20th AFL Team

[Teen Wolf]

The $45m is distribution. Clubs like GWS and Gold Coast require $25m. The NT will require a further $19m.

So $44m if the AFL covers that funding gap.

No, you're wildly confused.

The NT business case makes it clear that a $19m funding gap would only exist if the AFL's additional distribution was $2.5m. And that is before even considering the extra broadcast revenue created from a 10th game per week.

Nobody has ever claimed that we're going to be the next Western Sydney in population. I don't know why that's even a factor.

But we are growing much quicker than Tasmania, and you originally compared our growth to Tasmania, which it's clearly not comparable.

Canberra's projected population growth (<10k people per year, i.e. small) is much more like Tasmania's than western Sydney's. So you can expect the requirements for a Canberra AFL team will be much more like Tasmania's than western Sydney's, particularly with regard to the new roofed CBD stadium hurdle.

 

[whiskeytown]

No, you're wildly confused.

The NT business case makes it clear that a $19m funding gap would only exist if the AFL's additional distribution was $2.5m. And that is before even considering the extra broadcast revenue created from a 10th game per week.


Canberra's projected population growth (<10k people per year, i.e. small) is much more like Tasmania's than western Sydney's. So you can expect the requirements for a Canberra AFL team will be much more like Tasmania's than western Sydney's, particularly with regard to the new roofed CBD stadium hurdle.

Your mob should read the room regarding the AFLs intention of reducing Melbourne teams and relocate up to Northern Australia

Get to keep colours, history… probably huge cash injection and could keep Arden at as a training base and cultural hub for Melbourne based supporters

Would play several away games in Melbourne each year (mostly at marvel) and guarantee the clubs survival for decades as the AFL won’t pull the pin on new teams

North inclusion in a Northern Australia team also provides a big enough addition of supporters to those already in NT to prop up the team in terms of fan base

Or north could just keep fighting away, struggling to survive and eventually find itself relocated minus the benefits and ongoing history like Fitzroy

 

[Roylion]

Your mob should read the room regarding the AFLs intention of reducing Melbourne teams and relocate up to Northern Australia

There is no intention by the AFL to reduce Melbourne based teams. Where are you getting this from?

could keep Arden at as a training base and cultural hub for Melbourne based supporters

Doubt it.

Would play several away games in Melbourne each year (mostly at marvel)

4-5 away games in Melbourne at the most.

and guarantee the clubs survival for decades as the AFL won’t pull the pin on new teams

North Mebourne is debt free and posted its 12th consecutive profit in 2023. They won't be going anywhere.

Or north could just keep fighting away, struggling to survive

They're not 'struggling to survive'. Dont confuse their current ladder position with their off field situation.

and eventually find itself relocated minus the benefits and ongoing history like Fitzroy

Who's going to relocate them?

 

[Canberra Pear]

No, you're wildly confused.

The NT business case makes it clear that a $19m funding gap would only exist if the AFL's additional distribution was $2.5m. And that is before even considering the extra broadcast revenue created from a 10th game per week.

You're right. I was confused and wrong (something you yourself shouldn't be afraid to admit). That $19m would only bring it up to $33m from the AFL. Still a lot more than a Canberra team would cost.

Canberra's projected population growth (<10k people per year, i.e. small) is much more like Tasmania's than western Sydney's. So you can expect the requirements for a Canberra AFL team will be much more like Tasmania's than western Sydney's, particularly with regard to the new roofed CBD stadium hurdle.

Every bid is unique. Just because Tasmania and GWS have done things a certain way doesn't mean similar bids have to be a carbon copy.

