20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

This is a genuine question.

If you're not cheering, desiring Giants to win a game that you attend (such that we define "support"), what compels you to put on GWS merchandise anyway? Why would you think that others in Canberra do that?

I feel like it’s a bit like tipping. The footy is good to watch, but it’s better if you have a team you want to win. You’ve got to have a horse in the race.

I want the Giants to win. I’m cheering for them to win. But I’m not really that invested. I’m not painting my face; not going to be sitting on the edge of my seat; not cursing the umpires under my breath; and my disappointment doesn’t last past the final siren if they lose. Having little history means Giants merch is also inoffensive to most (maybe not Dogs and Swans fans). The beanie and scarf are also very handy in the Canberra winter.

I also genuinely want the Giants to succeed. I think they could have a big future as Western Sydney club.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I feel like it’s a bit like tipping. The footy is good to watch, but it’s better if you have a team you want to win. You’ve got to have a horse in the race.

But is it not relevant that there's some consistency in supporting the Giants in this manner on a game-to-game and year-to-year basis?

Should I want a team to win (such that it helps the Dogs' ladder position, or who I tipped) for example, I can be supporting one team one week and against them the following week.

I want the Giants to win. I’m cheering for them to win

But is it not also relevant that this is true, had you attended a Melbourne vs. Sydney game you could not have cared less who won from those matches, and were not cheering for either team to win, and that difference and distinction here is notable and relevant? Or to make my point clear, is the distinction that one year in 2008 you may have supported Melbourne, but in 2009 you may have supported Sydney, and thus didn't have consistency in support relevant here? Yet you've put on a GWS beanie consistently.

 

[Canberra Pear]

But is it not relevant that there's some consistency in supporting the Giants in this manner on a game-to-game and year-to-year basis?

Should I want a team to win (such that it helps the Dogs' ladder position, or who I tipped) for example, I can be supporting one team one week and against them the following week.

Yes, I consistently go to Giants games. Yes, I usually want them to win. I'm still not sure what the point you're arguing is.

But is it not also relevant that this is true, had you attended a Melbourne vs. Sydney game you could not have cared less who won from those matches, and were not cheering for either team to win, and that difference and distinction here is notable and relevant?

I wasn't in Canberra before the Giants, so I can't tell you, but my understanding was that North were gaining a bit of traction, too.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I'm on the ground in Canberra. I'm at the games in Canberra. I wear Giants merch. My friends often wear Giants merch. None of support the Giants. This is not uncommon.

I heard one conversation in front of me at a game where a guy in no merch sat next to a guy in Giants merch. The merchless guy asked what team the guy in Giants merch supported. He said the Giants, and the merchless guy was genuinely surprised. Yes, I know just an anecdote, but it follows a pattern.

The Giants no doubt have a niche and they’re probably now the most supported club in Canberra, but that doesn’t mean they’re Canberra’s team.

And as hard as it is for you to fathom, plenty of Canberrans can buy a membership, go to a game, and put on orange without really being that invested in a team. Living in a city with multiple options, I get why you wouldn’t understand, but you have to give me some credence as somebody who does live here.

And the moment a team of our own comes, it would blow the Giants out of the water in terms of Canberra support.

With due respect, as somebody who lives here my perspective is different. Most of the people I know support the Giants as their primary team, and my kids and most of their friends are also passionate Giants supporters. There’s also a good proportion of Canberra members at our monthly members connect sessions the club has. In the end the Giants games in Manuka are effectively a sellout, showing that the public have no issues with the current arrangements the Giants have with the ACT government. This was in contrast to Hobart where the public desire for a full time Tasmanian team, led to low attendances at North Melbourne games there.

 

[Canberra Pear]

With due respect, as somebody who lives here my perspective is different. Most of the people I know support the Giants as their primary team, and my kids and most of their friends are also passionate Giants supporters. In the end the Giants games in Manuka are effectively a sellout, showing that the public have no issues with the current arrangements the Giants have with the ACT government. This was in contrast to Hobart where the public desire for a full time Tasmanian team, led to low attendances at North Melbourne games there.

It's funny the dichotomy of Canberra. I guess it depends on the circles you run in. I know maybe 80 or 90 AFL fans in Canberra, and two of them support the Giants.

