Expansion Canberra

[Canberra Pear]

Fair point. I too had read the city news article, and had thought that the ACT government will not be initiating any Canberra bids, and without this government pressure and lobbying, it would be hard to get the AFL to give us a Canberra based AFL team. Like many AFL fans in Canberra, just (impatiently!) awaiting the details of the new GWS-ACT government deal…

I don't think Team 20 will need anywhere as much lobbying as Team 19.

The AFL will be seeking a Team 20, it wasn't seeking a Team 19.

Teams 17 and 18 were not from bids. With the exclusion of Tasmania forcing their hand, the AFL doesn't seem to do 21st century expansion by bids, but rather their long-term strategy of where they want teams. A bit opposite to the NRL.

Where that long-term strategy lies is anyone's guess, but I think with our population, economy, fandom, and ability to open up a new market, that'd put Canberra in the box seat, with WA3 second. I can't see the NT's bid seriously being entertained.

But most of all, yes! Hurry up GWS and announce the bloody terms of the extension!

 

[Badger17]

I don't think Team 20 will need anywhere as much lobbying as Team 19.

The AFL will be seeking a Team 20, it wasn't seeking a Team 19.

Teams 17 and 18 were not from bids. With the exclusion of Tasmania forcing their hand, the AFL doesn't seem to do 21st century expansion by bids, but rather their long-term strategy of where they want teams. A bit opposite to the NRL.

Where that long-term strategy lies is anyone's guess, but I think with our population, economy, fandom, and ability to open up a new market, that'd put Canberra in the box seat, with WA3 second. I can't see the NT's bid seriously being entertained.

But most of all, yes! Hurry up GWS and announce the bloody terms of the extension!

The single biggest obstacle to Canberra getting it's own side at the moment is GWS.

As long as GWS is here there's little commercial incentive for the AFL to place a team here, and Canberra getting it's own team would come at the expense of GWS being able to exploit Canberra to help underwrite their activity in Sydney, a situation I'm sure the AFL would prefer didn't change. In other words, for Canberra to even be in the discussion for team 20 it needs to remove the leech from it's side.

If Barr and Labour are smart (which they aren't frankly), and their goal is to eventually get Canberra it's own team (which may not be the case), then they'd refuse to sign any extension with GWS longer than roughly 5 years and make it clear that their preference is for Canberra to get it's own side, and as such they aren't interested in extending GWS's deal beyond the next deal unless it comes with a hard and fast timeline for a Canberra based side to enter the competition.

That way you make it clear to the AFL that the current status quo with GWS will not continue no matter what happens, and that you'll only accept your own team going into the future. At that point the ball is largely in the AFL's court, but it'd be better to have nothing than to continue to be disrespected and used as a resource to prop up pet projects in other cities.

If Barr and Labour are really smart they'll also exploit their strong negotiating position to get a much better deal than the previous one, but that's another discussion.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The single biggest obstacle to Canberra getting it's own side at the moment is GWS.

As long as GWS is here there's little commercial incentive for the AFL to place a team here, and Canberra getting it's own team would come at the expense of GWS being able to exploit Canberra to help underwrite their activity in Sydney, a situation I'm sure the AFL would prefer didn't change. In other words, for Canberra to even be in the discussion for team 20 it needs to remove the leech from it's side.

That depends how closely the AFL is paying attention. There's a growing discontent from Sydney-based GWS supporters (at least from what I read on bigfooty and Twitter), about the Canberra deal. It's also common sense that you're not going to grow your fanbase as well with one eye on another market. GWS could lose more money (and supporters) by not committing to the west.

I've also broken it down on other threads, but the sum of the parts of the deal is worth a lot more than Canberra is paying.

But yes, the proverbial leech needs to be removed, but I think it will benefit GWS, too.

If Barr and Labour are smart (which they aren't frankly), and their goal is to eventually get Canberra it's own team (which may not be the case), then they'd refuse to sign any extension with GWS longer than roughly 5 years and make it clear that their preference is for Canberra to get it's own side, and as such they aren't interested in extending GWS's deal beyond the next deal unless it comes with a hard and fast timeline for a Canberra based side to enter the competition.

That way you make it clear to the AFL that the current status quo with GWS will not continue no matter what happens, and that you'll only accept your own team going into the future. At that point the ball is largely in the AFL's court, but it'd be better to have nothing than to continue to be disrespected and used as a resource to prop up pet projects in other cities.

I'd like a bit of backbone from the ACT government (two decades in power does breed complacency), but I get them being diplomatic with GWS.

As I said, we get a much better deal than Hobart, we don't have the same city-wide AFL support as Tasmania (or the same disdain they have for North), so it wouldn't be overly wise to trash that relationship. Especially when we're nowhere near as certain for our own team.

The relationship with North has definitely soured further since Tasmania's push. It would suck if our relationship did that with GWS, and we still didn't get an AFL team.

But that's why MelbourneGWS and I are so keen for the extension announcement. Tony Shepherd's gaff announcing five years has given me hope, but the latest article I could find said the Giants were looking for a similar "tenure".

An announcement has pretty much been imminent since April, so there's something weird delaying it. My hope is it's the five-year part, but it's most likely related to the AFLW.

If Barr and Labour are really smart they'll also exploit their strong negotiating position to get a much better deal than the previous one, but that's another discussion.

Funny you mention that. The deal still hasn't been announced, but CT is reporting GWS are getting less perks this time around.

It seems AFLW games will be officially included in the contract (hopefully more games as the season grows), but apparently the Giants look set to lose
Manuka Oval naming rights, the ability to take ownership of sponsor signage, lucrative pourage rights, and the ability to deny other teams usage of Manuka during the AFL season (which they did to the Brumbies).

