Long-term future of the AFL.

Remove this Banner Ad

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
The fact that almost every American, European, and even Australian cities, have moved away from major multipurpose stadia is very significant IMO. It shows a pattern of expensive multipurpose stadiums not fitting the needs of cities across the world and having to be replaced.
American and most European cities are irrelevant. This should be obvious after I explained why. Their only use of oval configurations are for athletics which rarely fills stadiums. In Australia the by far the biggest drawing sport is Australian football. After that, cricket has historically been the sport that can fill stadiums. This makes Australia very different.

The Docklands and Optus are both explicitly "multipurpose" stadiums. There is no way a city like Canberra could justify spending hundreds of millions on two separate stadiums. So it is either multi-purpose oval or rectangular.


Yeah because the AFL isn't reliant on taxpayers to fund stadia for them either. . .

Apart from the reality that the AFL is the only sport that has regularly contributed to building stadiums - and all other stadium sports can and do use them - this is irrelevant.

Point is, to cry foul about a stadium not being exactly how you want it when you aren't contributing a cent is ridiculous.

I haven't said that the government doesn't have the right to say 'screw you we're building an oval' to the rectangular sports. All I'm saying is don't be surprised if they say screw you back, and that that isn't in anybody in the ACT's interests, not even the AFL's.
The only way the AFL and cricket would get such an outcome would being making a contribution and / or commitment. If you really think that large numbers of people are going to be up in arms that mainly tax payer funded new stadium is going to be also usable by the oval sports who are the only ones contributing I'd suggest you are the one living in a bubble
 

Farang83150

Brownlow Medallist
May 23, 2010
10,748
9,783
Chalong 83130
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth (Demons)
We need two move Vic teams.
Takes it to twelve.
Play everyone twice, 22 round season. Six games a round.
Spread it out over Thursday night / Friday night/ Saturday / Saturday night.

Do whatever you like with the interstate sides. Maybe form their own little league comp and play it on the Sunday to keep up appearances?
And we can also watch Vic sides go broke again
 

pazza

Hall of Famer
Feb 18, 2003
32,256
6,329
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
Always felt it would be 22 teams - 2 divisions. Starts with an all Victorian Division and non-Victorian Division. Promotion and relegation (2 each way per season). Divisions play their own finals with a premiership for each. Then a challenge match for the competition premiership.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Badger17

Draftee
Jul 7, 2021
13
9
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
"I could go through and address each point individually but I can't be bothered (or unable?), so I will instead resort to an pathetic ad hominem attack"
Saying that I'm resigned to it probably being impossible to change your mind is not an ad hominem.

You are viewing the situation from a tribal, AFL good everything else bad, perspective that I simply don't value, and I know from experience that neither of us is going to change the others mind on this because changing those sorts of values in basically impossible over the internet.
The Canberra market is nothing like Melbourne's because, more than anything, it is 1/10th of the size.

I am not sure how anything I wrote suggested the AFL should treat Canberra like Melbourne.

My main point's are

-the AFL should assume that, if the ACT builds a new stadium, it will be the only new stadium for decades in a small place like Canberra and that it should do everything to make sure it is an oval (particularly if there is a prospect of an AFL club there in the future).
-this would have next to no impact on the future prospects of support for an AFL club in canberra. The kind of people who would be angry that a fully tax payer funded stadium was oval so the AFL and cricket can use it as well would be not be the kind of people who would support an AFL club anyway.
The Canberra market being smaller than Melbourne's is almost irrelevant. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are both dogs at the end of the day.

The main difference between the Canberra sports market and almost every other sports market in the country, is that all the others have a sport that dominates the market where Canberra simply doesn't.

Because of unique historical and economic reasons the Canberra market is split roughly equally between Aussie Rules and RL, and soccer and RU almost certainly hold larger market share than they do in most other markets as well. That also leads to a much higher amount of people whom follow multiple sports and people whom bandwagon between them depending on the current success of the teams. Those facts make the ACT market hypercompetitive in a way that simply isn't seen in any of the other markets in Australia with pro-teams, and if you don't recognise that before you enter the market it'll lead you to make mistakes. Mistakes like not realising that an attack (real or perceived) on the other sports and clubs is an attack on a significant portion of your own fanbase as well.

