Long-term future of the AFL.

Remove this Banner Ad

Gigantor

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2012
15,377
5,472
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
You can imagine all the fans in Brisbane: you beauty - we get to play the Suns twice this year. How goods that?! And not just this year...forever!
Well, yes, would make more sense than the Lions playing Tassie twice, or even GWS twice, just because some brainiac decided to confect some meaningless conferences.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,250
AFL Club
Collingwood
But that's what you are proposing - playing an extra game with neighbours- that's the definition of a conference.

The definition of a conferences is surely that teams are primarily competing for seeding for play off / finals in the same table as other teams in their conference.

Playing a return derby for points in a league where you play everyone else once I don't believe classes as a conference
 

Log in to remove this ad.

freddy mercury

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 20, 2009
9,519
10,574
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Jacksonville
I personally want to see tasmanian definitely in the AFL. It's beyond me how and why they aren't already in it, that's another conversation for another day.

I don't think a team in the Northern territory is a good idea purely based on the playing conditions, as unfortunate as it is, you can't control weather.

Then you worry about the talent pool etc. I think one more team is enough. You can then scrap the already shitty bye weeks, beyond me why the AFL do the bye rounds over three weeks instead of just one week. I get that money and tv deals are the issue but there's surely a better way.

I think the game is in good shape, given the likelihood of an uninterrupted season next year would be beneficial to everyone involved in the AFL.

If I had to change one thing it would be when a player purposely lays on the ball after being paid a free kick against so that players can get back and defend. Also blatantly pretending you don't know who's free kick it is to again slow play. Both should be penalized with a 50 meter penalty, that'll quicken the game up and allow for better scoring in no time.
 

Bjo187

Team Captain
Apr 30, 2020
394
514
AFL Club
Essendon
I personally want to see tasmanian definitely in the AFL. It's beyond me how and why they aren't already in it, that's another conversation for another day.

I don't think a team in the Northern territory is a good idea purely based on the playing conditions, as unfortunate as it is, you can't control weather.

Then you worry about the talent pool etc. I think one more team is enough. You can then scrap the already shitty bye weeks, beyond me why the AFL do the bye rounds over three weeks instead of just one week. I get that money and tv deals are the issue but there's surely a better way.

I think the game is in good shape, given the likelihood of an uninterrupted season next year would be beneficial to everyone involved in the AFL.

If I had to change one thing it would be when a player purposely lays on the ball after being paid a free kick against so that players can get back and defend. Also blatantly pretending you don't know who's free kick it is to again slow play. Both should be penalized with a 50 meter penalty, that'll quicken the game up and allow for better scoring in no time.
You combined a lot of points into the one post but I completely agree on all of them.
 

RedV3x

Premiership Player
Dec 14, 2015
3,419
870
AFL Club
Fremantle
The definition of a conferences is surely that teams are primarily competing for seeding for play off / finals in the same table as other teams in their conference.
That's the NFL system. but it's not the only system.

Playing a return derby for points in a league where you play everyone else once I don't believe classes as a conference
Well, it doesn't seem like one, but is in effect a conference.
Regardless, you cannot admonish one system as being stupid when the suggested alternative is inherently flawed.

The underlying theme is having a system that has the basis of being "fair".
That is impossible in Australia when half of the teams play out of the MCG.
 

kranger

Team Captain
Nov 30, 2006
520
384
Kalamunda
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swan District
Quite often talk about the future of the AFL revolves around expansion.

The AFL has a team in Australia’s 6 largest cities (struggling in the 6th). But that doesn’t mean the next couple of biggest are ready for a team too. Simply consider how much smaller they are compared to the big 5.

C94A3BAF-65CA-408A-AB54-C9A33B3F2EB5.png

C806FE98-1042-4F7B-96B0-26B34B0998C2.png

Sometimes it’s hard to conceptualise the size of things based on numbers, with graphs being better.