But demographically, our closest example is probably the Gold Coast. Just a tad over 500k when they entered, and growing at just under 10k a year. And Carrara is much worse placed than Manuka, and without a roof.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Your mob should read the room regarding the AFLs intention of reducing Melbourne teams and relocate up to Northern Australia

Get to keep colours, history… probably huge cash injection and could keep Arden at as a training base and cultural hub for Melbourne based supporters

Would play several away games in Melbourne each year (mostly at marvel) and guarantee the clubs survival for decades as the AFL won’t pull the pin on new teams

North inclusion in a Northern Australia team also provides a big enough addition of supporters to those already in NT to prop up the team in terms of fan base

Or north could just keep fighting away, struggling to survive and eventually find itself relocated minus the benefits and ongoing history like Fitzroy

Any merger or relocation proposals involving North now require 75% approval of members to pass - ie we’re never going to let it happen, so move on to something else. Fitzroy were millions of dollars in debt and had been away from their spiritual home for decades in the lead up to ‘96. It’s vastly different to our current plight. You’d be best served to do some research instead of listening to loudmouths like Eddie.

 

[Roylion]

Fitzroy were millions of dollars in debt and had been away from their spiritual home for decades in the lead up to ‘96. It’s vastly different to our current plight.

Yes it is.

Added to that, the AFL supports its Melbourne clubs far more than they ever did in the 1990's. Even so, if Fitzroy had been able to find another million dollars in 1996 they would have never considered merging. Unfortunately every attempt to do so by Fitzroy was stymied by the AFL who wanted to keep financial pressure on Fitzroy, so that Port Adelaide's AFL entry in 1997 would still only keep the league at 16 teams.

Ironically one of the people working for Fitzroy's administrator Michael Brennan in 1996 on discharging Fitzroy's $2.7 million debt was the current CEO of the Brisbane Lions Greg Swann who publicly stated in August 2014 that Fitzroy could have 'easily been retained' in the AFL competition had there been the will by the AFL to do so.

The AFL had $12 million to spare in 1996 to give to clubs that merged, yet couldn't find $1 million to help Fitzroy.

 

[Coolangatta]

Yes it is.

Added to that, the AFL supports its Melbourne clubs far more than they ever did in the 1990's. Even so, if Fitzroy had been able to find another million dollars in 1996 they would have never considered merging. Unfortunately every attempt to do so by Fitzroy was stymied by the AFL who wanted to keep financial pressure on Fitzroy, so that Port Adelaide's AFL entry in 1997 would still only keep the league at 16 teams.

Ironically one of the people working for Fitzroy's administrator Michael Brennan in 1996 on discharging Fitzroy's $2.7 million debt was the current CEO of the Brisbane Lions Greg Swann who publicly stated in August 2014 that Fitzroy could have 'easily been retained' in the AFL competition had there been the will by the AFL to do so.

The AFL had $12 million to spare in 1996 to give to clubs that merged, yet couldn't find $1 million to help Fitzroy.

Why were they hellbent on keeping it to 16 teams?

I understand not wanting an odd number of teams, but there was an obvious option for an 18th team in the late 90s if they wanted it.

Tasmania.

 

[Roylion]

Why were they hellbent on keeping it to 16 teams?

They wanted a reduction of Melbourne based teams and this was a justification for it.

I understand not wanting an odd number of teams, but there was an obvious option for an 18th team in the late 90s if they wanted it.

Tasmania.

Not on their radar. We saw the AFL's attitude to a team in Canberra at the same time. And this was at the height of the Super League War in rugby league.

 

[whiskeytown]

Any merger or relocation proposals involving North now require 75% approval of members to pass - ie we’re never going to let it happen, so move on to something else. Fitzroy were millions of dollars in debt and had been away from their spiritual home for decades in the lead up to ‘96. It’s vastly different to our current plight. You’d be best served to do some research instead of listening to loudmouths like Eddie.

AFL have the power to revoke licenses

NM, St Kilda and WB need to keep in the black financially and not spend years on the bottom of the ladder… or they become susceptible to ultimatums regarding licensing I.e relocation or move to the VFL

You confident NM finances will hold up if/when they are still a bottom 4 side 3,4,5 years from now ? I wouldn’t be

Eddie talks a lot but serves as the mouthpiece for AFL presidents.

