A Third Team In Sydney - It's Only a Matter Of Time !!

[NYRB]

If I was part of the AFL HQ board now, in regards to the long-term expansion strategy of the AFL Men's & AFL Women's elite competitions, I would be planning further ahead for a 25 round "National" Competition with 24 clubs in total by 2050 instead, with every state (besides Tasmania) having a minimum of 3 teams, while the ACT, NT & Tasmania having one team each, as shown down below:

2050 Men's/Women's Australian Rules Football League Season
Adelaide Crows (SA) | Brisbane Lions (QLD) | Canberra Kookaburras (ACT) | Carlton Blues (VIC) | Collingwood Magpies (VIC) | Darwin Thunder (NT) | Essendon Bombers (VIC) | Footscray Bulldogs (VIC) | Fremantle Dockers (WA) | Geelong Cats (VIC) | Gold Coast Suns (QLD) | Hawthorn Hawks (VIC) | Melbourne Demons (VIC) | North Queensland Crocodiles (QLD) | Northern Sydney Kangaroos (NSW) | Norwood Scorpions (SA) | Perth Rebels (WA) | Port Adelaide Power (SA) | Richmond Tigers (VIC) | St. Kilda Saints (VIC) | Sydney Swans (NSW) | Tasmania Devils (TAS) | West Coast Eagles (WA) | Western Sydney Giants (NSW)

Victoria: 9 teams - Carlton (1897) | Collingwood (1897) | Essendon (1897) | Footscray (1925) | Geelong (1897) | Hawthorn (1925) | Melbourne (1897) | Richmond (1908) | St. Kilda (1897)
New South Wales: 3 teams - Northern Sydney (2036) | Sydney (1982) | Western Sydney (2012)
Queensland: 3 teams - Brisbane (1987) | Gold Coast (2011) | North Queensland (2048)
South Australia: 3 teams - Adelaide (1991) | Norwood (2046) | Port Adelaide (1997)
Western Australia: 3 teams - Fremantle (1995) | Perth (2028) | West Coast (1987)
Australian Capital Territory: 1 team - Canberra (2027)
Northern Territory: 1 team - Darwin (2038)
Tasmania: 1 team - Tasmania (2025)

Each club would play 25 matches as mentioned before (12x home matches & 12x away matches) + (1x alternative home match swapped every two years), which would also include playing the other teams in their state four times (2x home matches & 2x away matches), resulting in a minimum of 6 derby matches for each state altogether, every year.

After the regular season has finished, the top 10 highest placed teams would commence to the finals series, in which the top 6 teams get a bye in Week 1 while the clubs ranked at 7th - 10th would face each other in a wildcard weekend (7th vs. 10th / 8th vs. 9th) to determine who plays 5th & 6th in week 2, before the final series continues as it is currently in the AFL Men's Competition.

Doing the maths at the end of the season, 311 matches would be played throughout the year (increase of 104 matches in 2021), with each state (minus Tasmania) hosting a minimum of 36 home matches every year, with Victoria hosting 108 home matches and ACT, NT & Tasmania hosting 12 home matches as well (excluding finals).

This national future competition blueprint & strategy (as shown above) would not only greatly increase the exposure of the sport on a Nationalised level in many ways such as increased broadcasting, club, media & stadium revenue (to name a few), but also more specifically massively increase the AFL's positioning of the sport in NRL-based states such as the ACT, NSW & QLD and improve the participation rates of players from those states, from the grassroots to the professional levels of both the Men's & Women's game, while weakening the Rugby League foothold as a result.

I agree with pretty much everything you said there. Although, I think the Kangaroos team shouldn't be a relocated side. I think it should be a start-up franchise with a NSW identity alone.(Like GWS were) Yes the Swans have been successful with their South Melbourne origins but I feel Victoria and traditional teams can stand alone. That North Melbourne and Northern Sydney are polar worlds apart.

Perth is a bit like a mini-Melbourne. Having lived there before, even though it isn't an expansion market, they are well equipped to have a 3rd team. I threw up a suggestion that a team that represented : East Perth, West Perth and Perth Demons from the WAFL could be a symbol of their roots. And playing at say a 20,000-25,000 stadia like the WACA could be a very reasonable option. Perth's market can cope with at least 2-3 AFL games a week.


