Look at it the other way. All bar 2/3 teams make a profit, what is their motive to keep things as is?

So why aren't the owners agitating for it?

Everyone would probably agree that Victory are the best run club with the least chance of going down but they've never, that I know of, given any indication of opening up the league.

I think we need to realiser that what we think is best and what the owners want are 2 different things.

when the AFL comission decided to expand to 18 teams around 10 years ago, all the clubs were sceptical. then the AFL commission did a presentation to all the clubs, which showed financial modelling of future growth of the league after expansion. by all reports, it blew everyone away. 

the moral of the story is that new teams will help provide the growth that will financially benefit all stakeholders in the long term. everyone talks about how we need to increase revenue streams... well expansion is the way. staying at 10 teams will not bring new revenue streams into the league (or if it does, it will be much less than it could be). 

not sure if the AFL's expansion from 16 to 18 teams is the model we want to follow

Why did they stop at 18 then ?

So why aren't the owners agitating for it?  Or Fox for that matter?

Because the expansion is failing dismally. Gold Coast are a genuine basket case kept on life support by the AFL,  and GWS just can't get any fans. Their home attendances are an embarrassment for the league, frequently falling short of 5,000.

Of course the clubs don't want pro/rel or even expansion. The former could put their very existence under a cloud, while the latter simply reduces the revenue available for the existing franchises. They might - might - be forced into expansion just for the sake of appearances (though there's already talk of it being postponed), but it's straight up misguided and dangerous leaving these decisions in the clubs' hands. 

Pretty much agree with what you're saying.

I think there's a disconnect between what the posters here think should happen (and that includes me) and what will actually happen.

I think the clubs will head down the same closed NRL, AFL model.  I hate to say it but I think there's virtually no hope of a pro rel for decades. 

The only way I think they can be dragged kicking and screaming is if the 2nd division gets up and running and they're producing comparable football and crowds and then, maybe, that'll force their hands.

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see how a second division is sustainable without massive subsidies from the HAL.

From what I can guess, the additional costs would be for travelling/accmodation and raised minimum salary if the players are full-time.

So a random estimate would be $1m extra for each club (some NPL clubs could cover all costs imo). Hence for 12 teams, $12m extra funding is needed.

Can a TV deal pay this? I think so. Could club revenue pay for this? Maybe 25%-50%. Could FFA/HAL contribute? Yea at-least 50%.

I think the biggest cost-saver for a 2nd division would be playing out of smaller stadiums which the club actually owns, or at the least paying only a small amount of rent.

Same as the German model, or even the AFLW

The A League wouldnt have gotten off the ground without massive handouts from the Socceroos part of the game. Same for the W League and Youth league

There seems to be some enormous ethical dilemma about the second division beginning as a dependent league. Everybody else would have simply made it happen

I think you are misinformed. Every stakeholder wants expansion including all the A-league clubs. It is accepted that the A-league needs to get to either 14 or 16 teams as soon as possible. Expansion provides more opportunity to develop players and more opportunity to generate revenue. This idea that all the A-league owners are in it to make money is a load of rubbish. The Victory owners have been said on multiple occasions that they will not ever and never have taken any dividends. All money is re-invested back into the club. 

2nd Division makes 20 teams

That's the only expansion required

Not just A-League but any professional sporting club. If you want a good ROI, a pro sporting club is not the way to go. Only one NRL club makes a profit. Only half of the AFL clubs make a profit. And realistically only Victory have made profits consistently in the HAL. And those profits aren't really all that great when compared to other industries. The most profitable club in Australia is West Coast Eagles with their 2017 profits at $5.4M. That's not a high bar. If it was all about money, any intelligent business person would invest elsewhere.

Yea I think youll find otherthan for the 'love' of a club, most owners are in it to be able to adverise their business or other investments

What's wrong with that, though?

The Victory corporate constitution forbids any dividend payment to owners, but I have no problem for Di Pietro if he finds some more buyers for his fruit at a Victory in Business dinner. That networking in turn may in fact bring more investment into the club, like that Chinese sponsor we nabbed last ACL campaign.

Nothing is wrong with it. As long as the club is run well and not used for money laundering etc. then I am a happy camper :)

Don't forget about ego. Club owner sounds like a good status symbol. It's not. But it's sounds good.

getting less than 5,000 is pretty poor

It's important to note that AFL average attendances have remained the same for 20 years. They may have added more teams but that hasn't equated to more interest or growth. Any gradual increase could easily be equated to general population increase. However that average ranges between 30k and 36k which makes for a sustainable league as a whole. For the last two years they have run a kids tickets free on Sundays, but still the average remains steady. Without the free kids campaign the averages could be much lower. Expansion in a closed league doesn't equal growth. All it really does is shuffle the metrics around a bit, but averages remain the same. 

If its really successful, would the AFL/NRL have the stones to replicate that in their own game?

NRL maybe, AFL definitely not.

Do the owners have to be agitating for it tho? They're not the ones solely responsible for running the league right?

It would be to stop league stagnation without the onus being on the clubs to stop stagnation from their end by buying expensive marquee players and marketing their games or adding to the total number of clubs in the competition and thus lowering their TV monies the clubs individually receives

Exactly

Star Wars doesn't work
Corner Music doesn't work
Timmy (and now Honda is just about to once and for all) proved that Marquees don't work

Good Marketing can sell a shit product Once

Time to bring out a new Product, not a new Logo