BB84CCE3-9AA2-49D7-9EF9-48CABC86748E.jpeg


56F8085E-EAD4-4173-93EB-D4E8C57DF777.png
 

RedV3x

Premiership Player
Dec 14, 2015
3,419
870
AFL Club
Fremantle
Quite often talk about the future of the AFL revolves around expansion.
The future of the AFL revolves around many things with further expansion not being a high priority.

The AFL has a team in Australia’s 6 largest cities But that doesn’t mean the next couple of biggest are ready for a team too.
But it doesn't rule them out either.

Simply consider how much smaller they are compared to the big 5.
Simply consider that size is not the only criteria.
Geelong is an extremely successful AFL side.
Gold coast is a region rather than a city.
Tasmania is passionate about football and has produced many champions.
The N.T. is proposing a completely different model to that which exists now.

All national sports have realised that a Perth/Adelaide/Brisbane/Sydney/Melbourne model is too restrictive for a national model
and the boutique model is more manageable and more comprehensive.
 

kranger

Team Captain
Nov 30, 2006
520
384
Kalamunda
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swan District
The future of the AFL revolves around many things with further expansion not being a high priority.

But it doesn't rule them out either.

Simply consider that size is not the only criteria.
Geelong is an extremely successful AFL side.
Gold coast is a region rather than a city.
Tasmania is passionate about football and has produced many champions.
The N.T. is proposing a completely different model to that which exists now.

All national sports have realised that a Perth/Adelaide/Brisbane/Sydney/Melbourne model is too restrictive for a national model and the boutique model is more manageable and more comprehensive.
I agree with all that you have said. Although, Tasmanians will probably disagree and say that expansion should be a high priority.

I’ve long supported Tasmania as team 19. Which has previously led to me thinking Canberra should be team 20 to make even numbers.

Afterall, why give the nations capital to the two rugby codes. And GWS could then focus solely on Sydney.

But Sydney is a massive market. Perhaps a third Sydney based team is the better way to go for team 20, and GWS having a focus on Canberra is better for the AFL. Even though it may not be what is best for Canberra (compared to having its own team), the pro’s might outweigh the con’s to the league, and for some of the smaller Vic teams.

Sydney has a similar population to Melbourne but a fifth of the teams.

Sydney has more than three times the population of Adelaide but the same number of teams.

And there are four cities that are closer to Sydney than north west Tasmania is to Hobart, which have a combined population greater than Adelaide (Newcastle, Canberra, Central Coast and Wollongong). Where a team may not be viable as a standalone, but might benefit from sharing games with a Sydney based team, including away games to Vic teams (such as those about to lose Tasmania).

Anyone from Vic, WA or SA, know people don’t only support one team in an area. There are fans of multiple teams in area, but they might have some stronger footholds in certain areas. But this geographic locating of a team has always been helpful for sports teams.

Here is an electoral map of Sydney. It is a good way to identify how the population is currently distributed through Sydney.

01A9C6A4-3AE4-459B-906D-9EB46A402EC7.jpeg


So Sydney 3 as AFL team 20.
GWS keep the western suburbs and Canberra.
Swans take the southern suburbs and focus on Wollongong.
Sydney 3 take the northern suburbs, Central Coast and Newcastle.

GWS then return 2 home games from Canberra back to Sydney. Whilst still playing two homes games in Canberra. And two Vic teams get to sell one home game each to Canberra to play GWS.

Two other (or the same as before) Vic teams also sell one home game each to Wollongong to play Sydney.

Then two other (or the same as before) Vic teams sell one home game each to either Newcastle or Central Coast to play Sydney 3. Whilst Sydney 3 also take one home game Newcastle and Central Coast each.

This means Canberra keeps the same number of games. GWS plays the same number of games in Canberra.

The AFL gets games in Newcastle, Central Coast and Wollongong, with a consistent ‘local’ team to support.

Each of the Sydney teams get 9 home games in Sydney, and the AFL get to have more resources focusing on the NSW market, such as players doing school clinics etc.

2-6 Vic teams get 6 games brought by a host city in NSW/ACT, replacing the Tasmania games.
 