The interstate presidents wouldn’t give a rats about NM, St Kilda or WB relocating or having their license revoked

there’s 8 of 17 other clubs… add in a Vic based club or two who figure they’ll absorb more of the fans, draft pool etc from having less Vic clubs… suddenly a majority of the comp is asking the AFL action to reduce Vic teams

And… NM especially is in a precarious position going forward.

FWIW I’ve got nothing against NM

Of the two I’d sooner see the Saints relocate or merge with the hawks

 

[Coolangatta]

AFL have the power to revoke licenses

NM, St Kilda and WB need to keep in the black financially and not spend years on the bottom of the ladder… or they become susceptible to ultimatums regarding licensing I.e relocation or move to the VFL

You confident NM finances will hold up if/when they are still a bottom 4 side 3,4,5 years from now ? I wouldn’t be

Eddie talks a lot but serves as the mouthpiece for AFL presidents.

The interstate presidents wouldn’t give a rats about NM, St Kilda or WB relocating or having their license revoked

there’s 8 of 17 other clubs… add in a Vic based club or two who figure they’ll absorb more of the fans, draft pool etc from having less Vic clubs… suddenly a majority of the comp is asking the AFL action to reduce Vic teams

And… NM especially is in a precarious position going forward.

FWIW I’ve got nothing against NM

Of the two I’d sooner see the Saints relocate or merge with the hawks

Can club presidents actually vote to remove a club from the league?

If so, how many votes do they need?

If they got enough votes to boot North out, then can't North take them to court or do they have no choice but to fold or relocate?

I don't think any of the Saints/Dogs/Roos would merge but if it came down to a choice of folding or relocating, I think they'd choose relocating.

 

[GC2015]

Any merger or relocation proposals involving North now require 75% approval of members to pass - ie we’re never going to let it happen, so move on to something else. Fitzroy were millions of dollars in debt and had been away from their spiritual home for decades in the lead up to ‘96. It’s vastly different to our current plight. You’d be best served to do some research instead of listening to loudmouths like Eddie.

You do realise that the AFL distributes money every year that essentially prevents several clubs from going into mass amounts of debt, right? North and St Kilda were both handed $24 million from the AFL last year. The Roos claimed an annual profit of $200k in 2023 so if the AFL decided to lower their financial distribution to say $20 million a year then North would have announced a annual loss of more than $3 million. For comparison, the AFL handed Richmond $16 million last year so it's not like they can't lower the amount.

How long do you think it would take for the AFL to send a club like North into financial ruin? I'd say not long at all. If they want to force a club into a situation where they either die or merge, then they can quite easily make that a reality through their annual financial distributions. Member approval thresholds mean nothing if the club becomes insolvent.

 

[Bjo187]

You do realise that the AFL distributes money every year that essentially prevents several clubs from going into mass amounts of debt, right? North and St Kilda were both handed $24 million from the AFL last year. The Roos claimed an annual profit of $200k in 2023 so if the AFL decided to lower their financial distribution to say $20 million a year then North would have announced a annual loss of more than $3 million. For comparison, the AFL handed Richmond $16 million last year so it's not like they can't lower the amount.

How long do you think it would take for the AFL to send a club like North into financial ruin? I'd say not long at all. If they want to force a club into a situation where they either die or merge, then they can quite easily make that a reality through their annual financial distributions. Member approval thresholds mean nothing if the club becomes insolvent.

I agree with all this, but if it went to court it wouldn't stack up because how come you gave north only 16 million yet St Kilda 24 million.

I do think the clubs coming together and voting for a relocation 'should' be possible, but I dunno if they'd like the bad look for their own clubs in sending another team packing.

 

[Roylion]

AFL have the power to revoke licenses

Yes they do. No AFL licence has ever been revoked, very possibly because of the legal ramifications and the negative publicity it would entail. 1996 is an example of that. The AFL even had to get the administrator of Fitzroy to voluntarily surrender their licence.

