The sad thing is that looks thought through.
Last edited:
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Expansion 20th AFL team location
- Thread starter Cubs2Lions
- Start date
- Tagged users None
We have games on at least four days each week now, and seven rounds this season with byes, the the games played is rarely even now. We seem to cope ok.
I am all for Canberra getting more games or any 20th licence, but I can’t see Manuka ever being brought up to weekly AFL standard.
And the Tassie team is only 50/50 to proceed in 2028, so this thread may indeed be moot.
Four days a week is different as each round still ends the same. When it comes to Monday, it's all even footing again.
Round zero will be a good experiment to see how the difference is taken. Hopefully it's just a once off.
In 2022, we got four games with our current stadium. What would the upper threshold be at its current state?
Cricket ACT and the ACT Government are both pushing for a Manuka upgrade, without the AFL even lifting a finger, so I'm optimistic for the future of Manuka.
Not quite. Clubs won’t agree to more games unless they get more home games. An extra home game would do wonders for Tasmania, bumping their Hobart games up to 8.
Giants won’t let go of the Canberra market if Canberra don’t get a team. There’s no reason to think the Suns won’t continue their deal to play games in Darwin either. It’s up to them.
And North are dead serious about playing their games in Victoria. If they need money, they’re probably going to play in Bendigo.
Also, why even bother playing games in Newcastle or Wollongong or North Queensland if you aren’t seriously looking at future expansion? It barely adds anything to the game. NT and ACT get games because they have footy history.
Broadcasters will pay more for a tenth game. Yes, each new game loses value but it’s still worth more than without. And clubs generally prefer not to have byes so early in the year.
And the argument about it being increasingly difficult to win a premiership is not good enough. That was going on forever when it was still a 12 team VFL. The chances of winning has more to do with draft, salary cap and equalisation policy than how many teams there are. You’ve got a better chance of playing in a GF today than you did 50 years ago.
Why bother expanding at all if this was gonna be an issue?
You expand if there’s viability which I’d argue there is. You don’t if there isn’t. The difficulty of winning a premiership shouldn’t factor into it. If clubs fall off the perch and die because they can’t compete for long periods of time, let them die. The AFL shouldn’t have any obligation to protect weak clubs, only keep them if they add value (which they currently do).
Cubs2Lions
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- #980
The interesting discussion point that’ll happen once 20+ teams are in the competition will be whenever conferences should be implemented given the increased difficulty of winning a premiership throughout the history of the sport.
Personally for myself, I strongly disagree with the idea of conferences being in-place mind you but there are rumours floating around that the NRL could follow down that suite in 10-15 years when 20 teams are in the competition and even though it is a terrible idea with them planning Sydney/non-Sydney conferences, it makes me wonder how long it’ll be til the AFL copy their idea similar to Gather Round and other mechanisms from that sport, as Australian culture is become more American.
it would need expansion in both width and length. Basically all stands are heritage listed. It would be pretty much impossible just to get the playing surface to AFL, or even lower league mens footy, dimensions. (And, yes, I know it wasn't a serious suggestion.)
No. No, they should not be. Conferences, especially permanent ones, are the absolute worst system yet invented.
Unless I've understood wrong, teams within the same conference play each other twice, right? If that's what the NRL plan on doing with Sydney and non-Sydney conferences, then yes, it's a terrible idea.
I fear the AFL would do something similar and have a Victorian and non-Victorian conference where all the Victorian teams play each other twice. They might as well just go back to the VFL at that stage. It just wouldn't work unless you split the competition up into 4 conferences with 5 teams each in them.
I wouldn't do that because I don't think 20 teams is too many for a single-tier competition, but if it went beyond 20, then I just... don't know.
I just think it'd be wrong to tell NSW and QLD to get ****ed and that they can't have more than two teams if the game grows there, while Victoria can have 10 teams. If the only reason is because we can't have more than 20 teams, then it honestly seems like quite a petty and childish and Vic-biased, VFL centric argument.
A much better argument would be that NSW and QLD cannot support third teams, which at this stage, is true, but 2050-60 is a long time from now, that could change.
If 3rd teams in NSW and QLD are going to be good for the growth of the game and add value to it, then Victorians will have to either a) stop whinging about the number of teams; or b) accept that it's a national competition and out the door the two weakest Vic teams go.
