Just how viable is the Gold Coast [Archive]

moomba

1st November 2007, 11:20

OK, lets put aside the argument whether or not North are capable of surviving as a Melbourne club, there are more than enough threads on that.

The people who have decided that we can't, seem also to have decided that the Gold Coast will be an improvement both for the Roos, the AFL and presumably their clubs.

Based on the populations of metropolitan Brisbane, and the Gold Coast and the membership and crowd numbers of the Lions can we expect the following of a Gold Coast based team. (based on 2007 estimates - Bris population 1.8m, members 21,976, average home crowds 28848, GC population 500k)

Members - 6,104
Average home crowd - 8,013

I've not considered the fact that a large number of the footy supporters on the Gold Coast would already be Lions supporters, or supporters of other AFL clubs. I've also not considered that the Lions are coming off a phenomenal era. And I haven't even started on the costs of redeveloping the stadium in the Gold Coast to AFL standard (although with these numbers it might not need development).

Can anyone come up with an idea why a Gold Coast team would be supported in numbers 4 times the support of the Lions? And if not, are those numbers that could conceivably support an AFL team without pretty large injections of money from the AFL (not to mention the draft, salary cap and trade concessions that would be needed to turn us into a team attractive/successful enough for the locals).

Has the AFL explained their plans for the region to anyone, and if not do they deserve our trust that a move to the Gold Coast will actually benefit anyone.

And before anyone answers with the growth area angle, from the Qld governments own projections.

2026 members - 8,630 to 10,180
2026 average home attendances - 11,329 to 13,363

I'm not overly familiar with the region, so if I have missed something obvious here I would welcome feedback. I'd particularly welcome feedback from those that want to see North relocated, but maybe haven't thought too much about whether or not the Gold Coast would be a step forward for all parties concerned.

MickZu

1st November 2007, 12:12

evo

1st November 2007, 12:15

It's not.

moomba

1st November 2007, 12:31

1997 Bris pop 1.5 mil / Lions membership 11,000
2007 Bris pop 1.8 mil / Lions membership 22,000

Population increase in 10 years 20%
Membership increase in 10 years 100%

The Brisbane membership number I have for 1997 was 16,679, but even if we take your stats and allow a 100% increase in the first 10 years of a Gold Coast side, they would still be just over half the current NMFC membership numbers.

To be fair though I could have looked at the Lions membership numbers at the height of their success and it would have been much higher than they were last season.

It's amazing how you can use stats, maybe the AFL are hoping the same thing will happen with a GC team. The population increase will definitely be there, it's just a matter of the support?

I think if anything I could have mounted a much stronger case against a Gold Coast side if I wanted to manipulate stats. I could have factored in the three premierships, I could have factored in Gold Coast based Lions supporters and members. I do question how a Gold Coast side will match someone like the Lions though with under a third of their population (and that won't change for decades).

MickZu

1st November 2007, 13:02

The Brisbane membership number I have for 1997 was 16,679, but even if we take your stats and allow a 100% increase in the first 10 years of a Gold Coast side, they would still be just over half the current NMFC membership numbers.

To be fair though I could have looked at the Lions membership numbers at the height of their success and it would have been much higher than they were last season.

I think if anything I could have mounted a much stronger case against a Gold Coast side if I wanted to manipulate stats. I could have factored in the three premierships, I could have factored in Gold Coast based Lions supporters and members. I do question how a Gold Coast side will match someone like the Lions though with under a third of their population (and that won't change for decades).

Stand corrected on 97 membership (looked at the wrong year). However regardless of membership numbers for the Lions, Brisbane have a population to make up the numbers for each game. Lions do have a better home attendance than Roos with less members. As I stated in another thread Lions had more representation of fans at a Docklands game against Carlton than the Kangaroos did against the same opponent at the same venue. Yet Norths membership in Melbourne is far superior to that of the Lions in Melbourne?

What does this mean? Well even though a GC team may or may not get large attendance or a huge membership at start up (first five years), it definitely has the population to make up the numbers and get the sponsorship. Will residents eventually take to it, time will tell.

Black Thunder

1st November 2007, 14:23

moomba, i can't see the gold coast working for the reasons you have said and i have been on that line all along....

blues4flag

1st November 2007, 14:43

Just considering crowd figures:

The Roos averaged roughly 11.3k supporters in their 3 games there in 2007, so that would suggest a bigger AFL following on the GC than in Brisbane. Taking that projections for the Gold Coast are an increase from 500k to 760k by 2026, and attendance as a % of the population doesn't change, the crowd figures in 2026 would be roughly 17,000 - which would be a sellout at Carrara today.

While that wouldn't compare to the potential crowds at the Dome/MCG, breakeven figures would be significantly lower at Carrara (such as the Cats making a profit from an average 22k at Kardinia).

And this isn't even considering uptake rates once the people on the GC have their own team to support, plus the supporters who'll be won over in the 20 years.

PumpyChowdown

1st November 2007, 15:46

Memberships don't make clubs money these days.

Bums on seats don't make clubs money these days.

It's all about EYES ON TELEVISION SCREENS.

If by having a team based on the Gold Coast DOUBLES the amount of GC people who watch it, that means countless more revenue for the AFL in the short term. In the long term it translates into an area in 2026 with a populatioin approaching 800k that tune in every weekend to watch AFL that wouldn't if there was no local team.

It also means more people playing the sport in South East Qld, and helps the AFL maintain it's position as Australia's number one winter sport.

moomba

1st November 2007, 17:27

Brisbane have a population to make up the numbers for each game. Lions do have a better home attendance than Roos with less members.

I guess my point is that the Gold Coast doesn't have that population to make up numbers. And the Roos home attendance average for Vic games was 34k+, Lions was 28k+.

moomba

1st November 2007, 17:32

The Roos averaged roughly 11.3k supporters in their 3 games there in 2007, so that would suggest a bigger AFL following on the GC than in Brisbane. Taking that projections for the Gold Coast are an increase from 500k to 760k by 2026, and attendance as a % of the population doesn't change, the crowd figures in 2026 would be roughly 17,000 - which would be a sellout at Carrara today.

I'm not sure you can just project the 11.3k attendances forward from a 3 game a year season to an 11 game a year season. For a start most of the people up there conceded that there were plenty of free tickets handed out for Norths home games this season (I think most of the critics earlier in the year were laughing about how we couldn't fill the ground with paying customers). Also I don't think you could just expect all of those that have the motivation and money for 3 games a year, in the first year of a project to have the same motivation or money to buy 11 game memberships.

MarkT

1st November 2007, 17:41

moomba

1st November 2007, 17:48

If by having a team based on the Gold Coast DOUBLES the amount of GC people who watch it, that means countless more revenue for the AFL in the short term. In the long term it translates into an area in 2026 with a populatioin approaching 800k that tune in every weekend to watch AFL that wouldn't if there was no local team.

Thats a fair point of discussion. Personally I'm unsure what the impact of increased Gold Coast numbers would have on TV revenue, certainly not a whole in terms of money for the club.

I gues you'd have to look at what numbers they get for games at the moment (there would be a high percentage of Lions supporters there at the moment) and what they would expect to get in the future (I would imagine a high percentage of the population would still have limited interest in the game). Then you would also have to factor in the loss of numbers of Roos watching footy (over 200k according to Morgan), and I'm a strong believer that Vic viewers in general are less inclined to watch an interstate match on telly (unless it involved their own club) as they would be to watch an all Melbourne game.

It also means more people playing the sport in South East Qld, and helps the AFL maintain it's position as Australia's number one winter sport.

I wouldn't expect it would be the number 1 sport on the Gold Coast, but would certainly stand corrected if I'm wrong on that. Anyone know the participation rates between the rugbys, aussie rules and soccer in Brisbane? I would think that it would be similar on the Gold Coast, and even with a population on 800k in 17 years time, half will be women, at a guess half will be 50+ or 10- (not saying that women, very young kids or oldies can't play), so that leaves only 200k to make the choice of playing league, rubgy, soccer, minor sports or not play any sport at all. Numbers would probably increase, but I'm not sure by how much.

PumpyChowdown

1st November 2007, 18:04

Thats a fair point of discussion. Personally I'm unsure what the impact of increased Gold Coast numbers would have on TV revenue, certainly not a whole in terms of money for the club.

I gues you'd have to look at what numbers they get for games at the moment (there would be a high percentage of Lions supporters there at the moment) and what they would expect to get in the future (I would imagine a high percentage of the population would still have limited interest in the game). Then you would also have to factor in the loss of numbers of Roos watching footy (over 200k according to Morgan), and I'm a strong believer that Vic viewers in general are less inclined to watch an interstate match on telly (unless it involved their own club) as they would be to watch an all Melbourne game.

I tried to research tv rating for AFL on the GC when posting but I came up with nothing. Also I find it hard to believe that the 'roos moving north would equate to 200k dropping off the Vic figures. Just speculation on my behalf though.