The perks were apparently because they expected Manuka to get smaller crowds than Olympic Park.

So the contract should have more AFLW games, less GWS perks.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

That depends how closely the AFL is paying attention. There's a growing discontent from Sydney-based GWS supporters (at least from what I read on bigfooty and Twitter), about the Canberra deal. It's also common sense that you're not going to grow your fanbase as well with one eye on another market. GWS could lose more money (and supporters) by not committing to the west.
I'd like a bit of backbone from the ACT government (two decades in power does breed complacency), but I get them being diplomatic with GWS.

As I said, we get a much better deal than Hobart, we don't have the same city-wide AFL support as Tasmania (or the same disdain they have for North), so it wouldn't be overly wise to trash that relationship. Especially when we're nowhere near as certain for our own team.

I get that there are some GWS fans in Sydney that don’t like the current dual region arrangement, but the Barr ACT government, AFL and GWS all seem happy with it? There has never been a call for an AFL team of our own in Canberra by the ACT government, let alone modelling and support for funding for this as far as I know. This is in contrast to the NT government, even though an AFL team in ACT makes far more sense than a team in Darwin. I understand though Canberra Pear’s point about why in a region where we have the Raiders, Brumbies, Capitals and Canberra United, the Barr government has to be careful about unsolicited bids for a permanent AFL team in Canberra. However, I would think there’s more support in the ACT Government (as well as public support) for an Aleague team, and even a future T20 team, before an AFL team here? Also GWS in their communication, reiterate that they are a team for western Sydney as well as Canberra and that both Giants stadium and Manuka are our home grounds. Whilst the new deal will tell us more about the planned next steps, I think realistically it will be an extension of the current deal that will continue till the end of the current media deal in 2031- with the number of AFLW matches the sticking point. Given that the AFL CEO said that even the Tasmanian T19 was only being “contemplated” during the term of the negotiated new media deal, to expect Canberra as Team 20 before 2031 would be a surprise.

 

[Badger17]

I'd like a bit of backbone from the ACT government (two decades in power does breed complacency), but I get them being diplomatic with GWS.

As I said, we get a much better deal than Hobart, we don't have the same city-wide AFL support as Tasmania (or the same disdain they have for North), so it wouldn't be overly wise to trash that relationship. Especially when we're nowhere near as certain for our own team.

The relationship with North has definitely soured further since Tasmania's push. It would suck if our relationship did that with GWS, and we still didn't get an AFL team.

But that's why MelbourneGWS and I are so keen for the extension announcement. Tony Shepherd's gaff announcing five years has given me hope, but the latest article I could find said the Giants were looking for a similar "tenure".

An announcement has pretty much been imminent since April, so there's something weird delaying it. My hope is it's the five-year part, but it's most likely related to the AFLW.

Risking trashing the relationship with GWS is the only way that Canberra has even the slightest chance of being considered for a team at all, otherwise the AFL will string us along for as long as possible because it's in their interests to do so.

Just like Tasmania, it's significantly cheaper for the AFL to organise for Canberra to host a handful of games rather than giving us our own team, and for as long as they think that's all it takes to maintain a presence in the market then they'll continue to push for that token presence rather than committing all the resources necessary to place a team here full time. That way they get to claim a presence in Canberra, and keep a spot in the league free for another market that will require more than a token presence.

If trashing that relationship with GWS means that Canberra has to go without AFL games for an extended period, decades even, then so be it. I'd rather the city take the chance of getting our own team and end up with nothing then continue to be used like a dumb john that's deluded himself into believing that his "relationship" is anything more than a transaction.

Unlike you I'm not partisan (for lack of a better term), my first interest is what's best for Canberra, not what might, with hindsight, be best for the AFL/Aussie Rules in Canberra, and the AFL stringing us along is not in Canberra's best interests. If they want to leave Canberra to the other sports for the time being then that's fine by me, I'd even go so far as to saying that people like yourself being forced to embrace the local culture a bit more, rather than trying to warp it to be more like the place you came from, wouldn't be such a bad thing either.

Funny you mention that. The deal still hasn't been announced, but CT is reporting GWS are getting less perks this time around.

It seems AFLW games will be officially included in the contract (hopefully more games as the season grows), but apparently the Giants look set to lose
Manuka Oval naming rights, the ability to take ownership of sponsor signage, lucrative pourage rights, and the ability to deny other teams usage of Manuka during the AFL season (which they did to the Brumbies).

The perks were apparently because they expected Manuka to get smaller crowds than Olympic Park.

So the contract should have more AFLW games, less GWS perks.

For what we bring to GWS we should being getting more AFL content for the price we're paying.

All the other stuff is just cream, I'd be aiming for an increase to our AFL content each season, say 4-5 games a year plus a trial, or a significant reduction in our financial contribution to the deal. Anything else and we're being dudded frankly.

 

[Badger17]

There has never been a call for an AFL team of our own in Canberra by the ACT government, let alone modelling and support for funding for this as far as I know.

That's incorrect.

There were Canberra based bids for an AFL license in the 80s and 90s, and the parties in power of the time supported said bids. We even tried to buy the Swans a few times. The bids kind of just petered out during the 90s when it became clear that the AFL wasn't interested.

I understand though Canberra Pear’s point about why in a region where we have the Raiders, Brumbies, Capitals and Canberra United, the Barr government has to be careful about unsolicited bids for a permanent AFL team in Canberra.

I honestly don't think any of them would care about the government being part of a bid for an AFL side provided the government goes about it the right way. If the government were to pit the needs of the AFL bids against the needs of the other sports then obviously they'd react negatively to that, but that wouldn't be necessary, and who wouldn't react negatively to that.