Also, with all due respect, if the Giants are the reason Canberra is denied its own team, I expect your last sentence to play out in Canberra too.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yes, I consistently go to Giants games. Yes, I usually want them to win. I'm still not sure what the point you're arguing is.

That this constitutes support and a compulsion to attend games to support and cheer the home team and hope they win.

I disagree with your "crowds were previously good" view, all crowds were poor without Swans at Canberra in the past.

For example, across three games a year on average and with much reduced away support, there have been average crowds of 11,500+ for the years leading up to COVID and in 2024, though last year was sadly a bit of a fizzer (and maybe a sign of things to come).

This represents about 35,000 attendees desiring to attend Canberra AFL games with the motivation to do so because they slap on some orange and support the home team.

The presence of Sydney (or Collingwood for their one game in 2001) added about 2,500 people to the crowd, we can deduce from other games' crowd numbers, so these are not fans who were there to be general AFL games and were only compelled to attend because of the specific away team. From 2001-2006, the average crowd of the games not involving Sydney was below 10,000, but lets round up and say 10,000 (ie a non-Sydney fan may have attended their 1 AFL game for the year nonetheless in the Sydney game).

A 15% increase because of GWS now, despite the fact GWS have had to build from zero for such a fanbase (ie, there were more Kangaroos fans in 2006 in Canberra than there were GWS fans on day 1 of their first game in 2012) to me suggests a meaningful increase of people wanting to attend Canberra AFL games precisely because it being consistently a GWS Giants home game here is relevant, and the Giants have built that up over a period of time, and it's therefore incorrect to characterise GWS as not - at least to some extent - representing Canberra.

It's impossible to know how many AFL games you yourself would have attended since you moved to Canberra - it's a counterfactual in the hypothetical - if fewer 6 different teams played in Canberra for the year, a realistic hypothetical if GWS never made Canberra their second home. But I would have suggested it would have been fewer in total. But isntead in this reality, you do attend the GWS games, because you are motivated to do so, because you can attend and hope GWS win.

I wasn't in Canberra before the Giants, so I can't tell you, but my understanding was that North were gaining a bit of traction, too.

Declining crowds, or at least a lack of increasing crowds - in 2004-5-6 than 2001-2-3, once the Sydney away attendance factor is considered - would suggest otherwise.

 

[Canberra Pear]

all crowds were poor without Swans at Canberra in the past.

What constitutes a poor crowd for you?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What constitutes a poor crowd for you?

In a relative sense, 15% is fair enough here (when contrasting to a typical GWS crowd in a match since 2016ish in Canberra, with obvious Covid caveats).

I do think you have a fair point that 2025 crowds were slightly disappointing. I don't think my theory holds up if 2026 crowds fail to recover to 2024, and pre-covid, levels.

 

[Badger17]

One argument is that because there's been an increase in genuine actual passionate support for GWS among Canberrans

As a person who's actually on the ground in Canberra, and not the president of their fanclub as MelbourneGWS seems to be, this simply isn't the case.

Similar to as Canberra Pear has said before me, I don't know a single person who would claim GWS to be their favorite team even amongst people that are members of the club. I'm sure they exist, but I genuinely don't know a single one amongst the hundreds of people I know.

So yeah, that simply doesn't reflect the reality I'm seeing here on the ground no matter how much some of you would like it to be true.

I'd also add that the people who support GWS in some regard tend to be expats. It's such a significant disparity that it's hard to ignore. Basically Giant's members in Canberra are massively disproportionately expats from the Southern and Western states that are desperate for a footy fix, any footy fix, not genuine passionate GWS supporters.

Passion for GWS also wouldn't explain why there's been a pattern of increased attendances almost universally across the board either.

 

[Canberra Pear]

In a relative sense, 15% is fair enough here (when contrasting to a typical GWS crowd in a match since 2016ish in Canberra, with obvious Covid caveats).

That's a lot of maths involved. But Canberra had a few decent non-Sydney crowds.

I do think you have a fair point that 2025 crowds were slightly disappointing. I don't think my theory holds up if 2026 crowds fail to recover to 2024, and pre-covid, levels.

That's why Canberra's damned if we do, damned if we don't.