Though I accept that the ACT is hamstrung by political and economic realities, and that fact makes it more difficult, I don't accept that Canberra is incapable of building more than one major stadium. If the government were practical about it and really wanted to do it then they could, the problem for the last 15 years has been that, whether or not it's justified, there has always been other things higher on their list of priorities.
However if I did accept the premise that Canberra is only capable of building and maintaining one stadium, then I'd say it should be a rectangle, because while the AFL has treated Canberra as a wet nurse for clubs in other markets the rectangular sports have been on the ground trying to make a go of it in Canberra through good times and bad, and that deserves recognition.
 

Badger17

Draftee
Jul 7, 2021
13
9
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
American and most European cities are irrelevant. This should be obvious after I explained why. Their only use of oval configurations are for athletics which rarely fills stadiums. In Australia the by far the biggest drawing sport is Australian football. After that, cricket has historically been the sport that can fill stadiums. This makes Australia very different.
Baseball and cricket exist, and shared stadia between them and the rectangular sports in their markets used to be relatively common. There're also other examples, like indoor arenas shared between American football and basketball, ice hockey, etc, generally being unpopular.

There's also more thought put into a stadium than just the average attendance of it's regular tenants.
The Docklands and Optus are both explicitly "multipurpose" stadiums. There is no way a city like Canberra could justify spending hundreds of millions on two separate stadiums. So it is either multi-purpose oval or rectangular.
Yet AAMI and HBF still exist to suit the needs of the rectangular sports, and Docklands and Optus are only very rarely used by the rectangular sports for events that wouldn't fit in AAMI or HBF.

Why; because big 'multipurpose stadiums' (i.e. glorified ovals in this case) don't exclusively fulfil the needs of the average major city that wants to have representation in both oval and rectangular sports.
Apart from the reality that the AFL is the only sport that has regularly contributed to building stadiums - and all other stadium sports can and do use them - this is irrelevant.

Point is, to cry foul about a stadium not being exactly how you want it when you aren't contributing a cent is ridiculous.
The AFL having been willing to contribute to a stadium to get it built the way they want doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting stadium was necessarily what was in the best interest of the city and sports fans within.

That's where you and I split; you only only care about what is best for the AFL, where I care what is the best outcome for Canberra more broadly, and the AFL (or any of the other sports for that matter) getting everything their way would not be in Canberra's best interests. Just like only having a (semi) rectangular stadium fit to house pro-teams fulltime for the last 20 years hasn't been great for Canberra's prospects of hosting sporting events, only having an oval for the coming decades would be just as bad, if not worse considering the realities of the market.
The only way the AFL and cricket would get such an outcome would being making a contribution and / or commitment. If you really think that large numbers of people are going to be up in arms that mainly tax payer funded new stadium is going to be also usable by the oval sports who are the only ones contributing I'd suggest you are the one living in a bubble
See there you go again, assuming that if the AFL came in and swung it's dick around in Canberra like it does in some of the other markets that it dominants, Melbourne for example, that it would have the same outcomes.

It's a bad assumption.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
Saying that I'm resigned to it probably being impossible to change your mind is not an ad hominem.
No. But what you actually said was that I "obviously exist deep inside a bubble" which is clear ad hominem





You are viewing the situation from a tribal, AFL good everything else bad, perspective that I simply don't value, and I know from experience that neither of us is going to change the others mind on this because changing those sorts of values in basically impossible over the internet.
The vast majority of debates you would have on a forum like this you would not be able to change the mind of the person you are debating with. To the extent it has any real value beyond passing the time through anonymous opining, it may affect the views of those reading the threads.

You are again relying on a weak and lazy ad hominem that I am viewing the situation from "a tribal, AFL good everything else bad, perspective", because you arguments don't hold up.

