20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

Selfishly don't want a Canberra team as we will lose the Riverina but Canberra makes most sense how many new fans gain in 3rd Perth team

The Giants lost the Albury region back in (I think) 2017. If Canberra comes in, I think it makes sense to give Albury back to the Giants.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Plenty as if you have no spare seats in WA every weekend you lose fans to other codes.

The question was how many would it gain. Not how many would you avoid losing. And WA3 wouldn't gain many fans. Mostly just shuffle them.

But the "losing fans to other codes" argument would apply even more to Canberra. That's literally what has happened for the past forty years with no team to support.

Why will it see crowds drop like a stone? It'll get 25-30K+ to every game which would smash anything in any expansion markets and some of the lesser vic teams vs an interstate side.

I expect biases in this argument, and WA3 would get higher crowds than Canberra. But you have a massive blindspot if you think they wouldn't get any sub-25k crowds.

 

[Freomaniac]

Saying "better claims of WA3" is incredibly subjective.

I still think the BBL team will get up, expansion won't stop at one and we'd still be favourites after Auckland. But regardless, the ACT Government has already shown the will is there to upgrade Manuka and that was for a much less lucrative full-time team.

The ACT Government is already funding an AFL team, but a team of our own would actually get better financial returns for the ACT Government.



You're saying if we get a team of our own, you'd still support the Giants. Therefore you're saying you'd rather the Giants play home games here in perpetuity and they remain "Canberra's team"?



You frame it as if we have more flexibility with the Giants, but the likelihood of a consistent fourth game is incredibly unlikely. Sydney already has too few games. And the Giants are still hunting a game overseas. Giants' home games are already being spread too thin.

But if it were between three games from the Giants, or three games from a Victorian club, I would choose a Victorian club.

I am personally grateful for what the Giants have done for footy in Canberra. My wife and I have both been members since 2016. My cupboard is full of Giants merch - more Giants merch than Port merch.

But at the moment the Canberra-Giants relationship - and the perception that the Giants are reliant on Canberra - represents a major hurdle to us getting our own team. And that hurdle wouldn't exist if we hosted a Victorian club.

Did ACT or Canberra actually asked for a BBL side?

If that's the case, I wanna see it happen. It would have a good indication on how hungry Canberra is for sport.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Did ACT or Canberra actually asked for a BBL side?

If that's the case, I wanna see it happen. It would have a good indication on how hungry Canberra is for sport.

They did. It was actually a commitment in the ACT Government's last election campaign. That was tied in with an expansion of Manuka Oval.

 

[theprospector]

I'll preface this by saying I've come around and think Team 20 should be in Canberra. But how big a deal will retention be there? If they couldn't keep people in GC surely this will be an issue.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I'll preface this by saying I've come around and think Team 20 should be in Canberra. But how big a deal will retention be there? If they couldn't keep people in GC surely this will be an issue.

I don’t think Canberra will have big retention issues.

There’s around 40 current men's players from Canberra and Southern NSW. Canberra will become the closest club to most of those players’ hometowns. For comparison, Tasmania has around 18 current players.

Canberra is already the natural place many from the Riverina come to for uni, work, medicals etc. If a player gets drafted from Wagga, their closest clubs are a five hours’ drive away in Sydney or Melbourne. Canberra is just over half that – an easy day trip for family and friends.

 

[BarbieITFC]

I just don't see where the support for a third WA team comes from. Freo was established less than 10 years after West Coast and it took 10+ years for the Dockers to start to consistently get crowds that saw us move into the middle echelon of fans. The Dockers also had the ability to pitch to the South/East Freo WAFL fans and communities south of the river that they jump ship. Now there's been 30+ years of rusted on fandom to either Eagles or Dockers across all of WA.

The only market that you could potentially tap into is the SW WA market (around Bunbury) - but Hands Oval has a 14,000 capacity or it's a 4-6 hour round trip to Optus from SW WA for games in Perth (ignoring the fact there's no parking at Optus because it's been designed around the Perth public transport network).

Put it this way, I'm pretty sure you could poll 50 randoms in Canberra/Darwin/Cairns and ask them if they would move allegiance to a new local team and at least half would say yes. I'd be surprised if more than 1-2 said yes if you asked that question in Perth or WA more broadly.

 

[2 eazy]

Don't mind sticking with 19 teams each round team gets a bye instead of the mess we have now

 

[loco3]

Don't mind sticking with 19 teams each round team gets a bye instead of the mess we have now

I sometimes wonder if this is actually the best option. 19 teams for a decade.

2 new teams, one after the other, probably realistically diminishes the quality of the league, as we saw with the introductions of GC and GWS.

Maybes it’s better to space out the new teams and get better competition for team 20. I could live with 1 bye every round.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I sometimes wonder if this is actually the best option. 19 teams for a decade.

