View Full Version : Expansion 3rd WA team
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 18:05
All this talk with a GC team and a WS team, why not have a 3rd wa team, both teams in wa are alreadt full for membership.
the best way is to remove subi from WAFL and put them in the AFL, let them keep the players they want to and also draft a few and trade for a few, y not? they dominate in the wafl and perth could go for another team
West Coast + Freo will use new stadium
Subiaco can use Subi
only thing is subi will have to change there Lions name
Beats Gold Coast and Western Sydney, but I'd rather see a Tassie team.
SonOfReep
3 Jun 2008, 18:18
All this talk with a GC team and a WS team, why not have a 3rd wa team, both teams in wa are alreadt full for membership.
the best way is to remove subi from WAFL and put them in the AFL, let them keep the players they want to and also draft a few and trade for a few, y not? they dominate in the wafl and perth could go for another team
West Coast + Freo will use new stadium
Subiaco can use Subi
only thing is subi will have to change there Lions name
So... West Coast and Fremantle will use the new stadium - at Subiaco;
and Subiaco can use Subiaco Oval?
I'm sensing a vital flaw in your plan.
What would be the point?
Only reason for a third WA team would be southern, Mandurah region. But that is many years away.
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 18:19
Beats Gold Coast and Western Sydney, but I'd rather see a Tassie team.
i wouldnt mind a tassie team either to be honest
i say Subiaco and Tassie by 2010
Gold Coast by 2015
West Sydney by 2018
NT by 2025
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 18:19
So... West Coast and Fremantle will use the new stadium - at Subiaco;
and Subiaco can use Subiaco Oval?
I'm sensing a vital flaw in your plan.
The staduim getting built on Kitchen Park
Scotland
3 Jun 2008, 18:22
The staduim getting built on Kitchen Park
http://www.perthstadium.com.au/assets/images/stage1.jpg
Hmmmmmmm.
Professor Knowall
3 Jun 2008, 18:27
Expansion board (where its endlessly debated).
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 18:28
http://www.perthstadium.com.au/assets/images/stage1.jpg
Hmmmmmmm.
DAM, sorry didnt realise it was going to built like that sorry, but why cant all 3 teams use the new oval then?
where are wce and freo going to play during construction
SonOfReep
3 Jun 2008, 18:32
DAM, sorry didnt realise it was going to built like that sorry, but why cant all 3 teams use the new oval then?
where are wce and freo going to play during construction
In the existing oval until 2/3 of the new oval is built - then in the new oval while the old oval is demolished and the remaining 1/3 of the new oval built on the old site.
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 18:34
In the existing oval until 2/3 of the new oval is built - then in the new oval while the old oval is demolished and the remaining 1/3 of the new oval built on the old site.
O ok then, i cant wait untill it is built
Admittedly it may be a little cozy with two stadiums in the same spot but I think we can make it work.
SonOfReep
3 Jun 2008, 18:37
Admittedly it may be a little cozy with two stadiums in the same spot but I think we can make it work.
Perth is so small, we're all good mates with everyone else in the city anyway. Probably related to 85-90% of them too.
PieLebo87
3 Jun 2008, 18:40
Yeah, exactly what the AFL needs, a 3rd headf*#k from WA...
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 18:43
Yeah, exactly what the AFL needs, a 3rd headf*#k from WA...
hahahahah considierin one of those so called head ____s has achived more then your collingwood or for that matter about 12 other clubs since they have been in the AFL. West Coast isnt a head____ and freo aint even a head____ they still got more members then most clubs
catters05
3 Jun 2008, 18:46
Rivalry between the two teams is great, i say use the funds to improve the WAFL.
SonOfReep
3 Jun 2008, 18:48
Rivalry between the two teams is great, i say use the funds to improve the WAFL.
The WAFL is fine as it is.
[Notice: I support Subiaco]
:D
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 18:52
Rivalry between the two teams is great, i say use the funds to improve the WAFL.
thats a great point the WAFL is strugglin and imo it coz of subi they are way to good for anyone to compete agaisnt them
hahahahah considierin one of those so called head ____s has achived more then your collingwood or for that matter about 12 other clubs since they have been in the AFL. West Coast isnt a head____ and freo aint even a head____ they still got more members then most clubs
About 12? You mean 15. :cool:
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 19:38
About 12? You mean 15. :cool:
not 15, brisbane is even with us
i meant to say 14
not 15, brisbane is even with us
i meant to say 14
5 Grand Final Appearances > 4.
We have missed what 3 final series in that time (add a 4th this year though :()
Since our time in the AFL, we are the most successful team. But that means very little when you are sitting, 2-8 and 13th.
