Welcome Tasmania, but the AFL should be a 16-team competition so three clubs must go

Further increasing the comp just further dilutes the talent pool. I think 18 clubs is right, 19 is probably one too many but I’ll cop it as Tasmania have the right to be in this competition, anything more than that is a ridiculous oversight considering the population that actually plays the game. I take your point on the fixture, it certainly isn’t ideal, and no one knows that better than West Australians, but geez 3-5 more teams? That’s madness, the AFL are already keeping about 4 teams afloat financially, and I reckon the standard of footy will continue to go down the more teams you add. You can’t have it all.

I actually do think the AFL should keep expanding. The AFL fixture is ridiculous. The only correct fixture for a sport competition is for every team to play every other team twice. Once at home and once away. The season is not going to be extended to be 36 rounds. The competition is not going to be decreased to 12 or 14 teams either. If another three or five teams were added the competition could have two divisions which would allow sensible fixturing. Another option is that every team plays every other team once. In the following year, every team that a club played at home, they play away, and vice versa.

I still think all a third team does is weaken both clubs and water down a rivalry. It doesn’t add anything to the league other than getting rid of a bye, and it’s still a second choice team as many of these fans on the waiting list are still West Coast fans, and probably still would be West Coast fans. Perth is a two team town, changing it would do more damage than good, and geez Joondalup is an eyesore full of mostly Poms and South Africans, soccer and rugby are more popular up there if that is the location of choice. If there was ever to be a new WA team it should be in the South West based out of Bunbury or Busselton… but that would have the same population issues a NT team or a Cairns team would have.

“West Coasts waiting list” lmfao. Then why do we need to have a 20th team in the first place? I am not necessarily arguing that there should be a 20th team, just that if there is one, WA makes sense, because there is literally a waiting list for west Coast Eagles memberships. This tells you that there are not enough clubs in the AFL from WA to accommodate the number of footy fans that there are there.

Then why do we need to have a 20th team in the first place? Is a bye so bad? If there are no real factors for the third team that are positive other than getting rid of a bye and adding an extra game there is absolutely zero point in doing it. A third Perth team would likely just be a soulless entity based up at Arena Joondalup that’s only members are people who are on West Coasts waiting list and want to go to some footy games.

“They won’t get much support. Where ever a 20th team goes they, arguably, will not get much support. Cairns and Canberra are not Aussie Rules areas. The Gold Coast get crowds of barely more than 10,000. How is a Cairns team going to go in a city with half the population of the Gold Coast? Darwin is smaller than some regional towns in Victoria. There are not enough people there to support an AFL team unless almost every adult in the town buys a membership. Victoria, SA, and now Tasmania are better represented in the AFL than WA. A WAFL team with a big following is really the only option I see for the 20th team.

I will try to address a few issues raised here as succinctly as possible. Firstly, team names. GWS and Gold coast suns are generic names that don't give supporters any sort of name that is a focal point. "Lets go down to western Sydney, or lets go down to the Gold coast to watch team training" just doesn't have the ring of "let's go down to Richmond to watch Richmond train." Before someone brings up wet toast its important to remember wet toasters hate "easterners", especially if they happen to also be Victorian, so for them "West Coast" is a rallying point. I'd like to see the figures on how many supporters were picked up purely by changing the name from Footscray to "Western" Bulldogs. As to Hawthorn moving and changing to yellow and green. Firstly the person suggesting that has appalling fashion and almost as apalling of the designer of the current colour scheme. "Average" temperatures differ from actual temperatures markedly and playing in a Hobart winter will find players more likely coming off with frostbite rather than a playing injury and with a population of only around 220,000, large crowds are most likely just a fantasy and it will become just another team suckling on the AFL teat ad infinitum, AFL heartland or not. Also, can they supply 45 AFL grade players? The system cannot be continually propped up by dipping into the Victorian player well and wondering why it is hard for teams like North Melb to compete. IMO another team will guarantee some clubs to be perpetual cellar dwellers. If the AFL was answerable to shareholders there would be no GWS or GCS. (And in fairness possibly no North or ST Kilda). The AFL and the competition don't need another white elephant.

Fair points around the South West, would most likely have exactly the same issues as NT would face. Is a very strong footy area though. A third Perth team just feels unnecessary so if they were going to have it in WA it would be better to be somewhere other than Perth but financially Perth is the only place that makes sense. I’m still more of a fan of two teams merging to make it an 18 comp rather than an extra WA to make it 20 teams.

This is a parody article surely.

If you're going down the south-west route probably makes more sense for Busselton, geographically central between Bunbury, and Margaret River, and a reasonable population in its own right (when the satellite of Dunsborough/Yallingup is included). Additionally Busselton already has direct flights to Melbourne from the local airport. Personally I don't think the South West is viable for a new team, has lots of the same issues as NT regarding small/dispersed population, lack of substantially sized local companies/national companies headquartered in the region for sponsor $. Plus lack of sufficient existing stadium infrastructure (Governments are not going to commit to big infrastructure build there as seat/s is not marginal - very safe liberal)

PAticipation up over teh whole stat your team gets 70 at training and you think this shows grass root footy is thriving - this is another part of the problem - a concentration of players meaning less clubs and less opportunities. We have the same iss ue down here big club getting big numbers while other clubs can't field teams. It is leading to fewer spots for juniors to play.

“I like how you are debating the state of grass roots football while not discussing your involvement in grass roots football.” Because anecdotes are meaningless. :silly: I could easily tell you a story about how my rural club that is adjacent to Bendigo/Ballarat/Geelong/whatever was considering folding 15 years ago, had no reserves, and the seniors had to bring up three kids from the under 17s every Saturday just to get 18 guys on the ground, but then the club was enveloped by the suburbs of said town and now they get 70 at training, are fielding a thirds team, had a really good run with injuries, and have climbed two divisions. This story would be utterly, utterly, useless, just as useless as your story, if participation numbers were down in every state across the county.

“And what is wrong if it counts auskick?” Becuase if there isn’t a Senior team in the town Auskick doesn’t exist. ““20-24 decreased 17.3%” this is why senior footy in your area is struggling” OK – despite overall poulation growth and an increase in both the 30-35 & the 25-29 demographic we have lost 2 teams in the past 6 years (after losing another 8 in the preceding 20) and find another 4 struggling to field competitive teams all because the 20-24 demographic has decreased.

I like how you are debating the state of grass roots football while not discussing your involvement in grass roots football. The figures may not include "primary shcool clinics" but the do include Auskick (which are oftened signed up at primary school clinics). And teams disappearing isn't an "anecdote", the poluation increase in my area while teams are disappearing isn't an "anecdote" and the groet in the 25-35 cohort in the lat 5 years in may area isn't an "anecdote"

It does not include auskick. And what is wrong if it counts auskick? “20-24 decreased 17.3%” this is why senior footy in your area is struggling, and the 25-29 year old growth is not nearly enough to compensate for that decrease. Also are they actual changes in population or proportional changes? Imagine there are ten guys in a room. Six are 23. The other four guys are 28. Four of the 23-year-olds, and one of the 28-year-olds, leave. The proportion of guys aged 25-29 in that room has increased by 20%, but the actual population of 25-29 year-olds has decreased by 25%.

I like how you are debating the relevancy of the data when you are basing your argument on anecdotes. The data do not include primary school clinics, as you suggested. :silly:

” I showed you the data. Nationally, grass roots footy is fine.” DO you have involvement in grass roots football? DO you know what makes up the “data” you provided? DO you know what happens to junor teams when a senior team can’t be fielded? As for age demographic in my city – from 2016 to 2021 the 25-29 cohort grew 5.7%, 30-35 grew 15.8% and the 10-14 grew 10.9% while the 20-24 decreased 17.3% & the 15-19 decreased 6.2%. So yes while some of the decrease for 24 teams to 10 over the last 30 years is due to demographics, the change in more recent years is not – it is a change in participation largley due to young people not wanting to risk injury and loss of income which has in turn led to a massive increase in the amount of money being paid to players. P.S. The league I am refereing to is in the green area in the South West. Another league in the 3 light Green area’s around the surf coast has lost 1 of 11 teams in the last 8 years and has a3 more that are uncompetitive.

For some reason I read south-east instead of south-west. My bad. I showed you the data. Nationally, grass roots footy is fine. In the south-west too, populations are generally decreasing, or increasing very little: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0034/557827/Population_change_lga_1991_2020_State.jpg In the areas that are increasing I guarantee that the proportion of people over the age of 35, so footy participation age, is much lower than it was 30 years ago.

Doesn’t reflect anything about “south east victoria” just what is going on in South West Victoria and being relfected the rest our rural/regional Australia, As for the population the regional city I live in and my league is based around has had a 14% population increase over the since 2011 over the same period 2 of 12 teams (16.66%) have folded and the bottomm 4 have become uncompetitive. But sure laugh away. P.S. – you do know the AFL counts Auskick kids as registered participants don’t you?

LMAO. Do you have any evidence other than anecdotes that include your rural club’s bad run with ACL injuries 15 years ago? This probably just reflects the fact that south-east Victoria’s population is decreasing, or stagnating but getting older, because many of the young people from there are moving to areas of Victoria that are growing.