Of course people's values and preferences influence their opinions on how constrained public resources should be spent. That's true of everyone.


The Canberra market being smaller than Melbourne's is almost irrelevant. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are both dogs at the end of the day.
That is just so absurd. It precisely goes to the optimal mix of stadia and particularly where public monies are funding them. In Melbourne, the existence of 4 rectangular football franchises justified the building of AAMI

In Canberra, with less than 10% of Melbourne's population, the optimal modern 20k plus stadium investment is almost certainly 1.


The main difference between the Canberra sports market and almost every other sports market in the country, is that all the others have a sport that dominates the market where Canberra simply doesn't.


Because of unique historical and economic reasons the Canberra market is split roughly equally between Aussie Rules and RL, and soccer and RU almost certainly hold larger market share than they do in most other markets as well. That also leads to a much higher amount of people whom follow multiple sports and people whom bandwagon between them depending on the current success of the teams. Those facts make the ACT market hypercompetitive in a way that simply isn't seen in any of the other markets in Australia with pro-teams, and if you don't recognise that before you enter the market it'll lead you to make mistakes. Mistakes like not realising that an attack (real or perceived) on the other sports and clubs is an attack on a significant portion of your own fanbase as well.
What I am suggesting is the number of people that...

1) are likely to support an AFL team
2) would not do so because the AFL involvement lead to the only modern stadium in town being an oval rather than a rectangle

...would be very small in number.


Though I accept that the ACT is hamstrung by political and economic realities, and that fact makes it more difficult, I don't accept that Canberra is incapable of building more than one major stadium. If the government were practical about it and really wanted to do it then they could, the problem for the last 15 years has been that, whether or not it's justified, there has always been other things higher on their list of priorities.
Spending taxpayer money on sports stadiums for professional sports (particularly those that don't contribute) is politically challenging precisely because the majority of the population (including a fair chunk of those who a strong supporters of said professional sporting teams) believe there are higher priorities.

The fact they've not been able to build one for the last 15 years should be a pretty obvious bit of evidence at the prospect of building two.

The chance of them building a several hundred million dollar oval stadium after they've built a 30K rectangular stadium that is rarely more than half full is next to nothing.

However if I did accept the premise that Canberra is only capable of building and maintaining one stadium, then I'd say it should be a rectangle, because while the AFL has treated Canberra as a wet nurse for clubs in other markets the rectangular sports have been on the ground trying to make a go of it in Canberra through good times and bad, and that deserves recognition.
And that is your opinion which you are entitled to

My opinion was that the AFL, if it there was any chance of an AFL club there, should try to ensure that any new build was an oval.


Baseball and cricket exist, and shared stadia between them and the rectangular sports in their markets used to be relatively common. There're also other examples, like indoor arenas shared between American football and basketball, ice hockey, etc, generally being unpopular.


There's also more thought put into a stadium than just the average attendance of it's regular tenants.

Yet AAMI and HBF still exist to suit the needs of the rectangular sports, and Docklands and Optus are only very rarely used by the rectangular sports for events that wouldn't fit in AAMI or HBF.
There are used for any crowd to big for AAMI and HBF. AAMI and HBF exist in cities of 5 million and 2.5 million as compliments to bigger oval stadiums. HBF is probably no better than Bruce.



Why; because big 'multipurpose stadiums' (i.e. glorified ovals in this case) don't exclusively fulfil the needs of the average major city that wants to have representation in both oval and rectangular sports.
Canberra isn't a major city. It's a small city.

The AFL having been willing to contribute to a stadium to get it built the way they want doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting stadium was necessarily what was in the best interest of the city and sports fans within.
Doesn't mean it isn't either. Certainly sports that contributed zilch can't really cry foul though.


That's where you and I split; you only only care about what is best for the AFL, where I care what is the best outcome for Canberra more broadly,
[/QUOTE]

Yawn

and the AFL (or any of the other sports for that matter) getting everything their way would not be in Canberra's best interests. Just like only having a (semi) rectangular stadium fit to house pro-teams fulltime for the last 20 years hasn't been great for Canberra's prospects of hosting sporting events, only having an oval for the coming decades would be just as bad, if not worse considering the realities of the market.