If I was running AFLHQ, I would be asking myself how can we plan games in Newcastle, Wollongong, and Central Coast more. The markets and money in these regions are potentially bigger than where AFL games are played already in regional towns of: Cairns, Ballarat, Alice Springs, Darwin, Launceston. If its a case of money it show be at least a gradual phase to bring games there.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I agree with pretty much everything you said there. Although, I think the Kangaroos team shouldn't be a relocated side. I think it should be a start-up franchise with a NSW identity alone.(Like GWS were) Yes the Swans have been successful with their South Melbourne origins but I feel Victoria and traditional teams can stand alone. That North Melbourne and Northern Sydney are polar worlds apart.

Perth is a bit like a mini-Melbourne. Having lived there before, even though it isn't an expansion market, they are well equipped to have a 3rd team. I threw up a suggestion that a team that represented : East Perth, West Perth and Perth Demons from the WAFL could be a symbol of their roots. And playing at say a 20,000-25,000 stadia like the WACA could be a very reasonable option. Perth's market can cope with at least 2-3 AFL games a week.


If I was running AFLHQ, I would be asking myself how can we plan games in Newcastle, Wollongong, and Central Coast more. The markets and money in these regions are potentially bigger than where AFL games are played already in regional towns of: Cairns, Ballarat, Alice Springs, Darwin, Launceston. If its a case of money it show be at least a gradual phase to bring games there.

100% agree, although the only reason why I relocated North Melbourne to North Sydney was that there was too many teams in Victoria and one had to be relocated or dropped, in way of an even & ethical AFL competition.

Surely if Canberra get the 20th license into the competition though, the AFL would be planning the Giants to play a couple of matches over in Newcastle, Central Coast or Wollongong (if they fund a redevelopment of their stadium) to not only help the Giants build financial/member support in the short-term, but also grow the sport into NSW further in the long-term, where professional AFL doesn't get much exposure.

Even North Melbourne should play a couple of matches over there (in one of those three other cities), to improve their financial revenue, build their support base into NSW and most importantly, further enhance the sport over in those NSW cities, if Tasmania does indeed get the 19th license in the next 5-10 years.

 

[Bjo187]

I agree on North relocating to North Sydney that would be ideal. I would also bring in a Tasmania team and a new Canberra team and have it at 20 teams. You therefore have North Sydney playing some games and having some representation on the Central Coast, you then have the Canberra team playing in southern New South Wales some times and GWS representing all of West Sydney, so coverage all across ACT and New South Wales in some form. For full coverage across Queensland I would then have Gold Coast playing a couple of home games perhaps 3 in North Queensland every season. We would then have 20 teams and the top 10 finals with the wild card weekend adding highly viewed games during the empty bye weekend.
I think that will see us in a good position up until about 2040, then can make decisions on other potential new clubs there after. Overall a well-thought-out plan though, good work.

 

[RedV3x]

It's nice to hear all these options being proposed but it is rather pointless (for the AFL) without addressing a major issue
and that is the overall fixturing of the league.

18 AFL teams is a lot for the fans. The AFL has to start giving more reward for the 17 non-premiers.
They could start by making a big deal of the minor premiership.
Long-term the AFL will have to look at conferences, with conference winners, playoffs and then premiers.

 

[Roylion]

100% agree, although the only reason why I relocated North Melbourne to North Sydney was that there was too many teams in Victoria and one had to be relocated or dropped, in way of an even & ethical AFL competition.

Why North Melbourne? Why not St Kilda?

 

[BringBackTorps]

Daily Telegraph B. Read Two Long Feature Articles on the RL vs. AF "Battle" in WS 17.9.21 & 18.9.21

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

 

[BringBackTorps]

Daily Telegraph P. Rothfield 9.10.21

N. Politis, Sydney Roosters Chairman said, mainly referring to Brisbane 2

“Every successful company expands,” Politis said. “You stay stagnant, you go broke.

“A company like Woolworths goes into a new area and picks up 10,000 new customers. “New NRL clubs will do the same and keep growing over time.

Politis points out how the NRL had 20 clubs before the Super League war.

“Look at the people we lost when the North Sydney Bears folded,” he said, “They didn’t go to Manly and they didn’t cross the bridge and come to the Roosters.

“They went to the Swans and the Waratahs. We lost thousands and thousands of rugby league fans.”

Rothfield said

"The obvious question around 18 teams is the depth of the playing squads.
Many believe there are not enough quality players for 16 clubs, let alone more".