NM, St Kilda and WB need to keep in the black financially and not spend years on the bottom of the ladder… or they become susceptible to ultimatums regarding licensing I.e relocation or move to the VFL

The AFL knows it can't force a club to relocate. 2008 was a classic example of that. The moment North Melbourne refused the AF's Gold Coast offer, the AFL commission began planning a new club on the Gold Coast.

You confident NM finances will hold up if/when they are still a bottom 4 side 3,4,5 years from now ? I wouldn’t be

Why not? Debt free. $17 million poured into North's admin and training base since 2018, record membership in 2023, assets of $19.2 million and twelve consecutive annual profits.

Eddie talks a lot but serves as the mouthpiece for AFL presidents.

No he doesn't.

there’s 8 of 17 other clubs… add in a Vic based club or two who figure they’ll absorb more of the fans, draft pool etc from having less Vic clubs… suddenly a majority of the comp is asking the AFL action to reduce Vic teams

There's no current demand to reduce Victorian teams.

And… NM especially is in a precarious position going forward.

No it's not. Debt free. $17 million poured into North's admin and training base at Arden Street since 2018, record membership in 2023, assets of $19.2 million and twelve consecutive annual profits.

The AFL's annual distribution exists to iron out inequities between clubs in terms of fixtures. In 2023 they handed clubs a total of $393 million in funding.

Some clubs have huge built-in advantages that help boost their bottom line, including more Thursday and Friday night games (usually played the bigger clubs) and better stadium deals and this helps decide the varying amounts. They're also explained by differing prize money, travel subsidies, AFL membership-related distributions, AFL commercial partner payments, AFL-facilitated stadium payments and licensing distributions.

Indeed, between 2012 and 2021 it's St Kilda that has received the most of any Victorian club with $156 million. That was $17 million more than the Western Bulldogs, with Brisbane ($160 million), Gold Coast ($198 million) and GWS ($203 million) getting the most help in that time.

 

[speedpeck23]

Because it's not good for the competition. A perennial basket case where no one will want to go to, funded indefinitely by the league, draining resources that could be spent on improving the game or fan experience. What a disaster, anyone who thinks NT is a serious option is delusional.

Clearly NT in the AFL is unconventional, even radical but you have to look at the big picture. It would be at least 10 years away....who knows what the footy landscape will be like ? The idea has to be explored.

You're obviously wedded to population base as the only criteria for justification of a clubs viability. You promote the idea of game and fan experience and at the same time promote exclusion of an iconic minority group who have had a significant positive impact on the AFL.

By far the majority of fans watch the game on a screen. The biggest income for the AFL is broadcast rights. Marketing of a club is critical in expansion. Apart from Tassie there would probably be no more marketable club than NT if it became a reality. Tassie will raise the profile/marketing of the whole AFL competition not just Tasmania itself....so would NT.

Tassie is not about population it is about a minority group who also have had a significant positive impact on the AFL but have been disenfranchised from the competition and are finally included. Tassie will in fact be a great acid test for NT......iconic location, small population, small stadium...pack it out with fanatical locals.......stick it on the screen any day or night of the week it will sell.

As evidenced by Andrew Dillon's comments about a 3rd club in WA....the AFL simply wants the 2 clubs from each of WA, SA,NSW/ACT, and QLD to be as big as possible. Throw a third club into that mix for any state it compromises the growth, rivalry and identity of the other 2..... you would be creating a basket case in that situation.

If the AFL are true to their name and constituency they will explore the NT option as much as they can for all sorts of reasons.

 

[whiskeytown]

Yes they do. No AFL licence has ever been revoked, very possibly because of the legal ramifications and the negative publicity it would entail. 1996 is an example of that. The AFL even had to get the administrator of Fitzroy to voluntarily surrender their licence.


The AFL knows it can't force a club to relocate. 2008 was a classic example of that. The moment North Melbourne refused the AF's Gold Coast offer, the AFL commission began planning a new club on the Gold Coast.




