AFL 2050 - 24 Teams

[brisbane13]

Exactly right. People arguing for promotion/ relegation in an Australian context are in effect arguing for the 'killing off' of a number of teams. Why would anyone wish teams to be destroyed?

Australia (23 million) - size of a continent is not England (55 million) - size of Victoria.

Some people don't seem to understand the inherent transport costs involved in getting around this country! Where do they think the money comes from? Trees?

very true, but along with infrastructure costs, sustainability, viability of teams along with talent pools, we also have to remember AFL is only pretty much played in Australia, where as in the england and the EPL, soccer is played world wide, and it attracts players, interest and sponsors from around the world

 

[SgtSchulz]

Just having a muck-around, only have 22 teams. Maybe the last two spots could be for NZ but I think 22 and a bye round is good.

 

[Engimal]

Just having a muck-around, only have 22 teams. Maybe the last two spots could be for NZ but I think 22 and a bye round is good.

North and South Tassie won't happen. The population isn't exactly booming right now so we won't be able to field two sides by 2050.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

I'd be ok with 16 teams in 2050.

 

[SgtSchulz]

I'd be ok with 16 teams in 2050.

Kick out a Melbourne team and the Giants?

 

[SgtSchulz]

North and South Tassie won't happen. The population isn't exactly booming right now so we won't be able to field two sides by 2050.

I think 700,000 would be sufficient. Tasmanian's are mad Aussie Rules followers and having a single team wouldn't work...or it would miss a long term opportunity to harness the crazy north/south rivalry. Maybe the Tasmanian teams only play 8 home games for the year with the majority played in Melbourne.

 

[La Dispute]

I think the Night Stalkers would be better suited to the Brunswick area tbh.

 

[SgtSchulz]

I think the Night Stalkers would be better suited to the Brunswick area tbh.

Haha I have no idea what should be done in WA, was tempted to have a "?" for that spot.

 

[Engimal]

I think 700,000 would be sufficient. Tasmanian's are mad Aussie Rules followers and having a single team wouldn't work...or it would miss a long term opportunity to harness the crazy north/south rivalry. Maybe the Tasmanian teams only play 8 home games for the year with the majority played in Melbourne.

The North v South thing is overblown. I didn't even know it existed until I came on Bigfooty, and I've lived in Tasmania my entire life.

I guess we'll have to see how the first team works out, if it ever happens. I have no doubt it'll get a big following, but Tas team #2 will be a stretch in my opinion. WA3 definitely will happen first. They'll probably be the next team.

 

[SgtSchulz]

The North v South thing is overblown. I didn't even know it existed until I came on Bigfooty, and I've lived in Tasmania my entire life.

I guess we'll have to see how the first team works out, if it ever happens. I have no doubt it'll get a big following, but Tas team #2 will be a stretch in my opinion. WA3 definitely will happen first. They'll probably be the next team.

Exactly why I waited till 2049, yeah I was shocked when I saw that WA had 2,500,000 already.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Kick out a Melbourne team and the Giants?

Or North and St Kilda.

 

[The_Reaper]

Some estimates put the 2050 population of Melbourne at 8.5 million & Perth at 5.5million. With them having 10 & 3 teams as above, it is still an unbalanced situation. Mind you with those sorts of populations the quality of life in the bigger cities would be appalling anyway.

Absolutely disgusting

 

[Zarrix]

WA team no.3 seems like a good idea, until you try and think about where it will go. Eastern suburbs, Kalgoorlie, further north or south west?

The strange thing is, if West Coast was named 'Perth' instead back in 1985-86, it would be much easier to justify a third team now.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

WA team no.3 seems like a good idea, until you try and think about where it will go. Eastern suburbs, Kalgoorlie, further north or south west?

The strange thing is, if West Coast was named 'Perth' instead back in 1985-86, it would be much easier to justify a third team now.

Heard some rumours of a rebrand to 'Perth' a few years ago, around the time that the talk of new licences, which ended up going to GC and GWS, started to emerge.

Wonder if it's not still out of the question, one day? Would make the Eagles seem like more of a club (other than the West Coast name I love their brand - the moniker, the royal blue and gold - if only they'd switch back to the wings) and under their current system where demand exceeds supply it's hard to imagine a third team struggling at all in the long term as the population grows and more people have an opportunity to go to the footy.

 

[Rob]

Heard some rumours of a rebrand to 'Perth' a few years ago, around the time that the talk of new licences, which ended up going to GC and GWS, started to emerge.

Wonder if it's not still out of the question, one day? Would make the Eagles seem like more of a club (other than the West Coast name I love their brand - the moniker, the royal blue and gold - if only they'd switch back to the wings) and under their current system where demand exceeds supply it's hard to imagine a third team struggling at all in the long term as the population grows and more people have an opportunity to go to the footy.

Most West Coast supporters would probably acknowledge they should have been called Perth when they started, but i'd be surprised if you'd find one that would support a change now.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Most West Coast supporters would probably acknowledge they should have been called Perth when they started, but i'd be surprised if you'd find one that would support a change now.

Is that so?

I'm not too sure, living in Melbourne I know one who I don't talk to very often and it's not discussed very often on here. What prompted the name 'West Coast' in the first place?

 

[Rob]

Is that so?

I'm not too sure, living in Melbourne I know one who I don't talk to very often and it's not discussed very often on here. What prompted the name 'West Coast' in the first place?

