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

[NYRB]

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.

Thats one of the things I feel that have hindered the 2nd start ups in : QLD, WA and NSW.

Freo, GWS, and Gold Coast have had by far lack of Friday night games in comparison to other teams. To grow their brand, that lucrative Thursday/Friday night time slot is too valuable for most teams.

I doubt if a new start up came in straight away they would get their request.

 

[Canberra Pear]

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

If I could marry this post, I would.

 

[Canberra Pear]

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.

While we wouldn't have as many footy supporters as Tasmania, I'd say we have a similar amount to Hobart (which is important, because we still have a fanbase that can actually attend).

I wrote a story a few weeks back where I assessed the number of AFL fans in areas based on the number of tipsters. Of the 290k registered tipsters, Canberra had 5100, and Hobart had 4,928. It's not a perfect assessment, but shows roughly the same number in both cities are willing to devote time every week to AFL. Canberra also has a larger unconverted population to tap into.

I do agree that Canberra would be more willing to accept a relocation than Tasmania. If it came to that though, I'd prefer it be a Victorian team, I think the Giants' presence is needed in Sydney.

 

[WetCrow1991]

As long as we operate on a last in, first out model. 14 team comp...what number were you guys again?

The number that saved the VFL from its financial oblivion.

 

[almuz]

For people that bring up the argument that 20 teams = talent pool being diluted - why/what/how?

The main thing that doesn't make sense to me when people say the talent pool will be (or is) diluted is that the population grows over time so if anything the talent pool is bigger -




So there are more players to choose from per team now than there was 30 years back. Also the fact the game has grown in NSW/QLD so that also means there are even more players to pick from Aus-wide.

Your team isn't going to win the flag as often but more teams objectively doesn't dilute the talent pool long-term and also means more revenue and a more national game

 

[WetCrow1991]

You can't do that unless you cull Vic teams.

Of course, that's the idea.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Los Angeles

 

[Dirty Bird]

For people that bring up the argument that 20 teams = talent pool being diluted - why/what/how?

The main thing that doesn't make sense to me when people say the talent pool will be (or is) diluted is that the population grows over time so if anything the talent pool is bigger -


View attachment 1404739

So there are more players to choose from per team now than there was 30 years back. Also the fact the game has grown in NSW/QLD so that also means there are even more players to pick from Aus-wide.

Your team isn't going to win the flag as often but more teams objectively doesn't dilute the talent pool long-term and also means more revenue and a more national game

then take into account junior growth

I looked in the offseason, the number of clubs in Sydney have doubled in the last 15 years

But how many extra teams is each club fielding as well?

Im just looking at u10s

Mixed teams
SH North West
SH North Gold
SH North Grey
SH North Black
SH North South
W North West
W South West

Girls teams
SH North
SH South
W West

When I was there, all there was, was North Shore, North West, West and Sydney Habour
So to go from 4 leagues to 7 mixed, plus 3 girls shows what's what, 150% growth

 

[Bjo187]

While we wouldn't have as many footy supporters as Tasmania, I'd say we have a similar amount to Hobart (which is important, because we still have a fanbase that can actually attend).

I wrote a story a few weeks back where I assessed the number of AFL fans in areas based on the number of tipsters. Of the 290k registered tipsters, Canberra had 5100, and Hobart had 4,928. It's not a perfect assessment, but shows roughly the same number in both cities are willing to devote time every week to AFL. Canberra also has a larger unconverted population to tap into.

I do agree that Canberra would be more willing to accept a relocation than Tasmania. If it came to that though, I'd prefer it be a Victorian team, I think the Giants' presence is needed in Sydney.

Actually the book code wars (2020) claims AFL is more popular than any other football code in Canberra, going by the internet search quantity of local residents.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Actually the book code wars (2020) claims AFL is more popular than any other football code in Canberra, going by the internet search quantity of local residents.

Correct. It measured the Google searches in the ACT from 2014-2018 for the four football leagues (AFL, NRL, Super Rugby and A-League). AFL had 48% of searches; the NRL had 45%.

