The Age newspaper has published a prediction that by 2020 Melbourne will have a population of 6.2 million people. This rapid population growth suggests that none of the Melbourne clubs may be in danger of dying out, as has been predicted in recent years.
The trend, instead, suggests that Melbourne’s insatiable hunger for sport will not be satisfied by just nine AFL teams.
While the AFL are currently busy making plans to expand on the Gold Coast and in Western Sydney, they may need to have medium term plans for expansion within the Melbourne market.
The teams in Melbourne are all traditional clubs from the 1800s, while some of the expansion clubs have been started from scratch.
It is certainly arguable that a new Melbourne team will have little or no following compared to the traditional clubs. But there can be little dispute that a Melbourne city with six million people will need more AFL teams.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
May 20th 2008 @ 5:04pm
The Substitute said | May 20th 2008 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Paul,
I think the challenge for Melbourne clubs is to grow themselves, not grow new teams around them. Grounds like Subiaco, Skilled Stadium and AAMI when the Crows play are filled over 80% of capacity at most games. If you got 80k to the MCG it is something special.
With big stadiums like the ‘G, the existing clubs have plenty of room to grow and I think we have more than enough (too many, if you ask me) teams at the moment.
May 20th 2008 @ 5:09pm
Michael C said | May 20th 2008 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Paul -
main thing might be that Casey Fields (and why not out at Craigieburn or somewhere like that) might need a stadium development, at least to 25K capacity, for the matches such as North Melb vs WCE, Port etc. Allow the increasing suburban sprawl folk access to games near enough to their doorstep – - and that’s probably the thing, get the venues – - then, potentially, new clubs might have a chance of evolving naturally – - -
we do recognise though that promotion – relegation can’t work, but,
if the Gold Coast model for club/team construction works, then as a model, there’s no reason that a VFL side such as Casey Scorpions might not be able to be earmarked for ‘bigger things’.
- – - –
but – - I’d still rather see a Tassie team.
- – - –
FootyFreak – - clubs sell games interstate because of the crap stadium deals driven by Telstra Dome – - by the AFL being trapped into the arrangement there and refusing to put low drawing games on at Princes Park.
At very least, by 2020, the AFL takes over Telstra Dome (should it still be functioning!) – - and, can cut far, far greater slack to the ‘tennant’ clubs – - suddenly AFL core revenue sky rockets. And, AFL might also be better positioned to push better deals at MCG as well.
NUFCMVFC -
I gather only one club failed to turn a profit last year, the year before that 3 clubs – - yes, though, there are AFL distributions – - all clubs get a basic distribution from broadcast rights etc – - effectively to cover the Total Player Payment.
Some clubs get ‘equalisation’ grants – - but, the AFL is not into propping up basket cases – - all clubs have had to provide and get approved business cases – - and the ‘case’ for such funding is clear in all competitons – -
A. you always have clubs that go through a lean couple of years ON field. That can hit their bottom line
B. not all clubs get equal access to prime time FTA slots – which impacts the value proposition for sponsors – - and, therefore it is appropriate that some form of ‘compensation’ be paid.
It is purely common sense that if the most economic rationalist approach is to put on Ess v Coll on Anzac day for example – due to their huge support etc – - to placate the rest of the clubs who miss out on that slot – - you must share some of the cash around. That’s a no-brainer.
Now – - the FFA have the challenge with the HAL clubs – - to see how many can be profitable each year – - and what they might do to ‘support’ struggling clubs. Not all the clubs have the revenue via memberships of MVFC – - – but, reality, just like the AFL – - you don’t REALLY have broke clubs – - it’s just that the richest clubs set the ‘spending’ benchmark. Other clubs effectively get left behind or do all they can to ‘keep up’. With a salary cap, it’s in the off field areas that competitive advantage is gained – - now, when will we see a ‘League’ HQ rule an off-field salary cap????
May 20th 2008 @ 5:27pm
Paul said | May 20th 2008 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
By the way, I started this thread because of the increasing population inevitability.
This could mean the following:
1) Melbourne clubs will no longer be in danger.
AND/ OR
2) Bigger and/ or more stadiums will be needed.
AND/ OR
3) Possibly new teams could be needed in the future. But this comment was designed to provoke.
It wasn’t gibberish though, it was a *suggestion*.
May 20th 2008 @ 5:30pm
Paul said | May 20th 2008 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
Midfielder,
Current population growth in Melbourne is 1500 per week, which is 78 000. Over 12 years this would be 936 000. But the trend is that the percentage increase is on the rise as well. This is why demographers predict growth to 6.2 million instead of just to 4.7 million.
May 20th 2008 @ 5:37pm
Paul said | May 20th 2008 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
Michael C,
I would rather see a Tassie team too. I’ve signed the petition.
I personally think Tassie can swing it. If they can manage 3-4 games a year in Launceston with a population of 80 000, but taking in the northern corridor as well, then I think Hobart can take in 7 games a year with a population of 200 000+. Geelong also has a population of 200 000. If Tassie had have got a team in the 80s, they would be going strong by now. I guess if they work REALLY hard at it, they will get their team eventually, maybe by 2015?
May 20th 2008 @ 9:38pm
Mike said | May 20th 2008 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
Ok,
As Melbourne’s population grows, they will be attracted to existing clubs.
There is absolutely no need to increase the number of clubs, the current ones just need to market themselves properly.
Casey is definitely there for a melbourne or st.kilda to increase their support base.
The MCG and Docklands are fine.
If teams support bases grow then the Docklands will still cater for most Bulldogs, North and St.Kilda, and low drawing Bombers and Blues games.
The MCG is fine for the rest!
Mike
May 20th 2008 @ 10:11pm
Redb said | May 20th 2008 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Can’t see the need for more teams. What is happening is that clubs such as Collingwood and Hawthorn are very active in the outer burbs, owning sports clubs, sponsoring local footy clubs.
Redb
May 21st 2008 @ 1:59am
Paul said | May 21st 2008 @ 1:59am | Report comment
Mike, Red B,
I agree that there are no pressing needs for bigger grounds or new teams, etc, while Melbourne has a population of 3.8 million.
I guess I just enjoy speculating about the future. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea. A Melbourne with 6.2 million would be a very different city to the one we know today.
May 21st 2008 @ 8:04am
LK said | May 21st 2008 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Interesting reading:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23732136-2722,00.html
May 21st 2008 @ 9:30am
Redb said | May 21st 2008 @ 9:30am | Report comment
LK,
Why is it that Sydney dont turn up to regular rugby league games and even threaten to take major rep games away. Awful lot of hype around RL not a lot of substance.
The Swans game got more than two Rl games in Sydney on the same day.
Redb