The AFL wants 22 teams. Name your next four.

[Coolangatta]

Cunnington Cartel if Brisbane do get a 70k stadium and it takes Brisbane 2 out of the equation, where would you like to see a 22nd team, or where do you think one could be feasible?

We've talked about a northern Sydney team before, perhaps, though if ever the Roos could tap into a big new market...

I know you and some others have mentioned the Sunshine Coast before, but it's certainly not been mentioned by AFL media, it's certainly not been mentioned by Gill or Demetriou, it's not mentioned by the club captains, and the Hawks are looking to play in Cairns, not the SC.

Is it because they don't have an AFL standard ground? Cause I'm not sure that's the only reason. It just seems like... a third SEQ team would be boring, when you've got this huge void on the map up in north Queensland.

I know where I'd rather see a third QLD team, but there's a lot to play out yet, and the 2050s is probably too soon for a Cairns team, but look at how successful RL has been in Townsville and they're small, so you never know.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Cunnington Cartel if Brisbane do get a 70k stadium and it takes Brisbane 2 out of the equation, where would you like to see a 22nd team, or where do you think one could be feasible?

We've talked about a northern Sydney team before, perhaps, though if ever the Roos could tap into a big new market...

I know you and some others have mentioned the Sunshine Coast before, but it's certainly not been mentioned by AFL media, it's certainly not been mentioned by Gill or Demetriou, it's not mentioned by the club captains, and the Hawks are looking to play in Cairns, not the SC.

Is it because they don't have an AFL standard ground? Cause I'm not sure that's the only reason. It just seems like... a third SEQ team would be boring, when you've got this huge void on the map up in north Queensland.

I know where I'd rather see a third QLD team, but there's a lot to play out yet, and the 2050s is probably too soon for a Cairns team, but look at how successful RL has been in Townsville and they're small, so you never know.

If GWS become similarly-sized to what the Swans are now, then yes, a Northern Sydney club might fit the bill under those circumstances. If WA3 comes in as club #20 and goes gangbusters then it could build momentum for SA3 as #22 (e.g. Norwood), although I cannot see that happening if WA miss out on the 20th license.

I agree with you re NQld. If Cairns, Townsville and Mackay grow strongly over the proceeding decades then I think a Cairns-based club could potentially add more to the sport than a standalone club on the Sunshine Coast. Maroochydore, the central part of the coast, is only 100km from Brisbane after all. SE Qld is a pretty cohesive region as it is and the regional connectivity will only improve over time with upgrades to the rail network, which are currently severely lacking on the Sunny Coast.

There’s not this big rivalry between the coast and Brisbane like some people may hope it to be. There is a significant rivalry between NQld and the SE, however. NQld also has a strong regional identity, which would lend itself to garnering support for local sports teams. I know very little about rugby league, but I suspect this intrastate rivalry is one of the reasons why the Broncos-Cowboys will always be bigger rivals than than the Broncos-Titans.

The rugby league administrators aren’t stupid. If it was worth putting a team on the Sunny Coast then they would’ve done this already and it’s not even in the conversation for a future NRL club, they’re talking about Ipswich, Brisbane Tigers etc. It appears that a Northern-corridor club (the Dolphins) playing a couple of games on the coast is the closest they’ll get to NRL-representation for the foreseeable future.

Development on the Sunny Coast will always be more restrained than has been the case on the Gold Coast. It has more of a quiet, family-friendly vibe and most people who I know from there want it to remain that way. In a few decades it will still be smaller than the Gold Coast was when the Suns entered. Based on population trends, I don’t think a standalone club from there will be able to keep up with the off-field metrics that will likely be required of clubs in the 2040’s (Gold Coast will have approximately 1m people then). This reason may rule out NQld as a viable option too.

 

[Coolangatta]

If GWS become similarly-sized to what the Swans are now, then yes, a Northern Sydney club might fit the bill under those circumstances. If WA3 comes in as club #20 and goes gangbusters then it could build momentum for SA3 as #22 (e.g. Norwood), although I cannot see that happening if WA miss out on the 20th license.