I also emailed Hunter Fujak regarding the "Sports Interested In" table. The ACT wasn't included in the book because the sample size was too small. But the results for the ACT were still 44% and 41% interested in AFL and NRL respectively.

The Ausplay survey also shows Aussie Rules as more popular in the ACT. It asks who has played the sport at least once in the past year. 2019 had 8461, 2914 and 1472 for Aussie rules, union and league respectively. In community leagues, there are similar numbers of senior union and Aussie Rules teams, so the survey probably shows there's more casual kicks of the Sherrin.

The numbers continue to suggest AFL has at least a slight lead over NRL in Canberra. You'd assume those numbers would favour AFL even more with a full-time team.

 

[Bjo187]

Correct. It measured the Google searches in the ACT from 2014-2018 for the four football leagues (AFL, NRL, Super Rugby and A-League). AFL had 48% of searches; the NRL had 45%.

I also emailed Hunter Fujak regarding the "Sports Interested In" table. The ACT wasn't included in the book because the sample size was too small. But the results for the ACT were still 44% and 41% interested in AFL and NRL respectively.

The Ausplay survey also shows Aussie Rules as more popular in the ACT. It asks who has played the sport at least once in the past year. 2019 had 8461, 2914 and 1472 for Aussie rules, union and league respectively. In community leagues, there are similar numbers of senior union and Aussie Rules teams, so the survey probably shows there's more casual kicks of the Sherrin.

The numbers continue to suggest AFL has at least a slight lead over NRL in Canberra. You'd assume those numbers would favour AFL even more with a full-time team.

Interesting and good research. Effectively a Canberra team should be more popular than the raiders with being able to tap into the riverina area for additional support too. I wonder what the statistics are there, I'd say maybe 60.40 AFL but I'd be guessing. I always think of league fans as similar to politics, the noisy minority, they seem like more because they flood the internet and comments sections pushing up their sport and bagging everything else.

 

[Coolangatta]

While we wouldn't have as many footy supporters as Tasmania, I'd say we have a similar amount to Hobart (which is important, because we still have a fanbase that can actually attend).

I wrote a story a few weeks back where I assessed the number of AFL fans in areas based on the number of tipsters. Of the 290k registered tipsters, Canberra had 5100, and Hobart had 4,928. It's not a perfect assessment, but shows roughly the same number in both cities are willing to devote time every week to AFL. Canberra also has a larger unconverted population to tap into.

I do agree that Canberra would be more willing to accept a relocation than Tasmania. If it came to that though, I'd prefer it be a Victorian team, I think the Giants' presence is needed in Sydney.

That could work.
Tassie team 19
GWS stay in Sydney
One of Roos/Dogs/Saints relocated to Canberra
NT team 20* (don't be in a rush to introduce them because of TV money)

But TV money will all but guarantee team 20 and if that's the case, Canberra might as well have their own if NT isn't ready. I've always thought the long-term rollout would look like:

a new team in Tassie, one in ACT, one in WA, one in SA, one in NT, one in NQLD, two in NSW (not in that order). That's 24 teams (and at that point, I think we'll get divisions, too many teams missing finals is probably not good for $$$). It could end up being 26 with another in WA (north and south), and another in NSW since the AFL is hellbent on expanding the market there. That'd be 5 teams in NSW eventually. 26 teams, two divisions of 13, 24 rounds.

It's not what I'd do but thinking as the AFL does, their long-term plan probably looks something like that.

 

[freddy mercury]

Anywhere but the NT and North Queensland.

 

[Coolangatta]

Anywhere but the NT and North Queensland.

My gut says they're 40 years away, if ever, from happening, and that far into the future makes it impossible to predict what the AFL will look like. If I were a betting man, Tassie and Canberra will be team 19 and 20 and when that happens, we'll get a top 10.

 

[Walshawk]

For people that bring up the argument that 20 teams = talent pool being diluted - why/what/how?

The main thing that doesn't make sense to me when people say the talent pool will be (or is) diluted is that the population grows over time so if anything the talent pool is bigger -


View attachment 1404739

So there are more players to choose from per team now than there was 30 years back. Also the fact the game has grown in NSW/QLD so that also means there are even more players to pick from Aus-wide.

