Expansion 20th AFL team location

[whiskeytown]

I still cannot for the life of me understand why a 20th team is in dicussion.

Let's get one good 19th team in place, performing well, and let the ripples around the competition die down before we add #20, please. For the love of god, did we learn nothing from the debacle that was the launch of Gold Coast and GWS?

I can’t for the life of me understand how they run a 19 team comp.

A bye for one team in round 1!

Then who gets the bye from rounds 19 onwards? Or does the AFL sacrifice revenue and reduce it to an 18 game season?

Team 19 is happening … so team 20 now is a necessity… or the comp is cooked

And there is no way the Kangas or Saints supporters will agree to a merger or relocation

And there is no way the AFL fold the Suns with the money they’ve already poured into it … and the burgeoning junior participation numbers they are now getting in QLD.

Then move to a 20 round fixture (including derby/rivalry round) and a 10 team finals series like McGuire touted a few years back

The draw is then much more equitable. And the AFL doesn’t cop a revenue hit like they would from running a 19 team comp

 

[btdg]

I can’t for the life of me understand how they run a 19 team comp.

A bye for one team in round 1!

Then who gets the bye from rounds 19 onwards? Or does the AFL sacrifice revenue and reduce it to an 18 game season?

Team 19 is happening … so team 20 now is a necessity… or the comp is cooked

And there is no way the Kangas or Saints supporters will agree to a merger or relocation

And there is no way the AFL fold the Suns with the money they’ve already poured into it … and the burgeoning junior participation numbers they are now getting in QLD.

Then move to a 20 round fixture (including derby/rivalry round) and a 10 team finals series like McGuire touted a few years back

The draw is then much more equitable. And the AFL doesn’t cop a revenue hit like they would from running a 19 team comp

That seems insanely rigid thinking.

Why not just stagger round 1 (it already is...) and have someone play twice. eg: start with a grand final replay on the Wednesday night, then have someone play again on a 5 day break the following Monday night, before taking a longer 10 day break and playing the following Thursday.

Rounds 19-23: rather than cramming everyone in then having a bye round, just roll the last 5 games across 7 weeks, give everyone a 10 day break or two.

Or just abolish the concept of 'rounds' and schedule a fully rolling fixture with a sprinkling of Thursday and Monday games used to ensure teams get adequate rest (23 games over 26 weeks). The Premier league manage to run a rolling fixture where teams play at different times, travel overseas to play midweek, and still find sensible ways of doing so. Surely as we head into the mid 21st century and have AI capable of destroying the world, the AFL can figure out a way of dealing with 'oh no who gets a bye in round 1...' without having to add an extra team because they can't figure it out?

All of those fixturing things would probably be much better than how we do it now anyway.

And all of which seems better than adding a 20th team too quickly and the massive impact that has in diluting and compromising a series of drafts, thinning out the free agency pool and forcing those teams to compete for available coaches, administrators and veterans; reducing the opportunities for those teams to be featured in marketing campaigns etc.

In other words: a huge number of mistakes were made in adding GC and GWS to the league 12 months apart - mistakes that had consequences that we didn't see when we added Adelaide (and went to 15 teams) or Freo (going to 16) because they were appropriately spaced out.

 

[timokane]

New Zealand would be my choice as it can be the first international afl team.

 

[btdg]

I'll add to that, the fixture is no more equitable with a 20 round system than it is now. "oh, but everyone plays each other once...". Yep, but in that system you still play someone twice (and that takes on an even more massive weight - imagine getting Melbourne twice and your rival getting North...), and for the teams you play once, who plays at home and who plays away? Or what if you get Geelong in rounds 1-3 while they are rounding into shape, and then get to play Gold Coast, North and Hawthorn in the last month just as they are settling into the holidays?

Fewer games means more statistical anomalies = in other words the longer the season goes, the less the fixture matters and the more the good teams rise to the top, regardless of any inequities. If it was a 100 game season the 'best' teams the fixture probably wouldn't matter at all...

Do we think that the current fixture inequities are actually having a significant impact - ie: do we think that the teams in 9th or 10th last year were better than those in 7th and 8th and missed out BECAUSE of fixture inequity (or similarly with top 4/5 or with ladder positions in the 8)? If so, the answer is to lengthen the season by a game or two (as we have in 2023), NOT to shorten it.

 

[Roylion]

New Zealand would be my choice as it can be the first international afl team.