If we get good crowds, people shout how much we love the Giants, we couldn't possibly part from them. If we don't get good crowds, then it's because we're rugby territory and not capable of supporting a team.

But I don't expect 2024 levels with the draw they've given us this year.

 

[Badger17]

I wasn't in Canberra before the Giants, so I can't tell you, but my understanding was that North were gaining a bit of traction, too.

Norths filled the same niche that the Giants do now.

You used to see their merch and members stickers regularly, just like you do Giants stuff now. Despite that most people supported other teams like now. Then they left, and pretty much overnight that support dried up to nothing. In fact quite a few of the people I know that are Giants members now where Norths members back when they were in town.
The Norths members caps and scarfs went to Vinnies, GWS ones took their place in the wardrobe, and the framed Collingwood/Carlton/Geelong/Sydney/whoever gerunsey kept pride of place above the mantelpiece.

The only significant difference between Norths time in Canberra and the Giants is that Norths already had something of a fanbase here, unlike the Giants who were starting from scratch being a brand new expansion team and all.

The only people who find this hard to understand are the ones who can't imagine not having easy and convenient access to the AFL. There is no AFL team in Canberra, so you have to take what you can get, but that doesn't mean that GWS are a Canberran side anymore than Norths and the others were before them.

 

[Badger17]

Also, with all due respect, if the Giants are the reason Canberra is denied its own team, I expect your last sentence to play out in Canberra too.

That's already happening.

It's not as loud as in Tasmania, but there are plenty of people who are becoming increasingly unhappy with the arrangement with GWS.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

But the WA premier hasn't said anything. That's the point.

You diminished Canberra's chances because of lack of public government support, but don't do the same for WA, which has had far less.

To be fair, the WA Premier hasn’t needed to say too much at this stage. The WA Government’s investments indicate that they’re keen to bring more AFL content to WA and so far the AFL has been happy to oblige. Of course there are other justifications for these decisions, but the timing is curious.

* Upgrades to Hands Oval to make it AFL-ready.

* The deal with North Melbourne to bring additional games to Perth and Bunbury each season (reportedly worth about $2.5m per season for two games).

* The reported payment made by Tourism WA to secure the ‘26 State of Origin game in Perth and the subsequent proposal for Perth to host an expanded SoO carnival the next time that it’s held.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

To be fair, the WA Premier hasn’t needed to say too much at this stage. The WA Government’s investments indicate that they’re keen to bring more AFL content to WA and so far the AFL has been happy to oblige. Of course there are other justifications for these decisions, but the timing is curious.

* Upgrades to Hands Oval to make it AFL-ready.

* The deal with North Melbourne to bring additional games to Perth and Bunbury each season (reportedly worth about $2.5m per season for two games).

* The reported payment made by Tourism WA to secure the ‘26 State of Origin game in Perth and the subsequent proposal for Perth to host an expanded SoO carnival the next time that it’s held.

Of course, it's far easier to splash around a bit of cash here, host a major event there rather than do the legwork that would be required if there's ever a 3rd Perth team.

• Find which local council would support the building of a training/AFLW base, but be careful about not stepping on WCE/FRE's toes. Benefit if it's to represent a "growth" area but of minority importance because games will be at Optus anyway
• Wrangle the WAFC who clearly have a preference for only two teams
• Impact upon WA Government hosting events at the stadium other than footy during winter - how this imapcts Rugby Tests, State of Origin etc.
• Work with the AFL in terms of how this changes the AFL economy - fixturing impacts and its impact on media deal and revenue (ie more overlapping Friday night games for TV as you'd think you'd need more games in Perth, but these games are of little TV value broadcast late into the east), potential for teams to have to travel to Perth three times, do we treat Perth as a new whole office/market rather than everything defaulting to being Melbourne centric (major administration and media originating out of Perth) etc.

Lots to consider.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Of course, it's far easier to splash around a bit of cash here, host a major event there rather than do the legwork that would be required if there's ever a 3rd Perth team.

