Jump to content
Melbourne Football

A-League Expansion


AlwaysHeart
 Share

Recommended Posts

IMO the real problem with expansion is that there are no fixed criteria that MUST be met by any entity seeking to field a team in the A-League. It appears prima facie that any supposed criteria can be modified to suit an applicant favoured for some other reason. To me it was obvious that the best Victorian bid came from Team11, and IMO that has been vindicated by City's move to Casey Fields. Ironically I see that move as the final death of Team11.

What the fixed criteria should be I don't know - I have ideas, but I don't know. However I would have thought that a team with an amorphous name such as "Western United" is a no-no, that each team should have an identifiable catchment area for both players and supporters (fans and financial), and a fixed home base. Stadiums are a vexed issue - Melbourne is far worse off than Sydney in this regard - but anything that depends on vague promises from councils or governments, or tortuous application processes is IMO a no-no. This was IMO the weak point for Team11. IMO one of the weaknesses of the Women's League is that you never know where the team will be playing from one match to the next.

I actually think that names are very important, especially for people who have a casual interest in the game but are not fanatical. My late wife could never understand what "Central Coast Mariners" stood for, and it was hard work to get her to go to see us play them. As I explained it for the nth time she would say "Why don't they call the club Gosford?" She wasn't overwhelmed by "Western Sydney" either.

When I look back the launch of Heart was done pretty successfully. The alliance with Latrobe and the commitment to play at AAMI were master strokes by Scott Munn. I may not like foreign ownership of football clubs, but the move to Casey seems a good one, and I am impressed by that video spiel of Petrillo. It's something that pisses all over Victory and Western. As Milicic said - we are in fact the benchmark club. From those wheelie bins to a $42m HQ at Casey is a great story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jw1739 said:

IMO the real problem with expansion is that there are no fixed criteria that MUST be met by any entity seeking to field a team in the A-League. It appears prima facie that any supposed criteria can be modified to suit an applicant favoured for some other reason. To me it was obvious that the best Victorian bid came from Team11, and IMO that has been vindicated by City's move to Casey Fields. Ironically I see that move as the final death of Team11.

What the fixed criteria should be I don't know - I have ideas, but I don't know. However I would have thought that a team with an amorphous name such as "Western United" is a no-no, that each team should have an identifiable catchment area for both players and supporters (fans and financial), and a fixed home base. Stadiums are a vexed issue - Melbourne is far worse off than Sydney in this regard - but anything that depends on vague promises from councils or governments, or tortuous application processes is IMO a no-no. This was IMO the weak point for Team11. IMO one of the weaknesses of the Women's League is that you never know where the team will be playing from one match to the next.

I actually think that names are very important, especially for people who have a casual interest in the game but are not fanatical. My late wife could never understand what "Central Coast Mariners" stood for, and it was hard work to get her to go to see us play them. As I explained it for the nth time she would say "Why don't they call the club Gosford?" She wasn't overwhelmed by "Western Sydney" either.

When I look back the launch of Heart was done pretty successfully. The alliance with Latrobe and the commitment to play at AAMI were master strokes by Scott Munn. I may not like foreign ownership of football clubs, but the move to Casey seems a good one, and I am impressed by that video spiel of Petrillo. It's something that pisses all over Victory and Western. As Milicic said - we are in fact the benchmark club. From those wheelie bins to a $42m HQ at Casey is a great story.

Maybe that was why Team 11 did not win the bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Maybe that was why Team 11 did not win the bid.

That thought did cross my mind. But to have actively worked to thwart the Team11 bid would have meant that CFG was already eyeing off Casey Fields 2-3 years ago. Not impossible though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

That thought did cross my mind. But to have actively worked to thwart the Team11 bid would have meant that CFG was already eyeing off Casey Fields 2-3 years ago. Not impossible though.

Brad Rowse said in the press conference confirming Casey move that Victory and City supported the Team 11 bid and thought they were the best bid. They started collaborating with Team11 once they lost.

