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

[Consolaçao]

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.

Come on, the AFLW expanded with no noticeable drop off in quality.

 

[Consolaçao]

South Australia - Victoria's oldest rival needs more representation in the game that the two states developed.

A club which represents the growing region of the Southern suburbs and all the way down to Mt Gambier.

I see 'bring back the Adelaide Rams' and you lose me.
I remember as a teenager getting a free ticket to watch them alongside 5,000 or so others desecrate the sacred turf of Adelaide Oval. The only thing I recall from the game is a man a few rows in front of us (there with his wife and kids) breaking out a bong mid-game.

 

[Consolaçao]

Surely one of the main reasons we have GWS is to drive participation in Western Sydney. At some stage GWS need to be able to rely on that area. Swans need to hand some more of Sydney’s west over to the Giants. Certainly Bankstown, Strathfield and Canada Bay (where Giants are based).

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/SydneySwans/Club%20HQ/QBE%20Sydney%20Swans%20Academy%20-%20Zoning%20Map.pdf

I agree.
Canberra was an Australian rules town until RL had the insight/ balls to set up a club there.
They've now leapfrogged AFL, but surely that situation can be reversed? It always struck me as a strange cultural fit - Canberrans being highly educated and middle class watching a game for the working/ welfare classes.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I agree.
Canberra was an Australian rules town until RL had the insight/ balls to set up a club there.
They've now leapfrogged AFL, but surely that situation can be reversed?

The AFL/NRL situation is pretty 50/50 in Canberra. I feel like AFL has a slight edge, but my view could be skewed by social/work circle. A team of our own would give AFL a clear lead.

It always struck me as a strange cultural fit - Canberrans being highly educated and middle class watching a game for the working/ welfare class

Interestingly, the Brumbies were bigger than the Raiders, which does fit the Canberra demographic stereotype, but the balance seems to have shifted with the decline of Super Rugby. If we had an AFL team during that decline, it probably would have benefited quite a bit.

Canberrans being highly educated.

This reason is why the Canberra Owls is one of my preferred choices for the team name. Represents wisdom and education, and the collective noun is a "parliament". Pretty much writes itself. Plus an owl is quite unique marketing-wise compared to all the other bird mascots in the AFL.

 

[Gigantor]

Owls have quite strong talons, very good hunters by night.
Sheffield Wednesday are also called the Owls and have Blue, yellow and white in their colours.

 

[Gigantor]

The Southern Boobook and Tawny Frogmouth are relatively common in the ACT.

 

[Coolangatta]

I'm not surprised the NT are winning the poll.

If populism and pressure are what drove the Tasmania team home, they may very well do the same for the NT.

The federal government might fund it as an Indigenous social program, but the only problem with that is that governments change and with that comes policy change.

Who's to say the feds will want to keep funding an NT team?

Let's face it, an NT team would need funding for at least 30 years and that's a conservative estimate.

Canberra wouldn't need support for anywhere near as long as that.

 

[Badger17]

I agree.
Canberra was an Australian rules town until RL had the insight/ balls to set up a club there.
They've now leapfrogged AFL, but surely that situation can be reversed? It always struck me as a strange cultural fit - Canberrans being highly educated and middle class watching a game for the working/ welfare classes.

I don't know where this myth that Canberra was an "Aussie rules town" came from, but as a person who actually lived it and isn't particularly biased towards any particular sport, it's nothing more than a lie that has been repeated into truth by people whom don't understand Canberra's history and cultural quirks.

Canberra's sporting landscape has been pretty evenly split between the codes since at least the post war period. There's also way more overlap between the fans of the codes than you see in most other places. The split between RU and RL seems to confuse some people into thinking that Aussie Rules was dominant, but that just shows their ignorance of the nature of the relationship between the rugbies and strong private school culture in Canberra.

 

[Badger17]

The AFL/NRL situation is pretty 50/50 in Canberra. I feel like AFL has a slight edge, but my view could be skewed by social/work circle. A team of our own would give AFL a clear lead.