On a very cursory look, I don't mind the idea of say the 'Auckland Warriors' playing in an all black uniform. However not sure how a draft would work with draftees having to move to New Zealand.

There's a bit of information on Australian Rules Football in New Zealand here.

 

[whiskeytown]

That seems insanely rigid thinking.

Why not just stagger round 1 (it already is...) and have someone play twice. eg: start with a grand final replay on the Wednesday night, then have someone play again on a 5 day break the following Monday night, before taking a longer 10 day break and playing the following Thursday.

Rounds 19-23: rather than cramming everyone in then having a bye round, just roll the last 5 games across 7 weeks, give everyone a 10 day break or two.

Or just abolish the concept of 'rounds' and schedule a fully rolling fixture with a sprinkling of Thursday and Monday games used to ensure teams get adequate rest (23 games over 26 weeks). The Premier league manage to run a rolling fixture where teams play at different times, travel overseas to play midweek, and still find sensible ways of doing so. Surely as we head into the mid 21st century and have AI capable of destroying the world, the AFL can figure out a way of dealing with 'oh no who gets a bye in round 1...' without having to add an extra team because they can't figure it out?

All of those fixturing things would probably be much better than how we do it now anyway.

And all of which seems better than adding a 20th team too quickly and the massive impact that has in diluting and compromising a series of drafts, thinning out the free agency pool and forcing those teams to compete for available coaches, administrators and veterans; reducing the opportunities for those teams to be featured in marketing campaigns etc.

In other words: a huge number of mistakes were made in adding GC and GWS to the league 12 months apart - mistakes that had consequences that we didn't see when we added Adelaide (and went to 15 teams) or Freo (going to 16) because they were appropriately spaced out.

The premier league run with an even number of teams…

I don’t know of an elite level comp (that has an equally as physically taxing game) that runs with an odd number of teams

Secondly clubs, AFLPA, TV networks and fans will revolt if your idea of regular Wednesday night games, regular 5 day breaks early in the season only then to have 10 day breaks later in the season… becomes the norm

It’s a dog’s breakfast fixture with much less consistency for networks, players, families with kids, travelling fans, etc

And economically a 9 round season is not as lucrative as a 10 round season

Depending on where the 20th team is… eg a Perth team is instantly more viable than an Norther Australia or NT team…

however … team 20, and a subsequent 10 game a round fixture and a 10 team finals series.. sees team 20 largely pays for itself in extra revenue

 

[whiskeytown]

I'll add to that, the fixture is no more equitable with a 20 round system than it is now. "oh, but everyone plays each other once...". Yep, but in that system you still play someone twice (and that takes on an even more massive weight - imagine getting Melbourne twice and your rival getting North...), and for the teams you play once, who plays at home and who plays away? Or what if you get Geelong in rounds 1-3 while they are rounding into shape, and then get to play Gold Coast, North and Hawthorn in the last month just as they are settling into the holidays?

Fewer games means more statistical anomalies = in other words the longer the season goes, the less the fixture matters and the more the good teams rise to the top, regardless of any inequities. If it was a 100 game season the 'best' teams the fixture probably wouldn't matter at all...

Do we think that the current fixture inequities are actually having a significant impact - ie: do we think that the teams in 9th or 10th last year were better than those in 7th and 8th and missed out BECAUSE of fixture inequity (or similarly with top 4/5 or with ladder positions in the 8)? If so, the answer is to lengthen the season by a game or two (as we have in 2023), NOT to shorten it.

A 20 round fixture with one random additional game is no more fair and equitable … than the current 23 round fixture with its extra 6 random additional games??

Now you’ve completely lost me

 

[btdg]

The premier league run with an even number of teams…

I don’t know of an elite level comp (that has an equally as physically taxing game) that runs with an odd number of teams

Secondly clubs, AFLPA, TV networks and fans will revolt if your idea of regular Wednesday night games, regular 5 day breaks early in the season only then to have 10 day breaks later in the season… becomes the norm

It’s a dog’s breakfast fixture with much less consistency for networks, players, families with kids, travelling fans, etc

And economically a 9 round season is not as lucrative as a 10 round season

Depending on where the 20th team is… eg a Perth team is instantly more viable than an Norther Australia or NT team…

however … team 20, and a subsequent 10 game a round fixture and a 10 team finals series.. sees team 20 largely pays for itself in extra revenue

You only need one wednesday game for the year for it to work - the season opener - and only then, it is primarily just to get everyone a match in round 1.