The main reason they've been negative about the GWS deal in the past is because it's been significantly more lucrative than what they've been getting at times, and frankly you'd be insulted as well if some blow in was getting a better deal than you when you had committed yourself to a city that for decades that was one of the hardest to make ends meet in for a professional sports club.

However, I would think there’s more support in the ACT Government (as well as public support) for an Aleague team, and even a future T20 team, before an AFL team here?

Not really.

Big Bash has never seriously looked to expand, but Labour have never been as supportive of the A-league bids as they could have been. Canberra could have had an A-league side already but for a few million dollars in government funding, and personally I think the accusations of said lack of support being because of Andrew Barr's personal preferences have a lot of truth to them, but I digress.

Also GWS in their communication, reiterate that they are a team for western Sydney as well as Canberra and that both Giants stadium and Manuka are our home grounds.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

GWS is no more Canberra's team than the Kangaroos, Bulldogs, Demons, or Fitzroy were before them.

 

[madmug]

That's incorrect.

There were Canberra based bids for an AFL license in the 80s and 90s, and the parties in power of the time supported said bids. We even tried to buy the Swans a few times. The bids kind of just petered out during the 90s when it became clear that the AFL wasn't interested.

I honestly don't think any of them would care about the government being part of a bid for an AFL side provided the government goes about it the right way. If the government were to pit the needs of the AFL bids against the needs of the other sports then obviously they'd react negatively to that, but that wouldn't be necessary, and who wouldn't react negatively to that.

The main reason they've been negative about the GWS deal in the past is because it's been significantly more lucrative than what they've been getting at times, and frankly you'd be insulted as well if some blow in was getting a better deal than you when you had committed yourself to a city that for decades that was one of the hardest to make ends meet in for a professional sports club.

Not really.

Big Bash has never seriously looked to expand, but Labour have never been as supportive of the A-league bids as they could have been. Canberra could have had an A-league side already but for a few million dollars in government funding, and personally I think the accusations of said lack of support being because of Andrew Barr's personal preferences have a lot of truth to them, but I digress.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

GWS is no more Canberra's team than the Kangaroos, Bulldogs, Demons, or Fitzroy were before them.

Its the same here in Tassie.

Hawthorn, North Melbn, StKilda & Fitzroy were all here for money, not to benefit the sport at all.

Now we are close to getting our own team it appears Hawthorn after 20 years of benefitting from Tasmania have been busy backstabbing our application.

The ACT needs to look to see what benefits itself & its sports & its people. Fork the other AFL clubs. They are not interested in benefiting anyone but themselves.

ACT needs to go for it.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Its the same here in Tassie.

Hawthorn, North Melbn, StKilda & Fitzroy were all here for money, not to benefit the sport at all.

Now we are close to getting our own team it appears Hawthorn after 20 years of benefitting from Tasmania have been busy backstabbing our application.

The ACT needs to look to see what benefits itself & its sports & its people. Fork the other AFL clubs. They are not interested in benefiting anyone but themselves.

ACT needs to go for it.

And how long has it taken stupid Tasmanians to realise that, instead of blaming everyone else, that money could have been spent on local footy.

 

[Walshawk]

Reckon the delay is more likely around the secondary markets reshuffle if/when Tassie get a team. Hawks and North will need to move eight games in total and I could see Hawks looking at Canberra. This could see Hawks and Giants sharing or just Hawks, or Hawks and North, or all three, meaning more Giants games in Sydney.

Giants will likely play @ SCG for ‘Magic Round’ next season and that may be a pointer as ti any new direction.

Tassie has been able to sustain eight games so it is not such a leap for 11 with their own team. Canberra would need to increase from the current three - maybe four to six games before that push for a license.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

That's incorrect.

There were Canberra based bids for an AFL license in the 80s and 90s, and the parties in power of the time supported said bids. We even tried to buy the Swans a few times. The bids kind of just petered out during the 90s when it became clear that the AFL wasn't interested.

Labour have never been as supportive of the A-league bids as they could have been. Canberra could have had an A-league side already but for a few million dollars in government funding, and personally I think the accusations of said lack of support being because of Andrew Barr's personal preferences have a lot of truth to them, but I digress.

GWS is no more Canberra's team than the Kangaroos, Bulldogs, Demons, or Fitzroy were before them.

I meant support from the Barr government for an AFL team in Canberra. As mentioned by some of the posters, I thought we may have had a chance with Fitzroy.

I think there’s far more chance of an Aleague men’s team here than an AFL team. It’s played in summer, we have had teams from Canberra playing in the elite soccer competition, made formal (albeit failed) Aleague soccer bids before, we have Canberra United playing on the highest soccer level in the country, there is general community support and the Aleague is also looking at expanding.

And we have to disagree about GWS being our team. Unlike Kangaroos, Melbourne and Bulldogs who played “home” games here on short term contracts, GWS have made a long term 10 year commitment to us, have our region’s name in their playing uniform, and formally include us (as well as western Sydney) in their constitution, and in their communications.

 

[Tassie_Tiger]

Reckon the delay is more likely around the secondary markets reshuffle if/when Tassie get a team. Hawks and North will need to move eight games in total and I could see Hawks looking at Canberra. This could see Hawks and Giants sharing or just Hawks, or Hawks and North, or all three, meaning more Giants games in Sydney.

Giants will likely play @ SCG for ‘Magic Round’ next season and that may be a pointer as ti any new direction.

Tasmania has been able to sustain eight games so it is not such a leap for 11 with their own team. Canberra would need to increase from the current three - maybe four to six games before that push for a license.