Yeah but that's because you only engage with the AFL side of Canberra and have a serious case of confirmation bias. In other words you've built yourself a comfortable echo chamber and only take in information that confirms your preconceived notions.

A Canberra AFL side would probably be as big as, if not slightly bigger than, the Raiders from day one if they entered the competition today, but that's as much a product of the RL establishment's complacency and mismanagement of the sport in the region and the impacts of being forced to use the worst stadium in the NRL or AFL outside of some of the suburban grounds in Sydney, as much as it has anything to do with what the AFL has done.
Furthermore, the AFL side being bigger than the Raiders wouldn't necessarily mean that Aussie Rules would be bigger than RL in Canberra in any significant sense. There's more to each sport than just the support for local professional clubs.

Interestingly, the Brumbies were bigger than the Raiders, which does fit the Canberra demographic stereotype, but the balance seems to have shifted with the decline of Super Rugby. If we had an AFL team during that decline, it probably would have benefited quite a bit.

Class had nothing to do with the Brumbies being bigger than the Raiders in the 00s. In fact the class divide between the two rugbies doesn't exist in Canberra to anywhere near the same extent that it does in most other areas.

Without going into detail, otherwise I'd have to write a book, the main reasons why they were bigger than the Raiders in the 2000s were because;

• RL was heavily suffering the after effects of the SL war.
• The Raiders were coming out of their golden age, into one of mediocrity that more or less continues to this day.
• The Raiders were badly mismanaged when News ltd owned them in late 90s into the early 00s, and that period of mismanagement had significant long term impacts on the club.
• Super Rugby was the brand new shiny product, and the international element was a novelty at the time.
• Hosting the RWC in 03 was a big deal at the time, and significantly increased excitement around RU in the lead up.
• The Brumbies were more or less instantly successful despite initially being made up almost exclusively of the Tah's and Red's rejects, and went straight into their own golden age.
• The Brumbies marketing scheme of appealing to ACT pride and playing into the subtle disdain between Canberrans and NSW was genius, and appealed to people at the time in a way that the Raiders couldn't copy with any authenticity since they are effectively any outgrowth of the Queanbeyan Blues.

Basically, during that period the stars aligned for RU in Canberra right as RL was at it's lowest. Despite that the Brumbies at their hight never quite managed to match the Raiders popularity when they're going well. Canberra literally turns green when the Raiders are going well.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Yeah but that's because you only engage with the AFL side of Canberra and have a serious case of confirmation bias. In other words you've built yourself a comfortable echo chamber and only take in information that confirms your preconceived notions.

I already know I have a case on confirmation bias, but I think I'm pretty measured in my assessments.

You choose your friends, but you don't usually choose your colleagues, and my colleagues have also tended to lean to AFL. I prefer AFL, but I still try to chat about league (with my limited knowledge).

I go to the pub to watch matches with a Manly mate. He usually watches the NRL while I watch the AFL, but I take in plenty of league and ask plenty of questions. We watched the Raiders' grand final loss from Civic Pub - had no idea what was going on for six again.

Obviously, I prefer AFL, but I wouldn't say I'm in an echo chamber.

Furthermore, the AFL side being bigger than the Raiders wouldn't necessarily mean that Aussie Rules would be bigger than RL in Canberra in any significant sense. There's more to each sport than just the support for local professional clubs.

I'm not saying any sport is bigger in any significant sense, but what factors would you use other than support for a professional side? Because the other big factor I can think of is participation, which is also greater for Aussie Rules.

Class had nothing to do with the Brumbies being bigger than the Raiders in the 00s. In fact the class divide between the two rugbies doesn't exist in Canberra to anywhere near the same extent that it does in most other areas.

Without going into detail, otherwise I'd have to write a book, the main reasons why they were bigger than the Raiders in the 2000s were because.

I appreciate the insight into the Brumbies/Raiders' history. If you ever write that book, I'm definitely buying a copy.

Canberra literally turns green when the Raiders are going well.

