20th AFL Team

[Badger17]

70/30 is ridiculous. I'm biased, but my guess would be 55/45 in favour on NRL.

Of all the workplaces I've been in Canberra, I'd say it's actually been close to 70/30 in favour of AFL. And the majority of NRL fans have had an AFL team they follow, too. But I recognise that isn't necessarily reflective of the whole city.

I see a pretty even split of merch when I'm out and about.

But it won't be easy to judge until we both have our own teams.

Badger17 would probably be the best to give a more neutral estimate on the split.

I honestly can't be bothered to read through all of this to get a handle on the actual point of contention, but the tl/dr is that Canberra has a long history with both codes and they're so close in popularity that it's basically impossible to say which is more popular at any one time. We can guesstimate, but accurate data simply isn't available publicly to make that judgement.

Which is more popular has swapped back and forth throughout time and will likely continue to do so; Aussie Rules was more popular in 70s and a good chunk of the 80s, Rugby League more popular in the other chunk of the 80s and 90s, etc.

It's also much harder to accurately measure Aussie Rules support without there being a local team. With RL you can use the Raiders as a rough measure, but obviously no equivalent exists for Aussie Rules.

If we set aside the other codes for sake of simplicity, then generally it's a very even split, probably somewhere between a 40/60 and 45/55 split. At this very moment though RL is observably more popular with the Raiders being on a high and the bandwagon in full swing, but a disappointing season or two would be enough to tip that advantage on it's head.

I'm repeating myself but it's true, if an AFL club lunched in Canberra today it'd be a similar size to the Raiders from day one, maybe even a little bigger with good management and a bit of luck.

 

[RedV3x]

Hardly, the nrl is playing chess

Maybe you should take up chess likewise instead of living in fantasy land.
All attack and no defense leaves NRL open to checkmate.

 

[Badger17]

Again I apologise for repeating myself, but the whole games in the Riverina thing is fanciful.

Firstly, there's no money in the Riverina to buy long term rights to host AFL like the ACT, Tasmania, NT, and others have in the past. So if it was going to happen the NSW government would have to pay for it, and even if they were interested in paying to host AFL matches in the Riverina, I can't see them being interested in paying for a Canberra side to host them over a NSW side or a Melbourne club that's relatively bigger.

Secondly, as we've seen from the GWS arrangement, every resource spent promoting and selling the team and game in the Riverina is one that could have been used to promote the game in the club's home city. Season ticket holders, lifetime members, locals who attend multiple games a season, even just your run of the mill fanatics, are more valuable to the club than people who don't actually care about the club that buy a single ticket "membership" just because it's an opportunity to watch the footy locally in the Riverina every now and then.

If a Canberra side, or just the AFL in general, was going to take games on the road, then they'd be better off doing it as part of a plan to develop the region into a possible permanent host of a future expansion team, which simply isn't realistic in the case of the Riverina.

 

[hampton]

Yep Canberra + Riverina club makes no sense except for those Victorians here that like to keep telling us so, the 'dots on a map' folks.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yep Canberra + Riverina club makes no sense except for those Victorians here that like to keep telling us so, the 'dots on a map' folks.

But the 1.2 million people that live on South Island of New Zealand are all relevant for a Christchurch NRL team, including those that live an eight hour drive away. According to you.

 

[The Educator]

But the 1.2 million people that live on South Island of New Zealand are all relevant for a Christchurch NRL team, including those that live an eight hour drive away. According to you.

Haha, he said that?

Whoever it is is a parody of itself

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Haha, he said that?

Whoever it is is a parody of itself

and the South Island has 1.2m people total.

Worth noting that Invercargill (50,000 people a not insignificant amount of the South Island population) is 7 hour drive south, and Nelson (also around 50,000 people a not insignificant amount of the South Island population) is a 6 and a half hour drive north. They're no more part of the Christchurch base culturally than Melbourne is to Canberra.

 

[hampton]

One is about creating a “dual home” strategy like GWS already has. Because Riverina and other areas like Albury mooted are completely different areas without logical connection or shared identity with Canberra. Especially trying to play afl level games across multiple areas emphasises this. You need to stick to Canberra if you want Canberra to work.

The other is about creating a home base at Christchurch, and developing pathways through the South Island. Not creating a conglomerate team of different locations and trying to play professional games across there.