• Find which local council would support the building of a training/AFLW base, but be careful about not stepping on WCE/FRE's toes. Benefit if it's to represent a "growth" area but of minority importance because games will be at Optus anyway
• Wrangle the WAFC who clearly have a preference for only two teams
• Impact upon WA Government hosting events at the stadium other than footy during winter - how this imapcts Rugby Tests, State of Origin etc.
• Work with the AFL in terms of how this changes the AFL economy - fixturing impacts and its impact on media deal and revenue (ie more overlapping Friday night games for TV as you'd think you'd need more games in Perth, but these games are of little TV value broadcast late into the east), potential for teams to have to travel to Perth three times, do we treat Perth as a new whole office/market rather than everything defaulting to being Melbourne centric (major administration and media originating out of Perth) etc.

Lots to consider.

That’s true. However, what’s also true is that for the last three markets to secure an AFL license, the league has tested those markets by gradually ramping up the content (particularly in Western Sydney and Tasmania).

As of last year the WAFC changed their tone WRT a third club and they’re now willing to discuss it. They admitted there’s a lot of work to be done, although (unlike a few years ago) it now seems like something they’re willing to explore.

AFL expansion twist: ‘Territory Lightning’ target 20th license as WA opens door for third club

AFL expansion twist: New destination emerges for 20th team as state opens door to third club

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That’s true. However, what’s also true is that for the last three markets to secure an AFL license, the league has tested those markets by gradually ramping up the content (particularly in Western Sydney and Tasmania).

As of last year the WAFC changed their tone WRT a third club and they’re now willing to discuss it. They admitted there’s a lot of work to be done, although (unlike a few years ago) it now seems like something they’re willing to explore.

AFL expansion twist: ‘Territory Lightning’ target 20th license as WA opens door for third club

AFL expansion twist: New destination emerges for 20th team as state opens door to third club

www.foxsports.com.au

Yep. It speaks to the economic reality of:

a) there's simply not enough football content to serve Perth and therefore there's money that can be made with more "football content". Perth's population in 1997 was 1.4 million to Adelaide's 1.1 million. Now it's 2.4 million to 1.5 million. But in all four cases, only two teams were serving those markets, and Adelaide has Gather Round for its locals too these days (more football content opportunity). Perth is falling behind.

b) the AFL (and the WAFC, their interests are algined here) run the risk of footy being less popular in Perth than it is in Adelaide and Melbourne over the long term, with there just not being enough footy 'product' for Perth meaning people lose interest when they can't access that product. NRL Bears also a factor here. Especially as Perth is more removed from the neutral AFL game landscape than every other team, just by virtue of physical distance and time zone factors. Perth people don't engage with, e.g. Thursday night footy played at 4.40pm/5.40pm on a school/work night, for understandable reasons. Not only does Perthites not have the AFL to engage in, they can't even really get their footy fix by supporting or following the 16 other teams - time zones don't allow for it.

I also think that with TV money flatlining and the AFL not being able to rely on massive growth in the football economy from TV that it could rely on with the start of new TV deals in 2002/2007/ etc. to date, it will want to focus on sustaining the wider football economy's ability to make money by having more profitable teams. A 3rd Perth team will likely be very profitable, over the long term, as it can host two Derby games out of 11 home fixtures every year for starters and probably can breakeven with 9 other home games games (maybe only after selling 1-2 of them off to Bunbury)

I genuinely think it's inevitable that there'll be a 3rd Perth team over the long term, the numbers just suggest it.

 

[Purple Suit]

Yep. It speaks to the economic reality of:

a) there's simply not enough football content to serve Perth and therefore there's money that can be made with more "football content". Perth's population in 1997 was 1.4 million to Adelaide's 1.1 million. Now it's 2.4 million to 1.5 million. But in all four cases, only two teams were serving those markets, and Adelaide has Gather Round for its locals too these days (more football content opportunity). Perth is falling behind.

b) the AFL (and the WAFC, their interests are algined here) run the risk of footy being less popular in Perth than it is in Adelaide and Melbourne over the long term, with there just not being enough footy 'product' for Perth meaning people lose interest when they can't access that product. NRL Bears also a factor here. Especially as Perth is more removed from the neutral AFL game landscape than every other team, just by virtue of physical distance and time zone factors. Perth people don't engage with, e.g. Thursday night footy played at 4.40pm/5.40pm on a school/work night, for understandable reasons. Not only does Perthites not have the AFL to engage in, they can't even really get their footy fix by supporting or following the 16 other teams - time zones don't allow for it.

