The AFL wants 22 teams. Name your next four.

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2016
4,873
3,240
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yeah, you might want to look into that a bit more closely.

Firstly getting $14M of it's own revenues out of $38M isn't a great boast. (especially when $38M is very much on the small side)

There is also the not insubstantial point that gross revenue matters a lot less than net revenues, and GWS spends an awful lot earning that money. For example in earning $1.25M in 'membership and merchandise', GWS *PAID* $2.16M in related expenses....Yes, they lose, substantially, on members

You also need to consider that such revenue isn't all 'new money'...How much of that membership/sponsorship would have gone to Sydney (or other clubs)? nb. This is both directly, and by forcing them out of media time they would otherwise have had.

Now, that's all fine in that it's basically the AFL paying to grow the market share as part of a long term strategy. But don't try and paint it as a massive achievement. It's still very early days, and much of what GWS has, even it's supposedly 'own revenues' is merely what the AFL keeps pushing at them.
I'm not "boasting" about anything. I was demonstrating the absurdity of using an A League franchise as a reference point. The AFL has its costs well under control and so can gap fund new clubs in new markets for decades and decades while they establish

The Giants, in their fifth season, were basically self-funding their non-football department costs, including admin, rental and very aggressive marketing. The ~$23 million the AFL provided (including match receipts and prize money for finishing in the final four) essentially covered their football department. The ~$10 to $12 million of this in addition to base distribution (and cba requirement) represents 1/40th of the new tv rights value. Private "investment" does not even come into the equation.

You are right though that if this discussion was about whether or not the Giants were a commercial success after 6 years, you wouldn't just consider gross revenue and you would need to consider how much of it is offset by reductions in other clubs / AFL revenues. Happy to have that overall discussion another time. We might even be able to have that discussion while acknowledging what is fact and what is conjecture and assertion

Point is, this thread is essentially conjecture about the next four possible clubs. I have repeatedly premised that IMHO the Giants would have to have "solidified" as a club for Newcastle to be a plausible option. In 20 to 25 years, I think there is every chance it would have.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
27,922
13,850
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Newcastle is a fantasy only delusional pax AR idiots believe in. Look at the city, its people, and its economics. There is a reason only a league side has been consistently sustainable there.

The game is looking at a 1-2 generation fight to make gws and gc succeed. Newcastle will make that look like play time.

Heres a hint, put a side where there is actually demand for it
I broadly agree with you, but it's no more silly than an NRL team in Perth. There's more Aussie Rules players in Newcastle than rugby league players in Perth, and Perth is 4 times the size.

What makes it especially difficult though is that the AFL requires a far higher level of support to sustain a team than any other sporting league. Newcastle people don't exactly pack out their stadium week in week out for rugby league, and it's supposed to be a massive stronghold of the game. The Knights have only averaged over 20k twice this century (and appear to be in constant financial turbulence). What chance would an AFL team have of getting 25-30k a week? Nought.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
47,107
87,808
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
I broadly agree with you, but it's no more silly than an NRL team in Perth. There's more Aussie Rules players in Newcastle than rugby league players in Perth, and Perth is 4 times the size.

What makes it especially difficult though is that the AFL requires a far higher level of support to sustain a team than any other sporting league. Newcastle people don't exactly pack out their stadium week in week out for rugby league, and it's supposed to be a massive stronghold of the game. The Knights have only averaged over 20k twice this century (and appear to be in constant financial turbulence). What chance would an AFL team have of getting 25-30k a week? Nought.
FWIW I think NRL expansion into perth is idiotic too
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,164
8,483
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
We dont need 22 teams we already have too many!Better to relocate a couple of Melbourne teams to Tassie and NZ
You can send who ever you like to NZ. I've always disagreed with the notion of 'relocation'. Clubs should sink or swim in their own community.

We've had enough of 'foreign' team playing here for money. Either we have a legitimate Tasmanian club, or we don't. But certainly we don't want any more clubs coming here & doing SFA for Tasmanian football.

The AFL made a big blue by not developing a club in Canberra over 20 years ago. Tasmania should have happened back then as well.

GWS could now be focusing 100% on Western Sydney region.

I still cannot understand any push for a Syd3 before a WA3. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
 

Rabman

Club Legend
Nov 22, 2016
1,813
2,277
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
North Adelaide, Inter
Love how people think Norwood just going to magically go from averaging 3,175 a game to 30,000, Norwood don't actually make up that much of crows support either, Glenelg, Sturt, North Adelaide Woodville would have more affiliation.
 

