Moved Thread If Tasmania gets the 19th license, what state or territory would you like to see team 20 based in?

If Tasmania gets the 19th licence, what state or territory would you like to see team 20 based in?

  • WA

    Votes: 23 25.3%
  • SA

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NSW

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • ACT

    Votes: 24 26.4%
  • VIC

    Votes: 4 4.4%
  • QLD

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • NT

    Votes: 34 37.4%
  • TAS

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Total voters
    91

Remove this Banner Ad

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
4,388
3,679
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
None. 19 teams is almost perfect for the fixture.

Each team plays each other once, 9 home and 9 away, with a reverse fixture the following year.
This provides a much fairer fixture as there will be less issues re: Who has to travel x times or how many games Vic teams play at MCG/Marvel. It also means oddities like Fremantle v Essendon always being played in Perth will cease to be.

Less games? Won't broadcasters be upset?
I don't see this as being as issue for anyone other than Foxtel. Nobody is going to miss the 4.10pm Saturday or 6.20pm Sunday games are they? They'd be saving money on staffing TBH. And we counter this because...

22 or 23 rounds will mean flexible fixtures.
This means the AFL can schedule the real prime time games IN PRIMETIME. With teams getting byes before/after there wont be any issues in getting the better games moved around to ensure maximum exposure. Byes also lead us to...

Players get more rest.
Star players not having to run out an extra 3-4 games a year means they should be fresher for longer. Keeping the marquee players in the game has always been the aim. Having fresh players will also mean...

We can go to a top 10 for finals.
I'm not a huge fan of this but it would be a necessary evil. The double chance would be gone so home ground advantage is what we are playing for.

Week 1 -
8v9
7v10

Week 2 -
1 v 8/9
4 v 5
---
2 v 7/10
3 v 6

Week 3 -
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 4 -
1 v 2

I'd also be pushing really hard for team based streaming options. Would need more data on people's viewing habits but a cheaper ($5-$8 a month?) option to just get your team's games on your phone/laptop/smart TV with audio options ala the AFL app would be something to start investigating.
Not bad but I'd change the finals series to:

Week 2
A 1 v 4
B 2 v 3
C 5 v lowest-ranked winner of 7/8/9/10
D 6 v highest-ranked winner of 7/8/9/10

Week 3
E Loser A v Winner C
F Loser B v Winner D

Week 4
G Winner A v Winner F
H Winner B v Winner E

Week 5
Winner G v Winner H

No bye for 7-8-9-10 who play each other in week 1, bye for top 6.

edit: but yes, 19 teams might be best instead of trying to cram in a 20th team or relocate a Vic team which Tassie doesn't want. Let the 20th team come in when it feels right.
 

Infamy

🐯🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Oct 1, 2004
11,940
18,170
Melbourne, VIC
AFL Club
Richmond
19 teams is perfect number.
21 game season means play everyone once and then 1 extra against each group of 6 on the ladder excluding yourself.
Thursday night every week with a friday night team feom week before playing the bye team from week before.
Perfect.

None. 19 teams is almost perfect for the fixture.

Each team plays each other once, 9 home and 9 away, with a reverse fixture the following year.
This provides a much fairer fixture as there will be less issues re: Who has to travel x times or how many games Vic teams play at MCG/Marvel. It also means oddities like Fremantle v Essendon always being played in Perth will cease to be.

Less games? Won't broadcasters be upset?
I don't see this as being as issue for anyone other than Foxtel. Nobody is going to miss the 4.10pm Saturday or 6.20pm Sunday games are they? They'd be saving money on staffing TBH. And we counter this because...
The problem with these suggestions is that the AFL will have to stump up the cash for the new clubs to start, but there will be no additional revenue coming into the game from the TV rights as there's still only 9 games a weekend. Doesn't make a lot of financial sense to have 19 teams for any more than 2-3 years max until the 20th team can come in.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bjo187

All Australian
Apr 30, 2020
917
1,046
AFL Club
Essendon
The problem with these suggestions is that the AFL will have to stump up the cash for the new clubs to start, but there will be no additional revenue coming into the game from the TV rights as there's still only 9 games a weekend. Doesn't make a lot of financial sense to have 19 teams for any more than 2-3 years max until the 20th team can come in.