I agree with you re NQld. If Cairns, Townsville and Mackay grow strongly over the proceeding decades then I think a Cairns-based club could potentially add more to the sport than a standalone club on the Sunshine Coast. Maroochydore, the central part of the coast, is only 100km from Brisbane after all. SE Qld is a pretty cohesive region as it is and the regional connectivity will only improve over time with upgrades to the rail network, which are currently severely lacking on the Sunny Coast.

There’s not this big rivalry between the coast and Brisbane like some people may hope it to be. There is a significant rivalry between NQld and the SE, however. NQld also has a strong regional identity, which would lend itself to garnering support for local sports teams. I know very little about rugby league, but I suspect this intrastate rivalry is one of the reasons why the Broncos-Cowboys will always be bigger rivals than than the Broncos-Titans.

The rugby league administrators aren’t stupid. If it was worth putting a team on the Sunny Coast then they would’ve done this already and it’s not even in the conversation for a future NRL club, they’re talking about Ipswich, Brisbane Tigers etc. It appears that a Northern-corridor club (the Dolphins) playing a couple of games on the coast is the closest they’ll get to NRL-representation for the foreseeable future.

Development on the Sunny Coast will always be more restrained than has been the case on the Gold Coast. It has more of a quiet, family-friendly vibe and most people who I know from there want it to remain that way. In a few decades it will still be smaller than the Gold Coast was when the Suns entered. Based on population trends, I don’t think a standalone club from there will be able to keep up with the off-field metrics that will likely be required of clubs in the 2040’s (Gold Coast will have approximately 1m people then). This reason may rule out NQld as a viable option too.

Yeah, if there's no WA3 there'll be no SA3, and no SA3 if WA3 is a fizzer.

If ACT is #20, I'd bet you they'll look to Darwin and Cairns after that and probably stop there. I just don't think they'll bother unless someone pulls a Tasmania and fights for it, which the NT will keep doing.

So, I wouldn't expect the next round of expansion to come just 15 years after #20.

 

[Coolangatta]

Cunnington Cartel imagine if this became a state.

Could have ACT #20 then Northern Australia #21 playing 7 in Darwin, 3 in Cairns, 1 in Broome. Just need a futuristic hypersonic train linking them up, should be no issues whatsoever there. #22 a 3rd in WA playing at Optus, or maybe swap them cause super train will take longer.

#23 a 3rd in SA that plays a couple games in Alice Springs, a "Central Australia" team, then finally, #24 in the south-west region of WA.

So pretty much the teams getting the final slots that actually gives a shit about footy, plus greater geographical reach around the nation, plus a fair shake of being able to support a team, with NA being the trickiest, but it'd totally work if you could travel across the north way faster than you can now, which is er, unfortunately highly unlikely.

Suggested team names:

Canberra Owls
North Perth Pirates
Northern Australia Crocodiles
Norwood-Central Redlegs
South West Sharks

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There should absolutely be no common suggestion that Darwin should have a team other than people looking at a map and thinking "wouldn't it be cool" or "there's a big gap on the Australian map where there's no team". It is ridiculous to think otherwise.

Few reasons:

• Population of just 150,000 people in the metro area is just far too small to support a team. They wouldn't be able to sell enough tickets and memberships at a high enough price to fund the basic operating expenses of an AFL team.
• Darwin isn't even an Aussie Rules supporting city alone relative Rugby League in the same way that Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania are. In part due to military movement and other expat movement, there's a decent enough support for NRL teams there. Of course it's the more popular sport but it's not a 90+% majority like in the southern states.
• It's played in the wrong season. Local footy is played during wet season in the southern summer. While a minor consideration the fact that local AFL footy would disturb local cricket and footy traditions/operations which handbreaks ease of operations and traditional local support to some extent.
• Other clubs would have no desire to have to play in consistently tropical conditions, and there are other considerations such as the imbalance of some teams not having to play away in Darwin and the potential imbalance in home ground advantage across the fixture across different teams.

