20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

Hobart actually has more people closer to the ground that can access the ground than Launceston and don't forget all the people from Melbourne that will attend games.

Sorry, that's what I meant. I was only talking about Hobart.

Hobart has about 250k that are able to easily walk/drive/take public transport to a game, Canberra has 500k.

Hobart has more AFL fans per capita, but Hobart and Canberra have a similar number total.

Based on that, both cities have a similar number of AFL fans able to get to a game. Combined with the other factors I mentioned like higher disposable income and large neutral population, Canberra should be able to match Hobart for crowds.

I'd say the traveller factor should be pretty similar. Canberra's pretty much the same flight time away as Hobart, but also accessible by road. Plus a good option for any AFL fans in Sydney who don't get to see their team play in Sydney (similar to how I've travelled to Sydney a few times to see Port play).

Tassie's biggest advantage will be their state-wide support. Hobart may have a fanbase the same size as Canberra's, but the net will be double, with members across the state.

 

[Generalissimo]

If the AFL wanted a team in New Zealand, they'd really have to do a 10 year promotional blitz over there first to lay the ground work. It might be possible.

Interstate trips from Perth to Auckland would be brutal though.

 

[ExpatAussie]

If the AFL wanted a team in New Zealand, they'd really have to do a 10 year promotional blitz over there first to lay the ground work. It might be possible.

Or simply do nothing but open up the game to privatization.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Yes but a new 25k stadium with underground parking will be $300m - $350m. That ain’t happening until after Canberra get a new rectangular stadium, which is a long, long way off.

I found a Manuka Oval masterplan from 2013. From what I can tell, they got through phases 1 and 2a, but not phases 2b and 3.

It would have brought the capacity to 19,827.

Not sure why they never got further, but it gives good insight into what can be done and how much it’d cost.

Phases 2b and 3 would have worked on the southern and eastern stands. The two unfinished phases were expected to cost $45.5m ($21.5m and $24m respectively). That’d cost $54m in today’s money.

That upgrade was planned during the early stages of the GWS relationship, so 20k was probably a good target back then. 20k could host a new team, but I assume there's flexibility in those plans for a few extra thousand.

 

[Tackle Bag]

The WA market is tapped, a third team would only cannibalise existing support instead of bringing in new fans. NT doesn't have the population or the money or really anything going for it.

A new WA team brings 11 more games to sell in Perth at that stadium and 4 more local derbies that become cash cows if the new side can be grown and have a reasonable supporter base over time.
That also means one less interstate trip for the WA sides.
Perth is a big footy market that is currently getting only 22 games of live AFL played there a season. There has to be some growth to be squeezed out of that situation.

Look at what the NRL are doing with the new side in Brisbane. They seem to be able to justify expanding in a similar situation.

 

[Walshawk]

A new WA team brings 11 more games to sell in Perth at that stadium and 4 more local derbies that become cash cows if the new side can be grown and have a reasonable supporter base over time.
That also means one less interstate trip for the WA sides.
Perth is a big footy market that is currently getting only 22 games of live AFL played there a season. There has to be some growth to be squeezed out of that situation.

Look at what the NRL are doing with the new side in Brisbane. They seem to be able to justify expanding in a similar situation.

Brisbane has one team in a RL mad city bigger than Perth. They are adding second club, the equivalent of adding Freo, not a third club.
There very little for the AFL to gain by adding another WA club. Four extra derbies might add to the WAFL coffers, but won’t help the ratings or broadcast revenue significantly.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The WA market is tapped, a third team would only cannibalise existing support instead of bringing in new fans. NT doesn't have the population or the money or really anything going for it.

1. You don't plan an expansion team for five years time, you're planning it for 30 years down the track, when WA will have a bigger population. A more even split of support in the next generation isn't cannibalising existing support.

2. Even if it does cannibalise existing support, this is only a problem if it affects Freo greatly. The Eagles have a waiting list for tickets (pre-Covid anyway), so they can afford to lose some support. In fact, it might be healthier for the game instead of the most profitable club growing even more profitable, outpacing the rest of the league.

That said, I can't see WA3 happening for the simple fact that both Freo and the Eagles will fight it at every opportunity. If they're smart, they'd back a Canberra bid so they can go on having such a big and growing market all to themselves.