Why not? Debt free. $17 million poured into North's admin and training base since 2018, record membership in 2023, assets of $19.2 million and twelve consecutive annual profits.


No he doesn't.


There's no current demand to reduce Victorian teams.


No it's not. Debt free. $17 million poured into North's admin and training base at Arden Street since 2018, record membership in 2023, assets of $19.2 million and twelve consecutive annual profits.

The AFL's annual distribution exists to iron out inequities between clubs in terms of fixtures. In 2023 they handed clubs a total of $393 million in funding.

Some clubs have huge built-in advantages that help boost their bottom line, including more Thursday and Friday night games (usually played the bigger clubs) and better stadium deals and this helps decide the varying amounts. They're also explained by differing prize money, travel subsidies, AFL membership-related distributions, AFL commercial partner payments, AFL-facilitated stadium payments and licensing distributions.

Indeed, between 2012 and 2021 it's St Kilda that has received the most of any Victorian club with $156 million. That was $17 million more than the Western Bulldogs, with Brisbane ($160 million), Gold Coast ($198 million) and GWS ($203 million) getting the most help in that time.

It’s been explained to you repeatedly that

1. AFL has the legal power to revoke licenses

And by another poster

2. NM profit is built on AFL funding

Thereby

3. AFL has the legal ability to lower funding for smaller Vic clubs as the funding model is tailored and voluntary on the AFLs behalf

The AFL could reduce the funding to small Vic clubs whilst simultaneously transferring that funding (and more) to any team that relocated to NT or elsewhere

Persisting with the idea that the smaller Vic clubs are ‘safe’ from relocating or loss of licence and demoting to the VFL is factually incorrect

Likewise is the idea that they are profitable… when in fact they are being propped up by the AFL

The AFL… if it wishes… can legally reduce the number of Vic clubs

So my original post stands… that NM or the Saints would be wise to attach themselves to a market like NT that the AFL will not give up on once it’s been committed to in the same way that they have stuck by GC and the same way they stuck with the swans in the early 90s

Any Vic team that relocated to NT would be safer than here in Melbourne

 

[Coolangatta]

Clearly NT in the AFL is unconventional, even radical but you have to look at the big picture. It would be at least 10 years away....who knows what the footy landscape will be like ? The idea has to be explored.

You're obviously wedded to population base as the only criteria for justification of a clubs viability. You promote the idea of game and fan experience and at the same time promote exclusion of an iconic minority group who have had a significant positive impact on the AFL.

By far the majority of fans watch the game on a screen. The biggest income for the AFL is broadcast rights. Marketing of a club is critical in expansion. Apart from Tassie there would probably be no more marketable club than NT if it became a reality. Tassie will raise the profile/marketing of the whole AFL competition not just Tasmania itself....so would NT.

Tassie is not about population it is about a minority group who also have had a significant positive impact on the AFL but have been disenfranchised from the competition and are finally included. Tassie will in fact be a great acid test for NT......iconic location, small population, small stadium...pack it out with fanatical locals.......stick it on the screen any day or night of the week it will sell.

As evidenced by Andrew Dillon's comments about a 3rd club in WA....the AFL simply wants the 2 clubs from each of WA, SA,NSW/ACT, and QLD to be as big as possible. Throw a third club into that mix for any state it compromises the growth, rivalry and identity of the other 2..... you would be creating a basket case in that situation.

If the AFL are true to their name and constituency they will explore the NT option as much as they can for all sorts of reasons.

You make a lot of sense but I'm really tired of the narrative that the NT makes the game truly national and completes the jigsaw puzzle. ACT should not count as part of NSW.

I don't see the big deal in going to 22 teams in the future. I can understand the reservations about going beyond that, but honestly, if there's a narrative to fulfil here about the national profile of the game, there could be a place for the Northern Territory and North Queensland in 30+ years time with their own brand new clubs.

NT would be the last piece of the puzzle after ACT and NQ would factor in as the only other unrepresented place that's probably going to be interested in having a team.

