20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

It almost certainly can, by virtue of it being....a rugby town.

And that there shows you don't understand the nuance of Canberra.

It represents a market and opportunity. Im not sold on its reality.

And what would that take? The ACT Govt publicly committing to what I'd mentioned earlier?

We know that WA already has 2 succesful AFL clubs. Theres reason to suspect a third would be viable based on population and financial growth stats. Its also in a location where the AFL and the code are dominant players.

Burden of proof is on every team wanting to come in, particularly from non traditional areas that are going to rely on government support to be viable.

So your argument is just "big footy city"?

WA3 is not without its problems.

They're up against two behemoths of clubs with rusted on fans. And the remaining AFL population has stayed strong with interstate clubs without jumping ship earlier.

WA3 is not just going to scoop up a third of Perth.

Being a popular code in a big city isn't necessarily a slamdunk. They could easily become the Western United or Macarthur of Perth.

I've made my case for Canberra. I need more than "big footy city" before being convinced on WA3 being so much better.

 

[Saucy]

I just don't see a new franchise starting in Canberra. I think the only way it happens is if North or GWS relocate to Canberra in the next 5-10 years. I think WA3 will get the 20th license.

 

[The_Wookie]

And that there shows you don't understand the nuance of Canberra.

I think you overstate the "nuances" and ignore some of the basic facts here.

And what would that take? The ACT Govt publicly committing to what I'd mentioned earlier?

A Tassie level commitment. Its on the same level as that.

So your argument is just "big footy city"?

actually no. its a big, growing, and highly profitable footy city.

WA3 is not without its problems.

Ive yet to hear any real problems with WA3. And far less problems than faced with an ACT side.

They're up against two behemoths of clubs with rusted on fans. And the remaining AFL population has stayed strong with interstate clubs without jumping ship earlier.

Theres still plenty of non committed folks in WA.

WA3 is not just going to scoop up a third of Perth.

WA1 and 2 dont have two thirds of Perth either.

Being a popular code in a big city isn't necessarily a slamdunk.

It usually is unless you are owned by a vengeful state competition.

They could easily become the Western United or Macarthur of Perth.

There are WAFL clubs with bigger attendances and audiences than either of these.

I've made my case for Canberra. I need more than "big footy city" before being convinced on WA3 being so much better.

As far as I can see, You havent made a really good case at all for the ACT, beyond its somewhat nebulous "nuances". And its way more than just "big footy city" that makes WA3 a good call.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I think you overstate the "nuances" and ignore some of the basic facts here.

A Tassie level commitment. Its on the same level as that.

I absolutely recognise the basic facts.

We would have a better case without the Raiders, but they're not a barrier either.

Canberra has a large AFL base. Not as big as Tasmania, but we have more AFL fans than Hobart. And those AFL fans have more money than in Hobart.

It usually is unless you are owned by a vengeful state competition.

There are WAFL clubs with bigger attendances and audiences than either of these.

I would hope so. They have been abysmal.

And that's what they risk compared to West Coast and Freo.

Last season, Sydney and the Wanderers averaged 12.5k, to Macarthur's 4.7k. Melbourne Victory and City averaged 9.5k to Western United's 3.6k. Both were eerily close in the percentage, at just under 38% of their rivals' averages.

If the same happened in Perth, WA3 would average 16.7k.

Not saying it would happen to WA3, but these are our best examples of a third team entering in an Australian city.

Two clubs is a good derby, a good rivalry. A third club risks becoming a third wheel.

As far as I can see, You havent made a really good case at all for the ACT, beyond its somewhat nebulous "nuances". And its way more than just "big footy city" that makes WA3 a good call.

Looks like I'm not going to convince you either. I'll have to wait until something more concrete comes from the ACT Govt.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I just don't see a new franchise starting in Canberra. I think the only way it happens is if North or GWS relocate to Canberra in the next 5-10 years. I think WA3 will get the 20th license.

North already had 8k WA members before even playing a home game there. That will grow as they play more games.

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but if North were to move anywhere, it should be Perth.

 

[The_Reaper]

North already had 8k WA members before even playing a home game there. That will grow as they play more games.

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but if North were to move anywhere, it should be Perth.

Western Australians would never accept a transplanted eastern states side

 

[Canberra Pear]

Western Australians would never accept a transplanted eastern states side

Fair. Canberra would probably eventually accept them, but it wouldn't be anywhere near with the enthusiasm that you'd get for a new team.

But I don't see relocation happening any time soon, so kind of a moot point.

 

[RedV3x]

Its not relevant to WA3 at all. You bought it up

You replied to my statement.

You cannot divorce the AFL from Australian Football pathways.

With

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.

This was because the SANFL had a revenue stream from Adelaide Oval.
The WAFL has no revenue stream from Perth stadium,
Thus WA3 provides no benefit to the WAFL and in fact would be a further drain on the WAFL
and W.A.football pathway.

 

[RedV3x]

I might have exaggerated a little. 15k average in Canberra and 33k average in Perth.