Fixed

 

[Canberra Pear]

There has never been a call for an AFL team of our own in Canberra by the ACT government, let alone modelling and support for funding for this as far as I know. This is in contrast to the NT government, even though an AFL team in ACT makes far more sense than a team in Darwin. I understand though Canberra Pear’s point about why in a region where we have the Raiders, Brumbies, Capitals and Canberra United, the Barr government has to be careful about unsolicited bids for a permanent AFL team in Canberra. However, I would think there’s more support in the ACT Government (as well as public support) for an Aleague team, and even a future T20 team, before an AFL team here?

Badger17 already brushed on it, but just expanding from what I know. For reference, I got most of this from "Towards a National Competition" on the footy industry website. But there's definitely been official moves.

• In 1981, the ACT was actually the first state or territory outside of Victoria to make an official bid to join the league. The Canberra bid was dismissed in favour of a Sydney team.
• In 1982, bids to join the VFL came from SA, WA and the ACT. The VFL general manager said Canberra would "almost certainly" be represented in the VFL in the future.
• 1984, ACTAFL pushing for an overarching national committee (not the VFL) as we'd have a better chance if they oversaw the competition. "We can and will compete in a national competition, and compete successfully."
• In 1987, ACTAFL was looking to relocate a VFL team by 1988. The ACTAFL met with clubs (doesn't say which) and offered to pay off debts for a relocation.
• In 1992, Canberrans were surveyed about an AFL team. 54% said they were supportive, 51% said they'd go to games, 12% said they'd go to most or all games (which would be crowds of 60k if we still had that level of support with our current population today).
• In 1993, when the Swans were potentially on the chopping block, the "AFL for Canberra" Committee tried to get them moved to Canberra. In the same article, Tasmania said they were a decade away from being able to bid, so somehow we've fallen behind them since.
• Later, in 1993, "AFL for Canberra" Committee launched another official bid, most likely for a relocation. The Chief Minister said it had the ACT government's "full and continuing support".
• In 1995, the “AFL for Canberra” committee, Fitzroy, the Ainslie Football Club, and the ACT Chief Minister sought a meeting with the AFL Commission to discuss a deal where Fitzroy might play up to seven home games in Canberra. Request for meeting rejected by the AFL.

Once we started getting a few games a year, I think the push petered out, and we had the "good enough" attitude after being rejected so many times.

Whilst the new deal will tell us more about the planned next steps, I think realistically it will be an extension of the current deal that will continue till the end of the current media deal in 2031- with the number of AFLW matches the sticking point. Given that the AFL CEO said that even the Tasmanian T19 was only being “contemplated” during the term of the negotiated new media deal, to expect Canberra as Team 20 before 2031 would be a surprise.

I have a (completely unfounded inkling) that Team 20 may already be included in the next media deal. It was a monster increase. You assume Tasmania is included in that, but I wouldn't be surprised if Team 20 is, too.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Risking trashing the relationship with GWS is the only way that Canberra has even the slightest chance of being considered for a team at all, otherwise the AFL will string us along for as long as possible because it's in their interests to do so.

If trashing that relationship with GWS means that Canberra has to go without AFL games for an extended period, decades even, then so be it. I'd rather the city take the chance of getting our own team and end up with nothing then continue to be used like a dumb john that's deluded himself into believing that his "relationship" is anything more than a transaction.

You've probably got a point. It'd at least help gain more leverage and make the Giants work harder for Canberra. They way Barr has fawned over the Giants though, I can't see that happening any time soon.

Personally, I'd be sad if we lost AFL games. It took until 2001 to even get them at any regularity. I know it's only a token gesture, but I do enjoy the bit we get.

Unlike you I'm not partisan (for lack of a better term), my first interest is what's best for Canberra, not what might, with hindsight, be best for the AFL/Aussie Rules in Canberra, and the AFL stringing us along is not in Canberra's best interests. If they want to leave Canberra to the other sports for the time being then that's fine by me, I'd even go so far as to saying that people like yourself being forced to embrace the local culture a bit more, rather than trying to warp it to be more like the place you came from, wouldn't be such a bad thing either.

Partisan's probably a fair term. I definitely have an AFL bias. I've attempted to get into the Canberra sports scene though. Watched a bit of everything (except Canberra United, they're just so far south). But I wouldn't say I'm trying to warp it. Canberra has an AFL heritage, and an AFL following, I just want it to be recognised and serviced. I don't expect Canberra to become an AFL town like Adelaide, and frankly, I wouldn't want it. I love having multiple options to go to and watch, and I think an AFL team belongs in that mix.

For what we bring to GWS we should being getting more AFL content for the price we're paying.

All the other stuff is just cream, I'd be aiming for an increase to our AFL content each season, say 4-5 games a year plus a trial, or a significant reduction in our financial contribution to the deal. Anything else and we're being dudded frankly.

As I've mentioned earlier, we pay $2.3m per year. $1.15m of that goes to the academy to provide pathways for ACT players, so only $1.15m goes to GWS.

For that $1.15m, we get three men's games, a preseason, an AFLW, and essentially a sponsor spot on the logo. Cairns pays $650k for a game. Wagga paid $100k for a preseason match a decade ago, and I believe Mackay are paying more than $100k per AFLW game. The spot on the guernsey is conservatively $150k per year.

So for $1.15m, we're getting at least $2.3m worth.

But, with recent crowd performances, I do expect we're going to get better value again. Next season is already reported as three men's games, so I expect that will be the men's status quo, so I expect the extra value will come through AFLW.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Tassie has been able to sustain eight games so it is not such a leap for 11 with their own team. Canberra would need to increase from the current three - maybe four to six games before that push for a license.

