20th AFL Team

[SplintWhisky]

Soccewr participation and interest is in fact on the decline (except women's)

This is just a bold faced lie as well. Check the official numbers from the sites below who do reporting for the Government. AFL participation from children is lower than AFL and when you look at the trends, soccer is outpacing the AFL by nearly double the growth

AusPlay results

National, State/Territory and by sport results

www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au

 

[SplintWhisky]

Participation levels are far, far higher (especially in NSW and Qld) when we had 15 teams in 1995, and there was still some leftover talent in the state leagues at the time, evidenced by the fact that Fremantle were still a vaguely competitive team fielding numerous players per game that were playing WAFL the previous season.

It's a silly argument.

I'm having a comprehension moment. Can you explain what the silly argument is? It seems the first paragraph you are agreeing to my post?

 

[RedV3x]

This is such a stupid thing to say,

Yes, because the AFL is getting how many extra per round and averages are almost back to what they were before.

 

[RedV3x]

Check the official numbers from the sites below who do reporting for the Government.

Well post the relevant bits. You cannot work out gross gains over averages.

 

[Purple Suit]

You know that if the per game number is smaller today than it was 10 years ago then the game has got less popular? This isn't even up for debate. This is such a stupid thing to say, it almost invalidates anything else. Starting to get the numbers close is a recovery trend, not an expansion.

What you are essentially saying is that after the first positive move in the share market post GFC "Well the markets are expanding now."

There are more through the gates so it’s more popular, simple. If WAXIT was on and WA left the country and played the best of 5 derbies instead of AFL participation, our average would be 55-60k. Would that make it more popular than the current AFL under your metrics?

 

[Purple Suit]

I'm not saying WA3 won't be financially successful, but you can't claim this as such an absolute.

Canberra has some real tangible advantages: $5-6m a year from government and stadium deals; an AFL-starved market; a lower breakeven stadium; a 40% higher median income.

To claim WA3 as "the least risky by far" is arrogant and just wrong.

We can agree to disagree. Unfortunately which ever team gets the green light, it will take a long time to compare since the other team won’t be online for at least 10 years afterwards.

 

[Canberra Pear]

We can agree to disagree. Unfortunately which ever team gets the green light, it will take a long time to compare since the other team won’t be online for at least 10 years afterwards.

As long as you ignore all of Canberra's merits and base your argument "but Perth is bigger", then I agree that we'll have to a agree to disagree.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Yes, because the AFL is getting how many extra per round and averages are almost back to what they were before.

There are more through the gates so it’s more popular, simple. If WAXIT was on and WA left the country and played the best of 5 derbies instead of AFL participation, our average would be 55-60k. Would that make it more popular than the current AFL under your metrics?

While the total attendance has increased due to more games being played, the decline in average attendance per game suggests that the AFL may be struggling to maintain the same level of fan engagement at individual matches. Simply increasing the number of games without a corresponding increase in average attendance does not reflect a growth in overall popularity.

Additionally the growth of the total viewership numbers you are referring to is a total growth of 11.65%. The population of the country has grown by 20.88%. Attendance growth is lagging behind population growth at nearly half the rate.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Well post the relevant bits. You cannot work out gross gains over averages.

Over the past five years, soccer participation among children has grown by 4.7%. Similarly, AFL has seen a 4% increase in children's participation. Far from declining, soccer remains the most popular team sport for kids in this country.

It's OK to admit you were talking out your arse or just lying.

 

[Purple Suit]

While the total attendance has increased due to more games being played, the decline in average attendance per game suggests that the AFL may be struggling to maintain the same level of fan engagement at individual matches. Simply increasing the number of games without a corresponding increase in average attendance does not reflect a growth in overall popularity.

Additionally the growth of the total viewership numbers you are referring to is a total growth of 11.65%. The population of the country has grown by 20.88%. Attendance growth is lagging behind population growth at nearly half the rate.

There are reasons behind the drop though. More games in small grounds, makes it harder to bring up averages. Regional games etc grow the game but don’t do well pumping up the numbers.

If you did a deep dive and compared average attendance of home games but excluded the expansion teams, you would have an increase too.

AFL has never been top dog in every state so you wouldn’t expect viewership to match population growth in NSW & QLD. Those numbers seem reasonable to me.

 

[Purple Suit]

As long as you ignore all of Canberra's merits and base your argument "but Perth is bigger", then I agree that we'll have to an agree to disagree.

In a code with a “Big 4” and administrators who only seem to care about numbers getting bigger, “Perth is bigger” x 4 is pretty compelling.

A lot of the other issues are similar on both sides.

