Its not until you win it, then its massive. Think of Sydney, Footscray and even Richmond after 37 years, we went from a basket case to one of the biggest and richest clubs in the comp
Expansion Surely Wellington or another NZ based team is the next port of call for an new AFL Team/Franchise
- Thread starter Elmer_Judd
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The problem is that to sustain a new team you need money. Adding GWS & GC gave the AFL an extra game each week, this is more broadcast revenue. Then adding magic round give an extra round, more revenue.
The 19th & no doubt the 20th right behind again adds a game, so increased revenue However this adding of game diminishes the increase revenue to a point, with 4 seen to be the magic FTA number, that’s if there is 8 or 10 matches. Paytv / streaming in this country still isn’t that competitive to add value, netflix / Amazon while interested is never going to invest heavily in an domestic Australian comp, compared to Fox & Stan is 9 so us more tied into the FTA fight.
NZ does nothing to increase those revenues, as the team isn’t in a market where 7 / Fox can profit & the sport isn’t big enough & NZ isn’t big enough to suddenly sink huge funds into broadcast agreements
Imagine GC v NZ on a Sunday slot, who is going? Who is watching?
The 19th & no doubt the 20th right behind again adds a game, so increased revenue However this adding of game diminishes the increase revenue to a point, with 4 seen to be the magic FTA number, that’s if there is 8 or 10 matches. Paytv / streaming in this country still isn’t that competitive to add value, netflix / Amazon while interested is never going to invest heavily in an domestic Australian comp, compared to Fox & Stan is 9 so us more tied into the FTA fight.
NZ does nothing to increase those revenues, as the team isn’t in a market where 7 / Fox can profit & the sport isn’t big enough & NZ isn’t big enough to suddenly sink huge funds into broadcast agreements
Imagine GC v NZ on a Sunday slot, who is going? Who is watching?
Right so it has to be Canberra, with 1 Thursday and Friday night game a week plus five on Saturday and three on Sunday; OR 3rd WA with one Thursday night, Friday night double header, 4 on Saturday, 3 on Sunday.
Long term you could get value out of 12 games a week if four day working weeks become the norm for most businesses:
1 Thursday night, 2 Friday night, 5 Saturday, 3 Sunday, 1 Monday night. You’d need a 3rd WA team for the Friday double header though unless NZ can explode with footy growth in the next few decades.
- Feb 19, 2020
- 1,714
- 3,288
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Why does it have to be channel 7?
24 or 22 teams sounds lovely, but we are at 18 right now & we have GC, GWS (which is pulling half its support from your suggested new team of Canberra), St Kilda, North, WB etc that aren’t pulling huge crowds when they play each other.
So let’s say it’s GC 3rd last v new Canberra team last, 3 rounds to go in the year. Who is going to watch that? The TV ratings are going to be non-existing.
It’s incredibly naive to just pull out locations & 24 teams so everyone plays each other once, then draw up a weekly schedule of 12 games & think the TV networks or streamers are going to increase there payment by 30% or more for the extra 3 matches per round. The big clubs will stay the same, however the lower end clubs & new clubs will just have more competition, you will end up with an EPL style of some very large rich clubs & then a group of poorly supported poor clubs (to a greater extreme than we have now)
Look at it this way, NFL is 32 teams, across 330 million people, that’s just over 10 million people each. 24 AFL clubs across a population just over 24 million, is a million per club. Some teams already have 100,000 members, they are unlikely to lose members, you are running out of population to bridge the gap between clubs fast.
We have enough clubs, there is economic advantages of more, however they diminish fast and aren’t linear
Let's just have 3 clubs then, 8 million per club.
Seriously, though, I understand your point, but I'm not talking about adding 22 or 24 clubs to the competition in 10 or 20 years, but in 50. Obviously the Suns and Giants need to become bigger before you even consider third teams in QLD or NSW.
NT would be for the social good of the game but I'm not sure the AFL gives a * about that, nor are they required to.
GWS doesn't rely on half of its support from ACT, it's 20%; move the Giants to WS full time and they wouldn't need to rely on anything from the ACT, who would have their own team.
ACT is about moving the Giants out of Canberra, not to Canberra like some suggest.
I agree with you about the Saints, Dogs, and North but the supporters are still watching them on TV so if you lose them you lose a lot of people from the broadcast deal, though I'm not sure people would stop watching North Melbourne on TV if they moved to Canberra. People say it's unfair because the supporters wouldn't get to see them live but they aren't doing that now so what's the difference?
Tasmania, Canberra Roos and 3rd WA would set up the competition nicely until 2050 and by then we'd know if it's worth adding third clubs to Queensland and NSW or not (obviously not if the Suns and Giants are still small clubs that need help and can't draw good crowds/ratings).