 

[Tackle Bag]

Brisbane has one team in a RL mad city bigger than Perth. They are adding second club, the equivalent of adding Freo, not a third club.
There very little for the AFL to gain by adding another WA club. Four extra derbies might add to the WAFL coffers, but won’t help the ratings or broadcast revenue significantly.

Brisbane is only marginally larger than Perth and they have a team 45 minutes away on the GC that was added after the Broncos had already claimed Queensland dominance. Not too dissimilar to the Eagles/freo dynamic in WA.


An extra game a week absolutely helps broadcast revenue.

As someone else already posted, the true benefits would be seen 20+ years down the track but the work needs to be done now.

 

[fargothegreat]

Sorry, that's what I meant. I was only talking about Hobart.

Hobart has about 250k that are able to easily walk/drive/take public transport to a game, Canberra has 500k.

Hobart has more AFL fans per capita, but Hobart and Canberra have a similar number total.

Based on that, both cities have a similar number of AFL fans able to get to a game. Combined with the other factors I mentioned like higher disposable income and large neutral population, Canberra should be able to match Hobart for crowds.

I'd say the traveller factor should be pretty similar. Canberra's pretty much the same flight time away as Hobart, but also accessible by road. Plus a good option for any AFL fans in Sydney who don't get to see their team play in Sydney (similar to how I've travelled to Sydney a few times to see Port play).

Tassie's biggest advantage will be their state-wide support. Hobart may have a fanbase the same size as Canberra's, but the net will be double, with members across the state.

Do you have any numbers on how many club members there are currently living in Canberra (GWS and other clubs)?

I do see a lot of potential in being able to convert Canberra into an AFL-dominant city. I think the key to making it work would be to engage the footy mad fans in the Riverina region.

It looks like GWS have got good engagement from the people of Canberra, which can be both a blessing and a curse in respect to getting your own team.

 

[Walshawk]

Brisbane is only marginally larger than Perth and they have a team 45 minutes away on the GC that was added after the Broncos had already claimed Queensland dominance. Not too dissimilar to the Eagles/freo dynamic in WA.


An extra game a week absolutely helps broadcast revenue.

As someone else already posted, the true benefits would be seen 20+ years down the track but the work needs to be done now.

No one in Brisbane follows GC. And Brisbane has an extra 500k. Not that similar a situation.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Do you have any numbers on how many club members there are currently living in Canberra (GWS and other clubs)?

I do see a lot of potential in being able to convert Canberra into an AFL-dominant city. I think the key to making it work would be to engage the footy mad fans in the Riverina region.

It looks like GWS have got good engagement from the people of Canberra, which can be both a blessing and a curse in respect to getting your own team.

It seems to float around 6000 GWS members in Canberra every year. I would estimate a similar amount for all the other teams combined, too. So maybe about 12,000 altogether.

Other than supporting your club, there's not a lot of incentive to get non-GWS memberships. With only three games, there's not a high chance you'll see your own team (and a GWS membership will get you in anyway). I'm a dual Port-GWS member, but I know plenty of people who have GWS as their second team, but are still sole GWS members because they have the membership to get into the games.

I don't feel like it would take much to make Canberra an AFL-dominant city. I think we already lean that way, we just need our own team to actually solidify it. But Canberrans have more cash and more spare time than average, there's capacity for Canberrans to support multiple codes.

I'm still unsure about the Riverina. I think it's a good tie-in to have. I'd like to see some games played there, and it will bring a team two hours closer than any current team, but Wagga is still three hours away and won't likely have too much of an impact on Canberra support on a fortnightly basis.

 

[fargothegreat]

It seems to float around 6000 GWS members in Canberra every year. I would estimate a similar amount for all the other teams combined, too. So maybe about 12,000 altogether.

Other than supporting your club, there's not a lot of incentive to get non-GWS memberships. With only three games, there's not a high chance you'll see your own team (and a GWS membership will get you in anyway). I'm a dual Port-GWS member, but I know plenty of people who have GWS as their second team, but are still sole GWS members because they have the membership to get into the games.

I don't feel like it would take much to make Canberra an AFL-dominant city. I think we already lean that way, we just need our own team to actually solidify it. But Canberrans have more cash and more spare time than average, there's capacity for Canberrans to support multiple codes.

I'm still unsure about the Riverina. I think it's a good tie-in to have. I'd like to see some games played there, and it will bring a team two hours closer than any current team, but Wagga is still three hours away and won't likely have too much of an impact on Canberra support on a fortnightly basis.