The Canberra + Riverina idea:

• 2 different states, therefore different funding models required, increased operational complications etc
• already established afl presence with GWS, and already established pathways through Riverina
• Doesn’t add anything significant for the next tv rights
• dual home dilutes membership, attendance habit formation and sponsor opportunities
• reduces focus on building out support in Canberra (same issue as we already have with gws playing games in canberra)

The Christchurch nrl team doesn’t have those negatives. The South Island opportunity comes naturally because unlike the afl who are already operating into Canberra, the nrl aren’t operating in the South Island. And the pathways aren’t mature in the South Island, like the already mature pathways in Riverina. I can go on but if you can’t see the difference and just want to yell “bad NRL man” go for it.

I’m also not suggesting people from other cities in the South Island are going to drive to Christchurch to watch games. At least not in any significant numbers. That’s not what I meant by drawing support from South Island - I’m talking about pathways and tv rights. However for the Canberra afl team people here are suggesting that we will ‘tap into’ all these disparate areas in nsw for not only pathways but both people driving to Canberra to watch games and also even playing afl level games there. Very different. Melbourne is closer than Canberra to those areas.

It’s a blessing and a curse for the afl because they have already expanded and mature professional and pathway development in lots of areas so the upsides to expansion are dwindling. Unlike the nrl who have not expanded to that level across the country in a formal sense.

 

[Canberra Pear]

One is about creating a “dual home” strategy like GWS already has. Because Riverina and other areas like Albury mooted are completely different areas without logical connection or shared identity with Canberra. Especially trying to play afl level games across multiple areas emphasises this. You need to stick to Canberra if you want Canberra to work.

The other is about creating a home base at Christchurch, and developing pathways through the South Island. Not creating a conglomerate team of different locations and trying to play professional games across there.

The Canberra + Riverina idea:

• 2 different states, therefore different funding models required, increased operational complications etc
• already established afl presence with GWS, and already established pathways through Riverina
• Doesn’t add anything significant for the next tv rights
• dual home dilutes membership, attendance habit formation and sponsor opportunities
• reduces focus on building out support in Canberra (same issue as we already have with gws playing games in canberra)

The Christchurch nrl team doesn’t have those negatives. The South Island opportunity comes naturally because unlike the afl who are already operating into Canberra, the nrl aren’t operating in the South Island. And the pathways aren’t mature in the South Island, like the already mature pathways in Riverina. I can go on but if you can’t see the difference and just want to yell “bad NRL man” go for it.

So what you're describing is a team based out of Christchurch, drawing support from the whole South Island.

How does that differ from basing a team in Canberra, but drawing support from all of southern NSW?

 

[hampton]

So what you're describing is a team based out of Christchurch, drawing support from the whole South Island.

How does that differ from basing a team in Canberra, but drawing support from all of southern NSW?

Depends on the execution, previous posters including the ones being replied to have discussed playing afl games out of Albury or Riverina, basing operations across these multiple areas. Trying to draw a shared identity as well through whatever the club is named. That’s where the problems I mentioned come.

Basically if you have identity, operations/football development, professional games etc shared across two states is when I see the issues coming.

If it’s a purely a Canberra team then obviously it doesn’t have those drawbacks.

 

[RedV3x]

One is about creating a “dual home”

Why do you bother ?. Write it on some NRL site where even there I doubt it that anyone's interested.

 

[hampton]

Why do you bother ?. Write it on some NRL site where even there I doubt it that anyone's interested.

I want to squash this nrl troll bs here if I can. Though I feel like it’s a lost cause.

If I was such an nrl troll as you like to put it why am I an advocate of a WA3 team in the afl on these boards? When that will be a massive barrier for the Perth bears growth. Seriously grow up, I’m having a meaningful discussion with others about the merits and execution options of a 20th afl team which is the purpose of this thread if you can’t contribute then you go away.

Comparisons with nrl in this thread context are fair because both are looking to expand, both are football codes where we can draw insights from both ways. I’m also a fan of both codes (and other sports) and it’s interesting to me to see what both codes are doing well and where they could improve. If I’m an nrl fan which I have clearly made known here does that mean I can not provide any critique here about afl stuff?

A Canberra afl team is probably the best option from an ‘nrl troll’ perspective because it’s not going to impact nrl barely at all compared to other options - If I was so troll like I’d be all pro Canberra. There’s already plenty of afl fans in Canberra they’ll just have a team of their own to support.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Depends on the execution, previous posters including the ones being replied to have discussed playing afl games out of Albury or Riverina, basing operations across these multiple areas. Trying to draw a shared identity as well through whatever the club is named. That’s where the problems I mentioned come

If it’s a purely a Canberra team then obviously it doesn’t have those drawbacks.

So if the execution between Canberra and Christchurch was similar, both would be mostly relying on their urban areas for the majority of their support.

That's 510k for Canberra, and 410k for Christchurch. "Metro Christchurch" at 550k includes Selwyn and Waimakariri districts, which is actually a pretty wide rural area. The equivalent would be ~650k for the same area surrounding Canberra.

But you want to draw from the whole South Island for support. But so much of the island really isn't that close to Christchurch. Albury is 3.5hrs to Canberra. Wagga less again. About 500k of the South Island's population is four or more hours away from Christchurch. These people aren't going to be regularly coming in to Christchurch for games. So the travelling hinterland populations aren't really that different.

Still not seeing how Christchurch is a better option for the NRL than Canberra is for the AFL.

 

[Canberra Pear]

A Canberra afl team is probably the best option from an ‘nrl troll’ perspective because it’s not going to impact nrl barely at all compared to other options - If I was so troll like I’d be all pro Canberra. There’s already plenty of afl fans in Canberra they’ll just have a team of their own to support.

A third WA team won't have much of an effect on the new NRL team. It's a big city, different audiences.

A Canberra AFL team makes Canberra officially not just an NRL town. It makes Canberra a true multi-code town. A DMZ. Go on League Unlimited and they're listing off all the "NRL cities". I don't care much for code wars, but a Canberra team would be more damaging to the psyche of NRL than a third Perth team.

 

[hampton]

So if the execution between Canberra and Christchurch was similar, both would be mostly relying on their urban areas for the majority of their support.

That's 510k for Canberra, and 410k for Christchurch. "Metro Christchurch" at 550k includes Selwyn and Waimakariri districts, which is actually a pretty wide rural area. The equivalent would be ~650k for the same area surrounding Canberra.

But you want to draw from the whole South Island for support. But so much of the island really isn't that close to Christchurch. Albury is 3.5hrs to Canberra. Wagga less again. About 500k of the South Island's population is four or more hours away from Christchurch. These people aren't going to be regularly coming in to Christchurch for games. So the travelling hinterland populations aren't really that different.

Still not seeing how Christchurch is a better option for the NRL than Canberra is for the AFL.

If we’re just talking about nearby population (which is just 1 metric, though an important one) to compare the opportunity sizing of the two, let’s be fair and equal about it and say what is the population within 1 hour drive of the centre of the cities.

Canberra: 510,000 - 560,000
Christchurch: 535,000 - 570,000

Both are taken and averaged from two different AI sources when asking the question of population within an hour drive of the centre of the two cities.

So they are comparable one is not significantly larger than the other.

But there are lots of other facets when it comes to opportunity sizing which I’ve mentioned previously. Tv viewership, tv rights deal. Pathways development. Etc

 

[hampton]

If we’re just talking about nearby population (which is just 1 metric, though an important one) to compare the opportunity sizing of the two, let’s be fair and equal about it and say what is the population within 1 hour drive of the centre of the cities.

Canberra: 510,000 - 560,000
Christchurch: 535,000 - 570,000

Both are taken and averaged from two different AI sources when asking the question of population within an hour drive of the centre of the two cities.

So they are comparable one is not significantly larger than the other.

But there are lots of other facets when it comes to opportunity sizing which I’ve mentioned previously. Tv viewership, tv rights deal. Pathways development. Etc

Don’t think so, the afl crowd in Canberra are already watching afl on tv, playing afl, and attending GWS games.

Canberra is already well known as a multi code town, as others here like to keep referring to.

There is already an AFL club there with GWS, which a Canberra only club just replaces. Raiders are an established club with existing support it’s not going to harm them.

Who cares about what forum people think regarding dots on a map.

It’s one of the big drawbacks to the growth of afl by basing a team in Canberra, what real uplift is it going to have for afl.

A third WA team will cause a lot of attention in Wa taking away attention from Perth bears. It will draw support from some west coast fans who are locked out of west coast games who might otherwise start attending more Perth bears games. It will ensure the growing and large Perth population has enough supply capacity and not let the nrl take it. It definitely makes it harder for the nrl to grow a brand new club in a foreign market than if it didn’t exist.