I get where you're coming from, but for comparison, we're much more experienced hosts than the Gold Coast were before they got a team.

Excluding the Bears in the early nineties, Carrara only hosted multiple games (never more than three) for four seasons before they got the Suns.

With the exclusion of two seasons leading up to the Giants' entry and 2020 Covid, Canberra has hosted multiple games per season since 2001.

Carrara never hosted more than three games and a preseason game. This year we hosted four games, a preseason and an AFLW match. And still had higher men's crowds than Carrara got.

I would like a sooner rather than later push (important for things like infrastructure planning), but I like the idea of more games in the meantime to help build the attendance culture in the lead up. But we definitely have a better track record than both Gold Coast and Western Sydney had in the lead up to their entries.

 

[Badger17]

I think there’s far more chance of an Aleague men’s team here than an AFL team. It’s played in summer, we have had teams from Canberra playing in the elite soccer competition, made formal (albeit failed) Aleague soccer bids before, we have Canberra United playing on the highest soccer level in the country, there is general community support and the Aleague is also looking at expanding.

There'd be general community support for an AFL side as well.

In fact I think it's more than safe to say that there'd be significantly more support for an AFL side than A-league side, but it's very hard for that support to make it's self heard when there's nothing of substance to support. In other words build it and they will come.

And we have to disagree about GWS being our team. Unlike Kangaroos, Melbourne and Bulldogs who played “home” games here on short term contracts, GWS have made a long term 10 year commitment to us, have our region’s name in their playing uniform, and formally include us (as well as western Sydney) in their constitution, and in their communications.

GWS are not based in Canberra, they only play games here because they are paid to do so, they aren't members of the local community, and for the most part they don't reinvest their revenue into the Canberra community. So by no reasonable standard to do they qualify as a Canberra team, nor will they ever unless they relocate here.

So no, there is no agree to disagree, you are simply wrong.

 

[Coolangatta]

2032 would be a good time for Canberra to enter the competition, the year after the media rights deal has expired.

 

[Badger17]

You've probably got a point. It'd at least help gain more leverage and make the Giants work harder for Canberra. They way Barr has fawned over the Giants though, I can't see that happening any time soon.

Yeah Barr's sycophantic manner towards the AFL, and GWS by extension, is a real problem.

It corrupts his decisioning making capabilities, and has not only hurt Canberra's prospects of getting it's own AFL side, but is also at least partly responsible for other missed opportunities and a lot of the other sports infrastructure in the city being left to fall into total disrepair.

Personally, I'd be sad if we lost AFL games. It took until 2001 to even get them at any regularity. I know it's only a token gesture, but I do enjoy the bit we get.

Try looking at it from the AFL's point of view. Why put a team here if you don't have to?

Take your own example of the GC, how many AFL games did they get before the Suns were launched? What about Western Sydney before the Giants?

Sometimes you're forced to choose between short term pleasure and long term gain.

Partisan's probably a fair term. I definitely have an AFL bias. I've attempted to get into the Canberra sports scene though. Watched a bit of everything (except Canberra United, they're just so far south). But I wouldn't say I'm trying to warp it. Canberra has an AFL heritage, and an AFL following, I just want it to be recognised and serviced. I don't expect Canberra to become an AFL town like Adelaide, and frankly, I wouldn't want it. I love having multiple options to go to and watch, and I think an AFL team belongs in that mix.

A lot of that AFL heritage (definitely post WWII) is just Aussie Rules "partisans" fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of rugby culture, and the cross pollination between the two codes. Let me give you a couple examples to illustrate the point.

Jonah Lomu is widely considered one of the, if not the, best RU players of all time. As a child he played RL until his mum sent him to Wesley College.

David Furner, son of Don Furner snr and brother of Don Furner jr (look these people up if you don't know who they are), played school boy RU for Australia after he was sent to St Edmunds. It's a similar story for a lot of the most famous Canberra/Queanbeyan based former RL players, take Ricky Stuart, he's a duel international believe it or not.

The point is that people like you look at the raw data and see, e.g., X amount of Aussie Rules players and X amount of RL league players, and make your conclusion from there, but that leads you to misunderstanding what you are actually seeing because you lack the context and cultural understanding to correctly interpret the data. You don't understand that in the context of the majority of Australia for roughly the last 100 hundred years, between 70-90% of those RU participates were bigger RL supporters than RU. Literally playing RU in the morning but following the NSWRL/QRL/ARL/NRL in the afternoon.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Try looking at it from the AFL's point of view. Why put a team here if you don't have to?

Take your own example of the GC, how many AFL games did they get before the Suns were launched? What about Western Sydney before the Giants? Sometimes you're forced to choose between short term pleasure and long term gain.

My personal opinion is that Canberra is a goldilocks expansion. I think it can be both good short- and long-term.

There's two types of expansion (for the sake of this discussion).

1. Bold expansion, where long-term gain and growth is the goal, but the early years might hurt. (GWS/Gold Coast)
2. Expansion into heartland. Easy from the start, but not really growing the pie. (Tasmania/WA3)

Canberra is both. AFL-leaning enough that establishment will be easier than GWS and Gold Coast. But enough potential that the pie can be grown. There's enough people who don't follow AFL that strongly, in a medium-sized, quickly growing, wealthy city.

The NT, which is for some reason the most touted option for Team 20, is neither of the above.

The AFL were pushed into this expansion before they were ready, but if they are intent on 20 teams to remain even, they need a safe option like Canberra, which can also grow the pie at the same time.

I don't fault the AFL for dreaming big with Gold Coast and GWS. They're long-term projects and they were probably right to put them ahead of Canberra and Tasmania.