Last edited:

Canberra Pear

Senior List
Nov 26, 2016
292
361
Canberra, ACT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I agree with all that you have said. Although, Tasmanians will probably disagree and say that expansion should be a high priority.

I’ve long supported Tasmania as team 19. Which has previously led to me thinking Canberra should be team 20 to make even numbers.

Afterall, why give the nations capital to the two rugby codes. And GWS could then focus solely on Sydney.

But Sydney is a massive market. Perhaps a third Sydney based team is the better way to go for team 20, and GWS having a focus on Canberra is better for the AFL. Even though it may not be what is best for Canberra (compared to having its own team), the pro’s might outweigh the con’s to the league, and for some of the smaller Vic teams.

Sydney has a similar population to Melbourne but a fifth of the teams.

Sydney has more than three times the population of Adelaide but the same number of teams.

And there are four cities that are closer to Sydney than north west Tasmania is to Hobart, which have a combined population greater than Adelaide (Newcastle, Canberra, Central Coast and Wollongong). Where a team may not be viable as a standalone, but might benefit from sharing games with a Sydney based team, including away games to Vic teams (such as those about to lose Tasmania).

Anyone from Vic, WA or SA, know people don’t only support one team in an area. There are fans of multiple teams in area, but they might have some stronger footholds in certain areas. But this geographic locating of a team has always been helpful for sports teams.

Here is an electoral map of Sydney. It is a good way to identify how the population is currently distributed through Sydney.

View attachment 1272307

So Sydney 3 as AFL team 20.
GWS keep the western suburbs and Canberra.
Swans take the southern suburbs and focus on Wollongong.
Sydney 3 take the northern suburbs, Central Coast and Newcastle.

GWS then return 2 home games from Canberra back to Sydney. Whilst still playing two homes games in Canberra. And two Vic teams get to sell one home game each to Canberra to play GWS.

Two other (or the same as before) Vic teams also sell one home game each to Wollongong to play Sydney.

Then two other (or the same as before) Vic teams sell one home game each to either Newcastle or Central Coast to play Sydney 3. Whilst Sydney 3 also take one home game Newcastle and Central Coast each.

This means Canberra keeps the same number of games. GWS plays the same number of games in Canberra.

The AFL gets games in Newcastle, Central Coast and Wollongong, with a consistent ‘local’ team to support.

Each of the Sydney teams get 9 home games in Sydney, and the AFL get to have more resources focusing on the NSW market, such as players doing school clinics etc.

2-6 Vic teams get 6 games brought by a host city in NSW/ACT, replacing the Tasmania games.
I agree that Sydney should eventually get a third team, but I don't think they'd be ready for it in time to complement the 19th team (theoretically pre-2030ish?).

GWS is still solidifying their support. That being said a North Sydney team would probably have more of an impact on the Swans.

I assume North Sydney Oval would be the plan for a team there, but that'll need a full redevelopment. It'll probably have to be rotated around to fit AFL dimensions. Couldn't imagine the space and infrastructure would allow for a stadium of more than 20k. Might have to play some bigger games at the SCG or Olympic Park. That's why I think an eventual third Sydney team would be better centred out of the new aerotropolis in 20 or so years.

Central Coast and Wollongong also don't have suitable stadiums for even preseason matches.

But if North Sydney did get in, it would be awesome if they worked with the North Sydney Bears to enter a team in the AFL. There's a lot of former NRL Bears supporters who are ticked at the NRL. Pre-made brand and fanbase.

Note: obviously from a biased Canberran-perspective who wants Canberra as Team 20.
 

kranger

Team Captain
Nov 30, 2006
520
384
Kalamunda
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swan District
I assume North Sydney Oval would be the plan for a team there, but that'll need a full redevelopment. It'll probably have to be rotated around to fit AFL dimensions. Couldn't imagine the space and infrastructure would allow for a stadium of more than 20k. Might have to play some bigger games at the SCG or Olympic Park.
I see a Sydney 3 team just using the SCG, or Showgrounds (depending where they end up being based). But both are existing good stadiums, that are central to the metropolitan area, and have good public transport access.