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2016
4,873
3,240
AFL Club
Collingwood
I broadly agree with you, but it's no more silly than an NRL team in Perth. There's more Aussie Rules players in Newcastle than rugby league players in Perth, and Perth is 4 times the size.

What makes it especially difficult though is that the AFL requires a far higher level of support to sustain a team than any other sporting league. Newcastle people don't exactly pack out their stadium week in week out for rugby league, and it's supposed to be a massive stronghold of the game. The Knights have only averaged over 20k twice this century (and appear to be in constant financial turbulence). What chance would an AFL team have of getting 25-30k a week? Nought.
This is the thing though, with the exception of a third WA team and maybe Canberra (over perhaps decades), where are there feasible options for new teams which you could be confident of getting north of 25K average crowds? I can't imagine any.

The reason the AFL could go down the paths of adding teams in Newcastle or a third in some "unserviced" region of Sydney (which I am personally less sold on than the Hunter) is because it can fund the gap between the baseline distribution and the clubs own revenues in perpetuity if it is worthwhile over all.

This is the key threshold question: would the AFL get more out of this than whatever that gap payment is? This was essentially the question facing the AFL (and the clubs who iirc need to approve any expansion and voted unanimously) when it embarked on the two-in-one-go expansion into Western Sydney and the Gold Coast. Basically committing for a long haul commitment of $20 million a year over and above the base distribution for at least a decade.

If GWS and the gold coast have significantly reduced the amount of "gap funding" required for them to spend the football department cap by, say, 2030 and the TV rights money has continued to grow substantially (perhaps partly on the back of a deepening footprint north of the Barassi line) then I reckon a Hunter team would be in the frame as a candidate for introduction in the following decade. Assuming Tasmania and a third Perth team are in existence at that stage then Canberra and the Hunter/central coast would be the most significant regions without a team.

The difference with the NRL is the (moderate) existence of private ownership means they almost certainly could not self-fund an expansion anyway and it has less "disposable income" to achieve it. The only way would be through private ownership with all the risks that entails. The lack of draft system with a grafted on academy system for development regions means that it would be very difficult to establish a team in perth that is competitive over time. The fact in its heartland it has a small and decreasing share of participation numbers, and is far more contested at a professional level means its strategic goal is consolidation not expansion.

The AFL has a stated inter-generational goal of being the dominant code on the east coast of Australia. Super ambitious, sure, but I would say the pursuit of this would require a couple more clubs and I would bet on them being in Canberra and Hunter if I were a betting man.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
27,922
13,850
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
This is the thing though, with the exception of a third WA team and maybe Canberra (over perhaps decades), where are there feasible options for new teams which you could be confident of getting north of 25K average crowds? I can't imagine any.
Well then you don't expand. If the objective is to convert more people, then put another team in Sydney. 10 times as many people there as Newcastle.
 

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2016
4,873
3,240
AFL Club
Collingwood
Well then you don't expand. If the objective is to convert more people, then put another team in Sydney. 10 times as many people there as Newcastle.
Well, that's certainly a legitimate option. You stop at 20 (assuming you are granting Tasmania a team and then either WA3 or Canberra).

I'm not sure of your numbers though. There will be well over 1 million people in the Hunter and Central Coast in 2035...probably over 1.5 by the middle of the century. For me, it is hard to see where you would build a third Sydney club that would serve that number of people that would not have access to the Giants or Swans within an hour's travel. Campbelltown

Agreeing the objective is critical though. If your objective is to purely "convert more people" than you would weight towards a more aggressive expansion. If your objective is for a stronger league and game in the long term than the answer might be substantially similar to that of converting more people, anyway (depending on how you measure a "stronger league and game" of course!)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
27,922
13,850
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Well, that's certainly a legitimate option. You stop at 20 (assuming you are granting Tasmania a team and then either WA3 or Canberra).

I'm not sure of your numbers though. There will be well over 1 million people in the Hunter and Central Coast in 2035...probably over 1.5 by the middle of the century. For me, it is hard to see where you would build a third Sydney club that would serve that number of people that would not have access to the Giants or Swans within an hour's travel. Campbelltown
Isn't the Central Coast technically part of Sydney? In any case, it's about the same distance from Newcastle as it is from the Sydney CBD, and you can't really say a Newcastle team is going to serve that area any more than, say, a Northern Sydney team would. So suggesting it's going to serve a million people is at best optimistic.
 