But with Tasmania forcing the next round of expansion early, the door for Canberra is ajar, too.

A lot of that AFL heritage (definitely post WWII) is just Aussie Rules "partisans" fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of rugby culture, and the cross pollination between the two codes. Let me give you a couple examples to illustrate the point.

Jonah Lomu is widely considered one of the, if not the, best RU players of all time. As a child he played RL until his mum sent him to Wesley College.

David Furner, son of Don Furner snr and brother of Don Furner jr (look these people up if you don't know who they are), played school boy RU for Australia after he was sent to St Edmunds. It's a similar story for a lot of the most famous Canberra/Queanbeyan based former RL players, take Ricky Stuart, he's a duel international believe it or not.

The point is that people like you look at the raw data and see, e.g., X amount of Aussie Rules players and X amount of RL league players, and make your conclusion from there, but that leads you to misunderstanding what you are actually seeing because you lack the context and cultural understanding to correctly interpret the data. You don't understand that in the context of the majority of Australia for roughly the last 100 hundred years, between 70-90% of those RU participates were bigger RL supporters than RU. Literally playing RU in the morning but following the NSWRL/QRL/ARL/NRL in the afternoon.

When I said Canberra had an AFL heritage and following, I didn't mean it as an exclusive AFL following, I meant as in a larger sporting tapestry. I know RL and RU both have extensive histories in the city, too. It is interesting that these rugby players were being produced alongside the likes of Jesaulenko, Hird and Bolton. It's been a multi-code city for a long time.

I understand that there's a lot of cross-pollination with schools tending to play union, particularly private schools, but I don't understand why there are so many non-collegiate union teams compared to league in Canberra. I think there are even more union teams than AF teams. But it's interesting that the Raiders seem to receive a stronger following than the Brumbies (at the moment). Do you know the reason why union appears to be more popular of the tackle rugbies, at least on the field?

I don't know too many people in Canberra that like both codes. The few I've asked about who support the Brumbies would never see the Raiders, and my leaguie mate dislikes the Brumbies (and all private school-related things). He's also from Sydney, so that might skew things. Is my circle just too small, or is the cross-pollination more amongst the participation than the spectators?

Is the relationship between union and league the same around Australia, or is Canberra a special case? My dalliances onto LU never seem to yield positive results for union (or "onionball"), but I assume that's also not as representative of Canberra?

 

[Badger17]

My personal opinion is that Canberra is a goldilocks expansion. I think it can be both good short- and long-term.

There's two types of expansion (for the sake of this discussion).

1. Bold expansion, where long-term gain and growth is the goal, but the early years might hurt. (GWS/Gold Coast)
2. Expansion into heartland. Easy from the start, but not really growing the pie. (Tasmania/WA3)

Canberra is both. AFL-leaning enough that establishment will be easier than GWS and Gold Coast. But enough potential that the pie can be grown. There's enough people who don't follow AFL that strongly, in a medium-sized, quickly growing, wealthy city.

The NT, which is for some reason the most touted option for Team 20, is neither of the above.

The AFL were pushed into this expansion before they were ready, but if they are intent on 20 teams to remain even, they need a safe option like Canberra, which can also grow the pie at the same time.

I don't fault the AFL for dreaming big with Gold Coast and GWS. They're long-term projects and they were probably right to put them ahead of Canberra and Tasmania.

But with Tasmania forcing the next round of expansion early, the door for Canberra is ajar, too.

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, but is Canberra really that safe of an option.

Sure it's probably not as risky as your Giants and Gold Coasts of the world, or an NZ or Darwin side would be for example, but a Canberra side would still require a lot of support from the AFL to be successful.

If the AFL's priority was really the safest and/or cheapest option then they could easily source investment for a privately owned club based in whichever major city they'd like. There'd literally be wealthy backers and consortiums lining up for the opportunity to invest in such a thing, and they'd line up knowing that it could run at a heavy loss for over a decade. If the AFL dotted their i's and crossed their t's well enough they could literally hand it over to one of those groups and watch as the money started to trickle back to them.

Now I'm not necessarily suggesting that the AFL would be interested in such a thing in particular, but the point is that if the AFL's priority is a safe option, or even the safest option possible, then from the AFL's perspective that probably isn't going to end up being Canberra.

When I said Canberra had an AFL heritage and following, I didn't mean it as an exclusive AFL following, I meant as in a larger sporting tapestry. I know RL and RU both have extensive histories in the city, too. It is interesting that these rugby players were being produced alongside the likes of Jesaulenko, Hird and Bolton. It's been a multi-code city for a long time.

I understand that there's a lot of cross-pollination with schools tending to play union, particularly private schools, but I don't understand why there are so many non-collegiate union teams compared to league in Canberra. I think there are even more union teams than AF teams. But it's interesting that the Raiders seem to receive a stronger following than the Brumbies (at the moment). Do you know the reason why union appears to be more popular of the tackle rugbies, at least on the field?

I don't know too many people in Canberra that like both codes. The few I've asked about who support the Brumbies would never see the Raiders, and my leaguie mate dislikes the Brumbies (and all private school-related things). He's also from Sydney, so that might skew things. Is my circle just too small, or is the cross-pollination more amongst the participation than the spectators?

There isn't a neat singular answer to your questions.

For a start you have to understand that a lot of the cross-pollination isn't exactly willing, especially when it comes to private schools. I'm not saying that it's exactly forced either, but lets just say that if every kid was actually given a choice that RU's participation numbers would suddenly shrink considerably. Which, BTW, you've seen played out over the last roughly 20 years through the growth of Aussie Rules in private schools across the eastern states. In fact most of the AFL's growth in NSW, QLD, and the ACT to a lesser extent, has largely come through cannibalising Union's support not RL's, but I digress.

