20th AFL Team

[The_Reaper]

Isn't there two ways of looking at this argument that Perth people will only care about the AFL in the context of it being Perth?

A Perth 3 team adds to that tribalism by increasing the number of derbies from two to six per year.

Perth is distant from the east football economy and the AFL risks losing out of getting full value of Perth's population growth to sustain the health of the code/competition at all (especially with the NRL growing). You need that local tribalism to arrest that decline.

Yeah and you won’t get that tribalism with generic name Perth playing games in Bunbury.

 

[Saucy]

People are overthinking WA3.

Bring in the Perth Miners. Gold, black and white colour scheme. All games at Optus. Play both WC & Freo twice a year. They would have over 50,000 members in 5 years.

The AFL wouldn't need to worry about them. They could focus on TAS, GC, GWS, etc.

 

[The_Wookie]

Perth 3 taking games to Bunbury makes no sense what so ever.

The logic for WA3 is all about how Perth is under serviced and how WA3 will be financially viable from the start and get to use the 60,000 seat stadium and you want to send two matches to Bunbury?

Bunbury (or other regional town) is where the WA Gov gets interested for Tourism reasons.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

People are overthinking WA3.

Bring in the Perth Miners. Gold, black and white colour scheme. All games at Optus. Play both WC & Freo twice a year. They would have over 50,000 members in 5 years.

The AFL wouldn't need to worry about them. They could focus on TAS, GC, GWS, etc.

They need to have a training base and to play AFLW and reserves games somewhere to be fair

 

[The_Reaper]

Bunbury (or other regional town) is where the WA Gov gets interested for Tourism reasons.

Once a team tries to be something for everyone it becomes nothing for anyone

 

[Purple Suit]

Not arguing your overall point, just saying that a generic Perth team isn't going to attract anyone.

Sport is about tribalism, it's not a product in the same way McDonalds or Dominos is. You can't look at excess demand for West Coast memberships and assume you can mop that up with some generic team.

They aren't going to mop up it all but if WA3 was launching instead of Tassie, I recon there would be 10-15K WC fans who have had a gut full and would jump ship. They aren't going to move to Freo since they hate us but a new side would be a viable option. I also think as WA grows and a lot of people move from Sydney or Melbourne for work you might get these types who join up or add to attendance when their team plays over here. Our ability to walk up to games is quickly disappearing so it becomes a missed opportunity when there is so much spare Capacity in most cities except Canberra.

Yeah and you won’t get that tribalism with generic name Perth playing games in Bunbury.

I agree on not going to Bunbury but recon Perth is the only option to not alienate too many potential supporters. The State government will also like it named after the Capital and that could bring in economic benefits. Let's face it, all new teams are essentially franchises to begin with but the identity gets built over time.

 

[The_Wookie]

Once a team tries to be something for everyone it becomes nothing for anyone

Like West Coast and Adelaide? The Dolphins in the NRL?

 

[The_Reaper]

Like West Coast and Adelaide? The Dolphins in the NRL?

West Coast were the WA team to enter the national comp which didn't have a WA team?

 

[The_Wookie]

West Coast were the WA team to enter the national comp which didn't have a WA team?

Not really the point.

 

[Purple Suit]

West Coast were the WA team to enter the national comp which didn't have a WA team?

I know and they left the door open calling themselves West Coast.

Freo started at the worst possible time, after a WC flag with bugger all concessions and still managed to get a big following even though it took awhile. I recon WA3 could be a much easier path to profitability if the timing is around 2030 and the concessions are in line with the expansion teams.

 

[The_Reaper]

Not really the point.

I don't get your point then.

West Coast were created to fill a specific purpose, filled that specific purpose and drew support accordingly.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't get your point then.

West Coast were created to fill a specific purpose, filled that specific purpose and drew support accordingly.

But following the same logic there never even could have been specifically a Freo team because West Coast appropriately filled the purpose it was intended for between 1987-1994.