It is doubtful how many former North Sydney Bears fans joined the Waratahs. Their crowds have fallen dramatically in recent years, to c. 10k average at the Sydney Football Stadium (across the bridge in Moore Park)- albeit the Waratahs have been very poor in Super Rugby in the last few years.
Male contact RU nos. have also had major declines in NS.

It is a shame Rothfield/Politis did not provide any analysis as to:-

. why the ex North Sydney fans did not join the Waratahs in large nos.; or nearby fellow NRL team Manly, or the Roosters (also playing out of Sydney Football Stadium).

. why AF is not a kindred sport of RL or RU- but why did North Sydney Bears RL fans switch to the Swans; & GR AF had such strong growth in NS?

. Brisbane 2 will, it is claimed by the NRL etc., assist in the growth of male contact RL nos. in SEQ.
But Sydney has 8.5 NRL clubs, yet this much larger no. (cf 2 future Brisbane NRL clubs) has not prevented the collapse in male contact RL nos. (as has also occured in Greater Brisbane, excluding Ipswich District RL comps.).

. The new NRL club Redcliffe (a RL heartland area) is 40kms north of Suncorp Stadium, where it will play its home games.

Is it correct, therefore, for Politis etc. to say Redcliffe is an "expansion" for RL, that RL is moving to a "new area"; & the "new customers" will wish to travel c. 40 kms to their "home" ground?

 

[RedV3x]

why the ex North Sydney fans did not join the Waratahs in large nos.; or nearby fellow NRL team Manly, or the Roosters (also playing out of Sydney Football Stadium).

N.S. Bears fans did not swap en masse to the Waratahs as that is another (largely mutually hostile code).
N.S. Bears fans did not swap en masse to another NRL club as that is contrary to tribal instincts.

why AF is not a kindred sport of RL or RU- but why did North Sydney Bears RL fans switch to the Swans; & GR AF had such strong growth in NS?

North Sydney AFC is one of the founding 1903 NSWFL clubs and has strong local support on the N.S.
IMO it wasn't so much a switch - but no NRL so people actually fronted up to the SCG.
N.S. is surrounded by strong A.R. G.R. Manly had almost zero A.R. but now has strong A.R. G.R.

Is it correct, therefore, for Politis etc. to say Redcliffe is an "expansion" for RL, that RL is moving to a "new area"; & the "new customers" will wish to travel c. 40 kms to their "home" ground?

No - it's consolidation, just like the AFL expanded with Fremantle and Port Adelaide but they weren't expansion teams.
Tasmania would be AFL consolidation, Canberra would be AFL reclaiming lost ground and N.Z. would be expansion.

 

[Aussie in exile]

I mentioned it earlier, but with a long-term view of Sydney, basing a third Sydney team at the Aerotropolis makes a lot of sense.

Sydney's "Metropolis of Three Cities" plan splits Sydney into three 30-minutes cities. We've already got teams at the centre of the red and blue areas, now the Aerotropolis will be the centre of the yellow area. The Aerotropolis is largely unbuilt so plenty of time to influence AFL facilities to be included.

Both the yellow and red areas will both have more than 1.5m people each by 2036, so plenty of population for GWS and the new team.

But Canberra needs to be the third "NSW" team first

View attachment 1252907

In my opinion a team based in Canberra would kill of GWS due to the money they get for playing in Canberra from local government.

 

[The_Wookie]

Guys ill not keep both this thread and the Qld/NSW one open if you insist on simply posting the same stuff in both threads.

Also note: posting full articles is not allowed.

 

[Canberra Pear]

In my opinion a team based in Canberra would kill of GWS due to the money they get for playing in Canberra from local government.

The ACT Government deal isn't that lucrative, I think it'd be covered pretty easily.

My understanding is of the $2.3m per year, $1m is specifically for pathway development for Canberran players, so not towards GWS' bottom line.

So it equates to about $400k per AFLM game. That's nothing in comparison to what North will be losing after the Tasmania deal ends (I believe that's about $1m a game?).

GWS has some pretty rich backers. They were able to buy the naming rights to Showgrounds Stadium, which would like be of a similar value to the ACT deal. Newcastle is also midway through upgrading their cricket stadium to an AFL standard, so they might be keen to host a game or two if GWS does need the cash.

Canberra has been a bit of a lifeboat for the Giants, but by 2030 (or whenever team 20 would be), GWS should be more than capable of surviving without Canberra money.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Guys ill not keep both this thread and the Qld/NSW one open if you insist on simply posting the same stuff in both threads.

