Liverpool each year, then gradually transitioning to a full Sydney time team over 10 years would make much more sense than GWS’s launch. The branding would be pretty manageable too.

But regardless, I think the AFL can use Canberra and GWS to grow the game throughout the Riverina and South Sydney/Illawarra generally. Canberra would be well served by 9 games in the short-medium term. They could make a case for bringing AFl to other locations in the region (Albury, Wollongong) without requiring those initiatives to lead to long term support for the team. As others have mentioned, people will with interest will still go to games, and it will generate revenue and futther interest in the game.

 

[Badger17]

I know it's not possible to play them all in the afternoon, but they should be able to prioritise them.

Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights are the coveted slots by other teams, so it's not like every other team is bustling for the afternoon slots.

Even if you maximise the amount of afternoon games as much as possible you're still going to need to play at least 4-6 night games a season, most of which will happen in the colder months. Besides, the Canberra team would desire the primetime slots for the exposure as well.

Agreed, more coverage would make a huge difference, but I would expect that's already part of the plans for the eastern side.

That's not a safe assumption to make, especially when you look at how the upgrades to Bruce were handled in the past. Coverage was the first thing that was sacrificed to save money in that case, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same was allowed to happen at Manuka.

Light rail isn't a silver bullet to public transport. It'll complement busses.

Around the time Team 20 comes in, the light rail will reach Woden. That means there'll 120-130k people with the light rail going through their suburb. There'll be another ~100k in a short park-and-ride distance.

So that'll complement the bus network.

Agreed though that a dedicated bus terminal would be a good idea.

I'll be very surprised if 2a and 2b are delivered on schedule, but setting that aside, depending on who you ask the tram will service between a quarter to a third of the population once it reaches Woden, most of whom will still choose to take other forms of transport to the ground anyway.

In a crowd of about 25k maybe a few thousand would use the tram to get there at that point. Meanwhile busses will still be servicing the other 3/4s of Canberra's population alongside anybody traveling from Queanbeyan by public transport, and that will be the case for a long time.

At current pace stage 3 gets completed sometime in the mid 2040s at the earliest, but even then would you prefer take two trams to get from Belco to Manuka or one direct bus that'll be quicker? Most are going to choose the bus unless they plan stopping off in Civic.

As I said before, the stages after that are a crapshoot. Maybe they get built, maybe they don't, but either way it'll be about 2060 before stage 4 is complete.

Point is, outside of new technological developments (autonomous vehicles would throw a spanner in the works for example) busses will be the dominant form of public transport in Canberra for a long, long time, and making sure that the infrastructure exists to make using them to get to and from the ground is convenient is going to be much more important than planning around the tramline.

I didn't mean it as a rectangular stadium was coming, I meant it that a roofed Manuka is even less likely.

I understand that.

Outside of Federal intervention, which is extremely unlikely, there's zero chance of a new rectangular stadium in Canberra before roughly 2050. I wouldn't say the same is true of a roofed oval stadium as long as Andrew Barr and his ideological clique are in power.

Just like in Tasmania, a new roofed oval stadium wouldn't be impossible if you dangled the carrot of an AFL licence to get it.

 

[Gibbke]

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

When Super League and the ARL reconciled, the terms were that the comp had to lose teams and establish a team in Melbourne. So out went South Queensland, Hunter and Perth immediately and in came the Storm, and over the next few years the Northern Eagles and StG-Illawarra were created by two mergers, South Sydney and Adelaide were booted, and the Gold Coast voluntarily withdrew after finding life difficult in 1998 after the 1997 fairytale...they were in merger talks with South Qld which failed. So basically, RL had WA and SA presence but axed it for Murdoch's TV interests in Melbourne, and only two of the original 1908 teams are still on the field...and South Sydney got their spot back after three years in exile when they and Russell Crowe took the NRL to court...! North Sydney merged with Manly to become the N.Eagles, but theirs was a marriage of sheer hatred...two years of that and they'd had enough, with Manly taking over the licence again on their own...

