Expansion 20th AFL team location

[greatwhiteshark]

View attachment 1677818
Perth is a geographic location so the above (3., 5. and 6.) were the only registered Australian trade mark rights the Perth Football club were able to secure. So, as long as they don't use a similar logo, PFC have no trade mark rights allowing them to successfully stop Perth3 using 'Perth' for goods in classes 25 (clothing), 28 (sporting gear), or services in classes 38 (communication of sporting events), and 41 (putting on sporting events for entertainment purposes).

If they went after them anyway for something like misleading and deceptive conduct, they would have to show it was intentional to deceive the customers of PFC that Perth3 was in some way directly related to the WAFL club, and evidence of damages because of that. Difficult, if not impossible, when the media spends many an article explaining that they are unrelated.

Don't see a potential issue with copyright.

In addition, and more importantly, given that WC and Freo are owned by the WAFC, it would be reasonable to assume that Perth3 would also be owned by WAFC which is also the owner of the above trade mark registrations (and all other WAFL trade marks). AFL House owns the WC and Freo trademarks and would therefore also own the Perth3 trade marks. Therefore, it would be necessary for WAFC to sign a license agreement to use of the Perth3 mark as I'm sure they have already done with WC and Freo trade marks. As a result, WAFC would not be suing themselves or AFL House so there would be no issue.
i.e. just because Perth FC talks up their history and like they own the place, ownership of their intellectual property is largely owned by the companies up the chain.

I am not sure it is correct that the WAFC own the trademarks like the AFL own the AFL clubs trademarks. It is only the AFL that has done this.
The Perth Football club would own their own trademark I would think just as all the WAFL clubs would. Don't know this for certain but I think it's correct.

Not sure it would be a good look for a consortium to turn up and invent a club and call it Perth without the Perth Football clubs approval. Be a very bad PR exercise for them. Having said that they could get the AFL media machine to do it for them and tell a bunch of lies and the sheep will listen.

 

[Tulip]

The Colts pump out a number of really good players every draft, and there's no shortage of footballers who love the Perth lifestyle. Population is growing by 50k every year. A third team there seems the obvious choice, there would surely be an appetite for a Joondalup based club. Especially if, unlike Freo, it didn't try and define itself as being the antithesis of the Eagles.

 

[Baggins15]

I'm pretty skeptical about a third WA team honestly. Presuming they were to play out of Optus Stadium, would large numbers of Eagles and Dockers supporters really be that willing to jump ship to a club lacking a well-established identity and/or close ties to any particular suburb? I feel like we're talking a whole different ball game to Freo's entrance in 1995 when West Coast had only been around for eight years. Both clubs have been established for decades now and any new team might have a tough time winning over support.

 

[TP86]

I think WA is a no-brainer and the late Friday night game comes in. Only question is, do you bring in a team that plays ALL of its home games as the late Friday (gives them an immediate identity and point of difference) or would that timeslot be so coveted if instituted that Fremantle and West Coast would want their share of games there too.

 

[Big Animal]

I am not sure it is correct that the WAFC own the trademarks like the AFL own the AFL clubs trademarks. It is only the AFL that has done this.
The Perth Football club would own their own trademark I would think just as all the WAFL clubs would. Don't know this for certain but I think it's correct.

Not sure it would be a good look for a consortium to turn up and invent a club and call it Perth without the Perth Football clubs approval. Be a very bad PR exercise for them. Having said that they could get the AFL media machine to do it for them and tell a bunch of lies and the sheep will listen.

see highlight

 

[greatwhiteshark]

View attachment 1677870
see highlight

Well there you go, learn something every day. Cheers

 

[Philth]

The Colts pump out a number of really good players every draft, and there's no shortage of footballers who love the Perth lifestyle. Population is growing by 50k every year. A third team there seems the obvious choice, there would surely be an appetite for a Joondalup based club. Especially if, unlike Freo, it didn't try and define itself as being the antithesis of the Eagles.

Joondalup is full of poms.

They don't care about footy.

 

[Purple Suit]

The question with a 3rd Perth team is not just whether it would be viable on its own but whether or not it would add enough fans that can't just be absorbed by the existing two clubs.

The key word in expansion team is, funnily enough, expansion. You don't want to end up with 'unnecessary subdivision team'. It's one thing to subsidise a failing team that is at least opening up a new market. It's another thing entirely to subsidise a failing team that is just acting primarily as a parasite in an existing market.

I understand that some of these local clubs retain loyal followings, but how many of these fans would any single team add and how many are completely disengaged from Eagles/Freo now?

Of course, at some point Perth's population will get so large that the existing two clubs will become oversaturated, which will necessitate a 3rd team to retain market share. But this seems to me a far longer-term discussion for a 21st or 22nd team, not an immediate concern.