There's actually no evidence that Canberra would miss out on sporting events if they had a 25K oval rather than a rectangle. Ultimately, if they paid the right price they would get them. Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and even Sydney have all successfully paid for rectangular sports to be played on ovals

What they would definitely not be able to do would be to have AFL and cricket matches in a rectangular stadium

That is objective tradeoff here....

Oval stadium not ideal for rectangle sport fans versus rectangle stadium cannot host oval sports games at all



See there you go again, assuming that if the AFL came in and swung it's dick around in Canberra like it does in some of the other markets that it dominants, Melbourne for example, that it would have the same outcomes.
Nah it's there you go again. If your brain is stuck in such childish tropes you have little chance of thinking objectively
 

Cubs2Lions

Club Legend
Jan 12, 2021
1,020
1,857
Adelaide
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
South Adelaide
If I was part of the AFL HQ board now, in regards to the long-term expansion strategy of the AFL Men's & AFL Women's elite competitions, I would be planning further ahead for a 25 round "National" Competition with 24 clubs in total by 2050, with every state (besides Tasmania) having a minimum of 3 teams, while the ACT, NT & Tasmania having one team each, as shown down below:

2050 Men's/Women's Australian Rules Football League Season
Adelaide Crows (SA) | Brisbane Lions (QLD) | Canberra Kookaburras (ACT) | Carlton Blues (VIC) | Collingwood Magpies (VIC) | Darwin Thunder (NT) | Essendon Bombers (VIC) | Footscray Bulldogs (VIC) | Fremantle Dockers (WA) | Geelong Cats (VIC) | Gold Coast Suns (QLD) | Hawthorn Hawks (VIC) | Melbourne Demons (VIC) | North Queensland Crocodiles (QLD) | Northern Sydney Kangaroos (NSW) | Norwood Scorpions (SA) | Perth Rebels (WA) | Port Adelaide Power (SA) | Richmond Tigers (VIC) | St. Kilda Saints (VIC) | Sydney Swans (NSW) | Tasmania Devils (TAS) | West Coast Eagles (WA) | Western Sydney Giants (NSW)

Victoria: 9 teams - Carlton (1897) | Collingwood (1897) | Essendon (1897) | Footscray (1925) | Geelong (1897) | Hawthorn (1925) | Melbourne (1897) | Richmond (1908) | St. Kilda (1897)
New South Wales: 3 teams - Northern Sydney (2036) | Sydney (1982) | Western Sydney (2012)
Queensland: 3 teams - Brisbane (1987) | Gold Coast (2011) | North Queensland (2048)
South Australia: 3 teams - Adelaide (1991) | Norwood (2046) | Port Adelaide (1997)
Western Australia: 3 teams - Fremantle (1995) | Perth (2028) | West Coast (1987)
Australian Capital Territory: 1 team - Canberra (2027)
Northern Territory: 1 team - Darwin (2038)
Tasmania: 1 team -
Tasmania (2025)

Each club would play 25 matches as mentioned before (12x home matches & 12x away matches) + (1x alternative international home match swapped every two years), which would also include playing the other teams in their state four times (2x home matches & 2x away matches), resulting in a minimum of 6 derby matches for each state altogether, every year.

After the regular season has finished, the top 10 highest placed teams would commence to the finals series, in which the top 6 teams get a bye in Week 1 while the clubs ranked at 7th - 10th would face each other in a wildcard weekend (7th vs. 10th / 8th vs. 9th) to determine who plays 5th & 6th in week 2, before the final series continues as it is currently in the AFL Men's Competition.

Doing the maths at the end of the season, 311 matches would be played throughout the year (increase of 104 matches in 2021), with each state (minus Tasmania) hosting a minimum of 36 home matches every year, with Victoria hosting 108 home matches and ACT, NT & Tasmania hosting 12 home matches as well (excluding finals).