2 new teams, one after the other, probably realistically diminishes the quality of the league, as we saw with the introductions of GC and GWS.

Maybes it’s better to space out the new teams and get better competition for team 20. I could live with 1 bye every round.

It's pretty safe to say that there'd be a much bigger gap than the Suns and Giants had.

2032 seems a common target date in line with the new broadcast deal. Would give four seasons between entries, which means the draft concessions wouldn't be anywhere as stark.

 

[Freomaniac]

They did. It was actually a commitment in the ACT Government's last election campaign. That was tied in with an expansion of Manuka Oval.

View attachment 2556339

I don't mind this.

If the federal government can put a few million into manuka and make it similar to gold coast stadium or GWS stadium which is a small 25,000 seat capacity sports ground, then I am for it

Canberra has the rugby union side in the Brumbies and Rugby league side in the raiders. But they play in a rectangular shaped sports arena

 

[Aussie in exile]

I don't mind this.

If the federal government can put a few million into manuka and make it similar to gold coast stadium or GWS stadium which is a small 25,000 seat capacity sports ground, then I am for it

Canberra has the rugby union side in the Brumbies and Rugby league side in the raiders. But they play in a rectangular shaped sports arena

From what I read the Rugby codes wants an upgrade to the stadium they play in.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I don't mind this.

If the federal government can put a few million into manuka and make it similar to gold coast stadium or GWS stadium which is a small 25,000 seat capacity sports ground, then I am for it

Canberra has the rugby union side in the Brumbies and Rugby league side in the raiders. But they play in a rectangular shaped sports arena

What a lot of people don't realise about the Manuka upgrade is that it's more or less just finishing an earlier redevelopment.

There was a five-phase redevelopment to bring it to 20k ahead of the 2015 Cricket World Cup. Only three of the five phases were finished.

In the meantime, other upgrades have also happened, including the media centre and replay screen.

So the cost will be much lower than a new stadium or a knockdown/rebuild.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The question was how many would it gain. Not how many would you avoid losing. And WA3 wouldn't gain many fans. Mostly just shuffle them.

But the "losing fans to other codes" argument would apply even more to Canberra. That's literally what has happened for the past forty years with no team to support.

I disagree with this view CP.

If we were to get both Canberra and Perth up to supporting footy to the levels of Melbourne and Brisbane, the population increase in footy fans - around 150,000 people in both cases - would be very similar.

Claiming that it would "shuffle fans" is incorrect when it's clear that there's a measurable decrease of how Perth is a footy city among its population compares to Adelaide and Melbourne in the AFL era, and we can logically deduce it's because there's simply not enough seats at a cheap price to attend AFL games. Attendance culture in Perth is so much different to it in the east, where you have premium tickets vs walkup stadium culture.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I disagree with this view CP.

Haha, unsurprising. You've rarely agreed with anything I've said.

If we were to get both Canberra and Perth up to supporting footy to the levels of Melbourne and Brisbane, the population increase in footy fans - around 150,000 people in both cases - would be very similar.

Just checking you meant Adelaide instead of Brisbane?

Claiming that it would "shuffle fans" is incorrect when it's clear that there's a measurable decrease of how Perth is a footy city among its population compares to Adelaide and Melbourne in the AFL era, and we can logically deduce it's because there's simply not enough seats at a cheap price to attend AFL games. Attendance culture in Perth is so much different to it in the east, where you have premium tickets vs walkup stadium culture.

My understanding is that fervent AFL support, per capita, has always generally been a bit lower in Perth than Melbourne and Adelaide.

But Perth is still saturated with footy. 120k seats every fortnight. TV, radio, newspaper saturation. Not being able to get a seat isn't largely stopping people following AFL.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that most WA3 fans would be "shuffled" fans.

That's pretty much who they'll be targeting. The argument is always "look how long the West Coast waiting list is", not "how come we can't convert people?".

 

[threenewpadlocks]

But Perth is still saturated with footy. 120k seats every fortnight. TV, radio, newspaper saturation. Not being able to get a seat isn't largely stopping people following AFL.

120k seats a week is not enough for a footy loving population of over 2 million.

Melbourne has double the population for about 4x as many seats available. The fact that there might be empty seats is not only not bad, but also not cumbersome - a half full Perth Stadium is nonetheless a profitable team. If 15,000 seats go un sat in on a weekly average, that's fine. Melbourne teams leave seats un sat in and are profitable enterprises. If Perth3 fail to get crowds in some home games they can easily sell tourism games to Bunbury like Melbourne clubs do to Tassie, Ballarat and the NT.

And TV and radio and newspaper saturation proved the point I'm trying to make - there s a baying footy media enterprise that don't have enough teams to cover!

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that most WA3 fans would be "shuffled" fans.

