20th AFL Team

[Aussie in exile]

I think people who want a Canberra team are up against Andrew Barr, who for some reason unknown to me is putting his love of GWS before everything esle as reagrds sport.
Yes he's in favour of expanding the cricket oval, but in my opinion that's just so more people can go and watch GWS.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I think people who want a Canberra team are up against Andrew Barr, who for some reason unknown to me is putting his love of GWS before everything esle as reagrds sport.
Yes he's in favour of expanding the cricket oval, but in my opinion that's just so more people can go and watch GWS.

You keep saying this, but Barr has indicated multiple times that he'd be in favour of our own team over the Giants.

 

[Aussie in exile]

You keep saying this, but Barr has indicated multiple times that he'd be in favour of our own team over the Giants.

Has he?

 

[Canberra Pear]

Has he?

It's been discussed pretty often on here, but here's his quotes from the article from a few months ago.



"Canberra's proven support for the game, including growing membership, sellout crowds and infrastructure commitments, will speak for itself"

"Canberra's partnership with the Giants is a strength, not a roadblock. It demonstrates that there is already a large and growing AFL fan base in Canberra and a track record of hosting high-quality fixtures,"

"A full-time team would naturally bring more home games, more fan engagement, and a more permanent AFL presence in the media and national sporting consciousness. That would translate into even greater benefits for the local economy and national visibility for the Canberra region.

"Canberra has a strong and stable economy, with Territory GSP of more than $A50 billion, and a population soon to reach half a million. The broader region, including Southern NSW, is approaching one million people. These fundamentals make Canberra one of the strongest untapped national markets.

 

[Aussie in exile]

It's been discussed pretty often on here, but here's his quotes from the article from a few months ago.

View attachment 2465733

"Canberra's proven support for the game, including growing membership, sellout crowds and infrastructure commitments, will speak for itself"

"Canberra's partnership with the Giants is a strength, not a roadblock. It demonstrates that there is already a large and growing AFL fan base in Canberra and a track record of hosting high-quality fixtures,"

"A full-time team would naturally bring more home games, more fan engagement, and a more permanent AFL presence in the media and national sporting consciousness. That would translate into even greater benefits for the local economy and national visibility for the Canberra region.

"Canberra has a strong and stable economy, with Territory GSP of more than $A50 billion, and a population soon to reach half a million. The broader region, including Southern NSW, is approaching one million people. These fundamentals make Canberra one of the strongest untapped national markets.

A journalist quoting a politician who wants to stay in power by saying things he thinks he wants people to hear. No surprise there,

 

[RedV3x]

I estimate that WA3 will get an average attendance of 30-33K year one.

I like your extreme optimism.

Freo got an average attendance of 24K in year 1

Most of that was anti-WCE stuff by the remaining WAFL diehards.
Doesn't apply for Pth3.

I assume Perth will be close to 3m by the time WA3 enters the comp if they are the 20th team.

Irrelevant if it's not home grown.

I also think the State Government would love another team called Perth purely from a state marketing point of view.

The present W.A. government is not pro-AFL

They will cut a great short term 10 year stadium deal if the Perth Quokka's gets up before they revert to the WC/Freo one.

The W.A. government was nearly responsible for AFL remaining at Subiaco.

The report was an article saying that the WAFL was open to it.

Yes, if they could benefit. that remains to be seen.

“We look forward to future discussions with the AFL and state government.”

So far that hasn't happened (that we know of).

 

[RedV3x]

I trust a person that lives there more than you in this disagreement.

I live in Perth.

To suggest that it wouldn't get a sell-out crowd, to me, suggests both a lack of understanding of Perth footy but also just poor deductive reasoning here.

Well a derby with Pth3 probably would be a sellout in the early part of the first year out of curiosity.
Then it would settle down to Eagles and Dockers fan enjoying an extra game in Perth.
WCE fans would especially enjoy being able to beat another team.

But anything other than derbies at Perth Stadium would be uneconomic.
Why is it economic - because of the high rents.
Why are the rents so high - because of the huge number of staff involved, plus bus and train rejigging.

