A Third Team In Sydney - It's Only a Matter Of Time !!

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,272
Likes
7,820
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
1986 draft was SA, Tas & some parts of Country Victoria, and was purely for the rights to those players, not to actually get them to play. Not really comparable to current drafts.



1986 was also when Tas made an abortive attempt at a statewide league...and screwed it up, all without any VFL/AFL interference. Having Commissioned the Ewers report, they largely ignored it to form a 'state' league that was really just an expanded Hobart league with a few others added in. (you know the same thing everyone whinges and bitches about Vics doing...they did exactly the same when put in a similar state...except they ****** it up).



Are the feds going to pay for it? If not, then they don't really get a say.



Every year that passes they get further and further off the pace, because of the REAL problem down there...a stagnant and aging population. While the rest of the country is growing, there are fewer and fewer football aged kids down there every year, meaning fewer quality players (both in relative and absolute terms) and an economy that would struggle to support a team.

If the numbers stood up (population or financial), why do others sports keep ignoring Tas when expansion opportunities arise?

But hey, lets ignore the facts and just spout hyperbole in the hope that nobody notices, right? After all, that's the basis of all Tas team arguments.
Starting the SWL was the attempt to play the best against the best. To present a stronger face for Tassie footy. All admirable aims. 1986 wasn't an 'abortive' attempt. It happened. You should at least try & get some facts into your diatribe.

The 'stuffing it up' as you call it wasn't apparent for the first few years. Indeed the league attracted some AFL experienced coaches & attracted good attendances to games. It was things like the formation & growing force & effect of the AFL as the professional arm of Aussie rules. It took over media attention, more faces watching tv.

That combined with things like the 1990 recession which affected some clubs, the entrance of the Tassie Mariner u18s which attracted media attention & thus public attention away from the TSL. Also the continual changes to the league with clubs coming in & going out.

So when you say 'stuff it up', anyone can have a cheap shot. Actually understanding the times & the effects of the AFL & other social changes will show how things evolved to where they are now. Really when looking at other state leagues, a lot of them aren't much better off. The get supported much more than the TSL ever did. The VFL wouldn't exist but for the AFL, also the NEAFL. It costs a fortune to support.

The population isn't stagnant. It is aging. The Australian population is aging. We still have many young leaving for job opportunities at the bigger companies in Syd/Mel. Their is a flow back, of older people. Again, looking at the facts & not generalising would be better.

But hey, lets just sprout what ever suits your bias.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
15,932
Likes
5,010
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Sorry mate, but I've been a member for over a quarter of a century, and contributed thousands a year in direct contributions to the club

How am I a bandwagoner?
Having a shot at the idea West Coast is too big & should be sliced up - if West Coast why not the Tiges & got rid of them at the same time, gawn.

Bandwagoner 74 no, you are way too crazy, 25 years +..... onya !! Stood next to my Dad when Subi won its first flag in 49 years, he was 55, the party rolled on as long as the Tiges, fabulous memory.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,760
Likes
25,898
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Having a shot at the idea West Coast is too big & should be sliced up - if West Coast why not the Tiges & got rid of them at the same time, gawn.

Bandwagoner 74 no, you are way too crazy, 25 years +..... onya !! Stood next to my Dad when Subi won its first flag in 49 years, he was 55, the party rolled on as long as the Tiges, fabulous memory.
I wasn't saying west coast were too big.

I was responding to the idea that WA couldn't have a 3rd (or 4th) team because the fans were already committed to their team, and the easiest solution to that is to break up said team.

Think of the benefits to WA.
More games would mean an economic boost, more fans getting to see their team live, less travel for WA teams, more money going into grassroots football (as the WAFC would get to skim more off more clubs).
 

jatz14

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Posts
5,334
Likes
5,240
Location
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
I wasn't saying west coast were too big.

I was responding to the idea that WA couldn't have a 3rd (or 4th) team because the fans were already committed to their team, and the easiest solution to that is to break up said team.

