- Moderator
- #6,101
They cant really complain about anything in that regard, its part of their sub license agreements - the WAFC hold the actual licenses and both clubs are 100% subsidaries of the WAFC.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
20th AFL Team
- Thread starter lionshine
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
They cant really complain about anything in that regard, its part of their sub license agreements - the WAFC hold the actual licenses and both clubs are 100% subsidaries of the WAFC.
And the WAFC wont agree/co-operate unless there is substantial benefit to W.A. football.
I dont see that changing for any future W.A. team.
I know I bang on about the Canberra economy, so sorry for yet more.
This year's State of Sport Fundraising Report has been released. It includes a break down of how much people in states donate to local sports.
Per capita, the ACT donated nearly twice as much as the next highest state, and more than six times WA, NT or Tasmania.
You can't read too much into this alone, but it complements what I've already been saying with Canberra's higher median income and the earlier stat about buying more Tasmania jumpers per capita than any mainland state.
It reinforces that Canberrans have money to spend when they have something they support. And that our market size is disproportionate to our population.
This year's State of Sport Fundraising Report has been released. It includes a break down of how much people in states donate to local sports.
Per capita, the ACT donated nearly twice as much as the next highest state, and more than six times WA, NT or Tasmania.
You can't read too much into this alone, but it complements what I've already been saying with Canberra's higher median income and the earlier stat about buying more Tasmania jumpers per capita than any mainland state.
It reinforces that Canberrans have money to spend when they have something they support. And that our market size is disproportionate to our population.
- Moderator
- #6,104
WAFC co-operation is not necessarily required to put a third team in WA, unless they put a reserves team in the WAFL. The WAFC dont want to upset a system where they can charge extortionate rates for tickets and memberships and reap the royalties thereof. The WAFC dont have exclusive use of Optus Stadium either.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
So in your opinion, a third team would happen without any WAFC involvement?
Would that create other barriers in the state? There wouldn't be much incentive for the state body to promote the new team over the two they're involved with.
Would a third team then not have to pay a royalty?
- Moderator
- #6,106
In my opinion, it the only way a third team happens.
Literally no reason the two WAFC owned teams cant keep doing what they are doing now. Clubs dont really promote other clubs anyway.
Its probably the only way the WAFC doesnt make a fuss.
I assumed the WAFC would be involved in growing support at a more granular level, such as promotion, ticket give-aways etc at junior clubs. But as long as long as they're paying their royalty I guess there's no reason for that to not happen.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Can't imagine any scenario where a third Perth team doesn't play WAFL reserves.
Every club wants more control over developing players (the trend towards introducing your own reserves team in the VFL) and if the AFL own the team they are the ones that are going to have to pay for flights and accommodation for the reserves to play some sort of appropriate level of football that's in Perth. Flying 35 players and staff across a continent several times a year is expensive enough that you may as well just pay a royalty to the WAFC and let them play in the WAFL.
But problematical without it.
I'm of the opinion that donations are inversely proportional to the health of the entity.
It also shows capacity to spend.
Australians donate more domestically per capita than PNG. Nobody's thinking that inversely means PNG institutions are in better shape.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
WAFC is an important partner for the AFL.
I very much doubt that the AFL would cut the WAFC’s lunch. Logical outcome would be that WA3 doesn’t happen.
Noting of course that there is basically no push for WA3 from either the AFL or from WA. Both sides seem content with status quo
Perth Telethon raised $90 million.
Apart from being incredibly generous it's also absolutely needed.
- Moderator
- #6,114
National reserves comp would put that to rest.
- Moderator
- #6,115
Charities reflect a failure of goverment. It is absolutely appalling that we can spend billions on sport and have to rely on foodbanks and charities to support the community.
- Moderator
- #6,116
In so far as they independently handle development in WA, and manage the WAFL yes. In so far as handling AFL teams, less so.
I doubt it as well, but my point is the WAFCs involvement in the AFL side of things is not of paramount importance.
Which is why i said it likely wont happen too.
That will last until Tasmania is up and running. They have to leave it as long as possible because the preference would be for a viable alternative to present itself in the NT/ACT or elsewhere, but if that doesnt happen, then WA3 is the only logical alternative to even the comp.
That said the AFL ran an uneven number of teams for 4 years from the Crows entry in 91 to Freos arrival in 95. It could do so again.
You cannot divorce the AFL from Australian Football pathways.
IMO, the Australian Football pathways are critical to the longterm success of the AFL,
notwithstanding that there is some criticism of that pathway a.t.m.
i see huge problems in establishing an AFL side in Perth without the WAFC's assistance.
As you alluded to, the new side would have to function without a reserve's side,
a seemingly insurmountable operation in the eyes of AFL coaches.
.
It’s a moot point as the WA footy commission has come around and now seem to be supporting the idea of a 3rd WA side.
The 20th team has to be WA3 or they need to move clubs in the future as we need more supply over here and it will become dire in 10 years.
Watch them act now that NRL is moving in.
- Moderator
- #6,119
The AFL effectively did so in SA for the last ten years. Both AFL teams are under direct AFL control and have been since 2014. The SANFL remains in control of development in SA.
I dont.
As I also alluded to, it would probably be a major catalyst for a national reserves.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Gets talked about a lot but when it comes to actually putting up the money to make it happen I can't see the AFL wanting to do it.
It already skimps on a proper VFL by having an imbalanced fixture where some teams play each other twice and play other teams zero times, in order to save on travel costs.
That's a bit of an exaggeration though.
Fast forward even 30-40 years. What happens if WA only has two teams? AFL will still be, unassailably, the no. 1 spectator sport. There's no risk of the status quo changing.
A third WA team is a nice to have, but not really a game changer.
But if supply is your issue, there are ways around it without having to start a whole new team. Increasing the ground to 70k and getting North committing to both games at Optus is a 26% increase in the base supply.
Which would be the biggest mistake ever.
Don't the SANFL have a revenue share in Adelaide Oval?
We know it'll take a large federal commitment for the NT to be viable.
But in your opinion, what would it take for the ACT bid to be considered viable?
The North deal is temporary and already in place so you are adding 5% with the extra game. The 16% extra for increasing the Capacity would be a big windfall but Perth is growing at 3% PA so it will hardly keep up with population growth more than a 5-10 year delay of maxing out.
The big thing is that attendance isn't the ticket sales, a lot of games are sellouts so they are missing out on more revenue.
It just seems stupid to limit supply in the 2nd biggest market when there is a cheaper option that will generate money and won't need the government to have to find the 200m to add another 10K seats.
Similar threads