As to why there're more Union teams than League in Canberra, well there're plenty of reasons for that. Part of it is simply the class makeup of the city, with a high percentage of upper middle class people in Canberra, whom traditionally are more likely to support RU than the working classes for all sorts of reasons. Another part of it is the core reason that RU and RL split in the first place, poorer demographics simply can't afford to indulge in playing rugby and risking injury in the same way that richer demographics can.

The way that the two sports impact the body is different as well. Though it's not really noticeable at the professional level, RL is much higher impact than Union. Put simply you need to be fitter to play RL well, where as a general rule RU is much more user friendly.
The cultural differences within each code play a part as well. For a long time now RL has emphasised touch and tag over tackle for casual play, where after a certain point (mid-teens) tackle becomes very serious, and it just isn't much fun for the average punter to be beaten half to death by a wannabe NRL player. The same isn't true of Union where the lower grade sides act a lot like pub leagues and the game is largely an excuse to get together.

On top of all that is the simple fact that the management of grassroots RL is diabolical. RU's is terrible as well, but the RL establishment only cares about junior development. In other words they don't care about you unless you're a potential professional, sometimes to the point of seeing you a nuisance, which highly restricts grassroots activity.

Is the relationship between union and league the same around Australia, or is Canberra a special case? My dalliances onto LU never seem to yield positive results for union (or "onionball"), but I assume that's also not as representative of Canberra?

Nope, the relationship has it's own regional quirks in each city/region and country.

From my experience Canberra's is particularly cordial. Though most probably wouldn't express it in quite this way, both parties have for the most part accepted that they're better off if they work together as much as possible, particularly at the professional level. You'll still see struggles over top prospects, sponsors, and the such, and petty stuff like booking training on the same night so cross code players find it hard to play both, but nobody is trying to kill the other and they see the political value in the other's survival.

The same cannot be said in most other places, both nationally and especially internationally. The Union/League dynamic is the only case I know of of class warfare played out in the sporting arena in such a manner, or of supporters of each sport literally oppressing members of the other group, and that can, and does, have real world consequences for people. The history and social dynamics are actually extremely fascinating.

 

[madmug]

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, but is Canberra really that safe of an option.

The same cannot be said in most other places, both nationally and especially internationally. The Union/League dynamic is the only case I know of of class warfare played out in the sporting arena in such a manner, or of supporters of each sport literally oppressing members of the other group, and that can, and does, have real world consequences for people. The history and social dynamics are actually extremely fascinating.

Your post is very interesting. The last Paragraph probably deserves its own thread. The historic development of AR certainly varies in each state. Canberra has a quite different development pattern from other places. So the growth of sport probably reflects that.

Having lived in Sydney, Brisbane & Melbourne for a few years each with my work, I was always interested in the sport dynamics of these places compared to my town, Hobart.

The Sydney thing was the 'Manly Silver Tails versus the boys from the 'Fibro' suburbs in the West. Brisbane was a bit of a smaller scale mirror of Sydney in that regard. However, maybe because of such a relatively larger influx of Southerners that Aussie Rules seemed to have a bigger influence on the sporting landscape of the city. That despite the obvious media bias against the 'Victorian game'.

That apart, RU was private school affair whilst RL was generally seen as the 'Plebs' game.

Indeed in England RU was seen as the thugs game played by Gentlemen, whilst soccer was the Gentlemens game played by thugs!

The other states adopted AR & didn't have such a class distinction is sports, except maybe in certain clubs. ie the toffs from Melbourne, Hawthorn FC & the WC from Fitzroy/Collingwood etc Also the catholic/Protestant divide in many clubs. I remember being told that in the VFA, Port Melbourne, dominated by Wharfies wouldn't have any Police playing in the team!!

That seems to be slowly changing with the current apparent bias of AFL clubs towards recruiting from the private school system. They do all this psychological profiling now which tends to bias against the 'non elite groups'. That lack of social equity is a worrying trend in the game.

I'd say in general Hobart/Tassie historically is closely aligned with the Melbourne development of AR, that is as a socially inclusive sport with some club differences based of socioeconomic differences in each suburb or town.

Anyway.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

 

[MelbourneGWS]

My personal opinion is that Canberra is a goldilocks expansion. I think it can be both good short- and long-term.

There's two types of expansion (for the sake of this discussion).

1. Bold expansion, where long-term gain and growth is the goal, but the early years might hurt. (GWS/Gold Coast)
2. Expansion into heartland. Easy from the start, but not really growing the pie. (Tasmania/WA3)

Canberra is both. AFL-leaning enough that establishment will be easier than GWS and Gold Coast. But enough potential that the pie can be grown. There's enough people who don't follow AFL that strongly, in a medium-sized, quickly growing, wealthy city.

The NT, which is for some reason the most touted option for Team 20, is neither of the above.

The AFL were pushed into this expansion before they were ready, but if they are intent on 20 teams to remain even, they need a safe option like Canberra, which can also grow the pie at the same time.

I don't fault the AFL for dreaming big with Gold Coast and GWS. They're long-term projects and they were probably right to put them ahead of Canberra and Tasmania.

But with Tasmania forcing the next round of expansion early, the door for Canberra is ajar, too.

Thanks for the post. I initially wouldn’t have thought that Canberra was a safe Australian Rules market, but see your point. I just don’t see how NT/ North Queensland can be thought of as better options for T20 than Canberra, given we are at least 3 times larger, have a higher disposable income and have regular 3 games a year vs 2 in Darwin/ 1 in cairns. It makes sense for AFL to go for T20, after Tasmania gets T19, and the main threat to Canberra would be if the AFL tries to play it safe by going for WA3 in preference to Canberra.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, but is Canberra really that safe of an option.

