The AFL wants 22 teams. Name your next four.

[Damon_3388]

Outside Tassie, do these locations have the juice to fund and support a team for 9-10 home games?

I'd say Newcastle and probably Canberra do. You could probably justify Ballarat in a similar way to Geelong.

The NT is hard to define. It's worthy in a football sense, but the numbers and dollars might not work without a lot of long-term propping up from the league.

 

[jmac91]

Here is what I'm thinking...
If hawthorn Get Out of Launceston, I can See North taking over Tassie.
The Bulldogs could play half their home games in Ballarat and Half in Melbourne
St Kilda Failed the first time in NZ but, I can see them and the AFL trying again.
Canberra and the NT I feel needs their own team. Same can be said for Tassie but I can see North just Relocating there as the easier option.
the 2 other teams (if needed) could be Nth QLD (Mainly in Cairns) and possibly a Newcastle. But I would think a 3rd WA team could be a better option.
With the new Stadium now, I can see WA supporting a 3rd Team.
Newcastle I would think would be too hard to get a supporter base from. Rugby owns that town and I don't see AFL surviving there.

 

[gopies1981]

Only club I could see come in are a 3rd Perth team possibly Subiaco or Clermont and Tasmania. Honestly their are too many teams and the afl need to look at reducing the afl back to 16 clubs. I think the afl should look at merging the bulldogs and north together to become the western kangaroos and Melbourne and st.kilda to merge to become the Melbourne Saints.

 

[Engimal v3]

Only club I could see come in are a 3rd Perth team possibly Subiaco or Clermont and Tasmania. Honestly their are too many teams and the afl need to look at reducing the afl back to 16 clubs. I think the afl should look at merging the bulldogs and north together to become the western kangaroos and Melbourne and st.kilda to merge to become the Melbourne Saints.

Why would any of those clubs agree to that? There is more chance of them folding or being relegated.

 

[Gersman]

Hobart
Launceston
North Hobart
East Launceston

Hobart - just about dead. Sitting winless and bottom of the second tier comp in the south outside the state league. Lost almost all their following.
Two flags in 40 years.

Launceston - Successful history. Been around 144 years.
Only have about 100 supporters though.

North Hobart - Bottom of the state league with one win all season. No following anymore.
One flag since 1992. Been in the financial goo for over two decades.

East Launceston - died 33 years ago. Merged with City-South and became South Launceston. Been good at regional level in the NTFA but at state level only made the finals once in all the time they were in and won a flag when AFL Tas allowed them to rort the salary cap by a long, long way by funding them for top dollar players.
Unceremoniously kicked them out after winning the flag.

Clarence and North Launceston were the two clubs touted as being pushed up to joining the VFL in the early 2000s. North still dominating at state level.
Clarence at their lowest level in over 40 years. Battling to survive. No following anymore.

 

[Professor Knowall]

Clearly any Tasmanian AFL club would have to be a brand new club representing all of Tasmania (and playing home games in both Hobart and Tassie in a 6/5 split). This rules out any consideration of any state league teams, which are also far to small in any case.

As for any third WA team, it would need to find a distinct geographical area to represent (be it the far Northern suburbs or alternatively down around Mandurah) and any such push would need to come from a local consortium demonstrating a local want and interest for a new club, not from the AFL itself.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Every year, the 4 lowest ranked AFL teams would be replaced by the respective winners of the VFL, SANFL, WAFL and NEAFL comps.

Apologise for the late reply but hypothetical. Let's say one of the 4 teams is say Collingwood and Collingwood haven't been relegated from the AFL?

Let's say WC aren't relegated from the AFL but their WAFL team makes the grade to the AFL?

Same with Geelong. Same with Sydney, GWS and GC. You get the drift.