I don't see New Zealand or Newcastle or wherever else demanding a team and I'm not sure in the future that the AFL should continue adding teams in locations that didn't ask for them.

Also, NQ might become its own state one day, so having a team there eventually will ensure that every state in the AFL has a team.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Clearly NT in the AFL is unconventional, even radical but you have to look at the big picture. It would be at least 10 years away....who knows what the footy landscape will be like ? The idea has to be explored.

You're obviously wedded to population base as the only criteria for justification of a clubs viability. You promote the idea of game and fan experience and at the same time promote exclusion of an iconic minority group who have had a significant positive impact on the AFL.

By far the majority of fans watch the game on a screen. The biggest income for the AFL is broadcast rights. Marketing of a club is critical in expansion. Apart from Tassie there would probably be no more marketable club than NT if it became a reality. Tassie will raise the profile/marketing of the whole AFL competition not just Tasmania itself....so would NT.

Tassie is not about population it is about a minority group who also have had a significant positive impact on the AFL but have been disenfranchised from the competition and are finally included. Tassie will in fact be a great acid test for NT......iconic location, small population, small stadium...pack it out with fanatical locals.......stick it on the screen any day or night of the week it will sell.

As evidenced by Andrew Dillon's comments about a 3rd club in WA....the AFL simply wants the 2 clubs from each of WA, SA,NSW/ACT, and QLD to be as big as possible. Throw a third club into that mix for any state it compromises the growth, rivalry and identity of the other 2..... you would be creating a basket case in that situation.

If the AFL are true to their name and constituency they will explore the NT option as much as they can for all sorts of reasons.

Population isn't the only factor, but it can't be denied as a major factor either.

Unless you want the team to exist almost entirely on AFL distribution, population is a major factor for the financial base that will support it.

 

[Teen Wolf]

It’s been explained to you repeatedly that

1. AFL has the legal power to revoke licenses

And by another poster

2. NM profit is built on AFL funding

Thereby

3. AFL has the legal ability to lower funding for smaller Vic clubs as the funding model is tailored and voluntary on the AFLs behalf

The AFL could reduce the funding to small Vic clubs whilst simultaneously transferring that funding (and more) to any team that relocated to NT or elsewhere

Persisting with the idea that the smaller Vic clubs are ‘safe’ from relocating or loss of licence and demoting to the VFL is factually incorrect

Likewise is the idea that they are profitable… when in fact they are being propped up by the AFL

The AFL… if it wishes… can legally reduce the number of Vic clubs

So my original post stands… that NM or the Saints would be wise to attach themselves to a market like NT that the AFL will not give up on once it’s been committed to in the same way that they have stuck by GC and the same way they stuck with the swans in the early 90s

Any Vic team that relocated to NT would be safer than here in Melbourne

Oooh scary. Small problem: the AFL own a footy ground in Melbourne, so... nice try, but they aren't going to undermine their own asset by cutting a tenant.

Turns out the AFL is cool with small clubs if they are playing 7+ home games out of a CBD roofed stadium!

 

[whiskeytown]

Oooh scary. Small problem: the AFL own a footy ground in Melbourne, so... nice try, but they aren't going to undermine their own asset by cutting a tenant.

Turns out the AFL is cool with small clubs if they are playing 7+ home games out of a CBD roofed stadium!

Are you 12 years old ?

5 AFL tenants, plus Big Bash, plus soccer, rugby, games and concerts etc

Marvel stadium is fine without the 18k that turn up for NM

 

[Teen Wolf]

Are you 12 years old ?

5 AFL tenants, plus Big Bash, plus soccer, rugby, games and concerts etc

Marvel stadium is fine without the 18k that turn up for NM

Behold an emoji-user accusing others of immaturity.

Marvel would be fine without NM. Clubs like Collingwood and Richmond would squeal like stuck pigs though, as the AFL would just move a bunch more of their home games across from the MCG to fill the void. Even a 12-year-old could figure that out.