Consider how Perth has two teams but one good central stadium. The same for Adelaide. And Melbourne has 9 teams and only two stadiums.

The QLD and NSW teams having single tenant stadiums are the oddities. It was necessary to help create a separate identity to the existing teams in the non-traditional states for GWS and Gold Coast, but I don’t see it being necessary for a Sydney 3.

Having two AFL tenants in a single stadium will also help them have more weight in discussions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Canberra Pear

Senior List
Nov 26, 2016
292
361
Canberra, ACT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I see a Sydney 3 team just using the SCG, or Showgrounds (depending where they end up being based). But both are existing good stadiums, that are central to the metropolitan area, and have good public transport access.

Consider how Perth has two teams but one good central stadium. The same for Adelaide. And Melbourne has 9 teams and only two stadiums.

The QLD and NSW teams having single tenant stadiums are the oddities. It was necessary to help create a separate identity to the existing teams in the non-traditional states for GWS and Gold Coast, but I don’t see it being necessary for a Sydney 3.

Having two AFL tenants in a single stadium will also help them have more weight in discussions.
I've never lived in Sydney, but travelled a bit due to its proximity to Canberra (the big acts never come to the ACT :().

But my understanding is that Sydney is an apple compared to the oranges of Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne. By which I mean, these cities have central stadiums because it's relatively easy for the entire city to get to them. Sydney is scattered and it would still be a pain in the butt for anybody from North Sydney to travel to Homebush or the SCG.

It also explains why NRL have such terrible crowds despite playing derbies most weeks. It's nearly impossible for fans on the other side of town to get to.

While you have NRL teams sharing some of the bigger stadiums part-time, they've already developed independently around their more defined regions. There's no point creating new teams to play at the SCG or Homebush as anybody who can get to those grounds already is.

That's why I think the aerotropolis would be good. By 2056, it'll be centre of 1.5m, all able to get there within 30 mins.
 

Bjo187

Team Captain
Apr 30, 2020
394
514
AFL Club
Essendon
Yeah I agree a reconfigured North Sydney Oval with a North Sydney team playing out of there would be successful in my opinion. It needs to be seen as a truly local team if it is to be supported. If you just played them out of the SCG or Showgrounds why would people choose to go to watch a new team in a fully empty Stadium, when they can make the same trip to sit in some good atmosphere watching the Swans?

I actually think it probably would have been smarter to go with North Sydney as the second Sydney team than GWS, because they would have been basically absorbing old rugby union areas which were there for the taking. A relocated kangaroos would be perfect for north sydney, they get to retain their north kangaroos name, already have a core supporter base and the blue v red of the swans creates a good contrast.
 

RedV3x

Premiership Player
Dec 14, 2015
3,419
870
AFL Club
Fremantle
Sydney is scattered and it would still be a pain in the butt for anybody from North Sydney to travel to Homebush or the SCG.
North Sydney is well served by transport but away from the railway lines the north side bus services are problematic.

It also explains why NRL have such terrible crowds despite playing derbies most weeks.
No. It's an overstated excuse. It doesn't explain the poor crowds for derbies (adjacent suburbs) or stadiums near rail services.

While you have NRL teams sharing some of the bigger stadiums part-time, they've already developed independently around their more defined regions.
The NRL has flipped repeatedly between stadium sharing and individual stadium development.
 

RedV3x

Premiership Player
Dec 14, 2015
3,419
870
AFL Club
Fremantle
Yeah I agree a reconfigured North Sydney Oval with a North Sydney team playing out of there would be successful in my opinion. It needs to be seen as a truly local team if it is to be supported.
Yes. If the Swans had been able to to use North Sydney as a full size oval then it would have been a big boost to them in the formative years.
The North Shore Bears/Bombers are the local side and they would have boosted magnificently by playing at North Sydney oval.

I actually think it probably would have been smarter to go with North Sydney as the second Sydney team than GWS, because they would have been basically absorbing old rugby union areas.
It would be absorbing Sydney Swans heartland.