 

[almuz]

2025-ish I’d add two more teams-

Team 19: Joondalup Dolphins
Team 20: Tasmania Devils... or if the Dees don’t like that then, the Tasmania Apples lol

Two established footy markets in WA3 and Tas. Extra income from two teams which shouldn’t need too much financial propping. Ten games per round means the AFL gets more money for its next big expansion for teams 21 and 22 in roughly 2035.

Team 21: Canberra Phoenix/Mustangs/Knights
Team 22: Sydney Team 3... South Sydney Falcons/Wolves

CBR team plays a couple games in Wagga/Albury a season. Sydney team builds on success of Swans and GWS.

Aus population is growing so it makes sense to expand teams too. Talent pool being diluted is more to do with defensive gameplay and crappy rules - change my view.

 

[jmac91]

I would think like almuz entry, by 2024 they would be adding 2 new clubs
1. Tasmania (obvious uses time between now and then to get teams sorted in the VFL, Nab Challenge??? and the AFL while also upgrading with the help of Cricket Tasmania Bellerive Oval to 30,000.) They would enter 2026-ish

2. Perth 3rd (Plays out at the Perth Stadium with maybe some games in Joondalup (where their base might be). Proven AFL state and with the ever growing Population I don't see why not they can't have a 3rd team).

Or for the second club you could add in

3. Canberra (GWS would be having a decent Supporter base by then and could support them selves in Western Sydney. Manuka Oval would have to have an upgrade to accommodate a full time AFL Club. I would say 25,000-ish)

The Second club would enter in 2027-ish. The other would enter in 2034 with the 4th club in 2035.

4. Northern (Darwin, Alice Springs, Cairns and Townsville would be this clubs homes. Representing Northern Australia as a whole. Darwin 5 games, Cairns 4 and Townsville and Alice Springs share the other 2. Main base would be in Darwin and if Nth QLD get a stand alone team would stay in NT.

 

[NoobPie]

19 and 20 in the middle of next decade....

Tassie and ....

Auckland. Give them NZ and Pacific as an academy

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Tassie, Perth 3, then I'm not sure. I can only see further expansion if the game really takes off in Western Sydney. If it does, one team in Campbelltown and another in either Penrith or Canberra, depending on how much of a success the Giants are.

 

[Engimal v3]

Tassie, Perth 3, then I'm not sure. I can only see further expansion if the game really takes off in Western Sydney. If it does, one team in Campbelltown and another in either Penrith or Canberra, depending on how much of a success the Giants are.

I really feel after Tassie and Perth 3, you're almost making teams for the sake of making teams. Right now, I don't think anywhere else is screaming out for a team. I agree with you that further expansion only makes sense if the NSW market becomes large enough.

NT isn't an option for the foreseeable future, given that it's half the size of Tassie.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I really feel after Tassie and Perth 3, you're almost making teams for the sake of making teams. Right now, I don't think anywhere else is screaming out for a team.

Honestly even Perth isn't screaming out for another team. The main reason I'd put a 20th team in is because Tassie is screaming out for one but the AFL will likely demand an even number of teams. If it goes anywhere it may as well be Perth, because the population has grown enough for a third team and it's part of the heartland. We've seen with the NRL that you leave a lot of money on the table if you don't properly milk the heartland.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I can’t see why you need an even number of teams, it’s easy to manage the byes and there’s already overlapping games on tv.
You have to manage it so every side has two byes during the season, making sure the bottom 5 sides from the season before have the last 5 byes of the next season.

 

[NoobPie]

I can’t see why you need an even number of teams, it’s easy to manage the byes and there’s already overlapping games on tv.
You have to manage it so every side has two byes during the season, making sure the bottom 5 sides from the season before have the last 5 byes of the next season.

And yet if you make the finals with a bye in the last round you would not play for three weeks before your first final

 

[abcde12345]

Obviously it all depends on the time frame. Also highly dependent on how media rights negotiations pan out.

In the short term, the only obvious market is Tasmania. I would argue that another Perth team is the next most logical team. The argument against Perth is that noone would support it. I don't think that is exactly true, and I think there are avenues the team could take to make it an attractive choice to a big enough niche for viability. But there are a couple of reasons that another team in the west would be a reasonable avenue to take.