This national future competition blueprint & strategy (as shown above) would not only greatly increase the exposure of the sport on a Nationalised level in many ways such as increased broadcasting, club, media & stadium revenue (to name a few), but also more specifically massively increase the AFL's positioning of the sport in NRL-based states such as the ACT, NSW & QLD and improve the participation rates of players from those states, from the grassroots to the professional levels of both the Men's & Women's game, while weakening the Rugby League foothold as a result.
 
Last edited:

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,550
3,056
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
If we go for 24 teams, I'd have WA3, SA3, NT, TAS, ACT, NQLD. Count ACT as a "third" NSW team.

WA team would be Joondalup Falcons, SA Norwood Redlegs, NT Thunder, TAS Devils, Canberra Sharks or Kookaburras, and Cairns Crocodiles.

As you say, 25 rounds, 12H, 12A, 1 neutral.

Also, have 70k state of the art stadiums and infrastructure and every 24 years, you have

10 VIC GFs
3 WA GFs
3 SA GFs
3 QLD GFs
1 ACT/2 NSW GFs
1 NT GF
1 TAS GF

Non-Vic GFs can be twilight for $$$ - I think people will get used to it if you still have a daytime GF at the G nearly every 2nd year, and without lockdowns, people could make a more epic day of those later start time GFs.
 

St Plugger

Senior List
Feb 28, 2012
211
305
AFL Club
St Kilda
20 teams: 18 existing + Tassie + TBA

2 conferences: Half of the Vic teams + 1 team from each of Perth, Ad, Tas, Syd, Bris and TBA.

Every team plays each other twice plus mid season bye = 21 rounds and 1 home city/rivalry match [not played for points = 22 weeks.

Finals [4 weeks]: top 3 teams to decide Conference Champions. wk1 Elim Finals - 2 v 3, wk2 Prelim Finals - 1 v Elim winner, wk3 - GF bye - State Leagues GFs, wk4 Grand Final - Conference 1 Champs v Conference 2 Champs for AFL Premiership.

Alternating seasons teams rotate conferences, eg 3 Vic teams swap conferences & 3 Interstate teams swap conferences.
 
Last edited:

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
If we go for 24 teams, I'd have WA3, SA3, NT, TAS, ACT, NQLD. Count ACT as a "third" NSW team.

WA team would be Joondalup Falcons, SA Norwood Redlegs, NT Thunder, TAS Devils, Canberra Sharks or Kookaburras, and Cairns Crocodiles.

As you say, 25 rounds, 12H, 12A, 1 neutral.

Also, have 70k state of the art stadiums and infrastructure and every 24 years, you have

10 VIC GFs
3 WA GFs
3 SA GFs
3 QLD GFs
1 ACT/2 NSW GFs
1 NT GF
1 TAS GF

Non-Vic GFs can be twilight for $$$ - I think people will get used to it if you still have a daytime GF at the G nearly every 2nd year, and without lockdowns, people could make a more epic day of those later start time GFs.
Calling the only club not with in 29K of the beach the "sharks" is a bit weird isn't it? Also, you are not suggesting building 70K stadiums in Darwin and Hobart are you?
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,550
3,056
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Calling the only club not with in 29K of the beach the "sharks" is a bit weird isn't it? Also, you are not suggesting building 70K stadiums in Darwin and Hobart are you?
Good point re: Canberra mascot name.

As for Hobart and Darwin building 70k stadiums, sure, why not, when it's feasible? Which, I know, would be a long way off. If a Tassie side enters the competition in 2025, I wouldn't expect to see a stadium of that capacity in Hobart for at least another 20-30 years after that. Ditto NT if they entered the comp in the 2030s/40s. Probably no 70k stadium until the 2060s or 2070s. I have no idea when they'd be built, but surely one day they'll have the means? Who knows, I might be wrong.

