20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

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.

Another Perth team is a nice to have, but just not while there is another viable option on the table.

Brisbane isn't ready for a second team. The NT needs a lot to go right to be in the running. If Canberra wasn't a viable option, WA3 would probably make more sense than anywhere else for the 20th team. But Canberra is a massively under-serviced market that can't be placated with three games from an interstate team.

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.

Do you have any links to that 200m figure? From what I've read, it's been designed to the seats can be added pretty easily. No structural changes.

 

[Purple Suit]

Another Perth team is a nice to have, but just not while there is another viable option on the table.

Brisbane isn't ready for a second team. The NT needs a lot to go right to be in the running. If Canberra wasn't a viable option, WA3 would probably make more sense than anywhere else for the 20th team. But Canberra is a massively under-serviced market that can't be placated with three games from an interstate team.



Do you have any links to that 200m figure? From what I've read, it's been designed to the seats can be added pretty easily. No structural changes.

I was just guessing the figures for the build. Perth stadium cost 1.2 Billion not counting the transport infrastructure so 200m seems logical. It'll probably be half a billion the way costs keep going up and the government being involved.

WA3 not going ahead would be like Melbourne staying on 4 or 5 teams instead of 9.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I was just guessing the figures for the build. Perth stadium cost 1.2 Billion not counting the transport infrastructure so 200m seems logical. It'll probably be half a billion the way costs keep going up and the government being involved.

I think you're overs. The point of the 70k figure is that the base infrastructure is already built in. That was a part of the $1.2b build.

But regardless. I'm not opposed to a third team in principle. I just don't think it should be prioritised over a Canberra team.

WA3 not going ahead would be like Melbourne staying on 4 or 5 teams instead of 9.

If you were starting a league from scratch, Melbourne probably would have 4 or 5 teams.

9 teams says more about Melbourne being overrepresented rather than Perth unrepresented.

 

[Purple Suit]

I think you're overs. The point of the 70k figure is that the base infrastructure is already built in. That was a part of the $1.2b build.

But regardless. I'm not opposed to a third team in principle. I just don't think it should be prioritised over a Canberra team.



If you were starting a league from scratch, Melbourne probably would have 4 or 5 teams.

9 teams says more about Melbourne being overrepresented rather than Perth unrepresented.

It was 1.2B for the stadium, 400m for the infrastructure so 1.6B all up. Took 3 years to build and opened in late 2017.

I recon 200m is conservative due to inflationary pressure. Look at the cost of Tassie’s 21k stadium.

I just can’t see the AFL going past an extra 200k attendance a year in favour of another small scale expansion team unless the local government bankrolls them.

 

[The_Wookie]

Don't the SANFL have a revenue share in Adelaide Oval?

They control it for half the year.

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?

We havent even seen a feasibility study for the ACT, but your looking at a Tassie type commitment to get it off the ground. Thats the template for the NT as well. Even the NRL tried it on for the Bears.

Do you have any links to that 200m figure? From what I've read, it's been designed to the seats can be added pretty easily. No structural changes.

The WA Sports Minister in 2018 noted that the stadium was designed to be upgraded to a capacity of 70,000 seats, though he said the costs of expanding the venue were unknown and certain to run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Does Optus Stadium already need more seats?

WA’s Sports Minister has predicted Optus Stadium may need to be expanded at a cost of up to $400 million in the next five to 10 years after a wildly successful first AFL season for the venue.

thewest.com.au

 

[Canberra Pear]

It was 1.2B for the stadium, 400m for the infrastructure so 1.6B all up. Took 3 years to build and opened in late 2017.

I recon 200m is conservative due to inflationary pressure. Look at the cost of Tassie’s 21k stadium.

My bad. I stand corrected. From Wookie's article.

Can still see the Eagles and Freo pushing for it though.

I just can’t see the AFL going past an extra 200k attendance a year in favour of another small scale expansion team unless the local government bankrolls them.

Canberra would also get 200k a year in attendance.

Canberra isn't small scale. It's medium scale. Just like WA3. They aren't going to be another West Coast or Freo. At least not a Freo for a loooong time. And never a West Coast.

But Team 20 shouldn't just be a quick fix if there's a real chance of expansion.

Again, it boils down to, if this is the last expansion for a really long time, what would you want in over a generation.

Three teams sharing a city of 3.2m and no team in a wealthy city of 1.2m?

Or two teams in a city of 3.2m, and one team in a city of 1.2m?