But my position is that you don't kill clubs that add value to the game. North, the Saints, and Dogs aren't Fitzroy, they aren't South Melbourne, so really we should just go beyond 20 teams if there's a good reason to.
If two teams each is all NSW and QLD can support, and NT can never support a team, and NZ continue to give zero ****s, then stopping at 20 teams seems fine, but even then, WA probably does need a third team at some stage and ACT would be good for the growth of the game, so I feel 22 should be the minimum, long-term.
Edit: I don't think conferences are a big bad. Not the American model, but 5-6 teams per conference seems about right, allowing teams from the same state/territory to play each other twice. I personally think if you look at the geography, Tasmania would fit in nicely at a Victorian conference; while a potential NZ team would fit into the other Vic conference.
Being a "conference champion" would probably mean jack shit to most fans but at least it keeps your team alive in the home and away season a lot longer than being 23rd on the ladder with eight rounds to go.
Doesn't really matter all that much to me, though, it's just that the AFL would be silly to shut up shop if there's a good case to be made for teams in Canberra, a 3rd in Sydney and Perth, and a 2nd in Brisbane.
I'd love to see a NT team but I'm not a multi-billionaire who can fund it, unfortunately. And even if I was, I'd only say I'd do it if Canberra gets a team first.
Last edited:
The captains were asked their preferred locations for a 20th AFL team.
They're not the behind-the-scenes types, so I didn't expect deep answers, but the answers were overwhelmingly for the NT, with a couple for WA and NQ.
Jack Steele came the closest to supporting Canberra: "I feel like the Northern Territory definitely deserves it. I’m from Canberra, so it’d be pretty cool to see a team there."
So if anybody has Jack Steele's contact details, send him my way.
They're not the behind-the-scenes types, so I didn't expect deep answers, but the answers were overwhelmingly for the NT, with a couple for WA and NQ.
Jack Steele came the closest to supporting Canberra: "I feel like the Northern Territory definitely deserves it. I’m from Canberra, so it’d be pretty cool to see a team there."
So if anybody has Jack Steele's contact details, send him my way.
I know, it was only an ever-so-slightly serious suggestion. I reckon it could be done if it were completely realigned (so the current length becomes the width) and it's pushed long back beyond the hill, but it's still obviously incredibly unlikely.
Ffs, what is it with Canberra and being ignored? It’s either because the popularity of footy is underestimated there, the misconception GWS is Canberra’s territory, or the preference for NT and belief 20 teams should be the max.
If there really is such concern about the number of teams in the AFL, and given the popularity of NT and NQ, I’ve always said they could just go Canberra as team 20, then give it till the 2050s or so and go NT and NQ, then leave it at that. 22 isn’t gonna break the AFL space time continuum.
Because if Canberra is off the table, fat chance there’s ever gonna be a third Sydney or second Brisbane or NZ team unless something changes to justify a shift in public consensus. It seems to matter; if it didn’t, AFL would be more ruthless towards Tasmania.
I get it. Purely looking at a map, NQ and the NT look like they put some serious dots on the map.
Those suggestions just come from people who haven't looked into the numbers (which is fair, not everyone is as nerdy as us bigfooty folks).
True.
And I get it, too, I always liked the idea of NT and NQ having teams, they feel like the last remaining major gaps on the map.
But why not have both which = 21 teams, so if you have 21 you need 22 and ACT would be the other glaring omission to me.
Given the population and finances, ACT would make more sense first before going to the top end.
I see Oscar Allen suggested a 3rd WA team down south. He said, "Get another team in WA. That’d be nice. Down south, Dunsborough or Margaret River – it’s a beautiful part of the world so somewhere down there."
Not the worst idea I've heard... for a team in 25-30 years time.
If you go by the collective wisdom of BigFooty, ACT, WA3 and NT are the most popular choices for expansion sides, as is the case in the SEN poll. So...
20. Canberra Owls 2033
21. Northern Territory Thunder 2050
22. South West Sharks 2054
If you wanted to go the populism path, this is the way you'd do it. And that is be the popular choice of the next three teams, just not in that order (6000 is a better sample size than 18). North Queensland were ranked 5th; presumably, they're the 3rd QLD side location that comes to mind for most.