I wouldn't expect it would be the number 1 sport on the Gold Coast, but would certainly stand corrected if I'm wrong on that. Anyone know the participation rates between the rugbys, aussie rules and soccer in Brisbane? I would think that it would be similar on the Gold Coast, and even with a population on 800k in 17 years time, half will be women, at a guess half will be 50+ or 10- (not saying that women, very young kids or oldies can't play), so that leaves only 200k to make the choice of playing league, rubgy, soccer, minor sports or not play any sport at all. Numbers would probably increase, but I'm not sure by how much.

Having live good portions of my life on both the GC and Brisbane, I would say that AFL is far more popular on the Coast, due to a higher concentration of Victorian and SA interstate immigrants, and not having such a strong local Rugby comp as Brisbane, and also only this year getting an NRL team in the Titans.

A Living God

1st November 2007, 19:09

Population of Gold Coast: 469,214

QLD
Population of Beaudesert: 52,614
Population of Loagan: 176,855
Population of Warwick: 20,609
Population of Boonah: 8,168
Population of Ipswich: 145,000
Population of Laidely: 12,581

NSW
Population of Tweed: 80,935
Population of Bryon: 30,827
Population of Ballina: 39,953
Population of Lismore: 41,572
Population of Kygole: 9,159
Population of Richmond Valley: 20,913
Population of Tenterfield: 6,805

Total: 1,115,160

Mickdog

1st November 2007, 19:39

Basically it is this simple.

The Gold Coast will rate on TV. The rivalry between the 2 QLD teams will attract large crowds and hopefully more viewers on the idiot box. Its all about ratings not about crowds, memberships or anything else. The money is in TV deals. The Gold Coast will add more bargaining power to the AFL for future TV deals

woosh_era

1st November 2007, 19:49

build it and they will come

Derbies will be magnificent in 5 years. Proably need a bigger stadium.

zero

1st November 2007, 19:57

Really I think it is fair to say GC is not viable. The AFL don’t want a team there because it is viable. They understand they will have to fund it. The issue is the impact on the profile of the game in the area and in Qld. over a longer term. In terms of sending North there, the issue is the reduced competition in Melb. I would think, well at least hope, the AFL would know what the various options will do to the TV rights.
depends what you mean by viable.

a gold coast team will bring in ALOT more money to the game in TV rights revenue that it will drain on being propped up for 10 years.

thats why the push is happening

moomba

1st November 2007, 20:08

Basically it is this simple.

The Gold Coast will rate on TV. The rivalry between the 2 QLD teams will attract large crowds and hopefully more viewers on the idiot box.

Thats 2 games a year. Outside of that games on the box with an 11,000 crowd from a non-football region are rarely attractive to the average TV viewer. I used to love Norths games in Canberra, but on the TV they made for terrible viewing with pretty much no atmosphere.

And remember that it was only a couple of years ago that North were involved in some of the highest rating games of the year.

moomba

1st November 2007, 20:12

depends what you mean by viable.

a gold coast team will bring in ALOT more money to the game in TV rights revenue that it will drain on being propped up for 10 years.

Why will it bring in a lot more revenue. Gold Coast has 500k people, most of those aren't interested in football. Where is any evidence that Gold Coast would influence TV revenue in any significant way (remembering that the current football deal with North in the competition is a record one.

What is getting pretty obvious to me is that people seem to have accepted that the game is about TV and not the football supporter. I guess we've all known for sometime, but what a shame it is.

Football over here is losing supporters because TV has got bigger than the game. AFL will head the same way, and so far no-one has denied that a North Melbourne move to the Gold Coast will actually result in less people going to football games and buying memberships.

moomba

1st November 2007, 20:26

build it and they will come

So if we build a stadium in Mount Gambier will it make a viable AFL venue. Silly example I know, but build it and they will come isn't really a valid argument for a team on the Gold Coast.

I]rbies will be magnificent in 5 years. Proably need a bigger stadium.

They could double the size of the stadium and you still wouldn't reach Norths average Melbourne home attendances. But presuming the ground would need to be upgraded, who would pay for the bulk of that? If you answered the AFL (meaning West Coast, Collingood, Hawthorn etc etc) you would be right. Suddenly the CBF isn't looking so much of a drain of AFL resources.

And there is still this legal issue involving the Gabba, could we get a reverse of the Brisbane side playing on the Gold Coast?

Mickdog

1st November 2007, 20:34

Thats 2 games a year. Outside of that games on the box with an 11,000 crowd from a non-football region are rarely attractive to the average TV viewer. I used to love Norths games in Canberra, but on the TV they made for terrible viewing with pretty much no atmosphere.

And remember that it was only a couple of years ago that North were involved in some of the highest rating games of the year.

2 big games will attract more new people than any games the Roos currently play. That is the key, new footy supporters. The kids is what the AFL are looking at, they need kids to grow up with a local team wanting to play Aussie Rules. A Gold Coast team will give them that.

Even if it costs the AFL loads of money in the long term it is the only way for the comp to succeed. They need an all Australian comp with teams based in all major cities. Remember the Gold Coast is a major tourist town, they need to be able to show off the game to the world, what better way.

Basicaly they need 2 teams in NSW and QLD. That is the aim, local derbies create great interrest and money for the game. Those 2 games a yeare will be huge games to sell on TV. Thats what its all about as I have said many times

zero

1st November 2007, 20:40

Why will it bring in a lot more revenue. Gold Coast has 500k people, most of those aren't interested in football. Where is any evidence that Gold Coast would influence TV revenue in any significant way (remembering that the current football deal with North in the competition is a record one.

look, the reason the last rights were so big was because it is the biggest TV product in OZ, with broad appeal.

now the value last time was seriously overinflated because of the success and the great ratings that followed from it of the lions and swans. NSWQLD comprises 52% of the population of oz, and moderate ratings there are more valuable than very high ratings in places like WA.

hence, the lions and swans each contributed ALOT more of the value of the rights than another other single team...even collingwood.

now, because 4 premierships arent going to go north during this TV contract, the only other way to consolidate gains made up there is to get a third local team in there, which will rate OK but not great...but OK in QLD is still alot more value than average ratings in victoria

What is getting pretty obvious to me is that people seem to have accepted that the game is about TV and not the football supporter. I guess we've all known for sometime, but what a shame it is.

perhaps, but finances have always had a big impact on the football competition (for example, carlton buying all their premierships)

now is no really that different, just the scale had changed.

and its not really that hard to understand why suburban teams with suburban supporterships are struggling to keep up

Football over here is losing supporters because TV has got bigger than the game. AFL will head the same way, and so far no-one has denied that a North Melbourne move to the Gold Coast will actually result in less people going to football games and buying memberships.
well it wont in the short term. who knows where the GC team will be in 10 or 20 years, quite possibly another interstate financial powerhouse and/or very successful. every other one is, after all.

moomba

1st November 2007, 20:49

Can you not see the difference between the a proposed Gold Coast team and the other teams in the league.

Population is very small compared to Sydney and Brisbane, and in the case of SA and WA the Gold Coast loses out on population and the fact that both are footy states.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I just don't think of the Gold Coast as a significant region as far as TV revenue goes. Remember that for every gain made by addition viewer numbers on the Gold Coast, you will need to factor in the loss of viewer numbers caused by disaffected North supporters.

There might be a bargaining chip for the AFL, but it won't be a big one and I doubt it will cover the money they would spend setting us up and keeping us running for a few decades until we could stand on our feet.

FWIW I reckon it'll probably be cheaper for the AFL to fly 10,000 Gold coast residents down to Melbourne every second week of the season for a couple of decades.

moomba

1st November 2007, 20:52

2 big games will attract more new people than any games the Roos currently play. That is the key, new footy supporters. The kids is what the AFL are looking at, they need kids to grow up with a local team wanting to play Aussie Rules. A Gold Coast team will give them that.

If you gain a new supporter and lose 2 existing supporters you are still 1 person down.

4for brisbane

1st November 2007, 20:57

its about bums on seats, the membership model is very southern, it means less for afl in qld and nsw because it means nothing to the sporting public in this half of the country.

the gc will work because the govts [state and the GCCC] and corporates are there, the population is increasing rapidly, and southport sharks are huge.

a gc team is more obviously viable than half the melbourne clubs currently are

Mickdog

1st November 2007, 22:02

If you gain a new supporter and lose 2 existing supporters you are still 1 person down.

LOL, most NM supporters will continue to watch the game. A lot will keep memberships. There are a lot more members in QLD than thewy will ever get in Melbourne. It makes sense to move.

moomba

1st November 2007, 22:21

LOL, most NM supporters will continue to watch the game. A lot will keep memberships.

Some will, most won't. Look at the example of Fitzroy

There are a lot more members in QLD than thewy will ever get in Melbourne. It makes sense to move.

For the Gold Coast population to match Norths 2007 membership tally (and lets be very kind and say they will take up memberships at twice the rate of the Brisbane Lions) they would have to have a population of over 900k.

According to the Queensland Government, they are not expected to break a population of 700k until 2021, 14 years from now. In 2026, 19 years from now they still don't expect that the population wouild have broken 900k and that is the most positive of three projections.

You are just not being realistic. Arguing for the sake of argument?.

zero

1st November 2007, 22:23

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I just don't think of the Gold Coast as a significant region as far as TV revenue goes. Remember that for every gain made by addition viewer numbers on the Gold Coast, you will need to factor in the loss of viewer numbers caused by disaffected North supporters.

thats right, you do, but roos games rate very poorly and are mostly on foxtel anyway, and realistically a decent sized minority of those viewers will go on to watch games of the relocated side or a different side. TV viewers are alot more transitory than the hardcore members

so the price is some proportion of the 200k roos supporters, to tap into a city of 500k and the surrounding areas.

remember too, that the TV rating system that is used to value the advertising revenue is the 5-city ratings, which includes GC as part of brisbane but does not include the 1.5 million people in country victoria and tasmania

so, effectively, as far as the networks are concerned, country vic and tassie viewers "dont count", whereas the entire GC population does. obviously that doesent seem fair, but thats how it is

There might be a bargaining chip for the AFL, but it won't be a big one and I doubt it will cover the money they would spend setting us up and keeping us running for a few decades until we could stand on our feet.

FWIW I reckon it'll probably be cheaper for the AFL to fly 10,000 Gold coast residents down to Melbourne every second week of the season for a couple of decades.
your wrong, the last agreement was a 50 million per year increase in the TV rights revenue over the previous agreement up to 750 million for 5 years, mainly because of the the break into QLD and NSW to create a respectable niche with the lions and swans.

to protect and consolidate this revenue the AFL will have a new team in SEQ in 2010, with or without the roos.

Pedro59

1st November 2007, 22:40

Some will, most won't. Look at the example of Fitzroy

For the Gold Coast population to match Norths 2007 membership tally (and lets be very kind and say they will take up memberships at twice the rate of the Brisbane Lions) they would have to have a population of over 900k.

According to the Queensland Government, they are not expected to break a population of 700k until 2021, 14 years from now. In 2026, 19 years from now they still don't expect that the population wouild have broken 900k and that is the most positive of three projections.

You are just not being realistic. Arguing for the sake of argument?.

You are being very selective with your stats

1)The greater GC area is more like a million pop
2) One team in this area will soon be like the Crows in members
3) it has to be a local team , not a failing Vic team

moomba

1st November 2007, 22:45

thats right, you do, but roos games rate very poorly and are mostly on foxtel anyway

Did you see what you just did then?

so the price is some proportion of the 200k roos supporters, to tap into a city of 500k and the surrounding areas.

200k Roos supporters vs tapping into a city of 500k, many of whom have no interest in the sport.

your wrong, the last agreement was a 50 million per year increase in the TV rights revenue over the previous agreement up to 750 million for 5 years, mainly because of the the break into QLD and NSW to create a respectable niche with the lions and swans.

How have you come to these figures? The game has grown everywhere, including Victoria. And even if we accept your supposition that the bulk of the $50m per year increase is down to Qld and NSW, you must accept that the Gold Coast is not nearly as significant as those two capital cities. Even if it increases TV revenue by $10m a year, that will dwarf the money the AFL end up spending on setting up a new or relocated side.

moomba

1st November 2007, 22:47

You are being very selective with your stats

1)The greater GC area is more like a million pop

My stats are from the Queensland government. Where are yours from? And if I was being selective I would have put a figure on Gold Coast based residents that support the Lions and would continue to do so. And I wouldn't have disregarded the effect of three premierships in a row, or presumed that Gold Coast residents would be twice as likely as Brisbanes to get a membership in the new team.

2) One team in this area will soon be like the Crows in members

Adelaides population is much larger than the Gold Coast, and Adelaide (as opposed to the Gold Coast) is footy mad, and has been for years and years.

3) it has to be a local team , not a failing Vic team

Good, let them set up a local team. I look forward to hearing people whinge about how much it is costing them in reduced AFL distributions.

zero

1st November 2007, 23:12

Did you see what you just did then?

what? pointed out that roos games dont rate that well? and hence are on at poor times and relegated to foxtel

im not trying to be disrespectful, but the fact that roos games dont rate that well compared to other, more popular sides is not really that far fetched,

200k Roos supporters vs tapping into a city of 500k, many of whom have no interest in the sport.

a proportion of the 200k, if 100k people get back on board the sport in some way, either the relocated side after a period of success or another side, then the loss is minimized.

if the roos stay in melbourne and eventually die, and the circumstances of their death means no merger, then that 100k is lost to the AFL for good, instead of a calculated loss for a bigger gain

indeed they dont have much of an interest at this stage, but the idea is that they will, just like many people in brisbane and sydney have

How have you come to these figures? The game has grown everywhere, including Victoria. And even if we accept your supposition that the bulk of the $50m per year increase is down to Qld and NSW, you must accept that the Gold Coast is not nearly as significant as those two capital cities. Even if it increases TV revenue by $10m a year, that will dwarf the money the AFL end up spending on setting up a new or relocated side.
i follow the TV rights agreement very closely, the break up of pay tv, games and where they are being televised and by who. the advancement of the game in the north is something i follow very closely too.

and i really disagree about the money it will bring in. its not just about increasing the rights value next time, its about protecting the high value last time. because of the success of the lions and swans, we got ALOT more last time than we would have if they had a miserable 5 years and noone (of the 11 million that live in QLDNSW) was watching AFL, just like vics dont watch the storm. the AFL is trying to funnel that extra cash north to protect and consolidate.

say the lions and swans have a bad time of it, then the value is going to kick back, so its not just about the 10 million a year a GC side COULD add, its about the 20 million a year loss that the GC side protects against. a third northern side creates alot of interest in SEQ, chances are one of the sides will be doing alright at one time, one will play finals, and even if not then there is 2 games a weekend on TV in SEQ that rate and two blockbuster derbys per year.

and once the GC side is settled, then that is permanently protected.

thats why the AFL are so keen to get a new side in and are prepared to underwrite the whole thing, because its going to come back to them. they wouldnt be screwing with you guys if there wasnt a big payoff

as a great man said "follow the money". the TV rights is the number one source of revenue for the AFL, and by many, many millions. it makes sense for them be sensitive to its management than just about anything else.

blues4flag

1st November 2007, 23:27

If you gain a new supporter and lose 2 existing supporters you are still 1 person down.

If you gain 3 people and lose 1 person, then you are 2 people up. :)

zero

1st November 2007, 23:31

i mean, how much per year do members pump into the clubs? ...30000 members per club at 100 a head....50 million a year?

the TV rights brings in 150 million per annum. thats why the TV viewership is more important that the members, sad as that is

greennick

1st November 2007, 23:37

Good, let them set up a local team. I look forward to hearing people whinge about how much it is costing them in reduced AFL distributions.
I wonder who will whinge the most? I would say North supporters because they can't afford to pay for the cleaners anymore, let alone the support staff!

I wouldn't care about reduced distributions for myself (although I would feel sorry for some of the poorer clubs). A million less to the Eagles would not make a difference to our budget. What would it do to yours? What would you end up doing without the 3 or so million over and above the standard annual distribution you get? What would you do if they took that away and then also reduced the 6 or so million all clubs get from the AFL?

moomba

1st November 2007, 23:49

what? pointed out that roos games dont rate that well? and hence are on at poor times and relegated to foxtel

im not trying to be disrespectful, but the fact that roos games dont rate that well compared to other, more popular sides is not really that far fetched,

Self fulfilling prophecy. Maybe one of the reasons (not the only reason) we don't rate so well is because of the scheduling, and the fact that less people watch pay TV than watch free to air, which we are rarely on. We used to rate OK when we got more than the odd Friday night game.

a proportion of the 200k, if 100k people get back on board the sport in some way, either the relocated side after a period of success or another side, then the loss is minimized.

Until this week I was one that thought I would have maintained an involvement in the club, even if it was just watching them on TV. I was very much in a minority then, and to be honest, the way the AFL has gone about this I can't see myself ever watching a Gold Coast based Kangaroos team. But 100k get back on board, no chance.

if the roos stay in melbourne and eventually die, and the circumstances of their death means no merger, then that 100k is lost to the AFL for good, instead of a calculated loss for a bigger gain

Not necessarily, I would think the circumstances of how this is being done is turning people away from football. If we stay and die, I won't have the same involvement in the game and I doubt I'll choose a team to barrack for. But I'll still watch the odd game on the TV, and probably turn up to the odd game as well.

indeed they dont have much of an interest at this stage, but the idea is that they will, just like many people in brisbane and sydney have

But there is just not that many of them, I've even shown figures that show that if the Gold Coast population were twice as likely as the Brisbane population to buy a membership they would still have less members in 2026 than North had last year.

moomba

1st November 2007, 23:54

I wonder who will whinge the most? I would say North supporters because they can't afford to pay for the cleaners anymore, let alone the support staff!

I'll certainly whinge if the AFL wastes the clubs money (and thats what it is, not the AFL's money) on something that adds very little to the game

I wouldn't care about reduced distributions for myself (although I would feel sorry for some of the poorer clubs). A million less to the Eagles would not make a difference to our budget. What would it do to yours? What would you end up doing without the 3 or so million over and above the standard annual distribution you get? What would you do if they took that away and then also reduced the 6 or so million all clubs get from the AFL?

To be honest, if the AFL said that we'll drop the assistance, restore an equitable draw, give the same opportunities to every club and leave you to determine your own destiny I'd take take it tomorrow.

But they way you are talking you seem to think that the AFL is providing funds to the clubs as some sort of charity. It is the clubs money, and if the AFL spent less time hoarding it's profits and forcing expansions into areas that cannot support a team, and more time doing what they were set up for which is representing the football clubs that created it I would be much happier.

I have every confidence that if we don't move

greennick

2nd November 2007, 00:12

I'll certainly whinge if the AFL wastes the clubs money (and thats what it is, not the AFL's money) on something that adds very little to the game
Did you whinge when they spent money propping up Sydney? That turned out OK in the end!

To be honest, if the AFL said that we'll drop the assistance, restore an equitable draw, give the same opportunities to every club and leave you to determine your own destiny I'd take take it tomorrow.

But they way you are talking you seem to think that the AFL is providing funds to the clubs as some sort of charity. It is the clubs money, and if the AFL spent less time hoarding it's profits and forcing expansions into areas that cannot support a team, and more time doing what they were set up for which is representing the football clubs that created it I would be much happier.

I have every confidence that if we don't move
If they AFL restores an equitable draw, with the same amount of blockbusters to all clubs, no matter how poorly supported, and the same amount of FTA access, there would be less money at the gate and less money from the TV revenue to give you. Face the facts, the other teams are subsidising North. The 6m per year may be the clubs money, but the other few million North gets is not! That is charity for being unpopular and therefore unable to raise sufficient revenue to run your football club.

The AFL spent money supporting Sydney and Brisbane and now they are paying dividends in the 150 million per year TV rights. The only reason the rights are so big is because of the success in Qld and NSW. While this success may not be absolute, it has added a lot to the marketability of the competition as a whole. Without this prior investment I have no doubt there would be a lot less money from the AFL to go around now.

moomba

2nd November 2007, 00:21

Did you whinge when they spent money propping up Sydney? That turned out OK in the end!

Happened a bit before my time, I remember when they moved but don't recall having any strong feelings about it. I can't recall ever having strong feelings about the money spent propping up Sydney, but that was probably still before my time on here.

I tell you what though, if I were you I would be very pissed off that the AFL plans to ensure the success of a Gold Coast based NMFC by offering zoning concessions, priority picks and the like. There is no pride in winning something that way.

If they AFL restores an equitable draw, with the same amount of blockbusters to all clubs, no matter how poorly supported, and the same amount of FTA access, there would be less money at the gate and less money from the TV revenue to give you. Face the facts, the other teams are subsidising North. The 6m per year may be the clubs money, but the other few million North gets is not! That is charity for being unpopular and therefore unable to raise sufficient revenue to run your football club.

We will be able to earn significantly than we currently do with an equitable draw. We would be better off, I have no doubt. Give us a few Friday night games and sponsorship money goes up, TV ratings go up, give us the same chance of playing an Essendon, Collingwood or Carlton as other clubs get and the same will happen. More interest, more sponsors, better TV ratings, better attendances.

The AFL spent money supporting Sydney and Brisbane and now they are paying dividends in the 150 million per year TV rights. The only reason the rights are so big is because of the success in Qld and NSW. While this success may not be absolute, it has added a lot to the marketability of the competition as a whole. Without this prior investment I have no doubt there would be a lot less money from the AFL to go around now.

Why are you continually comparing Sydney (population 4.5m) and Brisbane (population 1.8m) to the Gold Coast. It's like comparing apples to apple cores.

greennick

2nd November 2007, 00:37

Happened a bit before my time, I remember when they moved but don't recall having any strong feelings about it. I can't recall ever having strong feelings about the money spent propping up Sydney, but that was probably still before my time on here.

I tell you what though, if I were you I would be very pissed off that the AFL plans to ensure the success of a Gold Coast based NMFC by offering zoning concessions, priority picks and the like. There is no pride in winning something that way.

It is unclear what the concessions will be. If they are zone concessions with a bidding system I would not worry. A couple of priority picks would not bother me. Much more than that and I would start to think it is unfair. I was not talking about what the AFL was going to give a team that moved to the GC, I was talking about the money they would give.

We will be able to earn significantly than we currently do with an equitable draw. We would be better off, I have no doubt.

You will be marginally better off. The only reason you will be drawing significantly more playing blockbusters is off the back of your opponents. The league will be worse off however as you will draw less people and have less people watching on TV. That is why you get no love from the draw and from the TV companies. It is built up from your 80-odd years in the AFL/VFL of never being a top club in the eyes of the football watching public so much so that you can obtain and retain a sufficient amount of supporters.
Why are you continually comparing Sydney (population 4.5m) and Brisbane (population 1.8m) to the Gold Coast. It's like comparing apples to apple cores.
I am not comparing them population wise or anything like that. I was comparing the investment in those clubs to the benefits to the whole league in terms of the increased TV revenue.

You can not just look at the GC population anyway. If you moved up there you would probably be called something like the Northern Kangaroos and would be marketed to a population in excess of 1m today, let alone looking at future growth. It is not just the benefits of the local population anyway. You would now have a state derby with Brisbane and a rivalry with Sydney would likely develop. This would have further benefits of helping increase interest in the game in those markets as well as on the GC.

Like I have previously said, this would lead to more money for the AFL, which can be further invested into spreading and developing the game until it truly covers the country.

moomba

2nd November 2007, 00:49

It is unclear what the concessions will be. If they are zone concessions with a bidding system I would not worry. A couple of priority picks would not bother me. Much more than that and I would start to think it is unfair. I was not talking about what the AFL was going to give a team that moved to the GC, I was talking about the money they would give.

If AFL puppet Wilson is to be believed, the AFL plans for the other 15 clubs to take a reaming financially, and in football terms. $4m+ to pay off debt, $3m to buy out shareholders (the shares are next to worthless at the moment), state of the art facilities on the Gold Coast and Arden St (I wonder who pays for that, $300m upgrade to the stadium (I wonder who pays for that). And thats before we start celebrating the AFL ensuring success for the new side.

You will be marginally better off. The only reason you will be drawing significantly more playing blockbusters is off the back of your opponents. The league will be worse off however as you will draw less people and have less people watching on TV. That is why you get no love from the draw and from the TV companies. It is built up from your 80-odd years in the AFL/VFL of never being a top club in the eyes of the football watching public so much so that you can obtain and retain a sufficient amount of supporters.

So do you think it is resonable that we sacrifice our finances to assist the greater good without any compensation in return? And you will find that our average Victorian home attendances this year was higher than two other clubs.

I am not comparing them population wise or anything like that. I was comparing the investment in those clubs to the benefits to the whole league in terms of the increased TV revenue.

So with a much smaller population can you not see that the increased TV revenue will also be much smaller. And I would be interested to see the stats, but I would reckon that the Gold Coast residents with any interest in football will already be there as supporters of the Lions. So any effect will be reduced even further.

You can not just look at the GC population anyway. If you moved up there you would probably be called something like the Northern Kangaroos and would be marketed to a population in excess of 1m today, let alone looking at future growth. It is not just the benefits of the local population anyway.[quote]

If we are going to include regional Queensland we better have another look at the Brisbane and Sydney stats then. I can assure you it looks even worse for the Gold Coast. You really should do as others have on here and acept that the Gold Coast just doesn't have the population to support an AFL side attendance and membership wise without huge levels AFL assistance. Keep you focus on the media, it's very hard to disprove (or prove) that theory.

[quote]You would now have a state derby with Brisbane and a rivalry with Sydney would likely develop. This would have further benefits of helping increase interest in the game in those markets as well as on the GC.

No doubt, we currently have quite a lot of those in Melbourne.

Like I have previously said, this would lead to more money for the AFL, which can be further invested into spreading and developing the game until it truly covers the country.

The AFL will be planning to spend an absolute fortune on this move. I doubt they will ever make their money back if it goes through.

greennick

2nd November 2007, 01:03

I'll have to continue this battle another time moomba, I need to get to bed to be up in 6 hours for work!

Regardless of what I want in terms of spreading the game, good luck to North in your efforts to keep your team in Melbourne. Like many on here, I dunno what would be best for North, however I do strongly believe that it would be best for the competition as a whole if North moved and that is where I am coming from. I do think North would do well out of it too, however there are so many unknowns for that. I don't really have anything invested in North staying in Melbourne as you guys do, but still good luck in keeping what you have. :thumbsu:

Thanks for some good arguments (I'll ignore the crap ones :D).

zero

2nd November 2007, 01:10

Self fulfilling prophecy. Maybe one of the reasons (not the only reason) we don't rate so well is because of the scheduling, and the fact that less people watch pay TV than watch free to air, which we are rarely on. We used to rate OK when we got more than the odd Friday night game.

perhaps, but you cant dictate to the networks which games it is interested in, and they will ALWAYS be pushing to show more popular teams on at higher rating times.

Until this week I was one that thought I would have maintained an involvement in the club, even if it was just watching them on TV. I was very much in a minority then, and to be honest, the way the AFL has gone about this I can't see myself ever watching a Gold Coast based Kangaroos team. But 100k get back on board, no chance.

you cant use yourself as an example of the broader base, mate. you guys on here are the hardcore fans, even if you are not members.

how many fitzroy supporters were lost to the game forever? many of them who said they would never follow the game again have come back eventually, to the lions or other teams. the lions victorian membership is now on par with fitzroys in its final days, so who knows how many would be lost for good? we cant know for sure right now, but what you can be sure that some will follow and some more will return later

But there is just not that many of them, I've even shown figures that show that if the Gold Coast population were twice as likely as the Brisbane population to buy a membership they would still have less members in 2026 than North had last year.
fair enough, but as we have been saying, this isnt about paying members, its about TV viewers.

moomba

2nd November 2007, 01:31

perhaps, but you cant dictate to the networks which games it is interested in, and they will ALWAYS be pushing to show more popular teams on at higher rating times.

It comes down to whether the league is running the sport or the TV stations. Sadly I suspect it's the TV stations. The AFL should have the bollocks though to give us more Friday night games, and they should be doing everything they can with the draw to maximise attendances for every club. At the moment I don't think they do that.

you cant use yourself as an example of the broader base, mate. you guys on here are the hardcore fans, even if you are not members.

how many fitzroy supporters were lost to the game forever? many of them who said they would never follow the game again have come back eventually, to the lions or other teams. the lions victorian membership is now on par with fitzroys in its final days, so who knows how many would be lost for good? we cant know for sure right now, but what you can be sure that some will follow and some more will return later

Maybe a question for some of the old Lions, I know we have a few that came to the Roos. Brisbane got some, and there were a few scattered around other clubs. But plenty that walked away, and have been lost from the sport forever. I can only go by the people on BF and that I know back in Australia. I was probably the mildest in terms of what I would do if we were relocated (I always would have walked away if it was a merger), but I would have nothing to do with the club and the league if this goes through. And there are plenty like me.

fair enough, but as we have been saying, this isnt about paying members, its about TV viewers.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I reckon the increase in TV viewers would be minimal. I wouldn't mind seeing what the figures are for Lions games beamed into the Gold Coast (presuming they are), I reckon they would already have most of the target footy supporting audience covered already.

zero

2nd November 2007, 01:48

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I reckon the increase in TV viewers would be minimal. I wouldn't mind seeing what the figures are for Lions games beamed into the Gold Coast (presuming they are), I reckon they would already have most of the target footy supporting audience covered already.
so it begs the question, why are the AFL pushing for a GC team then? why is it happy to sacrifice the roos, a hundred year old club that the director himself played for, for an enterprise GC if was not going to seriously increase tv revenue, supporters, junior participation and ultimately members.

if there is nothing to be gained up there, even in the long run, why is this happening then?

we might look back on the success of the swans and lions now as being obvious that it was going to happen, but it wasnt. ALL the reservations that you are having now about the GC was had about brisbane in the 80s. "its a league town, they will never go for it, why sacrifice a proud vic side"... well its paid off, from a financial, supporter, junior and members point of view, that has all paid off.

and it will pay off on the GC too
i

moomba

2nd November 2007, 02:14

so it begs the question, why are the AFL pushing for a GC team then? why is it happy to sacrifice the roos, a hundred year old club that the director himself played for, for an enterprise GC if was not going to seriously increase tv revenue, supporters, junior participation and ultimately members.

I guess it's a question of whether or not you just accept that because the AFL says it's a good thing then it is a good thing. I don't, it's why I'm trying to have some debate on the issue rather than just expect that whatever comes out of Caroline Wilson or Demetrious mouth is gospel. To be honest I don't trust them, and the ham fisted way that they've gone about this, and plenty of other things gives me no confidence in their confidence in relation to the "big issues".

we might look back on the success of the swans and lions now as being obvious that it was going to happen, but it wasnt. ALL the reservations that you are having now about the GC was had about brisbane in the 80s. "its a league town, they will never go for it, why sacrifice a proud vic side"... well its paid off, from a financial, supporter, junior and members point of view, that has all paid off.

I think you'll find that a Gold Coast side will make things increasingly difficult for the Lions. They concede that as well. They are doing OK now after the sort of era that you can only dream about. I hope it doesn't happen, but if they do have a sustained period of non-awesomeness I don't think they are truly out of the woods.

Valleys FC 4Ever

2nd November 2007, 02:39

if there is nothing to be gained up there, even in the long run, why is this happening then?Vlad doesn't want to let the NRL get a leg up in another market and he also needs to cut down on the number of Vic teams. This is a 'Two birds with one stone" kind of deal for him.

we might look back on the success of the swans and lions now as being obvious that it was going to happen, but it wasnt.Not to be a dick but didn't the Lions just post a million dollar loss despite playing in 4 consecutive GF's a few years ago? I wouldn't act like it's all smooth sailing, there's still a lot of hard work ahead.

ALL the reservations that you are having now about the GC was had about brisbane in the 80s. "its a league town, they will never go for it, why sacrifice a proud vic side"... well its paid off, from a financial, supporter, junior and members point of view, that has all paid off.Completely different scenarios. Brisbane and Sydney, indeed all of of QLD and NSW, were without any AFL representation at all so the AFL were able to soak up every single fan in both states. That's 11M + people with just two teams remember.
Then the SL War disenfranchised a shitload of fans in both states who in turn looked away from the NRL in pursuit of other sports.

These two factors are completely gone when it comes to a team on the GC now, in fact it's almost the exact opposite. A much smaller population and a very, very popular NRL team that's generated a lot of goodwill in giving the coast more of an identity. That's without even thinking about what affects it will have on the Lions membership base and crowds, or how much every other club will suffer while the AFL make sure that the GC will be very successful.

People who think it'll be as 'easy' as the Lions and Swans relocations has rocks in their head.

and it will pay off on the GC too
iOr it could be the biggest mistake the AFL has ever made, we'll see.

GoOsH

2nd November 2007, 03:34

If you gain a new supporter and lose 2 existing supporters you are still 1 person down.
how many people would stop watching the game because it was the gold coast kangaroos and not the north melbourne kangaroos? not that many. Most fitroy supporters still watch football - did the ratings take a hit when fitzroy were merged? nope.
How many will start watching footy in general in queensland because there's a team in their area? a hell of a lot more than you'll lose in Victoria.

moomba

2nd November 2007, 03:51

how many people would stop watching the game because it was the gold coast kangaroos and not the north melbourne kangaroos? not that many. Most fitroy supporters still watch football - did the ratings take a hit when fitzroy were merged? nope.

I can only speak for myself, but I have always found interstate games (non derbies) a bit soulless, have always preferred watching a game on TV between two Vic based sides. And given the team will be playing in front of tiny crowds for some time games up there (IMO) just won't have a lot of atmosphere

So I would say you will lose the bulk of the 228k North Melbourne supporters, plus the ones like me who like a bit more atmosphere and banter between two sets of crowds at the game.

How many will start watching footy in general in queensland because there's a team in their area? a hell of a lot more than you'll lose in Victoria.

Out of the 500k Gold Coast population right now there would be quite a few Lions supporters who would already be watching AFL. There would also be quite a few supporters of other clubs (ex Vics maybe) who would already be watching AFL. There would be quite a large amount I would imagine with no interest in the game, whether there is a club in their region or not. Maybe a combination of those interest in other sports and those that just don't really care about footy.

So I'd say the losses would be greater than the gains. Might not be that way in the future, but even in the future I'd say any gains would be minimal.

One exception to that I guess will be the initial interest in having a new team in a new area, but that would wear off pretty quick.

MarkT

2nd November 2007, 09:57

depends what you mean by viable.

a gold coast team will bring in ALOT more money to the game in TV rights revenue that it will drain on being propped up for 10 years.

thats why the push is happeningThat is just a guess but even if it the right guess it isn’t relevant. The game already brings in enough TV revenue to sustain all clubs plus the AFL and then some. If TV revenue is the argument then there is no argument for moving North.

Mickdog

2nd November 2007, 10:13

That is just a guess but even if it the right guess it isn’t relevant. The game already brings in enough TV revenue to sustain all clubs plus the AFL and then some. If TV revenue is the argument then there is no argument for moving North.

What kind of business would be happy in making the same money year in year out. The whole idea is to increase profits. New teams in new areas with old teams increases money the AFL can make on TV rights. That is a good thing for the game:rolleyes:

Mickdog

2nd November 2007, 10:17

I can only speak for myself, but I have always found interstate games (non derbies) a bit soulless, have always preferred watching a game on TV between two Vic based sides. And given the team will be playing in front of tiny crowds for some time games up there (IMO) just won't have a lot of atmosphere

So I would say you will lose the bulk of the 228k North Melbourne supporters, plus the ones like me who like a bit more atmosphere and banter between two sets of crowds at the game.

I prefer watching non Melbourne teams playing unless it is Collingwood or Essendon. I always support rthe Non Melbourne teams like so many others. I find it boring watching Melbourne teams that represent a tiny area in Melbourne I have never heard of. I represent the vies of most Non Vics.

moomba

2nd November 2007, 10:20

I prefer watching non Melbourne teams playing unless it is Collingwood or Essendon. I always support rthe Non Melbourne teams like so many others. I find it boring watching Melbourne teams that represent a tiny area in Melbourne I have never heard of. I represent the vies of most Non Vics.

Not that I know (I'm from South Australia). People I know from there love to watch the Vic teams play, partly because they love to see them beat.

And I'm not having a go here, but if you've only been a footy supporter for a year I'm not sure that you can lay claim to representing the views of anyone (except for people who haven't been following the game for long).

Anthony_

2nd November 2007, 11:29

The Teflon Dean

2nd November 2007, 12:10

blues4flag

2nd November 2007, 12:22

How viable?

Check this out -

The AFL are disenfranchising an existing >22,000 member base to renovate an existing ground from 13,000 capacity ground to suit 22,000 member base that does not currenly exist.

You do the math.

Not every Roos supporter will give up on a relocated club - keep telling yourself otherwise, but the Roos will keep a signifcant portion of their current (miniscule - hence the relocation) membership base. Also, SS only holds 22k - the Cats are really suffering, aren't they? :rolleyes:

The Teflon Dean

2nd November 2007, 12:34

Not every Roos supporter will give up on a relocated club - keep telling yourself otherwise, but the Roos will keep a signifcant portion of their current (miniscule - hence the relocation) membership base.

Hilarious. You are deluded. The Brisbane Lions have just come off an historic triple premieship run and have 2,000 Melbourne based members.

Also, SS only holds 22k - the Cats are really suffering, aren't they? :rolleyes:

Yes, but these 22K Geelong supporters actually exist.:rolleyes:

One things for certain, going by the quality of your debate, I am assured that you definitely aren't an AFL plant.:D:thumbsu:

blues4flag

2nd November 2007, 12:49

Hilarious. You are deluded. The Brisbane Lions have just come off an historic triple premieship run and have 2,000 Melbourne based members.

HAHAHA! :D Lions have 6500+ Melbourne based members - best not to pull stats out of your arse to support your argument. And your calling me deluded? :rolleyes:

Yes, but these 22K Geelong supporters actually exist.:rolleyes:

One things for certain, going by the quality of your debate, I am assured that you definitely aren't an AFL plant.:D:thumbsu:
That's not the point. Even pulling 17k a game on the GC will generate a larger profit on the Gold Coast than the Roos pulling 28k at the Dome. And consider the extra TV exposure a GC team will surely get, which can only be good for the brand.

ming65

2nd November 2007, 12:55

The Gold Coast is also the most competetive leisure market in Australia. Lots of alternatives to a day (or night) at the footy for young families up there......

The Teflon Dean

2nd November 2007, 13:15

HAHAHA! :D Lions have 6500+ Melbourne based members - best not to pull stats out of your arse to support your argument. And your calling me deluded? :rolleyes:

I am certain I read the 2k figure somewhere.

Anyway, this paints an even more damning figure of disenfranchising an existing >22k membership to move into a non AFL football state that consists a present representative that can only muster 15,000 locals after a decade of outstanding success.

Different spin, same cancer.:thumbsd:

The Teflon Dean

2nd November 2007, 13:17

The Gold Coast is also the most competetive leisure market in Australia. Lots of alternatives to a day (or night) at the footy for young families up there......

Not to mention that these "alternatives" have already put paid to quite a few other newly located sporting franchises.

A Living God

2nd November 2007, 14:53

My stats are from the Queensland government. Where are yours from? And if I was being selective I would have put a figure on Gold Coast based residents that support the Lions and would continue to do so. And I wouldn't have disregarded the effect of three premierships in a row, or presumed that Gold Coast residents would be twice as likely as Brisbanes to get a membership in the new team.

Population of City of Melbourne: 76,678
Population of Melbourne: 3.8 million

Posted on page 1 of this thread

Population of Gold Coast: 469,214

QLD
Population of Beaudesert: 52,614
Population of Loagan: 176,855
Population of Warwick: 20,609
Population of Boonah: 8,168
Population of Ipswich: 145,000
Population of Laidely: 12,581

NSW
Population of Tweed: 80,935
Population of Bryon: 30,827
Population of Ballina: 39,953
Population of Lismore: 41,572
Population of Kygole: 9,159
Population of Richmond Valley: 20,913
Population of Tenterfield: 6,805

Total: 1,115,160

Valleys FC 4Ever

2nd November 2007, 15:54

Population of City of Melbourne: 76,678
Population of Melbourne: 3.8 million

Posted on page 1 of this thread

What one earth are you trying to say by posting that?

A Living God

2nd November 2007, 18:24

What one earth are you trying to say by posting that?
The potenial market for a Gold Coast team is greater than just the population of the Gold Coast City Council. If you include the areas just north, south and west of Gold Coast the total population is over 1.1 milllion on par with Adelaide.

Valleys FC 4Ever

2nd November 2007, 18:45

The potenial market for a Gold Coast team is greater than just the population of the Gold Coast City Council. If you include the areas just north, south and west of Gold Coast the total population is over 1.1 milllion on par with Adelaide.I think you just stuck a bunch of pins on a map in a quest to find 1M people. Seriously some of those places are nowhere, and I mean nowhere, near the GC. For starters, Laidley is on the other side of Brisbane way out near Toowoomba and Warwick is like 3 hours drive away and again, closer to Brisbane. I'm not even going to bother with the NSW areas.

The Gold Coast City Council comprises basically all of the area that's considered part of the Coast. Cities like Logan and Redland are the only areas that could possibly be seen as coming under the GC's influence but both are classed as, and more importantly, see themselves as part of Brisbane.

A Living God

2nd November 2007, 19:25

I think you just stuck a bunch of pins on a map in a quest to find 1M people. Seriously some of those places are nowhere, and I mean nowhere, near the GC. For starters, Laidley is on the other side of Brisbane way out near Toowoomba and Warwick is like 3 hours drive away and again, closer to Brisbane. I'm not even going to bother with the NSW areas.

The Gold Coast City Council comprises basically all of the area that's considered part of the Coast. Cities like Logan and Redland are the only areas that could possibly be seen as coming under the GC's influence but both are classed as, and more importantly, see themselves as part of Brisbane.
No I looked at a map, included all areas south of Brisbane within a reasonable distance of the Gold Coast. If you live in Tweed and you wish to watch a game of Football would you be more likely to go to:
A. Sydney
B. Brisbane
C. Gold Coast

Take out and Warick or Laidely and in Redlands. Warick and Laidely only have a population of 32,000 between them while Redlands has 130,000 which would increase the total to over 1.2 millions.

Valleys FC 4Ever

2nd November 2007, 19:49

No I looked at a map, included all areas south of Brisbane within a reasonable distance of the Gold Coast. If you live in Tweed and you wish to watch a game of Football would you be more likely to go to:
A. Sydney
B. Brisbane
C. Gold Coast No shit. It also doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with anything I said.

Take out and Warick or Laidely and in Redlands. Warick and Laidely only have a population of 32,000 between them while Redlands has 130,000 which would increase the total to over 1.2 millions.
Like I said before, you're just trying to find 1 million people, not actually places that are influenced by the GC. I also said that the the Redlands are part of Brisbane, not the GC, but you've disregarded that aswell.

I live on the Gold Coast and work in Brisbane, you live 3000 kms away. Why don't you just take my word for it when I tell you how things are around here...

Bucks Past

2nd November 2007, 20:03

the bottom line is its not going to work , afl are dreaming why would they
even bother its a joke .

THE END.

ps will brisbane be there in 5 years , thats what the afl should be thinking
you see it will happen...

Ancient and Loyal

2nd November 2007, 20:07

moomba

2nd November 2007, 21:27

HAHAHA! :D Lions have 6500+ Melbourne based members - best not to pull stats out of your arse to support your argument. And your calling me deluded? :rolleyes:

If that figure is right (and I believe it is) thats quite scary for football in Queensland. It means that in a population of 1.8m, only 13-14k saw fit to buy a membership, less than 1 in a 100. Translate that to the Gold Coast population (even doubling it if you believe the figures above that seem to have been proven as bollocks) and you are looking at a hard core support of 6-7k on the Gold Coast. A more likely figure givent he accepted population of the Gold Coast is 3-4k. I guess they'll all fit in the ground at least.

That's not the point. Even pulling 17k a game on the GC will generate a larger profit on the Gold Coast than the Roos pulling 28k at the Dome. And consider the extra TV exposure a GC team will surely get, which can only be good for the brand.

So are you happy with the AFL being more about finances and TV viewers, than getting people to go to games or the sport itself?

blues4flag

2nd November 2007, 23:22

So are you happy with the AFL being more about finances and TV viewers, than getting people to go to games or the sport itself?

As far as I, and many others see it (I can understand Roos supporters denying it), the AFL is a national competition and with 10 clubs competing in the one state, it is over saturated and a team needs to go. The Kangaroos make up only 1/20 of total support of ten Victorian teams - significantly below all but the Dogs and Demons. Melbourne, due to their name are safe from relocation (merger, however...) while the Dogs are probably next in line. The Kangaroos are the weakest link in the chain and moving them North will relieve pressure in the Victorian market, making life easier for the other financial cellar dwellers.

While attendances will drop, due to Cararra's crowd capacity and the time taken for the club to establish itself up North, the number of North supporters will likely increase. According to Roy Morgan data, Kangas only have a membership base of 220k - 2nd worst only to Melbourne. A move to the GC will see that number increase significantly - even accounting for a significant drop in Melbourne based North supporters (and to be honest, I think the Roos are over-dramatizing the number of supporters who'll drop off a relocated club) that number could rise to 400k+. Undoubtedly, the supporter-member ration will drop in the short term at least, however I wouldn't be surprised if the club retained 10K+ of current members, provided their are incentives given to Melbourne based members, and adding a minimum of 4 to 5k GCers who'd jump on initially - probably conservative given the number of expat Southerners who'd love to see some footy, the Kangas would start up with a 15k+ membership at the very least. Even though Brisbane has a significantly larger population than the GC, the proportion of footy followers on the GC I'd suspect to be a fair bit higher due to people from footy-following states relocating their. On the GC, the potential membership long term, is IMO, undoubtedly higher than what it is the cluttered Melbourne market.

Pedro59

2nd November 2007, 23:47

I think you just stuck a bunch of pins on a map in a quest to find 1M people. Seriously some of those places are nowhere, and I mean nowhere, near the GC. For starters, Laidley is on the other side of Brisbane way out near Toowoomba and Warwick is like 3 hours drive away and again, closer to Brisbane. I'm not even going to bother with the NSW areas.

The Gold Coast City Council comprises basically all of the area that's considered part of the Coast. Cities like Logan and Redland are the only areas that could possibly be seen as coming under the GC's influence but both are classed as, and more importantly, see themselves as part of Brisbane.
but mate you miss the point! I and my mates live in NSW and we would happily travel the lousy hour to Carrara, again , you are being selective with your facts......the GC team would have a local market of 1 million. Most of us in northern NSW work across the border

Pedro59

2nd November 2007, 23:55

Quick Hint-Redland Shire, Logan and Ipswich are aligned to BRISBANE. They are not part of the Gold Coast, and nor do they identify as such. They are all much closer to the Gabba (Which is on Brisbane's Southside) Than they are to Carrara.

yeh..but the fans might choose to follow the equally nearby GC team...how ridiculous it is to think that that cause they live in Ipswich they must align with the Lions ...the market share of the new team will be over a million...a new crows size following as long as it is not a failed Vic team.

zero

2nd November 2007, 23:58

That is just a guess but even if it the right guess it isn’t relevant. The game already brings in enough TV revenue to sustain all clubs plus the AFL and then some. If TV revenue is the argument then there is no argument for moving North.
yes its speculation, but just because there is enough for everyone at this point in time doesent mean the AFL shouldnt look at increasing it, if for nothing else then for the future security and a better structure for the comp

im not pointing this out as an argument for the roos moving, im pointing it out because i think this is a reason why the AFL has such a hard on for the coast.

the way the AFL grew from the old VFL meant it had and has a very poor structure, of having 9 clubs in melbourne and few elsewhere. yes the AFL could protect this structure and keep the roos in perpetuity, but it makes more sense for them to try to change it, to a structure that is more profitable, more appealing, one that will attract more juniors, more participants, and more sponsorship dollar. if two clubs moved, then you cut the CBF spending and it becomes easier to fund all the clubs that exist. having basketcase vic clubs is quite stifling to the AFL in alot of ways.

and its the reason why they will start a new team when the roos turn them down in a couple of weeks (i reckon)

moomba

3rd November 2007, 00:53

yeh..but the fans might choose to follow the equally nearby GC team...how ridiculous it is to think that that cause they live in Ipswich they must align with the Lions ...the market share of the new team will be over a million...a new crows size following as long as it is not a failed Vic team.

14,000 Brisbane locals bought a Lions membership last season, with a population of 1.8m people.

What makes you think a population of 1 million (assuming your discredited figures are correct) will do nearly 3 times better than the Lions currently do?

yioughtta

3rd November 2007, 01:38

the Kangas would start up with a 15k+ membership at the very least. Even though Brisbane has a significantly larger population than the GC, the proportion of footy followers on the GC I'd suspect to be a fair bit higher due to people from footy-following states relocating their. On the GC, the potential membership long term, is IMO, undoubtedly higher than what it is the cluttered Melbourne market.

15k? That's not much less than Brisbane's, silly. And Brisbane have been there for... 20 years now? And Brisbane is... 3 times as big as the Gold Coast? Please.

Relocaters from footy-following states? Yeah, I'm sure they are just gonna completely forget whoever they have just followed for the last twenty, thirty, forty years and jump on a new team. Just like that. As though they didn't grow up passionately supporting a team of their own. Please.

As for an undoubted 'higher membership on the GC', I reckon a similar 'logic' would have been offered for Brisbane's formation back in the 80's. Twenty years on and they still have a membership figure lower than the lowest Melbourne-based club. Go figure.

The Teflon Dean

3rd November 2007, 10:31

14,000 Brisbane locals bought a Lions membership last season, with a population of 1.8m people.

What makes you think a population of 1 million (assuming your discredited figures are correct) will do nearly 3 times better than the Lions currently do?

Bloody excellent point, moomba.:thumbsu:

Powerstufff

3rd November 2007, 11:20

Really I think it is fair to say GC is not viable. The AFL don’t want a team there because it is viable. They understand they will have to fund it. The issue is the impact on the profile of the game in the area and in Qld. over a longer term......Absolutely right.
......I would think, well at least hope, the AFL would know what the various options will do to the TV rights.I'm absolutely sure that Ch7, Ch10 and Foxtel are well behind this and that they and the AFL have crunched a few numbers beforehand.

blues4flag

3rd November 2007, 11:28

15k? That's not much less than Brisbane's, silly. And Brisbane have been there for... 20 years now? And Brisbane is... 3 times as big as the Gold Coast? Please.
Some 7k short, but I'd expect the Roos to have a much larger Victorian based membership than Fitzroy did. I did say 4-5k GC based members - less than 1/3 the number of Queensland based Lions members.

Relocaters from footy-following states? Yeah, I'm sure they are just gonna completely forget whoever they have just followed for the last twenty, thirty, forty years and jump on a new team. Just like that. As though they didn't grow up passionately supporting a team of their own. Please.
Undoubtedly some of the less passionate would change clubs. Not to mention children of footy followers who aren't strongly aligned to a club. And more importantly, I'm sure that many passionate football followers, Roo supporters or not, will buy a membership just to watch some football.

Ancient and Loyal

3rd November 2007, 11:42

yeh..but the fans might choose to follow the equally nearby GC team...how ridiculous it is to think that that cause they live in Ipswich they must align with the Lions ...the market share of the new team will be over a million...a new crows size following as long as it is not a failed Vic team.

A new Crows sized following?

You are aware that Logan (In particular. Jonathon Thurston, Israel Folau, Cameron Smith and Tonie Carroll all have links to the area) and Ipswich are Rugby League hotbeds right? If the Lions couldn't make a dent in those areas, what makes you think a side from another city will? What makes you think people from Northern New South Wales, who hate Queenslanders as much as they hate Sydneysiders, are going to jump on the bandwagon?

Pedro59

4th November 2007, 16:15

A new Crows sized following?

You are aware that Logan (In particular. Jonathon Thurston, Israel Folau, Cameron Smith and Tonie Carroll all have links to the area) and Ipswich are Rugby League hotbeds right? If the Lions couldn't make a dent in those areas, what makes you think a side from another city will? What makes you think people from Northern New South Wales, who hate Queenslanders as much as they hate Sydneysiders, are going to jump on the bandwagon?
Because times are changing fast....I used to visit here 10 years ago and people would boo me in the pubs if I went to change the channel on to AFL from NRL, well now all the pubs usually have AFL on and the newspapers are always 3 pages on AFL...
If the roos don't want to move fine......but don't try and BS the figures and say that an AFL team would't have a decent following up here.
Times have changed and fast...