AFLNT ultimately determined that a Darwin team would operate at a $15 million loss: NT joins Tasmania in bid for next AFL team with model 'unprecedented in Australian sport'. $30 million revenue, $45 million operating expenses. Their bid for a team assumes $15 million p/y funding in perpetuity from governments or the AFL because of the "social benefit" or whatever of the sport in Darwin.

Keep in mind that the $30 million revenue would include the base AFL distribution that in effect goes to the amount of the salary cap, ie, the club's entitlement simply by contributing to the rights of the TV deal. If we take out the $15 million in both revenue/expenses from the equation ($15 miliion of 'other' revenue against $30 million of 'other' expenses) we can see how a Darwin team would barely even get half of the amount of revenue required for operating a club, which just shows you how far off they are. Some (but not all) of the other clubs can reach that amount without addition funds from an outside source such as extra AFL or government (in Tasmania's case) distribution.

In some ways, the AFL has just become too big for its own good - operating a club is just too expensive. I love the romaticism but it just isn't possible. It's why (for example) Tasmanai can run an NBL team but not yet an AFL team, even though a desire to pay money to engage with the elite level of the sport is far higher for AFL than NBL in the city of Hobart - simply because the cost of operating a national league team is far lower in the NBL. That's the stark reality.

 

[Coolangatta]

There should absolutely be no common suggestion that Darwin should have a team other than people looking at a map and thinking "wouldn't it be cool" or "there's a big gap on the Australian map where there's no team". It is ridiculous to think otherwise.

Few reasons:

• Population of just 150,000 people in the metro area is just far too small to support a team. They wouldn't be able to sell enough tickets and memberships at a high enough price to fund the basic operating expenses of an AFL team.
• Darwin isn't even an Aussie Rules supporting city alone relative Rugby League in the same way that Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania are. In part due to military movement and other expat movement, there's a decent enough support for NRL teams there. Of course it's the more popular sport but it's not a 90+% majority like in the southern states.
• It's played in the wrong season. Local footy is played during wet season in the southern summer. While a minor consideration the fact that local AFL footy would disturb local cricket and footy traditions/operations which handbreaks ease of operations and traditional local support to some extent.
• Other clubs would have no desire to have to play in consistently tropical conditions, and there are other considerations such as the imbalance of some teams not having to play away in Darwin and the potential imbalance in home ground advantage across the fixture across different teams.

AFLNT ultimately determined that a Darwin team would operate at a $15 million loss: NT joins Tasmania in bid for next AFL team with model 'unprecedented in Australian sport'. $30 million revenue, $45 million operating expenses. Their bid for a team assumes $15 million p/y funding in perpetuity from governments or the AFL because of the "social benefit" or whatever of the sport in Darwin.

Keep in mind that the $30 million revenue would include the base AFL distribution that in effect goes to the amount of the salary cap, ie, the club's entitlement simply by contributing to the rights of the TV deal. If we take out the $15 million in both revenue/expenses from the equation ($15 miliion of 'other' revenue against $30 million of 'other' expenses) we can see how a Darwin team would barely even get half of the amount of revenue required for operating a club, which just shows you how far off they are. Some (but not all) of the other clubs can reach that amount without addition funds from an outside source such as extra AFL or government (in Tasmania's case) distribution.

In some ways, the AFL has just become too big for its own good - operating a club is just too expensive. I love the romaticism but it just isn't possible. It's why (for example) Tasmanai can run an NBL team but not yet an AFL team, even though a desire to pay money to engage with the elite level of the sport is far higher for AFL than NBL in the city of Hobart - simply because the cost of operating a national league team is far lower in the NBL. That's the stark reality.