12,000 current club members is very low, especially when you consider there are around 90,000 club members in Tasmania. Perhaps Canberra isn't ready just yet.

I think if Canberra came in now, they may face a lot of the same issues that the Suns are facing with lack of local support.

 

[Canberra Pear]

12,000 current club members is very low, especially when you consider there are around 90,000 club members in Tasmania. Perhaps Canberra isn't ready just yet.

12,000 was a guess. I'll see if I can find more accurate numbers.

There's less incentive for an AFL fan to have an interstate membership in Canberra. In any given season, there's a 50% chance your team will play an away game in Tasmania, in Canberra, there's only an 18% chance.

Some stats I posted earlier suggest Canberra has about half as many AFL fans as Tasmania, but a similar amount to Hobart (so a similar number that can actually attend a match). After the first few seasons of excitement have died down, I would honestly expect a Canberra team to get higher crowds than Hobart.

I think if Canberra came in now, they may face a lot of the same issues that the Suns are facing with lack of local support.

Canberra and the Gold Coast aren't overly similar.

The Gold Coast has some AFL culture, but it was mostly an AFL decision to place a team in Australia's sixth largest (and rapidly growing) city.

Canberra has more AFL history than the Gold Coast, more culture of AFL attendance. The Gold Coast hosted the AFL for four seasons before they got their own licence. Canberra has hosted games for the past 21 seasons (excluding 2020). Since 2001, we've hosted 54 AFL games.

In those four seasons, Canberra still averaged 16% higher crowds than the Gold Coast (it would've been higher but we had some sell outs).

So I think a Canberra team will have more local support than the Gold Coast.

 

[Canberra Pear]

This was posted in the Tasmania thread, but I thought it was relevant to show the disparity between the NT and Canberra.

It shows where Saints members were based in 2017.



The ACT has more than twice as many Saints members as the NT. Extrapolating it to the cities, Canberra would have four times as many Saints members than Darwin

It's only one club, but it lines up with the tipping data I showed earlier that said Canberra had four times as many AFL fans as Darwin.

 

[Engimal v3]

This was posted in the Tasmania thread, but I thought it was relevant to show the disparity between the NT and Canberra.

It shows where Saints members were based in 2017.

View attachment 1430299

The ACT has more than twice as many Saints members as the NT. Extrapolating it to the cities, Canberra would have four times as many Saints members than Darwin

It's only one club, but it lines up with the tipping data I showed earlier that said Canberra had four times as many AFL fans as Darwin.

Wow, Tassie has over double NT and ACT, combined

 

[Canberra Pear]

Wow, Tassie has over double NT and ACT, combined

I imagine the Saints membership to be a little inflated in Tasmania compared to other clubs.

I've got a mate originally from Hobart who loves the Saints and said a lot of Tasmanians supported them due to all the Tasmanians that played for them back in the day (he's 60 for context).

 

[Badger17]

12,000 current club members is very low, especially when you consider there are around 90,000 club members in Tasmania. Perhaps Canberra isn't ready just yet.

I think if Canberra came in now, they may face a lot of the same issues that the Suns are facing with lack of local support.

Other than a GWS membership there's little to no incentive for a Canberran to buy an AFL membership. You're also never going to get a large buy in when no local AFL product exists but multiple competitors do.

Tasmania doesn't have any pro teams in competitor football codes that compete directly with the AFL, Canberra has two. Until the AFL has local product to push interest it's always going to struggle in this regard in Canberra, and the sport's potential growth in Canberra will always have a cap on it.

BTW, if you're looking for a more accurate measure of the AFL's support in Canberra then Merchandise sale numbers would probably be the way to go. I doubt those numbers are public though.

 

[speedpeck23]

I imagine the Saints membership to be a little inflated in Tasmania compared to other clubs.

I've got a mate originally from Hobart who loves the Saints and said a lot of Tasmanians supported them due to all the Tasmanians that played for them back in the day (he's 60 for context).

True, 4 Tasmanians in 1966 Premiership Team.. Daryl Baldock, Ian Stewart....both AFL Legends .. Verdun Howell.. Hall of Fame.. John Bingley..

 

[kranger]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is today releasing the 2021 census data. But I went back to a data release in April for the population of Australian Cities with population over 10,000.

Regional population, 2020-21 financial year

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia's capital cities and regions

www.abs.gov.au

I modified the layout of their table to be easier to get the key information and made some tables, which show the growth of Australia’s 20 largest cities in the last 20 years.