The nrl got 20 mill per year more for team 17 because it creates 11 extra games or something. So no issue there.
 

master bate

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 13, 2006
14,468
13,309
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
It's literally in the article:

The biggest hurdle facing a third WA-based team, is the need for it to be economically and financially viable. Dr. Andrew Williams a senior economics lecturer at the University of Western Australia believes a simple mathematical assessment of WA's population with three teams, and Victoria's population with 10 teams, displays economic feasibility.

The bigger economic concern however, would be getting resources and supporters behind a new team.

"If you're simply diluting what already exists for two teams between three, then there is no real economic benefit. It's about expanding the pie vs just having the same pie and splitting it three ways instead of two," Dr Williams said.
The benefit to WA is you add a lot of room for growth, a new team would start small and really just be taking some overflow from the Eagles and Dockers but eventually numbers would even out and some of that giant Eagles waiting list would become members of a new club. The 3rd club can sell cheaper general admission tickets too, the current $39 price is a fair whack. Plus the jump from 22 home games to 33 alone has to be great for the stadium.

The main benefit for the AFL in choosing WA is you get 11 more games in a great TV time zone (or possibly 9, have to imagine they'd be a big candidate for NT games). That means Friday night double headers starting at say 8:40-9:10 EST and an easier way to stagger Saturday night and share around the Sunday twilights/nights too.
 

Billy ray

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 10, 2013
19,336
30,148
The Valley near the Alley
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Hell no
The problem with these suggestions is that the AFL will have to stump up the cash for the new clubs to start, but there will be no additional revenue coming into the game from the TV rights as there's still only 9 games a weekend. Doesn't make a lot of financial sense to have 19 teams for any more than 2-3 years max until the 20th team can come in.
You get 20 odd Thursday night games. Dont have that now.
And can lose a crossover game on Saturday twilight
 

Altum Volantes

92 - 94 - 06 - 18
Aug 4, 2003
20,512
18,102
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
18 is too many….so 19 is completely bonkers to me….

Focus on 14 teams and an extended finals series.

2 SA
2 NSW
2 QLD
2 WA
6 Vic/Tas (because let’s face it, the only reason anyone gives a s**t about Tasmania is because it’s essentially country Victoria)

Don’t ‘kill’ the left over Vics/Tas - establish a genuinely professional Victorian Championship (it’ll be great, you can even count them like old VFL flags if you like!) and work on a 2 up, 2 down relegation system for Vic clubs and Tasmania.

None of that will obviously ever happen, as it’s much easier to just add more teams, support clubs that will literately never be financially viable without league funding, further bastardise the fixture and have a very shallow talent pool spread across the country. 🤪
 

Scotland

TheBrownDog
May 5, 2006
62,018
68,632
AFL Club
West Coast
While you could argue there was no great desire for the Gold Coast region to have an AFL team, it was more the way the AFL went about it which has been a failure.

I've always been of the belief that the AFL missed the mark by not supporting a bid by the Southport Sharks who have not only been a success on the field for many years, but off the field as well with a large membership base and facilities. Instead they chose to manufacture a franchise out of thin air. It was a poor decision in my opinion.

Gold Coast is also a sporting graveyard. Blaze, Rollers, United, Seagulls/Chargers/Giants/Gladiators, even the Bears were a bit of a joke when they played at Carrara.

Gold Coast Titans haven't been particularly successful on field and have gone from averaging 20k+ per home game when they started to 10-15k now. In the NRL that's pretty normal for every team except the Broncos. Gold Coast Suns getting 10-15k a game doesn't look great when North getting 15k gets them in relocation talks, but they're just not going to turn into a team that gets 30k people to their home games. Nor are GWS.
 

Canberra Pear

Team Captain
Nov 26, 2016
475
599
Canberra, ACT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
but critics say that Canberra isn't big enough to have a team in 10 years.

Greater Canberra (within an hour or so) already has the same population as Tasmania, plus we have more than double the population of Hobart.