The answer seems pretty obvious to me. If there's only one expansion in our lifetimes, it has to be Canberra over WA3.

 

[Canberra Pear]

We havent even seen a feasibility study for the ACT, but your looking at a Tassie type commitment to get it off the ground. Thats the template for the NT as well. Even the NRL tried it on for the Bears.

Why though?

Canberra is a bigger market than Tasmania. And way bigger than the NT. I think some nuance is needed rather than just grouping us all together.

We have one centralised fanbase; a faster growing population; the ACT economy is already larger than the Gold Coast's; our median income is 70% larger than Tasmania's.

We're not a huge market, but we're clearly already stronger than Tasmania. And only getting stronger.

I agree we need some commitment, but I don't think it will need to be at the level of "Tassie type".

We've already got a commitment for an upgraded stadium. The ACT Govt's nearly $3m deal with the Giants would just transfer. Given the increased ROI, I could see that easily bumped to $5m. I've previously mentioned the perks the ACT Govt gave the Giants to entice them that'd be worth more than $4m over 11 games if redeployed.

That's $7-9m in assistance annually. If the ACT Govt came out and actually committed to that, would that be enough to convince you?

The WA Sports Minister in 2018 noted that the stadium was designed to be upgraded to a capacity of 70,000 seats, though he said the costs of expanding the venue were unknown and certain to run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Does Optus Stadium already need more seats?

WA’s Sports Minister has predicted Optus Stadium may need to be expanded at a cost of up to $400 million in the next five to 10 years after a wildly successful first AFL season for the venue.

thewest.com.au

Thanks for this. Much appreciated.

 

[RedV3x]

They control it for half the year.

So that would be a Yes to "Do the SANFL have a revenue share in Adelaide Oval?"
The WAFL doesn't have that luxury.

 

[Purple Suit]

My bad. I stand corrected. From Wookie's article.

Can still see the Eagles and Freo pushing for it though.



Canberra would also get 200k a year in attendance.

Canberra isn't small scale. It's medium scale. Just like WA3. They aren't going to be another West Coast or Freo. At least not a Freo for a loooong time. And never a West Coast.

But Team 20 shouldn't just be a quick fix if there's a real chance of expansion.

Again, it boils down to, if this is the last expansion for a really long time, what would you want in over a generation.

Three teams sharing a city of 3.2m and no team in a wealthy city of 1.2m?

Or two teams in a city of 3.2m, and one team in a city of 1.2m?

The answer seems pretty obvious to me. If there's only one expansion in our lifetimes, it has to be Canberra over WA3.

Canberra needs more than 200m spent to hit 200k a year with a full time team. Even then, I doubt they are having a much bigger stadium than Tassie unless they get a BBL team at the same time to share the ground with.

The 200k pa I am referring to is what WA3 will give the competition above Canberra very quickly on a yearly basis. There would also be scope for the WA crowds to grow in the future and it will permanently even up travel. North can sell 2-3 games to Canberra a year for the same return as WA and the supply in both places goes up 50% and 100%.

Canberra already has 2 rugby teams so it is similar competition already to WA3 with 21% the population (500k v 2.4m). Not sure how they are ever going to bridge the population gap to 37.5% though like your figures state, it’ll actually go the other way and Perth will pull away.

 

[RedV3x]

The 200k pa I am referring to is what WA3 will give the competition above Canberra very quickly on a yearly basis.

Please explain how you arrive at this figure.
.

 

[The_Wookie]

Why though?

Canberra is a bigger market than Tasmania. And way bigger than the NT. I think some nuance is needed rather than just grouping us all together.

The ACT has a very popular Rugby league team, and a union team. Both the NT and Tas dont have these. That has to be a factor. Its also not in a traditional heartland like Tasmania with virtually no professional winter competition.

We have one centralised fanbase; a faster growing population; the ACT economy is already larger than the Gold Coast's; our median income is 70% larger than Tasmania's.

We're not a huge market, but we're clearly already stronger than Tasmania. And only getting stronger.

I agree we need some commitment, but I don't think it will need to be at the level of "Tassie type".

We've already got a commitment for an upgraded stadium. The ACT Govt's nearly $3m deal with the Giants would just transfer. Given the increased ROI, I could see that easily bumped to $5m. I've previously mentioned the perks the ACT Govt gave the Giants to entice them that'd be worth more than $4m over 11 games if redeployed.

That's $7-9m in assistance annually. If the ACT Govt came out and actually committed to that, would that be enough to convince you?

The AFL (and the NRL) are no longer about just putting pins in a map. Teams will come with stadium deals and grassroots commitments, and if they cant meet a minimum revenue, governments will have to stump up if they want a team.

 

[The_Wookie]

So that would be a Yes to "Do the SANFL have a revenue share in Adelaide Oval?"
The WAFL doesn't have that luxury.

The WAFL have a guaranteed return from the WA Government that is more than 11m a year for at least a decade. The SANFL dont have that luxury.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Canberra needs more than 200m spent to hit 200k a year with a full time team. Even then, I doubt they are having a much bigger stadium than Tassie unless they get a BBL team at the same time to share the ground with.

Manuka is already getting the upgrade for cricket. It's happening regardless of an AFL team. It's not an extra cost.

The 200k pa I am referring to is what WA3 will give the competition above Canberra very quickly on a yearly basis. There would also be scope for the WA crowds to grow in the future and it will permanently even up travel. North can sell 2-3 games to Canberra a year for the same return as WA and the supply in both places goes up 50% and 100%.

Canberra already has 2 rugby teams so it is similar competition already to WA3 with 21% the population (500k v 2.4m). Not sure how they are ever going to bridge the population gap to 37.5% though like your figures state, it’ll actually go the other way and Perth will pull away.

I just used the ABS' high series projections for both states and extrapolated it to the cities.

 

[RedV3x]

The WAFL have a guaranteed return from the WA Government that is more than 11m a year for at least a decade. The SANFL dont have that luxury.

Yes and how does that help WA3 ?

 

[RedV3x]

The ACT has a

decent following for AFL even before they might get their own AFL team.
The AFL would be looking to build on this.

 

[Prince Imperial]

The Centre for Population in its last statement advised the federal government that WA is projected to be the fastest growing state or territory out to 2034-35 with Perth taking the lion's share of the state's growth.

2024 Population Statement | Centre for Population

The 2024 Population Statement is the Centreâs fifth release in an annual series that provides a comprehensive national picture of how the Australia population has changed and how we expect it to change in the future.

population.gov.au

The latest ABS figures has WA currently growing at a much faster rate than the ACT.

WA's population has grown at a very good rate for decades and it's unlikely that it's future population growth will be a negative for it versus Canberra if its government decides to back a third team.

 

[Purple Suit]

Please explain how you arrive at this figure.
.

I might have exaggerated a little. 15k average in Canberra and 33k average in Perth. I think WA3 easily gets 30k and maybe more depending on how many ex-pat Victorians are now living here who can’t get access normally. I thought Canberra would only have a 20k stadium capacity so thought -5k would be a great result.

Manuka is already getting the upgrade for cricket. It's happening regardless of an AFL team. It's not an extra cost.



I just used the ABS' high series projections for both states and extrapolated it to the cities.

What’s the upgrade going to put the capacity at and what is it actually at now?

 

[Canberra Pear]

The ACT has a very popular Rugby league team, and a union team. Both the NT and Tas dont have these. That has to be a factor. Its also not in a traditional heartland like Tasmania with virtually no professional winter competition.

That's a fair factor, but also lacks the nuance of what a multi-code city Canbera is. It's very common here to support teams in multiple codes, and Canberrans have the money to do so (70% higher median income than Tasmania etc).

The Brumbies are also over by the end of May. Or sometime in June depending on finals success.

Canberra is also bigger market than either the NT or Tasmania. And that definitely has to be a factor.

Canberra-Queanbeyan has more people than Hobart, Darwin, Launceston and Alice Springs combined. And as I've banged on about, it punches above its weight economically.

The AFL (and the NRL) are no longer about just putting pins in a map. Teams will come with stadium deals and grassroots commitments, and if they cant meet a minimum revenue, governments will have to stump up if they want a team.

The NT is the pin on the map option.

Canberra is the largest untapped market in Australia. It also coincidentally has an AFL base that somewhere like Western Sydney really wished they had early on.

So everything I've mentioned above is a good start from the ACT Govt if they commit.

Noting that WA3 will still be up against big clubs, have a higher breakeven, and have to pay a royalty - has the WA Govt given any indication they'd provide anything like that level of assistance?

 

[The_Wookie]

Yes and how does that help WA3 ?

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

 

[The_Wookie]

That's a fair factor, but also lacks the nuance of what a multi-code city Canbera is. It's very common here to support teams in multiple codes, and Canberrans have the money to do so (70% higher median income than Tasmania etc).

You cant just dismiss it out of hand either. Its very much a factor.

The NT is the pin on the map option.

Im sorry, but they both are. And Tasmania is literaly only getting a team to shut the Tasmanian Government up and because they caved on every demand.

Canberra is the largest untapped market in Australia. It also coincidentally has an AFL base that somewhere like Western Sydney really wished they had early on.

So everything I've mentioned above is a good start from the ACT Govt if they commit.

Noting that WA3 will still be up against big clubs, have a higher breakeven, and have to pay a royalty - has the WA Govt given any indication they'd provide anything like that level of assistance?

Lol theres not even discussions about this in serious places.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The Centre for Population in its last statement advised the federal government that WA is projected to be the fastest growing state or territory out to 2034-35 with Perth taking the lion's share of the state's growth.

2024 Population Statement | Centre for Population

The 2024 Population Statement is the Centreâs fifth release in an annual series that provides a comprehensive national picture of how the Australia population has changed and how we expect it to change in the future.

population.gov.au

The latest ABS figures has WA currently growing at a much faster rate than the ACT.

WA's population has grown at a very good rate for decades and it's unlikely that it's future population growth will be a negative for it versus Canberra if its government decides to back a third team.

The ABS notoriously underestimates the ACT's projections. It's actually been a real issue (it means we get underpaid our GST share). Our chief minister has kicked up a stink about it a lot. For instance, we grew 57% faster than our last projections between censuses.

As such, the ACT Government has put out their own projections. This is from this year.

We've also been the fastest growing state/territory for the past two censuses.

Your link has the ACT growing (from 2024-35) 13.1% to WA's 18.6%. But the ACT's figures have us growing at 18.7% in that period. So essentially the same.

 

[Canberra Pear]

You cant just dismiss it out of hand either. Its very much a factor.

I agree it's a factor. But you seem to dismiss the market sizes out of hand too.

The Raiders, and to a lesser extent the Brumbies, will have an effect on a Canberra team.

But less of an effect than it would in a less affluent, less multi-code city.

Canberra is a nuanced city. It can't just be painted with a "rugby town" brush.

Im sorry, but they both are. And Tasmania is literaly only getting a team to shut the Tasmanian Government up and because they caved on every demand.

I agree that expansion wouldn't even be happening without Tasmania forcing it open, but that doesn't mean Canberra doesn't represent a real market and a real opportunity.

Lol theres not even discussions about this in serious places.

Of course not. I'm connecting dots from precedents.

But have there been any of these discussions for how to support a third WA team? Why does the burden of proof lie only with Canberra?

 

[Canberra Pear]

I might have exaggerated a little. 15k average in Canberra and 33k average in Perth. I think WA3 easily gets 30k and maybe more depending on how many ex-pat Victorians are now living here who can’t get access normally. I thought Canberra would only have a 20k stadium capacity so thought -5k would be a great result.



What’s the upgrade going to put the capacity at and what is it actually at now?

The early plan is for 20k. I'd like more, but we should at average 18k in that.

 

[The_Wookie]

I agree it's a factor. But you seem to dismiss the market sizes out of hand too.

The Raiders, and to a lesser extent the Brumbies, will have an effect on a Canberra team.

But less of an effect than it would in a less affluent, less multi-code city.

Canberra is a nuanced city. It can't just be painted with a "rugby town" brush.

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

I agree that expansion wouldn't even be happening without Tasmania forcing it open, but that doesn't mean Canberra doesn't represent a real market and a real opportunity.

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

Of course not. I'm connecting dots from precedents.

But have there been any of these discussions for how to support a third WA team? Why does the burden of proof lie only with Canberra?

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.

 

[Prince Imperial]

The ABS notoriously underestimates the ACT's projections. It's actually been a real issue (it means we get underpaid our GST share). Our chief minister has kicked up a stink about it a lot. For instance, we grew 57% faster than our last projections between censuses.

As such, the ACT Government has put out their own projections. This is from this year.

We've also been the fastest growing state/territory for the past two censuses.

Your link has the ACT growing (from 2024-35) 13.1% to WA's 18.6%. But the ACT's figures have us growing at 18.7% in that period. So essentially the same.

Even if the ACT projections do prove correct and we will have to wait and see what happens with the next census, Perth where the team would be based will grow a lot faster compared to regional WA and will take a greater share of the state's growth.

My point overall though is that likely population growth is unlikely to be a negative for a third team.