A couple of take aways I had, and these aren’t the most important, but they help to paint a picture:

1. In the past 20 years Melbourne grew by more people than Adelaide has in total.

2. In the past 20 years Adelaide grew by more people than Hobart has in total.

Given where the massive growth in people is/was, I can see why the AFL chose Gold Coast and West Sydney to be the most recent expansion teams.

Tasmanian have a hard sell for getting an AFL team with their small market, which is not concentrated in one city and growing slower in comparison to elsewhere. But I still support them for team 19.

And whilst I prefer Canberra for team 20 over any other location, their case for a team is probably even harder than Tasmania as they don’t have the sentimental factor of being known as a traditional footy state.

Just the sheer size of the big 6 cities really makes it hard to see any smaller city being home to an AFL team in the future.

 

[Walshawk]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is today releasing the 2021 census data. But I went back to a data release in April for the population of Australian Cities with population over 10,000.

Regional population, 2020-21 financial year

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia's capital cities and regions

www.abs.gov.au

I modified the layout of their table to be easier to get the key information and made some tables, which show the growth of Australia’s 20 largest cities in the last 20 years.

A couple of take aways I had, and these aren’t the most important, but they help to paint a picture:

1. In the past 20 years Melbourne grew by more people than Adelaide has in total.

2. In the past 20 years Adelaide grew by more people than Hobart has in total.

Given where the massive growth in people is/was, I can see why the AFL chose Gold Coast and West Sydney to be the most recent expansion teams.

Tasmanian have a hard sell for getting an AFL team with their small market, which is not concentrated in one city and growing slower in comparison to elsewhere. But I still support them for team 19.

And whilst I prefer Canberra for team 20 over any other location, their case for a team is probably even harder than Tasmania as they don’t have the sentimental factor of being known as a traditional footy state.

Just the sheer size of the big 6 cities really makes it hard to see any smaller city being home to an AFL team in the future.

Great info. Thanks. But I disagree that Tassie is not thought of as a traditional footy state.
Here is a table showing my estimate of total population with interest in AFL (simply splitting by interest AFL/NRL/RU/Soccer) showing the actual current AFL market size.
Sydney 5m x 14% = 700K
Western Syd 2m x 5% = 100K
Other Syd 3m x 20% = 600K
Melb 4.9m x 95% = 4.7m (525k per team)
Bris 2.5m x 20% = 500K
Perth 2.1m x 90% = 1.9m (950K per team)
Adel 1.36m x 97% = 1.3m (650K per team)
GC 720k x 35% = 250K
Newcastle 500k x 10% = 50K
Canberra 460K x 40% = 184K
Sunshine Coast 350K x 15% = 50K
Central Coast 330K x 15% = 50K
Woolongong 310K x 10% = 31K
Geelong 290K x 97% = 280K
Hobart 220K x 97% = 210K
Townsville 180K x 3% = 5K
Cairns 160K x 10% = 16K
Darwin 130K x 70% = 90K

The problem with Gold Coast, Central Coast and Sunshine Coast is that they are not cities in the traditional sense. They are towns/locations all the in same area but without a city centre and the transport systems that come with that.

 

[kranger]

But I disagree that Tassie is not thought of as a traditional footy state.

I don’t think I said that. I did say it about Canberra though.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is today releasing the 2021 census data. But I went back to a data release in April for the population of Australian Cities with population over 10,000.

Regional population, 2020-21 financial year

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia's capital cities and regions

www.abs.gov.au

I modified the layout of their table to be easier to get the key information and made some tables, which show the growth of Australia’s 20 largest cities in the last 20 years.

A couple of take aways I had, and these aren’t the most important, but they help to paint a picture:

1. In the past 20 years Melbourne grew by more people than Adelaide has in total.

2. In the past 20 years Adelaide grew by more people than Hobart has in total.

Given where the massive growth in people is/was, I can see why the AFL chose Gold Coast and West Sydney to be the most recent expansion teams.

Tasmanian have a hard sell for getting an AFL team with their small market, which is not concentrated in one city and growing slower in comparison to elsewhere. But I still support them for team 19.

And whilst I prefer Canberra for team 20 over any other location, their case for a team is probably even harder than Tasmania as they don’t have the sentimental factor of being known as a traditional footy state.