Your team isn't going to win the flag as often but more teams objectively doesn't dilute the talent pool long-term and also means more revenue and a more national game

Most of the population growth is from immigration, and most of that immigration is from China and India, who, so far, have shown little interest in, or aptitude for Australia Rules. Of recent immigrants, only the Africans have added to our game.

19 teams is better than 20. We don't need a 20th team, and there is no location that could gather half the support of what Tasmania will offer. Any other region would always struggle off field like GC and GWS always will.

 

[Coolangatta]

Most of the population growth is from immigration, and most of that immigration is from China and India, who, so far, have shown little interest in, or aptitude for Australia Rules. Of recent immigrants, only the Africans have added to our game.

19 teams is better than 20. We don't need a 20th team, and there is no location that could gather half the support of what Tasmania will offer. Any other region would always struggle off field like GC and GWS always will.

Dunno, I think Canberra might go alright as a 20th, but I could be wrong. Not sure about a 3rd WA yet, I mean sure, Perth or the fast-growing Swan/East doesn't technically have a team, but Freo and WCE will likely continue to gobble up support from those areas. Until there's significant growth in north and/or south of WA, I wouldn't be putting in a third and fourth WA team, but I'd be going north and south long-term. NSW isn't interested, nor is QLD, NT is too small, so I think it's either ACT or stay on 19 teams for a fair while.

 

[Walshawk]

then take into account junior growth

I looked in the offseason, the number of clubs in Sydney have doubled in the last 15 years

But how many extra teams is each club fielding as well?

Im just looking at u10s

Mixed teams
SH North West
SH North Gold
SH North Grey
SH North Black
SH North South
W North West
W South West

Girls teams
SH North
SH South
W West

When I was there, all there was, was North Shore, North West, West and Sydney Habour
So to go from 4 leagues to 7 mixed, plus 3 girls shows what's what, 150% growth

Yet not a single draftee from Sydney in 2021. The best athletes in Sydney still play Soccer, League or Union. It is similar to RL growth in Melbourne. Player numbers have doubled, but still zero Vics playing NRl (discounting those with ex-pat backgrounds who moved here).

 

[Canberra Pear]

Interesting and good research. Effectively a Canberra team should be more popular than the raiders with being able to tap into the riverina area for additional support too. I wonder what the statistics are there, I'd say maybe 60.40 AFL but I'd be guessing. I always think of league fans as similar to politics, the noisy minority, they seem like more because they flood the internet and comments sections pushing up their sport and bagging everything else.

I think 60/40 is probably a good guess. In my social groups, it tends to be even higher, but I'm probably drawn to AFL types.

The big difference is an actual team to support (no offence to GWS). Raiders crowds are higher because people actually barrack for them. The Raiders give Canberrans a common team to talk about and get a lot more media coverage.

I believe if we got a team in the '80s when we first starting bidding for one, there's a good chance either the Brumbies or Raiders wouldn't exist now (more likely the Brumbies).

 

[Bjo187]

Yet not a single draftee from Sydney in 2021. The best athletes in Sydney still play Soccer, League or Union. It is similar to RL growth in Melbourne. Player numbers have doubled, but still zero Vics playing NRl (discounting those with ex-pat backgrounds who moved here).

If NSW fielded a state team it would still be better than the AFL premiership team though. Same with a QLD team. I dunno if the rugby's could even field a Vic team. I reckon it will drop off further though with more funds being directed to AFLW they can't afford the same amount of funds into NSW and QLD anymore.

 

[Walshawk]

If NSW fielded a state team it would still be better than the AFL premiership team though. Same with a QLD team. I dunno if the rugby's could even field a Vic team. I reckon it will drop off further though with more funds being directed to AFLW they can't afford the same amount of funds into NSW and QLD anymore.

I hope you are not suggesting a NSW or Qld origin team would beat Melbourne?
Also. There have not been enough Victorian born and bred RL players in history to form a team, let alone now. NSW Riverina has always produced great AFL players - it is closer to Melbourne than Sydney, but there has not been an increase in players drafted from Sydney in recent years. This is despite the millions sent and massive participation increases. The best athletes there still play League or Union. Also, female RL participation is growing just as fast as Womens footy. The money is only a small factor. Kids will play what they know, are good at, and what their friends do.
The simple fact is that there are not more males playing footy now that 10 or 20 years ago despite the nation’s population growth.