Think of the benefits to WA.
More games would mean an economic boost, more fans getting to see their team live, less travel for WA teams, more money going into grassroots football (as the WAFC would get to skim more off more clubs).
Your replacing one big successful heavily supported club with 2 new unsuccessful unsupported clubs. Your going to have a big job spinning how that benefits anyone.

I could argue its more logical to axe the 2 smallest Vic clubs, and split Richmond down the middle. Takes the over supplied Vic market, reduces the oversupply by one team. Takes 2 small clubs and 1 big club, creates 2 medium clubs with ample room to grow. Add in the support of the 2 axed clubs (I am sure they would jump on board), you get 2 clubs both considerable bigger than the axed clubs, and both well over half the size of Richmond. Creates room for a Tas team.

Now that is a win/win, with the added bonus, we lose Richmond supporters, now everybody is on board with that.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,272
Likes
7,820
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Your replacing one big successful heavily supported club with 2 new unsuccessful unsupported clubs. Your going to have a big job spinning how that benefits anyone.

I could argue its more logical to axe the 2 smallest Vic clubs, and split Richmond down the middle. Takes the over supplied Vic market, reduces the oversupply by one team. Takes 2 small clubs and 1 big club, creates 2 medium clubs with ample room to grow. Add in the support of the 2 axed clubs (I am sure they would jump on board), you get 2 clubs both considerable bigger than the axed clubs, and both well over half the size of Richmond. Creates room for a Tas team.

Now that is a win/win, with the added bonus, we lose Richmond supporters, now everybody is on board with that.
Instead of somehow thinking one could split clubs, just look at a WA3. Its that simple. Surely if it were called say, the Perth Sharks, it would attract attention & support from across the large footy market in WA/Perth. We have only 2 clubs in a market of over 2mill people. A much BigFooty market than Sydney or SEQ.

Yes Melbourne is over serviced with National level clubs. But thats the politics of the AFL. They should have sorted that before expanding to GWS & GC.
 

flamingEMBERS

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Posts
8,707
Likes
6,850
AFL Club
West Coast
Just not sure the talent pool is there for a 19th & 20th team yet. Getting the talent pool larger, which comes from greater participation in NSW and QLD and then we can get 19th and 20th teams.

Unless some of these clubs that keep getting propped up fold or relocate.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,272
Likes
7,820
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Just not sure the talent pool is there for a 19th & 20th team yet. Getting the talent pool larger, which comes from greater participation in NSW and QLD and then we can get 19th and 20th teams.

Unless some of these clubs that keep getting propped up fold or relocate.
The 'talent' pool is never large enough. Their are never enough super stars or even 'good' players about. Just read most club comments on BF.

You can pump as much money as you like into all 'markets' & spend as much on expansions as you like, but you will never satisfy the meat market for players.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Posts
1,300
Likes
725
AFL Club
GWS
3rd AFL TEAM in Sydney will only happen when AFL is clearly the number one participant and spectator sport in NSW [Virtually no chance of AFL being no.1 in next 30 years]
... if Tassie comes in its better to have 20 teams.[Most agree -but who will be 20th team?]
It is the basic premise of most long term successful businesses, that if the business has a very successful & profitable product or service, it is imperative the business invests for future growth in areas it currently has only a minor/nil presence. Market share growth is the goal of all successful businesses.
Not only does this strategy ultimately lead to FAR bigger profits, the expansion also acts as a bulwark to protect the business' current, profitable stronghold. If the business does not strategically expand into new areas, other successful businesses (who are also becoming bigger/ more profitable, if left unchallenged) in those areas can expand/invest into your area -& thus threaten your future profits and success.