 

[whiskeytown]

NT team is an impossibility, crazy how many people still think it's viable. I think they're blinded by the romanticism of it maybe

Because it's not good for the competition. A perennial basket case where no one will want to go to, funded indefinitely by the league, draining resources that could be spent on improving the game or fan experience. What a disaster, anyone who thinks NT is a serious option is delusional.

It’s all a matter of funding

NT team would cost a lot but that can be mitigated by

• AFL cutting funding to other teams
• Feds putting money into a stadium to help set up
• Feds allocating money to team annually (as they give grants to the territories governments to bolster their revenue)

The AFL will be motivated to add a 20th team

or return the comp to 18 teams by relocating a heavily subsidised Melbourne club and better balancing out the competition

- the NT govt are motivated by what a team will generate in economic activity

- the Feds will be motivated by votes and populist appeal of NT team

And motivated by the prospect of a NT or Northern Australian club helping to address the social issues up there

Beyond the numbers… the NT have contributed just as much as TAS has to the national game

The AFL didn’t grant TAS a licence cause it was the the best economic thing to do

For similar reasons I think a NT or Northern Australia team gets a license at some point in the next 5 years

 

[whiskeytown]

Behold an emoji-user accusing others of immaturity.

Marvel would be fine without NM. Clubs like Collingwood and Richmond would squeal like stuck pigs though, as the AFL would just move a bunch more of their home games across from the MCG to fill the void. Even a 12-year-old could figure that out.

The NM has to stay in Melbourne because of marvel stadium is the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard

By the same logic they wouldn’t have brought TAS in cause it would take games away from AFL owned Marvel stadium. If that were remotely a factor we would’ve got another Mel team instead

I understand you don’t want your club to change… but at least have a grown conversation about it rather than put the most inane, trivial reasons forth as ‘got ya’ moments

 

[Coolangatta]

It’s all a matter of funding

NT team would cost a lot but that can be mitigated by

• AFL cutting funding to other teams
• Feds putting money into a stadium to help set up
• Feds allocating money to team annually (as they give grants to the territories governments to bolster their revenue)

The AFL will be motivated to add a 20th team

or return the comp to 18 teams by relocating a heavily subsidised Melbourne club and better balancing out the competition

- the NT govt are motivated by what a team will generate in economic activity

- the Feds will be motivated by votes and populist appeal of NT team

And motivated by the prospect of a NT or Northern Australian club helping to address the social issues up there

Beyond the numbers… the NT have contributed just as much as TAS has to the national game

The AFL didn’t grant TAS a licence cause it was the the best economic thing to do

For similar reasons I think a NT or Northern Australia team gets a license at some point in the next 5 years

I could see it happening, too, but it's going to suck if ACT doesn't get the 20th licence, because if they don't get that, when will they ever get it?

If they could get a Vic club to relocate there and push the Giants out of Canberra, that'd be good for them, but so hard to accomplish.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be North, the Saints could be a possibility - no bad blood/history with ACT like the Roos have and one of their biggest clubs is the Ainslie Saints with the same colours as St Kilda.

I still think NT outright would be better than NQ as while I understand the economic case of adding three games to Cairns to the NT mix (presumably 7 Darwin, 1 Alice Springs), Cairns has the same climate issues as Darwin's. The ground in Cairns in March-April would be a flood. The fixture and travel schedule of a North Aus team would be insane.

 

[Outtatym]

NT conditions are ****ing horrible. Would need to play in a fridge.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The NM has to stay in Melbourne because of marvel stadium is the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard

By the same logic they wouldn’t have brought TAS in cause it would take games away from AFL owned Marvel stadium. If that were remotely a factor we would’ve got another Mel team instead

I understand you don’t want your club to change… but at least have a grown conversation about it rather than put the most inane, trivial reasons forth as ‘got ya’ moments

There is no argument. The AFL's own actions make a mockery of everything you've said.

And the addition of Tasmania actually means games will get brought back to Melbourne. In other words, North is about to change... by becoming more entrenched in their hometown.