Masten2McKinley
3 Jun 2008, 19:47
5 Grand Final Appearances > 4.
We have missed what 3 final series in that time (add a 4th this year though :()
Since our time in the AFL, we are the most successful team. But that means very little when you are sitting, 2-8 and 13th.
well we number 1 then :D, we will come back next year strong though, if not next in 2010 be worried of the eagles
legend166
3 Jun 2008, 21:45
Although it's not perfect, read the "Andy sells apples" thread.
StatsFanatic
3 Jun 2008, 21:56
i wouldnt mind a tassie team either to be honest
i say Subiaco and Tassie by 2010
Gold Coast by 2015
West Sydney by 2018
NT by 2025
21 teams by 2025, too many, max 18 teams
chaddles
4 Jun 2008, 14:46
WA deserve a third team in the AFL - the population is high enough, as is the interest level. Subiaco would be the perfect fit, but would they get enough support? - Port Adelaide were an existing club and there crowds are terrible compared to the Crows.
But now the WA Reds are going for the NRL that may strip a lot of interest in a third team :rolleyes:
WA deserve a third team in the AFL - the population is high enough, as is the interest level. Subiaco would be the perfect fit, but would they get enough support? - Port Adelaide were an existing club and there crowds are terrible compared to the Crows.
But now the WA Reds are going for the NRL that may strip a lot of interest in a third team :rolleyes:
The only reason to add an extra WA team would be if there was going to be divisions, with relegation. Like the EPL. 16 is a good number for the one league, 18 is getting too much and over will be way too much.
Ben the Gooner
4 Jun 2008, 19:56
The AFL has the WA market covered. It can add a team any time it likes. GC and Western Sydney, on the other hand, need teams ASAP if they're to make the most of it.
WA deserve a third team in the AFL - the population is high enough, as is the interest level. Subiaco would be the perfect fit, but would they get enough support? - Port Adelaide were an existing club and there crowds are terrible compared to the Crows.
Subiaco, along with Claremont, traditionally have the worst supporter base in the WAFL.
SonOfReep
6 Jun 2008, 14:20
Subiaco, along with Claremont, traditionally have the worst supporter base in the WAFL.
Best looking though
thegreenmachine
6 Jun 2008, 14:52
With all due respect, we're in 2008 and right now the idea that there will be a 3rd team in WA at least before the year 2020 (and that's very optimistic itself), yet alone 2010 is quite a fair way off the mark. It's obvious that the AFL's priorities lie in getting a 2nd team in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. If they are looking to expand after that, it will be a Tasmanian team and down here we are pushing very hard to knock off West Sydney and be that next team in line. Realistically, it's going to look like this in terms of expansion:
Gold Coast-2011
West Sydney (likely) Tasmania (unlikely)-2012
By that stage it will be 18 teams. You can't imagine they will expand to more teams after that. You guys have competition in rugby with the Force and now the Reds perhaps been been revived in Union and League respectively. A 3rd WA team? Never say never, but don't imagine it for a fair while yet.
Tangles29
6 Jun 2008, 15:18
By that stage it will be 18 teams. You can't imagine they will expand to more teams after that. You guys have competition in rugby with the Force and now the Reds perhaps been been revived in Union and League respectively. A 3rd WA team? Never say never, but don't imagine it for a fair while yet.
The Reds are destined to fail unfortunately. League just doesn't get a look in in WA. So that's no competition.
The Force are still strong but I know lots of people are members (or go to games at least) of both Force and Freo/WC.
16 + 2 does = 18 but you can't tell me that by 2015ish there'll be 10 Victorian clubs in existence.
anchor man
6 Jun 2008, 18:48
Geez we get some real tools(an some not very sharp)who post crap on here.
Why would you want a third twam to be in WA.As it is at the moment both teams are struggling,and all the B/S that the Weasels tell you about being bigger and stronger next year is all crap.