Can’t say CFG don’t care if you add up up both HQ in Casey and Bundoora they would have spend over 60m just on training facilities in Melbourne 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

So word is Macarthur are in financial trouble and if true will either be trying to A. Sell the franchise to another buyer. B. Apl to step in and take care while another buyer or possible re location is sought.

By the sounds of the way the NBL team in Tassie (jackoffs) are going it has now pricked the ears of the AFL to consider setting up a team down there. A League should be considering getting in sooner than later before it becomes a very crowded professional sporting market... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MHFC-FAN said:

So word is Macarthur are in financial trouble and if true will either be trying to A. Sell the franchise to another buyer. B. Apl to step in and take care while another buyer or possible re location is sought.

By the sounds of the way the NBL team in Tassie (jackoffs) are going it has now pricked the ears of the AFL to consider setting up a team down there. A League should be considering getting in sooner than later before it becomes a very crowded professional sporting market... 

I lived in Hobart for almost 15 years. I don't resile from the view that an A-League franchise there would be a disaster. It's not "Tasmania" in a united sense, and people have a strong bond with their region - Hobart, Launceston and the NW-Coast being the principal ones. There is just not the population or the interest in football to support a club there.

If David Gallop was right about anything he was right about any future A-League clubs needing to be situated in major population centres.

Otherwise we will just repeat the failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

So, APL has identified Canberra and Auckland for expansion to take effect in 2024-25. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/a-leagues-canberra-auckland-club-expansion-2024-25-season/102093336 and thereafter "is looking at Tasmania and Darwin." The latter seems pretty much like putting Exeter City and Berwick Rangers into the EPL because they are at opposite ends of England.

Meanwhile Football Australia is pushing a "National Second Division" with "maybe" or "perhaps" promotion and relegation sometime in the future.

I just hope that they are talking to one another, even though IMO both are deluded. So Wellington and Auckland finish first and second in the League and neither can take part in Asian Football Confederation competitions....Or, sometime in the future (if we're not in the middle of WW3) one of the NZ clubs is relegated...but to where?

Canberra is a logical extension for the A-League, but Auckland doesn't make sense to me. Wollongong, surely?

I can see City dominating the League for years to come. We may not like CFG, but with our financial security and our Academy we've got our shit together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So rumours have it that they are going to announce today that from 2024/2025 there will be 2 new teams joining the A League. Hearing it will be a Canberra team which I think definitely makes sense but then a team based out of Auckland? What's everyone's thoughts on this?

For me I can understand Canberra but can't quite understand Auckland. I would have thought a Tasmanian team would have made alot more sense! Or just relocate the homeless mob who have played a few games down there of late! 🤣

Edited by heart1011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canberra makes plenty of sense. And I can see the argument for Auckland since it creates more local matches for Phoenix, as well as a couple of lucrative derbies. It also cements the A League as an ANZ league. Tasmania has always been one I'd like to see, but the north south split there does make life difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, heart1011 said:

Hearing it will be a Canberra team which I think definitely makes sense but then a team based out of Auckland? 

 

What's everyone's thoughts on this?

 

For me I can understand Canberra but can't quite understand Auckland. I would have thought a Tasmanian team would have made alot more sense! Or just relocate the homeless mob who have played a few games down there of late! 🤣

Too much white space mate... 

Nah seriously, 2nd team in NZ is not the worst news. Odd in the fact no NZ teams are allowed to compete in any AFC competitions. But a game a week over there is not bad and the derby should be well attended! 

Canberra makes sense and probably could have come in over 5 or more years ago... Definitely good for the league in giving more opportunity for the up and coming fringe youth players more playing opportunities. 

Also there is talk of a further 2 expansion clubs in the season after 2025/26 I believe... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MHFC-FAN said:

Too much white space mate... 

Nah seriously, 2nd team in NZ is not the worst news. Odd in the fact no NZ teams are allowed to compete in any AFC competitions. But a game a week over there is not bad and the derby should be well attended! 

Canberra makes sense and probably could have come in over 5 or more years ago... Definitely good for the league in giving more opportunity for the up and coming fringe youth players more playing opportunities. 

Also there is talk of a further 2 expansion clubs in the season after 2025/26 I believe... 

Any idea what teams they are looking at for 2025/2026?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, MHFC-FAN said:

No idea, but you would have to assume purely Australian teams. Perhaps another in either Queensland, Adelaide or Perth? 

NSD may also be up and running by then. There won't be pro-rel so early but several of the bids are state consortia, not individual existing clubs. Expansion could also choose to pluck a couple of NSD teams and move them to the A League? I guess to some extent what happens in the NSD might influence new A League franchises.

My heart says I want to see a Tasmanian side in the A League, but I also understand that isn't straightforward. And I certainly don't want to see poorly thought through additions like Tarneit Unsupported and Macarthur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two NZ teams makes sense to me. It's either got to be zero or two. I think support will pick up with a NZ derby and bragging rights.

I worry the more the league expands though. Western United have shown there isn't demand for 3 Melbourne teams, and while i think this will improve when they actually play in the West, the next couple of choices are very marginal. Would love to see a Tassie team and think it could work but i worry about what their attendance will be like by season 3 when the shine has worn off and the thousands of free tickets start drying up.

Canberra seems an obvious choice, but again, there are already a lot of teams in NSW. Will they get anyone to matches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Western should move to Geelong. Even since Heart 's foundation, failures have been North Queensland (Townsville) and Gold Coast. Putting expansion clubs in growth corridors is dubious as both Western and Macarthur are demonstrating.

I've said many times that Tasmania is a dead duck as far as I am concerned, and I base that on my 14+ years residing in Hobart. Even the Tasmanian State League (Aussie rules) struggles. Tasmania is NOT one united place, and there is a north-south divide, and even the AFL has dillydallied for years over plonking a team there. With all due respect to football, IMO the AFL knows a thing or two about what makes its brand work, and why we think we might know better is beyond me.

David Gallop said years ago that expansion needed to be into existing population centres of 1m or more, and IMO he was right about that.

Superficially Auckland looks sensible, except that New Zealand is a member of the Oceania Football Confederation, and club teams from NZ cannot participate in Asian Football Confederation competitions. IMO that issue needs to be resolved before drawing any more NZ clubs into the A-League. And bear in mind that Rugby Union is far and away the premier football code in NZ.

I cannot understand why we, in football, cannot learn from our mistakes. Only months after selling the Grand Final to Sydney for a paltry $330,000 per club per year over three years, apparently because APL was in financial distress of some degree, we are coming out with yet another expansion proposal when the previous one has not delivered any return so far.

Further, I cannot see how this proposed expansion can fit in with the mooted National Second Division.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Western should move to Geelong. Even since Heart 's foundation, failures have been North Queensland (Townsville) and Gold Coast. Putting expansion clubs in growth corridors is dubious as both Western and Macarthur are demonstrating.

I've said many times that Tasmania is a dead duck as far as I am concerned, and I base that on my 14+ years residing in Hobart. Even the Tasmanian State League (Aussie rules) struggles. Tasmania is NOT one united place, and there is a north-south divide, and even the AFL has dillydallied for years over plonking a team there. With all due respect to football, IMO the AFL knows a thing or two about what makes its brand work, and why we think we might know better is beyond me.

David Gallop said years ago that expansion needed to be into existing population centres of 1m or more, and IMO he was right about that.

Superficially Auckland looks sensible, except that New Zealand is a member of the Oceania Football Confederation, and club teams from NZ cannot participate in Asian Football Confederation competitions. IMO that issue needs to be resolved before drawing any more NZ clubs into the A-League. And bear in mind that Rugby Union is far and away the premier football code in NZ.