 

[RedV3x]

A journalist quoting a politician who wants to stay in power by saying things he thinks he wants people to hear. No surprise there,

"Canberra's proven support for the game, including growing membership, sellout crowds and infrastructure commitments, will speak for itself"

"Canberra's partnership with the Giants is a strength, not a roadblock. It demonstrates that there is already a large and growing AFL fan base in Canberra and a track record of hosting high-quality fixtures,"

"A full-time team would naturally bring more home games, more fan engagement, and a more permanent AFL presence in the media and national sporting consciousness. That would translate into even greater benefits for the local economy and national visibility for the Canberra region.

"Canberra has a strong and stable economy, with Territory GSP of more than $A50 billion, and a population soon to reach half a million. The broader region, including Southern NSW, is approaching one million people. These fundamentals make Canberra one of the strongest untapped national markets."

i cannot see anything wrong with any of these statements. If anything they are quite understated.
In fact, wouldn't this be classified as one of your "independent sources".

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why is it economic - because of the high rents.
Why are the rents so high - because of the huge number of staff involved, plus bus and train rejigging.

What would you characterise as a breakeven attendance (once accounting for the fact that an average Perth 3 seat sold will be at a cheaper price than a West Coast and Freo game) to cover the costs?

We know Freo were a profitable side in every year at Perth Stadium with average crowds around 40,000 in their lowest Perth Stadium. So I'm guessing a breakeven profit is in the 30-35k range, probably closer to 35k though.

I'm guessing Perth 3 is the team that will take at least 2 home games to Bunbury though, it only makes sense. So we're only having to cover the "losses" of 7 home games to equate for the "profits" of two derby fixture home games plus whatever money they get paid to take their games to Bunbury.

And that's just to get the team to breakeven in season 1. I think a short-term loss-making nature of the team is acceptable for a generation because population growth and a growth of genuine fans as kids become adults would result in the team increasing their attendances from year, one, turning a loss into a profit. This is before you get into the ancillary benefits of benefitting the AFL competition in the city of Perth as a whole (interest in the 18 teams that are not Perth 3) rather than just looking at the team itself, which is my argument imo.

 

[Purple Suit]

I live in Perth.



Well a derby with Pth3 probably would be a sellout in the early part of the first year out of curiosity.
Then it would settle down to Eagles and Dockers fan enjoying an extra game in Perth.
WCE fans would especially enjoy being able to beat another team.

But anything other than derbies at Perth Stadium would be uneconomic.
Why is it economic - because of the high rents.
Why are the rents so high - because of the huge number of staff involved, plus bus and train rejigging.

In your opinion it would be uneconomic, yet they still host events with small crowds. WAFL GF got 24K, the cricket hosts tests there and against India, the 2nd biggest drawing team they averaged 24K across the 4 days, first 2 days were 31K & 32K.

In fact, cricket is a window into what is economic as they can use the WACA for small crowds under 15K but have decided to just use Optus Oval for all international events. In 2022 we hosted West Inidies and got 42,723 there over 5 days when a smaller venue was an option.

A lot of the economics of the stadium is based on 2/3rd of the attendance coming from Footy. If WA3 enters, a lot of the fixed costs can be reduced per game with more games and the government, the owners would have scope to give the new team a good deal to start while they build up a fan base. Optus is a benefit, not a negative to WA3.

 

[RedV3x]

What would you characterise as a breakeven attendance (once accounting for the fact that an average Perth 3 seat sold will be at a cheaper price than a West Coast and Freo game) to cover the costs?

We know Freo were a profitable side in every year at Perth Stadium with average crowds around 40,000 in their lowest Perth Stadium. So I'm guessing a breakeven profit is in the 30-35k range, probably closer to 35k though.

I only know what the stadium overseers wanted to originally charge.
I heard various figures from 25k. Maybe that wasn't a breakeven point but rather a "we-don't-open-for-less" figure.
I wouldn't be interested in just breaking even.

I'm guessing Perth 3 is the team that will take at least 2 home games to Bunbury though, it only makes sense.

That's why I say it all depends on the model and the model IMO would be big games at Perth Stadium, sponsored games at Bunbury and low drawing games at a WAFL ground/WACA.