While there are no stand alone TV slots that jump out, I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL looked to do Friday night in the same way as Saturday night, in combination with Thursday night becoming the stand alone permanent prime time fixture. One Friday night game based out of Victoria, one based out of WA/SA/Sydney. A third WA team would feed nicely into this, allowing WC and Freo to pick up some more prime time games. It would also help maximise Perth as a TV market, as it is the second largest AFL market but is largely ignored in scheduling.

A third WA team would also be a generational play, similar to GWS and GC, but with more immediate term viability. Perth is still rapidly growing, and is set to overtake Brisbane as the third largest city in Australia within 10 years. West Coast has already outgrown its stadium, and Freo sits in a pretty comfortable position with its crowds. Getting more use out of the new stadium, and ensuring that generationally there is enough availability of the game for the growing population should be considered a pretty high priority in my view.

I am almost certain that the AFL has in its long term plans another team or two based out of Sydney. But this could take a very long time to eventuate. It would depend on the amount of time it takes for GWS to become viable, as well as the state of the AFL's finances, and the amount of talent coming out of NSW. The AFL shouldn't look to make a move here until GWS is consistently getting crowds of at least 20k.

I would also be surprised if the AFL doesn't look to make a move into Auckland in the long term. I like the idea of NZ and the Pacific as an academy. Makes sense as an avenue to help further develop the game. Again this would be highly dependent on the state of the AFL off-field.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

And yet if you make the finals with a bye in the last round you would not play for three weeks before your first final

You would obviously have the previous seasons wooden spooners have the final bye. I’m not sure the last time a wooden spoon team played in a finals series the next season, maybe West Coast but I doubt it has happened more than once in the last 20 years.
It’s a tiny price to pay to not have to either leave a potential new side out or put a potential new side in that’s not ready considering how unfair the current system is anyway

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I can’t see why you need an even number of teams, it’s easy to manage the byes and there’s already overlapping games on tv.

If only one extra team is added, it's a net financial loss for the AFL because they'll have to pay the startup costs for a Tasmanian team without any additional television revenue. Even if games overlap, a tenth game creates extra revenue because it will get more eyeballs to the game as a whole and there will be more people to advertise to.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

If only one extra team is added, it's a net financial loss for the AFL because they'll have to pay the startup costs for a Tasmanian team without any additional television revenue. Even if games overlap, a tenth game creates extra revenue because it will get more eyeballs to the game as a whole and there will be more people to advertise to.

Not necessarily as it may just spread the eyeballs watching over more games and that could be offset by broadcasting costs. Also lower advertising costs.
You do get 11 extra games over the season and that’s it. Do 11 extra games off an expansion side that will be pushed into undesirable time slots cover the cost of loss of crowds because of less derby’s and worst time slots, possibly lower sponsorships because there are way more options, lower advertising costs for games because of lower ratings, plus the extra money all startup teams need? I highly doubt it.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Not necessarily as it may just spread the eyeballs watching over more games and that could be offset by broadcasting costs. Also lower advertising costs.
You do get 11 extra games over the season and that’s it. Do 11 extra games off an expansion side that will be pushed into undesirable time slots cover the cost of loss of crowds because of less derby’s and worst time slots, possibly lower sponsorships because there are way more options, lower advertising costs for games because of lower ratings, plus the extra money all startup teams need? I highly doubt it.

Yes, if it's a new market like Tasmania where fans aren't as engaged as they could be, but there is a market. Possibly lower sponsorships? On what basis? In the AFL heartland there's always demand for football club sponsorship. If we were talking about another Gold Coast Suns I might agree, but even they have found sponsors with little effort. My suggestion for a 20th team would also be in the heartland.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Yes, if it's a new market like Tasmania where fans aren't as engaged as they could be, but there is a market. Possibly lower sponsorships? On what basis? In the AFL heartland there's always demand for football club sponsorship. If we were talking about another Gold Coast Suns I might agree, but even they have found sponsors with little effort. My suggestion for a 20th team would also be in the heartland.