Be this as it may, why is this a disqualifying factor for it having a team? All we need is for it to breakeeven as a team, but then with the longer term benefit of the health of the sport in Perth not continuing to decline.

But Perth is still saturated with footy. 120k seats every fortnight. TV, radio, newspaper saturation. Not being able to get a seat isn't largely stopping people following AFL.

120k seats a week is not enough for a footy loving population of over 2 million.

Melbourne has double the population for about 4x as many seats available. The fact that there might be empty seats is not only not bad, but also not cumbersome - a half full Perth Stadium is nonetheless a profitable team. If 15,000 seats go un sat in on a weekly average, that's fine. Melbourne teams leave seats un sat in and are profitable enterprises. If Perth3 fail to get crowds in some home games they can easily sell tourism games to Bunbury like Melbourne clubs do to Tassie, Ballarat and the NT.

And TV and radio and newspaper saturation proved the point I'm trying to make - there s a baying footy media enterprise that don't have enough teams to cover!

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that most WA3 fans would be "shuffled" fans.

Be this as it may, why is this a disqualifying factor for it having a team? All we need is for it to breakeeven as a team, but then with the longer term benefit of the health of the sport in Perth not continuing to decline.

 

[2 eazy]

G

120k seats a week is not enough for a footy loving population of over 2 million.

Melbourne has double the population for about 4x as many seats available. The fact that there might be empty seats is not only not bad, but also not cumbersome - a half full Perth Stadium is nonetheless a profitable team. If 15,000 seats go un sat in on a weekly average, that's fine. Melbourne teams leave seats un sat in and are profitable enterprises. If Perth3 fail to get crowds in some home games they can easily sell tourism games to Bunbury like Melbourne clubs do to Tassie, Ballarat and the NT.

And TV and radio and newspaper saturation proved the point I'm trying to make - there s a baying footy media enterprise that don't have enough teams to cover!


Be this as it may, why is this a disqualifying factor for it having a team? All we need is for it to breakeeven as a team, but then with the longer term benefit of the health of the sport in Perth not continuing to decline.



120k seats a week is not enough for a footy loving population of over 2 million.

Melbourne has double the population for about 4x as many seats available. The fact that there might be empty seats is not only not bad, but also not cumbersome - a half full Perth Stadium is nonetheless a profitable team. If 15,000 seats go un sat in on a weekly average, that's fine. Melbourne teams leave seats un sat in and are profitable enterprises. If Perth3 fail to get crowds in some home games they can easily sell tourism games to Bunbury like Melbourne clubs do to Tassie, Ballarat and the NT.

And TV and radio and newspaper saturation proved the point I'm trying to make - there s a baying footy media enterprise that don't have enough teams to cover!


Be this as it may, why is this a disqualifying factor for it having a team? All we need is for it to breakeeven as a team, but then with the longer term benefit of the health of the sport in Perth not continuing to decline.

Guess point is what market will lead to more growth. Surely Canberra team lead to more footy fans then Perth.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

G

Guess point is what market will lead to more growth. Surely Canberra team lead to more footy fans then Perth.

There's hundreds of thousands of "missing" footy fans in Perth, at least as it relates to the city marginally being less AFL mad after adjusting for population than Adelaide and Melbourne I don't think it's a "surely".

 

[2 eazy]

There's hundreds of thousands of "missing" footy fans in Perth, at least as it relates to the city marginally being less AFL mad after adjusting for population than Adelaide and Melbourne I don't think it's a "surely".

Are these missing fans already consumers of afl

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Are these missing fans already consumers of afl

No. That's the point. There's about 5-10%% of the population not consuming AFL before they get to the same levels at Adelaide and Melbourne as a proportion

 

[Canberra Pear]

Be this as it may, why is this a disqualifying factor for it having a team? All we need is for it to breakeeven as a team, but then with the longer term benefit of the health of the sport in Perth not continuing to decline.

Where did I say it was a disqualifying factor?

You disagreed about my comment about shuffling fans, I'm just doubling down.

There's hundreds of thousands of "missing" footy fans in Perth, at least as it relates to the city marginally being less AFL mad after adjusting for population than Adelaide and Melbourne I don't think it's a "surely".

Glad to see you backtrack on that 1987 comment.

People will still be AFL fans whether they can get to a game or not. I lived in Adelaide and was a mad Port fan years before I got to a game. The Maple Leafs are incredibly popular in Toronto and it's nearly impossible to get tickets to those games.

There are more ways to consume footy than attendance. And not being able to attend doesn't make you suddenly stop following a team.

The important thing is actually having a team to support.