I think a short-term loss-making nature of the team is acceptable for a generation because population growth and a growth of genuine fans as kids become adults would result in the team increasing their attendances from year, one, turning a loss into a profit. This is before you get into the ancillary benefits of benefitting the AFL competition in the city of Perth as a whole

That is logical thinking but it would depend again on the right model.
IMO you'd need a strong link with the PCC. The only Perth team in name and nature.
Minor games played at the WACA and the fans accessing the city.
You need the government to get on board and realise the benefits of a long term residence
far exceed any random events type approach.
You'd need the AFL and WAFL to co-operate.
With three AFL teams you could have three WAFL teams allocated to each.
That would put some interest into the WAFL.
Freo is easily SF, EF and Peel.
WCE is easily coastal WP, Subiaco and Claremont.
That leaves Swans in the ENE, EP in the NE and Perth strangely in the SE.
I would also suggest that the point of difference being Perth CBD, Perth heritage and aboriginal colours.

 

[RedV3x]

Barr has indicated multiple times that he'd be in favour of our own team over the Giants.

I was watching the NFL and the Washington Redskins renamed, which I knew but not to the new name .
The Washington Commanders. Quite a parallel. Canberra Commanders anyone ?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I wouldn't be interested in just breaking even.

I would be though because my argument for Perth 3 isn't necessarily about having a prosperous team in the first place but to make Perthities feel more connected to the AFL competition as a whole, even if they're West Coast and Fremantle fans.

For example, in any given year there's about a 15% chance that a Perth 3 team would be the only team from Perth that makes finals. With four of the eight finals played in the first three weeks on Thursday or Friday night played in a bad time zone for Perth people (starting at 5.30 in the afternoon on a work day), it's easy for Perth people - a city that contributes about one in six AFL fans across the country - to disengage entirely. To avoid that, you might have seasons where Perth 3 is the team that would make hundreds of thousands of Perth WC/Freo fans watch the game, because they're more interested in the outcome of Perth 3 - especially if it's the only Perth team in finals - then they are for the outcome of any other easten team's participation in final. The reason why they would be interested is the fact that the Perth sports media simply won't have any other team to cover for preparation for the finals.

Perth is a very disconnected city from the rest of Australia and it's really only an interest in West Coast's and Freo's fortunes, plus the legacy nature of the history of the sport in the city, that maintains it at its current level, though it is degregating in a relative sense to Melbourne and Adelaide. So without enough teams to service the population and at risk of each new generation of fan being disconnected to the league as a whole - time zones and metaphysical sense of distance away from the eastern power centre of the AFL as a whole, lack of ability to get into the league cheaply in the same way that Melbourne, Port Adelaide, GWS, etc. fans have been able to access cheap, sub $30 tickets (cheaper with memberships, promotions) over the last generation and will do for the next generation, you simply run the risk of losing footy fans in Perth as part of a community that should be able to maintain generational AFL support to similar proportions to Adelaide and Melbourne.

 

[The_Reaper]

Every single Derby has been a sellout for 30 years, we could fill the MCG if it was transported over just for Derbies. The interest will be there and it will be full. Even if a WA3 v Freo Derby could only get 52,000 seats sold with 32,000 Freo Fans and 20,000 WA3 fans, I recon 8000 WC fans would go just so they could wear their WC gear and cheer on WA3.

The population dictates that the situation will actually be easier for WA3. The Bulk of Freo fans were WC fans and switched. The same will happen to WA3 as people are happy to get in on the ground floor because they see opportunity.

bulk of Freo fans did not switch because of ticket availability

 

[The_Reaper]

What would you characterise as a breakeven attendance (once accounting for the fact that an average Perth 3 seat sold will be at a cheaper price than a West Coast and Freo game) to cover the costs?

We know Freo were a profitable side in every year at Perth Stadium with average crowds around 40,000 in their lowest Perth Stadium. So I'm guessing a breakeven profit is in the 30-35k range, probably closer to 35k though.

I'm guessing Perth 3 is the team that will take at least 2 home games to Bunbury though, it only makes sense. So we're only having to cover the "losses" of 7 home games to equate for the "profits" of two derby fixture home games plus whatever money they get paid to take their games to Bunbury.