I agree. Canberra was incredibly green for the 2019 grand final. I remember shops and offices all covered in green balloons and streamers. I use that as an example of why GWS isn't doing AFL justice. We agree that an AFL side could be similar-sized to the Raiders, but when the Giants made the grand final in the same fortnight, I think I remember one place having orange decorations. It was a stark contrast given how much support AFL has.

 

[BigChippa52]

it's about how the team will grow and the base Canberra has for afl so it doesn't matter if rugby is more significant if they have a base bigger than gold coast and gws they should get support and hopefully do well which lures all of Canberra in you could use the idea of a rugby town beating the afl towns at footy idea but I think a potential team will do better that gold coast and gws

 

[Walshawk]

it's about how the team will grow and the base Canberra has for afl so it doesn't matter if rugby is more significant if they have a base bigger than gold coast and gws they should get support and hopefully do well which lures all of Canberra in you could use the idea of a rugby town beating the afl towns at footy idea but I think a potential team will do better that gold coast and gws

Canberra is a proper city unlike GC and GWS, so without doubt the community will get behind a club, especially when winning.

 

[BigChippa52]

100% Canberra is ideal for expansion call them the rams and just base them of tac cup team they will fit right in

 

[The Educator]

Yeah but that's because you only engage with the AFL side of Canberra and have a serious case of confirmation bias. In other words you've built yourself a comfortable echo chamber and only take in information that confirms your preconceived notions.

I reckon this is the third time you have read this about the same poster who has repeatedly acknowledged their bias....

A Canberra AFL side would probably be as big as, if not slightly bigger than, the Raiders from day one if they entered the competition today, but that's as much a product of the RL establishment's complacency and mismanagement of the sport in the region and the impacts of being forced to use the worst stadium in the NRL or AFL outside of some of the suburban grounds in Sydney, as much as it has anything to do with what the AFL has done.
Furthermore, the AFL side being bigger than the Raiders wouldn't necessarily mean that Aussie Rules would be bigger than RL in Canberra in any significant sense. There's more to each sport than just the support for local professional clubs.

If you focussed more on your own cognitive dissonance than telling others about theirs you would grasp the implication of this point.

Interest levels are debatable now despite the RL having its own professional side for the last 40 years. An AFL club based in Canberra would tap the parochial vein and benefit from having the club and players based in the city and games on every second week. That would be additional to the base support of the code.

No doubt the AFL would transform Canberra.

 

[pz5151]

AFL is pre

I reckon this is the third time you have read this about the same poster who has repeatedly acknowledged their bias....



If you focussed more on your own cognitive dissonance than telling others about theirs you would grasp the implication of this point.

Interest levels are debatable now despite the RL having its own professional side for the last 40 years. An AFL club based in Canberra would tap the parochial vein and benefit from having the club and players based in the city and games on every second week. That would be additional to the base support of the code.

No doubt the AFL would transform Canberra.

you would need a new stadium also I’m assuming. Is there going to be federal funding for a 30k stadium?

 

[Freomaniac]

AFL is pre

you would need a new stadium also I’m assuming. Is there going to be federal funding for a 30k stadium?

Manuka oval would be fine for the short term

 

[pz5151]

Manuka oval would be fine for the short term

Doesn’t it hold less than 20k and heaps of that is unseated ?

 

[Consolaçao]

AFL is pre

you would need a new stadium also I’m assuming. Is there going to be federal funding for a 30k stadium?

Is there any chance of league, Union and the AFL (and maybe eventually the A-League) sharing a new stadium?
I know artificial pitches are used by professional RL and RU teams overseas.. I wonder whether it’s been looked at in Oz?

 

[pz5151]

Is there any chance of league, Union and the AFL (and maybe eventually the A-League) sharing a new stadium?
I know artificial pitches are used by professional RL and RU teams overseas.. I wonder whether it’s been looked at in Oz?

I doubt the other 3 codes would want to play on an AFL sized oval. Better chance of collaborating with cricket so they can leech off footy like they do everywhere else. At least it might get a few extra dollars.

