Expansion 3rd Western Australian club

[Ned_Flanders]

Thats the same for me with Fremantle, only two reasons to go to Fremantle, Fishing and an emergency.

Wait!!! What about..... or.....yeah, I've got nuttin

 

[Ned_Flanders]

New York 23,876,155
Istanbul 15,029,231
London   14,187,146
Perth     2,059,484

Melbourne? It has 9 in one comp

 

[Johnny Bananas]

New York 23,876,155
Istanbul 15,029,231
London   14,187,146
Perth     2,059,484

Ice hockey is the fourth or fifth most popular sport in New York. They have two teams in football, basketball, baseball and soccer all competing with hockey. London and Istanbul do have more teams, as I said. And what does it matter what the population size is if existing teams are well supported? Australia is a very different beast to those countries.

 

[Righteo]

Melbourne? It has 9 in one comp

what is an outlier

 

[The_Reaper]

Melbourne? It has 9 in one comp

A historical legacy of how the league was developed more than anything.

So far the only argument for WA3 seems to be that Eagles fans need two teams to support because there are too many Eagles fans.

 

[The_Reaper]

Ice hockey is the fourth or fifth most popular sport in New York. They have two teams in football, basketball, baseball and soccer all competing with hockey. London and Istanbul do have more teams, as I said. And what does it matter what the population size is if existing teams are well supported? Australia is a very different beast to those countries.

There is no support base for WA3.
There is no potential market.

Which brings the other difference - in all the euro soccer leagues and in NHL - clubs pay for themselves. None of those teams in London, Istanbul and New York will have to be propped up by the rest of the competition.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Another mob?

I’d rather they just move Freo to New Zealand and stop pretending there is more than 1 team that matters in WA.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

There is no support base for WA3.
There is no potential market.

Which brings the other difference - in all the euro soccer leagues and in NHL - clubs pay for themselves. None of those teams in London, Istanbul and New York will have to be propped up by the rest of the competition.

I see, you've never heard of revenue sharing from broadcast deals, then?

 

[jatz14]

I see, you've never heard of revenue sharing from broadcast deals, then?

If you bring in new teams, and the deal doesn't go up (and with 1 team, it definitely wouldn't), then everybody is paying for the new club. The player deal will not change, so more players = more player payments. That means the amount left over for clubs + the AFL is less, yet you have more clubs. Either the AFL takes a haircut, or the clubs get less distributions, or the league runs at a loss (profits over the years wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of a club).

Its a start up club, without many supporters, it will need lots more money than most clubs, and for a long time.

Eddie would be happy to see Eagles paying for a new WA club, but Pies will pay for it as well, and that, he isnt going to be happy about.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If you bring in new teams, and the deal doesn't go up (and with 1 team, it definitely wouldn't), then everybody is paying for the new club.

You clearly don't understand the context. Tasmania will be the 19th team, this is a discussion about a potential 20th. There'd be a tenth game every week, no doubt.

The player deal will not change, so more players = more player payments.

Not if the AFL reduces the number of players in a game to 16 plus 3 subs, and consequently reduces list sizes to 40 across both the regular list and Category A rookies combined. That creates enough for two new teams without increasing the total number of players by any significant number.

Its a start up club, without many supporters, it will need lots more money than most clubs, and for a long time.

Yes, that's how all new clubs work (except West Coast and Adelaide since they had a whole heartland state to themselves). But you don't make money without investing money. I think it's worth considering due to the extra number of people at games, extra corporate support and consequently, the ability to firmly shut the door on both rugby codes gaining any serious traction in WA ever again.

 

[The_Reaper]

You clearly don't understand the context. Tasmania will be the 19th team, this is a discussion about a potential 20th. There'd be a tenth game every week, no doubt.


Not if the AFL reduces the number of players in a game to 16 plus 3 subs, and consequently reduces list sizes to 40 across both the regular list and Category A rookies combined. That creates enough for two new teams without increasing the total number of players by any significant number.


Yes, that's how all new clubs work (except West Coast and Adelaide since they had a whole heartland state to themselves). But you don't make money without investing money. I think it's worth considering due to the extra number of people at games, extra corporate support and consequently, the ability to firmly shut the door on both rugby codes gaining any serious traction in WA ever again.

What extra support?

The only potential support base for this team is apparently eagles supporters who really want to go to a game every week but can't get an eagle ticket.

This Joondalup idea you are desperate to push is about as realistic either rugby code becoming relevant to Western Australians who weren't born in New Zealand or South Africa.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This Joondalup idea you are desperate to push is about as realistic either rugby code becoming relevant to Western Australians who weren't born in New Zealand or South Africa.

Desperate? Don't be daft, it's just a suggestion, sorry if it annoys you. You do know WA has produced rugby players from both codes, right? The NRL has been eyeing up Perth for some time now, perhaps the market isn't as tapped out as you may think.

 

[Rob]

Desperate? Don't be daft, it's just a suggestion, sorry if it annoys you. You do know WA has produced rugby players from both codes, right? The NRL has been eyeing up Perth for some time now, perhaps the market isn't as tapped out as you may think.

I can't see a 3rd team making any difference whatsoever to the success of either rugby code in WA.

If the AFL want to run with this idea, other sports should have zero influence over whether it goes ahead.

 

[telsor]

A historical legacy of how the league was developed more than anything.

Partly that, partly recognition that half the support for the comp is in that area.