^ If that's the case then get the NT in and a 3rd SA team. If NT must be financially viable in some way and just can't find the level of support/funding then just leave the comp at 20 teams, especially if QLD and NSW aren't going to work for having third clubs.
tl;dr add Tasmania, 3rd WA, relocate North to Canberra, then leave at 20 teams until at least 2050, then:
-- if Suns and Giants strong, add 3rd clubs to NSW and QLD
-- if Suns strong, Giants not, add 3rd QLD club and 3rd SA club
-- if both clubs not strong, leave comp at 20 teams
Alternatively, North stay in Melbourne, Canberra get a brand new club by 2033; WA doesn't get a third team but might be under consideration for team 21-22 if one of NSW/QLD could sustain a third club.
I'd still argue that 3rd clubs in NSW and QLD would add more to the growth of the game than WA or SA if the Suns and Giants can eventually become strong clubs.
Last edited:
If we want GWS to be become the second least supported club, then sure, bring in a NZ team.
It’s really hard to argue pro or against a 50 year plan as the variables are huge. 50 years ago the idea of streaming platforms becoming the highest revenue for the game, wasn’t even a discussion. Today it seems inevitable and within a few years as FTA becomes less & less relevant.
Like I said I’d love to see what you have suggested happen, however I can’t see it ever happening just due to the economics.
So to me the big question is, do we go for 20 teams or 18 now that Tassie is confirmed (maybe a selfish question, but I despise the idea of an uneven competition). My gut says 20 will happen & rather quickly, by the end of the decade, I think we should find a Vic team to be dropped & remain a 18 team competition however, but that’s a different topic & a controversial one.
I hope I live another 50 years and you prove me wrong
It's really up to the AFL.
You're right that it's pointless to look 30 or 50 years ahead, where there might be talk of 22 teams, or even 24.
But with Tasmania looking likely, discussion of a 20th team will heat up. Now I'd say just in case the 20th team is the last, it should come from Canberra or even the Northern Territory with heavy government/corporate backing. A new market in an unrepresented area makes the game feel more complete.
It's up to the AFL to expand or contract. I think they'll go to 20 and if it were my call, I'd bring in Canberra by 2033, with the Giants using Newcastle as a secondary market if they need it.
If they did decide to contract, which I doubt, then it'd probably be the Saints or North gone, or a merger between North and the Dogs into the North Melbourne Bulldogs, perhaps. That's the only one I can see maybe working because of the colours, unless they both lose 30%+ members. They could keep the 2 games at Ballarat for that extra cash, or even bump it up to 3.
- Jun 27, 2004
- 16,067
- 15,810
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tasmania Devils
- Moderator
- #36
Prime example was the trial of H&A games in NZ. Just would never work.
That happened even at 12 teams. Heck, it could happen even with 8. This shouldn't be a consideration.
It just shows how VIC centric the game is.
“But what about St Kilda!? What about Norf!? If we have more teams it’ll just make it harder for them to win a flag!”
Boo hoo, so what? Should’ve won one when the comp was at 14 teams or 16. Cry me a Victorian budget deficit river.
Flags aren’t owed to you just for existing for over a hundred years and emerging markets should not be denied their right to entry when ready.
The growth past 19 teams is not going to be another mens team for a while.
After Tassie the AFL should invest heavily in women's footy and aim to win the women's sports war. The soccer world cup is showing that women's sport can be a headliner in its own right and while the AFLW is making massive strides in junior participation it is lagging in its investment in the pros
Improve the on field product and build investment there and you can effectively double the amount of televised games without further diluting the mens competition. It seems a no brainer to aim to get thir right over the next 10-15 years while stablising Tassie, GC and GWS
Alongside that should be international promotion and growth. Asia is still feetile ground for aports expansion imo.
After Tassie the AFL should invest heavily in women's footy and aim to win the women's sports war. The soccer world cup is showing that women's sport can be a headliner in its own right and while the AFLW is making massive strides in junior participation it is lagging in its investment in the pros
Improve the on field product and build investment there and you can effectively double the amount of televised games without further diluting the mens competition. It seems a no brainer to aim to get thir right over the next 10-15 years while stablising Tassie, GC and GWS
Alongside that should be international promotion and growth. Asia is still feetile ground for aports expansion imo.
Yeah, but a good way to stabilise GWS is by giving Canberra their own team so the Giants can focus on WS. Adds a 10th game to the broadcast deal, too.
Give Canberra 20 years to settle, Tassie will have had 25 years and the Suns and Giants 40 odd years.
If the Suns fail they can be reinvented as a QLD side that gets secondary market support from Cairns etc. Ditto the Giants and Newcastle. Both need a run at 11 home games first imo.
If they succeed then you probably have 20 teams that can stand on their own feet. If that’s the case then you could look at NT and somewhere else and go to 22, but not until after 2050.
If not, just keep working on turning the Suns and Giants into something profitable, so maybe you’d have a 25-30 year expansion gap between teams 20 and 21 instead of the usual 15.
I think Tassie will be fine, and am confident Canberra would do fine as well.