There is no way that WA can support three AFL clubs.If it happened in the near future then we would have exactly the same situation that the AFL has with Melbourne teams,too many.
The only reason that the Dockers were brought into the equation was to take away some of the power from the Weasel.A third team would take nothing away but would not find sponsorship in the state.
I am assuming that Masten2McKinley is a might young and does not understand the situation.
And someone said that the WAFL was in a good state!!!!The only good state it is in is in WA.The WAFL is crap and struggling to survive.
Why would you want a third team to be in WA..
Well people have already expressed various reasons for wanting a third team .
You seem to be under the impression that there some formal agenda .
Most thinking people recognise the reasoning behind a third Perth team .
Most thinking also realise that even though it could be successful that it'd require a huge amount of effort for questionable gain , especially in light of
the GC and WS teams inclusion and the recent state of WA's AFL teams .
It remains in the background ,well behind the likes of Tasmania .
.
FootyJunkie
7 Jun 2008, 00:21
AFL needs a "Perth" team.
Perth United - affiliated with Perth Demons, West Perth Falcons, East Perth Royals
West Coast - affiliated with Swan Districts Swans, Claremont Tigers, Subiaco Lions
Fremantle - affiliated with East Fremantle Sharks, South Fremantle Bulldogs, Peel Thunder
Van Queen
7 Jun 2008, 00:43
Woah woah woah you wouldnt want to be like soccer and have "United" now would you? I thought the world game was a poison? Why steal stuff from it? ;)
thegreenmachine
7 Jun 2008, 12:59
The Reds are destined to fail unfortunately. League just doesn't get a look in in WA. So that's no competition.
The Force are still strong but I know lots of people are members (or go to games at least) of both Force and Freo/WC.
16 + 2 does = 18 but you can't tell me that by 2015ish there'll be 10 Victorian clubs in existence.
I highly doubt it myself that there will be 10 teams in Victoria, say in 20 years time. Therefore naturally you'd think that there would be another team that will re-locate or fold. And it looks like it will be Tasmania that will have a new team or a Victorian team re-locate down here. I don't mean to be bias, I'm just telling it the way it is.
Again, the 2 next teams will be the Gold Coast and almost certainly West Sydney, but Tasmania will be next in line. Where after that, I haven't really imagined it, but don't expect the AFL to go to bigger than 18 teams.
I highly doubt it myself that there will be 10 teams in Victoria, say in 20 years time. Therefore naturally you'd think that there would be another team that will re-locate or fold. And it looks like it will be Tasmania that will have a new team or a Victorian team re-locate down here. I don't mean to be bias, I'm just telling it the way it is.
Again, the 2 next teams will be the Gold Coast and almost certainly West Sydney, but Tasmania will be next in line. Where after that, I haven't really imagined it, but don't expect the AFL to go to bigger than 18 teams.
But why stop at 18?
Is 18 some sort of magic number for the AFL?
Considering the growth in Australia, I would suggest 20 teams would be a more logical place to start saying things like - don't expect the AFL to go to bigger than 20 teams.
But why stop at 18?
Is 18 some sort of magic number for the AFL?
Considering the growth in Australia, I would suggest 20 teams would be a more logical place to start saying things like - don't expect the AFL to go to bigger than 20 teams.
22 teams would give a 21 game season that is fair and balanced.
or a lower number like 20 would give the opportunity for a
shorter home & away season with more representitive fixtures .
Having being brought up on an eight team league , see other leagues
with high numbers like EPL and wonder what chance do the supporters
of the lower teams have to an optimistic & enjoyable season ?
.
22 teams would give a 21 game season that is fair and balanced.
or a lower number like 20 would give the opportunity for a
shorter home & away season with more representitive fixtures .
Having being brought up on an eight team league , see other leagues
with high numbers like EPL and wonder what chance do the supporters
of the lower teams have to an optimistic & enjoyable season ?
.
Ok, do you think the EPL is a succesful league?
Just remember, they don't have equalising qualities like the draft - its got nothing to do with the number of teams in the league that there are teams that can never win it.
Have you heard of the SPL (Scottish League)? They had 10 teams for most of their history, they've recently gone to 12 (less than the AFL by the way) - but the title has been shared by 2 clubs for the past 20+ years.