I also think that with TV money flatlining and the AFL not being able to rely on massive growth in the football economy from TV that it could rely on with the start of new TV deals in 2002/2007/ etc. to date, it will want to focus on sustaining the wider football economy's ability to make money by having more profitable teams. A 3rd Perth team will likely be very profitable, over the long term, as it can host two Derby games out of 11 home fixtures every year for starters and probably can breakeven with 9 other home games games (maybe only after selling 1-2 of them off to Bunbury)

I genuinely think it's inevitable that there'll be a 3rd Perth team over the long term, the numbers just suggest it.

Yep,
The more I see the AFL compromise the whole comp with opening round, the more I think WA3 will be the 20th team.

They have done it initially for Northern teams but got addicted to more Thursday night games which is possible with extra byes. 19th team means it’ll be easier to have Thursday night games through out the season for awhile and they drop OR which everyone hates.

Once we go to 10 games a weekend, where does the 10th game fit to maximise TV? Friday night double headers is the answer with the 2nd game in WA, Darwin or SA. WA games means less overlap, more exposure and easier Thursday night games juggling. Three teams makes more sense than two to help with the numbers.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yep,
The more I see the AFL compromise the whole comp with opening round, the more I think WA3 will be the 20th team.

They have done it initially for Northern teams but got addicted to more Thursday night games which is possible with extra byes. 19th team means it’ll be easier to have Thursday night games through out the season for awhile and they drop OR which everyone hates.

Once we go to 10 games a weekend, where does the 10th game fit to maximise TV? Friday night double headers is the answer with the 2nd game in WA, Darwin or SA. WA games means less overlap, more exposure and easier Thursday night games juggling. Three teams makes more sense than two to help with the numbers.

Bit of misnomer that there'll consistently be 10 games a round though, though it might be necessary in the early and late parts of the season with the Friday doubleheader you suggest.

Assuming teams play 23 games in a 25 week period (and no more Opening Round, 10 games that weekend)

5-6 weeks with 10 games (lets say Gather Round, first 2 weeks of the season, last 2-3 weeks of the season as we ramp into finals, so no team has got a bye final round, bye wildcard round, win qual, bye semi final round etc.)
9-10 weeks with 9 games (so no more than now).
6-8 weeks with 8 games.
No weeks with 6-7 games (as exists now).

The difference with 20 teams compared to 18 is more the consistency of having 8-9 games a week as opposed to the current occasional rounds with only 6-7, rather than lots of 10 game weeks.

 

[Purple Suit]

Bit of misnomer that there'll consistently be 10 games a round though, though it might be necessary in the early and late parts of the season with the Friday doubleheader you suggest.

Assuming teams play 23 games in a 25 week period (and no more Opening Round, 10 games that weekend)

5-6 weeks with 10 games (lets say Gather Round, first 2 weeks of the season, last 2-3 weeks of the season as we ramp into finals, so no team has got a bye final round, bye wildcard round, win qual, bye semi final round etc.)
9-10 weeks with 9 games (so no more than now).
6-8 weeks with 8 games.
No weeks with 6-7 games (as exists now).

The difference with 20 teams compared to 18 is more the consistency of having 8-9 games a week as opposed to the current occasional rounds with only 6-7, rather than lots of 10 game weeks.

If we ditch opening round and have 2 byes each, it’ll be 6 weeks max of not 10 games. Therefore 19 rounds of full schedule. They hopefully won’t spread them all out all over the place. I’m not including the wild round byes as that is now finals.

No opening round and 1 bye with a normal start is 24 rounds and 21 with 10 games once we go to 20 teams.

They need to go back to grouped byes and a fair competition. WA3 allows that to include more Thursday games.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If we ditch opening round and have 2 byes each, it’ll be 6 weeks max of not 10 games. Therefore 19 rounds of full schedule. They hopefully won’t spread them all out all over the place. I’m not including the wild round byes as that is now finals.

No opening round and 1 bye with a normal start is 24 rounds and 21 with 10 games once we go to 20 teams.

They need to go back to grouped byes and a fair competition. WA3 allows that to include more Thursday games.

There's not going to be entire weeks of no footy though. The AFL will want a Thursday or Friday night game on for each and every single one of the 25 weeks that they're playing footy in.