The ACT's economy (excluding the ~20% of the Greater Canberra population in NSW) is already 27% larger than Tasmania's.

If Tasmania is big enough for a team, so is Canberra.
 

Shoei

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 26, 2011
9,056
7,230
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal
The benefit to WA is you add a lot of room for growth, a new team would start small and really just be taking some overflow from the Eagles and Dockers but eventually numbers would even out and some of that giant Eagles waiting list would become members of a new club. The 3rd club can sell cheaper general admission tickets too, the current $39 price is a fair whack. Plus the jump from 22 home games to 33 alone has to be great for the stadium.

The main benefit for the AFL in choosing WA is you get 11 more games in a great TV time zone (or possibly 9, have to imagine they'd be a big candidate for NT games). That means Friday night double headers starting at say 8:40-9:10 EST and an easier way to stagger Saturday night and share around the Sunday twilights/nights too.

You're making this assumption on what? The Dockers have been in the league almost 30 years now and still have membership vacancies. It's a fool errand to assume that there is a massive demand for a 3rd WA club when the 2nd WA club is still yet to reach its full potential. And people suggesting places like regional WA for a 3rd team have rocks in their head if they think anyone from Perth is going to follow them.

I don't give a flying * about games being played to suit the East Coast timezone. More games for TV doesn't = better product. People aren't tuning in to watch two clubs with little national interest regardless of the timezones. Low drawing teams will always be shafted to the shittiest time slots.

If the AFL wanted to maximize TV revenue they need to have LESS games and a shorter season to push the advertising premium and interest in the games being shown.
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
4,388
3,679
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Greater Canberra (within an hour or so) already has the same population as Tasmania, plus we have more than double the population of Hobart.

The ACT's economy (excluding the ~20% of the Greater Canberra population in NSW) is already 27% larger than Tasmania's.

If Tasmania is big enough for a team, so is Canberra.
This is convincing, especially when you take into account the argument that WA3 for team 20 wouldn’t likely be a success in the near future since its second team still isn’t a massive club let alone a third. NT is too small, QLD and NSW aren’t interested, and VIC has too many. ACT seems like the smart choice.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AG

BigFooty Gun
May 24, 2008
29,230
5,986
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Arsenal
I'd love a Tassie team but any expansion needs to happen in even numbers to add an extra game for broadcasting $$$. That's the main reason I think the Tassie idea will get rejected. I can't see a realistic 20th team option jumping out. Gil has already said Canberra is owned by GWS for now. Let's see what the view is once Gil finishes up though.

Leave it at 18 teams for at least another decade and see how Gold Coast and GWS are going then. Plus the usual discussions around relocation of some VIC teams will probably still be floating around. As painful as it is for supporters I think a team relocating to Tassie is still the most likely outcome.
 

Rob

Premium Platinum
Nov 8, 2000
31,245
18,862
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I'm absolutely convinced the only way a 3rd WA team could work is if they based it in the City of Swan. There's enough people out there, it's rapidly growing, land is cheap so they could build a decent training facility in the area, and it's far enough from Perth that they could differentiate themselves from both existing teams. And it's a relatively easy trip to Optus.

Not saying it will definitely work, at least not in the short term, but it's got more of a chance than any of the other ideas floating around.
 

Sainter1873

Debutant
Jul 1, 2021
57
139
AFL Club
St Kilda
18 is too many….so 19 is completely bonkers to me….

Focus on 14 teams and an extended finals series.

2 SA
2 NSW
2 QLD
2 WA
6 Vic/Tas (because let’s face it, the only reason anyone gives a s**t about Tasmania is because it’s essentially country Victoria)

Don’t ‘kill’ the left over Vics/Tas - establish a genuinely professional Victorian Championship (it’ll be great, you can even count them like old VFL flags if you like!) and work on a 2 up, 2 down relegation system for Vic clubs and Tasmania.

None of that will obviously ever happen, as it’s much easier to just add more teams, support clubs that will literately never be financially viable without league funding, further bastardise the fixture and have a very shallow talent pool spread across the country. 🤪
I think they’ll go to 20 teams in time but I read a post the other day suggesting we go back to 12 teams, which is an interesting thought. It would require mergers and relocation of Victorian teams and the loss of the latest expansion teams, which won’t ever happen.