The new Perth team will need to find some local government, suburb or region to play its reserves and AFLW games, and to train at. I think it's less important that they find the specific "region" in a dividing the city geographic sense as opposed to finding a supportive local government in the same way that Fremantle partnered specifically with the City of Cockburn. Then they can have natural growth with two streams - natural growth from city wide population growth top down from providing games in Perth Stadium, and growth from whatever region they train and play AFLW/reserves games at, community wise (I don't think it's as relevant to name one area specifically, it's far more important that they get the local government support wherever it may come from than to identify a region specifically even if the local government isn't on board). Whether or not they play games at Bunbury is a minor issue. One would assume games get played at Bunbury every year from now on continuously, whoever the home team is.

 

[RedV3x]

I am quite bemused with all this theoretical talk about Pth3 in the same way GWS was approached
yet on BF there is still so much negative spoken about GWS.

The reality is, under the present set of circumstances Pth3 playing at Perth Stadium would be unprofitable.
There would so many negotiations to be made WA government, PCC, AFL and WAFL that discussion is simply useless.
Until the general model is displayed then discussion is pretty useless.

The reality is that it is decision between consolidation and WA football health and that of development and expansion.

 

[The_Reaper]

But following the same logic there never even could have been specifically a Freo team because West Coast appropriately filled the purpose it was intended for between 1987-1994.

The new Perth team will need to find some local government, suburb or region to play its reserves and AFLW games, and to train at. I think it's less important that they find the specific "region" in a dividing the city geographic sense as opposed to finding a supportive local government in the same way that Fremantle partnered specifically with the City of Cockburn. Then they can have natural growth with two streams - natural growth from city wide population growth top down from providing games in Perth Stadium, and growth from whatever region they train and play AFLW/reserves games at, community wise (I don't think it's as relevant to name one area specifically, it's far more important that they get the local government support wherever it may come from than to identify a region specifically even if the local government isn't on board). Whether or not they play games at Bunbury is a minor issue. One would assume games get played at Bunbury every year from now on continuously, whoever the home team is.

Fremantle became the Fremantle/South Of River team.
With Perth having a a NOR/SOR divide and Fremantle having a strong local identity - being considered a separate city to Perth for most of Western Australian history.

It was also brought in like 7 years after the Eagles not 40.

 

[Purple Suit]

I am quite bemused with all this theoretical talk about Pth3 in the same way GWS was approached
yet on BF there is still so much negative spoken about GWS.

The reality is, under the present set of circumstances Pth3 playing at Perth Stadium would be unprofitable.
There would so many negotiations to be made WA government, PCC, AFL and WAFL that discussion is simply useless.
Until the general model is displayed then discussion is pretty useless.

The reality is that it is decision between consolidation and WA football health and that of development and expansion.

If the AFL goes to 20 teams, there is more money in the TV rights due to the extra game. This will be the same, not matter the place picked.

No new team is expected to make a profit straight away but I think the AFL is going to want a team that can turn a profit in 10 or 15 years compared to the last 2 expansion teams and probably the 19th team.

WA3 is still the quickest option to profitability and will get the biggest crowds. I also believe they will get the most viewers due to the other WA fans taking more interest as opposed to a much smaller city like Canberra or Rugby state.

 

[____]

Not arguing your overall point, just saying that a generic Perth team isn't going to attract anyone.

Sport is about tribalism, it's not a product in the same way McDonalds or Dominos is. You can't look at excess demand for West Coast memberships and assume you can mop that up with some generic team.

I’d say that they will just not care about this new team and will continue what they have done for the past 30 years and watch Eagles and Dockers on telly.

What is a football team with out tribalism?

Exactly why Canberra and not Perth 3 needs to be team 20. People in Canberra would ditch their existing teams, no one in Perth is gonna ditch the Eagles or Dockers for Perth 3. The Dockers are already the team for West Australians who want to support a WA team without supporting the Eagles and those who chose to follow a non-WA team instead of West Coast or Freo aren't gonna suddenly jump ship and support Perth 3, because if they were they would have become West Coast or Freo fans to begin with.