Just the sheer size of the big 6 cities really makes it hard to see any smaller city being home to an AFL team in the future.

Interesting!

I believe that table was an estimate based on data before the census was released. The data just released shows Canberra is growing even quicker than they expected. The ACT grew 14.4% (by 57k) from 2016-2021. The estimate for the ACT in 2021 was 434k, but the census revealed it was actually 454k. At the same growth rate, the ACT would have 465k people in mid-2022.

Including Queanbeyan (census data not out yet), that puts Canberra-Queanbeyan at about 500k (not including the nearby NSW towns).

And whilst I prefer Canberra for team 20 over any other location, their case for a team is probably even harder than Tasmania as they don’t have the sentimental factor of being known as a traditional footy state.

I actually think it'll be easier for Canberra (or whoever comes in as Team 20). Tasmania is working so hard for Team 19, but Team 20 will ride on those coat tails. If Tasmania gets up, the AFL will practically be begging for a viable Team 20.

Interestingly, while we're not known for it, fargothegreat mentioned Canberra actually has similar levels of AFL "fanaticism" as Tasmania. Canberra's was measured at 28%, and Tasmania's at 30%.

 

[Walshawk]

Interesting!

I believe that table was an estimate based on data before the census was released. The data just released shows Canberra is growing even quicker than they expected. The ACT grew 14.4% (by 57k) from 2016-2021. The estimate for the ACT in 2021 was 434k, but the census revealed it was actually 454k. At the same growth rate, the ACT would have 465k people in mid-2022.

Including Queanbeyan (census data not out yet), that puts Canberra-Queanbeyan at about 500k (not including the nearby NSW towns).



I actually think it'll be easier for Canberra (or whoever comes in as Team 20). Tasmania is working so hard for Team 19, but Team 20 will ride on those coat tails. If Tasmania gets up, the AFL will practically be begging for a viable Team 20.

Interestingly, while we're not known for it, fargothegreat mentioned Canberra actually has similar levels of AFL "fanaticism" as Tasmania. Canberra's was measured at 28%, and Tasmania's at 30%.

Why will they be begging for a Team 20? There are many advantages of 19 teams and the AFL has mentioned that.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Why will they be begging for a Team 20? There are many advantages of 19 teams and the AFL has mentioned that.

Begging may have been an embellishment, but viable was the key word.

We know 19 can work, but it's still not as clean as 20. No messy bye messing up the ladder and an extra game to sell every week.

So if Tasmania come in, the AFL would be very happy (perhaps not begging) if there were a viable option to complement it.

For the AFL, there will be more benefits to the 20th side than the 19th side. Therefore once Tasmania finally breaks the AFL's will and gets them to expand, Team 20 will have to jump through far fewer hoops than Tassie currently is.

 

[Walshawk]

Begging may have been an embellishment, but viable was the key word.

We know 19 can work, but it's still not as clean as 20. No messy bye messing up the ladder and an extra game to sell every week.

So if Tasmania come in, the AFL would be very happy (perhaps not begging) if there were a viable option to complement it.

For the AFL, there will be more benefits to the 20th side than the 19th side. Therefore once Tasmania finally breaks the AFL's will and gets them to expand, Team 20 will have to jump through far fewer hoops than Tassie currently is.

I disagree.

The 11 games from team 19 are worth far more than the 11 games from team 20. The weekly bye allows for more Thursday night games. That is where the next 11 games will be fixtured, most likely on FTA. This slot is second only to Friday nights in eyeballs. Adding a tenth match per round the game will either be the second night game (on Fox Footy) or second Sat arvo on Fox’s secondary channel. Both these slots are overlapping and won’t draw half the eyeballs as the Thursday slot.

Secondly, Tas currently has around 25 listed players. Without a team, this could well drop to 15 in 10/20 years. With a team, it is likely to grow - say 35. The difference of 30 player will make a decent offset to the 19th team and extra players required. No other location can say the same.

Tas is a much safer bet as we know it is footy heartland. Sure, footy in Canberra was just as big or bigger than RL pre-Raiders, but how do we know that the media, and fans will get behind a team the way Tassie will? (They probably will). Similarly, NT has a small population, unsuitable climate and RL is much bigger there than us Victorians think. Nth Qld also has an unsuitable climate and is RL mad.

So, if you think the team 19 has an uphill battle for entry, team 20 will be much much harder. Plus no one at the AFL has even mentioned it. It is simply not on the radar.