IMO crowds would be significantly bigger for a Canberra AFL team, Canberra having their own team.
IMO crowds would be significantly lower for a WA3 AFL team., Perth already having two AFL teams
and Perth not having any real desire, design and commitment to another AFL side.
Canberra AFL would probably operate out of a lower cost stadium.
Pth3 would either be at the expensive Perth Stadium or depend on a WACA upgrade (again).

 

[RedV3x]

Tasmania is literaly only getting a team to shut the Tasmanian Government up and because they caved on every demand.

There has been talk about Tasmania entering a mainland competition from VFL days.
For decades Australian Football fans have been saying that Tasmania deserves their own team.
It's rather ironic that when Tasmania and Canberra too were first seriously mooted that
the economics were not as thoroughly dissected and politicized as they are nowadays.
Tasmania was always going to happen but now the timing is seen in a different light.
Before it was stated "look at all the Australian Football players that Tasmania produces",
but now with Queensland close to being the second most prodigious provider of Australian Football players,
closely followed by N.S.W. it's more of question of AFL ticking all the right boxes.

 

[RedV3x]

Canberra would probably eventually accept them, but it wouldn't be anywhere near with the enthusiasm that you'd get for a new team.

But I don't see relocation happening any time soon, so kind of a moot point.

I agree with a greenfields team being better in the long term than a re-located side.
IMO a N.M. side would have been better than GWS because of established performance and established fan base.
If N.M. were to be now miraculously be open to relocation then I would see Canberra being ruled out.
I could see Canberans saying "here we go again" especially with an affinity now established for GWS.

Strangely enough, IMO, i don't see much difference in Pth3 and N.M. relocation.

 

[Gibbke]

Western Australians would never accept a transplanted eastern states side

And it's taken Tasmania 40 years to emphasise and underline this exact point using the same rationale - the terms "footy states" and "potential growth markets in rapidly expanding demographic areas" are not the same thing...!

 

[The_Wookie]

There has been talk about Tasmania entering a mainland competition from VFL days.
For decades Australian Football fans have been saying that Tasmania deserves their own team.
It's rather ironic that when Tasmania and Canberra too were first seriously mooted that
the economics were not as thoroughly dissected and politicized as they are nowadays.
Tasmania was always going to happen but now the timing is seen in a different light.
Before it was stated "look at all the Australian Football players that Tasmania produces",
but now with Queensland close to being the second most prodigious provider of Australian Football players,
closely followed by N.S.W. it's more of question of AFL ticking all the right boxes.

"Deserving a team" was never a thing for the AFL, it was always about viability.

None of which changes the fact they are getting a team ONLY because they caved on AFL finance and infrastructure demands. That is still the case.

 

[The_Wookie]

The WAFL has no revenue stream from Perth stadium,

Its WA Gov revenue, while guaranteed if it falls short, is derived from stadium revenues.

Thus WA3 provides no benefit to the WAFL and in fact would be a further drain on the WAFL
and W.A.football pathway.

And WA3 doesnt have to benefit the WAFL, and changes nothing about the WAFL or the pathway. The WAFC would benefit from a royalty arrangement AND as owner of the Eagles/Dockers, from the additional derby matches and lessened travel burdens.

 

[The_Wookie]

I agree with a greenfields team being better in the long term than a re-located side.
IMO a N.M. side would have been better than GWS because of established performance and established fan base.
If N.M. were to be now miraculously be open to relocation then I would see Canberra being ruled out.
I could see Canberans saying "here we go again" especially with an affinity now established for GWS.

Strangely enough, IMO, i don't see much difference in Pth3 and N.M. relocation.

North Melbourne played in Canberra from 1999 to 2002.

2001 - 11,368 ave (3 games)
2002 - 9,509 (3 games)

North had presented a plan to go to Canberra from 2009 after being booted out of the Gold Coast, but the AFL already had plans.

 

[Gibbke]

There has been talk about Tasmania entering a mainland competition from VFL days.
For decades Australian Football fans have been saying that Tasmania deserves their own team.
It's rather ironic that when Tasmania and Canberra too were first seriously mooted that
the economics were not as thoroughly dissected and politicized as they are nowadays.
Tasmania was always going to happen but now the timing is seen in a different light.
Before it was stated "look at all the Australian Football players that Tasmania produces",
but now with Queensland close to being the second most prodigious provider of Australian Football players,
closely followed by N.S.W. it's more of question of AFL ticking all the right boxes.

Yeah...nah...umm...hmmm...this is not exactly how I'd interpret the story after 40 years of avidly watching it all unfold...! The economics were always the brick wall until they signed the $4b dollar deal a few years ago...once that happened, there was no argument the AFL could authoratively state against the nag which wouldn't go away, the history argument (the one footy fans romantically love but which doesn't pay the bills). Assumption and locality being two other strong influencers; the assumption that Tassie would always be there producing footy players without any need for the mainland to lift a finger, and the local need for Q/NSW to get their own bases for recruitment established (the three pressing rationales being the northern states collectively crappy onfield performance to that point, Victorian grizzling about anything which compromised their own draft chances (e.g.cola), and the numbers suggesting surely there must be plenty of latent footy-suitable athletic talent in Australia's 1st and 3rd biggest states not snapped up by competing sports)...