We already have regular Thursday games. That would be enough once you get past round 1 to avoid traditional 'byes' and just have teams play on a Sunday--Thursday turnaround = who cares?

The issue for me isn't 20 teams (eventually). It is 20 teams (immediately) - that is, adding TWO new teams rather than planning one now, and one in another decade or so. Doing so creates far more problems than some minor fixturing challenges

A 20 round fixture with one random additional game is no more fair and equitable … than the current 23 round fixture with its extra 6 random additional games

Now you’ve completely lost me

The point of the fixture is not to provide everyone with a perfectly equitable and fair set of matches: that's an impossible dream.

The purpose is to identify the best teams in the competition so we can award a champion.

The more matches we play, the more likely it is that the ladder reflects 'merit' and not 'chance' or 'fixture inequity'.

Consider: after round 1 this year, Essendon were top and North were 8th, while Geelong and Brisbane were in the bottom 6. Clearly, this reflected both random chance (North getting a fluky win) and fixture inequity (Geelong played Collingwood, Essendon played Hawthorn...). It is evident that after 1 round the ladder did NOT reflect how good the teams actually were, and we rightly didn't present the premiership to Essendon.

After 7 rounds... things are starting to even out a bit more as we get more matches. Brisbane are back closer to where they belong, as are North. Note right now Essendon are still in the top 8 and Geelong aren't, but it looks like we might only need one extra match to resolve that. We are closer to a ladder that reflects 'merit'. Add one more round and we will be closer again, and again, and again. Note: each of those rounds might not be 'fair', but each added game gives good teams a chance to win, bad teams a chance to lose and we get closer and closer.

By round 20 - we are extremely close. Most seasons, there is almost no ladder movement after this point. Last year, I think the only change came from Carlton choking away two last minute matches. After 20 matches in an 18 team league we definitely don't have an 'equitable' fixture, but it really doesn't matter: by this stage, the ladder provides an excellent representation of who the best and worst teams are. We don't need to play 14 more matches to get there... even by round 22 the bottom teams are often just playing out the string, while the top teams are just treading water and getting ready for finals.

Thus... If we felt the ladder was still sometimes a bit 'off' (as it was after round 1 this year), we don't have to play everyone twice to get there. We only have to play 'enough' games that the ladder does become accurate; ie: we reach a point where ladder position changes become so rare that playing more matches actually creates LESS accuracy (as players start getting injured due to workload, thus reducing the likelihood of the ladder reflecting 'merit').

To your question: given that a 20 round fixture (play everyone once and one team twice) still contains significant issues with fairness/equity: I firmly believe that 19 teams, 23 matches with 5 double-ups is a more accurate reflection of the 'real' merit in the league than 20 teams, 19 matches + 1 double up.

After all this, we play a finals series anyway! We definitely don't need fixture equity... (again, 'equity' is totally impossible anyway) - we just need the right balance between 'more matches' and 'players getting injured'. Incidentally - a rolling fixture with more 9 and 10 day breaks is oging to help with that much more than 'cram the matches in then have a week off before cramming them in again'.

 

[sherb]

Canberra for me. Tell the Giants to **** off and do what they should have been doing from the beginning - ie concentrating 100% on the area they are supposed to be representing.

After what Tassie has been put through, I assume the AFL will tell Canberra to construct a brand new, purpose built stadium though.

 

[Coolangatta]

To your question: given that a 20 round fixture (play everyone once and one team twice) still contains significant issues with fairness/equity: I firmly believe that 19 teams, 23 matches with 5 double-ups is a more accurate reflection of the 'real' merit in the league than 20 teams, 19 matches + 1 double up.

After all this, we play a finals series anyway! We definitely don't need fixture equity... (again, 'equity' is totally impossible anyway) - we just need the right balance between 'more matches' and 'players getting injured'. Incidentally - a rolling fixture with more 9 and 10 day breaks is oging to help with that much more than 'cram the matches in then have a week off before cramming them in again'.

Yes, 23 matches is better than 20, especially with Tasmania coming in. What, they're going to have them play only 6 games a year at Hobart and 4 at Launceston? And scrap Gather Round? And take $$$ away from clubs, players, broadcasters, and a home game away from locals to attend? Don't think so. Stick to 23 games a year.

 

[JyeDye]

Two teams smashed by 100 points, another team added that's going to be very average and still talk of a 20th. Teams need to merge and go back down to 16 teams. The talent pool is simply not big enough.