RUNVS

4th November 2007, 16:19

Because times are changing fast....I used to visit here 10 years ago and people would boo me in the pubs if I went to change the channel on to AFL from NRL, well now all the pubs usually have AFL on and the newspapers are always 3 pages on AFL...
If the roos don't want to move fine......but don't try and BS the figures and say that an AFL team would't have a decent following up here.
Times have changed and fast...

The AFL is far more accepted in Sydney than it was 10 years ago aswell. I hate it when people use the excuss that the Gold Coast dont have enough supporters in the region to sustain a team as im sure the same thing was said to the Swans and Lions were both told the same thing before moving to Sydney and Brisbane.

Pedro59

4th November 2007, 16:19

The Teflon Dean

4th November 2007, 16:23

Because ther is a more transient AFL loving pop in GC than in Brizzie.....it is that simple

They already have AFL allegiances and they are more likely to be coming and going all the time.

Well that is hardly the basis to base a permanent relocation upon.:rolleyes:

Better to stick with 20 - 30,000 existing members that mostly stay in one place.:thumbsu:

moomba

4th November 2007, 17:02

Because ther is a more transient AFL loving pop in GC than in Brizzie.....it is that simple

Might account for a couple of hundred. Maybe a thousand.

Certainly not enough to get the new side even close to the sort of crowds that already exist at North games.

blues4flag

4th November 2007, 17:39

They already have AFL allegiances and they are more likely to be coming and going all the time.

Well that is hardly the basis to base a permanent relocation upon.:rolleyes:

Better to stick with 20 - 30,000 existing members that mostly stay in one place.:thumbsu:

Since when have the Roos ever come close to 30K? :confused:

Funkalicous

4th November 2007, 17:43

Might account for a couple of hundred. Maybe a thousand.

Certainly not enough to get the new side even close to the sort of crowds that already exist at North games.

So what would be a viable crowd number in 2010? I personally would say 20,000 would be a great effort in the first couple of years. At the moment, there are 11,000 (albeit full seat capacity) at Carrara games. Next year hopefully there will be more seats at Carrara. Enough to fit 15,000 would be the aim. With growing speculation of a new team on the coast, there would be greater interest IMO. Improvements in surrounding roads and parking is also a major priority (it's a bit of a farce atm). - Basically improvements in the stadium in general should improve crowd numbers.

15,000 next year.
17,000 in 2009.
Hopefully 20,000 in 2010.
That would set a good foundation for a successful following.

Powerstufff

4th November 2007, 17:50

They already have AFL allegiances and they are more likely to be coming and going all the time.....There are a significant number of people who go along to watch a club when work or whatever cause them to relocate. I know a Hawthorn fan here in Adelaide who has a Port Adelaide season ticket and two Crows fans in Brisbane who have Lions memberships. In addition there will be a few hundred Australian Rules fans who live locally who will go along, plus fans of the visiting clubs. BTW how many Carrara games did the Kangaroos play this year? What were the crowd figures? What were Kangaroos crowd figures like in Melbourne (best, worst, averaged)?

suburban_superstar

4th November 2007, 18:00

i think the AFL must be banking on the fact that current Gold Coast football fans will switch their alleigances to the new club.

Helix

4th November 2007, 18:18

A Living God

4th November 2007, 18:21

So what would be a viable crowd number in 2010? I personally would say 20,000 would be a great effort in the first couple of years. At the moment, there are 11,000 (albeit full seat capacity) at Carrara games. Next year hopefully there will be more seats at Carrara. Enough to fit 15,000 would be the aim. With growing speculation of a new team on the coast, there would be greater interest IMO. Improvements in surrounding roads and parking is also a major priority (it's a bit of a farce atm). - Basically improvements in the stadium in general should improve crowd numbers.

15,000 next year.
17,000 in 2009.
Hopefully 20,000 in 2010.
That would set a good foundation for a successful following.
Using the trend for growth in Brisbane (1993 onward) and Sydney from the time they stopped realy sucking (1995 onward). A Gold Coast team with 10,000 supporters in 2008 will have about 25,000 in 2020. It would take to about 2015 to get 20,000.

Helix

4th November 2007, 18:24

A new Crows sized following?

You are aware that Logan (In particular. Jonathon Thurston, Israel Folau, Cameron Smith and Tonie Carroll all have links to the area) and Ipswich are Rugby League hotbeds right? If the Lions couldn't make a dent in those areas, what makes you think a side from another city will? What makes you think people from Northern New South Wales, who hate Queenslanders as much as they hate Sydneysiders, are going to jump on the bandwagon?

I think you missed the point. Northern New South Wales considers itself part of the Gold Coast. It isn't a state team, it is a region team. Also, even though Ipswich is a Rugby League area, it has a decent AFL following. Did you know Rahn Hooper is from Ipswich? So any Gold Coast team would certainly attract fans from Northern NSW and Brisbane, Ipswich, and many other areas. The question is of potential.

Pedro59

4th November 2007, 19:26

I think you missed the point. Northern New South Wales considers itself part of the Gold Coast. It isn't a state team, it is a region team. Also, even though Ipswich is a Rugby League area, it has a decent AFL following. Did you know Rahn Hooper is from Ipswich? So any Gold Coast team would certainly attract fans from Northern NSW and Brisbane, Ipswich, and many other areas. The question is of potential.
I agree......parts of Northern NSW even have QLD (07) STD codes...and in business I find most distributors list themselves as Southern QLD/ Northern NSW suppliers.
It is simplistic and inaccurate to not count Northern NSW (pop 250,000) as part of the potential market of the GC, I mean, who else could they go and watch? The Swans are a world away.If Moomba lived up here he would know these demographics to be true.Half the people I know live in Northern NSW and work on the Gold Coast , and our main local rag is the GC Bulletin, so its no biggy to follow and watch a team on the GC.
A really important point is that the Adelaide Crows( even though I hate em) proved that people do indeed embrace a local team regardless of whether they used to be Carlton or Richmond etc fans.Who do you think the crows fans used to barrack for?
IMO it has to be a local composite team and not a relocated dying vic team (sorry )

ChrisFooty

4th November 2007, 19:42

Yes, it's viable. If the AFL are willing to fund 80% of the new Gold Coast team, then yes, it will work.

Tv ratings even for Lion matches have been modest this year. It really depends. If the AFL are going to introduce a 17th team, it will be extermley costly. The Lions are having a tough enough time trying to make profits.

The biggest problem with the whole Southport having 40,000 members is that the memberships only cost 5 bucks. How many of these 40,000 people would be willing to purchase a full price membership? No market research giving an answer.

The AFL must have some full detailed plan they have kept to themselves. They have not outlined anything in great detail that says an AFL team should be on the GC in 2010. I hope the AFL do have something, rather than i think this might happen stuff.

Also, the reason in putting a GC team because 'the people will come' is not sufficent detail. I would love to know what surveys have the AFL done recently asking GC people do they want a new team? Have they actually asked one fan there? I know they don't consult the fans in rule changes.

Red_and_white

4th November 2007, 19:46

Using the trend for growth in Brisbane (1993 onward) and Sydney from the time they stopped realy sucking (1995 onward). A Gold Coast team with 10,000 supporters in 2008 will have about 25,000 in 2020. It would take to about 2015 to get 20,000.
A Living God, you have to remember that in 1995-1997 there was a little thing called Super League which almost killed rugby league and drove thousands of supporters to the Swans and the Lions. Unless you are expecting that to happen again in a couple of years time, you can't expect the crowd trends of Sydney and Brisbane to happen in the Gold Coast.

moomba

4th November 2007, 20:53

If Moomba lived up here he would know these demographics to be true.

Add your 250k people (I'msurprised you haven't tried to include the population of Tasmania in Gold Coasts figures the way your including anyone and everyone) and you've still got less than half Brisbanes population. Brisbane had 15,000 local members last season. And I'd like to hear your estimate on how what percentage of people living on the Gold Coast who are interested in footy would call themselves loyal Brisbane supporters. Many of them will not change allegiances even if there is a team on the Gold Coast.

A really important point is that the Adelaide Crows( even though I hate em) proved that people do indeed embrace a local team regardless of whether they used to be Carlton or Richmond etc fans.Who do you think the crows fans used to barrack for?

A lot of them supported their SANFL side. Many of them had a VFL side they supported. Of the Crows supporters I'd say there would be only a small minority that only started having an interest in the sport because of the Crows.

And Adelaide is a footy state, people have lived and breathed the sport in Adelaide for decades. Gold Coast, region Queensland, northern NSW are not, so you really should stop comparing the two.