Also note: posting full articles is not allowed.

A link can have relevance to both threads, & is appropriate to be put in both "Overtaking NSW & Qld." & "Possibility of a 3rd Team in Sydney" Threads.

Both threads cover different topics ie the possibility of AF having strong, continuous, long term growth in NSW & Qld., which may cause it to overtake RL; & the possibility of a 3rd AFL team in Sydney (which does not equate to AF overtaking RL, as NSW has 9.5 NRL clubs).
Both Thread topics, thererfore, are quite different.


The 9.10.21 Daily Telegraph link I posted is very relevant to this thread, as I was focusing on the comments of an NRL official (N.Politis) who openly admitted NRL fans, in Sydney, were willing to support AF, & leave RL. His comments improve the chances of an, eventual, 3rd AFL club in Sydney.
It is very rare for a NRL official to openly admit NRL "defections" & fan declines to the AFL are occuring (Many Officials etc. have expressed concerns over declining GR RL nos.- a different topic to NRL fan "defections").


Re this Daily Telegraph 9.10.21 article I linked above, it was not the "full article", only a small portion.

 

[The_Wookie]

A link can have relevance to both threads, & is appropriate to be put in both "Overtaking NSW & Qld." & "Possibility of a 3rd Team in Sydney" Threads.

As far as Im concerned the subject matter in both threads is broadly the same, posted and argued by the same people. You can disagree - and no doubt you do.

Both threads cover different topics ie the possibility of AF having strong, continuous, long term growth in NSW & Qld., which may cause it to overtake RL; & the possibility of a 3rd AFL team in Sydney (which does not equate to AF overtaking RL, as NSW has 9.5 NRL clubs).
Both Thread topics, thererfore, are quite different.

Subject matter is broadly the same with minor occasional differences. Hence the posting of the same articles.

The 9.10.21 Daily Telegraph link I posted is very relevant to this thread, as I was focusing on the comments of an NRL official (N.Politis) who openly admitted NRL fans, in Sydney, were willing to support AF, & leave RL. His comments improve the chances of an, eventual, 3rd AFL club in Sydney.
It is very rare for a NRL official to openly admit NRL "defections" & fan declines to the AFL are occuring (Many Officials etc. have expressed concerns over declining GR RL nos.- a different topic to NRL fan "defections").

Re this Daily Telegraph 9.10.21 article I linked above, it was not the "full article", only a small portion.

And it was left in the thread untouched. the post immediately before that was an entire article.

And as noted earlier - moderation decisions can be discussed in PM. Not in open forums.

 

[RedV3x]

I agree on North relocating to North Sydney that would be ideal.

Dear me. Short memories indeed. North is the LAST club I'd relocate anywhere - they just don't get the concept.
North played games in Sydney, Canberra, Tasmania and were destined for Gold Coast and Ballarat as well.
North said, "we'll take your money, but we'll never relocate".
At least they were honest - they could have given the impression of moving and then just re-neged.
Crowds for North in Sydney were quite dissappointing as a result.

 

[The_Wookie]

Dear me. Short memories indeed. North is the LAST club I'd relocate anywhere - they just don't get the concept.
North played games in Sydney, Canberra, Tasmania and were destined for Gold Coast and Ballarat as well.
North said, "we'll take your money, but we'll never relocate".
At least they were honest - they could have given the impression of moving and then just re-neged.
Crowds for North in Sydney were quite dissappointing as a result.

North would flatly refuse i think. They believe their financial position is pretty sound these days.

 

[RedV3x]

North would flatly refuse i think. They believe their financial position is pretty sound these days.

Well much better than it was especially with all those relocation talks hurting their support.
It's NOT a case of too many Melbourne teams but a case of poor distribution.
it goes in waves with about half the clubs mentioned at some stage of life as candidates for merger or relocation..

 

[madmug]

Well much better than it was especially with all those relocation talks hurting their support.
It's NOT a case of too many Melbourne teams but a case of poor distribution.
it goes in waves with about half the clubs mentioned at some stage of life as candidates for merger or relocation..

Poor distribution? In what way do you think?

How would a rearrangement of the deck chairs make a difference?

 

[RedV3x]

Poor distribution? In what way do you think?