 

[Archer_11]

I very much doubt it. The AFL would never allow it.

There''s not much difference between a Canberra team having links to Fitzroy than a Brisbane team having links to Fitzroy.

Roylion, could I please ask - magic wand in hand, it's 96 again and you could have anything you want happen to the club except full protection or straight relocation, what would it be?

e.g. merge with any club you choose similar to what happened; return the licence, keep the club untouched and become a VFL powerhouse etc. Is there anything you thought was a better outcome?

Just curious, you don't have to answer of course. Acknowledge a lot of Fitzroy supporters have happily moved on and are 100% behind Brisbane.

 

[peetoo]

Country’s at near 26mill and with Fed governments loving population growth… Australia will be at 30mill… then 35mill, etc

Going forward population won’t be a problem

Actually gettin in the 50 million range will mean a more infocussed economy less vulnerable to trading headwinds

 

[Billy ray]

We need a second team on the Gold
Coast.

 

[peetoo]

Two teams smashed by 100 points, another team added that's going to be very average and still talk of a 20th. Teams need to merge and go back down to 16 teams. The talent pool is simply not big enough.

I just saw melksham. Ben brown and McDonald in the Casey team. Would be handy at many other clubs. Maybe our draft and trading system has deep flaws.

Fundamental flaws

 

[peetoo]

I can’t for the life of me understand how they run a 19 team comp.

A bye for one team in round 1!

Then who gets the bye from rounds 19 onwards? Or does the AFL sacrifice revenue and reduce it to an 18 game season?

Team 19 is happening … so team 20 now is a necessity… or the comp is cooked

And there is no way the Kangas or Saints supporters will agree to a merger or relocation

And there is no way the AFL fold the Suns with the money they’ve already poured into it … and the burgeoning junior participation numbers they are now getting in QLD.

Then move to a 20 round fixture (including derby/rivalry round) and a 10 team finals series like McGuire touted a few years back

The draw is then much more equitable. And the AFL doesn’t cop a revenue hit like they would from running a 19 team comp

Each team 2 byes. Some weeks there’ll be more than one team taking byes. Guessing the week off before finals will be an issue, but a bottom 6 side missing the last round would be ok

 

[Bevoman]

A 20 round fixture with one random additional game is no more fair and equitable … than the current 23 round fixture with its extra 6 random additional games??

Now you’ve completely lost me

It is not fair, North cannot play themselves twice (each year).

 

[whiskeytown]

I just saw melksham. Ben brown and McDonald in the Casey team. Would be handy at many other clubs. Maybe our draft and trading system has deep flaws.

Fundamental flaws

The VFL, SANFL, WAFL has an abundance of talent

Not to mention the blokes who give up and just play local footy

I’m not saying the next Jeremy Cameron or Nick Daicos is there… but every year there are several state league players who transition onto senior lists and do well

In an 18 team comp there’s only 800 or so list spots available nationally in a country that will be at 30 mill population in several years time

Don’t agree with the claims that the talent pool can’t sustain a 19-20 team national comp

 

[Billy ray]

I think teams that finish 14-18 in previous season get a bye in rounds 1-5. Wooden spooner gets bye in final round.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The reality is most of the comp is wholly dependent on the AFL. It is one Ross Oakley away from having six Vic clubs, two northern and no Tassie. Heck even Freo and Port could find themselves on the chopping block. Wouldn't happen but if an accountant ran the comp these sorts of things would be considered.

The business case for a town hosting non local teams is generally strong. You can argue the numbers but there's a reason why these deals get up.

Till this day Brisbane and Sydney are in the bread queue. GWS and GC may never be self sufficient.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but to take on another welfare based club, squeeze its neighbour and forgo the chance to have a team in every state / territory feels like a long shot.

But your first and only option was the NT?

Canberra will be infinitely more sustainable than an NT club.

We'll be more sustainable than GWS and GC, who are also way more sustainable than an NT club.

Even on GWS-level funding, the NT will fall $15m short every year. The NT will cost 60% more than either GWS or GC.

The NT will be the mother of all welfare based clubs.

Also, Darwin has the Suns. How is that different from the Canberra/GWS relationship?

 

[PerthBoy86]

I think Canberra, though NT be awesome. Just not enough population atm. Please not a third WA or SA team, stupidest idea ever.