All good points but I guess a lot that drives it too is the amount of Indigenous footy kids who live near/outside the greater Darwin area who have so much raw footy talent. If you could tap into that it'd a) be good for the community as you mentioned one of the driving forces are for it; b) address player retention; c) grow the talent pool in the game - it's not just the NT, it's northern WA and north QLD, there's so much potential up there.

I think it should be a northern team and not for another 50 years, but the problem is travel. But it's so far away it's possible that planes will be able to go much faster than they can now.

And of course, Darwin would need a billion dollar, air conditioned, roofed stadium. I think they could handle 7 games a year but no more.

I'd never advocate for them as team 20, though, there are way better options in the next 10-30 years than them in areas that care more about footy.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

All good points but I guess a lot that drives it too is the amount of Indigenous footy kids who live near/outside the greater Darwin area who have so much raw footy talent. If you could tap into that it'd a) be good for the community as you mentioned one of the driving forces are for it; b) address player retention; c) grow the talent pool in the game - it's not just the NT, it's northern WA and north QLD, there's so much potential up there.

I think it should be a northern team and not for another 50 years, but the problem is travel. But it's so far away it's possible that planes will be able to go much faster than they can now.

And of course, Darwin would need a billion dollar, air conditioned, roofed stadium. I think they could handle 7 games a year but no more.

I'd never advocate for them as team 20, though, there are way better options in the next 10-30 years than them in areas that care more about footy.

With these factors considered, wouldn’t it be more practical for the NT to have a long-standing, secondary market partnership with an existing club? Through this kind of arrangement it would still bring plenty of benefits to the community, without the burdens of club funding, excessive travel, an oppressive climate, facilities (e.g. new stadium), player retention etc that would be insurmountable for a full-time club.

We can all agree that what the Suns are currently doing is insufficient for the NT market. Flying up for 5-6 days and two games every year does little for the game up North and the benefits are overwhelmingly in Gold Coast’s favour. If a club played 4 games, so they’re like the Hawks in Launceston then games could be scheduled to avoid the end of the wet season and the worst part of the dry season.

After 20+ years the FIFO model in Tassie has become stale and the state wants more. However, I think a Hawks-style model might be suitable for the NT because that’s just about the best outcome they could hope for. The problem would be finding a club to put their hand up for it.

 

[Coolangatta]

With these factors considered, wouldn’t it be more practical for the NT to have a long-standing, secondary market partnership with an existing club? Through this kind of arrangement it would still bring plenty of benefits to the community, without the burdens of club funding, excessive travel, an oppressive climate, facilities (e.g. new stadium), player retention etc that would be insurmountable for a full-time club.

We can all agree that what the Suns are currently doing is insufficient for the NT market. Flying up for 5-6 days and two games every year does little for the game up North and the benefits are overwhelmingly in Gold Coast’s favour. If a club played 4 games, so they’re like the Hawks in Launceston then games could be scheduled to avoid the end of the wet season and the worst part of the dry season.

After 20+ years the FIFO model in Tassie has become stale and the state wants more. However, I think a Hawks-style model might be suitable for the NT because that’s just about the best outcome they could hope for. The problem would be finding a club to put their hand up for it.

Sure, if, as you said, you could find someone to do it.

It's not too popular around here but I have no problem with the Suns continuing their partnership with Darwin if that's what they want and the NT government are happy with.

If ever the NT asked for more Darwin games and the Suns walked, or the Suns just don't want to play there after 2026, then sure, the Hawks don't have to plant a flagpole in Cairns, they could play 3 games in Darwin if they wanted to, while the Dees keep their Alice Springs game going.

The Hawks would be the only ones.

As you've showed me, the Roos don't want to sell outside of Victoria, they'll look at Bendigo; the Saints aren't interested in anywhere else except if there's ever a ground in Auckland; the Dogs have got Ballarat and that looks likely to continue -- the Hawks are the only ones who can take up the mantle from the Suns.