 

[RedV3x]

If the AFL goes to 20 teams, there is more money in the TV rights due to the extra game.

This is the GC/GWS underwriting idea.

This will be the same, not matter the place picked.

The media rights will presumably be the same for the extra game.
But only Canberra grows the market.
West Australians and Tasmanians are already watching AFL.

No new team is expected to make a profit straight away but I think the AFL is going to want a team that can turn a profit in 10 or 15 years

IMO, with the right environment and model , Canberra could be up and running from scratch.
And guess what, people are highly interested in the GC and GWS.
What a boring situation we'd have if we'd taken WA3 before GC/GWS.
IMO, that sums it up, the choice is boring consolidation Vs exciting development.

compared to the last 2 expansion teams and probably the 19th team.

People still don't get it. The GC/GWS underwriting idea pays for the new teams.
The AFL distribution is another matter.

WA3 is still the quickest option to profitability and will get the biggest crowds.

WA3 is still the unknown. Nobody has presented a clear picture of the model.
If WA3 is such a good idea, why isn't there a WAFL match-of-the-round at Perth Stadium
to test the viability of low crowds or cheap seats and the pure attraction of a great stadium ?

I also believe they will get the most viewers due to the other WA fans taking more interest as opposed to a much smaller city like Canberra.

WA will probably take more interest in WA3, but the rest of Australia arguably might take more interest in Canberra.
Australians know as much about WA as they want to.
Australians would probably want to know about the new side especially
if Canberra links itself to the Rioverina etc and it's rich history.

 

[RedV3x]

People in Canberra would ditch their existing teams

Huh, I can see moving across from watching/supporting the Giants and growing new fans
but wholesale ditching - no.

No one in Perth is gonna ditch the Eagles or Dockers for Perth 3. The Dockers are already the team for West Australians who want to support a WA team without supporting the Eagles

Correct.

Those who chose to follow a non-WA team instead of West Coast or Freo aren't gonna suddenly jump ship and support Perth 3, because if they were they would have become West Coast or Freo fans to begin with.

Not quite. Interstate AFL fans will attend their AFL team's visit with a large input of nostalgia.
They also might grow into attending other AFL games in Perth.
I'm a Swans fan first and Dockers fan second and any non-Victorian club third.
IMO Pth3 could pick up a number of newer immigrants but the number wouldn't be that high that you could base an AFL team around it.
NM have an extraordinary high support in WA and they IMO would have the best startup
but it would be hard to grow of course, even if rebranded.

 

[RedV3x]

But following the same logic there never even could have been specifically a Freo team because West Coast appropriately filled the purpose it was intended for between 1987-1994.

West Coast filled the purpose of having a West Australian team in the VFL/AFL.
Fremantle and Port Adelaide filled the purpose of having football every weekend.
Fremantle was an easy choice being distinct from Perth and supplying 3 out of 8 original WAFL teams.
Port Adelaide was an easy choice because it is the most successful club in Australian Football history.
The name "West Coast" was originally a good choice because it evoked "West Australian"
but later they tried to change the name to "Perth" to counter Fremantle.

The new Perth team will need to find some local government, suburb or region to play its reserves and AFLW games, and to train at.

That applies to any new club.

I think it's less important that they find the specific "region" in a dividing the city geographic sense as opposed to finding a supportive local government in the same way that Fremantle partnered specifically with the City of Cockburn.

Cockburn came on board as a result of that division.
Cockburn jumped on the coat tails of the Docker's success to lift the profile of Cockburn.
Cockburn is basically a near neigbour of Fremantle.and the Dockers moved from Fremantle to Cockburn

Then they can have natural growth with two streams - natural growth from city wide population growth top down from providing games in Perth Stadium, and growth from whatever region they train and play AFLW/reserves games at,

That applies to every club.

community wise (I don't think it's as relevant to name one area specifically, it's far more important that they get the local government support wherever it may come from than to identify a region specifically even if the local government isn't on board).