 

[PerthBoy86]

3rd WA is a terrible idea. No one in Perth is going to ditch the Eagles or Dockers for a third team in Perth (maybe unless if it's a WAFL team getting promoted but even still they'd struggle to gain a fanbase), and there's no population centre outside of Perth in WA that would be big enough to justify a team.

Needs to be Canberra IMO. They get decent crowds at Manuka for what isn't their team, obviously would get bigger crowds if they had their own team. Population of over 470000 which alone is double the NT and nearly the population of the entire state of Tasmania. Plus there's places like Queanbeyan (37000), Yass (17000) super close, then places like Wagga Wagga, Holbrook, Murrumbateman, Golburn, Gundagai, Albury etc. within a few hours drive that can be used as a catchment area. It would also be beneficial to GWS because they can finally focus entirely on being an actual Western Sydney team.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. I don't know the logic of it...maybe its people who've never been to WA. Say you have a third WA or Perth team, what exactly will their identity be? In Perth there's a rough association between north of the river and Eagles and south and Dockers (though as in Melbourne many fans of both teams all over). Bunbury? Its got less than 100k. Hardly anyone lives up north comparatively.

 

[Billy ray]

Yeah my thoughts exactly. I don't know the logic of it...maybe its people who've never been to WA. Say you have a third WA or Perth team, what exactly will their identity be? In Perth there's a rough association between north of the river and Eagles and south and Dockers (though as in Melbourne many fans of both teams all over). Bunbury? Its got less than 100k. Hardly anyone lives up north comparatively.

You call it the Perth Victorians. And you make 75% of the ground General Admission tickets costing $27

 

[Roylion]

Roylion, could I please ask - magic want in hand, it's 96 aqain and you could have anything you want happen to the club except full protection or straight relocation, what would it be?

e.g. merge with any club you choose similar to what happened; return the licence, keep the club untouched and become a VFL powerhouse etc. Is there anything you thought was a better outcome?

Possibly a merger witb Melbourne to form the Melbourne Lions.

Below was an article written by journalist Ashley Browne published in The Age speculating on how a Melbourne-Fitzroy merger in 1995, to be called the Melbourne Lions might have worked, when there was media speculation that the two clubs were talking. The merger of Melbourne and Fitzreoy came very close to happening.

The guernsey would have been Melbourne's existing jumper with a large gold Fitzroy Lion on the front. Same as the 1986 merger proposal.







The team that was nominated by Ashley Browne for Round 1 1996 was:

Backs: Steven Febey (Melb) Simon Hawking (Fitz) Trent Cummings (Fitz)
Half-Backs: Glenn Lovett (Melb), David Nietz ( Melb), Jeff Farmer (Melb)
Centres: Stephen Tingay (Melb), Simon Atkins (Fitz), Matthew Febey (Melb)
Half-Forwards: Jason Baldwin (Fitz), David Schwarz (Melb), Chris Johnson (Fitz)
Forwards: Jarrod Molloy (Fitz), Garry Lyon (Melb) , Sean Charles (Melb)
Followers: Jim Stynes (Melb), Brad Boyd (Melb), Andy Lovell (Melb)
Interchange: John Barker (Fitz), Rowan Warfe (Fitz), Matthew Dent (Fitz), Todd Viney (Melb)

Finalists?

The actual article that was published in the Age was as follows

More than 60,000 fans bathed in the MCG sunshine yesterday as the AFL’s two newest clubs, the Melbourne Lions and the Port Adelaide Steelers, bounced the ball to start the 1996 season and the league's centenary celebrations.

Despite a sizeable contingent of Port Adelaide fans – every bit as rabid as their counterparts from Collingwood – all eyes were on the Lions and how the players from the old Melbourne and Fitzroy clubs would meld.

That question was answered during a withering nine goal third quarter burst that broke the game open. Melbourne was outstanding.

Neil Balme, the unanimous coach of the new club has put together an outstanding side. Skipper Gary Lyon booted nine goals for the Lions, while David Schwarz showed no ill-effects from last year’s two knee reconstructions, pulling in eight marks from centre-half forward and booting five goals of his own.

But it was the on-ball brigade of that was the most impressive feature of the new side. Vice captain Brad Boyd amassed 34 possessions while shutting Steeler captain Craig Bradley out of the contest.

Boyd was always the class performer of the old Fitzroy midfield, but yesterday he combined superbly with with Andy Lovell and Stephen Tingay to mesmerise the Steelers. Simon Atkins another of the former Lions, gave great drive from the centre after half time.