I don't know what role the AFL plays in all of this, whether behind the scenes they ensure that ACT and NT are going to get games no matter what the clubs say.

 

[Coolangatta]

I'm 100% in on ACT being team 20 and if we go beyond that, I do still think WA3 should be one of teams 21-22. I remember Canberra Pear you talking about NZ/Auckland being a great expansion option potentially as well as being great for Friday night double headers, which, let's face it, would be mandatory at that point if we ever head to 11 games per week.

WA3 also offers the advantage of Friday or even Thursday night double headers. I've never really been set on which team I'd like to see come in along with WA3 but the more I think about it, the more NZ would be a great fit for giving the AFL essentially a double dip on time slot experimentation if they're paired up with WA3.

 

[Coolangatta]

I keep coming back to:

20. Canberra Owls, green, blue, and yellow, with some connection to the Riverina as home or away side.
21. Northern Crocs, lime green and black, 7 games in Darwin, 4 in Cairns.
22. South West Sharks, light blue and black, 8 games in Busselton, 3 at Optus.

Everyone plays once + two rivals, keep top 8 system as is.

 

[Spirit Level]

19: Tassie
20: Canberra
21: Newcasltle
22: Either FNQ or Southwest WA

No 3rd Perth team, absolutely not needed

Would rather fold North and bring the league back to 18 teams tbh, but the AFL seem insistent on keeping them so I'd like to see them relocated to Ballarat, give Mars stadium a capacity increase.

 

[Coolangatta]

19: Tassie
20: Canberra
21: Newcasltle
22: Either FNQ or Southwest WA

No 3rd Perth team, absolutely not needed

Would rather fold North and bring the league back to 18 teams tbh, but the AFL seem insistent on keeping them so I'd like to see them relocated to Ballarat, give Mars stadium a capacity increase.

Cairns/FNQ will probably still be too small for a team in the 2050s which is when you'd expect teams 21 and 22 to come in. I can't see NT/NQ ever getting teams unless they're well funded, or if we go to 24 teams and maybe in 50 years they'll have enough people.

Southwest WA is a good option but if you're gonna propose Newcastle (Giants will have to play 2 games per year there after Canberra or forget about Newcastle, they need to be tested as a secondary market) then NZ is worth a look.

Get an AFL standard ground in Auckand, have the Saints play a couple games there and give it a crack.

Auckland and one of Sydney 3/Brisbane 2/Newcastle would probably be a good 21-22 team addition and add more to the game than WA3 would, although it can be argued we need WA3 to balance out the game more but I 100% agree it should be based in the south west, not Perth, and it shouldn't be team 20.

I'd be leaning at this stage towards:

20. Canberra
21. NZ
22. SW WA

NZ and SW WA great for Thursday and Friday night double headers, too.

If Auckland don't get AFL games then maybe Newcastle or as I said, Sydney 3/Brisbane 2 to go with WA3.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Cairns/FNQ will probably still be too small for a team in the 2050s which is when you'd expect teams 21 and 22 to come in. I can't see NT/NQ ever getting teams unless they're well funded, or if we go to 24 teams and maybe in 50 years they'll have enough people.

Southwest WA is a good option but if you're gonna propose Newcastle (Giants will have to play 2 games per year there after Canberra or forget about Newcastle, they need to be tested as a secondary market) then NZ is worth a look.

Get an AFL standard ground in Auckand, have the Saints play a couple games there and give it a crack.

Auckland and one of Sydney 3/Brisbane 2/Newcastle would probably be a good 21-22 team addition and add more to the game than WA3 would, although it can be argued we need WA3 to balance out the game more but I 100% agree it should be based in the south west, not Perth, and it shouldn't be team 20.

I'd be leaning at this stage towards:

20. Canberra
21. NZ
22. SW WA

NZ and SW WA great for Thursday and Friday night double headers, too.

If Auckland don't get AFL games then maybe Newcastle or as I said, Sydney 3/Brisbane 2 to go with WA3.