Chicken or the egg. It's critically important in the planning stage that all the options are locked in.
Fremantle moved to Cockburn after many years.
The WCE moved to Lathlain after many years.
IMO, that stuffed things up.
The WCE should have created something new at Stirling in the heart of their territory and shared it with Subiaco.
Joondalup by comparison is at the Northern perimeter of WCE support.
Lathlain would have been ideal for the new "Perth" team but that's history.
The options are Perth, Ellenbrook, almost the Eastern equivalent to Joondalup, The Swan valley, Bassendean, Midland through to the city of Armadale.

 

[Coolangatta]

People are overthinking WA3.

Bring in the Perth Miners. Gold, black and white colour scheme. All games at Optus. Play both WC & Freo twice a year. They would have over 50,000 members in 5 years.

The AFL wouldn't need to worry about them. They could focus on TAS, GC, GWS, etc.

Yeah, that’s what I’d go with if WA gets team 20.

Better than Sharks IMO which I do like but better reserved for expansion to 22 teams: Sunshine Coast Sharks or South West Sharks (WA4).

 

[Purple Suit]

The media rights will presumably be the same for the extra game.
But only Canberra grows the market.
West Australians and Tasmanians are already watching AFL.

More revenue grows the game as it's proof that you have engaged fans who are willing to part with their hard earned money. Cap WA and over time you will miss out and have a watered down city.

Anybody in Canberra who likes AFL more than NRL already has a team and watches or they support GWS. It's the same thing as WA3 and it's the same thing as GWS & GC got. Those fans had Sydney and Brisbane to follow or they already went for another team.

Rugby fans aren't going to switch in big numbers to AFL suddenly just because there is a Canberra team.

IMO, with the right environment and model , Canberra could be up and running from scratch.
And guess what, people are highly interested in the GC and GWS.
What a boring situation we'd have if we'd taken WA3 before GC/GWS.
IMO, that sums it up, the choice is boring consolidation Vs exciting development.

Is this even an argument? You clearly don't want WA3 for some reason and are now saying it's boring vs exciting as a reason. You know what's boring, watching games with 10,000-15,000 fans compared to big derbies of 55K, which we will get another 4 per season.

WA3 is still the unknown. Nobody has presented a clear picture of the model.
If WA3 is such a good idea, why isn't there a WAFL match-of-the-round at Perth Stadium
to test the viability of low crowds or cheap seats and the pure attraction of a great stadium ?

Every place for a potential 20th team is an unknown. They all share that in common so there isn't are argument against WA3 for this to be the case.

We all love the elite nature of the AFL and any sport. As soon as it's not the best, interest is less. Same with state cricket vs Internationals, look at the crowds you get when there is a regular higher standard to watch. WA3 viability has nothing to do with the WAFL crowds, it has everything to do with the WC & Freo crowds / ticket sales though and they are on the road to cap out. I recon Freo only has scope for another 16%, WC is maxed and the extra North game might add another few percent free but I recon it will get taken up when they roll it into Memberships next year so regulars can easily get their old seats if they want.

WA will probably take more interest in WA3, but the rest of Australia arguably might take more interest in Canberra.
Australians know as much about WA as they want to.
Australians would probably want to know about the new side especially
if Canberra links itself to the Rioverina etc and it's rich history.

This take isn't logical. Maybe Sydney or GWS fans would but not Victorian's, WA, QLD or SA fans. All new teams will spark a bit of novelty interest from AFL fans equally but WA3 will get ongoing attention from Freo & WC fans due to demographics. This will tip the TV audience figures in favor of WA3 over Canberra due purely due to the ever growing size of WA and that it will also outstrip any other viable 20th team location.

 

[RedV3x]

Cap WA and over time you will miss out and have a watered down city.

Perth stadium is designed to be expanded.

It's the same thing as WA3 and it's the same thing as GWS & GC got.

Hardly.

You clearly don't want WA3 for some reason and are now saying it's boring vs exciting as a reason.

No I said "the choice is boring consolidation Vs exciting development.".
I don't see anything controversial in that.
I do see the merit in WA3 just not the exaggerated hyperbole,
just like i don't go for some of the more tenuous arguments for Canberra.

You know what's boring, watching games with 10,000-15,000 fans

Yes, and that's a very possible scenario for WA3.

compared to big derbies of 55K, which we will get another 4 per season.

Not really a "Showdown", "Qclash", "battle of the Bridges" or "Western Derby" is it .
More a question of let's look at our team thrash the newbies.

Every place for a potential 20th team is an unknown.

But not the same unknown.

They all share that in common so there isn't are argument against WA3 for this to be the case.

Using that logic then there's no argument against a Newcastle AFL club
Different unknowns about different factors - stadium, sponsors, attendance, growth, government support, external interest etc.

We all love the elite nature of the AFL and any sport. As soon as it's not the best, interest is less. Same with state cricket vs Internationals, look at the crowds you get when there is a regular higher standard to watch.

WA3 viability has nothing to do with the WAFL crowds, it has everything to do with the WC & Freo crowds

WA3 viability has nothing to do with WC & Freo crowds, it has everything to do with WAFL crowds.
See, i can make baseless sweeping too.
WA3 viability has everything to do with potential supporters and where they are coming from.
if people are so desperate to see football why don't they go to the WAFL ?

All new teams will spark a bit of novelty interest from AFL fans equally

No. i don't remember in much interest from WA in the GC and GWS sides prior to their rise.
There' not much interest from WA in Tasmania.
There's no interest from WA in Canberra.
There's no interest from WA in WA3.

This will tip the TV audience figures in favor of WA3 over Canberra due purely due to the ever growing size of WA

but this will be balanced by the interest in a new team representing a "new" area
and the lack of interest in yet another Westt Australian team.

 

[Purple Suit]

Perth stadium is designed to be expanded.



Hardly.



No I said "the choice is boring consolidation Vs exciting development.".
I don't see anything controversial in that.
I do see the merit in WA3 just not the exaggerated hyperbole,
just like i don't go for some of the more tenuous arguments for Canberra.



Yes, and that's a very possible scenario for WA3.



Not really a "Showdown", "Qclash", "battle of the Bridges" or "Western Derby" is it .
More a question of let's look at our team thrash the newbies.



But not the same unknown.



Using that logic then there's no argument against a Newcastle AFL club
Different unknowns about different factors - stadium, sponsors, attendance, growth, government support, external interest etc.





WA3 viability has nothing to do with WC & Freo crowds, it has everything to do with WAFL crowds.
See, i can make baseless sweeping too.
WA3 viability has everything to do with potential supporters and where they are coming from.
if people are so desperate to see football why don't they go to the WAFL ?



No. i don't remember in much interest from WA in the GC and GWS sides prior to their rise.
There' not much interest from WA in Tasmania.
There's no interest from WA in Canberra.
There's no interest from WA in WA3.



but this will be balanced by the interest in a new team representing a "new" area
and the lack of interest in yet another Westt Australian team.

Look mate, most of your arguments can be flipped in regards to other 20th team locations but you just don't see it as you have made up your mind. Logic is out the window so I'm done discussing with you and your multi quote style is hurting my eyes.

 

[RedV3x]

Look mate, most of your arguments can be flipped in regards to other 20th team locations but you just don't see it as you have made up your mind.

I have not made up my mind at all. I have stated "the choice is boring consolidation Vs exciting development.".
Remove the colour and you have the choice is consolidation Vs development.".
Consolidation is good and development is good but maybe a little riskier.

I have attempted to torpedo the more outlandish claims on WA3 and Canberra.

I'm done discussing with you and your multi quote style is hurting my eyes.

Well you shouldn't have posted such a raft of questionable statements.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Perth stadium is designed to be expanded.

You were going on about the potential for attendances to be below a breakeven crowd and this being a "cost", yet you'd spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that is required to expand the capacity by just 10,000? (so 220,000 across 22 games, or less than the amount of people that will simply show up for the 4 new derby games, let alone every other home game).

What's the point of reading the rest of the post after this