Canberra has issues, but at least it would be an actual expansion team into a growing market that the AFL would want to get a piece of. It should be clearly the next target.

WA3 would add more attendance and quickly. You'd be looking at over 25K per season average home game attendance from day 1 without having to spend a cent on a stadium. The state government might even do a better stadium deal for the new team if they take up the "Perth" moniker which they would be stupid not to. This would eat into the WC waiting in the wings fans and they would be financial and not a drain on the comp the fastest out of any side and before GWS, GC or Tassie could stand on their own two feet. Once Tassie comes in too, the AFL probably need to prop up North & maybe even the hawks to replace the TAS government money at those clubs.

The TV markets are already saturated with teams and the 10th game will bring in more cash no matter where the 20th team is from. Total club revenue (excluding AFL payments) is on par with TV rights so much better to have a team that is the least risk financially than another drain on the comp.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I’ll tell you what, you wouldn’t want to be a Melbourne team with slumping performance and crowds as the Tasmania team comes in. It will be interesting to see if some of the smaller clubs in Melbourne (or clubs with more fickle fans) put off the full rebound route if their list is getting over the hill.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Joondalup is full of poms.

They don't care about footy.

Yet here in the SANFL - Central Districts who were set up in the same circumstances lead to a very passionate fan base who create a unique atmosphere at games.

 

[Jakksynn]

The EPL, Ligue 1, Serie A, La Liga, that's four of the top five football leagues in Europe (and the other one, Bundesliga, has 18 teams).

Yep and they source their players from the billions of people who play soccer. We don’t have the population to sustain that much talent

 

[RG16]

Ireland - Away fan trips would be great.

Conor Nash (Hawthorn), Mark O’Connor (Geelong), Conor McKenna (Brisbane), Callum Brown (GWS Giants), James Madden (Brisbane), Mark Keane (Adelaide), Darragh Joyce (Brisbane), Barry O’Connor (GWS Giants).

That would be awesome. Wouldn't fuss about a trip to Perth either anymore

 

[kranger]

Joondalup is full of poms.

They don't care about footy.

Sounds like Perth’s north, around Joondalup, which is full of Poms, need a team to convert them to Aussie Rules, just like what GWS is doing with the NRL folk in west Sydney.

The question with a 3rd Perth team is not just whether it would be viable on its own but whether or not it would add enough fans that can't just be absorbed by the existing two clubs.

Of course, at some point Perth's population will get so large that the existing two clubs will become oversaturated, which will necessitate a 3rd team to retain market share. But this seems to me a far longer-term discussion for a 21st or 22nd team, not an immediate concern.

The thing is, if a 3rd Perth team might be needed to soak up excess demand for Eagles and Freo, you would want to get them in early, so they can get start drawing fans and establish generational loyal fans, before they are rusted on to Eagles and Freo.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

They're all tiny countries though compared to Australia, thus with far higher population densities.

So what?

 

[JP2]

At the end of every season, play a champion's league style tournament for the winners of the state leagues. The winner of that tournament gets a one year promotion into the AFL, before being replaced by the winner of the next tournament the next year. Means that we don't need to worry about the long-term viability of the 20th team because we're going to cycle through a bunch of them before they have the chance to become a drain on the league's resources. Attendance wouldn't be great, but at least the teams playing will have a core of genuine, grass-roots supporters and there will be an incentive for fans to attend the matches while they can, knowing that the team won't be in the AFL the next year. It would be good way for state teams and their leagues to gain exposure, fans and possibly to build up some finances as well, and the AFL would obviously benefit financially from the extra fixture each week. You could institute a loan system in which players who aren't getting much game time at other clubs could play for the 20th team each year, and also give that team unrestricted access to state league talent, in order to bridge the talent gap.

Badda bing, badda boom. Simples pimples.

 

[catters05]

I still think it will be Canberra. AFL to get another new stadium similar to the Tas one in Canberra. Should work like Tas.

GWS to just focus and build on West Sydney.

Two NSW clubs and one ACT club with focus of building more youth talent. What is the stat, 3rd of the population for 2% of the talent?

Hopefully Dill will focus on Grassroots and youth talent. And fixing up umpiring. Maybe Melbourne will get that third boutique stadium to help with games which would have smaller crowds.

Marvel used for more “other” events as well, to add more coin to AFL. Rather than waste on a 15-20k crowd.

Who knows….

 

[Econopower]

If there is to be a 20th team (I would rather there be a merger of two Melbourne teams but that won’t happen), Greater Perth, Greater Adelaide, and Canberra are the only viable options.

I don’t think it makes sense to put another team in a primarily rugby city/state, especially given how much GC and GWS have struggled and will continue to do so.

Of the three I think Perth would be best, just shading Canberra.

Greater Perth is on track to have a population of nearly 3 million by 2031.

