The super club

[Eugenio94]

Got reading the other day about Carlton and their affiliated Carlton soccer club in the nsl. Then I was reminded of this concept of the super club, which one can find throughout Europe (fenerbache In turkey for example with their soccer team, basketball, swimming and athletics clubs etc).

Is this a worthy avenue of business for our afl clubs and the acquisition of clubs In other codes (mainly thinking our summer comps, especially the big bash given high proportion of fans that follow both afl and cricket)? A natural marriage seems possible between stars and pies (damn you Eddie), but I mean if Sutherland at cricket Australia wanted to move into the gold coast market with a big bash team for example, an affiliation with the suns and the use their name and colors (basically gcs buy the franchise license) would seem logical for building support.

Aussie examples:
-Melbourne storm purchasing 20% stake in Melbourne city
-tinker and his hunter sports group ownership of jets/knights (now sold)

Thoughts. Discuss.

 

[Gigantor]

AFL clubs like Collingwood and Carlton dipped their toes in the old NSL, and it didn't work out (although early attendances weren't that bad).

The Western Bulldogs owned the Melbourne Monarchs (baseball) for a short period, and even won a baseball championship, but at the end of the day, who the hell is interested in baseball anyway?

The main issue is, if you have a large AFL club owning a sporting franchise, it basically reduces the market for supporters, especially for one-city teams. For example, if Collingwood put their name to any Melbourne club in any other sport, non-collingwood AFL fans are unlikely to go for it.

However, I agree with your one example of a future Gold Coast BBL team aligning with the Suns. Both would be one-city teams playing in different seasons, I think that has merit.

GWS have a partnership with the Sydney Thunder, sharing facilities etc, but I'm not sure how much deeper it goes.

Those sorts of opportunities will always exist, but I'm not sure about Melbourne AFL clubs owning a sports franchise marketed at the whole of Melbourne, I don't think that can work.

 

[Rob]

The main issue is, if you have a large AFL club owning a sporting franchise, it basically reduces the market for supporters, especially for one-city teams. For example, if Collingwood put their name to any Melbourne club in any other sport, non-collingwood AFL fans are unlikely to go for it.

However, I agree with your one example of a future Gold Coast BBL team aligning with the Suns. Both would be one-city teams playing in different seasons, I think that has merit.

This pretty much sums it up. One of the reasons the Carlton, Collingwood and Parramatta soccer teams failed miserably is because they limited their prospective supporters to just existing supporters of those clubs. When they really needed broad based support to work. You change the Stars name to Magpies and have them wear black and white stripes and watch their supporter base crumble. Anyone that's not a Pies fan would detest them. Good for the Renegades though.

The other big thing in Australian sport is that most professional clubs outside the AFL make a loss. A-League clubs are chronic loss makers, NBL teams are in the same boat. BBL clubs are probably the exception, but I haven't actually seen any financial results there. There's no reason why an AFL club would want to pay big dollars to maintain an A-League club annually. What's in it for them? Certainly not money.

Alignments are fine where there's one city teams. Or teams trying to claim the same region. GWS/Thunder for example. Those sort of alignments aren't going to alienate many people, and potentially have significant benefits of cross promotion between supporters.

 

[Silent Alarm]

I personally don't think Australians have an issue supporting plenty of different teams. Obviously it's trendy to have a token soccer or basketball team, but we're not like the UK and Europe. Over there, there is a dominant code (soccer) and that's linked to ethnicity, religion, social class, and as a result it's a meaningful alliance for people.

In Australia, most people grow up playing two or three sports a year and experimenting with another five or six. Maybe that's a part of it as well.

Footy clubs in this country are some of the oldest in the world, but they've never been hugely different to one another – they've all always been the domain and interest of working class people. You might get Footscray and Carlton having a certain type of migrant fanbase, but it doesn't make or break the club or their identity.

Ultimately, people are fine to support Collingwood but the Victory while their mate goes for the Pies and City.

 

[Hawkk]

I personally don't think Australians have an issue supporting plenty of different teams. Obviously it's trendy to have a token soccer or basketball team, but we're not like the UK and Europe. Over there, there is a dominant code (soccer) and that's linked to ethnicity, religion, social class, and as a result it's a meaningful alliance for people.