Marketing dickheads most likely.

 

[madmug]

North and South Tassie won't happen. The population isn't exactly booming right now so we won't be able to field two sides by 2050.

One team is sufficient. Now not 2050 or whatever.

The North v South thing is overblown. I didn't even know it existed until I came on Bigfooty, and I've lived in Tasmania my entire life.

I guess we'll have to see how the first team works out, if it ever happens. I have no doubt it'll get a big following, but Tas team #2 will be a stretch in my opinion. WA3 definitely will happen first. They'll probably be the next team.

The North v South thing used by politicians to cause division (us versus them crap) & highlighted by the media because they like negativity. Most people just want to get on with life. We have 1 cricket team, soon to have 1 NBL team & 1 AFL club would do just fine.

Sharing & caring with my northern cousins, thats the plan

 

[SgtSchulz]

Sharing & caring with my northern cousins, thats the plan

What would you think about 5 home games in Hobart and 5 in Launceston?

 

[madmug]

What would you think about 5 home games in Hobart and 5 in Launceston?

With 11 games it would be 5&6 then 6&5 each year about, that would be fine.

I think 700,000 would be sufficient. Tasmanian's are mad Aussie Rules followers and having a single team wouldn't work...or it would miss a long term opportunity to harness the crazy north/south rivalry. Maybe the Tasmanian teams only play 8 home games for the year with the majority played in Melbourne.

700k in the Goldcoast, the majority of whom couldnt care less about the AFL. 515k in Tasmania, the majority of whom DO care greatly about the game.

The only crazy North/South rivalry is in your head. (Or is that Left Versus Right)

One state, One local team.

 

[GrassKat]

I believe that the life of Melbourne, St Kilda, Bulldogs and Nth Melbourne clubs have an expiry date. Their low supporter base and low attendance being contributing factors.

I feel that their future lies in merging together to form two clubs. The Bulldogs and the Kangaroos have shown more loyalty to their nickname in recent times and could carry their identity through this alone.

I'd suggest Melbourne Kangaroos and St Kilda Bulldogs or St Kilda Kangaroos and Melbourne Bulldogs take the field.

St Kilda would maintain the Saint link through it being in the name.
Melbourne Kangaroos could be a marketing dream with such an iconic city and animal coming together. Furthermore, they will still participate out of Melbourne instead of relocating interstate.

This would bring the competition back to 16, allowing for teams from commonly discussed areas to take the number up to 20.

Merger is never popular but 10 Victorian teams is too many. The other 6 have done enough to carry on in my opinion.

 

[GrassKat]

Victorian Clubs
Carlton Blues (1897)
Collingwood Magpies (1897)
Essendon Bombers (1897)
Geelong Cats (1897)
Hawthorn Hawks (1925)
Melbourne Kangaroos (1897/1925/?)
Richmond Tigers (1908)
St Kilda Bulldogs (1897/1925/?)

Non-Victorian Clubs
Adelaide Crows (1991)
Brisbane Lions (1987/1897/1997)
Fremantle Dockers (1995)
Gold Coast Suns (2011)
GWS Giants (2012)
Port Adelaide Power (1997)
Sydney Swans (1982/1897)
West Coast Eagles (1987)

Room for 4 more teams from outside of Victoria, who will present themselves when ready.

Speaking of fixture arrangements... Every year the AFL needs two derbies, showdowns, etc. These rounds cash in and will need to be scheduled twice every year. A 20 team competition would allow all teams to play each other once plus another CASH IN round where clubs play their across town rival all fitting in a 20 round season.

Adelaide V Port Adelaide
Brisbane V Gold Coast
Sydney V GWS
West Coast V Fremantle
Hawthorn V Geelong
Essendon V Collingwood
Carlton V Richmond
*Melbourne Kangaroos V St Kilda Bulldogs

 

[brisbane13]

Kick out a Melbourne team and the Giants?

the Giants are here to stay, they are to important no to. as the largest market is Sydney, money wise

North Melbourne, most amount of success of the smaller teams still, living on hand outs and low fan base
Western bulldogs, 1 premiship in their history, but the team is the only team from the western suburbs
stkilda, a joke of a club, but has a good sized supporter base
melbourne gone from being one of the larger clubs in the comp in the 60s to a complete basket case
the 4 smallest Melbourne clubs

which Melbourne team relocates/ merges or folds

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Would suggest, bias free, the Dogs the least likely to relocate, haven't put in any proper inroads in other areas - Darwin perhaps, but Port Adelaide seem to have more of a following up there. Don't believe they'd let us fold being the only team from the western suburbs, our saving grace I suppose. Gives us more leeway so we can get our act together.

Don't see why anyone has to relocate or merge so long as they can set up a sustainable model to operate on. The Bulldogs and Saints definitely have the capacity to become larger market teams, they just need to start looking at converting the dormant supporter bases into active support. Not sure about North, Tassie seems to have been a positive move for them.
As for Melbourne, I'm fairly sure the supporter base is there, but the recent, shall we say mediocrity has given them no reason to attend. We'll see how they're going for support in 2 or 3 years.

 

[andon]

12 team super league ......each play each other twice H and A...all have even number of MCG games.

Eddiewood, Melbourne (rebuilt), Hawthorn, Geelong.......Sydney, GWS, Freeo, WC, PA, Adel, Bris, GC

The rest become reserves......