Make no mistake though, the AFL doesn't want Tassie and has ensured that if they do have to accede to allowing them into the comp, it is on their terms and a win regardless of outcome scenario for them by exploiting Tassie's footy fanaticism - they will either come to the party with the best facilities in the AFL and complete financial autonomy (aside from the tv dividends that got them accepted in the first place), or watch them self-destruct in a picture captioned on AFL.com with "We Told You So" and lose the opportunity altogether because they couldn't honour the AFL's magnanimity in granting them their wish...

 

[Gibbke]

"Deserving a team" was never a thing for the AFL, it was always about viability.

None of which changes the fact they are getting a team ONLY because they caved on AFL finance and infrastructure demands. That is still the case.

Having said that, "deserving a team" was the exact line used by Andy when promoting Western Sydney, and the sentiment the AFL had to battle when Tasmania was constantly banging on the door. The suits who paid the bills could easily rationalise their stances for both potential franchises, but both were at odds with public sentiment. So while your entire post is correct, it has to be considered that the phrase was indeed a thing for the AFL, but as a negative and not a positive...!

 

[hampton]

I think it just comes back to whatever growth strategy is important to afl house at the time of spinning up team 20.

WA3 presents a much safer, more financially prosperous option in a larger city that can support a third afl team, have a fantastic stadium, but won’t do a whole lot to grow the game but maybe curb the growth of nrl in WA with the bears.

Canberra is a middle ground option between WA3 and NT, where it will probably do ok in terms of support, but needs govt backing at least in terms of stadium support, but probably won’t ever become a large club by virtue of being in Canberra a mid sized city competing with other professional codes as well. It gives the AFL a bit of a mix of growth of the game and some possibility of a financial stability.

NT is the batshit crazy approach if the AFL deem it to be strategically and perception-wise important to have an NT team and bankrolling it forever.

 

[RedV3x]

this is not exactly how I'd interpret the story after 40 years of avidly watching it all unfold...

In the VFL days it was much more feasible to have a Tasmanian VFL side.
The VFL clubs didn't want a Tasmanian side as they'd lose an important recruiting ground.
A story often repeated in other state leagues.

 

[RedV3x]

"Deserving a team" was never a thing for the AFL, it was always about viability.

For decades Australian Football fans have been saying that Tasmania deserves their own team.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

A Tassie level commitment. Its on the same level as that.

Ive yet to hear any real problems with WA3. And far less problems than faced with an ACT side.

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that to get a team, the ACT government would need to commit to a rebuild of Manuka Oval, plus tipping in a similar amount of money to the team as the Tasmanian government will for theirs? And if they don't, team 20 would go to WA?

Would the WA government need to give anything for WA3 to happen, noting they already have the newest stadium in the league?

WA1 and 2 dont have two thirds of Perth either.

Does this mean the combined support of the other 16 clubs makes up more than a third of the Perth footy market?

 

[RedV3x]

North Melbourne played in Canberra from 1999 to 2002.

I could see Canberfans saying "here we go again" especially with an affinity now established for GWS.

 

[The_Wookie]

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that to get a team, the ACT government would need to commit to a rebuild of Manuka Oval, plus tipping in a similar amount of money to the team as the Tasmanian government will for theirs? And if they don't, team 20 would go to WA?

To get a team, Manuka would need signifcant upgrades at the very least, and an annual contribution similar to the Tassie Governments. Yes. This is the nature of expansions being pursued by the AFL and NRL.

Would the WA government need to give anything for WA3 to happen, noting they already have the newest stadium in the league?

There'd be training facility upgrades, likely Mandurah or some such. I doubt there'd be much in funding required if they get a similar stadium deal to the existing WA clubs.

Does this mean the combined support of the other 16 clubs makes up more than a third of the Perth footy market?

Ive seen no city specific data on support.

 

[RedV3x]

The_Wookie said:

Ive yet to hear any real problems with WA3.

From whom ? BF ?

The problems are very evident to any one with an understanding of Australian Football in Perth.
1. It's a non evident a.t.m.. There is no discussion and absolutely no momentum.
2. Nobody has addressed the model - name, association, appeal, playing grounds, revenue model, travel etc.
3. Nobody has discussed the model w.r.t. the WAFL, WAFC, Perth Stadium, WACA or any regional centre.
4. The government and PCC haven't made any statements.

The real problems with WA3 is the unknowns.

 

[Badja]

Ive yet to hear any real problems with WA3. And far less problems than faced with an ACT side.

The problems are two fold:

• Firstly there's no guarantee they'll get a big supporter base, considering how many people are already West Coast or Freo fans. How many people are interested in the AFL but haven't chosen a local team (or stuck with an east cost team)? Again look at Macarthur FC and Western United. As they'd probably be having to play at Optus and kicking back money to the WAFC their cost base would be pretty high.
• The opportunity cost. If the league isn't going to expand for some time and no one is being forced to move this the last chance to cover new ground and build new supporters, which a third Perth team wouldn't do.