Canberra would definetly be my pick. It will be one of those small cities that will have an increased growth rate due to current housing issues in the current state capitals (although housing isn't cheap in the ACT either). Player like Soldo, Steele and Green are all from the ACT as well proving it has potential to produce more players.
I agree with you. The appetite is there as shown by GWS games. It also feels like it makes sense to have a team for our national game in the nations capital.
This is by far the best video I've seen on the subject. Just a point about economics, I think median income is a better indicator of viability. GSP is good for a rough guide at an economy, but it's inflated by the top end. Median income shows how much money the average supporter will actually have to spend of memberships and merchandise. And by median income, fans in Canberra have 40% more than in Perth.
Thank you for saying the part about GWS needing to play at home. They play 8 games in their “heartland” a year. Thats not enough. They disappeared from home from March 16 to May 18 this year. Who wants to follow a team that isn’t there for 2 months. Yes they played the Swans at the SCG in that block but that’s it. Teams like GWS and the Suns (who also just disappear for extended periods) need to be playing as close to every second week as possible at home to build up support. I also understand that they have to leave for 6 weeks, but even that seems excessive. I’m assuming the Royal Show needs a ‘bump in’ and ‘bump out’ but if you are clever you could at least try to get the last possible day before they have to leave, make sure you play the Swans and get back in as soon as possible, along with the Blacktown option mentioned.
100% agree, the AFL is mismanaged in a range of ways and you have highlighted another important one. So much effort and resouces put into new franchises only to be undermined by short sighted, inept pandering to the biggest clubs like Collingwood (14 at the MCG) and Richmond (13 at the MCG). Besides being grossly unfair, It is gaining short term revenue at the cost of long term growth = the OPPOSITE of good management fundamentals.
Have a Riverina team based in Canberra and play a couple of home games in Albury/Wodonga and Wagga. That region will have 1 million people in a decade. With a lot of existing AFL fans that would love their own team. A lot of seriously good players have come from that region.
Robertson Oval or Lavington would be great options to play games and widen their supporter base just depends on GWS because junior academies are set up all across the Riverina.
@@KerrySkullOKeeffe-qd8qo yeah the academies would need to alter, and Riverina could have the whole Murray river region including the Victorian side of the border
Establishing Canberra as the 20th AFL team while reallocating Greater Western Sydney Giants' games from Canberra back to Western Sydney offers multiple strategic advantages for the AFL. This move could intensify the AFL's presence and growth in Western Sydney, an area with a high potential audience but currently underrepresented in terms of local game offerings. The Giants have already shown significant influence in the region; however, the current arrangement that includes playing several games in Canberra may dilute the potential impact and fan base consolidation in Western Sydney. Greater Western Sydney's coach, Adam Kingsley, has expressed the need for a stronger local league presence to boost grassroots participation and overall interest in the AFL within Western Sydney. This area represents a largely untapped market with a population of 2.5 million people, providing a unique opportunity for substantial growth in viewership and fan engagement
GWS has been a monumental failure in Western Sydney. Nobody cares for the AFL there. Should just move them to Canberra where the majority of their small supporter base is.
Canberra population while it includes Queanbeyan there probably undersells the actual footprint. There's another couple hundred thousand people in the surrounding couple hours of drive distance, and heading west it's stronger footy country
Canberra makes the most sense. Population is the largest, it’s surrounded by some fairly strong afl towns. Travelling won’t be an issue. If it wants to finally conquer NSW it needs to conquer the ACT.
@@scottsmith6235 the bonus with having an pure Canberra team (rather than gws doing random games during the Easter show) that they have surrounding NSW towns which are afl focused and they would be happy to make a weekend out of it in Canberra once every few months. Or Canberra team can do the random game in albury/wodonga once in a while
Very interesting and succinct. Canberra makes a lot of sense. Head office dropped the ball IMO in the 80s regarding Canberra which was at the time 50/50 split between rugby league and AFL . population growth, already reasonable crowds and already suitable stadium make it very doable. Head office is very quiet regarding this option, I hope they pursue it
Manuka oval regularly sells out when the Canberra Giants are in town. Manuka just needs a permanant Eastern stand and the stadium is good to go as a 20k seater. ACT and the region would get behind it
What matters most regardless is money and whether we like or not that's a fact. With Perth hitting 3 million within ten years the whole divide of Eagles and Dockers supporters is a non issue. They already have a stadium that probably will be upgraded to 80,000 capacity and i believe an agreement will be reached for the 3rd WA team.
@@JeffBurn-b1i as per say with Adelaide team, I feel having a 3rd Perth team might dilute off the western derby for sure. Its wouldn’t be as severe as the 3rd Adelaide team or a league variants in Sydney and Mel, but still have that effect.
The thing abour Canberra is that it isn't just wealthy. It is stable. WA booms and busts with resource cycles. The ACT is pretty insulated from things like that. It also has very, very high disposable income compared to most place so Canberrans have unusually high recreational budgets. I know a bunch who hold GWS memberships in addition to their main team even though they really care about them.
Tasmania FC recently released who bought their foundation jumpers. $90-$100 for what will be most people's second or third team. Per capita, Canberrans bought more than folks in Victoria, SA or WA. The market of AFL fans in Canberra is incredibly underutilised.
@@canberrapear7219 yep, I know people who support their old family team, hold GWS membership and something like Gold Coast as well. Not a shock at all that they'd back Tassie!
Canberra should be considered not simply on the basis of its population along with Qbyn but also on the fact that is a geographic hub that services a broader rural community much of which is heartland Rugby League. This an untapped market both in terms of eyeballs but also in terms of future players the AFL needs to consider using a combination of GWS and a Canberra based team in almost a pincer movement to raise the profile of the game in rural and remote NSW. When I moved to Canberra the town was evenly divided between Australian Rules and Rugby League, however with the entrance of the Raiders in 1982 it has become a town that heavily supports one team, the Raiders, and these fans have a second team either a Sydney NRL Team, the Brumbies or an AFL team. Putting a team permanently in Canberra will pretty quickly bring back support and may actually give the AFL the edge. Remember this is about much more than Canberra it is about using Canberra's position as a regional hub to raise the profile of AFL in regional NSW.
Canberra is the obvious choice. I’m biased as I live there but what outsiders may not realise is that a lot of people from Sydney, Melbourne, etc relocate to Canberra for work. A lot of the population comes from AFL heartland and earns a good income. I think attendances would be pretty solid, especially if the team wasn’t garbage like GC have been for most of their existence.
How is Canberra the obvious choice ? GWS are a reasonably successful team but haven't built up a strong following or big supporter base for over 10 years. How long then will it take Canberra to attract crowds, 20 years ? Who's going to pick up the shortfall for that whole period ? It is and has been a development league, so the step to the AFL is way too far. The other killer is that NSW is a rugby state, hence why GWS struggle.
There is also a notion floating around of an AFL expansion team in Newcastle, which is insane to say the least, Newie is NRL territory through and through. Canberra seems a great prospect for an expansion franchise and to be honest not seeing a whole lot more room for other teams without eating into existing support bases, or pie in the sky ideas like PNG or NZ.
And yet Newcastle has the oldest team trophy in Australian sport - the Black Diamond AFL. It also drew crowds of about 10,000 to AFL trial games held at Newcastle No 1 Sports Ground about 20 years ago. And with a rapidly growing population of about 1 million in the Hunter/Central Coast to tap into, it has by far the greatest potential compared to the other options. The Swans Isaac Heaney is a Newcastle product. Perhaps a relocation would work? Struggling North Melbourne? The North Kangaroos?
I want Darwin, I know there is doubts about Darwin and NT is growing place. But you make a great point about the amount of team above the Barassi line.
I live in Canberra and can tell you it would be awesome if we had an AFL team. Manuka oval is a better location than Bruce Stadium and has venues to eat and drink before and after the game. It just needs an upgrade to a 30,000 seater. I wouldn’t mind if the Kangas or Giants moved to Canberra permanently either.
As a Norwood and Crows supporter it’s a nice dream but I can’t see it happen, I think Canberra is a no brainer it has support for AFL and as explained is within close proximity to other towns out side of the ACT that have big interest in Aussie Rules
@@JakeMartin94 I feel having a third Adelaide team will kill off the showdown derby…. Having crows and port as is epic as is. The a league made that mistake with having a third syd and melb teams, now the wsw and syd fc, likewise for melb victory and city derbies has been diluted pretty badly. Prior to the third teams, you couldn’t get tickets easily for those derbies but now you can.
Is there a possibility for a team to come in that doesn't have a specific location to represent? This has happened with the Dolphins in the NRL. There was a lot of hoopla when the Dolphins were brought in as to where they represented. Is it Brisbane? Moreton Bay? Redcliffe? perhaps the Sunshine Coast. The best option was to not decide at all and in doing so allow the team to represent a greater area and attract more fans. Perhaps this concept for a team could be taken a step further and play in various places and serve as a team across a region, state or further. Could a state team be brought in, namely for QLD or NSW? On the east coast crowd numbers are far lower and tv viewership is far more important, why not embrace the possibilities that this allows and have a team that plays out of different smaller stadiums. GWS has played some great matches out of Canberra recently, similar stadiums with smaller capacity would be advantageous for future teams. Just as West Coast don't represent a city/suburb/town but the entire coast, could there be an East Coast team? The East Coast Pirates playing out of Wollongong, Central Coast, Sunshine Coast, Newcastle, Cairns and Townsville. Of course Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast etc would be represented by an 'east coast' team and would collectively represent over 10 million people. Maybe that is too many places to play amongst, perhaps 3 or four cities? A novel concept certainly but why not at least consider something like this as individually these cities won't be getting a team in coming decades but collectively have more people than NT, WA, SA and Tasmania combined. With that many people how could some type of regional team not be considered. Certainly it would be more valuable for the competition than a third SA or WA team. Is the AFL community being a bit dull by looking at individual cities in the country and considering which city could have a team? I'm sure there are ideas that haven't been presented or variations on current ideas that could solve the issue that the AFL has going forward of having so many people on the east coast but not quite an obvious enough or big enough city that makes itself a clear option for the next team. This idea isn't completely novel as there exists the New England Patriots, Golden state Warriors, Western Bulldogs and West Coast Eagles, amongst many others that don't have a specific city to represent. You could argue that even the suburban teams in Melbourne are divorced from their locations as all teams but Melbourne and Richmond don't play out of the location they represent. I'm sure many non Victorian fans of Melbourne teams wouldn't know where their team is on a map! Or am I talking nonsense?
For Joondalup team all matches at Optus Stadium. No one will put money in to develop Joondalup for footy. The Stadium deals will ensure that all matches must be there. Only 30km away. Perth is one of the longest cities in the world so Perth people are used to traveling. Interestingly, a lot of Dockers fans are also based in suburbs in the area too. But would hurt the Eagles more. If they could convert all the English to AFL then you would actually grow the game. Train is going to Yanchep soon which is further up.
having lived in FNQ for 20 years, I can confirm no one here froths afl, through my entire schooling and growing up i never heard a whisper about afl, NRL will probably always be king of the north.
I think Canberra should be first option but tbh as someone who lives in perth a Geelong- like team operating in the south-west is a much better option than a third perth team. A third team in one city would only weaken the freo-wce rivalry and struggle to gain followers bc perth residents would probably stick to their current team. A team based in Bunbury, a two hour drive from perth and a growing population , with their own stadium, would be far away enough to not weaken the derby and local enough that residents would convert to a new team
Perth is going to hit 3 million before 2034. The question in Perth is whether they can utilise the South West cities like Bunbury and Busselton for games, considering they're 100 to 140 minutes away from Optus Stadium by car. But for any team based in Mandurah is 60 to 100 minutes away.
Would also help alleviate the travel pressure on the Eagles and dockers, introducing more local games. Giving both clubs a more even chance in the competition.
@@aTheBear I think there will be a delay for any 20th team anyway which will Perth more chance. It would be sensational for footy fans to have the excitement of two matches every second weekend.
Canberra pulls crowds just as big as sydney for gws. And manuka can just be built for more capacity. The crowd is just as good in camberra as it is in sydney, even tho its a rugby territory. But also surrounding small towns like myself in one of them will take the day trip to camberra to watch the games.
What about Cairns as an option? Suns have played some games there, with some success (for the AFL). This would A. Grow the game, encompass the surrounding area and could incorporate Darwin as Part of a "Northern" team. Named the "Crocodiles" or the "Buffaloes" or "Sharks"... Just a thought.
Adelaide doesn't have the supporter base for three clubs. Do people still barrack for Norwood in the SANFL? Would Norwood have to change their colours as they are too close to Melbourne's design. I think SANFL has more support than WAFL.
Norwood would take off in SA and draw far bigger crowds than NT or Canberra could muster. The Port-Norwood rivalry would usurp the Port-Crows showdown. Definitely SA3 and WA3 would be viable.
Norwood get big numbers for a State League Club at the Adelaide Oval during finals. Promote them to the AFL and I can see them consistently getting 35,000+ to games.
@@jamescashman1110 Wouldn't it hurt Adelaide too much? Perth needs a third club more. The main issue is that Joondalup while a growing hub its only 35 years old. So not convinced that locals have any particular loyalty to Joondalup unlike some surburban centres. West Perth based at Joondalup would get some advantage from the WAFL link. But in reality the old WAFL fans are 35 years older than the fans that supported them during WAFL days.
@@jamescashman1110 finals is different to home and away matches year in and year out, especially if theyre struggling. a lot of norwood fans surely would be died in the wool adelaide fans now or barrack for victorian teams. would they really barrack for norwood still, when adelaide crows and port power joined over 25 years ago.
@@jamescashman1110 you can't have norwood and melbourne. Melb have a navy jumper, red socks and used to be called the redlegs informally. Norwood would have to be a different colour and go under a different name like Reds. Imagine McGuire going ballistic if people referred Norwood as the Woods.
i would suggest that Tasmania gets the two teams. Both ACT and NT would not have both the people and the structures there. Keep the AFL in all the six states. WA, SA, Victoria, NSW and Queensland would be too crowded.
Ballarat would be a great spot simply because you get the Melbourne and Geelong away fans to boost attendances and it is an AFL stronghold. And Ballarat and the west of Melbourne is the fasting growing region in the nation. In 50 years time Melbourne and Ballarat will be one big conurbation.
If anything, put the 20th team in Canberra. Also put a stop in adding new teams in to the AFL for the next 20 years from the point of set team first AFL game, but with the proviso of having of examining of having a ten year fine look in the viability of the 9 Melbourne teams. In that there is a desire in having a Darwin based team. It should be done within the context of either moving a Melbourne team, like a North Melbourne, or Western Bulldogs, or relegation a Melbourne team down to the VFL and making room for an establishment of a new non-Victorian team. Personally the better option for now is to look at the Melbourne team that is the worst performance on the bases of home game attendance, dependence on AFL handouts, win loss ratio, and average memberships, and look at the stats over the space of ten years. What ever team, or teams that are repeatedly rank the worse. Only then make a deal to move that team
The ego's at the AFL could never admit their blunders. It worked best at 16 teams in my opinion. Fitzroy should have moved not merged. North too and I'm a North fan.
A Canberra Team is ideal except it seems that GWS Giants have already claimed a stake in the nation's capital city. How about Townsville in North Queensland but not has high as Cairns?
In my ideal scenario, I would relocate North Melbourne (sorry Roos fans, but an under-20k crowd average for a footy team in VIC just isn't good enough) to North Queensland, of which it's unofficial proposed-state flag shares the same colours of the Kangaroos team (blue and white) and could still be called North (officially the North Queensland Kangaroos). This would give the Roos more financial backing from the league and a new frontier to take hold of, while still keeping their history in the same way that South Melbourne did when it moved and became the Sydney Swans. The overall number of teams in Melbourne would reduce to 8. Then, with the introduction of the Tasmanian team as the 19th team in the competition, I would introduce a Canberra team as the 20th. As a result, the majority of teams in the AFL would be outside of VIC for the first time in the history of the league.
I am not disagreeing with you or having a go, but how would you overcome the financial issues of a 3rd Qld team? Until you spend time there it is difficult to understand how much Qld loves Rugby League and is very one eyed in this passion. The Broncos are the only sporting club in Australia that posts a profit each year and they have a supporter base that challenges and often exceeds Collingwood in numbers. With the introduction of the Dolphins who are an established club ala Port Adelaide who bring a solid supporter base and provide options to Brisbane fans who do not like the Broncos plus of course the benefits of a local rivalry. Plus there is huge support for some of the old Sydney Clubs in Qld, I remember seeing a home game for the Gold Coast against the Dragons and despite the Dragons being the visiting team from NSW the game sold out and the crowd was 2/3 Dragon's supporters. In that environment the commercial pressures for a new Qld team would be difficult and unfortunately the North Melbourne brand is pretty devalued at the moment. What do you think would be the strategies to ensure that the team is not like the Swans who spent 20 years as a basket case before they improved to be a big AFL Club? Noting that the Swans had the advantage of the biggest and richest city in Australia without any other AFL competition and it still took almost two decades. Do you think the AFL just needs to suck it up and fund them until they are successful or do you think there is another way? Interested in your perspective.
Joondalup wouldn’t work. South west WA is (I think) the most compelling. I agree Bunbury doesn’t have a large enough population, but, it would be a south west team with an identity that encompasses Dunsborough, yallingup, Margaret River, Busselton etc. It’s already a brilliant tourist destination for surfing and wine. Boutique 25,000 seat stadium at Bunbury and you’re sorted. Maybe called the South West Sharks.
If the sparsely populated region south of Perth is getting a club, then Ballarat and Bendigo should each be getting their own clubs as well. Oh, and Albury-Wodonga also gets to have its own club that represents the Riverina. See where this is going?
@@eddielong8663 That’s not the point at all. This is the point: VIC - There’s no way another team will be considered in Victoria AFL - should they want a 20th team WA - footy mad state SW WA - pop 375,000 Are people/tourists already drawn to the area? Yes! World class surf and world class wine. Proximity to Perth - 2 hours Would players like to live there? I think yes It’s not about giving every small town a team. It’s about the best location for a team
I feel having a 3rd team in Perth or Adelaide will kill off the showdown and Perth derby. It’s a bit like a league soccer where the 3rd team killed the Sydney and Melbourne derby.
GWS should be playing a couple of home and away matches there each year. Perhaps against North and Saints. That would be 4 matches in Canberra straight away. Giants would still be playing 9+1 matches in Western Sydney that is enough. Sydney could also do that with a home or away match. Suddenly that's six matches in Canberra per year. I don't know if North want to get involved too... and so on. That helps make GWS more sustainable and stops AFL propping up as much. Western Sydney Canberra makes more sense as a name too.
@@bgrossman Not enough. Canberra need to get 6 matches at least. Its easily done by clubs like North and Melbourne playing GWS home and away in Canberra. That's 4 straight up. Then Sydney could play North home and away too. GWS would have 4 matches in Canberra, North 4 matches, Sydney 2... AFL set up a commitment for those clubs regularly then you'll see fans supporting Giants, North , Sydney...
I wonder could they split a NT/NQL team? Prob Canberra though makes sense Theres a LOT of money in Darwin, they could afford it and the Alice would 100% get on board with an NT team. Im a born and bread territorian, people travle to the Alice for sports all the time.
West Perth used to be the Cardinals (Cardies) but changed their name to Falcons. Pity. West Perth is the iconic name if you want WAFL supporters support... but how many thousand fans would that be? There is already a team called Perth Demons, so it won't be called Perth. The fans and club have refused over 30 years to rename it Joondalup. So naming the team is critical. You have to weigh up how much advantage they would get from being linked to West Perth. Versus any support from linking to Joondalup, which is only about 35 years old area anyway. While there is a big hub there now, I'm not sure if there is any real regional pride with it. The northern suburbs go on and on. Its just that a place called Joondalup was named and then appeared about 35 years ago.
Logically, Canberra makes the most sense. You can't ignore a city of half a million people, the capital, traditionally a strong supporter of AFL and easy to access from Melbourne and Sydney. However, it is a crowded market which means the AFL will need to compete hard probably to the extent that it pushes one of the other professional sports teams out of the market. They also need an indoor stadium for night games if they are going to attract interstate crowds or make it a 'thing' to endure the cold nights when you're in Canberra. GWS, by the way, should relocate to Western Sydney. I mean really West or Southwest. The stadium needs to be right in the community, e.g Parramatta, Bankstown.
NT is s good idea...most revenue comes from TV rites, not attendance. The air conditioned stadium in Darwin will be built. Socially it will be a great boost for the Territory and will be far more interesting for the AFL following public than any other option. Like many others, I think that there are too many teams in Melbourne and clubs such as North Melbourne and St Kilda that have had little success and small membership, should be relocated. NT Kangaroos? North Queensland Saints? That way we could remain an 18 team competition..... for a while. Canberra is just too boring a proposition to consider.
You wouldn't be saying that about the Saints and Roos if you just happened to be a lifeling member with either those two clubs. With that said, the Roos should've relocated to the ACT ages ago. Back in the 90's when the competition was transitioning from the old system to the well-run business it is now. It's almost as if the success the Roos had in the late 90's ended up being detrimental in a weird sort of way. It gave the club a false sense of security while other struggling Melbourne-based clubs were making hard decisions on their futures. Once North's on-field success slowly faded away, there really wasn't much else for them sadly, and all they could do was go back to the old "shinboner spirit" rubbish.
@@eddielong8663 My Grandad played for The Saints but they have really struggled both on and off the field from day 1. The Swans still have a very large following from the old South supporters...so a relocation can still work. North missed out on an enormous opportunity to be the Gold Coast Kangaroos when the league offered them a very lucrative $100 million deal. It would have worked as the old Kanga supporters would still have been able to see their side every 2-3 weeks in Melbourne. The AFL is still too Melbourne centric and this needs to change...and I'm Victorian.
@@BG-id2cv I have been a member of the Kangaroos since 1986 and live right next door (King Street). The NT Kangaroos makes more sense than any of the other options I have heard in the last 20 years. TV rights is the big cash cow and a Darwin team would be well supported by AFL mad NT. AFL is grossly mismanaged in many ways. STAND! = WTF is that?
Regarding your opening table, it's unreasonable to divide Adelaide's and Perth's populations by a third while ignoring the competition a Canberra team would face from the Raiders.
it's not the same though, The Raiders are a NRL team they're not going to steal supporters from a different sport that's like saying that the Melbourne Stars are competing with AFL teams for support
I reckon Dillon said a nothing comment really meant to dampen the talk. Fact is that it won't be even considered for a number of years. WAFC has been doing their sums and there has been govt analysis too, due to the role govt has in funding footy. WAFC funds junior footy development and competitions in WA. Eagles and Dockers are owned by WAFC and each pay dividends on the profit each year. Eagles are the major contributors. 3 clubs doesn't necessarily mean more profits for WAFC long term. Stadium deal and corporate support is critical for profitability. A decrease in corporates and attendances could really hurt the Stadium deal. You can't get the crowds dropping or you will see less revenue for the clubs and therefore less dividends to the WAFC which they don't want. So not that straight forward. Govts also help fund the WAFC as part of them leaving Subiaco Oval and own the Stadium, but aren't the operators. Three clubs mind you also make the revenue stream more predictable, as having Eagles and Dockers near the bottom is disastrous for WAFC finances. Then the AFL are under pressure to fund WA footy more, like they do to the rest of Australia. So they may be interested in a third team from Perth, if it meant they didn't have pay for junior development. AFL don't like spending.
My heart wants a Darwin team. After all, the Lions have had quite a few Territorians become club greats. However, I do see the rational argument. Canberra/Riverina do seem like an obvious choice. Good video. Please take the following comment as the utter ignorance that it represents: gees Perth feels like not part of Australia. 😢 Terrible thing to say. I need to get over there sometime. It’s one of the best things about the Coasters and Freo. They almost are all I’m conscious of about WA.
Let Gold Coast and Brisbane play some home and away matches in NT. That would give them up to 6 matches a year, which is frankly more than enough. Then see what crowds they average. See how many people pay for the tickets and the revenue generated. In addition if GC playing there a few times a year they would be selling memberships. How many? NT has a moveable population, so people stay for short periods. I doubt they'd swap AFL clubs to support Darwin.
Should we expand to 20 teams or reduce to 18. The AFL have tried to get North Melbourne to relocate for many years now, whether to Tasmania of the Gold Coast. The Melbourne market is too saturated. Sydney is by far the largest growth market and a 3rd team in Sydney will be the focus, in 25 years from now. So teams like North Melbourne, The Western Bulldogs and St Kilda have that long to prove their value to the competition. If they can't then they will face the choice of merger, relocation or death.
Agree. They should have bean relocated a long time ago. Instead of expansion teams, they should have moved North Melbourne to Canberra , Bulldogs to western Sydney (they already rebranded as “Western”, and the name Bulldogs shouldn’t be a problem given that the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs are from another area of Sydney and play a different sport). and St. Kilde to Gold Coast. And yes, in the long run, a third NSW team, preferably Sydney of course, by far biggest potential market, seems inevitable. But at the moment, they should just support GWS and wait till they are fully embraced. Together with Gold Coast, they still have the by far smallest crowds and lowest number of members. Wouldn’t make sense to create/admit a new team when an existing team hasn’t even build a decent following.
I reckon they want a roof in Tassie not just for the wind, but because they want to maximise attendance to guarantee the club's success. It's a smaller market that doesn't grow the game to new fans, so they need it to succeed. Without a roof, crowds WILL drop on cold and windy days.
How soft are we? I have been to packed stadiums to watch sport in many places - the weather has very little effect if you have a product people want to pay for. Access is a far, far, far, far bigger issue.... The game day experience getting in and out, the price, ease of ticketing etc. Weather? pffft
@@warpeace8891 Of course stadiums CAN get packed even if the weather's shit, if the match up is highly anticipated it can happen (or if you're in a location where that many excess people want to go), but again they want to maximise the crowd of EVERY game, and obviously every single game isn't going to be 10/10 anticipated (nor is Tasmania's population so large that every game will draw 22k regardless of weather). If you don't think weather affects attendance everywhere I don't know what to tell you, it goes without saying, some people don't like sitting in cold, pouring rain for hours regardless of the entertainment.
@@telltellyn Aussie rules is a different experience to what it used to be. The number of people who would make a decision based on "its cold" maybe much more now than it used to be = soft. That is in line with many things about life in Australia. Life is different, the game is different. I used to go multiple times each week and Now I might go to 1 - 3 games a season. It has nothing to do with weather - Mostly the rule changes and umpiring is so nonsensical its unbearable. Sitting there at half time having to sit through rock concert level volume ads and gambling critques is like poison to the senses. The AFL has lost the plot if they think anyone wants that. What do I know - record attendances and revenue are their metrics despite the product being a shadow of its former self. I believe it says more about the lemmings who pay for it than the corporate blood suckers that control it. Weather is so far down the list its just not important based on the numbers. To those whom it is important to.... Winter sports might not be for you. P.S. You are wrong about the AFL wanting to maximise the attendance. They want to sell tickets regardless of whether people turn up or not. Sitting in the stand at the MCG and seeing the AFL members area 1/4 full at a sell out game is proof they don't care about that. It is a corporation and under penalty of law they are obliged to maximise revenue. The rest is incidental.
South West isn't an option. The stats often include from Mandurah to Albany, which is a large area, but spread out. Combine a Mandurah Peel team with Bunbury? South West Thunder (after Peel Thunder). But a Mandurah team won't convince South West people as Mandurah is now outer metro area. You can't travel by public transport from Mandurah to Bunbury. Mandurah is a sleepy town that doesn't seem to attend footy in numbers . WAFC won't want to develop stadiums in Bunbury and Mandurah. Mandurah would hurt Freo more. Then would also have to play some matches at Optus too, which is 90km from Mandurah an 200km from Bunbury. Then Busselton Dunsborough will end up being bigger into the future, but that's further from Perth. I can't see it.
If West Perth would be the WAFL affiliate, you could take leaf out of history and call the new side the Perth Metropolitan Football Club. West Perth was the successor to the Metropolitan Football Club in the early years of the WAFL, would be a way to finally get the “Perth” name to appear in the fixture
I think its disgusting the conditions imposed on Tasmania to get their team approved when the Geelong stadium was allowed to exist for so long without electricity or running water
Joondalup has more English people than anywhere in Aust. Top 5 suburbs. Many English and S Africans. They love soccer. But they love their sport and beach, so not really a concern. West Perth is at Joondalup. A club with a strong and passionate supporter base traditionally. It would be tempting to use West Perth name. Red with blue sash. Unfortunately, WAFL has struggled for 30 years. So by the time West Perth come in, their traditional fans would all be over 65 and probably not switch. Their kids are often lost to WAFL. All matches at Optus Stadium. No one will put money in to develop Joondalup for footy. The Stadium deals will ensure that all matches must be there. Only 30km away.
@@canberrapear7219 Getting people to agree on anything in Canberra is a waste of effort. If we pretend Canberra doesn't exist we are all the better for it.
We don’t need more teams, we need less…… too many teams for a National Competition that are based in Melbourne. Ideally some of the Melbourne teams need to merge. Leaving 2 teams in Perth, 2 teams in Adelaide, 2 in Queensland, 2 in NSW , 1 in Tasmania, 7 in Victoria. 16 Teams that is more than enough and television and venue arrangements would be much more realistic.
In all these conversations about expansion there is always a list of candidates which don't quite make the mark. There is too many teams in the comp as it is and talent is being diluted, spilt the league and create a relegation system so these near candidates get a chance to get up and grow.
NT should have it just send the Saints to Canberra so the congestion in Melbourne is released amongst the teams or give Canberra the team but send north Melbourne to Darwin. NT has the highest participation for footy although the registration is the lowest but that fix itself once/ if a team is announced yes it’s romantic that’s why we all want it he’ll if the afl wants to they can get an academy in png as they love our game to 2nd behind league and as for the aboriginals and just in general people living in the NT they may not want to move down to the cold depths in Melbourne also u might see the likes of the Rioli’s go up north and others alike for culture reasons
Or Merge saints and north and send them to the NT 18 teams leaves possible more teams in the future 3rd wa? And either another east coast team or international one
Auckland not as left field as Newcastle being almost 2 million is when it comes to a population alternative to Rugby which is how the AFL works to compete with the Opening Round concept along with broadcasting rights with growth of the sport across the ditch 🇳🇿 otherwise the rest won’t stack up Canberra the next likeliest smaller alternative!! 🥝
The question, will New Zealanders like Aussie Rules? NSW and QLF are still new territory where AFL/Aussie rules isn’t well known let alone popular, but they are still Australian states. A new country adds a whole other dimension and many new issues.
@@LomuHabana it’s popular especially in Auckland if you haven’t seen the amount switching over from Rugby to AFL then you haven’t a clue about the revenue it has in the 🇳🇿 market! 🙄 it’s on the same continent and they have been playing the code there since the 1800s! Do some more research than get back to me or watch the actual video
@@jamesmunn867 why so offended because of legitimate? That sport has been played for ages doesn’t mean it is gonna be a mainstream sport anytime soon. That the number of players switching to AR is going up doesn’t (necessarily) mean it is gonna be more than just a niche sport.
@@LomuHabana you’re the one that appears offended don’t throw stones at glass houses your opinion just appears insular and boring go out and do some more research champ!!
@@jamesmunn867 I am not offended, I posed a legitimate question, didn’t even give my opinion. You were going off as if it was crystal clear that AFL and NZ will be a great success.
I think Canberra is a very good option. It would be a waste not to miss Canberra as a potential 20th team as you have Brumbies and Raiders in other sporting codes. Wake up AFL don't lose it! Look at Brisbane, Sydney and GWS they have made their names by playing in finals of recent times. Canberra doesn't necessarily a stand alone but there are Riverina and Queenbeayan areas to cover!
I’d like Darwin and Canberra to someday have a team so that every state and territory is in the league and the only state worthy for a third team is WA and after that just have low supported Victoria teams relocate
A team In Canberra would be good but the is so much competition with union and league it would struggle a lot to get crowds gws is a event because only 3 game but 14 wouldn’t get good crowds do note im from Canberra an I wouldn’t switch teams as would most people I know so that could be another competition
How can a Canberra team be taken serious ? Tried checking the Canberra league and all i could find was a few sides who were in and out of different leagues and one had changed their colours. Some clubs went back to Queensland and the NEAFL has disbanded. It really is a mixture of confusion and conflicting stories.
@@canberrapear7219 How many of these expat Victorians already follow a team already ? What happens to GWS, given that they get more to their games in Canberra than they do in Sydney ? Sorry, but the gulf between the AFL and Canberra league is far too great to be taken seriously. There are just too many unknown answers for Canberra to be considered. I'm trying to find a strong argument for a Canberra club to win a licence over Norwood, but there isn't any area that Canberra can claim a win.
@@gregrobins5615 Most AFL fans already follow a team in both Canberra and Adelaide. Canberra will at least unite most Canberran AFL fans, many of whom will go watch it as their second team, whereas not many Port or Crows fans will be willing to jump ship to Norwood. Adelaide Oval will be two-thirds empty. The local league really doesn't matter. We're not putting out our local league every week. What matters is off-field support, which we have. But sidenote, AFL Canberra just beat AFL Sydney, and they have two AFL teams. The reason we get higher crowds than Sydney is we have a tonne of AFL fans who don't get to regularly watch games. These aren't GWS fans; they're AFL fans. The Giants should focus on Sydney where they're actual fans are. There isn't a world in which Norwood makes more sense than Canberra. We have the largest unrepresented AFL fanbase in Australia, the wealthiest population in Australia, and a stadium getting upgraded.
Surprising that a team based in the Hunter/Central Coast is not considered a realistic option with a population of approximately 1 million and growing.
If AFL cares about profit incentive they will choose North Sydney. If AFL chooses by population potential, they will choose North Sydney. If the AFL cares about combating the popularity of rugby in New South Wales, they will choose North Sydney. If the AFL chooses sentimentality, they will choose Northern Territory. They will not choose sentimentality, they are a corporation.
I like all these options but this isn't really the big issue. The big issue is the dead weight teams in Melbourne that really need to go back to the VFL level or merge. Clubs like north are really starting to be an issue and when they used to be necessary to make up the numbers, once the league expands enough those clubs go from propping up the numbers to being a ball and chain. Yeah I know what North, bulldogs, saints etc fans think of this but I'm actually not attacking them, I still miss Fitzroy, I'm just looking at (what I see as) the reality. 20 teams is far too many, 18 already sucks, 16 is probably about right. more teams means worse teams with longer waits between drinks, 18 seems to have crossed that tipping point IMO. leagues with more teams like the NFL, NBA etc in the US have captive markets for support, the afl in Melbourne doesn't.
How is North an issue? Yeah they've been through a bad patch (not all their fault) but so do a lot of teams. Look at Demons a few years ago, or Eagles recently. North have no debt and have been profitable for a decade+ straight. Saints on the other hand receive more funding from the AFL and are in debt. Also North have won more premierships than Saints and Bulldogs combined
@@bgrossman The issue is that the league has already expanded too far, and if there are clubs that should go then that's the smaller clubs in Melbourne like north, bulldogs and saints. The more you water it down the worse the football is, the longer time there is between drinks for fans, many more lower table games that no one will watch etc etc etc. If the AFL was actually a new league and not just a VFL rebrand then these teams would never have been admitted. Its not a problem with north at all, its a problem with the league structure which has been flawed since it crossed state lines. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you just can't expand without consequences for the product. I mean maybe its nostalgia but I think the league gets worse every time it gets bigger, maybe not football wise, but certainly the stories and rivalries etc just get further apart, and weaker, 18 teams has already crossed a tipping point IMO. If you disagree that's fine, but no one can argue against the fact that there is a tipping point somewhere.
Seeing footy in Perth is the most expensive in Australia. So a third team and with less people on waiting lists to see games, could mean less revenue for the clubs and WAFC very quickly. But WAFC despite rhetoric is doing their sums along with govt, so ask them in 2-3 years. Its a waste of time now.
Disagree with your comments. The Giants need to be the team to service NSW and Canberra. Pull up their socks. Eddie McGuire is spot on there. Play home and away matches there and commit to the area over an extended period. Give Canberra 6-8 matches per year with Giants Sydney and North... playing matches there. That way GWS pull their weight. Get rid of the G too, and add Canberra to the name.
that's silly, western sydney is a big enough market that it shouldn't need to poach supporters from a city 250 kms away. 'Canberra Western Sydney Giants' sounds ridiculous.
@@davidpickford. Western Sydney Canberra I said... not Canberra Western Sydney. they stupidly chose Greater as part of their name. So instead they are known as GWS. What does that mean for Sydney people.
I can't believe I've just read someone suggesting "Western Sydney and Canberra Giants" as a serious and legitimate thought. You need to be banned from using the internet for the foreseeable future.
I agree with pretty much everything in this video. Canberra will be my best bet… but if it’s proven to be too deep into the “too hard” basket because of GWS, stadium issues, then Norwood would get the nod. I so totally think a Perth3 would work on paper… a true northern burbs representative side while the Eagles solidify themselves as the blanket WA side, but WAFC are just looking after their self interests and have no foresight.
The thing is that it is in the too hard basket. Far too many questions than answers for Canberra to have it's own licence. It has to be sustainable, which means that Canberra will require funding support from the AFL. GWS represents Canberra and support is average even when GWS is more than competitive and winning games. It's still not even in the top five sports for adults to follow. Squash is bigger in Canberra than the AFL ! It's still situated in a rugby state which also doesn't help their cause.
They should have moved North Melbourne to Canberra before the NSWRL created the Raiders. Canberra Kangaroos sounds good, it’s only a one our flight from Melbourne so even the old North supporter base could travel to home games pretty regularly, relatively similar climate, a relatively high amount of people with Victorian roots and as already mentioned a very interesting and promising market. Would have also been great strategically for Aussie Rules/VFL, you’d have moved the Barassi line significantly northeast for good. Now it is harder to have a Canberra team with two other top tier professional football (Rugby) teams there. But given that Canberra/ACT is still a relatively populous area and growing quickly (if the current trend continues, they’ll reach the million within 20 years), it would still make the most sense. A Canberra AFL team would probably overtake the Brumbies quickly given that Rugby Union is on a steep decline, and could enter the (almost) untapped AFL market there. GWS have up to 11 thousand attendance there, that is more than two thirds of the average Raiders attendance, and that even though GWS are still mostly seen as a “foreign” team and play only 2-3 games there per season, and usually small games. In the long term, 20-30 years, they could probably overtake the Raiders (maybe even relatively easily). And there is still (as mentioned) the wider area around/southwest of the ACT, which largely Aussie rules territory, with cities like Wagga Wagga being less than a 3 hours drive away. So supporters from that area could still attend numerous home games a season if they are passionate enough and playing games in the Rivera region wouldn’t a difficult ting since Canberra residents can easily drive there for a few games if they want.
Why do people keep bringing up North Melbourne as the only option for relocation. It's not hard to do a little research before coming up with these suggestions. The Raiders were playing in the NRL before the Swans were shipped to Sydney, so South Melbourne would have been the first option.in those days. Also, in the early to mid 1980's North were in a reasonably healthy position both on and off the field, it was teams like Footscray, Fitzroy, Richmond and St Kilda that were rattling tins trying to keep their clubs afloat, so they too would have been options for relocation ahead of North. And dare I say it, St Kilda would be a better option for relocation these days as well as they still have a sizeable debt while North is in a far more financially secure position.
@@Leftfield71 oh I would relocate of other teams too. I just feel Canberra and the Kangas are a match. The Raiders entered the NSWRL the same year the Swans moved to Sydney (1982). And: “The prospect of North Melbourne playing home games in Canberra was first raised publicly as early as 1984, with the club expressing an interest in playing a role in developing a national competition.” It is not crazy what I am saying, the VFL/AFL have been thinking of relocating North since the 80s. Canberra was one of the most reasonable options.
People forget that this decision has nothing to do with population, it's participation. Both Canberra and Darwin won't work, as the AFL want sustainability and both these options won't offer that. Norwood ticks that box, are strong financially, have strong support, very successful and are the best club outside the AFL.
You do realise that Wayne Carey and James Hird came from the Riverina? Canberra’s backyard. Participation? Population? It’s got more than the Gold Coast. You need about 500K population to support a club. Adelaide and Perth can’t do that yet and Norwood or West Perth would simply dilute those markets. Darwin is too small. A national competition without a team in the nations capital. Come on!
@@richardwood9177 - Pretty much all of what you have said is completely wrong. Geelong has the lowest population base and supports a team very successfully. Melbourne has 9 teams spread through 5 million base. Sydney has two with a base of 6 million. these numbers totally contradict your premise. Economics is not in the top five reasons to start a franchise. It has been proven over and over again. It is the DRIVER of economics. AFL is still bankrolling Gold Coast and GWS, they are a long way off being self supporting but both make sense for many other reasons. Darwin is the ONLY realistic 20th franchise, see my other comments for why.
I prefer GWS re-naming to the Canberra Giants and relocating to Canberra with a new side in Sydney. Their Sydney numbers are piss poor. 13K at Manuka vs 7K at ENIGE. The new Sydney team would need better marketing and more of an identity
WA won't be going for the third licence, they've just come out and said so. Norwood are ready,as proven by their success in holding 2 Gather Round games.
Did you not listen to the video? Perth's population is already considerably bigger than Adelaide's, and constantly pulling further away. A third Perth club might not be priority for team 20, but to suggest that bringing in a third Adelaide-based club before a third Perth-based club is ludicrous. No, it's not fair to make judgements based on population figures, but it is what it is.
@@eddielong8663 I certainly did listen to the video actually. You obviously don't know too much about Norwood then if you believe a Perth based side would be ahead of them. No club outside the AFL has the credentials that Norwood boast, let alone their history and success. I get sick of telling people that participation, not population are important for the next licence. The AFL clubs have stated that they don't want more composite sides. The AFL are keen on festivals like the Gather Round scenario, which Norwood hosted successfully. This is an advantage that SA holds over everyone else. Ties with community are important and Norwood are very supportive with their zone on the west coast. Norwood won the Ken Gratton Community award from the AFL which is a massive plus for Norwood's bid. Norwood still have a huge following as witnessed by their grand final crowds since 1997 when Port Adelaide were admitted. Norwood tick the important boxes.
@@gregrobins5615 that may be the case but the point of expansion is to tap into new markets, Plus a 3rd Adelaide team would pull some support from the existing 2, it's better to have 2 teams strong rather than 3 that are average.
@@davidpickford. The AFL will choose the best option based on sustainability. They are understandably nervous about opening up a new market given the GWS and Gold Coast crowd numbers in both rugby states over 10 years. Can another eastern state/territory survive on their own without handouts ?
Restructure the afl and other league's. Restructure the local leagues and make 2-3 leagues like the epl with relegation and demotion between leagues. Afl top tier and then afl div 1 & 2. We have more than enough teams to get it done. A bit more media spotlight and funding for local teams. Plenty of historic teams to make up div 1 & 2. 20 teams each league. Some rebranding on some teams and youd have a nice mix of Australian clubs
Canberra would definetly be my pick. It will be one of those small cities that will have an increased growth rate due to current housing issues in the current state capitals (although housing isn't cheap in the ACT either). Player like Soldo, Steele and Green are all from the ACT as well proving it has potential to produce more players.
Act full of expats who love footy unlike sydney or brisbane
Yeah but no one likes AFL in Canberra, wrong side of the barassi line .
@@ToddHull-n4i wrong act is full of government workers from over australia who love afl you probably dont even live here
@@ToddHull-n4i It is a woke shite hole.
@@ToddHull-n4i That is simply untrue.
I agree with you. The appetite is there as shown by GWS games. It also feels like it makes sense to have a team for our national game in the nations capital.
This is by far the best video I've seen on the subject.
Just a point about economics, I think median income is a better indicator of viability. GSP is good for a rough guide at an economy, but it's inflated by the top end. Median income shows how much money the average supporter will actually have to spend of memberships and merchandise.
And by median income, fans in Canberra have 40% more than in Perth.
Thank you for saying the part about GWS needing to play at home. They play 8 games in their “heartland” a year. Thats not enough. They disappeared from home from March 16 to May 18 this year. Who wants to follow a team that isn’t there for 2 months. Yes they played the Swans at the SCG in that block but that’s it. Teams like GWS and the Suns (who also just disappear for extended periods) need to be playing as close to every second week as possible at home to build up support.
I also understand that they have to leave for 6 weeks, but even that seems excessive. I’m assuming the Royal Show needs a ‘bump in’ and ‘bump out’ but if you are clever you could at least try to get the last possible day before they have to leave, make sure you play the Swans and get back in as soon as possible, along with the Blacktown option mentioned.
100% agree, the AFL is mismanaged in a range of ways and you have highlighted another important one. So much effort and resouces put into new franchises only to be undermined by short sighted, inept pandering to the biggest clubs like Collingwood (14 at the MCG) and Richmond (13 at the MCG). Besides being grossly unfair, It is gaining short term revenue at the cost of long term growth = the OPPOSITE of good management fundamentals.
Have a Riverina team based in Canberra and play a couple of home games in Albury/Wodonga and Wagga. That region will have 1 million people in a decade. With a lot of existing AFL fans that would love their own team. A lot of seriously good players have come from that region.
Robertson Oval or Lavington would be great options to play games and widen their supporter base just depends on GWS because junior academies are set up all across the Riverina.
@@KerrySkullOKeeffe-qd8qo yeah the academies would need to alter, and Riverina could have the whole Murray river region including the Victorian side of the border
Awesome video, good to see the discussion based more around the numbers than emotion!
Establishing Canberra as the 20th AFL team while reallocating Greater Western Sydney Giants' games from Canberra back to Western Sydney offers multiple strategic advantages for the AFL. This move could intensify the AFL's presence and growth in Western Sydney, an area with a high potential audience but currently underrepresented in terms of local game offerings. The Giants have already shown significant influence in the region; however, the current arrangement that includes playing several games in Canberra may dilute the potential impact and fan base consolidation in Western Sydney.
Greater Western Sydney's coach, Adam Kingsley, has expressed the need for a stronger local league presence to boost grassroots participation and overall interest in the AFL within Western Sydney. This area represents a largely untapped market with a population of 2.5 million people, providing a unique opportunity for substantial growth in viewership and fan engagement
GWS has been a monumental failure in Western Sydney. Nobody cares for the AFL there. Should just move them to Canberra where the majority of their small supporter base is.
Canberra population while it includes Queanbeyan there probably undersells the actual footprint. There's another couple hundred thousand people in the surrounding couple hours of drive distance, and heading west it's stronger footy country
It's a metro count, there's 1.2m in Adelaide, within an hour
Canberra makes the most sense. Population is the largest, it’s surrounded by some fairly strong afl towns. Travelling won’t be an issue. If it wants to finally conquer NSW it needs to conquer the ACT.
Agreed, plus Canberrans are pretty affluent compared to the rest of the nation on average so they actually have the money to regularly go to games
@@scottsmith6235 the bonus with having an pure Canberra team (rather than gws doing random games during the Easter show) that they have surrounding NSW towns which are afl focused and they would be happy to make a weekend out of it in Canberra once every few months. Or Canberra team can do the random game in albury/wodonga once in a while
Very interesting and succinct. Canberra makes a lot of sense. Head office dropped the ball IMO in the 80s regarding Canberra which was at the time 50/50 split between rugby league and AFL . population growth, already reasonable crowds and already suitable stadium make it very doable.
Head office is very quiet regarding this option, I hope they pursue it
Manuka oval regularly sells out when the Canberra Giants are in town. Manuka just needs a permanant Eastern stand and the stadium is good to go as a 20k seater. ACT and the region would get behind it
What matters most regardless is money and whether we like or not that's a fact. With Perth hitting 3 million within ten years the whole divide of Eagles and Dockers supporters is a non issue. They already have a stadium that probably will be upgraded to 80,000 capacity and i believe an agreement will be reached for the 3rd WA team.
@@JeffBurn-b1i as per say with Adelaide team, I feel having a 3rd Perth team might dilute off the western derby for sure. Its wouldn’t be as severe as the 3rd Adelaide team or a league variants in Sydney and Mel, but still have that effect.
The dilution of a single game per year is definitely not enough of a factor to stop a team, but still a thing that'll likely happen
You've convinced me. Your arguments make perfect sense. Canberra needs to be the 20th team.
The thing abour Canberra is that it isn't just wealthy. It is stable. WA booms and busts with resource cycles. The ACT is pretty insulated from things like that. It also has very, very high disposable income compared to most place so Canberrans have unusually high recreational budgets. I know a bunch who hold GWS memberships in addition to their main team even though they really care about them.
Tasmania FC recently released who bought their foundation jumpers. $90-$100 for what will be most people's second or third team. Per capita, Canberrans bought more than folks in Victoria, SA or WA. The market of AFL fans in Canberra is incredibly underutilised.
@@canberrapear7219 yep, I know people who support their old family team, hold GWS membership and something like Gold Coast as well. Not a shock at all that they'd back Tassie!
Canberra should be considered not simply on the basis of its population along with Qbyn but also on the fact that is a geographic hub that services a broader rural community much of which is heartland Rugby League. This an untapped market both in terms of eyeballs but also in terms of future players the AFL needs to consider using a combination of GWS and a Canberra based team in almost a pincer movement to raise the profile of the game in rural and remote NSW.
When I moved to Canberra the town was evenly divided between Australian Rules and Rugby League, however with the entrance of the Raiders in 1982 it has become a town that heavily supports one team, the Raiders, and these fans have a second team either a Sydney NRL Team, the Brumbies or an AFL team. Putting a team permanently in Canberra will pretty quickly bring back support and may actually give the AFL the edge. Remember this is about much more than Canberra it is about using Canberra's position as a regional hub to raise the profile of AFL in regional NSW.
Exactly and Canberra has a lot of soy hipsters who will naturally gravitate towards AFL so it’s a win win for the game.
No thanks Canberra don't want yous
Really enjoying your Videos mate!
Canberra is the obvious choice. I’m biased as I live there but what outsiders may not realise is that a lot of people from Sydney, Melbourne, etc relocate to Canberra for work. A lot of the population comes from AFL heartland and earns a good income. I think attendances would be pretty solid, especially if the team wasn’t garbage like GC have been for most of their existence.
How is Canberra the obvious choice ? GWS are a reasonably successful team but haven't built up a strong following or big supporter base for over 10 years. How long then will it take Canberra to attract crowds, 20 years ? Who's going to pick up the shortfall for that whole period ? It is and has been a development league, so the step to the AFL is way too far. The other killer is that NSW is a rugby state, hence why GWS struggle.
@@gregrobins5615Canberra is different from NSW as a whole. Canberra and the surrounding region are much more evenly split between NRL/AFL
@@gregrobins5615 Canberra and Western Sydney are veeeery different places. A Canberra team would pretty much more more popular than GWS overnight.
Great video. Canberra Koalas! Grey, with white and black.
There is also a notion floating around of an AFL expansion team in Newcastle, which is insane to say the least, Newie is NRL territory through and through. Canberra seems a great prospect for an expansion franchise and to be honest not seeing a whole lot more room for other teams without eating into existing support bases, or pie in the sky ideas like PNG or NZ.
And yet Newcastle has the oldest team trophy in Australian sport - the Black Diamond AFL. It also drew crowds of about 10,000 to AFL trial games held at Newcastle No 1 Sports Ground about 20 years ago. And with a rapidly growing population of about 1 million in the Hunter/Central Coast to tap into, it has by far the greatest potential compared to the other options. The Swans Isaac Heaney is a Newcastle product. Perhaps a relocation would work? Struggling North Melbourne? The North Kangaroos?
I want Darwin, I know there is doubts about Darwin and NT is growing place. But you make a great point about the amount of team above the Barassi line.
Why assume a 20th? Is it not more likely there will be a rationalisation aka a reduction down to 18?
I live in Canberra and can tell you it would be awesome if we had an AFL team. Manuka oval is a better location than Bruce Stadium and has venues to eat and drink before and after the game. It just needs an upgrade to a 30,000 seater. I wouldn’t mind if the Kangas or Giants moved to Canberra permanently either.
As a Norwood and Crows supporter it’s a nice dream but I can’t see it happen, I think Canberra is a no brainer it has support for AFL and as explained is within close proximity to other towns out side of the ACT that have big interest in Aussie Rules
@@JakeMartin94 I feel having a third Adelaide team will kill off the showdown derby…. Having crows and port as is epic as is. The a league made that mistake with having a third syd and melb teams, now the wsw and syd fc, likewise for melb victory and city derbies has been diluted pretty badly. Prior to the third teams, you couldn’t get tickets easily for those derbies but now you can.
Great analysis.
Is there a possibility for a team to come in that doesn't have a specific location to represent? This has happened with the Dolphins in the NRL. There was a lot of hoopla when the Dolphins were brought in as to where they represented. Is it Brisbane? Moreton Bay? Redcliffe? perhaps the Sunshine Coast. The best option was to not decide at all and in doing so allow the team to represent a greater area and attract more fans. Perhaps this concept for a team could be taken a step further and play in various places and serve as a team across a region, state or further.
Could a state team be brought in, namely for QLD or NSW? On the east coast crowd numbers are far lower and tv viewership is far more important, why not embrace the possibilities that this allows and have a team that plays out of different smaller stadiums. GWS has played some great matches out of Canberra recently, similar stadiums with smaller capacity would be advantageous for future teams. Just as West Coast don't represent a city/suburb/town but the entire coast, could there be an East Coast team? The East Coast Pirates playing out of Wollongong, Central Coast, Sunshine Coast, Newcastle, Cairns and Townsville. Of course Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast etc would be represented by an 'east coast' team and would collectively represent over 10 million people. Maybe that is too many places to play amongst, perhaps 3 or four cities? A novel concept certainly but why not at least consider something like this as individually these cities won't be getting a team in coming decades but collectively have more people than NT, WA, SA and Tasmania combined. With that many people how could some type of regional team not be considered. Certainly it would be more valuable for the competition than a third SA or WA team.
Is the AFL community being a bit dull by looking at individual cities in the country and considering which city could have a team? I'm sure there are ideas that haven't been presented or variations on current ideas that could solve the issue that the AFL has going forward of having so many people on the east coast but not quite an obvious enough or big enough city that makes itself a clear option for the next team.
This idea isn't completely novel as there exists the New England Patriots, Golden state Warriors, Western Bulldogs and West Coast Eagles, amongst many others that don't have a specific city to represent. You could argue that even the suburban teams in Melbourne are divorced from their locations as all teams but Melbourne and Richmond don't play out of the location they represent. I'm sure many non Victorian fans of Melbourne teams wouldn't know where their team is on a map!
Or am I talking nonsense?
I did not read it it was so long
Make your own TH-cam clip bro
For Joondalup team all matches at Optus Stadium. No one will put money in to develop Joondalup for footy. The Stadium deals will ensure that all matches must be there. Only 30km away. Perth is one of the longest cities in the world so Perth people are used to traveling. Interestingly, a lot of Dockers fans are also based in suburbs in the area too. But would hurt the Eagles more. If they could convert all the English to AFL then you would actually grow the game. Train is going to Yanchep soon which is further up.
having lived in FNQ for 20 years, I can confirm no one here froths afl, through my entire schooling and growing up i never heard a whisper about afl, NRL will probably always be king of the north.
I think Canberra should be first option but tbh as someone who lives in perth a Geelong- like team operating in the south-west is a much better option than a third perth team. A third team in one city would only weaken the freo-wce rivalry and struggle to gain followers bc perth residents would probably stick to their current team.
A team based in Bunbury, a two hour drive from perth and a growing population , with their own stadium, would be far away enough to not weaken the derby and local enough that residents would convert to a new team
what a awesome video and analysis. keep it up.
Perth is going to hit 3 million before 2034. The question in Perth is whether they can utilise the South West cities like Bunbury and Busselton for games, considering they're 100 to 140 minutes away from Optus Stadium by car. But for any team based in Mandurah is 60 to 100 minutes away.
Would also help alleviate the travel pressure on the Eagles and dockers, introducing more local games. Giving both clubs a more even chance in the competition.
@@aTheBear I think there will be a delay for any 20th team anyway which will Perth more chance. It would be sensational for footy fans to have the excitement of two matches every second weekend.
Canberra pulls crowds just as big as sydney for gws. And manuka can just be built for more capacity. The crowd is just as good in camberra as it is in sydney, even tho its a rugby territory. But also surrounding small towns like myself in one of them will take the day trip to camberra to watch the games.
What about Cairns as an option? Suns have played some games there, with some success (for the AFL). This would A. Grow the game, encompass the surrounding area and could incorporate Darwin as Part of a "Northern" team. Named the "Crocodiles" or the "Buffaloes" or "Sharks"... Just a thought.
Would saints north merge make sense. Get it back to 18 teams and wait for more growth in Perth and SA?
Adelaide doesn't have the supporter base for three clubs. Do people still barrack for Norwood in the SANFL? Would Norwood have to change their colours as they are too close to Melbourne's design. I think SANFL has more support than WAFL.
Norwood would take off in SA and draw far bigger crowds than NT or Canberra could muster.
The Port-Norwood rivalry would usurp the Port-Crows showdown. Definitely SA3 and WA3 would be viable.
Norwood get big numbers for a State League Club at the Adelaide Oval during finals. Promote them to the AFL and I can see them consistently getting 35,000+ to games.
@@jamescashman1110 Wouldn't it hurt Adelaide too much? Perth needs a third club more. The main issue is that Joondalup while a growing hub its only 35 years old. So not convinced that locals have any particular loyalty to Joondalup unlike some surburban centres. West Perth based at Joondalup would get some advantage from the WAFL link. But in reality the old WAFL fans are 35 years older than the fans that supported them during WAFL days.
@@jamescashman1110 finals is different to home and away matches year in and year out, especially if theyre struggling. a lot of norwood fans surely would be died in the wool adelaide fans now or barrack for victorian teams. would they really barrack for norwood still, when adelaide crows and port power joined over 25 years ago.
@@jamescashman1110 you can't have norwood and melbourne. Melb have a navy jumper, red socks and used to be called the redlegs informally. Norwood would have to be a different colour and go under a different name like Reds. Imagine McGuire going ballistic if people referred Norwood as the Woods.
i would suggest that Tasmania gets the two teams. Both ACT and NT would not have both the people and the structures there. Keep the AFL in all the six states. WA, SA, Victoria, NSW and Queensland would be too crowded.
Ballarat would be a great spot simply because you get the Melbourne and Geelong away fans to boost attendances and it is an AFL stronghold. And Ballarat and the west of Melbourne is the fasting growing region in the nation. In 50 years time Melbourne and Ballarat will be one big conurbation.
Yay, more Victorian teams! Nope
Only way that would happen is the relocation of one of the Melbourne teams further out.
@@Power_Prawnstar Victoria is where the sport was invented and has the largest population and following.
@@VelvetRiot-hz5mp so?
If anything, put the 20th team in Canberra. Also put a stop in adding new teams in to the AFL for the next 20 years from the point of set team first AFL game, but with the proviso of having of examining of having a ten year fine look in the viability of the 9 Melbourne teams. In that there is a desire in having a Darwin based team. It should be done within the context of either moving a Melbourne team, like a North Melbourne, or Western Bulldogs, or relegation a Melbourne team down to the VFL and making room for an establishment of a new non-Victorian team. Personally the better option for now is to look at the Melbourne team that is the worst performance on the bases of home game attendance, dependence on AFL handouts, win loss ratio, and average memberships, and look at the stats over the space of ten years. What ever team, or teams that are repeatedly rank the worse. Only then make a deal to move that team
How about going back down to 18 teams ?
The ego's at the AFL could never admit their blunders. It worked best at 16 teams in my opinion. Fitzroy should have moved not merged. North too and I'm a North fan.
Yes, start with saying bye to Port👍
A Canberra Team is ideal except it seems that GWS Giants have already claimed a stake in the nation's capital city.
How about Townsville in North Queensland but not has high as Cairns?
Nah it’s fine. Before GWS everyone used to get out to support the Swans. The supporter base will easily drop GWS for their own team.
The Giants wouldn't even be in the top five teams here.
In my ideal scenario, I would relocate North Melbourne (sorry Roos fans, but an under-20k crowd average for a footy team in VIC just isn't good enough) to North Queensland, of which it's unofficial proposed-state flag shares the same colours of the Kangaroos team (blue and white) and could still be called North (officially the North Queensland Kangaroos). This would give the Roos more financial backing from the league and a new frontier to take hold of, while still keeping their history in the same way that South Melbourne did when it moved and became the Sydney Swans. The overall number of teams in Melbourne would reduce to 8. Then, with the introduction of the Tasmanian team as the 19th team in the competition, I would introduce a Canberra team as the 20th. As a result, the majority of teams in the AFL would be outside of VIC for the first time in the history of the league.
I am not disagreeing with you or having a go, but how would you overcome the financial issues of a 3rd Qld team?
Until you spend time there it is difficult to understand how much Qld loves Rugby League and is very one eyed in this passion. The Broncos are the only sporting club in Australia that posts a profit each year and they have a supporter base that challenges and often exceeds Collingwood in numbers. With the introduction of the Dolphins who are an established club ala Port Adelaide who bring a solid supporter base and provide options to Brisbane fans who do not like the Broncos plus of course the benefits of a local rivalry.
Plus there is huge support for some of the old Sydney Clubs in Qld, I remember seeing a home game for the Gold Coast against the Dragons and despite the Dragons being the visiting team from NSW the game sold out and the crowd was 2/3 Dragon's supporters.
In that environment the commercial pressures for a new Qld team would be difficult and unfortunately the North Melbourne brand is pretty devalued at the moment. What do you think would be the strategies to ensure that the team is not like the Swans who spent 20 years as a basket case before they improved to be a big AFL Club? Noting that the Swans had the advantage of the biggest and richest city in Australia without any other AFL competition and it still took almost two decades.
Do you think the AFL just needs to suck it up and fund them until they are successful or do you think there is another way? Interested in your perspective.
Ringleader western. Times
Joondalup wouldn’t work. South west WA is (I think) the most compelling. I agree Bunbury doesn’t have a large enough population, but, it would be a south west team with an identity that encompasses Dunsborough, yallingup, Margaret River, Busselton etc. It’s already a brilliant tourist destination for surfing and wine.
Boutique 25,000 seat stadium at Bunbury and you’re sorted. Maybe called the South West Sharks.
If the sparsely populated region south of Perth is getting a club, then Ballarat and Bendigo should each be getting their own clubs as well. Oh, and Albury-Wodonga also gets to have its own club that represents the Riverina.
See where this is going?
@@eddielong8663
That’s not the point at all. This is the point:
VIC - There’s no way another team will be considered in Victoria
AFL - should they want a 20th team
WA - footy mad state
SW WA - pop 375,000
Are people/tourists already drawn to the area? Yes! World class surf and world class wine.
Proximity to Perth - 2 hours
Would players like to live there? I think yes
It’s not about giving every small town a team. It’s about the best location for a team
Im from WA, I don't think we need another team here. Canberra would be my pick. Makes sense!
Ringleader western coast. Times
I feel having a 3rd team in Perth or Adelaide will kill off the showdown and Perth derby. It’s a bit like a league soccer where the 3rd team killed the Sydney and Melbourne derby.
Agreed, It is just a dumb idea that is counterproductive and undesired.
Diluting a single game isn't really enough reason to not have a team there though
How? There's like 10 teams in Melbourne and plenty of rivalries
Seriously though What about a merger between a sanfl team and a Darwin team and play 5 games in Darwin and 5 in Adelaide plus 2 in Alice Springs ?
afl needs a plan. maybe we bring in Canberra but then we need to back it up with Darwin. then you’d have to make up another team to make it even
North to Canberra, Canberra Kangaroos. Bring in Northern Australia as 20th
@@alexpedlar6438 Exactly.
that's not a plan, it's a deluded pipe dream.
@@alexpedlar6438 no. terrible idea.
GWS should be playing a couple of home and away matches there each year. Perhaps against North and Saints. That would be 4 matches in Canberra straight away. Giants would still be playing 9+1 matches in Western Sydney that is enough. Sydney could also do that with a home or away match. Suddenly that's six matches in Canberra per year. I don't know if North want to get involved too... and so on. That helps make GWS more sustainable and stops AFL propping up as much. Western Sydney Canberra makes more sense as a name too.
Giants already play 3-4 matches in Canberra per year
@@bgrossman Not enough. Canberra need to get 6 matches at least. Its easily done by clubs like North and Melbourne playing GWS home and away in Canberra. That's 4 straight up. Then Sydney could play North home and away too. GWS would have 4 matches in Canberra, North 4 matches, Sydney 2... AFL set up a commitment for those clubs regularly then you'll see fans supporting Giants, North , Sydney...
I wonder could they split a NT/NQL team? Prob Canberra though makes sense
Theres a LOT of money in Darwin, they could afford it and the Alice would 100% get on board with an NT team. Im a born and bread territorian, people travle to the Alice for sports all the time.
West Perth used to be the Cardinals (Cardies) but changed their name to Falcons. Pity. West Perth is the iconic name if you want WAFL supporters support... but how many thousand fans would that be? There is already a team called Perth Demons, so it won't be called Perth. The fans and club have refused over 30 years to rename it Joondalup. So naming the team is critical. You have to weigh up how much advantage they would get from being linked to West Perth. Versus any support from linking to Joondalup, which is only about 35 years old area anyway. While there is a big hub there now, I'm not sure if there is any real regional pride with it. The northern suburbs go on and on. Its just that a place called Joondalup was named and then appeared about 35 years ago.
Canberra Cockatoos!
Logically, Canberra makes the most sense. You can't ignore a city of half a million people, the capital, traditionally a strong supporter of AFL and easy to access from Melbourne and Sydney. However, it is a crowded market which means the AFL will need to compete hard probably to the extent that it pushes one of the other professional sports teams out of the market. They also need an indoor stadium for night games if they are going to attract interstate crowds or make it a 'thing' to endure the cold nights when you're in Canberra. GWS, by the way, should relocate to Western Sydney. I mean really West or Southwest. The stadium needs to be right in the community, e.g Parramatta, Bankstown.
NT is s good idea...most revenue comes from TV rites, not attendance. The air conditioned stadium in Darwin will be built. Socially it will be a great boost for the Territory and will be far more interesting for the AFL following public than any other option. Like many others, I think that there are too many teams in Melbourne and clubs such as North Melbourne and St Kilda that have had little success and small membership, should be relocated. NT Kangaroos? North Queensland Saints? That way we could remain an 18 team competition..... for a while. Canberra is just too boring a proposition to consider.
You wouldn't be saying that about the Saints and Roos if you just happened to be a lifeling member with either those two clubs.
With that said, the Roos should've relocated to the ACT ages ago. Back in the 90's when the competition was transitioning from the old system to the well-run business it is now. It's almost as if the success the Roos had in the late 90's ended up being detrimental in a weird sort of way. It gave the club a false sense of security while other struggling Melbourne-based clubs were making hard decisions on their futures. Once North's on-field success slowly faded away, there really wasn't much else for them sadly, and all they could do was go back to the old "shinboner spirit" rubbish.
@@eddielong8663 My Grandad played for The Saints but they have really struggled both on and off the field from day 1. The Swans still have a very large following from the old South supporters...so a relocation can still work. North missed out on an enormous opportunity to be the Gold Coast Kangaroos when the league offered them a very lucrative $100 million deal. It would have worked as the old Kanga supporters would still have been able to see their side every 2-3 weeks in Melbourne. The AFL is still too Melbourne centric and this needs to change...and I'm Victorian.
@@BG-id2cv I have been a member of the Kangaroos since 1986 and live right next door (King Street). The NT Kangaroos makes more sense than any of the other options I have heard in the last 20 years. TV rights is the big cash cow and a Darwin team would be well supported by AFL mad NT. AFL is grossly mismanaged in many ways. STAND! = WTF is that?
My god your comment is utterly riddled with idiocy.
Regarding your opening table, it's unreasonable to divide Adelaide's and Perth's populations by a third while ignoring the competition a Canberra team would face from the Raiders.
it's not the same though, The Raiders are a NRL team they're not going to steal supporters from a different sport that's like saying that the Melbourne Stars are competing with AFL teams for support
@@davidpickford. The Stars play a summer sport. By your thinking Sydney should be able to support 8 AFL teams.
Surely Canberra gets a shout
What about a Nullabor team .. play half their home games in Adelaide, half in Perth?? The Perdelaide Nullandvoids? 😂😮
I reckon Dillon said a nothing comment really meant to dampen the talk. Fact is that it won't be even considered for a number of years. WAFC has been doing their sums and there has been govt analysis too, due to the role govt has in funding footy. WAFC funds junior footy development and competitions in WA. Eagles and Dockers are owned by WAFC and each pay dividends on the profit each year. Eagles are the major contributors. 3 clubs doesn't necessarily mean more profits for WAFC long term. Stadium deal and corporate support is critical for profitability. A decrease in corporates and attendances could really hurt the Stadium deal. You can't get the crowds dropping or you will see less revenue for the clubs and therefore less dividends to the WAFC which they don't want. So not that straight forward. Govts also help fund the WAFC as part of them leaving Subiaco Oval and own the Stadium, but aren't the operators. Three clubs mind you also make the revenue stream more predictable, as having Eagles and Dockers near the bottom is disastrous for WAFC finances. Then the AFL are under pressure to fund WA footy more, like they do to the rest of Australia. So they may be interested in a third team from Perth, if it meant they didn't have pay for junior development. AFL don't like spending.
My heart wants a Darwin team. After all, the Lions have had quite a few Territorians become club greats. However, I do see the rational argument. Canberra/Riverina do seem like an obvious choice.
Good video.
Please take the following comment as the utter ignorance that it represents: gees Perth feels like not part of Australia. 😢
Terrible thing to say. I need to get over there sometime. It’s one of the best things about the Coasters and Freo. They almost are all I’m conscious of about WA.
Let Gold Coast and Brisbane play some home and away matches in NT. That would give them up to 6 matches a year, which is frankly more than enough. Then see what crowds they average. See how many people pay for the tickets and the revenue generated. In addition if GC playing there a few times a year they would be selling memberships. How many? NT has a moveable population, so people stay for short periods. I doubt they'd swap AFL clubs to support Darwin.
Has to be Canberra, the only issue is what their color scheme would be
Light green, like the Raiders
@@bgrossman green is already locked in by Tasmania tho
Should we expand to 20 teams or reduce to 18. The AFL have tried to get North Melbourne to relocate for many years now, whether to Tasmania of the Gold Coast. The Melbourne market is too saturated. Sydney is by far the largest growth market and a 3rd team in Sydney will be the focus, in 25 years from now. So teams like North Melbourne, The Western Bulldogs and St Kilda have that long to prove their value to the competition. If they can't then they will face the choice of merger, relocation or death.
Agree.
They should have bean relocated a long time ago. Instead of expansion teams, they should have moved North Melbourne to Canberra , Bulldogs to western Sydney (they already rebranded as “Western”, and the name Bulldogs shouldn’t be a problem given that the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs are from another area of Sydney and play a different sport). and St. Kilde to Gold Coast.
And yes, in the long run, a third NSW team, preferably Sydney of course, by far biggest potential market, seems inevitable. But at the moment, they should just support GWS and wait till they are fully embraced. Together with Gold Coast, they still have the by far smallest crowds and lowest number of members. Wouldn’t make sense to create/admit a new team when an existing team hasn’t even build a decent following.
I reckon they want a roof in Tassie not just for the wind, but because they want to maximise attendance to guarantee the club's success. It's a smaller market that doesn't grow the game to new fans, so they need it to succeed. Without a roof, crowds WILL drop on cold and windy days.
How soft are we? I have been to packed stadiums to watch sport in many places - the weather has very little effect if you have a product people want to pay for. Access is a far, far, far, far bigger issue.... The game day experience getting in and out, the price, ease of ticketing etc. Weather? pffft
@@warpeace8891 Of course stadiums CAN get packed even if the weather's shit, if the match up is highly anticipated it can happen (or if you're in a location where that many excess people want to go), but again they want to maximise the crowd of EVERY game, and obviously every single game isn't going to be 10/10 anticipated (nor is Tasmania's population so large that every game will draw 22k regardless of weather). If you don't think weather affects attendance everywhere I don't know what to tell you, it goes without saying, some people don't like sitting in cold, pouring rain for hours regardless of the entertainment.
@@telltellyn Aussie rules is a different experience to what it used to be. The number of people who would make a decision based on "its cold" maybe much more now than it used to be = soft. That is in line with many things about life in Australia. Life is different, the game is different. I used to go multiple times each week and Now I might go to 1 - 3 games a season. It has nothing to do with weather - Mostly the rule changes and umpiring is so nonsensical its unbearable. Sitting there at half time having to sit through rock concert level volume ads and gambling critques is like poison to the senses. The AFL has lost the plot if they think anyone wants that. What do I know - record attendances and revenue are their metrics despite the product being a shadow of its former self. I believe it says more about the lemmings who pay for it than the corporate blood suckers that control it. Weather is so far down the list its just not important based on the numbers. To those whom it is important to.... Winter sports might not be for you.
P.S. You are wrong about the AFL wanting to maximise the attendance. They want to sell tickets regardless of whether people turn up or not. Sitting in the stand at the MCG and seeing the AFL members area 1/4 full at a sell out game is proof they don't care about that. It is a corporation and under penalty of law they are obliged to maximise revenue. The rest is incidental.
South West isn't an option. The stats often include from Mandurah to Albany, which is a large area, but spread out. Combine a Mandurah Peel team with Bunbury? South West Thunder (after Peel Thunder). But a Mandurah team won't convince South West people as Mandurah is now outer metro area. You can't travel by public transport from Mandurah to Bunbury. Mandurah is a sleepy town that doesn't seem to attend footy in numbers . WAFC won't want to develop stadiums in Bunbury and Mandurah. Mandurah would hurt Freo more. Then would also have to play some matches at Optus too, which is 90km from Mandurah an 200km from Bunbury. Then Busselton Dunsborough will end up being bigger into the future, but that's further from Perth. I can't see it.
One correction, as there's already a Perth Demons in the WAFL I'd imagine the Falcons would try a name like Northern Falcons or Joondalup Falcons
If West Perth would be the WAFL affiliate, you could take leaf out of history and call the new side the Perth Metropolitan Football Club. West Perth was the successor to the Metropolitan Football Club in the early years of the WAFL, would be a way to finally get the “Perth” name to appear in the fixture
@@AdrianHoliday Metropolitan goes hard as a suffix tbh
@@albertmiller2electricbooga897 Perth Metro or informally “Metro” for short
“The Sunday twilight game is Metro v Port at Optus”
Like it or not. The best pick is WA or SA
Vic has 9 teams. Either state can support 3.
I think its disgusting the conditions imposed on Tasmania to get their team approved when the Geelong stadium was allowed to exist for so long without electricity or running water
Let's don't forget a team in regional Victoria, they're already playing games in Ballarat at Mars stadium.
too many there already that's why a few Vic clubs are in shambles unable to do anything for decades
Lol no chance Victorian. We are going to take your north Melbourne team away
Hah!!!, I don't follow North Melbourne, so there.
Joondalup has more English people than anywhere in Aust. Top 5 suburbs. Many English and S Africans. They love soccer. But they love their sport and beach, so not really a concern. West Perth is at Joondalup. A club with a strong and passionate supporter base traditionally. It would be tempting to use West Perth name. Red with blue sash. Unfortunately, WAFL has struggled for 30 years. So by the time West Perth come in, their traditional fans would all be over 65 and probably not switch. Their kids are often lost to WAFL. All matches at Optus Stadium. No one will put money in to develop Joondalup for footy. The Stadium deals will ensure that all matches must be there. Only 30km away.
Canberra is a cooler than average city! Temperature that is. Would need a covered stadium to be a fair dinkum option. Show me the money!
But it's the driest capital city through the footy season. Just need some heating options rather than a roof.
@@canberrapear7219 Getting people to agree on anything in Canberra is a waste of effort. If we pretend Canberra doesn't exist we are all the better for it.
But what a helluva home team advantage, see: the NFL teams in the American Midwest.
We don’t need more teams, we need less…… too many teams for a National Competition that are based in Melbourne. Ideally some of the Melbourne teams need to merge. Leaving 2 teams in Perth, 2 teams in Adelaide, 2 in Queensland, 2 in NSW , 1 in Tasmania, 7 in Victoria. 16 Teams that is more than enough and television and venue arrangements would be much more realistic.
that would never happen, no fan would willingly let their club just die , little do their owners
It’s the only possible option. Good video
In all these conversations about expansion there is always a list of candidates which don't quite make the mark. There is too many teams in the comp as it is and talent is being diluted, spilt the league and create a relegation system so these near candidates get a chance to get up and grow.
Don’t think it is a very good idea relegation, tbh. Would almost necessarily create an uneven completion
NT should have it just send the Saints to Canberra so the congestion in Melbourne is released amongst the teams or give Canberra the team but send north Melbourne to Darwin. NT has the highest participation for footy although the registration is the lowest but that fix itself once/ if a team is announced yes it’s romantic that’s why we all want it he’ll if the afl wants to they can get an academy in png as they love our game to 2nd behind league and as for the aboriginals and just in general people living in the NT they may not want to move down to the cold depths in Melbourne also u might see the likes of the Rioli’s go up north and others alike for culture reasons
Or Merge saints and north and send them to the NT 18 teams leaves possible more teams in the future 3rd wa? And either another east coast team or international one
Auckland not as left field as Newcastle being almost 2 million is when it comes to a population alternative to Rugby which is how the AFL works to compete with the Opening Round concept along with broadcasting rights with growth of the sport across the ditch 🇳🇿 otherwise the rest won’t stack up Canberra the next likeliest smaller alternative!! 🥝
The question, will New Zealanders like Aussie Rules?
NSW and QLF are still new territory where AFL/Aussie rules isn’t well known let alone popular, but they are still Australian states. A new country adds a whole other dimension and many new issues.
@@LomuHabana it’s popular especially in Auckland if you haven’t seen the amount switching over from Rugby to AFL then you haven’t a clue about the revenue it has in the 🇳🇿 market! 🙄 it’s on the same continent and they have been playing the code there since the 1800s! Do some more research than get back to me or watch the actual video
@@jamesmunn867 why so offended because of legitimate?
That sport has been played for ages doesn’t mean it is gonna be a mainstream sport anytime soon. That the number of players switching to AR is going up doesn’t (necessarily) mean it is gonna be more than just a niche sport.
@@LomuHabana you’re the one that appears offended don’t throw stones at glass houses your opinion just appears insular and boring go out and do some more research champ!!
@@jamesmunn867 I am not offended, I posed a legitimate question, didn’t even give my opinion. You were going off as if it was crystal clear that AFL and NZ will be a great success.
I think Canberra is a very good option. It would be a waste not to miss Canberra as a potential 20th team as you have Brumbies and Raiders in other sporting codes. Wake up AFL don't lose it! Look at Brisbane, Sydney and GWS they have made their names by playing in finals of recent times. Canberra doesn't necessarily a stand alone but there are Riverina and Queenbeayan areas to cover!
I’d like Darwin and Canberra to someday have a team so that every state and territory is in the league and the only state worthy for a third team is WA and after that just have low supported Victoria teams relocate
A team In Canberra would be good but the is so much competition with union and league it would struggle a lot to get crowds gws is a event because only 3 game but 14 wouldn’t get good crowds do note im from Canberra an I wouldn’t switch teams as would most people I know so that could be another competition
so you'd rather support the giants then a team that would actually be based in the city?
How can a Canberra team be taken serious ? Tried checking the Canberra league and all i could find was a few sides who were in and out of different leagues and one had changed their colours. Some clubs went back to Queensland and the NEAFL has disbanded. It really is a mixture of confusion and conflicting stories.
The local league needs some work, but the fanbase that would sustain a team is strong. Plenty of wealthy public servants with free weekends.
@@canberrapear7219 How many of these expat Victorians already follow a team already ? What happens to GWS, given that they get more to their games in Canberra than they do in Sydney ? Sorry, but the gulf between the AFL and Canberra league is far too great to be taken seriously. There are just too many unknown answers for Canberra to be considered. I'm trying to find a strong argument for a Canberra club to win a licence over Norwood, but there isn't any area that Canberra can claim a win.
@@gregrobins5615 Most AFL fans already follow a team in both Canberra and Adelaide. Canberra will at least unite most Canberran AFL fans, many of whom will go watch it as their second team, whereas not many Port or Crows fans will be willing to jump ship to Norwood. Adelaide Oval will be two-thirds empty.
The local league really doesn't matter. We're not putting out our local league every week. What matters is off-field support, which we have. But sidenote, AFL Canberra just beat AFL Sydney, and they have two AFL teams.
The reason we get higher crowds than Sydney is we have a tonne of AFL fans who don't get to regularly watch games. These aren't GWS fans; they're AFL fans. The Giants should focus on Sydney where they're actual fans are.
There isn't a world in which Norwood makes more sense than Canberra. We have the largest unrepresented AFL fanbase in Australia, the wealthiest population in Australia, and a stadium getting upgraded.
Canberra kings
Surprising that a team based in the Hunter/Central Coast is not considered a realistic option with a population of approximately 1 million and growing.
Why would they play in Joondalup? All games at optus. People travel to optus from the north all the time.
I think West Aust. should get it and West Perth in particular.
Freemantle is in the west/south west would make more sense to be called North Perth or Perth City
If AFL cares about profit incentive they will choose North Sydney.
If AFL chooses by population potential, they will choose North Sydney.
If the AFL cares about combating the popularity of rugby in New South Wales, they will choose North Sydney.
If the AFL chooses sentimentality, they will choose Northern Territory.
They will not choose sentimentality, they are a corporation.
I love white people telling Aboriginal people what to do and how to think
Sarcasm does not translate well to text. Its just a dumb thing to say.
Wont work here in SA, norwood should have been in with Port originally
Canberra should build a new stadium.
If it is good for Tassie, it's good for Canberra
Don't need a new stadium, just an upgrade. The ACT govt is already working on upgrading Manuka.
At least there wouldn't be a massive whingefest in Canberra. They're building a new rugby stadium soon and most people are for it
Brisbane will need a second team eventually ...
Ideally it would be good for an AFL team to relocate... that would make it more profitable. But that wouldn't make it a 20th team!
Norwood isn't even the biggest team in the Sanfl. Sturt gets bigger crowds has a higher membership and makes the most profit.
I like all these options but this isn't really the big issue. The big issue is the dead weight teams in Melbourne that really need to go back to the VFL level or merge. Clubs like north are really starting to be an issue and when they used to be necessary to make up the numbers, once the league expands enough those clubs go from propping up the numbers to being a ball and chain. Yeah I know what North, bulldogs, saints etc fans think of this but I'm actually not attacking them, I still miss Fitzroy, I'm just looking at (what I see as) the reality. 20 teams is far too many, 18 already sucks, 16 is probably about right. more teams means worse teams with longer waits between drinks, 18 seems to have crossed that tipping point IMO. leagues with more teams like the NFL, NBA etc in the US have captive markets for support, the afl in Melbourne doesn't.
How is North an issue? Yeah they've been through a bad patch (not all their fault) but so do a lot of teams. Look at Demons a few years ago, or Eagles recently. North have no debt and have been profitable for a decade+ straight. Saints on the other hand receive more funding from the AFL and are in debt. Also North have won more premierships than Saints and Bulldogs combined
@@bgrossman The issue is that the league has already expanded too far, and if there are clubs that should go then that's the smaller clubs in Melbourne like north, bulldogs and saints. The more you water it down the worse the football is, the longer time there is between drinks for fans, many more lower table games that no one will watch etc etc etc. If the AFL was actually a new league and not just a VFL rebrand then these teams would never have been admitted. Its not a problem with north at all, its a problem with the league structure which has been flawed since it crossed state lines. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you just can't expand without consequences for the product. I mean maybe its nostalgia but I think the league gets worse every time it gets bigger, maybe not football wise, but certainly the stories and rivalries etc just get further apart, and weaker, 18 teams has already crossed a tipping point IMO. If you disagree that's fine, but no one can argue against the fact that there is a tipping point somewhere.
Seeing footy in Perth is the most expensive in Australia. So a third team and with less people on waiting lists to see games, could mean less revenue for the clubs and WAFC very quickly. But WAFC despite rhetoric is doing their sums along with govt, so ask them in 2-3 years. Its a waste of time now.
Disagree with your comments. The Giants need to be the team to service NSW and Canberra. Pull up their socks. Eddie McGuire is spot on there. Play home and away matches there and commit to the area over an extended period. Give Canberra 6-8 matches per year with Giants Sydney and North... playing matches there. That way GWS pull their weight. Get rid of the G too, and add Canberra to the name.
that's silly, western sydney is a big enough market that it shouldn't need to poach supporters from a city 250 kms away. 'Canberra Western Sydney Giants' sounds ridiculous.
@@davidpickford. Western Sydney Canberra I said... not Canberra Western Sydney. they stupidly chose Greater as part of their name. So instead they are known as GWS. What does that mean for Sydney people.
I can't believe I've just read someone suggesting "Western Sydney and Canberra Giants" as a serious and legitimate thought. You need to be banned from using the internet for the foreseeable future.
@@chadchadderton Western Sydney Canberra Giants WSG. I like it. Good idea.
@@BDub2024 Arguably one of the worst idea's in modern Australia's history...
I agree with pretty much everything in this video.
Canberra will be my best bet… but if it’s proven to be too deep into the “too hard” basket because of GWS, stadium issues, then Norwood would get the nod.
I so totally think a Perth3 would work on paper… a true northern burbs representative side while the Eagles solidify themselves as the blanket WA side, but WAFC are just looking after their self interests and have no foresight.
The thing is that it is in the too hard basket. Far too many questions than answers for Canberra to have it's own licence. It has to be sustainable, which means that Canberra will require funding support from the AFL. GWS represents Canberra and support is average even when GWS is more than competitive and winning games. It's still not even in the top five sports for adults to follow. Squash is bigger in Canberra than the AFL ! It's still situated in a rugby state which also doesn't help their cause.
They should have moved North Melbourne to Canberra before the NSWRL created the Raiders. Canberra Kangaroos sounds good, it’s only a one our flight from Melbourne so even the old North supporter base could travel to home games pretty regularly, relatively similar climate, a relatively high amount of people with Victorian roots and as already mentioned a very interesting and promising market. Would have also been great strategically for Aussie Rules/VFL, you’d have moved the Barassi line significantly northeast for good.
Now it is harder to have a Canberra team with two other top tier professional football (Rugby) teams there. But given that Canberra/ACT is still a relatively populous area and growing quickly (if the current trend continues, they’ll reach the million within 20 years), it would still make the most sense. A Canberra AFL team would probably overtake the Brumbies quickly given that Rugby Union is on a steep decline, and could enter the (almost) untapped AFL market there. GWS have up to 11 thousand attendance there, that is more than two thirds of the average Raiders attendance, and that even though GWS are still mostly seen as a “foreign” team and play only 2-3 games there per season, and usually small games. In the long term, 20-30 years, they could probably overtake the Raiders (maybe even relatively easily). And there is still (as mentioned) the wider area around/southwest of the ACT, which largely Aussie rules territory, with cities like Wagga Wagga being less than a 3 hours drive away. So supporters from that area could still attend numerous home games a season if they are passionate enough and playing games in the Rivera region wouldn’t a difficult ting since Canberra residents can easily drive there for a few games if they want.
Why do people keep bringing up North Melbourne as the only option for relocation. It's not hard to do a little research before coming up with these suggestions.
The Raiders were playing in the NRL before the Swans were shipped to Sydney, so South Melbourne would have been the first option.in those days. Also, in the early to mid 1980's North were in a reasonably healthy position both on and off the field, it was teams like Footscray, Fitzroy, Richmond and St Kilda that were rattling tins trying to keep their clubs afloat, so they too would have been options for relocation ahead of North.
And dare I say it, St Kilda would be a better option for relocation these days as well as they still have a sizeable debt while North is in a far more financially secure position.
@@Leftfield71 oh I would relocate of other teams too. I just feel Canberra and the Kangas are a match.
The Raiders entered the NSWRL the same year the Swans moved to Sydney (1982). And:
“The prospect of North Melbourne playing home games in Canberra was first raised publicly as early as 1984, with the club expressing an interest in playing a role in developing a national competition.”
It is not crazy what I am saying, the VFL/AFL have been thinking of relocating North since the 80s. Canberra was one of the most reasonable options.
People forget that this decision has nothing to do with population, it's participation. Both Canberra and Darwin won't work, as the AFL want sustainability and both these options won't offer that.
Norwood ticks that box, are strong financially, have strong support, very successful and are the best club outside the AFL.
You do realise that Wayne Carey and James Hird came from the Riverina? Canberra’s backyard. Participation? Population? It’s got more than the Gold Coast. You need about 500K population to support a club. Adelaide and Perth can’t do that yet and Norwood or West Perth would simply dilute those markets. Darwin is too small. A national competition without a team in the nations capital. Come on!
@@richardwood9177 - Pretty much all of what you have said is completely wrong. Geelong has the lowest population base and supports a team very successfully. Melbourne has 9 teams spread through 5 million base. Sydney has two with a base of 6 million. these numbers totally contradict your premise. Economics is not in the top five reasons to start a franchise. It has been proven over and over again. It is the DRIVER of economics. AFL is still bankrolling Gold Coast and GWS, they are a long way off being self supporting but both make sense for many other reasons. Darwin is the ONLY realistic 20th franchise, see my other comments for why.
Norwood bought 25,000 fans to the recent SANFL grand final, so they are still relevant.
Darwin will be next.
Too small. Not a chance. Better off having a team in Colac or Mildura.
I prefer GWS re-naming to the Canberra Giants and relocating to Canberra with a new side in Sydney. Their Sydney numbers are piss poor. 13K at Manuka vs 7K at ENIGE. The new Sydney team would need better marketing and more of an identity
There’s no point of afl putting so much work into gws and the. Just giving up give canberra it’s own team
Imagine if the AFL create a new team in Victoria
3rd WA team but base it in Bali😂
WA won't be going for the third licence, they've just come out and said so.
Norwood are ready,as proven by their success in holding 2 Gather Round games.
Did you not listen to the video? Perth's population is already considerably bigger than Adelaide's, and constantly pulling further away. A third Perth club might not be priority for team 20, but to suggest that bringing in a third Adelaide-based club before a third Perth-based club is ludicrous.
No, it's not fair to make judgements based on population figures, but it is what it is.
@@eddielong8663 I certainly did listen to the video actually. You obviously don't know too much about Norwood then if you believe a Perth based side would be ahead of them. No club outside the AFL has the credentials that Norwood boast, let alone their history and success. I get sick of telling people that participation, not population are important for the next licence. The AFL clubs have stated that they don't want more composite sides. The AFL are keen on festivals like the Gather Round scenario, which Norwood hosted successfully. This is an advantage that SA holds over everyone else. Ties with community are important and Norwood are very supportive with their zone on the west coast. Norwood won the Ken Gratton Community award from the AFL which is a massive plus for Norwood's bid. Norwood still have a huge following as witnessed by their grand final crowds since 1997 when Port Adelaide were admitted. Norwood tick the important boxes.
@@gregrobins5615 that may be the case but the point of expansion is to tap into new markets, Plus a 3rd Adelaide team would pull some support from the existing 2, it's better to have 2 teams strong rather than 3 that are average.
@@davidpickford. The AFL will choose the best option based on sustainability. They are understandably nervous about opening up a new market given the GWS and Gold Coast crowd numbers in both rugby states over 10 years. Can another eastern state/territory survive on their own without handouts ?
Perth has 1 million more people than Adelaide so there's no way a 3rd team would go to Adelaide before Perth
Restructure the afl and other league's. Restructure the local leagues and make 2-3 leagues like the epl with relegation and demotion between leagues. Afl top tier and then afl div 1 & 2. We have more than enough teams to get it done. A bit more media spotlight and funding for local teams. Plenty of historic teams to make up div 1 & 2. 20 teams each league. Some rebranding on some teams and youd have a nice mix of Australian clubs