In terms of support, NSW & QLD are over represented, WA & SA under represented, but Vic is pretty much spot on.

 

[AuntyBlindEye]

Would like to see a NT or tassie team before we see another club in a state that already has teams.

Not against it though, WA is a good footy state and the more teams the merrier for me.

Would like to move on from two state teams, add a bit more diversity and choice to the roster of clubs.

 

[telsor]

What extra support?

The only potential support base for this team is apparently eagles supporters who really want to go to a game every week but can't get an eagle ticket.

This Joondalup idea you are desperate to push is about as realistic either rugby code becoming relevant to Western Australians who weren't born in New Zealand or South Africa.

As I've said before, the best way to make a 3rd WA team viable would be to split WCE in two (or three) in such a way as you'd get a roughly even split of fans.


While I think 3 (or 4) teams in WA would be a good move, I can't really see that happening.

 

[Professor Knowall]

While having a third WA club sounds good in theory, at least from a distance (based on Perth's population and economy), what strikes me most in this thread is that nearly all WA posters are opposed to it. The almost complete lack of support from Perth locals tells me that it probably isn't such a good idea in practice.

 

[TWLS]

While having a third WA club sounds good in theory, at least from a distance (based on Perth's population and economy), what strikes me most in this thread is that nearly all WA posters are opposed to it. The almost complete la k of support from Perth locals tells me that it probably isn't such a good idea in practice.

Very well summed up.

 

[Rob]

While having a third WA club sounds good in theory, at least from a distance (based on Perth's population and economy), what strikes me most in this thread is that nearly all WA posters are opposed to it. The almost complete lack of support from Perth locals tells me that it probably isn't such a good idea in practice.

TBH, I reckon if it was something that people thought would get a bit of traction most Perth locals would be in favour of it.

It's just that there isn't an obvious gap in the market where you could put a team that's capable of doing that.

 

[jatz14]

As I've said before, the best way to make a 3rd WA team viable would be to split WCE in two (or three) in such a way as you'd get a roughly even split of fans.


While I think 3 (or 4) teams in WA would be a good move, I can't really see that happening.

There are people going to Eagles games now whos parents were born after the Eagles were founded. Victorians might (seem to?) assume that because a club like Collingwood is much older, that its fans care more, are more likely to fight for, or be upset by, AFL doing things to their club. However, a person following a club passionately, would not be more passionate, just because their great uncle also supported that club.

The Eagles are as big as Collingwood, and have fans just as passionate as Collingwood fans, but the Eagles in the Perth market are WAAAAY bigger than Collingwood is in the Melbourne market. It would not be far off to say 1 in every 2 people in WA that follow AFL follow the Eagles.

So imagine a future scenario were to arise, where some bigwigs in AFL house decided it would be in the interest of football for Collingwood to be split into 2 new clubs. What would happen?

Now double or triple that, and that is what happens in Perth if someone from the AFL were to float the idea of splitting the Eagles. Perth would go ******* ballistic. It would be the biggest cluster******* s**t show in Australian sports history by a mile.

If the AFL wanted to perform one act that would cause the greatest number of fans to tell them to take their league and shove it up their arse, and embroil the AFL in law suites and s**t for a decade, that would be it.

It is NEVER happening.

Without it happening, a third team is next to impossible.

Therefore, a third team is next to impossible.

 

[The_Wookie]

As I've said before, the best way to make a 3rd WA team viable would be to split WCE in two (or three) in such a way as you'd get a roughly even split of fans.


While I think 3 (or 4) teams in WA would be a good move, I can't really see that happening.

Even if the WAFC agreed to splitting the team - and I dont see that happening - Im not sure this gets you your desired result. What exactly are you wanting them to split? Their members and supporters will go where they want - or leave the game altogether - and thats not something the league can control. Splitting the playing and coaching lists? What about administration staff? Financial assets?

This is easily the most ridiculous suggestion Ive seen in a while.

The only way WA gets another team is if the AFL parachutes one in. And that wont happen while the WAFC hold the West Coast and Freo licenses.

 

[Royalbeagle]

Best option is a Northern Australia team. The Crocs.

 

[telsor]

Even if the WAFC agreed to splitting the team - and I dont see that happening - Im not sure this gets you your desired result. What exactly are you wanting them to split? Their members and supporters will go where they want - or leave the game altogether - and thats not something the league can control. Splitting the playing and coaching lists? What about administration staff? Financial assets?

This is easily the most ridiculous suggestion Ive seen in a while.

The only way WA gets another team is if the AFL parachutes one in. And that wont happen while the WAFC hold the West Coast and Freo licenses.

It wasn't a genuine suggestion, it was merely a comment on how to make a viable 3rd club when there fanbase is already entrenched. Note the bit about how I didn't see it happening...There is no way anyone involved would agree to this...A near impossibility...but then extracting enough fans to make a viable 3rd team wouldn't be much easier.

 

[madmug]

The AFL know how to build teams.

Just throw enough money at it & wait for 'generational change'.

WA3 & Tas1. You know it makes sense.

 

[jatz14]

The AFL know how to build teams.

Just throw enough money at it & wait for 'generational change'.

WA3 & Tas1. You know it makes sense.

Silly as it seems, its the only way it can be done. Another team in Sydney, it will take decades for it to gather enough support to stand on its own feet. So its either throw money at it and wait, or dont expand. There is no door number 3.