A relocated kangaroos would be perfect for North Sydney.
Kangaroos were tried and failed dismally, actually, worse than dismally.
 

Bjo187

Team Captain
Apr 30, 2020
394
514
AFL Club
Essendon
Yes. If the Swans had been able to to use North Sydney as a full size oval then it would have been a big boost to them in the formative years.
The North Shore Bears/Bombers are the local side and they would have boosted magnificently by playing at North Sydney oval.



It would be absorbing Sydney Swans heartland.



Kangaroos were tried and failed dismally, actually, worse than dismally.
The swans are big enough to find a supporter base on the SCG side of the bridge surely. Also on the Kangaroos, they were playing out of the SCG which goes back to my point of it not bringing a point of difference. Why would people from north sydney travel across the bridge to watch a victorian team a few times a year? If it was in north sydney they would have been more attractive. This was also before the Sydney market had fully solidified itself even behind the Swans, that came post the 2006 era success.
 

Cubs2Lions

Club Legend
Jan 12, 2021
1,125
2,154
Adelaide
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
South Adelaide
Looking in the future, I feel like the most teams the AFL Men's/Women's competitions can have with the same fixture modelling is 24 - 26 clubs, before unfortunately either conferences will need to be applied or the reduction of Victorian clubs needs to be considered in the professional competition at the very least. If I was in charge of the AFL today, in regards to the future expansion of the competition for both male/female counterparts, I would be devising an AFL expansion timeline, similar to this presented below (26 round season format with all Victorian Clubs present in the future):

2025- Tasmania Devils (10x Hobart & 3x Launceston)
(New/Redeveloped Hobart Stadium = 40,000) = (Redeveloped Launceston Stadium = 25,000)

2027- Canberra Rams (12x Canberra & 1x Wagga Wagga)
(Redeveloped Manuka Oval = 40,000) - (Redeveloped Wagga Wagga Oval = 15,000)

2036- Perth Falcons (13x Perth)
(Current Perth Stadium = 70,000/80,000)

2038- North Sydney Rebels (10x North Sydney & 3x Newcastle)
(Redeveloped North Sydney Oval = 35,000) - (New/Redeveloped Newcastle AFL Oval = 15,000)

2050- South Coast Sharks (12x Adelaide & 1x Mount Gambier)
(Current Adelaide Oval = 60,000/70,000) (New/Redeveloped Mount Gambier Oval = 15,000)

2052- North Queensland Crocodiles (8x Cairns & 5x Townsville)
(Redeveloped Cairns Stadium = 30,000) (Redeveloped Townsville Stadium = 20,000)

2065- Darwin Thunder (10x Darwin & 3x Alice Springs)
(Redeveloped Darwin Stadium = 30,000) (Redeveloped Alice Springs Stadium = 15,000)

2067- Auckland Kiwis (10x Auckland & 3x Wellington)
(New Auckland Stadium = 40,000) (New/Redeveloped Wellington Stadium = 35,000)
 

BigVic

Premiership Player
Sep 7, 2009
3,732
2,680
Bull Creek WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Storm, Chelsea, GS Warriors
Giants have a good supporter base in Western Sydney and Riverina regions.

Fitzroy tried to merge with North in 1996 with the Lions ultimately moving north of the border to Brisbane to become the Brisbane Lions.

North-Fitzroy would’ve been a good team initially but would struggle today.
 

BigVic

Premiership Player
Sep 7, 2009
3,732
2,680
Bull Creek WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Storm, Chelsea, GS Warriors
Gold Coast should drop the “Gold Coast” name to be just the “Suns” to represent the Sunshine Coast and North Queensland region
 

RedV3x

Premiership Player
Dec 14, 2015
3,419
870
AFL Club
Fremantle
I actually think we cannot determine the success of the Gold Coast Suns until they have some on-field success.
The Suns are successful because they survive.

I still hold up some hope that they would achieve decent attendances if they were a top 6 team.
The times when the Suns have shown form they indeed have had good attendances.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad