The AFL wants 22 teams. Name your next four.

[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.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

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?

That’s the beauty of utilising potential expansion areas as secondary markets. When a suitable venue becomes available, the AFL can test the waters with various opponents and time slots to see what works best, determine if they are building a loyal following of supporters, if the market is ready to take on additional games etc.

 

[Aussie in exile]

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?

It's not going to happen.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's not going to happen.

Colour me this - how many fans do you think would go to an Auckland AFL game if:

• It was an Auckland expansion team vs. a large Melbourne team like Collingwood or Richmond
• It was played in a marquee timeslot like a Friday or Saturday night
• It was played in a new stadium in Auckland that was designed for NZ to play some of their most major international cricket in, like those in the their million different plans for over the last generation to replace Eden Park.
• It is played in a week that New Zealand Warriors are playing in Australia (or better still, having a bye week)
• There was some sort of novelty/promotional aspect to the game
• It was played outside of the Super Rugby and A-League seasons
• For the sake of argument lets say that they had an NZ born-and-raised player playing like Kurt Heatherley who found a way to play 5 AFL games

I think you could get quite a good crowd in - enough that if you replicated that across all 11 home games, it would actually be a profitable team despite Auckland's lack of cultural interest in AFL. In a similar way that if GWS could play 11 home games against Collingwood and Sydney, it would also be a profitable team.

My point is obviously you can't replicate those scenarios for all 11 weeks, but it's not as ridiculous as a scenario as some other suggestions like Darwin, which despite having footy fans would never realistically fund a 20,000+ seat stadium in the city. With Auckland I don't think it's entirely outside the realms of possibility. I don't think the people of Auckland will be any less culturally receptive than the people of Newcastle (or indeed many parts of Western Sydney) or whatever to AFL football (and even if they marginally were the shortfall could be overcome by the greater number of travelling fans that would go to follow their team into NZ for the novelty of it being a more interesting away game to travel to than Newcaslte or Western Sydney).

The that's stopping any AFL matches being played there now - even just 1 a season - is only the lack of an appropriate stadium. It's all a moot discussion until NZ and Auckland finally decide that they need a new cricket stadium for Auckland, but it's interesting nontheless.

If a stadium gets built, they can then play a game a season there and accurately measure the amount of local support. They may do this by playing the game after the end of the Super Rugby and A-League seasons in May, unlike the Wellington games which were played in April and therefore an attempt just to get travelling fans into the city with the number of local fans almost irrelevant (Wellington City Council paid for the tourist dollars).

 

[Coolangatta]

Colour me this - how many fans do you think would go to an Auckland AFL game if:

• It was an Auckland expansion team vs. a large Melbourne team like Collingwood or Richmond
• It was played in a marquee timeslot like a Friday or Saturday night
• It was played in a new stadium in Auckland that was designed for NZ to play some of their most major international cricket in, like those in the their million different plans for over the last generation to replace Eden Park.
• It is played in a week that New Zealand Warriors are playing in Australia (or better still, having a bye week)
• There was some sort of novelty/promotional aspect to the game
• It was played outside of the Super Rugby and A-League seasons
• For the sake of argument lets say that they had an NZ born-and-raised player playing like Kurt Heatherley who found a way to play 5 AFL games

I think you could get quite a good crowd in - enough that if you replicated that across all 11 home games, it would actually be a profitable team despite Auckland's lack of cultural interest in AFL. In a similar way that if GWS could play 11 home games against Collingwood and Sydney, it would also be a profitable team.

My point is obviously you can't replicate those scenarios for all 11 weeks, but it's not as ridiculous as a scenario as some other suggestions like Darwin, which despite having footy fans would never realistically fund a 20,000+ seat stadium in the city. With Auckland I don't think it's entirely outside the realms of possibility. I don't think the people of Auckland will be any less culturally receptive than the people of Newcastle (or indeed many parts of Western Sydney) or whatever to AFL football (and even if they marginally were the shortfall could be overcome by the greater number of travelling fans that would go to follow their team into NZ for the novelty of it being a more interesting away game to travel to than Newcaslte or Western Sydney).

The that's stopping any AFL matches being played there now - even just 1 a season - is only the lack of an appropriate stadium. It's all a moot discussion until NZ and Auckland finally decide that they need a new cricket stadium for Auckland, but it's interesting nontheless.

If a stadium gets built, they can then play a game a season there and accurately measure the amount of local support. They may do this by playing the game after the end of the Super Rugby and A-League seasons in May, unlike the Wellington games which were played in April and therefore an attempt just to get travelling fans into the city with the number of local fans almost irrelevant (Wellington City Council paid for the tourist dollars).

The main reason people are against the idea of a NZ team is because they simply hate the idea of a NZ team and they begin to wonder where expansion is going to end, to which I say if you're happy with 10 teams in Victoria then shut the * up about expansion complaints.

Auckland is high risk, high reward. It could definitely blow up in their faces, but as you said, it's not as crazy as an idea as Darwin is.

They wouldn't be in the running for team 20, but get that stadium in Auckland and I think they'd want to test the waters, but you'd want to play around with the time slots and see how it holds up when games aren't played during prime time.

The AFL wouldn't dare try it if the Giants experiment doesn't work, though. If it does, they may roll the dice again.

 

[Coolangatta]

Team 22 is still something you could cast such a wide net over.

ACT and WA3 have 20 and 21 covered if they're actually looking at viability.

22 could be NZ but I agree it's a long shot and is 0% without Auckland games being played.

It could be Adelaide 3 if the Crows become a massive club by then (if Port does, can't see Norwood being the 3rd SA team because Port members who want access to games won't convert to them haha). Doubt they have the population growth and wealth for it.

Newcastle but it's a bigger risk than the Giants and again, someone needs to actually play games there first to test it.

Doubt it's gonna be Brisbane 2 and SC is too small, but then so is NT and NQ and combining them is stupid and only idiots like me and Eddie would ever suggest it.

Sydney 3 a fair shot but depends on the Giants being up and about or not.

A smokey is WA4 in the southwest, but only if WA3 is the 20th side because I can't see the AFL expanding with two WA sides at the same time, but I would if a good 22nd option didn't prevent itself to go along with WA3.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

• Taswegia
• Greater Western Taswegia
• Las Vegas, NV (take that V’Landys)
• Olympus Mons, Mars (21 byes per 22 round season, each home and away game on alternate seasons)

 

[Coolangatta]

Cunnington Cartel check this out, NEAFL 2011, 17 teams, 2 conferences, teams from different conferences did play each other, but they each had their own separate finals series with the winners of each facing off in the GF.

Eastern had a top four finals, Northern a top five finals.

If you were to split the teams up into 2x10 conferences, you'd have to have half the Vic teams in one and half in the other, otherwise, as you said, Vic sides would never play each other in the GF. Likewise, no more all-interstate GFs.

I wouldn't want the same Victorian teams pitted against each other, too. If you put, say Vic East together with a bunch of interstate clubs, it means you could never have a Pies v Giants GF or a Tigers v Hawks GF and so on.

You could just put all the conference teams together in a singular finals series, but I can see them expanding beyond a top 8 if they go beyond 20 teams and splitting them up into two conferences will help with the finals system.

They could have a crossover for the prelims.

For example, in that NEAFL year, you had Sydney 16-2, Ainslie 13-4, NT Thunder 14-4, Morningside 19-8-1.

They were the winners who went on to play off in their conference GFs and got a week off, but instead of Sydney playing (and losing to Ainslie) they could've played Morningside instead, if you base pairings on W-L record.

The GF winners didn't get a bye, they went straight into the NEAFL GF, so the clubs wouldn't suffer from too many byes.

2011 NEAFL season - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Coolangatta]

So, like this (2023 ladder).

Conference A Top 4

Collingwood 18-5
Port 17-6
Melbourne 16-7
St Kilda 13-10

Conference B Top 4

Brisbane 17-6
Carlton 13-9-1
GWS 13-10
Sydney 12-10-1

Conference Finals Series

1 v 2 Collingwood def Port MCG
3 v 4 Melbourne def St Kilda MCG
2 v 3 Port def Melbourne AO

1 v 2 Brisbane def Carlton Gabba
3 v 4 GWS def Sydney Accor
2 v 3 GWS def Carlton MCG

Who’s remaining?

1. Pies 18-5
2. Lions 17-6
3. Port 17-6
4. GWS 13-10

Prelims would therefore be a crossover:

Pies v Giants MCG
Lions v Power Gabba

Can swap the Vic teams around conferences every second year, so the Pies would only get Port and Crows every second year etc.

 

[magpienato]

Tasmania
South/North Sydney
ACT
New Zealand

 

[eth-dog]

Coolangatta you do realise that the conference system in the NEAFL was dumped after one year because nobody liked it, right?

 

[Coolangatta]

Coolangatta you do realise that the conference system in the NEAFL was dumped after one year because nobody liked it, right?

Sure you're not confusing the NEAFL with the AFLW?

Because the conference system was dumped after two seasons when it was 19 teams because "of the league’s long-term focus on increased competition standard and enhanced talent pathways. As a result, five clubs left the competition and the conference system was abolished." Keeping it for 14 teams would've been unnecessary.

Were even enough people paying attention to the NEAFL in the first place to have complained about it?

 

[eth-dog]

Sure you're not confusing the NEAFL with the AFLW?

Because the conference system was dumped after two seasons when it was 19 teams because "of the league’s long-term focus on increased competition standard and enhanced talent pathways. As a result, five clubs left the competition and the conference system was abolished." Keeping it for 14 teams would've been unnecessary.

Were even enough people paying attention to the NEAFL in the first place to have complained about it?

Sorry, two years. And I have contacts at multiple clubs saying that nobody liked it. As you say, 5 clubs left because of it. They could have done it in the VFL for 22 but didn't because, as I said, it sucks.

Find me a country that isn't America that likes it.

 

[Coolangatta]

Sorry, two years. And I have contacts at multiple clubs saying that nobody liked it. As you say, 5 clubs left because of it. They could have done it in the VFL for 22 but didn't because, as I said, it sucks.

Find me a country that isn't America that likes it.

Nah, think it had more to do with "the NEAFL’s long-term focus on increased competition standard and enhanced talent pathways" so basically they had to contract but I don't doubt what you've heard is true either.

I've just been thinking about conferences because it's hard to justify a single-tier comp beyond 22 teams. If that's gonna be the max then fine, but none of us know if it will be and what the AFL will actually do if they went beyond 22.

In the end, it is up to them, but at a certain point, it gets hard to maintain a single-tier league.

I've heard people say you could have 24 teams playing each other once but if you have 3 WA teams and they aren't playing each other twice then it achieves * all for reducing the travel burden of those clubs.

And I do think it should be 22 if no one's gonna relocate (which looks 99.9% likely). I think we need ACT and WA3 eventually, and they shouldn't miss out cause of Norf's stubbornness (their right, too, of course) to reject relocation.

 

[Diogenes]

Woolongong/Illawarra/Shoalhaven has not been mentioned despite a population of about 400k. A top 10 city combined with Southern Sydney (as the NRL do) and you have a club

 

[Coolangatta]

Woolongong/Illawarra/Shoalhaven has not been mentioned despite a population of about 400k. A top 10 city combined with Southern Sydney (as the NRL do) and you have a club

Sure, but you’d have Newcastle ahead of them in the pecking order wouldn’t you, though not sure Newcastle would take kindly to being used as a secondary market for a North Sydney club, which is one way you could have them in it. I don’t know if Illawarra would be thrilled about being Sydney seconds; not everyone in the NRL is thrilled about St. George Illawarra they say.

 

[Diogenes]

There is a difference due to geography.
Woolongong is almost contiguous with Sydney 70k Hurstville to Wollongong
while Newcastle is not quite contiguous with Sydney 175k to North Sydney Oval with the Central Coast in between. I think this is the reason St George Illawarra sort of works

That said, probably a club spread over North Sydney/Central Coast/Newcastle might be a better bet. The Swans have some support in North Sydney but I think AFL is slightly less popular than pancreatic cancer in the Central Coast/Newcastle at the moment

 

[Coolangatta]

There is a difference due to geography.
Woolongong is almost contiguous with Sydney 70k Hurstville to Wollongong
while Newcastle is not quite contiguous with Sydney 175k to North Sydney Oval with the Central Coast in between. I think this is the reason St George Illawarra sort of works

That said, probably a club spread over North Sydney/Central Coast/Newcastle might be a better bet. The Swans have some support in North Sydney but I think AFL is slightly less popular than pancreatic cancer in the Central Coast/Newcastle at the moment

Yeah if they’re even more anti AFL than western Sydney and much smaller then an outright team in Newcastle/Central Coast would probably be madness, but they’re big enough to make decent secondary markets and churn out some potentially good crowds plus new eyeballs on the tele.

A North Sydney side playing 8 games in Sydney, 2 in Newcastle and 1 in Gosford isn’t a bad idea for future expansion, not until the Giants are up and about though.

I do fear the AFL might look at Canberra the same way, as a useful secondary market but not a Sydney size crown prize.

The NT is gonna be treated as an exemption if they play on the social impact.

 

[Diogenes]

One of the problems with this team is grounds.
North Sydney oval is picturesque but its capacity is about 10k - presumably they would use the SCG
In Newcastle No.1 Sportsground has never recovered from the grandstands being irreparably damaged in the earthquake and i think it now has a seating cap of less than 1k. AFAIK there is no enclosed oval on the central coast.
(WRT Gosford, Grahame Park, which is occasionally used for NRL must be the only ground which has a highway as one of its sides - traffic incidents have occurred when the ball has been kicked on the road and someone has tried to retrieve it)

Central Coast Stadium has a new ball boy

A Lomax conversion has causes traffic to stop

www.nrl.com

 

[Coolangatta]

One of the problems with this team is grounds.
North Sydney oval is picturesque but its capacity is about 10k - presumably they would use the SCG
In Newcastle No.1 Sportsground has never recovered from the grandstands being irreparably damaged in the earthquake and i think it now has a seating cap of less than 1k. AFAIK there is no enclosed oval on the central coast.
(WRT Gosford, Grahame Park, which is occasionally used for NRL must be the only ground which has a highway as one of its sides - traffic incidents have occurred when the ball has been kicked on the road and someone has tried to retrieve it)

Central Coast Stadium has a new ball boy

A Lomax conversion has causes traffic to stop

www.nrl.com

Right, sounds like a cluster*.

Still, plenty of time to address these issues.

I think a North Sydney team that taps into the Hunter and Central regions would be a good future expansion idea but not until post 2050. Hopefully by then the Giants are flying and I think they will be. The AFL would be tempted to keep expanding in Sydney you’d think, if GWS pays off long term.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Right, sounds like a cluster*.

Still, plenty of time to address these issues.

I think a North Sydney team that taps into the Hunter and Central regions would be a good future expansion idea but not until post 2050. Hopefully by then the Giants are flying and I think they will be. The AFL would be tempted to keep expanding in Sydney you’d think, if GWS pays off long term.

IF being the key word.

 

[Seedsfan]

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

Pretty sure it was the NZ government and they put the deal on hold awaiting a more suitable stadium