Page not found

perth.wa.gov.au

That works out at 1 million per team, as opposed to only around 500k per team in Greater Adelaide by the same time. WA is also much wealthier than SA (in per capita GSP terms).

Of course, support wouldn’t be spread evenly with the third team highly likely to be the least supported/attended in the state. But that would be the same in SA and in SA there is a greater chance of the third team undermining the finances of the other two clubs.

In SA a third club would probably cannibalise Crows support more than Port support, particularly if formed out of an SANFL team(a), but Port’s finances would be more vulnerable.

Canberra’s population is only around 400k and also quite transient. But at least they wouldn’t be competing with any other clubs. A lot of Canberrans would of course continue to support other clubs. But that wouldn’t stop them attending games.

 

[Do the Dew]

So what?

It's easier to have more teams because of a higher population density, less geographical isolation etc.

So yeah

 

[RUNVS]

From an economic standpoint WA really does make the most sense. All a Canberra team will do is cost money, and we already have Tasmania for that.

 

[kreglze]

Just to the talk about dilution of talent, firstly I expect the league to cut list sizes by a couple spots, so when TAS comes in it means there aren't any extra players required to bring in.

Secondly, (at least in GCs case) this year we will probably end up taking 3 academy players in Walter, Reid and Rogers, means we won't take as many kids from other states and not draining the talent as much, this increasing the pool of players. Won't happen overnight, but with QLD participation higher than ever and with TAS getting a shot in the arm with the new team, it SHOULD mean there are more players to go around in the future.

 

[Canberra Pear]

If there is to be a 20th team (I would rather there be a merger of two Melbourne teams but that won’t happen), Greater Perth, Greater Adelaide, and Canberra are the only viable options.

I don’t think it makes sense to put another team in a primarily rugby city/state, especially given how much GC and GWS have struggled and will continue to do so.

Of the three I think Perth would be best, just shading Canberra.

Greater Perth is on track to have a population of nearly 3 million by 2031.

Page not found

perth.wa.gov.au

That works out at 1 million per team, as opposed to only around 500k per team in Greater Adelaide by the same time. WA is also much wealthier than SA (in per capita GSP terms).

Of course, support wouldn’t be spread evenly with the third team highly likely to be the least supported/attended in the state. But that would be the same in SA and in SA there is a greater chance of the third team undermining the finances of the other two clubs.

In SA a third club would probably cannibalise Crows support more than Port support, particularly if formed out of an SANFL team(a), but Port’s finances would be more vulnerable.

Canberra’s population is only around 400k and also quite transient. But at least they wouldn’t be competing with any other clubs. A lot of Canberrans would of course continue to support other clubs. But that wouldn’t stop them attending games.

Somebody really needs to update that Google result for Canberra's population, because it seems to be the one everyone uses.

You can't use a 2031 population for Perth and a 2016 population for the Canberra (and exclude NSW suburbs).

The ACT currently has ~460k. In 2033, the ACT is predicted to have 550k. The population within an hour will be ~650k and the Capital Region will be ~850k.

 

[Econopower]

Somebody really needs to update that Google result for Canberra's population, because it seems to be the one everyone uses.

You can't use a 2031 population for Perth and a 2016 population for the Canberra (and exclude NSW suburbs).

The ACT currently has ~460k. In 2033, the ACT is predicted to have 550k. The population within an hour will be ~650k and the Capital Region will be ~850k.

Fair point on undercooking Canberra’s population a bit and I should have allowed for more growth.

But even if you base it on the whole ACT and allow for the NSW suburbs (mostly Queanbeyan) it would still have a lower team/population ratio.

And if you are going to include the entire capital region, then you probably have to expand the size of Greater Perth as well.

I think you also have to take into account that there is greater competition with rugby in Canberra as the proportion of the population that passionately follow football will be lower than in Perth.

But all that aside, I think Canberra is viable, as I said at the start of my post.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

IMHO, people are ignoring the importance of having a stadium. The issue with the Tasmanian deal was the AFL wanting (insisting) on a world class stadium. There's a $1b price tag right there. I'm still not sure how the Tassie deal is supposed to go ahead... they seem short of money to me. Perth stadium started with a proposed cost of $700m, but ended up costing $1.6b, albeit including the surrounding area development.

I know governments like to throw money at sporting stadiums, but with the cost of captial rising dramatically, along with government debt levels (and the cost of servicing existing debt), I reckon finding $1b+ is going to be difficult for any future team.

A third Perth team would start with a ready-made stadium, which would greatly accelerate the whole process. A Canberra team doesn't have that luxury.

 

[Kram]

Lol there is absolutely no need for a 3rd team in Perth apart from trying to make the comp numbers even.

 

[Fire]

but still valid

Well while we're revisiting talking points from 2007;

119.