It was very wise for S. Myer & G. Coles to expand into new areas from their initial, small retail stores in Bendigo & Collingwood over 100 years ago! Many similar business examples abound -expand when one has clear advantages (& adopt suitable KPI's) .
Other sports have not concealed their ambitions to topple AF from its preeminent position in Aust. sport. Aust. is the most competitive sports' market in the world -if a sport is not growing here, it risks ultimately losing significant market share to its competitors.


This article refers to 118 y.o. West Harbour RU Club (elite Shute Shield , based at the 20,000 capacity, dual grandstand, inner west Concord Oval) -"no under 17's and under 16's...close to going under".
It states "... the AFL competing harder than ever in Sydney's west, was having an impact on playing (RU -my words) numbers...You see it with the AFL...they are always out in the greater western area with the schools".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-...in-risk-of-going-under/10182618?section=sport

The Australian game (once GWS regularly gets close to sell out crowds - in c. 10 yrs?) must add a 3rd team in Sydney's South/SW (combined with ACT), & capitalise on its advantages...& the problems of its rival codes. The AFL should revert to 2 only on the bench -to prevent skill dilution across a 20 team comp.
 
Last edited:

speedpeck23

All Australian
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Posts
834
Likes
197
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It is the basic premise of most long term successful businesses, that if the business has a very successful & profitable product or service, it is imperative the business invests for future growth in areas it currently has only a minor/nil presence. Market share growth is the goal of all successful businesses.
Not only does this strategy ultimately lead to FAR bigger profits, the expansion also acts as a bulwark to protect the business' current, profitable stronghold. If the business does not strategically expand into new areas, other successful businesses (who are also becoming bigger/ more profitable, if left unchallenged) in those areas can expand/invest into your area -& thus threaten your future profits and success.

It was very wise for S. Myer & G. Coles to expand into new areas from their initial, small retail stores in Bendigo & Collingwood over 100 years ago! Many similar business examples abound -expand when one has clear advantages (& adopt suitable KPI's) .
Other sports have not concealed their ambitions to topple AF from its preeminent position in Aust. sport. Aust. is the most competitive sports' market in the world -if a sport is not growing here, it risks ultimately losing significant market share to its competitors.


This article refers to 118 y.o. West Harbour RU Club (elite Shute Shield , based at the 20,000 capacity, dual grandstand, inner west Concord Oval) -"no under 17's and under 16's...close to going under".
It states "... the AFL competing harder than ever in Sydney's west, was having an impact on playing (RU -my words) numbers...You see it with the AFL...they are always out in the greater western area with the schools".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-...in-risk-of-going-under/10182618?section=sport

The Australian game (once GWS regularly gets close to sell out crowds - in c. 10 yrs?) must add a 3rd team in Sydney's South/SW (combined with ACT), & capitalise on its advantages...& the problems of its rival codes. The AFL should revert to 2 only on the bench -to prevent skill dilution across a 20 team comp.
Fair enough for a 100% commercial business. Not sure that is really totally applicable to a sporting competition. You presumably see the AFL modus operandi should be to commercially dominate all other sports. Your final paragraph is the complete antithesis of what sport is about. The AFL as an organisation is deemed not for profit by the ATO...clearly they inevitably are obligated to try to operate within such a framework. You could certainly argue that there are times that this is conjectural.

The question then becomes more philosophical. The basis of a not for profit organisation is to be a nett contributor to the community they serve. I would argue that the AFL can far better justify their existence and a maximise real growth by structuring the game to serve the wider Australian community.

There are currently two significant (though relatively small) population groups within Australia which, by the absence of having an AFL team to truly represent them, do not receive the same level of benefits neither socially nor commercially as other regions of Australia One is a traditional heartland of Australian Rules, the other is a community significantly disenfranchised culturally from the rest of Australia yet they have made a significant and essential contribution to the game which otherwise could not truly be considered "The Australian game ".