 

[Canberra Pear]

In a code with a “Big 4” and administrators who only seem to care about numbers getting bigger, “Perth is bigger” x 4 is pretty compelling.

x4 is great if WA3 had a shot of capturing more than a quarter of Perth. But they don't. They're not going to replicate Freo for a long time and it's naive to think that.

A lot of the other issues are similar on both sides.

That's just it though, once you take out the market size, Canberra seems better on nearly every metric.

 

[Purple Suit]

x4 is great if WA3 had a shot of capturing more than a quarter of Perth. But they don't. They're not going to replicate Freo for a long time and it's naive to think that.



That's just it though, once you take out the market size, Canberra seems better on nearly every metric.

Canberra has the same issue, it’s fighting established teams from other codes. Market size is king, it’s why we have GC & GWS and they have struggled due to not being in AFL states.

WA3 won’t catch Freo, just like Freo won’t catch WC. Did you see the graph above, they don’t have to.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Did you see the graph above, they don’t have to.

I did actually have a genuine question about that.

Freo is third on that graph. Why do they still receive the same distribution as the Cats and Crows? They're still ninth in terms of least distro received.

 

[Purple Suit]

I did actually have a genuine question about that.

Freo is third on that graph. Why do they still receive the same distribution as the Cats and Crows? They're still ninth in terms of least distro received.

The distribution differences are minimal from memory for all the teams near the bottom. It probably relates to extra flights or something else in their hidden calcs.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The distribution differences are minimal from memory for all the teams near the bottom. It probably relates to extra flights or something else in their hidden calcs.

I thought flights came under the sponsorship with Virgin.

But regardless, that graph says Freo makes $15m more than the Crows or Cats. Even if that included flights, where does the other $14.5m go?

 

[SplintWhisky]

There are reasons behind the drop though. More games in small grounds, makes it harder to bring up averages. Regional games etc grow the game but don’t do well pumping up the numbers.

If you did a deep dive and compared average attendance of home games but excluded the expansion teams, you would have an increase too.

AFL has never been top dog in every state so you wouldn’t expect viewership to match population growth in NSW & QLD. Those numbers seem reasonable to me.

So now you shift from "Number bigger stupid"?

Below is the state by state break down

State	Population 2010 (millions)	Population 2024 (millions)	Percentage Growth (%)
New South Wales	6.75​	8.2​	21.49​
Victoria	5.15​	6.7​	30.15​
Queensland	4.09​	5.4​	31.95​
Western Australia	2.05​	2.9​	41.3​
South Australia	1.59​	1.8​	13.36​
Tasmania	0.51​	0.57​	11.8​
Northern Territory	0.23​	0.25​	8.74​
Australian Capital Territory	0.37​	0.46​	24.89​
Total	20.74​	26.28​	26.71​

Now if we take the states that have historically been called football states

Football States	Population 2010 (millions)	Population 2024 (millions)	Percentage Growth (%)
Victoria	5.15​	6.7​	30.15​
Western Australia	2.05​	2.9​	41.3​
South Australia	1.59​	1.8​	13.36​
Tasmania	0.51​	0.57​	11.8​
Total	9.3​	11.97​	28.71​

Either way you cut it, the population growth of the Traditional Football states as well the nation has outpaced the growth in total attendance over the same period.

 

[Purple Suit]

I thought flights came under the sponsorship with Virgin.

But regardless, that graph says Freo makes $15m more than the Crows or Cats. Even if that included flights, where does the other $14.5m go?

The graph doesn’t include pokie revenue which some clubs fund a lot with. That is membership / attendance revenue which the WA clubs kill the pig on.

Freo give about 2m to the WAFL & have about 2m left over pa. Last time I checked we had about 7m in the bank. WC has a lot more.

 

[Purple Suit]

So now you shift from "Number bigger stupid"?

Below is the state by state break down

State	Population 2010 (millions)	Population 2024 (millions)	Percentage Growth (%)
New South Wales	6.75​	8.2​	21.49​
Victoria	5.15​	6.7​	30.15​
Queensland	4.09​	5.4​	31.95​
Western Australia	2.05​	2.9​	41.3​
South Australia	1.59​	1.8​	13.36​
Tasmania	0.51​	0.57​	11.8​
Northern Territory	0.23​	0.25​	8.74​
Australian Capital Territory	0.37​	0.46​	24.89​
Total	20.74​	26.28​	26.71​

Now if we take the states that have historically been called football states

Football States	Population 2010 (millions)	Population 2024 (millions)	Percentage Growth (%)
Victoria	5.15​	6.7​	30.15​
Western Australia	2.05​	2.9​	41.3​
South Australia	1.59​	1.8​	13.36​
Tasmania	0.51​	0.57​	11.8​
Total	9.3​	11.97​	28.71​

Either way you cut it, the population growth of the Traditional Football states as well the nation has outpaced the growth in total attendance over the same period.