IMO fixture integrity is the priority. It’s the basis of a fair competition and the fixture needs to be fixed.

Twelve teams results in a perfect double round-robin fixture where every team plays each other home and away over 22 rounds.

Twenty teams means a 19-round single round-robin fixture which is a significant improvement on what we have now but isn’t perfectly fair given teams will play some teams at home and others away. But stadium sharing means that particular inequality is reduced somewhat.
 

Enviable Tradition

Professional Procrastinator
Oct 12, 2007
24,968
37,549
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
An NT team would pay its way in TV ratings IMO.

A NT team full of indigenous talent and flair would immediately be a lot of people's 2nd team and would be a must watch each week which is important for a game that has become quite stale and hard to watch
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
4,388
3,679
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
An NT team would pay its way in TV ratings IMO.

A NT team full of indigenous talent and flair would immediately be a lot of people's 2nd team and would be a must watch each week which is important for a game that has become quite stale and hard to watch
If it were up to me, NT would be team 20, GWS would be relocated to Canberra, and you'd have a truly national competition then. The NT doesn't have to come in a year or two after Tassie either, but of course, the AFL will want that extra game a week, so team 20 won't be NT if Tassie gets the 19th licence. If player retention and climate can be addressed I'm all for it.
 

NYRB

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 6, 2011
13,927
5,360
Auckland, New Zealand
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Patriots, Golden State, Wildcats
The numbers suggest WA can support a 3rd team

But I would like the Fremantle Dockers to win a premiership before discussions are held as to when WA can get that 3rd licence.
 

Mr north man

Club Legend
Mar 12, 2016
2,393
1,754
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I'm opposed to any more teams, there's not enough good players for 18 teams let alone 20. The talent pool is spread thinly enough as it is. Not opposed to a team in Tassie, the AFL should be making a relocation offer to a financially struggling Melbourne based club which is too attractive to refuse.
For that to happen you need for the following things to happen
1.The AFL to give the relocated club $1.5 Billion dollars over the 10 years.
2. Clear all debts that club has got.
3. For the 1st 5 years of been relocated to play home games against Collingwood-Round 1,Essendon-Round 2 and Richmond-Round 4 all in prime time on either Channel 7 or 10 then rest of the games to be spread across the season.
4.A clean stadium to play so relocated club can make $$$$ from seating,Food and Drink and car parking.
5.For the 1st 3 years giving access to the 1st 4 picks in the National Draft for the loss of players that won’t relocate.
6.The AFL to fill the positions of Chairman,CEO,Director of Football and Football manager and marketing manager for the 1st 10 years to run the club .
7.A strong marketing program to be put in place.
8.When playing in Victoria to train at its traditional home leading up to the game .
8.When playing away games in Victoria all games to be played at Marvel with games against power clubs Collingwood,Richmond and Essendon to be played on a Friday night and Saturday nights on prime time TV-Channel 7 or 10 whoever has the TV rights.
This maybe over the top but the AFL offered North was a joke so you need to put an offer on the table like this.
 

Rooboys Rool

Club Legend
Jan 25, 2016
1,710
5,073
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Too soon for a team in Canberra, but I think we could be ready by about mid-century. Whilst we may have a bigger population that Tasmania, footy doesn't have the same level of support here as it does in Tassie. And I doubt that the AFL would be keen until GWS has demonstrated that they could survive in Sydney alone.

FWIW though, I do think that Canberra would accept a relocated team where other markets (like Tasmania) wouldn't.
 

Dirty Bird

Pokémon Master
Aug 1, 2010
32,681
19,829
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
#BostonStrong #RiseUp
I am sick to death of WA 3 being brought up.

When WA Football was based out of Subiaco - It masked where Freo was at and the argument was actually worth listening to and I believe it would've been the answer for 19/20 expansion
However, now that it's moved to Optus, each and every single argument one can use to set up WA 3, can be countered with 'why not just support Freo?'