If each of these teams had an AFL team to truly represent them the AFL would far exceed the profile of a commercial business.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
27,011
Likes
12,463
Location
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Fair enough for a 100% commercial business. Not sure that is really totally applicable to a sporting competition. You presumably see the AFL modus operandi should be to commercially dominate all other sports. Your final paragraph is the complete antithesis of what sport is about. The AFL as an organisation is deemed not for profit by the ATO...clearly they inevitably are obligated to try to operate within such a framework. You could certainly argue that there are times that this is conjectural.

The question then becomes more philosophical. The basis of a not for profit organisation is to be a nett contributor to the community they serve. I would argue that the AFL can far better justify their existence and a maximise real growth by structuring the game to serve the wider Australian community.

There are currently two significant (though relatively small) population groups within Australia which, by the absence of having an AFL team to truly represent them, do not receive the same level of benefits neither socially nor commercially as other regions of Australia One is a traditional heartland of Australian Rules, the other is a community significantly disenfranchised culturally from the rest of Australia yet they have made a significant and essential contribution to the game which otherwise could not truly be considered "The Australian game ".

If each of these teams had an AFL team to truly represent them the AFL would far exceed the profile of a commercial business.
I think you misunderstand what a "not for profit" organisation actually is.

In any case, it's pretty clear that the AFL do a lot of things that aren't to try and make money. Starting up GWS and the Suns for one. You'd have to have the IQ of a turnip if you think they set up either of those teams for money.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
52,303
Likes
65,226
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
I think you misunderstand what a "not for profit" organisation actually is.

In any case, it's pretty clear that the AFL do a lot of things that aren't to try and make money. Starting up GWS and the Suns for one. You'd have to have the IQ of a turnip if you think they set up either of those teams for money.
Whilst those 2 teams dont make money and are heavily subsidized, the 2 expansion teams were about more eyeballs and extra TV rights $$$. Sydney is the most expensive advertising market in Oz. Last time I got some decent figures about 6 or 7 years ago Sydney ad rates were 30% more than Melbourne ad rates. GWS get 100k-150k watching their games that's another Adelaide or Perth TV market/advertising $$ coming in for the broadcasters, which flows through to the AFL. It also opens it up for more 2 Vic team games which means more advertising $$$ flowing through.

The AFL always have their eye on the $$$ flowing in, in the long run.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
27,011
Likes
12,463
Location
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Whilst those 2 teams dont make money and are heavily subsidized, the 2 expansion teams were about more eyeballs and extra TV rights $$$. Sydney is the most expensive advertising market in Oz. Last time I got some decent figures about 6 or 7 years ago Sydney ad rates were 30% more than Melbourne ad rates. GWS get 100k-150k watching their games that's another Adelaide or Perth TV market/advertising $$ coming in for the broadcasters, which flows through to the AFL. It also opens it up for more 2 Vic team games which means more advertising $$$ flowing through.

The AFL always have their eye on the $$$ flowing in, in the long run.
You're half right - it's about eyeballs. People. Supporters. Barrackers. Members.

The AFL didn't go to West Sydney because of the advertising market. They did it for the people. The reasoning as to why there isn't a team in Hobart or Darwin is pretty much the same.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Posts
1,087
Likes
684
AFL Club
Melbourne
Whilst those 2 teams dont make money and are heavily subsidized, the 2 expansion teams were about more eyeballs and extra TV rights $$$. Sydney is the most expensive advertising market in Oz. Last time I got some decent figures about 6 or 7 years ago Sydney ad rates were 30% more than Melbourne ad rates. GWS get 100k-150k watching their games that's another Adelaide or Perth TV market/advertising $$ coming in for the broadcasters, which flows through to the AFL. It also opens it up for more 2 Vic team games which means more advertising $$$ flowing through.

The AFL always have their eye on the $$$ flowing in, in the long run.
Correct. The AFL never do something for nothing. They think long term. They think money.
They didn't put teams in Western Sydney and on the Gold Coast for the AFL fans there, they put them as a long term view of increasing their bank balance.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Posts
1,300
Likes
725
AFL Club
GWS
You presumably see the AFL modus operandi should be to commercially dominate all other sports.[ALL sports would like to commercially dominate all their fierce competitors!] Your final paragraph is the complete antithesis of what sport is about.[?]
I would argue that the AFL can far better justify their existence [?] and maximise real growth by structuring[?] the game to serve the wider[?] Australian community. [9,000,000+ people in Sydney, ACT, Illawarra, sthn. NSW by 2050 is very "wide". 2 AFL teams certainly not enough!]
There are currently two significant (though relatively small) population groups within Australia which, by the absence of having an AFL team to truly represent them, do not receive the same level of benefits neither socially nor commercially as other regions of Australia [Who?]
I assume you are advocating for the NT to be the 19th or 20th team AFL team in the next 10-20 years. I disagree -for reasons enunciated in my post #758 above.

The NT is already an AF heartland, but has only c.250,000 population, & has produced FAR less VFL/AFL recruits, & much smaller crowds, cf. phenomenal Tas.

Tas. has beaten Vic.(without injured Baldock playing), WA, & SA. It has produced MANY champions, including Laurie Nash, who first played senior AF there. Many historians consider Nash, who kicked 18 goals against SA in one match, the greatest player of all time. Nash is the only player in history who regularly took sideways (arm outstretched at 90 degrees) hangers; & only player who kicked torpedoes with both feet.

Also, a dry season oval would have to be heavily watered prior to a game, due to the severe hardness of NT grounds in the dry season. This would make the oval & ball slippery -not ideal for high skilled, show piece AFL games; & possibly dangerous for players. This is the reason the NTFL is played in the Oct. - March wet season.
I am aware the Cairns AF comp. is played now in the dry season -does their climate allow a safer playing surface, cf. Darwin?

Costs of travel to/from Darwin & accomodation etc. are expensive, cf. other capital city locations. This applies to visiting fans, as well as Club staff. Traveling NT fans (& therefore total NT crowds) would be small -certainly less than the expected c. 20,000 Tas. home crowds.

It costs c.$40,000,000 to run an AFL Club. As an heartland state, the AFL would be expect NT to be financially self sufficient: very unlikely, so would require permanent & excessive AFL subsidies, cf other heartland teams. The AFL would baulk. (see ABC article below).

Games could only be played at night, due to dry season hot day temperatures, c. 30 degrees. This lack of scheduling flexibility is a drawback, as it would compete with other big games -so its ratings would be relatively small (unless it was sole night game).

The NT does not have 12 Senators. nor 5 House of Reps. seats that Tas. has -very important, if the AFL one day (which it will!) wants some Federal Govt. "favours".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-...itory-have-an-afl-team/10253210?section=sport
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
52,303
Likes
65,226
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
You're half right - it's about eyeballs. People. Supporters. Barrackers. Members.

The AFL didn't go to West Sydney because of the advertising market. They did it for the people. The reasoning as to why there isn't a team in Hobart or Darwin is pretty much the same.
People = eyeballs = watch on TV =TV rights $$$ via advertising + corporate $$$ in western sydney. Those 2 areas are the biggest revenue streams for the AFL.

2 million people in the 14 councils that make up western Sydney with no great passion for the game, the AFL isn't doing this for altruistic reasons. Longer run its about taping into a bigger talent pool of young men who might be good enough to play at AFL level.

If the AFL wanted to be altruistic they would have put a team in Tassie.

How many GWS and GC fans turn up to a game in Melbourne? 200? If a Tassie team came in, there would regularly be 5k - 10k ex Tasmanians living in Melbourne going to support a Tassie team in the early days and when they are travelling well, to support them as their 2nd team and when they are not playing their 1st team, going to watch them in Melbourne.

I suspect the AFL has never looked at this part of the equation because stadium yield for a Vic team playing a non Vic team hasn't been a concern for the AFL until recently when they purchased Docklands, which is well after the 2 expansion teams came into the comp. Its been a club concern not an AFL concern.
 

speedpeck23

All Australian
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Posts
834
Likes
197
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I think you misunderstand what a "not for profit" organisation actually is.

In any case, it's pretty clear that the AFL do a lot of things that aren't to try and make money. Starting up GWS and the Suns for one. You'd have to have the IQ of a turnip if you think they set up either of those teams for money.
GWS and Suns were set up primarily to expand the game of AFL into NSW and Qld. I understand the AFL is a not for profit organisation.
 

speedpeck23

All Australian
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Posts
834
Likes
197
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I assume you are advocating for the NT to be the 19th or 20th team AFL team in the next 10-20 years. I disagree -for reasons enunciated in my post #758 above.

The NT is already an AF heartland, but has only c.250,000 population, & has produced FAR less VFL/AFL recruits, & much smaller crowds, cf. phenomenal Tas.

Tas. has beaten Vic.(without injured Baldock playing), WA, & SA. It has produced MANY champions, including Laurie Nash, who first played senior AF there. Many historians consider Nash, who kicked 18 goals against SA, the greatest player of all time. Nash is the only player in history who regularly took sideways (arm at 90 degrees) hangers, & kicked torpedoes with both feet.

Also, a dry season oval would have to be heavily watered prior to a game, due to the severe hardness of NT grounds in the dry season. This would make the oval & ball slippery -not ideal for high skilled, show piece AFL games; & possibly dangerous for players. This is the reason the NTFL is played in the Oct. - March wet season.
I am aware the Cairns AF comp. is played now in the dry season -does their climate allow a safer playing surface, cf. Darwin?

Costs of travel to/from Darwin & accomodation etc. are expensive, cf. other capital city locations. This applies to visiting fans, as well as Club staff. Visiting NT away/to fans to NT (& therefore total crowds) would be small -certainly less than the expected c. 20,000 crowds a Tas. team could expect in Tas.

It costs c.$40,000,000 to run an AFL Club. As an heartland state, the AFL would be expect NT to be financially self sufficient: very unlikely, so would require permanent & excessive AFL subsidies, cf other heartland teams. The AFL would baulk. (see ABC article below).

Games could only be played at night, due to dry season day temperatures being 30 degrees, or more. This lack of scheduling flexibility is a drawback. It would be in competition with other big games (which are usually played at night) -so its ratings would be relatively small.

The NT does not have 12 Senators nor 5 House of Reps. seats that Tas. has -very important, if the AFL one day (which it will!) wants some Federal Govt. "favours".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-...itory-have-an-afl-team/10253210?section=sport
A previous poster mentioned the word... Altruism.. the AFL should try that....
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
27,011
Likes
12,463
Location
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
People = eyeballs = watch on TV =TV rights $$$ via advertising + corporate $$$ in western sydney. Those 2 areas are the biggest revenue streams for the AFL.

2 million people in the 14 councils that make up western Sydney with no great passion for the game, the AFL isn't doing this for altruistic reasons. Longer run its about taping into a bigger talent pool of young men who might be good enough to play at AFL level.
Altruistic? They're not a charity. They exist to promote the game of Australian football. That's the whole point of GWS and GC. You might disagree with the way they're going about it, but you can't seriously deny the motivation. They're forking out around $20 million to each team each year, and barely getting half that back in TV rights for the extra game. If that. If the motivation was money then it would be the dumbest investment of all time. But the AFL are prepared to spend that money to try and attract more supporters.

If the AFL wanted to be altruistic they would have put a team in Tassie.

How many GWS and GC fans turn up to a game in Melbourne? 200? If a Tassie team came in, there would regularly be 5k - 10k ex Tasmanians living in Melbourne going to support a Tassie team in the early days and when they are travelling well, to support them as their 2nd team and when they are not playing their 1st team, going to watch them in Melbourne.

I suspect the AFL has never looked at this part of the equation because stadium yield for a Vic team playing a non Vic team hasn't been a concern for the AFL until recently when they purchased Docklands, which is well after the 2 expansion teams came into the comp. Its been a club concern not an AFL concern.
Despite the fact that I think your estimations of Tassie away support is grossly optimistic, it still remains that these people are already football supporters. They almost certainly have a team already and are likely to go to games, especially if they reside in Melbourne.

I'm not saying that because i'm opposed to a Tassie team, but I can see why the AFL are gunshy about it. They'd need to be convinced that they wouldn't need additional assistance to survive, and I seriously doubt they are of that mindset.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Posts
1,300
Likes
725
AFL Club
GWS
... the 2 expansion teams were about more eyeballs and extra TV rights $$$. Sydney is the most expensive advertising market in Oz. Last time I got some decent figures about 6 or 7 years ago Sydney ad rates were 30% more[Very interesting] than Melbourne ad rates. GWS get 100k-150k watching their games that's another Adelaide or Perth TV market/advertising $$ coming in for the broadcasters, which flows through to the AFL. It also opens it up for more 2 Vic team games which means more advertising $$$ flowing through.
I never knew that "...Sydney ad rates were 30% more than Melbourne ad rates". This is also another powerful argument to eventually add a 3rd AFL team to sthn./SW Sydney, when GWS is regularly getting sell out crowds.
Is this because, in addition to having a slightly higher pop. than Melb., the median wage in Sydney is higher than Melb.?

Melb. now has c.5,000,000 to Sydney's pop. of c.5,200,000. Do you think the 30% margin has shrunk in 2018?

Melb., according to the ABS, could overtake Syd.'s pop. after 2030 -how would this affect the ad rates?

Canberra has the highest median wage in Aust. How does its ad rates compare to Syd. & Melb.?

The Melb. Age yesterday said "... the average age of an ABC TV viewer, according to research unveiled at an industry conference in 2016, was 66 (SBS was 61; Seven, 52; Nine, 52; Ten, 46). Radio suffers from much the same affliction- a declining share and an ageing audience".
What are the implications of this for future Rights deals?
 
Last edited:

Our Game

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Posts
1,706
Likes
997
Location
Sandringham
AFL Club
Geelong
That is the main reason the Suns and GWS were set up not just for extra TV ratings

The AFL always wants bums on seats and that is the area where it kills all the other codes.

Even GWS in a hostile area with a lot of haters is slowing building up crowds and GC when they are winning get as good as any other sport on the GC.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
2,304
Likes
683
Location
Wimmera
AFL Club
Collingwood
The other major reason is to assist in boosting participation rates in both areas - and there has been significant participation rate increases (including actual club based competition, not just Auskick) in both areas.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Posts
1,300
Likes
725
AFL Club
GWS
This article provides the hitherto unreleased information about 2018 ACT jnr. AF participation increases.
Part of the ACT "...has seen a 10% increase in growth across seven clubs in Auskick and junior football participants". I suspect this ACT area referred to covers half of the total ACT area.

A 10% pa growth rate is excellent -if it continues every year from the 1st year, it will result in a doubling of nos. in the 7th year ( cf. the first year -compounding return).

http://aflnswact.com.au/dwyer-emerging-leader/
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Posts
27,676
Likes
19,967
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
I wasn't saying west coast were too big.

I was responding to the idea that WA couldn't have a 3rd (or 4th) team because the fans were already committed to their team, and the easiest solution to that is to break up said team.

Think of the benefits to WA.
More games would mean an economic boost, more fans getting to see their team live, less travel for WA teams, more money going into grassroots football (as the WAFC would get to skim more off more clubs).
The best thing for WA footy would be to break the yoke of the AFL.

Alas, not yet an option. Perhaps not ever, if the AFL doesn't make a mistake big enough to cause its own demise.
 
Top Bottom