By contrast it was a miserable homecoming for Andrew Obst, the sole top ten player the Demons were forced to offload under the rules of the merger. Obst has found happiness with Port Adelaide the club from which he was recruited to Melbourne in 1990, but he was thrashed yesterday by Glenn Lovett.

There was much speculation that the side would be dominated by former Demons. But the Fitzroy contigent, particularly full back Simon Hawking who kept Scott Hodges to one goal and Chris Johnson who has already struck an uncanny understanding with Schwarz and Lyon.

Off the field it was a grand day for the Lions. Marketing manager John Birt reported a brisk sale of membership tickets and estimated that the sales were already approaching 15,000, which means the club will not need to under-write its membership sales, as it would have if the Lions had sold 12,720. (20% more than the 10,500 the Demons sold last year).

"The TV campaign the AFL helped finance has captured our supporters attention. They understand that a membership ticket represents good value, particularly when ours are $20 cheaper than any other club's" said Birt, who predicted that with 10 MCG home games still to come, the Lions membership could top 20,000. And Birt speaks from a position of strength, having handled Collingwood’s membership during the heady days following the 1990 premiership.

Club chairman Dyson Hore-Lacy was ecstatic after the match. “This is why we decided to resume those 1994 negotiations with Melbourne, rather than merge with Brisbane like some at the AFL would have preferred, “ he said.

“We’ve just won a huge game at our new home ground the MCG and the atmosphere was better than anything we experienced at the Western Oval and certainly better than watching it on TV from the Gabba.”

And with that he headed off to celebrate at 'Smithy’s', the new social club at the Junction Oval named after the late Norm Smith, who played for and coached both Melbourne and Fitzroy.

It was built for the Lions with a $700,000 handout from the AFL, which was to be used specifically for the creation of a social club."

-----------------------------

A possible Melbourne Lions List of 45 players, say if the clubs had merged at the start of 1996 and both individual clubs had already participated in the 1996 National Draft, might have read as follows.

Simon ATKINS, Jason BALDWIN, John BARKER, Brad BOYD, Nick CARTER, Brett CHANDLER, Sean CHARLES, Shane CLAYTON, Brett COOK, Trent CUMMINGS, Matthew DENT, Jeff FARMER, Matthew FEBEY, Steven FEBEY, Jeremy GUARD, Simon HAWKING, Jeff HILTON, Paul HOPGOOD, Chris JOHNSON, David KOWAL, Andy LOVELL, Brett LOVETT, Glenn LOVETT, Garry LYON, James MANSON, Anthony MELLINGTON, John McCARTHY, Jarrod MOLLOY, Danny MORTON, David NIETZ, Stephen PAXMAN, Martin PIKE, Matthew PRIMUS, Paul PRYMKE, Peter ROHDE, John ROMBOTIS, David SCHWARZ, Marcus SEECAMP, Shaun SMITH, Jim STYNES, Stephen TINGAY, Todd VINEY, Rowan WARFE, Graeme YEATS, and Mark ZANOTTI,

Via the draft from 1997 onwards ,the Melbourne Lions would have had access to Jonathon Brown and Jack Viney under the father-son rule.

Just curious, you don't have to answer of course. Acknowledge a lot of Fitzroy supporters have happily moved on and are 100% behind Brisbane.

After the above,possibly a VFL powerhouse called Fitzroy. Maybe the Melbourne Lions reserves could have been called the Fitzroy Demons in the VFL.

 

[whiskeytown]

But your first and only option was the NT?

Canberra will be infinitely more sustainable than an NT club.

We'll be more sustainable than GWS and GC, who are also way more sustainable than an NT club.

Even on GWS-level funding, the NT will fall $15m short every year. The NT will cost 60% more than either GWS or GC.

The NT will be the mother of all welfare based clubs.

Also, Darwin has the Suns. How is that different from the Canberra/GWS relationship?

Agree 100%.

The Suns can be rebranded as say the Northern Suns and play 5-6 home games a year out of northern QLD and Darwin

Likewise GWS can lose Canberra and simply play 1-2 home games out of a regional NSW location eg Newcastle

The biggest issue with Canberra will be a stadium. It will be a repeat of the Hobart stadium quandary

Manuka would require a lot of work if it were to host 12 home games a year

From a business perspective the AFL will want to invest (with government) in a new stadium precinct in Canberra