 

[BigChippa52]

Means a Canberra Big Bash team, Canberra capitols (yellow)
but there would have to be an even amount of teams so either nt, Nt blase (orange/orchre) or as 2 Adelaide swarm (red)

 

[BigChippa52]

so canberra, then nt/sa 2 for an even comp

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Manuka oval would be fine for the short term

I disagree. If the Tasmanian saga has taught us anything it’s that the AFL (and club presidents - who vote on expansion) expects the primary home grounds of its clubs to be a vastly higher standard than what’s accepted for secondary grounds. In its current state, Manuka would not cut the mustard - location, capacity and (most likely) amenities are all substandard.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I disagree. If the Tasmanian saga has taught us anything it’s that the AFL (and club presidents - who vote on expansion) expects the primary home grounds of its clubs to be a vastly higher standard than what’s accepted for secondary grounds. In its current state, Manuka would not cut the mustard - location, capacity and (most likely) amenities are all substandard.

I think the AFL used the Tasmanian stadium so the onus wasn't on them. The AFL didn't want to expand yet, but they were pretty much forced over a barrel. By making it dependent on the stadium, they're not the bad guys if it falls over.

The AFL didn't want to expand to 19, but they will want to expand to 20 if 19 comes in, so I expect fewer hoops for whoever comes in after.

You're right that the current Manuka won't cut the mustard, but it won't take $700m to get it AFL ready. Based on previous plans, it could probably be brought up to standard for less than $100m. It won't need a roof. Would like to see some cost studies into heating though.

I actually like the current location. It's better than where the rugbies have to play. It's more central and less barren. It's got great pubs nearby, but it is a bit residential. The big issue with the location is transport. It's currently very car-based. We usually park on the street and end up walking for 20 minutes to the ground. There would probably have to be a multi-storey carpark to complement an upgrade.

The light rail should make a difference. Phase 2b is planned to stop 1km from the stadium (for comparison, Carrara is about 2km from a station, Adelaide Oval is about 500m). Earlier plans had the line coming within 400m of the stadium, which would have been incredible (not too late, but we'd need the AFL to lobby for that).

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I think the AFL used the Tasmanian stadium so the onus wasn't on them. The AFL didn't want to expand yet, but they were pretty much forced over a barrel. By making it dependent on the stadium, they're not the bad guys if it falls over.

The AFL didn't want to expand to 19, but they will want to expand to 20 if 19 comes in, so I expect fewer hoops for whoever comes in after.

You're right that the current Manuka won't cut the mustard, but it won't take $700m to get it AFL ready. Based on previous plans, it could probably be brought up to standard for less than $100m. It won't need a roof. Would like to see some cost studies into heating though.

I actually like the current location. It's better than where the rugbies have to play. It's more central and less barren. It's got great pubs nearby, but it is a bit residential. The big issue with the location is transport. It's currently very car-based. We usually park on the street and end up walking for 20 minutes to the ground. There would probably have to be a multi-storey carpark to complement an upgrade.

The light rail should make a difference. Phase 2b is planned to stop 1km from the stadium (for comparison, Carrara is about 2km from a station, Adelaide Oval is about 500m). Earlier plans had the line coming within 400m of the stadium, which would have been incredible (not too late, but we'd need the AFL to lobby for that).

I hope things are that simple for Canberra and appreciate that team 20 will likely have an easier pathway than 19; however, that would be a terrible look for the AFL and Tasmanians will be furious at the double standard.

UTAS stadium is being upgraded over two stages for $130m and it will result in a much improved facility with all terraced seating removed, new grandstands, change rooms, food, beverage and corporate facilities. I suppose a similar amount of money could make a significant difference for Manuka as well.

I always said from the beginning that one of the biggest issues for Tassie was Hobart’s facility being sub-par for footy. If they had a comparable stadium on the edge of the CBD, or Launceston was the largest city in the state, then it’s likely that a brand new stadium would not be mandatory requirement.

 

[Walshawk]

Means a Canberra Big Bash team, Canberra capitols (yellow)
but there would have to be an even amount of teams so either nt, Nt blase (orange/orchre) or as 2 Adelaide swarm (red)

Why does there need to be an even number of teams?