Our Game

Club Legend
Sep 30, 2014
2,071
1,221
Sandringham
AFL Club
Geelong
All businesses have pretty big start up costs and some dont show a profit for many years so the GWS situation is just normal when growing a business in a an untapped area.The GC is more of a worry to me.
 

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
1,486
848
AFL Club
GWS
I broadly agree with you, but it's no more silly than an NRL team in Perth. There's more Aussie Rules players in Newcastle than rugby league players in Perth, and Perth is 4 times the size.
What makes it ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT though is that the AFL requires a FAR HIGHER LEVEL OF SUPPORT to sustain a team than any other sporting league.
Very astute observation -this is the AFL's achilles heel, re facilitating attempts to expand further. It is FAR more expensive to establish new AFL Clubs, cf RL, RU, & soccer (& the A League -11 players only, smaller List- is now attracting significant foreign investment, with the probability of more to come when it inevitably expands in the next 5-10 years).

This is partly the reason I am so opposed to the bloated AFL Club football dept.(non-player wages) costs -often, absurdly, MORE than the players' wages! We, unnecessarily, are funding an army of assistant coaches/tacticians/dieticians/psychologists/player welfare managers/tummy ticklers etc.
And individual AFL Club Head Office expanding staff costs.
There is also the issue of the no. of people in the AFL Docklands HQ, & their questionable wages. Where has an analysis been conducted on the effectiveness/efficiency etc. of those on the non-player wages gravy train? What is the Return On Investment? The biggest financial & strategic priority should be growing the game in NSW, ACT, & Qld (where it can be reasonably argued the AFL is doing a good job; also NT is now heartland for AF)); & growing GR AF in Vic., WA, SA...& Tas. (especially).

I also believe the AFL should revert to two on the bench only -not simply as an average c. $700,000 pa per Club cost saving measure (& accept there will be ferocious AFLPA response to defend Union featherbedding). Less players on the bench will reintroduce usual football fatigue, thus reduce flooding & open up the game from the 3rd qtr/improve the aesthetics of the game (even AFL officials have expressed concern re congestion/tackle ball, & desire a more open, free flowing game).

The real risk for the AFL is if it does NOT expand into Sydney SW/Sth (will play 4-5 games in Canberra & the Woolongong, GWS will leave Canberra) &/or Newcastle/Hunter/Central Coast conglomerate over the next 10 -30 years. Huge populations; & Sydney's pop. (est. c.8,000,000 in 2050) has the money; & is HQ for, crucially, most media/advertising & ASX 200 top companies.
The AFL WILL follow the money!

Rant over.
 
Last edited:

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
1,486
848
AFL Club
GWS
Im saying newcastle is the last place for a team.
Why (over the next 20 -30 years)? No one is suggesting AF will become stronger than the NRL there.

Newcastle/Hunter GR AF has grown strongly in the last 3 years, almost totally organically. There has been minimal AFL GR investment. The AFL is now requesting to take over the BDAFL so it can control/invest MUCH greater GR funding (& more DO's) into the Newcastle/Hunter region. The "mysterious" growth of female AF to 16 adult teams, in 2018, is extraordinary in a RL heartland area.
Do you think this GR AF growth will abruptly stop, or decline significantly -if so, on what objective basis?

What is likely to occur if, for the first time, there is significant AFL GR investment over the next 20 years in Newcastle/Hunter/Central Coast regions?
(Hint : Examine the GR AF regd. nos. of GWS since 2012 -western Syd. was a barren zone for GR AF before 2012. ACT GR AF regd. nos. are also the highest since 1984)
 
Last edited:

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
47,107
87,808
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Why (over the next 20 -30 years)? No one is suggesting AF will become stronger than the NRL there.

Newcastle/Hunter GR AF has grown strongly in the last 3 years, almost totally organically. There has been minimal AFL GR investment. The AFL is now requesting to take over the BDAFL so it can control/invest MUCH greater GR funding (& more DO's) into the Newcastle/Hunter region. The "mysterious" growth of female AF to 16 adult teams, in 2018, is extraordinary in a RL heartland area.
Do you think this GR AF growth will abruptly stop, or decline significantly -if so, on what objective basis?