Next in line would be North Queensland and SA3, 24 teams playing each other once + two rivals in a 25 game per year season.
New Zealand and Newcastle/Northern Sydney after that if you really wanted to make heads explode.
I'd be interested to see where those who voted "others" in this poll suggest. Fitzroy or another Vic team? Fuhgeddaboudit. Brisbane 2/Sunshine Coast - worth a look, but not as team 20.
I think I'll do a team 21 poll here one day when there's a 20th team, of course it'd be me.
Not the worst idea I've heard... for a team in 25-30 years time.
If you go by the collective wisdom of BigFooty, ACT, WA3 and NT are the most popular choices for expansion sides, as is the case in the SEN poll. So...
20. Canberra Owls 2033
21. Northern Territory Thunder 2050
22. South West Sharks 2054
If you wanted to go the populism path, this is the way you'd do it. And that is be the popular choice of the next three teams, just not in that order (6000 is a better sample size than 18). North Queensland were ranked 5th; presumably, they're the 3rd QLD side location that comes to mind for most.
Next in line would be North Queensland and SA3, 24 teams playing each other once + two rivals in a 25 game per year season.
New Zealand and Newcastle/Northern Sydney after that if you really wanted to make heads explode.
I'd be interested to see where those who voted "others" in this poll suggest. Fitzroy or another Vic team? Fuhgeddaboudit. Brisbane 2/Sunshine Coast - worth a look, but not as team 20.
I think I'll do a team 21 poll here one day when there's a 20th team, of course it'd be me.
neogh
Senior List
- Apr 17, 2015
- 239
- 242
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Dolphins, MVFC
Probably paid by the GWS to have their mouths shut.
neogh
Senior List
- Apr 17, 2015
- 239
- 242
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Dolphins, MVFC
Like to see the Canberra Lakers in Sky Blue, An NT team in Blood Orange and the Wanderers in Green and Blue. Just a thought.
Again, please no birds because half of the teams in the league are either birds or high-altitude objects.
Interesting speculation. Why would GWS want hush hush, though? The only reason I can think of is that they fear they'd start losing support from the locals if ACT people knew they were getting their own team, but surely ACT at this stage would only be a bid that's in the running for the 20th team. Any actual confirmation of who the 20th team will be surely wouldn't happen until around 2028 or 9.
Unless I'm mistaken, we have 5 out of 18 bird mascots... that's not too bad, a 6th wouldn't hurt. Owls are an awesome bird and would suit Canberra so well.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Is it because their collective noun is "Parliament"?
Yes, but also owls are a powerful bird, can more than hold their own against eagles and hawks. That, and they'd have the best goal kicking accuracy for night games.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
As an aside I've decided to look at a list full of collective nouns. My favourite so far is "a battery of barracuda's"Yes, but also owls are a powerful bird, can more than hold their own against eagles and hawks. That, and they'd have the best goal kicking accuracy for night games.
neogh
Senior List
- Apr 17, 2015
- 239
- 242
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Dolphins, MVFC
Former was a joke.
Latter; Add Essendon (Bombers; flying object), Gold Coast (Suns; up in the sky), Port (Power, thunder used simultaneously which is something that strikes down, as well their local nickname), St Kilda (Saints; depicted with wings).
If Canberra was to have a team, I like something that reflects the lakes and rivers that flow ACT and Southern NSW. No. More. Birds. Same goes for some people that want Falcons in the WA, or that Pelican logo they came up for thought in South West.
Cubs2Lions
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- #997
Or they could use “Politicians” as the nickname and add clowns as their mascots.
Both the kids and adults would love that concept
I get where you're coming from, I just think there are exceptions for those that would suit that, Canberra being one, Joondalup Falcons being another (though I'd prefer ACT over WA3 for team 20). The SW Pelican proposal was just them taking the piss.
The problem I have with the Laker name is it's too American, reminds me of the LA Lakers.
Cubs2Lions
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- #1,000
Didn’t even realised that was actually a statue like that in Canberra and I lived there for 5 years.The Belconnen Penis Owl as a mascot
Once you see it, now you can’t unsee it they say
Similar threads
- Poll