 

[Canberra Pear]

To be fair, the WA Premier hasn’t needed to say too much at this stage. The WA Government’s investments indicate that they’re keen to bring more AFL content to WA and so far the AFL has been happy to oblige. Of course there are other justifications for these decisions, but the timing is curious.

* Upgrades to Hands Oval to make it AFL-ready.

* The deal with North Melbourne to bring additional games to Perth and Bunbury each season (reportedly worth about $2.5m per season for two games).

* The reported payment made by Tourism WA to secure the ‘26 State of Origin game in Perth and the subsequent proposal for Perth to host an expanded SoO carnival the next time that it’s held.

I would say the timing is pretty easily explained in line with the WA clubs ramping up their complaints about travel and neglect.

The WA clubs went out with a “wish list” in March 2024 and then the North games were announced in November 2024.

WA clubs ramped up complaints mostly around travel, and North were already pushing for what turned out to be a pretty neat solution.

Could be two things at once, but that seems like the obvious answer to me.

If there's a third team, I think it'll be based in Perth, so I think the Hands Oval upgrade is irrelevant there. It's also still not fit for more than or two games a year.

 

[2 eazy]

Selfishly don't want a Canberra team as we will lose the Riverina but Canberra makes most sense how many new fans gain in 3rd Perth team

 

[Purple Suit]

There's not going to be entire weeks of no footy though. The AFL will want a Thursday or Friday night game on for each and every single one of the 25 weeks that they're playing footy in.

I never said there would be, my numbers are accurate with at least 6 games a round during the byes.

Selfishly don't want a Canberra team as we will lose the Riverina but Canberra makes most sense how many new fans gain in 3rd Perth team

Plenty as if you have no spare seats in WA every weekend you lose fans to other codes. A third WA team means more WA eye balls (3m population) on their games compared to an ACT one.

As the state grows, it outstrips any population gain in ACT by some margin.

Plus the Friday double header equation, less travel for WA teams, more money in WAFL development. I’m not sure on any downsides yet for the AFL.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Plenty as if you have no spare seats in WA every weekend you lose fans to other codes. A third WA team means more WA eye balls (3m population) on their games compared to an ACT one.

Plus have to consider scheduling elements.

People focus too much on "who will support the home team" and less on "what will the nature of this team's home games look like".

11 home games.

2 of them are Derbies.

2 of them taken down to Bunbury.

Of the remaining 7 home games, you try to schedule it can schedule it so bout 3 times a season, it'll host the only game on Perth for the week.

The for the remaining 4 home games a season, you try and schedule it so it being the lesser of the two home games in Perth that weekend is minimised. Ie it plays Collingwood on a Friday Night before Fremantle or WC host St Kilda on a Sunday evening. Guess which of the two will get greater interest from Perth people, sponsors and corporate support.

Yes, you can't fix the fixture every week and it's inevitable that Perth3 will have to host a GWS on a Sunday evening game that could see crowds drop like a stone. But people are acting like it's going to be like that once a month, or every single game. It's not. Dud fixtures like that will happen only 1-2 times a season.

 

[Purple Suit]

Plus have to consider scheduling elements.

People focus too much on "who will support the home team" and less on "what will the nature of this team's home games look like".

11 home games.

2 of them are Derbies.

2 of them taken down to Bunbury.

Of the remaining 7 home games, you try to schedule it can schedule it so bout 3 times a season, it'll host the only game on Perth for the week.

The for the remaining 4 home games a season, you try and schedule it so it being the lesser of the two home games in Perth that weekend is minimised. Ie it plays Collingwood on a Friday Night before Fremantle or WC host St Kilda on a Sunday evening. Guess which of the two will get greater interest from Perth people, sponsors and corporate support.

Yes, you can't fix the fixture every week and it's inevitable that Perth3 will have to host a GWS on a Sunday evening game that could see crowds drop like a stone. But people are acting like it's going to be like that once a month, or every single game. It's not. Dud fixtures like that will happen only 1-2 times a season.

Why will it see crowds drop like a stone? It'll get 25-30K+ to every game which would smash anything in any expansion markets and some of the lesser vic teams vs an interstate side.

You don't even need to go to Bunbury if you don't want, just play them in Perth.