Any notions of vision and coherence in RL at any stage are greatly exaggerated! Vlandys is professional sports' version of Donald Trump, but he's probably more focused than anyone in 40 years. The Broncos in the mid-90's smelled blood in the water and pushed for comp rationalisation, and got a backer in Murdoch...after that, it was a stalemate only fixed by sacrifices. It's no wonder people gave up following the sport for the next decade, which was Christmas for the Lions who capitalised just in time for the threepeat. Me personally, I f###ing hate the Storm and can't warm to the Broncos, but weirdly I can't relate to the Titans despite being a big Chargers fan back then...might be because the first chairman of the Titans, Michael Searle, was a f###stick! Always supported Cronulla, but a couple of years before their flag I was wavering because of their unprofessional and drug cheating induced stupidity...I was on the Brisbane Bombers bandwagon, but eventually they gave that to frigging Redcliffe...! So, go Sharkies...

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Oh absolutely. No way you’re putting them in without Giants being full time in Sydney and they certainly won’t be team 20. But looking forward, that south west/Illawarra corridor is supposed to hit something like 1.5 million people by 2050, many of them young families. It’s probably the only logical place for a 3rd Sydney team and I’m sure it’s in the AFL’s radar long term.

I would have thtrough the south-west, ra5ther than south-0east and Illawarra would make more sense. I know its supposedly in the theoretical GWS area, but that region is too large for one team to really cover with any real presence. If the Giants focus on Parramatta (2nd CBD) to Penrith corridor, a team 23 or 24 in the Liverpool (3rd CBD)/Campbelltown/Macarthur region might make sense. But it is an edge case, and certainly behind Canberra and WA 4. On long term finances probably ahead of Tasmania, and certainly medium term ahead of NT - but not on sentiment or footy heritage "deserving" of a team.
A whole "southern Sydney" from Campbelltown to Cronulla wouldn't likely work, there's nothing connecting the two areas except perhaps mutual animosity.

The Swans are really the eastern Sydney team, and Wollongong is a separate city of only roughly Geelong or Hobart size (I know the Dragons in the NRL try to cover both south-eastern Sydney and Wollongong, but that's with 100 years of presence and falling into a merger).

 

[Coolangatta]

I would have thtrough the south-west, ra5ther than south-0east and Illawarra would make more sense. I know its supposedly in the theoretical GWS area, but that region is too large for one team to really cover with any real presence. If the Giants focus on Parramatta (2nd CBD) to Penrith corridor, a team 23 or 24 in the Liverpool (3rd CBD)/Campbelltown/Macarthur region might make sense. But it is an edge case, and certainly behind Canberra and WA 4. On long term finances probably ahead of Tasmania, and certainly medium term ahead of NT - but not on sentiment or footy heritage "deserving" of a team.
A whole "southern Sydney" from Campbelltown to Cronulla wouldn't likely work, there's nothing connecting the two areas except perhaps mutual animosity.

The Swans are really the eastern Sydney team, and Wollongong is a separate city of only roughly Geelong or Hobart size (I know the Dragons in the NRL try to cover both south-eastern Sydney and Wollongong, but that's with 100 years of presence and falling into a merger).

Yeah I’ve got expansion feasibility as:

20. Canberra 2031-33.

21 and 22. WA3 and 4 (2040s).

Somehow I think the AFL will avoid this because they can’t control the WA licences and they might not admit it but they want the game to remain Vic centric.

They might not think it’s feasible either (I laughed at Dillon’s claim we don’t have the population or businesses to support a 3rd team yet Victoria can support 10).

But a northern Perth and eastern Perth team would work IMO.

23. Brisbane 2. The Lions may eventually crack 100k members for a 60k stadium. In which case you’d be silly to say never.

24. One of Adelaide 3/Sydney 3. New Zealand I feel is a long shot.

 

[GC2015]

Brisbane 2. The Lions may eventually crack 100k members for a 60k stadium. In which case you’d be silly to say never.

With the way Brisbane have been going in recent years, 100k members is potentially achievable in the next 5ish years if they continue to contend for flags, which seems entirely possible with now with the Ashcroft boys on their list. They're expecting to hit around 75k members this year and they seem to be growing at an annual rate of around 8k members. So if that continues then it could be achieved before 2030. I'd imagine the AFL will find it pretty hard to ignore a Brisbane2 bid if that happens.