And that's just to get the team to breakeven in season 1. I think a short-term loss-making nature of the team is acceptable for a generation because population growth and a growth of genuine fans as kids become adults would result in the team increasing their attendances from year, one, turning a loss into a profit. This is before you get into the ancillary benefits of benefitting the AFL competition in the city of Perth as a whole (interest in the 18 teams that are not Perth 3) rather than just looking at the team itself, which is my argument imo.

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?

 

[Rob]

We are nearly capped at attendance now (specifically ticket sales) in a rapidly growing big city. By the time we have a 20th team, I suspect WC will be getting their act together and Freo will be full. It will be too late to have team 21 or 22 be WA3 and I think the NRL moving in will spark the AFL to start thinking about the West for the first time ever.

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.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

No, that's not actually what they said. They said that my estimate of a 2040 population of 2.8 million was unders because of a current growth rate of 3.1%, which translates to 72,000 per year. They are saying that if the growth rate of 72,000 per year continues, that's a growth of 1.08 million, which makes it about 3.3 million total by 2040. A growth of 72,000 on a population of 3.3 is 2.2% growth, now 3.1%. You misread the argument yet throw around bias with your misreading.

I think this is all getting a bit unnecessarily tense. Personally I think you, Canberra Pear and Purple Suit have all made good points about the areas you're each familiar with, and reading your comments has taught me things I didn't know.

I think Purple Suit made a valid point that perhaps wasn't expressed in the most correct way. Perth probably will outgrow its ABS population projection if the last few years are anything to go by. But it may not hit 72 000 a year on average. From a quick look at population stats, Perth has only grown that fast in the past two years, and for the decade prior annual growth was mostly around 20-30 000 per year. Even in the 2007-2013 boom period, Perth grew around 50-55 000 a year, and that didn't happen each and every year.

I wonder if Perth's astronomical property price rises will start to dampen growth a bit. There's a lot of room to address this though, as I'm always struck when I visit Perth of how little it's embraced apartment blocks even compared to Brisbane, let alone Melbourne or Sydney. Building up might provide enough supply to rein in price growth.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

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?

I would have argued it's pretty logical?

Combine Perth and Bunbury markets for example.

We have to act in clumpy multiples of 11, +/- 1 or 2 games in terms of buying/selling games outside of WA, North Melbourne style.

Perth currently has 23 home games and Bunbury 1. Given 24 WA games, This is arguably an ideal set up, provided the Bunbury game is the least desirable of such 24 WA games (a game vs. North).

When we get to the clumpiness of 33 home games, the ideal set up is 2 of those 33 to be given to Bunbury, provided they are the 2 of the 33 least desirable WA games (ie a Perth 3 team against a small Melbourne/GWS/GC/Port Adelaide/Tasmaina team).

If we take the fact that the two least desirable WA games are as about half as desirable as an average WA game 2 games lines up perfectly ie 3% of the population, 3% of the total desirability (2 of 35 games but half desirability).

And this is just to service the Bunbury and south-west population, obviously there's a linking it to tourism/Margaret River airport etc. element to it all.

 

[The_Reaper]

I’d also wonder if anyone talking up The WACA or WAFL grounds for matches has ever been to any of these grounds.

Only a diehard would go to watch a footy match at the WACA when Optus is just across the bridge

Not to mention why the AFL would want to be paying cricket to host matches when Optus is available

 

[The_Reaper]

I would have argued it's pretty logical?

Combine Perth and Bunbury markets for example.

We have to act in clumpy multiples of 11, +/- 1 or 2 games in terms of buying/selling games outside of WA, North Melbourne style.

Perth currently has 23 home games and Bunbury 1. Given 24 WA games, This is arguably an ideal set up, provided the Bunbury game is the least desirable of such 24 WA games (a game vs. North).

When we get to the clumpiness of 33 home games, the ideal set up is 2 of those 33 to be given to Bunbury, provided they are the 2 of the 33 least desirable WA games (ie a Perth 3 team against a small Melbourne/GWS/GC/Port Adelaide/Tasmaina team).