In Australia, most people grow up playing two or three sports a year and experimenting with another five or six. Maybe that's a part of it as well.

Footy clubs in this country are some of the oldest in the world, but they've never been hugely different to one another – they've all always been the domain and interest of working class people. You might get Footscray and Carlton having a certain type of migrant fanbase, but it doesn't make or break the club or their identity.

Ultimately, people are fine to support Collingwood but the Victory while their mate goes for the Pies and City.

Melbourne, Hawthorn and Essendon?

Pre 1960 there was a sizeable disparity between the Protestant clubs (Melbourne, Hawthorn, Essendon and Footscray) and the Catholic clubs (Richmond, Collingwood, North Melbourne)

 

[Albert Ross]

Alignments are fine where there's one city teams. Or teams trying to claim the same region. GWS/Thunder for example. Those sort of alignments aren't going to alienate many people, and potentially have significant benefits of cross promotion between supporters.

Yeah. The thing becomes difficult is if the AFL club makes $3m a year profit and the cricket team loses $2m a year. The footy supporters get cranky that they are subsiding the other side of the business and call for it to be cut loose. Or the cricket team whinges about the AFL side not showing a genuine commitment to adequately fund and promote it.

I think you would sort of need a parent body, and individual units. I mean the MCC has a cricket, bowls and whatever else, and their relationship with Melbourne. That sort of independent teams with a common owner might work more than a super-club.

 

[telsor]

Richmond (AFL) club effectively owned the Richmond (district) cricket club (51% share I think).

I think, in effect, they ran as separate entities, except that when there was a dispute, RFC had the final say on matters concerning punt road oval (although the lease specified certain levels of cricket...time, pitch, etc).

Came to an end when RFC negotiated total control of the ground and RCC was moved elsewhere (just checked...they're now the 'Monash tigers') and as part of that RFC gave up their ownership (having no interest/care any more).

I think if there was any interest/benefit from forming a superclub, RFC would have kept at least some interest, but clearly it just wasn't there.

The only real gain I can see is through shared facilities (Gyms, grounds, maybe some admin/marketing staff) and with AFL being 'on' almost all year, there isn't that much spare. What there is can be shared through much more easily/clearly on a commercial/lease basis without needing to worry about things like the future growth/needs of both entities and the like.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

GWS have a partnership with the Sydney Thunder, sharing facilities etc, but I'm not sure how much deeper it goes.

Not much deeper than that. We get a small discount on Thunder membership ($10 off a family package) not even sure if thunder members get a discount on our membership. There's a bit of social media cross promotion but basically they just use the training facilities and a bit of office space.

It might grow into something more but there's no dramas if it doesn't.

 

[Augustine]

Interesting thread. I'm sure the Titans would get a bit pissed off if Suns aligned itself with or even ran a BBL club.

 

[Rob]

Interesting thread. I'm sure the Titans would get a bit pissed off if Suns aligned itself with or even ran a BBL club.

Why? Given there's a 99.9% chance that a Gold Coast BBL team would share the Suns' venue it'd be about as natural an alignment as you could possibly get.

After the Titans spent most of their first few years either slagging off the AFL or the Suns, I doubt they'd want to have anything to do with any team within a few miles of them.
Oh yeah, they're s**t now and are desperate for fans. So maybe they would.

 

[The_Wookie]

I believe there are AFL rules against owning clubs in other codes now,instigated after both the Carlton and Collingwood NSL failures.

 

[Augustine]

I believe there are AFL rules against owning clubs in other codes now,instigated after both the Carlton and Collingwood NSL failures.

Eugenio94

 

[Rob]

Interesting story given this thread:

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/bask...-in-melbournes-southeast-20150211-13c2m5.html

No idea why Richmond would want to be involved. Doesn't seem like a lot of upside to me.

 

[The_Wookie]

Interesting story given this thread:

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/bask...-in-melbournes-southeast-20150211-13c2m5.html

No idea why Richmond would want to be involved. Doesn't seem like a lot of upside to me.

Agreed. It'd make more sense to simply become a sponsor of a district team or competition in that area. Port Adelaide does this in its SANFL zone.