These new clubs will be smaller than St Kilda who already struggle and require $16 million PA from the AFL so you would want atleast an extra $30million coming in from these sides in the TV rights and that game would be played at the same time as a current game already is. It doesn’t add up.
Possible lower sponsorship is just from more professional sides in Australia. 20 AFL, 16 NRL, 11 A league, 8 BB (who attract more tv viewers than a lot of AFL teams) 4 super rugby, than you have the NBL, the national cricket, soccer x2 and rugby sides, even SOO. It’s an overcrowded small market.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

These new clubs will be smaller than St Kilda who already struggle and require $16 million PA from the AFL so you would want atleast an extra $30million coming in from these sides in the TV rights and that game would be played at the same time as a current game already is. It doesn’t add up.
Possible lower sponsorship is just from more professional sides in Australia. 20 AFL, 16 NRL, 11 A league, 8 BB (who attract more tv viewers than a lot of AFL teams) 4 super rugby, than you have the NBL, the national cricket, soccer x2 and rugby sides, even SOO. It’s an overcrowded small market.

You're looking at Australia as a whole rather than individual markets. Tasmania will have plenty of local sponsors, in fact their bid team had Mars as a major sponsor. A third Perth team has the entire WA resources industry to choose from in sponsorship. They're not going to have problems.

30 million extra is certainly possible when games are going to attract more viewers than present in a market that isn't yet saturated but has the demand. I might also add that the AFL currently runs at a 50 million dollar profit per annum, they can afford subsidies.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

You're looking at Australia as a whole rather than individual markets. Tasmania will have plenty of local sponsors, in fact their bid team had Mars as a major sponsor. A third Perth team has the entire WA resources industry to choose from in sponsorship. They're not going to have problems.

30 million extra is certainly possible when games are going to attract more viewers than present in a market that isn't yet saturated but has the demand. I might also add that the AFL currently runs at a 50 million dollar profit per annum, they can afford subsidies.

I just don’t see people watching more games of footy because they now have 10 games to choose from rather than 9. (1 extra game a fortnight if they only bring in 1 side) They may watch their local team but people in those markets already follow a side so they will probably just give up a game they would have already been watching. Also Tasmania will add near zero to the TV rights as they are near irrelevant.
Look at Fox trying to ditch A league games now, we could easy see less than 100k ratings for a tenth game because it will be up against anther game. Or they may manipulate the draw and have worse time slots and than lose money on crowds and piss off supporters.
Again though I get back to the fact it’s only 11 less games if you only bring in 1 side rather than two and they aren’t going pay and extra $15mil plus for the 10th game that is overlapping.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I just don’t see people watching more games of footy because they now have 10 games to choose from rather than 9. (1 extra game a fortnight if they only bring in 1 side) They may watch their local team but people in those markets already follow a side so they will probably just give up a game they would have already been watching. Also Tasmania will add near zero to the TV rights as they are near irrelevant.
Look at Fox trying to ditch A league games now, we could easy see less than 100k ratings for a tenth game because it will be up against anther game. Or they may manipulate the draw and have worse time slots and than lose money on crowds and p**s off supporters.
Again though I get back to the fact it’s only 11 less games if you only bring in 1 side rather than two and they aren’t going pay and extra $15mil plus for the 10th game that is overlapping.

So you don't think a game in Vic involving two Vic teams and a game in Perth involving two Perth teams played simultaneously will get more ratings overall than just the Vic game alone?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

So you don't think a game in Vic involving two Vic teams and a game in Perth involving two Perth teams played simultaneously will get more ratings overall than just the Vic game alone?

Yes but I also don’t think those people are going to watch an extra game a week just because there is another game on the exact same time as there is already one played currently.