IMO here's my list

8. Victoria - Already over-saturated, some would argue abolishing teams
7. Western Australia - No point, may as well support Fremantle

daylight

6. Tasmania - The Island is big enough (Population) to justify 1 team. And small enough people can travel it easily. But splitting it in 2 with a north and a south team? Sure. They'd both get 20k crowds. But their support base would be too small to be viable financially without being propped up massively.
5. South Australia - A sane argument COULD be made, however, even then, it isn't really viable. Because either no one supports them, or they take enough away from Adelaide/Port Adelaide that you have 2 (or maybe even 3) teams who might struggle

daylight

4. Northern Territory - Would have government backing to pull it off. But the entire Territory has half the population of Tasmania. And it's extremely sparse. If it didn't have government backing, I'd be putting it up with Victoria/Western Australia as it makes no sense, and isn't financially feasible imo. But with backing, Obviously in the top 4 options. Might even be 2 if there's absolutely no government help for 2/3

daylight

3. New South Wales - You can't go Sydney as it'd just damage GWS. But there are other regions which could work. Ie. Newcastle. I know some would say it's Rugby League heartland. But it also has a strong historical Australian Football history. For example, the Black Diamond cup is Australia's (not just footys) oldest sporting cup.
2. Queensland - has a few areas which could work. Sunshine Coast to solidify the S/E. But that's really encroaching on Brisbane territory. And even though it could be a major hit to Rugby League. I believe it would only work long term if it can help kill off the sport. In the short/medium term though, a better option would be North Queensland. Cairns/Townsville feels like a Tasmania type situation in regards to enough population close enough it can sustain a club. Split between the 2 cities. And there is a decent expat following too,

daylight

1. Australian Capital Territory - Canberra is the obvious answer. City might be smaller than Newcastle, however, larger support for footy. And it can reach into the Riverina more too. Almost always looks a sellout when footy comes to town. And if a new team comes in, the locals would jump on board similar to they have GWS. Sure, it'd hurt GWS a little, but it could help them in Sydney a tad.

I'd personally go Canberra.

Now the secondary game list

We currently have 18 games played at regional venues (4 Launceston, 4 Hobart, 4 Canberra, 2 Darwin, 2 Ballarat, 1 Cairns, 1 Alice Springs)

North Melbourne 7 Melbourne, 4 Hobart ---> 8 Melbourne, 2 Cairns, 1 Townsville
Hawthorn 7 Melbourne, 4 Launceston ---> 11 Melbourne
Greater Western Sydney 7 Sydney, 4 Canberra ---> 10 Sydney, 1 Newcastle
Gold Coast 9 Gold Coast, 2 Darwin ---> 10 Gold Coast, 1 Mackay
St Kilda 10 Melbourne, 1 Cairns ---> 9 Melbourne, 2 Darwin

Western Bulldogs 9 Melbourne, 2 Ballarat stays
Melbourne 10 Melbourne, 1 Alice Springs stays
 

Dirty Bird

Pokémon Master
Aug 1, 2010
32,681
19,829
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
#BostonStrong #RiseUp
Central Victoria.

Deserves a team in a traditional heartland.
I wouldn't be opposed to someone taking up 1-2 games in Bendigo. But that's the only other option I'd even consider for a second beyond what I stated above
 

NYRB

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 6, 2011
13,927
5,360
Auckland, New Zealand
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Patriots, Golden State, Wildcats
Ive said this on another thread

but if it comes down to money

NSW 3 is ahead of WA 3.

To truly conquer AFL in NSW heartland, there must be a minimum of at least a game a week. (and to have the odd round where you have 2 games a week). WA fans are more passionate about their sport, but unfortunately passion doesn't win out when it comes to starting a new club up (or even relocation).

Money talks in this situation with TV Rights, audiences and to knock off NRL in its heartland. The Sydney Swans are by far the biggest club in NSW. There is a gap for that 3rd franchise to appear possible from : Newcastle/ a team that possibly represents South of Sydney /Wollongong or even a team on the North Shore/Northern Beaches of Sydney. Yes you would be eating into the Swans loyal fan base but a start up team from these areas makes some kind of sense.