If we take the fact that the two least desirable WA games are as about half as desirable as an average WA game 2 games lines up perfectly ie 3% of the population, 3% of the total desirability (2 of 35 games but half desirability).

And this is just to service the Bunbury and south-west population, obviously there's a linking it to tourism/Margaret River airport etc. element to it all.

The argument about Perth/WA3 is that the Perth market is drastically under serviced and that Perth can financially support a 3rd team.

These points are correct.

As soon as you start trying to make the team do a million different things all the sudden the core reason for the team (Perth) won’t care. If you want WA3 to succeed, base it in Perth and have it play 11 home games at Optus.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think this is all getting a bit unnecessarily tense. Personally I think you, Canberra Pear and Purple Suit have all made good points about the areas you're each familiar with, and reading your comments has taught me things I didn't know.

I think Purple Suit made a valid point that perhaps wasn't expressed in the most correct way. Perth probably will outgrow its ABS population projection if the last few years are anything to go by. But it may not hit 72 000 a year on average. From a quick look at population stats, Perth has only grown that fast in the past two years, and for the decade prior annual growth was mostly around 20-30 000 per year. Even in the 2007-2013 boom period, Perth grew around 50-55 000 a year, and that didn't happen each and every year.

I wonder if Perth's astronomical property price rises will start to dampen growth a bit. There's a lot of room to address this though, as I'm always struck when I visit Perth of how little it's embraced apartment blocks even compared to Brisbane, let alone Melbourne or Sydney. Building up might provide enough supply to rein in price growth.

This is getting outside the point a bit but unless there is a large Australian economic mentality realignment re investing in property, and Australians change their mentality with regard to living in townhouses and apartments, Perth population will grow over generations. Over generations the geographic possibility of owning your own plot of land has far less geographic constraint in Perth on the urban fringes than it does Sydney, and marginally more than SEQ, Melbourne and Adelaide.

Anyway, I took the 2022 ABS middle-range estimate of Perth that has the 2040 population at 2.8 million. It will be higher than that though because it was an estimate on the basis of the 2021 census. That 2022 estimate for 2025 for instance has the Perth population at 2.34 million, whereas the current population is more like 2.42 million, ie the estimate conducted in 2022 with the starting point of 2021 census data has already under-estimated the population of Perth by about 80,000 people in merely three years. While that difference will taper off, I think it's safe to assume that that 2022 estimate will continue to under-count (though obviously not to the extent of 25,000+ per year), though it will undercount a few thousand per year to the point that it's probably correct to say that Perth's population will hit 3 million around or just before 2040.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The 3 million mark will be reached potentially within 3 years. So that is potentially 1 million ppl per club in WA.

I was poking back through the thread and saw this comment. You were on the money, WA hit 3 million in 2024.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The argument about Perth/WA3 is that the Perth market is drastically under serviced and that Perth can financially support a 3rd team.

These points are correct.

As soon as you start trying to make the team do a million different things all the sudden the core reason for the team (Perth) won’t care. If you want WA3 to succeed, base it in Perth and have it play 11 home games at Optus.

I disagree. Given that it's hardly going to be a base of angry, passionate supporters that are angry that they have to drive a couple of hours to watch their 10th and 11th home game of the season, the whole point of the Perth team is to service footy fans, as opposed to give 11 home games to this idea of the passionate fan.

Do you honestly think that the average Perth citizen - including West Coast and Fremantle fans - wouldn't turn up to any of the home game desirability ranking 3-9, 7 Perth3 games, because they have anger at the fact that they are playing home game 10 and 11 in Bunbury potentially from season 1?

I don't see it as an either/or thing.

 

[The_Reaper]

I disagree. Given that it's hardly going to be a base of angry, passionate supporters that are angry that they have to drive a couple of hours to watch their 10th and 11th home game of the season, the whole point of the Perth team is to service footy fans, as opposed to give 11 home games to this idea of the passionate fan.

Do you honestly think that the average Perth citizen - including West Coast and Fremantle fans - wouldn't turn up to any of the home game desirability ranking 3-9, 7 Perth3 games, because they have anger at the fact that they are playing home game 10 and 11 in Bunbury potentially from season 1?

I don't see it as an either/or thing.

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?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

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?

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.