What is likely to occur if, for the first time, there is significant AFL GR investment over the next 20 years in Newcastle/Hunter/Central Coast regions?
(Hint : Examine the GR AF regd. nos. of GWS since 2012 -western Syd. was a barren zone for GR AF before 2012. ACT GR AF regd. nos. are also the highest since 1984)
Canberra, tassie, wa3, regional vic, darwin, fnq, nz i would have all before newcastle
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,752
27,824
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
I also believe the AFL should revert to two on the bench only -not simply as an average c. $700,000 pa per Club cost saving measure (& accept there will be ferocious AFLPA response to defend Union featherbedding). Less players on the bench will reintroduce usual football fatigue, thus reduce flooding & open up the game from the 3rd qtr/improve the aesthetics of the game (even AFL officials have expressed concern re congestion/tackle ball, & desire a more open, free flowing game).
The other benefit of this is that it makes it easier for clubs at all levels of the game to emulate the 'big league', both because having 2 fewer players makes it easier to get the numbers together for a team and because getting rid of the limit on the number of interchanges means you don't need an official to count them! (finding all the required umps is hard enough without needing more).

Having the Ungarie 3rds playing the same rules as the AFL makes the games more attractive for all concerned.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
47,107
87,808
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
just don't have a coherent rationale in support or it
tasmania, canberra, wa3, regional vic, and darwin all have existing support for the afl game. newcastle doesnt

fnq has had successful fifo games and has a history of locals adopting new teams started in the area. newcastle dosnt

new zealand has the ability to ride of a tourist subsidy arrangement similar to what tassie does with its two fifo teams. newcastle doesnt

your rationale for newcastle is it has population and pax ar
 

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
May 8, 2007
8,634
9,812
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Man United
LA Lakers
Dallas Cowboys
Tokyo Yomiuri Giants

OK. Hear me out. Sports teams are massive brands - designed to sell ad-friendly screen time to content providers. If the AFL wants to attract more international viewers, they need something other than just the game itself. An casual overseas fan is more likely to turn on the TV (or his phone, tablet or PC) if he already has some fan-barracking interest in one of the teams.

This has already been tried before in small ways - Collingwood and Carlton set up Soccer teams in the NSL in the 90s (they lent their names to clubs in an effort to attract interest - it didn't work). The AFLW did it by aligning the clubs with the existing AFL clubs - if the women's teams had just used new, generic names it would have attracted much less publicity. Check the thread on 'AFL getting into eSports'. A lot of sports teams have dabbled in using their name for seeming un-related other products.

Forming 'Partnerships' with massive overseas sports brands (and the big teams are incredibly popular brands) WILL create more overseas interest in the product = more exposure = more $$$$. As usual, f***-all for existing local fans.

Disney don't just make Mickey Mouse cartoons these days. Man United don't have to just play soccer - they can be much more than just a soccer team(sure, that will always be their number 1 product).
 

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2016
4,873
3,240
AFL Club
Collingwood
tasmania, canberra, wa3, regional vic, and darwin all have existing support for the afl game. newcastle doesnt

fnq has had successful fifo games and has a history of locals adopting new teams started in the area. newcastle dosnt

new zealand has the ability to ride of a tourist subsidy arrangement similar to what tassie does with its two fifo teams. newcastle doesnt

your rationale for newcastle is it has population and pax ar
My rationale is population and sufficient enough playing base. You contention was initially it didn't have the player base....Your arguments shift around with the integrity of jelly.

You are being a troll and a weirdo continuing to raise the pax thing. Like that weird transaction where you were PMing me to get me to argue with someone who had blocked you. "you're letting him off the hook" That was really weird weird stuff

Pax means "peace" by the way...as in pax Romana (the roman peace)...I referred to "pax Australian football" 12 months ago as a partly tongue in cheek reference to the so called code wars and how they might be ended.

I am probably one of a minority of Australian football fans who are keen on the game expanded and eventually rivaling rugby league north of the Barassi line. Most probably don't care, some see it as threatening. Each to their own. You have some weird obsession with me supporting expansion from some confused sense of moral superiority. You turned this thread ugly calling me a deluded idiot trying to mask it from the moderators. You need to get over yourself, the only thing stopping me from blocking you is laziness.
 

Waspy79

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2008
9,319
8,381
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Arsenal
Good point. Not sure anyone has queried the OP on this yet! Could be just the OP's assumption
Seems a hypothetical to me. For what it’s worth I’d only consider Canberra and Tassie but I’d actually prefer if the comp lost a few teams from Melbourne so as the quality of lists improved and there were more double-ups in the fixture.
 

Top Bottom