 

[Bjo187]

I hope you are not suggesting a NSW or Qld origin team would beat Melbourne?
Also. There have not been enough Victorian born and bred RL players in history to form a team, let alone now. NSW Riverina has always produced great AFL players - it is closer to Melbourne than Sydney, but there has not been an increase in players drafted from Sydney in recent years. This is despite the millions sent and massive participation increases. The best athletes there still play League or Union. Also, female RL participation is growing just as fast as Womens footy. The money is only a small factor. Kids will play what they know, are good at, and what their friends do.
The simple fact is that there are not more males playing footy now that 10 or 20 years ago despite the nation’s population growth.

There was a paper done a few years ago and they compared the state teams of nsw and qld to recent premier teams and compared them by supercoach player points and found on paper they were all stronger.

A nsw team would have Hawkins and Tex as key forwards, Witts in the ruck then all the academy players, hopper, himmelberg, rampe, heeney, mills, cummins, bruest just thinking off the top of my head of a few names. I do agree though for the level of investment there should be more. The gold coast region has some quality coming through in the next year or two apparently. A nsw v qld game would be very interesting and close in my opinion.

 

[pz5151]

My understanding was that Canberra was a much more dominant Aussie Rules town prior to the Raiders coming. The problem is AFL teams need bigger crowds than NRL clubs do to be viable so even if AFL is 60/40 dominant, the Raiders still are viable but an AFL team may not be. Crowds seem to pretty consistently draw low teens.

The AFL is also very unlikely to want a team there as I suspect (on top of providing extra fan base for them), they might be holding it up their sleeve in case in 20 years the Giants are still drawing 4 digit crowds that they could move them to Canberra.

 

[Walshawk]

My understanding was that Canberra was a much more dominant Aussie Rules town prior to the Raiders coming. The problem is AFL teams need bigger crowds than NRL clubs do to be viable so even if AFL is 60/40 dominant, the Raiders still are viable but an AFL team may not be. Crowds seem to pretty consistently draw low teens.

The AFL is also very unlikely to want a team there as I suspect (on top of providing extra fan base for them), they might be holding it up their sleeve in case in 20 years the Giants are still drawing 4 digit crowds that they could move them to Canberra.

Today looks more like a three digit crowd for GWS.
I have previous been an advocate for GWS to concentrate more on Western Sydney perhaps the solution is more presence in Canberra. Expand the stadium to 16k - 18k, five games. Or maybe just play all games v non Vic clubs in Canberra.They need to do something. You can’t have AFL games being payed in front of 2k - 5k crowds.

 

[Canberra Pear]

My understanding was that Canberra was a much more dominant Aussie Rules town prior to the Raiders coming. The problem is AFL teams need bigger crowds than NRL clubs do to be viable so even if AFL is 60/40 dominant, the Raiders still are viable but an AFL team may not be. Crowds seem to pretty consistently draw low teens.

The AFL is also very unlikely to want a team there as I suspect (on top of providing extra fan base for them), they might be holding it up their sleeve in case in 20 years the Giants are still drawing 4 digit crowds that they could move them to Canberra.

It's a bit before my time, but that's my understanding too. The capital was moved from Melbourne, and it brought a lot of Victorians with it. Then a few subsequent waves of West and South Australians meant footy was strong. It was essentially an extension of the Riverina. We could be in a very different situation if the VFL took action back then. The footy support is still strong, but doesn't have the single team to focus support on the way the Raiders have (and the media, school visits etc that that brings).

For the four pre-Covid seasons, the Raiders averaged 13,252. If that 60/40 translated exactly, that would mean crowds of 19,877 for an AFL team. That's more than the Giants, Suns - and even more than North against non-Victorian teams.

I can't see anywhere else mentioned for Team 20, except possibly Perth, getting anywhere near those crowds.

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

Now I could be wrong but a few years ago I think Gil said he wanted a team in NZ.