In any case, you could have a GF in Melbourne every second year and one every eight years in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Sydney, if they all have 70k capacity stadiums. Twilight GFs in those states + 30k corporates will make it very profitable, while MCG BBQ kick-to-kick arvo tradition could remain 50% of the time. It'd be awesome.
 

Walshawk

Club Legend
Mar 24, 2017
2,513
2,738
Blackburn
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Good point re: Canberra mascot name.

As for Hobart and Darwin building 70k stadiums, sure, why not, when it's feasible? Which, I know, would be a long way off. If a Tassie side enters the competition in 2025, I wouldn't expect to see a stadium of that capacity in Hobart for at least another 20-30 years after that. Ditto NT if they entered the comp in the 2030s/40s. Probably no 70k stadium until the 2060s or 2070s. I have no idea when they'd be built, but surely one day they'll have the means? Who knows, I might be wrong.

In any case, you could have a GF in Melbourne every second year and one every eight years in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Sydney, if they all have 70k capacity stadiums. Twilight GFs in those states + 30k corporates will make it very profitable, while MCG BBQ kick-to-kick arvo tradition could remain 50% of the time. It'd be awesome.
So you want Darwin to have a stadium equal to 40% of its population? That would be like Melbourne having a 2.5m capacity MCG.
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,550
3,056
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
So you want Darwin to have a stadium equal to 40% of its population? That would be like Melbourne having a 2.5m capacity MCG.
That depends on what Darwin’s population is by the 2060s or 70s. I wouldn’t have a clue what it’ll be. Starting out, they might have a 25 or 30k ground. A couple decades later and that could change. It’s hard to say.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Walshawk

Club Legend
Mar 24, 2017
2,513
2,738
Blackburn
AFL Club
Hawthorn
That depends on what Darwin’s population is by the 2060s or 70s. I wouldn’t have a clue what it’ll be. Starting out, they might have a 25 or 30k ground. A couple decades later and that could change. It’s hard to say.
It’’s not hard to say. Darwin’s population is currently 148k. It is the 14th - 17th biggest city in Australia depending on how you calculate. At the current rate of growth, that could rise to 250k or even 300k in 40 years. It will never, ever, need a 70k stadium. Nor a 50k stadium. Nor a 40k stadium.
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,550
3,056
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
It’’s not hard to say. Darwin’s population is currently 148k. It is the 14th - 17th biggest city in Australia depending on how you calculate. At the current rate of growth, that could rise to 250k or even 300k in 40 years. It will never, ever, need a 70k stadium. Nor a 50k stadium. Nor a 40k stadium.
Maybe, maybe not. https://theconversation.com/you-can...5-million-people-without-a-proper-plan-125063

It's a big if, but: "Economic opportunities see northern Australia’s growing population concentrated in Darwin, which would grow by 1.5 million people by 2060."
 

Walshawk

Club Legend
Mar 24, 2017
2,513
2,738
Blackburn
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Maybe, maybe not. https://theconversation.com/you-can...5-million-people-without-a-proper-plan-125063

It's a big if, but: "Economic opportunities see northern Australia’s growing population concentrated in Darwin, which would grow by 1.5 million people by 2060."
Rubbish article. No city in world history has grown by more than tenfold in 40 years. Have a look at the ABS projections - around 220k in 2066.
 
Last edited:

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,550
3,056
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Rubbish article. Have a look at the ABS projections.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. The population growth rate isn't anywhere near high enough, so unless there's a massive immigration push in those northern regions, it does seem highly unlikely.

Shifting gears to the expansion aspect, Tassie and Canberra are likely the next two teams. Both roughly 500k people, and no doubt the AFL will want 20 teams to generate more broadcast revenue. And those two would be a long way off making a 70k stadium.
 

Philth

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
1,546
2,045
Geraldton
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Leeds United
Yeah, lets have more expansion teams!
It worked really well in GC, right?
And look at the massive crowds GWS generate, being perennial finalists!

FFS people, settle down with the extra teams.
Tassie, possibly. Probably.

As for the rest, no. Especially WA3.
Canberra has a population of 400k. Too small. It's rugby land there.
 