The grounds aren’t getting bigger though so how do you keep pace with the population growth % if the MCG has been capped at 100k during the same time?

Plus adding in more small regional grounds with sub 20k capacity really pulls down the numbers.

 

[RedV3x]

As long as you ignore all of Canberra's merits and base your argument "but Perth is bigger", then I agree that we'll have to a agree to disagree.

As long as you exagerate Canberra's merits and you ignore the fact "Perth is bigger", then I agree that we'll have to a agree to disagree.

 

[RedV3x]

While the total attendance has increased due to more games being played,

One more game per round in expansion areas = gross gains = expansion.

the decline in average attendance per game

It's the other way around.Exclude the expansion clubs and you find that average attendances have increased.

suggests that the AFL may be struggling to maintain the same level of fan engagement at individual matches

The difference between then and now is what, about 1,000.a round.
Canberra Pear says the Canberra games have all been a sellout
so with a decent stadium in Canberra that would cover that.
You completely ignore all the "demonstration" games at low capacity grounds.

Additionally the growth of the total viewership numbers you are referring to is a total growth of 11.65%.

So there has been growth!!!!!!!

The population of the country has grown by 20.88%.

There is zero or negative population growth in Australia.
Immigration is 500,000 a year.
IMO the AFL is doing a great job to keep pace with things.
IMO soccer is doing a deplorable job in attracting any of the 500,000 extra per year.
Go troll on their territory.

 

[Bjo187]

While the total attendance has increased due to more games being played, the decline in average attendance per game suggests that the AFL may be struggling to maintain the same level of fan engagement at individual matches. Simply increasing the number of games without a corresponding increase in average attendance does not reflect a growth in overall popularity.

Additionally the growth of the total viewership numbers you are referring to is a total growth of 11.65%. The population of the country has grown by 20.88%. Attendance growth is lagging behind population growth at nearly half the rate.

You know the fact gc and gws were brought into the competition is the reason the average attendances went down right? New expansion markets lol. If you took those 2 clubs out the growth in attendance off the old base you're referring to would be nuts.

 

[Bjo187]

The graph doesn’t include pokie revenue which some clubs fund a lot with. That is membership / attendance revenue which the WA clubs kill the pig on.

Freo give about 2m to the WAFL & have about 2m left over pa. Last time I checked we had about 7m in the bank. WC has a lot more.

W.A clubs also get very little in sponsorship. For example gws get a lot more than they do.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The graph doesn’t include pokie revenue which some clubs fund a lot with. That is membership / attendance revenue which the WA clubs kill the pig on.

Freo give about 2m to the WAFL & have about 2m left over pa. Last time I checked we had about 7m in the bank. WC has a lot more.

The majority of clubs don't use pokies any more, including the Cats and Crows, which get the same distro.

Freo is definitely a giver more than a receiver, but they're more mid-level than that graph made it appear.

Point is that WA3 will probably be a middling club based on distro, receiving less than the Giants and Suns, but probably more in line with the Bulldogs and Melbourne.

 

[Purple Suit]

The majority of clubs don't use pokies any more, including the Cats and Crows, which get the same distro.

Freo is definitely a giver more than a receiver, but they're more mid-level than that graph made it appear.

Point is that WA3 will probably be a middling club based on distro, receiving less than the Giants and Suns, but probably more in line with the Bulldogs and Melbourne.

No its not. See the list below. From 10th to 16th it's almost the same amount with a lot hidden behind the lists. Not sure on the calcs or what it also includes but there are basically 9 rich clubs and 7 middle earners and 2 poor clubs. Tassie will probably be in the middle ground but only with state government support for how ever long the contract is. I recon the AFL would prefer to add a 20th team on a path to the rich list to keep the balance rather than another mouth to feed.


2023 Distributions

1. Gold Coast ($25 million)

2. GWS Giants ($25 million)

3. Brisbane Lions ($18-19 million)

4. North Melbourne ($18-19 million)

5. St Kilda ($18-19 million)

6. Melbourne ($16 million)

7. Western Bulldogs ($16 million)

8. Port Adelaide ($16 million)

9. Sydney Swans ($16 million)

10. Fremantle ($11.5-12.5 million)

11. Carlton ($11.5-12.5 million)

12. Adelaide Crows ($11.5-12.5 million)

13. Geelong ($11.5-12.5 million)

14. Essendon ($11-11.5 million)

=15. Richmond ($10.5-11 million)

=15. Hawthorn ($10.5-11 million)

=15. Collingwood ($10.5-11 million)

=15. West Coast ($10.5-11 million)

Remember, the WA clubs pay a royalty to the WAFL to pay for grassroots footy. The other AFL clubs don't do this and grassroots is funded by the AFL in all other states.