I cannot understand why we, in football, cannot learn from our mistakes. Only months after selling the Grand Final to Sydney for a paltry $330,000 per club per year over three years, apparently because APL was in financial distress of some degree, we are coming out with yet another expansion proposal when the previous one has not delivered any return so far.

Further, I cannot see how this proposed expansion can fit in with the mooted National Second Division.

You don't like this then jw? 😉

Like you, I think WU worked in Geelong and was building a following. However noting that Geelong is a city with a population in the 300,000s, so doesn't pass the Gallop test. But to me definitely works as a location for an A League team. Canberra doesn't pass the Gallop test either but seems to be universally agreed as a good location. I'd suggest Wollongong as another similar candidate. 

Edited by fensaddler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, fensaddler said:

You don't like this then jw? 😉

Like you, I think WU worked in Geelong and was building a following. However noting that Geelong is a city with a population in the 300,000s, so doesn't pass the Gallop test. But to me definitely works as a location for an A League team. Canberra doesn't pass the Gallop test either but seems to be universally agreed as a good location. I'd suggest Wollongong as another similar candidate. 

I don't think it's been thought through to an end-point. You're quite right in terms of the Gallop test - only 5 centres pass it - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. IMO you can mount a strong argument that those five centres should be the focus of the League. However, given that we have several clubs outside those centres, then we should look at other possible candidates. 

If you look at the following you will see the next in a list of "possible locations." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population But IMO it's more than just population. Factors such as demographics and "football heritage" should be considered.

Interestingly, when we consider New Zealand, Wellington has a population of around 220,000 and Auckland 1.7m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canberra and Auckland make sense. Darwin makes no sense, not one team has proposed to enter the NSD, that alone suggests not enough interest. At least Tasmania has one entry in the NSD. Trouble with Tassie is they have pretty much two population centres one North the other South and it's a fair drive between both. I would be more inclined to see Adelaide with another team, they have their entries for the NSD, or try again with a second Qld team, five entries for NSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/03/2023 at 10:02 AM, Le Hack said:

Canberra and Auckland make sense. Darwin makes no sense, not one team has proposed to enter the NSD, that alone suggests not enough interest. At least Tasmania has one entry in the NSD. Trouble with Tassie is they have pretty much two population centres one North the other South and it's a fair drive between both. I would be more inclined to see Adelaide with another team, they have their entries for the NSD, or try again with a second Qld team, five entries for NSD

I know that I am repeating myself, but I maintain that Auckland makes no sense whatsoever. Any club based in NZ is in the Oceania Football Confederation and cannot compete in either the ACL of AFC Cup. The last Auckland-based team collapsed, and starting another one there just adds even more costs to running the A-League.

There's often a very large gap between possibilities and what a detailed study of facts reveals. Football Australia and now APL seem to fall into that gap with sickening regularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
On 25/08/2023 at 1:01 PM, jw1739 said:

Canberra and Auckland.

Canberra logical, Auckland IMO very dubious indeed.

After seeing Wellington yesterday, if all Auckland is going to bring to the league is more of the same then I suspect all APL is doing is merely harvesting more money to waste on another hare-brained scheme elsewhere. It sure isn't going to improve the league's quality.

And it's counter-productive as far as AFC competitions are concerned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
20 hours ago, MHFC-FAN said:

Thought they were already announced 6 months ago??

I must say that I hadn't realised that APL announced its target locations for two more clubs back in March. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/a-league/131498777/search-for-investors-in-new-auckland-aleagues-club-begins-with-entry-set-for-2024 . So it's no longer an "open field" for new clubs - APL decides (how?) on where it wants the clubs from and then tries to rake up investors ready to take the punt.

It'll be nice after Auckland joins if in the first season the Grand Final is between Wellington and Auckland... and the ACF will welcome our third-placed team into the ACL and our fourth-placed team into the AFC Cup...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...