The fact that there might be empty seats is not only not bad, but also not cumbersome - a half full Perth Stadium is nonetheless a profitable team. If 15,000 seats go un sat in on a weekly average, that's fine. Melbourne teams leave seats un sat in and are profitable enterprises. If Perth3 fail to get crowds in some home games they can easily sell tourism games to Bunbury like Melbourne clubs do to Tassie, Ballarat and the NT.

The argument is that Perth support is overflowing and ready to be lapped up and becoming a powerful team from the beginning. If they're selling games, then they're not living up those those expectations.

I'm not doubting that Perth could handle another team. But I do doubt that they'll be as lucrative and easy as people on here claim. WA3 will still be a slog scraping fans off the big two teams.

No. That's the point. There's about 5-10%% of the population not consuming AFL before they get to the same levels at Adelaide and Melbourne as a proportion

That 5-10% would be even harder to attract than the West Coast and Freo fans. If they haven't seemed interested in AFL after all that saturation, more saturation won't be the thing that brings them across.

 

[____]

Don't mind sticking with 19 teams each round team gets a bye instead of the mess we have now

If staying at 19 teams gets rid of round 0, gather round and reverts finals back to 8 teams instead of ten (to prevent any team from having two consecutive byes before their first final) then I'd be all for sticking with 19 for sure.

Although I can see the AFL trying to have two or three gather rounds in 2028. And would see a team having two consecutive byes heading into their first final as a non-issue.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

G

Guess point is what market will lead to more growth. Surely Canberra team lead to more footy fans then Perth.

Are these missing fans already consumers of afl

In my view, the question of growth is more nuanced than absolute numbers of footy fans (ie attracting new fans to the sport), it’s also about maximising the engagement of existing fans and their revenue generation potential. Not all markets have the capacity to serve their exisiting footy fans to the same level and that results in fans from certain regions being under-utilised. Therefore, part of the equation needs to be how a new club can harness the potential of the existing fanbase in the area.

With FIFO club arrangements over the past 25 years, Tasmania has been under-utilised as a footy market. The Devils will see higher engagement from the locals resulting in more money flowing into the sport from the state’s footy fans, state government, and businesses. Since the club launch two years ago there has been a 45% increase in AusKick regos.

Most agree that the ACT and WA markets aren’t being utilised to their potential atm, but both for completely different reasons. Future population growth in both regions will also exacerbate the current issues footy is facing in both states.

The 20th team decision is tough because it will result in the growth of footy being harmed in one state. Canberra doesn’t have a team, so that’s an important consideration, while the WA market is more important for the sport’s overall health and is about to face serious competition from the NRL for the first time in 30 years.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

In my view, the question of growth is more nuanced than absolute numbers of footy fans (ie attracting new fans to the sport), it’s also about maximising the engagement of existing fans and their revenue generation potential. Not all markets have the capacity to serve their exisiting footy fans to the same level and that results in fans from certain regions being under-utilised. Therefore, part of the equation needs to be how a new club can harness the potential of the existing fanbase in the area.

With FIFO club arrangements over the past 25 years, Tasmania has been under-utilised as a footy market. The Devils will see higher engagement from the locals resulting in more money flowing into the sport from the state’s footy fans, state government, and businesses. Since the club launch two years ago there has been a 45% increase in AusKick regos.

Most agree that the ACT and WA markets aren’t being utilised to their potential atm, but both for completely different reasons. Future population growth in both regions will also exacerbate the current issues footy is facing in both states.

The 20th team decision is tough because it will result in the growth of footy being harmed in one state. Canberra doesn’t have a team, so that’s an important consideration, while the WA market is more important for the sport’s overall health and is about to face serious competition from the NRL for the first time in 30 years.

Much like the "Big Australia" and "Small Australia" political debate of the 2010 federal election, I'm a big advocate for a "Big AFL". Why not 22 teams with a Perth (2 games in Bunbury), Brisbane2 (representing the corridor of the Northern suburbs up to Sunshine Coast, playing 9 games at the Olympic stadium and 2 at a new Sunshine Coast 15,000 seat stadium), and Canberra? All 3 teams, in my eyes, is healthy and beneficial for the code.

 

[____]

Much like the "Big Australia" and "Small Australia" political debate of the 2010 federal election, I'm a big advocate for a "Big AFL". Why not 22 teams with a Perth (2 games in Bunbury), Brisbane2 (representing the corridor of the Northern suburbs up to Sunshine Coast, playing 9 games at the Olympic stadium and 2 at a new Sunshine Coast 15,000 seat stadium), and Canberra? All 3 teams, in my eyes, is healthy and beneficial for the code.

Should be a full Sunshine Coast team instead of a hybrid Brisbane II and Sunshine Coast.

No one in Brisbane will jump ship for a half Brisbane half Sunshine Coast team, but put a team on the Sunshine Coast full time, especially considering their only competition is super netball, and a lot of locals will get right behind it.