Completely shared by these two clubs.
Nothing to do with the number of teams - everything to do with the equalisation policies put in place in any particular league.
everything to do with the equalisation policies put in place in any particular league.
Yes , very good point .
Nothing to do with the number of teams
Everything being equal , form a supporters point of view you'd rather
have a 1 in 8 chance rather than a 1 in 20 chance .
.
McCrann
10 Jun 2008, 16:48
Yes , very good point .
Everything being equal , form a supporters point of view you'd rather
have a 1 in 8 chance rather than a 1 in 20 chance .
.
True - from a supporters points of view - but from the game's point of view its clearly better to have 20 viable succesful teams than it is to have 18, or 16, or 14 or 12 or anything less than that.
Ultimately, expansion of the game is about survival of the game.
Its a well known fact in the natural world that things that don't grow - don't survive.
Fairly simple concept, but strangely hard for some to grasp.
Why would we want anymore teams? The AFL needs to sort out that rable in Melbourne before that start creating these CG and WS teams.
I look forward to seeing a competiton of 20+ sides, half of which have no money and no supporters. I also look forward to seeing another Sydney side that is spoon fed by the AFL.
Some of those struggling Melbourne based clubs need to swallow some pride and uproot their clubs before they are forced to close.
Would love to see each state or territory represented before they even mention a 3rd WA team.
True - from a supporters points of view - but from the game's point of view its clearly better to have 20 viable succesful teams than it is to have 18, or 16, or 14 or 12 or anything less than that.
From the games point of view - most definately .
.
Freomaniac
11 Jun 2008, 22:41
AFL needs a "Perth" team.
Perth United - affiliated with Perth Demons, West Perth Falcons, East Perth Royals
West Coast - affiliated with Swan Districts Swans, Claremont Tigers, Subiaco Lions
Fremantle - affiliated with East Fremantle Sharks, South Fremantle Bulldogs, Peel Thunder
Thank you for taking the words right out of my mouth. I agree with you. A perth side that represents all three perth teams. Just like freo represents both east and south freo.
I can see this perth side get like 20-30 thousand members.
Thank you for taking the words right out of my mouth. I agree with you. A perth side that represents all three perth teams. Just like freo represents both east and south freo.
I can see this perth side get like 20-30 thousand members.
West Coast pretty much represent Perth though.
TBH, as much as I love the Eagles I wouldn't mind a name change to Perth or something alike.
If a third Perth team comes in it needs to be in a region that does not have two teams already, Eagles North of the river (and most bush areas are majority Eagle supporters), Freo have south of the river and just below. But when I lived in Mandurah it was easily majority Eagle support.
If a third team comes in it needs to be in the growing area that is Mandurah, Rockingham and the surrounding Peel region. It would be the WA equivalent of Geelong.
estibador
12 Jun 2008, 03:18
Any West Aussie wanting a 3rd team is obviously a spy from the east trying to drag us down to the level of the crowded Vic market.
The only way I'd be interested is if they were to be called the West Australian Ospreys and had a chardonnay bottle crossed by two knitting needles as their symbol.
Otherwise I'd rather protect my club's market share of the state and I suggest you all do the same. Unless you're one of these Freagospreys who actually believes in all that crap about 'WA footy'.
littleduck
17 Jun 2008, 10:22
Arguing in favour of a 3rd WA AFL team is like 2 bald men fighting over a comb. Pointless.
SonOfReep
17 Jun 2008, 13:54
Arguing in favour of a 3rd WA AFL team is like 2 bald men fighting over a comb. Pointless.
Well that was worth the bump
http://www.perthstadium.com.au/assets/images/stage1.jpg
Hmmmmmmm.
gold
sturtman
20 Jun 2008, 23:15
WA deserve a third team in the AFL - the population is high enough, as is the interest level. Subiaco would be the perfect fit, but would they get enough support? - Port Adelaide were an existing club and there crowds are terrible compared to the Crows.
But now the WA Reds are going for the NRL that may strip a lot of interest in a third team :rolleyes:
Only one teams supporters at the show chaps. 25,000 is fine. Crows games always sold out. Glenelg, Sturt and Norwood playing the Power in a challenge match would also pack the stadium.