I can never see a AFL team in New Zealand.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I can never see a AFL team in New Zealand.

Yes, I think being a secondary market with regular home matches sold there by Victorian teams, is the best New Zealand can expect

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I can never see a AFL team in New Zealand.

I don't think it's ridiculously infeasible, but more that fixturing requirements would prevent it. You'd have to basically play all home games without any crossover with the three other codes, which is impossible. But I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility that a NZ home team without that crossover fixturing gets 15k a game in a good stadium and location in Auckland.

 

[Toump Ass]

auckland can f right off, seriously.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Yes, I think being a secondary market with regular home matches sold there by Victorian teams, is the best New Zealand can expect

That's about as good as it will get, but who is going to pay the money to entice teams there?
I don't see the way the world is at the moment with money, government at any level in NZ doing that for a game called Australian rules football, but the AFL could always fund regular season games there if they are serious about about it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That's about as good as it will get, but who is going to pay the money to entice teams there?
I don't see the way the world is at the moment with money, government at any level in NZ doing that for a game called Australian rules football, but the AFL could always fund regular season games there if they are serious about about it.

You know that it's already happened? Wellington City Council paid money to St Kilda to play games there?

 

[Aussie in exile]

You know that it's already happened? Wellington City Council paid money to St Kilda to play games there?

When was the last time a regular season AFL game was played in New Zealand?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

When was the last time a regular season AFL game was played in New Zealand?

I don't see the world being that different from 2015 that it would prevent Auckland City Council considering something similar to what Wellington did.

 

[Aussie in exile]

I don't see the world being that different from 2015 that it would prevent Auckland City Council considering something similar to what Wellington did.

I do. It's called covid, and the world financially hasn't recovered from it.
I don't see why the AFL with 100'000's of millions in their coffers don't fund games in New Zealand themselves.
There must be a reason why there have been no AFL regular season games since then, Was they loss makers for the local authorities and sponsors?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I do. It's called covid, and the world financially hasn't recovered from it.
I don't see why the AFL with 100'000's of millions in their coffers don't fund games in New Zealand themselves.
There must be a reason why there have been no AFL regular season games since then, Was they loss makers for the local authorities and sponsors?

The world has more or less gone back to normal. People still travel as tourists.

There's no long-term strategic interest for NZ relative to the losses that games there would incur. But NZ bodies might see the monetary value of travelling Australians.

The first Wellington game made them profit. The next two didn't. But keep in mind we're talking thin margins here. A 20k crowd might make it worthwhile and be profitable, and 15k crowd may not. An equivalent game that would get 15k in Wellington holding everything equal could very well get 20k just because Auckland is a cheaper, easier and more appealing city for travelling Australians, and Auckland's population of 1.5 million vs. Wellington's population of 500k would presume a couple more thousand locals go.

Issue is just that Eden Park is too small, hence St Kilda having to go to Wellington in the first place. But if Auckland ever builds a cricket-dedicated stadium of at least 20k (which has been discussed given Eden Park's ludicrously small boundaries for cricket, which makes it impossible to play Aussie rules on). But once it happens I would be very surprised if there wasn't AFL games in Auckland.

 

[Coolangatta]

The world has more or less gone back to normal. People still travel as tourists.

There's no long-term strategic interest for NZ relative to the losses that games there would incur. But NZ bodies might see the monetary value of travelling Australians.

The first Wellington game made them profit. The next two didn't. But keep in mind we're talking thin margins here. A 20k crowd might make it worthwhile and be profitable, and 15k crowd may not. An equivalent game that would get 15k in Wellington holding everything equal could very well get 20k just because Auckland is a cheaper, easier and more appealing city for travelling Australians, and Auckland's population of 1.5 million vs. Wellington's population of 500k would presume a couple more thousand locals go.