Melbourne is an AFL city of 5 million people and 9 AFL teams.
That is a population catchment area of 555,555 people per AFL team - more than enough.
That is higher than the Gold Coast, Canberra, Tasmania, N.T. and even two team Adelaide.
Perth's population is 2 million. that's why people are proposing a 3rd team for Perth,
but just as Perth's history say a new team will struggle so does Melbourne's history say
that there is major differences in AFL strength brought on by differences in onfield performances.

 

[madmug]

Melbourne is an AFL city of 5 million people and 9 AFL teams.
That is a population catchment area of 555,555 people per AFL team - more than enough.
That is higher than the Gold Coast, Canberra, Tasmania, N.T. and even two team Adelaide.
Perth's population is 2 million. that's why people are proposing a 3rd team for Perth,
but just as Perth's history say a new team will struggle so does Melbourne's history say
that there is major differences in AFL strength brought on by differences in onfield performances.

You said, 'not too many clubs, but poor distribution'. So where should those 9 clubs redistribute to?

Also the 5 million between 9 clubs is not evenly distributed.

ie according to statistica in 2019 Collingwood had 637k supporters, but North Melbourne only had 226k

Interestingly they recon the GC only has 35k supporters in a city of some 680k!

 

[RedV3x]

You said, 'not too many clubs, but poor distribution'.

Yes.

Also the 5 million between 9 clubs is not evenly distributed.
2019 Collingwood had 637k supporters, but North Melbourne only had 226k

That and "Melbourne is an AFL city of 5 million people and 9 AFL teams.
That is a population catchment area of 555,555 people per AFL team "

And "Melbourne's history says that there is major differences in AFL strength brought on by differences in onfield performances.

or should I've spelt it out like "not too many clubs, but poor distribution of supporters"

So where should those 9 clubs redistribute to?

Melbourne is an AFL city of 5 million people and 9 AFL teams.
Those teams are within Melbourne so it's not a case of where they are located but

 

[madmug]

or should I've spelt it out like "not too many clubs, but poor distribution of supporters

Fine, but it makes little sense as the average of supporters is irrelevant if some clubs have SFA supporters. They will struggle irrespective of the cities population.

eg NM have 226k supporters, thats 1/2 the average in Melbourne. Also GC have 35k out of 680k. Thats only 5%!!

 

[RedV3x]

but it makes little sense as the average of supporters is irrelevant if some clubs have SFA supporters.

FFS. That's the simple point i was attempting to make - the support is not uniform across Melbourne for the AFL clubs.
This stems from VFL days.

 

[madmug]

FFS. That's the simple point i was attempting to make - the support is not uniform across Melbourne for the AFL clubs.
This stems from VFL days.

We know the support is uneven. For you to say its ok to have 9 clubs in Melbourne because the average is some 555k for each club, makes no sense.

The 9 clubs stay not because of any average figure of support, They say because the AFL support them. Thats the simple point.

 

[RedV3x]

We know the support is uneven.

You wouldn't think so from your posts.

For you to say its ok to have 9 clubs in Melbourne because the average is some 555k for each club, makes no sense.

I didn't say it's OK. I said the OPPOSITE, in that the problem is the uneven distribution.

They stay because the AFL support them.

Another misconception. The AFL is the clubs. The clubs are "supported" by their own money.

The 9 clubs stay not because of any average figure of support.

The 9 clubs stay for a mixture of reasons.
1. There are a number of strong clubs.
2. The weakest have already left.
3. The weak clubs have done enough to survive - better marketing, better management, better onfield performance.
4. Even the "weak" ex-VFL clubs are relatively strong. (They are much stronger than any NRL club)
5. The Melbourne clubs are boosted by the high number of derbies which interstate clubs don't have.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Newcastle Number One Sports Ground has been enlarged, & modernised. It was too short for men's AF, although some games were played there.





This will allow AFL matches to be played there, hopefully several games pa, permanently, in the future (particularly when NMFC leave Tasmania, & for other Melb. clubs wanting to sell home games).
These AFL games would provide a major boost for AF in the general Newcastle/Hunter (inc. to Port Macquarie) regions, pop. c.640k+, where GR AF is currently growing (but still, cf RL & soccer, is very weak).

There are, surprisingly, 17 adult women's AF teams in the region, & female AF jnr teams are having good growth since 2017. Male GR AF growth has been slow, for decades.

By 2050-2060, the region is expected to have 1m+ pop.

https://rdahunter.org.au/hunter-region/