Canberra Pear

Senior List
Nov 26, 2016
269
337
Canberra, ACT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Yeah, lets have more expansion teams!
It worked really well in GC, right?
And look at the massive crowds GWS generate, being perennial finalists!

FFS people, settle down with the extra teams.
Tassie, possibly. Probably.

As for the rest, no. Especially WA3.
Canberra has a population of 400k. Too small. It's rugby land there.
I disagree with your assessment of Canberra. Greater Canberra is already more like 500k (including Queanbeyan, Googong, Yass etc). That's more than double Hobart and triple Darwin.

It will realistically be about 600k by 2030 (realistically the earliest we could get a team). That excludes the potential for games in Wagga and Albury, too.

The ACT economy is also 27% larger than Tasmania (and that excludes our NSW suburbs), so our market is more valuable than our population suggests.

In terms of Canberra being "rugby land", I'd say it's more of a 50/50 split, and a new team could easily make it "AFL land".

Search volumes on Google show that AFL was already the most searched league from 2014-2018 (from the book Code Wars). AFL games get larger crowds than Brumbies' matches, and have got better averages than the Raiders in their poorer years. That's all without an AFL team. We could easily be AFL land with a team of our own.
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,550
3,056
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Yeah, no reason why we couldn't have a Tassie team and a Canberra team by 2030. I like Clarkson's idea of slowly bringing the Tassie side into the competition, so they don't get smashed week in week out in their first few years. I don't think the AFL needs to add more teams beyond that until at least the 2040s or 50s. What they should be looking at now is the MCG contract. A twilight GF once every eight years for Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, and Sydney each isn't too much to ask if they have a 70k capacity.
 

Bjo187

Team Captain
Apr 30, 2020
333
430
AFL Club
Essendon
I disagree with your assessment of Canberra. Greater Canberra is already more like 500k (including Queanbeyan, Googong, Yass etc). That's more than double Hobart and triple Darwin.

It will realistically be about 600k by 2030 (realistically the earliest we could get a team). That excludes the potential for games in Wagga and Albury, too.

The ACT economy is also 27% larger than Tasmania (and that excludes our NSW suburbs), so our market is more valuable than our population suggests.

In terms of Canberra being "rugby land", I'd say it's more of a 50/50 split, and a new team could easily make it "AFL land".

Search volumes on Google show that AFL was already the most searched league from 2014-2018 (from the book Code Wars). AFL games get larger crowds than Brumbies' matches, and have got better averages than the Raiders in their poorer years. That's all without an AFL team. We could easily be AFL land with a team of our own.
You should be selling the Canberra team to gill your analysis and understanding of your local area is superb.
 

RedV3x

Premiership Player
Dec 14, 2015
3,245
808
AFL Club
Fremantle
Yeah, lets have more expansion teams!
Both NSW and Queensland are now bigger AFL states than S.A. by participation.
That is the value of expansion.

It worked really well in GC, right?.
You cannot ignore onfield performance as part of the equation.
Just as you cannot ignore other inputs like grabbing a CEO like Brian Cook.

And look at the massive crowds GWS generate, being perennial finalists!
GWS's crowds are improving along with their onfield performances.

settle down with the extra teams.
Tassie, possibly. Probably.
As for the rest, no. Especially WA3.
Canberra has a population of 400k. Too small. It's rugby land there.
That's why people are discussing possibilities.
People have various viewpoints and it is hard to appreciate all of the dynamics of expansion.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
18,587
12,973
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Maybe, maybe not. https://theconversation.com/you-can...5-million-people-without-a-proper-plan-125063

It's a big if, but: "Economic opportunities see northern Australia’s growing population concentrated in Darwin, which would grow by 1.5 million people by 2060."
A very big if. The tyranny of distance has a huge effect on Darwin. They have a big population turnover as it is.

Climate modelling sees more storms & increasing heat. That wouldn't help any far northern settlement if it even comes close to happening that way.

This article was written preCovid so we don't really know how that will affect population changes anywhere.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad