A-league expansion

[Tesla]

Second Brisbane team (Ipswich) is definitely worth consideration, but I'd also like to see North QLD and the Gold Coast revisited at some point.

Additional teams in a city have proven themselves to be a success, just like everywhere else in the world. Only additional teams in a city can guarantee 3 sell out fixtures a season (derbys), so they'll be popular.

I think a 2nd Brisbane team is a must for the next round of expansion, if the right bid comes along. Then maybe the other team can be in a new market, Canberra is a good option.

Once you have a 2nd Brisbane team, you definitely have to look at GC again, surely the games against the two Brisbane teams will be sell outs given the proximity.

However, the lack of ambition is disappointing, expansion needs to happen ASAP. The league has clearly hit a new high in terms of quality, so I dont think we need to worry about the quality becoming too diluted through expansion, and the attention the league is getting is also at a high right now. They should capitalise and look to bring in a team in 15/16 (not a lot of time, but I think it's enough), and another in 16/17. TV deals can be renegotiated, no need to wait until it expires.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Tesla

[ae7smith]

 

I still think Wollongong is a viable option for expansion but it'll certainly be telling to see how full WIN Stadium is tomorrow night for the clash between the Wolves and the Mariners.

 

I agree, if they can pull out a big crowd the Wolves would move up to the top of the list. After the collapse of GC and Fury the FFA might be a little shy about expanding into cities with smaller populations. i.e. Hobart, Canberra, hence the talk about 2nd teams for major cities. Personally I think Brisbane could easily have a second team, and QLD def needs another one, but not the Gold Coast. Perth is growing pretty stingily a should be a contender for a second team in say 10 years.

 

If it were up to me, i'd expand the league after the tv deal bringing in two new teams: Brisbane mk.II and Canberra. Then after that tv deal end look to bring in another 2, maybe Tassie and Wollongong or Perth mk.II.

 

I think for regional cities like Townesville, wollongong and (hopefully) Geelong need to concentrate on their NPL teams for now. And in the case of Geelong getting a NPL team that represents the whole Greater Geelong region, not just some Croats from Corio or North Shore.

[strider]

Perhaps not "expansion" related, but I have a feeling if we see WSW fail in the final of the ACL, the A-League will take a second look at its Salary Cap rules and regulations.

Aussie teams will never be able to really compete - in the global sense - with other clubs that are in leagues with no salary cap. 

[AyeCee]

Perhaps not "expansion" related, but I have a feeling if we see WSW fail in the final of the ACL, the A-League will take a second look at its Salary Cap rules and regulations.

Aussie teams will never be able to really compete - in the global sense - with other clubs that are in leagues with no salary cap. 

Nah don't think so, the fact they've made the final already suggests that even with a salary cap, teams can still be highly competitive within the region.

I would love to eventually not have a cap, as I personally think that having a couple of heavy weights provides to the spectacle a bit more. However, at this point, the stronger teams don't need any strengthening, whereas the poorer clubs really can't afford to slip any further behind.

I think the current idea of raising the cap slowly as the league improves is a good policy, until all clubs (including any expansion teams) are all quite comfortably holding themselves up. This is a long way off though.

[Tesla]

Perhaps not "expansion" related, but I have a feeling if we see WSW fail in the final of the ACL, the A-League will take a second look at its Salary Cap rules and regulations.

Aussie teams will never be able to really compete - in the global sense - with other clubs that are in leagues with no salary cap.

Nah don't think so, the fact they've made the final already suggests that even with a salary cap, teams can still be highly competitive within the region.

I would love to eventually not have a cap, as I personally think that having a couple of heavy weights provides to the spectacle a bit more. However, at this point, the stronger teams don't need any strengthening, whereas the poorer clubs really can't afford to slip any further behind.

I think the current idea of raising the cap slowly as the league improves is a good policy, until all clubs (including any expansion teams) are all quite comfortably holding themselves up. This is a long way off though.

Need an Asian marquee. Of course, an Australian player could still be the Asian marquee, just like an Australian player can be the international marquee. Obviously this 3rd marquee spot effectively raises the salary 'cap', while also allowing teams in the ACL to have a quality player under the 3+1 system.

[Nate]

 

 

Perhaps not "expansion" related, but I have a feeling if we see WSW fail in the final of the ACL, the A-League will take a second look at its Salary Cap rules and regulations.

Aussie teams will never be able to really compete - in the global sense - with other clubs that are in leagues with no salary cap.

Nah don't think so, the fact they've made the final already suggests that even with a salary cap, teams can still be highly competitive within the region.

I would love to eventually not have a cap, as I personally think that having a couple of heavy weights provides to the spectacle a bit more. However, at this point, the stronger teams don't need any strengthening, whereas the poorer clubs really can't afford to slip any further behind.

I think the current idea of raising the cap slowly as the league improves is a good policy, until all clubs (including any expansion teams) are all quite comfortably holding themselves up. This is a long way off though.

 

Need an Asian marquee. Of course, an Australian player could still be the Asian marquee, just like an Australian player can be the international marquee. Obviously this 3rd marquee spot effectively raises the salary 'cap', while also allowing teams in the ACL to have a quality player under the 3+1 system.

 

Agree with this. 

 

The salary cap is still required to protect our league at a domestic level but I think the marquee rules can be refined in order to be more competitive on an international scale. 

[Harrison]

I know this isn't specifically to do with expansion, but here are the attendances for the first round. Home team is listed first.

 

Melbourne Victory v WSW - 30,083

 

Sydney v MCFC - 25,525

 

Brisbane v Adelaide - 16,195

 

CCM v Newcastle - 10,443

 

Wellington v Perth - 7,767

 

The bottom two matches were quite low. Of particular concern is Wellington's attendance. Appalling effort from the Nux fans. CCM's turnout was also quite low considering this was round one AND the F3 derby (means fuck all to us but I just assumed that it was a big deal there). In January of this year (round sixteen), that fixture at Bluetongue had 10,920. Also, I honestly expected a lot more at the Victory v WSW match as well as the Sydney v MCFC match.  

 

Gallop a few days ago said there were two million web users, one million social media followers and expects to go through the 100,000 membership mark.

 

Why are attendances lower this year? Do you reckon it is due to the makeup of the round? 

[jw1739]

Actually I would have thought that the shortfall was more in the Victory/WSW and Sydney/City matches, where I had read expectations of 40,000 and 35,000 respectively.

 

I also read recently (source escapes me - apologies) that the next expansion may be a third Sydney team and a second Brisbane team. I would have thought that a second Brisbane team at this stage would be unwise.

[Tesla]

Actually I would have thought that the shortfall was more in the Victory/WSW and Sydney/City matches, where I had read expectations of 40,000 and 35,000 respectively.

I also read recently (source escapes me - apologies) that the next expansion may be a third Sydney team and a second Brisbane team. I would have thought that a second Brisbane team at this stage would be unwise.

I think a second Brisbane team is a good idea, a derby can really boost football in a city, if you went off of Sydney FC's attendances before Wanderers came in, you probably wouldn't think West Sydney was a good idea either. But a 3rd Sydney team might have the edge over Brisbane, 6 derbies off the bat (3 sold out home ganes), plus ccm which isn't far away at all, don't see how it can fail, even if it doesn't have much of a fan base.

Of course, when you go beyond 2 teams, derbys mean less, so who knows if they're guaranteed sell outs.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Tesla

[malloy]

 

Actually I would have thought that the shortfall was more in the Victory/WSW and Sydney/City matches, where I had read expectations of 40,000 and 35,000 respectively.

I also read recently (source escapes me - apologies) that the next expansion may be a third Sydney team and a second Brisbane team. I would have thought that a second Brisbane team at this stage would be unwise.

I think a second Brisbane team is a good idea, a derby can really boost football in a city, if you went off of Sydney FC's attendances before Wanderers came in, you probably wouldn't think West Sydney was a good idea either. But a 3rd Sydney team might have the edge over Brisbane, 6 derbies off the bat (3 sold out home ganes), plus ccm which isn't far away at all, don't see how it can fail, even if it doesn't have much of a fan base.

Of course, when you go beyond 2 teams, derbys mean less, so who knows if they're guaranteed sell outs.

 

 

There is also the issue that the longer you wait to introduce a second team to a city the harder it will be for it to attract a sizeable fan base. Unless of course there is some sort of divide. Like Sydney. I do not know enough about Brisbane to know if such a divide exists and if there is, if it just a trivial divide that wouldn't affect anything.

[Tesla]

Actually I would have thought that the shortfall was more in the Victory/WSW and Sydney/City matches, where I had read expectations of 40,000 and 35,000 respectively.

I also read recently (source escapes me - apologies) that the next expansion may be a third Sydney team and a second Brisbane team. I would have thought that a second Brisbane team at this stage would be unwise.

I think a second Brisbane team is a good idea, a derby can really boost football in a city, if you went off of Sydney FC's attendances before Wanderers came in, you probably wouldn't think West Sydney was a good idea either. But a 3rd Sydney team might have the edge over Brisbane, 6 derbies off the bat (3 sold out home ganes), plus ccm which isn't far away at all, don't see how it can fail, even if it doesn't have much of a fan base.

Of course, when you go beyond 2 teams, derbys mean less, so who knows if they're guaranteed sell outs.

 

There is also the issue that the longer you wait to introduce a second team to a city the harder it will be for it to attract a sizeable fan base. Unless of course there is some sort of divide. Like Sydney. I do not know enough about Brisbane to know if such a divide exists and if there is, if it just a trivial divide that wouldn't affect anything.

Apparently there is, with Ipswich etc, but like you say, I have no idea if it's a proper divide or just trivial.

[CityHeart]

not a local up there, but never have liked the CCM and Jets - 2 small clubs in small catchments a stones-throw from each other.

 

Can they be merged? NRL has only one team in that area - is 2 really needed? Perhaps CCM can relocate south and become a Northern Sydney team?

 

I think the A-league is really starting to look professional and appealing on TV - all clubs really bar these two and perhaps us and wellington up until now have looked a bit ordinary as a TV product - cheap, small crowds etc.

[Jovan]

Thats nearly half the league????

[Nate]

Not every club has to be a blockbuster club attracting 15k supporters a week for it to be successful, Newcastle and Central Coast are great for the league especially considering the size of their catchment areas (Gosford especially). 

 

The league needs stability more than anything right now, new teams are absolutely necessary down the track but not at the expense of already established ones and I think that's the FFA's priority for now.

[jw1739]

CCM is FFA's "regional team" in the league. They have done very well considering their location. They are building a $40m "Centre of Excellence" at Tuggerah(?) and there's no way they are going anywhere or amalgamating with anyone.

 

In terms of expansion I would say FFA will look at a third team in Sydney, based perhaps on Belmore Sports Ground in the south, and a team from Wollongong. 

 

It's not just a matter of adding teams, consideration must also be given to the extension of the season that will be required unless we are going to have midweek games - which are unpopular with the fans.

[Tesla]

CCM is FFA's "regional team" in the league. They have done very well considering their location. They are building a $40m "Centre of Excellence" at Tuggerah(?) and there's no way they are going anywhere or amalgamating with anyone.

 

In terms of expansion I would say FFA will look at a third team in Sydney, based perhaps on Belmore Sports Ground in the south, and a team from Wollongong. 

 

It's not just a matter of adding teams, consideration must also be given to the extension of the season that will be required unless we are going to have midweek games - which are unpopular with the fans.

That's the main reason for needing more teams though, to add more games. 27 games is a joke by world standards. 11 teams, would be 30 games under the current teams play each other 3 times system. 30 should be considered the absolute minimum games the league should have. 12 teams is 33 games, that's more like it though.

I think 2 more teams are urgently needed, and it should come down to one of Brisbane 2, Sydney 3, and Canberra. Though the FFA have said it won't happen until the next TV deal.

Given how much the league has improved in quality recently, I also think we have the player base to support 2 more teams as well.

[kingofhearts]

Could Tasmania host a team? How big is soccer down there?

[Dylan]

Could Tasmania host a team? How big is soccer down there?

 

 

They already have a team.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Dylan

[Dylan]

Its going to be fun on here if Wollongong gets a team since they will be probably play in red and white. 

[jw1739]

 

Could Tasmania host a team? How big is soccer down there?

 

 

They already have a team.

 

I lived and worked there for almost 15 years. And used to go to a few local matches. There's no such thing as the unity of "Tasmania" in the sense that's being implied here. You're either from Hobart, Launceston, the North-West Coast, the West Coast, etc. etc. In those days the "crowd" at a match consisted of the officials and non-playing players from the two clubs concerned, plus wives and girlfriends, plus 10-20 football-starved blokes like me, plus a couple of blokes who happened to be walking their dogs across the park when the match started.

 

IMO forget Tasmania for the foreseeable future.

[CityHeart]

Not every club has to be a blockbuster club attracting 15k supporters a week for it to be successful, Newcastle and Central Coast are great for the league especially considering the size of their catchment areas (Gosford especially). 

 

The league needs stability more than anything right now, new teams are absolutely necessary down the track but not at the expense of already established ones and I think that's the FFA's priority for now.

 

why is this? Just becuase something is good 'for what it is' doesnt mean it was the right way of doing something.

 

With anything, you get the foundations right then it grows. Probably an extreme example, but losing GC and adding WSW was probably the best thing that the league did since inception.

 

15K should absolutely be a realistic aim going forward - at least before major expansion.

 

Gallop has said that expansion needs to be where 'millions' are not, thousands. That means 2 things:

 

1. Expansion is very limited in AUS/NZ. I can only think of Auckland, and perhaps another Syd/Mel which I dont think is needed yet. Melbourne especially with no obvious divides etc.

2. The A-league perhaps isnt as happy with the 'thousands' areas as you suggest. Good for an area =/= best the A-league can be.

[Nate]

So effectively, you're saying football in this country should be less about the fans and more about the corporate/business side of things where money and figures is all that matters? 

 

This stinks of the Luzenac debacle where a club that rightfully gained promotion to Ligue 2 in France but wasn't allowed to participate because their ground was too small and their club too insignificant. As long as the clubs are financially viable, there's no reason to cull them.

[mus-28]

Expansion should go to whatever franchise is financially viable. If a team can sustain itself on crowds of 5,000, so be it. Just because areas have high populations, doesn't mean they'll be guaranteed to be a successful base for an A-League franchise. Just have to look at GCU & NQF, both could draw decent crowds but were severely hampered by the Qld Govt and their excessive stadium hire costs.

The most important thing to come from expansion will be the extra opportunity for 36 Australians to become professional footballers.

A criteria needs to be clearly announced and existing clubs and new franchise given the opportunity to compete for the available license(s) on merit.

[Tbitm]

Wellington look to be on the ropes since they didn't have their licence renewed. I think the FFA are just holding it back as a bargaining chip since Sky pay 180k for the rights.

 

Forget about Wollongong getting its own side, everything I've read suggests them sharing a side with south sydney. And after that id say south west sydney and South Melbourne are the only other potential bids that are in the millions and have suitable stadiums.

 

 

Expansion should go to whatever franchise is financially viable. If a team can sustain itself on crowds of 5,000, so be it. Just because areas have high populations, doesn't mean they'll be guaranteed to be a successful base for an A-League franchise. Just have to look at GCU & NQF, both could draw decent crowds but were severely hampered by the Qld Govt and their excessive stadium hire costs.

 

​Worst crowds since the New Zealand Knights is decent? Even Heart were getting double their crowds.

The most important thing to come from expansion will be the extra opportunity for 36 Australians to become professional footballers.

A criteria needs to be clearly announced and existing clubs and new franchise given the opportunity to compete for the available license(s) on merit.

 

Well they have said it has to be in the millions repeatedly, which people who suggest Tasmania, Wollongong, Canberra etc just seem to ignore. Other than that the obvious other requirement are it needs to have a specific identity, either geographical or otherwise, and a stadium up to A-League standards. Which leaves the door open to a lot of potential Sydney candidates thanks to the amount of suburban NRL grounds, and South Melbourne. 

Edited October 14, 2014 by Tbitm

[CityHeart]

So effectively, you're saying football in this country should be less about the fans and more about the corporate/business side of things where money and figures is all that matters? 

 

This stinks of the Luzenac debacle where a club that rightfully gained promotion to Ligue 2 in France but wasn't allowed to participate because their ground was too small and their club too insignificant. As long as the clubs are financially viable, there's no reason to cull them.

 

Am I following a different league? CCM and the Jets are financially viable? Talk of players/staff not being able to be paid is good for the league/fans? Can both really survive long-term anyway?

 

I am not saying the region doesnt need a team - but does it need 2?

 

And yes, there needs to be a balance with financial stability and fans - without financial stability in a country where the sport is not #1 but closer to #4-5 it needs financial stability first and foremost to be sustainable.

 

Taking a license to where it is better utilised is clearly better for the fans - target the markets which we should have when we started, do not keep going with mistakes for the sack of no change. WSW are a perfect case in point. 

 

That is my point.

[AyeCee]

Cunts are still forgetting that gate takings only account for around 10% of club income nowadays, means almost nothing. Cannot be used as the reason alone for a club failing.

The only thing fans are good for now in terms of revenue is raising tv viewership, and interest from sponsors due to the increase in exposure.

[Tesla]

Cunts are still forgetting that gate takings only account for around 10% of club income nowadays, means almost nothing. Cannot be used as the reason alone for a club failing.

The only thing fans are good for now in terms of revenue is raising tv viewership, and interest from sponsors due to the increase in exposure.

A difference of 5000 members is a difference of $1m+ revenue from memberships.

You're right about sponsors, they'll pay a lot more for a team with more members as well.

This is the difference between a financially viable club and one that isn't.

Fact is, stadium revenue still counts even for big global clubs, Serie A clubs make the second most revenue from their TV deal, after the EPL, but the lack of stadium revenue is why they can't compete financially with the other big leagues (EPL, la liga, bundesliga, PSG).

[AyeCee]

 

Cunts are still forgetting that gate takings only account for around 10% of club income nowadays, means almost nothing. Cannot be used as the reason alone for a club failing.

The only thing fans are good for now in terms of revenue is raising tv viewership, and interest from sponsors due to the increase in exposure.

A difference of 5000 members is a difference of $1m+ revenue from memberships.

You're right about sponsors, they'll pay a lot more for a team with more members as well.

This is the difference between a financially viable club and one that isn't.

Fact is, stadium revenue still counts even for big global clubs, Serie A clubs make the second most revenue from their TV deal, after the EPL, but the lack of stadium revenue is why they can't compete financially with the other big leagues (EPL, la liga, bundesliga, PSG).

 

Not trying to be a cunt, but is there a source for that somewhere?

I would have thought the gap would have been due to the lower rates of investment by owners, as in the Serie A wouldn't pull the big owner names in comparison to the EPL. That is a guess though.

Whilst studying the subject (Sport mgmt lol), it was made clear that gate takings are a miniscule part of a modern sporting club. I understand that the A-league ratio is probably a lot closer (like you said, a few thousand memberships is a decent amount of money), but those larger clubs surprise me, even with stupidly expensive tickets. I would think that matchday income would be pocket change when compared to sponsorship and tv revenue.

 

[Nate]

 

So effectively, you're saying football in this country should be less about the fans and more about the corporate/business side of things where money and figures is all that matters? 

 

This stinks of the Luzenac debacle where a club that rightfully gained promotion to Ligue 2 in France but wasn't allowed to participate because their ground was too small and their club too insignificant. As long as the clubs are financially viable, there's no reason to cull them.

 

Am I following a different league? CCM and the Jets are financially viable? Talk of players/staff not being able to be paid is good for the league/fans? Can both really survive long-term anyway?

 

I am not saying the region doesnt need a team - but does it need 2?

 

And yes, there needs to be a balance with financial stability and fans - without financial stability in a country where the sport is not #1 but closer to #4-5 it needs financial stability first and foremost to be sustainable.

 

Taking a license to where it is better utilised is clearly better for the fans - target the markets which we should have when we started, do not keep going with mistakes for the sack of no change. WSW are a perfect case in point. 

 

That is my point.

 

The financial problems have come about primarily as a result of ownership troubles though among other factors already mentioned such as sponsorship, stadium costs etc, and not solely from attendance figures or the level of fan support. 

FWIW, I also think that most would deem the Hunter Valley and the Central Coast to be two individual regions.

 

I agree with you in saying that we shouldn't keep going with mistakes purely for the sake of avoiding change but my point is that I don't for one second think having clubs in both Newcastle and Gosford was ever a mistake. 

 

As AyeCee alluded to, the big revenue raiser comes from TV viewership and once the issue of club ownership is sorted out I can't see any lingering issue. That's not to say the FFA can afford to be complacent in selecting new markets for future expansion as I very much doubt they want another club to fold in the foreseeable future. 

[Tesla]

Cunts are still forgetting that gate takings only account for around 10% of club income nowadays, means almost nothing. Cannot be used as the reason alone for a club failing.

The only thing fans are good for now in terms of revenue is raising tv viewership, and interest from sponsors due to the increase in exposure.

A difference of 5000 members is a difference of $1m+ revenue from memberships.

You're right about sponsors, they'll pay a lot more for a team with more members as well.

This is the difference between a financially viable club and one that isn't.

Fact is, stadium revenue still counts even for big global clubs, Serie A clubs make the second most revenue from their TV deal, after the EPL, but the lack of stadium revenue is why they can't compete financially with the other big leagues (EPL, la liga, bundesliga, PSG).

Not trying to be a cunt, but is there a source for that somewhere?

I would have thought the gap would have been due to the lower rates of investment by owners, as in the Serie A wouldn't pull the big owner names in comparison to the EPL. That is a guess though.

Whilst studying the subject (Sport mgmt lol), it was made clear that gate takings are a miniscule part of a modern sporting club. I understand that the A-league ratio is probably a lot closer (like you said, a few thousand memberships is a decent amount of money), but those larger clubs surprise me, even with stupidly expensive tickets. I would think that matchday income would be pocket change when compared to sponsorship and tv revenue.

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedKingdom/Local%20Assets/Documents/Industries/Sports%20Business%20Group/deloitte-uk-sbg-arff-2013-highlights-download.pdf

Also in there it shows that Serie A and Ligue 1 are the most reliant on TV revenue, with stadium revenue only accounting for 11% and 12% of revenue, so even the most reliant on tv revenue make more than your 10% figure from stadiums.

A little off topic, but it also says Serie A club have had the largest operating losses, which obviously has to be covered by investment. Investment is a problem in Italy, in terms of investing in shit like stadiums etc., but investment in keeping the club going has never really been a big problem as Italian clubs have generally been well backed for a long time.

Inter Milan was basically the original billionaire backed club, Moratti poured money into it for a long time as he had the dream of winning the CL, once he won it he cut off funding and then sold up lol. Inter is owned by another billionaire now. A lot doesn't need to be said about the AC Milan and Juventus owners I don't think, plenty of money there as well. And Roma probably has the best owners of anyone in Serie A right now, plenty of financial backing, but more importantly, a lot of sports business knowledge there. Etc. etc. etc.

Back in the glory days, you had Parmalat, which surely had to be close to the biggest player in the Dairy industry in the world owning Parma and putting $$$ into it, until they went bankrupt and brought the club with them lol.

Due to that glory period, Serie A is still big in a lot of places in Europe and South America, places where people don't just jump on a bandwagon like they do in Asia and Australia and the US, etc., so those places help with the TV revenue, though most of it is domestic revenue.

In summary, when Serie A teams build new stadiums, the EPL is fucked.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Tesla

[AyeCee]

Brilliant.

I wasn't that far off, give us a break. It also doesn't clarify if matchday revenue is from ticket sales alone, or if it includes shit like food and shirt sales. Interesting read though.

[Tesla]

Brilliant.

I wasn't that far off, give us a break. It also doesn't clarify if matchday revenue is from ticket sales alone, or if it includes shit like food and shirt sales. Interesting read though.

I'm pretty sure it would include both, hence why terms like stadium revenue and matchday revenue are used.

[Tesla]

It's interesting to consider why Italy have such high domestic TV revenue though.

Is it because people don't go to the games and so they watch it on TV?

Is it because in Italy, a lot of people support their local club as well as a big club (or so I've heard)?

It is a bit unusual.

But the biggest lesson the A-League has to learn from Italy is, fix the stadiums.

Every team needs to have a modern, purpose built soccer stadium, of an appropriate capacity.

Same thing has helped the MLS dramatically.

[Tonyboozeadams]

No way should Brisbane or Ipswich get a team. If you look at the membership numbers of roar, they are pretty average for such a successful team.

They have been talking for a while about an nrl team in Ipswich or Toowoomba and it seems that even that isn't viable. If league can't attract enough support, no way football will.

Wollongong seems like a good bet, but I don't know enough about the area.

Canberra struggles with fans for the raiders but do ok with the brumbies, plus the AIS is down there.

What about Geelong or Bendigo?

[Nate]

For as long as country Victorians are happily willing to travel into the city to watch games, I can't really see it happening.

 

Geelong maybe down the track.

[perthheart]

I don't have any problem with CCM and Newcastle. It's good to have regional teams IMO. Newcastle has excellent attendances for an area of their size with a traditionally average team in recent years. To be out performing Perth, Adelaide and ourselves crowd wise is pretty impressive really. Regional teams are good for having a diverse league. Certainly makes doing away trips more interesting as well.

[agoalie]

Geelong wont happen, there isnt enough interest in "socca" down there, its either afl or afl. i would like another victorian team so i could attend more games per year but another victorian team will not happen for many many years.

 

Wollongong is pretty much a sure thing and id say adelaide will be the best bet if a major city was to get another team. 

[Mika]

In an idealistic world, I'd like to see a few more teams pop up outside of VIC and NSW (although a Geelong team would be good if they can get the support), though I don't think it'd be financially viable based on the comments I've read here.

Another SA team would be great IMO.

 

Feed off the rivalries to spur that Aussie fight we all love and have. That might attract more to the game.

 

[Tesla]

Sorry but there is no way you can put Wollongong before Canberra. Canberra has proven itself as the number 1 option for expansion into a new city. I'm not saying Wollongong shouldn't have a team, they're a good option, but not before Canberra. The only better options than Canberra are potential 2nd/3rd teams in the major cities (sydney, melbourne, brisbane).

Anyway, I'm glad FFA have come to their senses. I've been saying for years places like Melbourne and Sydney can support at least 5 teams. Everyone loves this idea of teams all over the country, but the population gaps are just too large, another team in a big city will pretty much always be better than a team in a smaller city.

[Nate]

 

David Gallop hints Brisbane derby on cards in A-League expansion shake-up

Marco Monteverde The Sunday Mail (Qld) December 14, 2014 12:00AM

    

 

THE success of A-League derbys in Sydney and Melbourne has Brisbane as a likely destination for a second Queensland team when the competition expands.

 

Football Federation Australia chief executive David Gallop told The Sunday Mail that come the next A-League broadcast deal — set for 2017 — expansion was likely, with a 12-team competition expected.

 

While Gallop would not commit to a second Queensland team, and more specifically a Brisbane-based rival for the Roar, he is a huge fan of derbys and wants more in future seasons.

 

“There’s no question that the Melbourne and Sydney derby games have driven so much of the boom in the A-League’s crowds, TV ratings, membership and digital audiences,” he said.

 

“These matches showcase one of our key advantages over all the other footy brands — the atmosphere created by passionate fans.

 

“This season we’ve seen new crowd and ratings records in derby matches. The fans can’t get enough of the rivalries and for many new fans it takes just one derby experience to become hooked.

 

“With this in mind, it’s natural that a Brisbane derby would be a logical addition to the A-League.”

 

Counting against a second Queensland team being based on the Gold Coast, Townsville or Cairns are the failures of the North Queensland Fury and Gold Coast United.

 

The Townsville-based Fury lasted only two seasons, while not even the millions of Clive Palmer could ensure a long-term future for United, who were canned after three years.

 

Gallop, who was not with FFA during the existence of United and Fury, was hardly surprised they failed considering the population of their base cities.

 

Townsville last year had an estimated population of 190,000, while the Gold Coast-Tweed Heads’ population was slightly more than 600,000.

 

“My rule of thumb is that expansion should only occur in markets where there are populations in the millions, not hundreds of thousands,” he said.

 

“We need to fish where the fish are, and the big cities are full of football fans and players.

 

“There are some very promising football markets in several Australian cities, including Brisbane, but no decision has been taken about the priority.

 

“An expansion club needs more than just a derby.

 

“It will come down to broad community support and the fundamental investment decisions.”

 

Miron Bleiberg, the foundation coach of both the Roar and Gold Coast United, believed a second Queensland team should be based in Brisbane.

 

“And that’s not to take anything away from the Roar,” he said.

 

“On the contrary, it’s to stimulate the interest in football in Brisbane, like it has in Sydney and Melbourne.”

 

Gallop said FFA was pleased with the “continued growth in all metrics for Brisbane Roar”.

 

“Under the leadership of (chairman) Chris Fong and (managing director) Sean Dobson, the Roar have done a fantastic job in engaging with their community and local business,” he said.

 

“There’s no doubt the brand of Brisbane Roar has grown hugely as a result.

 

“Over the past three years, crowds, TV ratings and digital audiences have grown consistently in Brisbane.

 

“It’s one of the key markets in our overall boom.

 

“The membership growth is phenomenal, more than 50 per cent up on last year and now more than 11,000, a Roar club record.

 

“Half of our clubs are either profitable or near break-even, which is a rare achievement in the Australian sports landscape.

 

“We have more work ... but the next broadcast deal should provide an environment for the expansion issue to come back into the strategic plan.”