Issue is just that Eden Park is too small, hence St Kilda having to go to Wellington in the first place. But if Auckland ever builds a cricket-dedicated stadium of at least 20k (which has been discussed given Eden Park's ludicrously small boundaries for cricket, which makes it impossible to play Aussie rules on). But once it happens I would be very surprised if there wasn't AFL games in Auckland.

And once it does, the AFL will ask the question. I know this article was pre-covid, but if they got good AFL crowds in Auckland, it would make them wonder. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/nz-just-step-one-for-expansion-keen-afl/4258308

Auckland's gonna keep growing and what a NZ side could add to the game in TV revenue and talent pool smashes the likes of NT/NQ and even Newcastle out of the park.

I'm not saying it should happen, but from a business perspective, you'd be silly not to look at it. How many people thought 20 years ago there'd ever be a team in Western Sydney? But there is and it's not going anywhere, it was just too big of a market not to try.

Personally, I'm not particularly keen on conferences or anything like that (only do it if it's necessary which would be to maintain key rivalries), and I'd love an NT side.

My ideal 22 is:

20. ACT
21. NT or Northern Australia
22. South West WA

Everyone plays once + two rivals and leave top 8 as is.

But that's based on feelings and not data, in that I strongly believe we should have representation in the ACT, NT, and more in WA as 2 teams there compared to Vic's 10 is out of balance.

But I doubt any AFL expansion plans they might have in the future beyond a 20th team is gonna give a toss about what they feel a "truly national" game should be, when they already think Tasmania "completes" the national profile of the game. They'll be chasing $$$ as much as they can.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And once it does, the AFL will ask the question. I know this was pre-covid, but if they got good AFL crowds in Auckland, it would make them wonder. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/nz-just-step-one-for-expansion-keen-afl/4258308

Auckland's gonna keep growing and what a NZ side could add to the game in TV revenue and talent pool smashes the likes of NT/NQ and even Newcastle out of the park.

I'm not saying it should happen, but from a business perspective, you'd be silly not to look at it. How many people thought 20 years ago there'd ever be a team in Western Sydney? But there is and it's not going anywhere, it was just too big of a market not to try.

Personally, I'm not particularly keen on conferences or anything like that, and I'd love an NT side.

My ideal next 22 is:

20. ACT
21. NT or Northern Australia
22. South West WA

Everyone plays once + two rivals and leave top 8 as is.

But that's based on feelings and not data, in that I strongly believe we should have representation in the ACT, NT, and more in WA as 2 teams there compared to Vic's 10 is out of balance.

But I doubt any AFL expansion plans they might have in the future beyond a 20th team is gonna give a toss about what they feel a "truly national" game should be, when they already think Tasmania "completes" the national profile of the game. They'll be chasing $$$ as much as they can.

I don't see Auckland can hosting a team once you consider that they'll have to play their fair share of games up against NRL, Super Rugby and the new A-League team, and also play in some pretty crappy timeslots. They could very well get well over 20k on a random saturday night fixture when the Warriors aren't in town and they have travelling fans from a big Melbourne club, and it's a novelty night out for young people in a cosmopolitan city. How many will go at 5.20 on a Sunday when they have to play a home game against Freo (no travelling supporters) after the Warriors played the day before?

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't see Auckland can hosting a team once you consider that they'll have to play their fair share of games up against NRL, Super Rugby and the new A-League team, and also play in some pretty crappy timeslots. They could very well get well over 20k on a random saturday night fixture when the Warriors aren't in town and they have travelling fans from a big Melbourne club, and it's a novelty night out for young people in a cosmopolitan city. How many will go at 5.20 on a Sunday when they have to play a home game against Freo (no travelling supporters) after the Warriors played the day before?

I get what you're saying, it's a big risk; I'm not saying it would for sure work, and your questions are exactly the type of ones the AFL will need to ask themselves.

It's probably not going to happen and if it does, I'd be pissed if it's at the expense of ACT and WA3 who really should be part of any proposed expansion to 22 teams.