Sure it's probably not as risky as your Giants and Gold Coasts of the world, or an NZ or Darwin side would be for example, but a Canberra side would still require a lot of support from the AFL to be successful.

If the AFL's priority was really the safest and/or cheapest option then they could easily source investment for a privately owned club based in whichever major city they'd like. There'd literally be wealthy backers and consortiums lining up for the opportunity to invest in such a thing, and they'd line up knowing that it could run at a heavy loss for over a decade. If the AFL dotted their i's and crossed their t's well enough they could literally hand it over to one of those groups and watch as the money started to trickle back to them.

Now I'm not necessarily suggesting that the AFL would be interested in such a thing in particular, but the point is that if the AFL's priority is a safe option, or even the safest option possible, then from the AFL's perspective that probably isn't going to end up being Canberra.

The AFL doesn't always pick the safest option, but it's a balancing act between risk and reward. GC and Giants were both on the higher end of both.

With the AFL being forced ahead of time to expand, my guess is they'd want a safer option, which rules out the NT. It pretty much just leaves WA3 and Canberra.

The absolute safest option by the AFL would probably be WA3. Minimum effort needed by the AFL, and an existing stadium. But it does cannibalise potential Freo and West Coast support, and barely grows the pie.

Canberra's not going going to be a Collingwood or Essendon, they will absolutely need help, especially in the early years setting up. Especially lobbying for a new stadium.

But Canberra has enough AFL support to be less risky than GWS and GC, and a large enough (and wealthy enough) population, to ensure stability once its established. And as you raised above, an audience more cordial and willing to try multiple sports.

I guess it depends whether the AFL wants essentially zero risk/minimal reward, or slight risk/medium reward.

There isn't a neat singular answer to your questions.

For a start you have to understand that a lot of the cross-pollination isn't exactly willing, especially when it comes to private schools. I'm not saying that it's exactly forced either, but lets just say that if every kid was actually given a choice that RU's participation numbers would suddenly shrink considerably. Which, BTW, you've seen played out over the last roughly 20 years through the growth of Aussie Rules in private schools across the eastern states. In fact most of the AFL's growth in NSW, QLD, and the ACT to a lesser extent, has largely come through cannibalising Union's support not RL's, but I digress.

As to why there're more Union teams than League in Canberra, well there're plenty of reasons for that. Part of it is simply the class makeup of the city, with a high percentage of upper middle class people in Canberra, whom traditionally are more likely to support RU than the working classes for all sorts of reasons. Another part of it is the core reason that RU and RL split in the first place, poorer demographics simply can't afford to indulge in playing rugby and risking injury in the same way that richer demographics can.

The way that the two sports impact the body is different as well. Though it's not really noticeable at the professional level, RL is much higher impact than Union. Put simply you need to be fitter to play RL well, where as a general rule RU is much more user friendly.
The cultural differences within each code play a part as well. For a long time now RL has emphasised touch and tag over tackle for casual play, where after a certain point (mid-teens) tackle becomes very serious, and it just isn't much fun for the average punter to be beaten half to death by a wannabe NRL player. The same isn't true of Union where the lower grade sides act a lot like pub leagues and the game is largely an excuse to get together.

On top of all that is the simple fact that the management of grassroots RL is diabolical. RU's is terrible as well, but the RL establishment only cares about junior development. In other words they don't care about you unless you're a potential professional, sometimes to the point of seeing you a nuisance, which highly restricts grassroots activity.

Nope, the relationship has it's own regional quirks in each city/region and country.

From my experience Canberra's is particularly cordial. Though most probably wouldn't express it in quite this way, both parties have for the most part accepted that they're better off if they work together as much as possible, particularly at the professional level. You'll still see struggles over top prospects, sponsors, and the such, and petty stuff like booking training on the same night so cross code players find it hard to play both, but nobody is trying to kill the other and they see the political value in the other's survival.

The same cannot be said in most other places, both nationally and especially internationally. The Union/League dynamic is the only case I know of of class warfare played out in the sporting arena in such a manner, or of supporters of each sport literally oppressing members of the other group, and that can, and does, have real world consequences for people. The history and social dynamics are actually extremely fascinating.

I really don't have much to add to this, but I wonder if the large interstate migration into Canberra somewhat forces co-mingling, and subsequently mutual respect, of AFL/union/league fans, whereas previously they may have been in their respective bubbles in Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane.

Thanks for your insight. I really appreciate it.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Thanks for the post. I initially wouldn’t have thought that Canberra was a safe Australian Rules market, but see your point. I just don’t see how NT/ North Queensland can be thought of as better options for T20 than Canberra, given we are at least 3 times larger, have a higher disposable income and have regular 3 games a year vs 2 in Darwin/ 1 in cairns. It makes sense for AFL to go for T20, after Tasmania gets T19, and the main threat to Canberra would be if the AFL tries to play it safe by going for WA3 in preference to Canberra.

That's just my perspective, but I think Canberra's AFL support is often underestimated. Mostly because we also have rugby teams.

I did some personal research earlier based on where tipsters registered on tipping.afl.com.au were based (my theory being if you're willing to take a chunk of your week to tipping for a certain, you're more likely to be willing to support it).

I could only get some estimates on some states and territories, but adjusted to the populations, it showed Canberra likely had four times as many AFL fans as Darwin.

Darwin's also not an all-out AFL territory, their last two NRL matches got higher crowds than their AFL matches.

So I think we're a much safer option than Darwin. And I can't believe NQ is even being whispered as an option.

I do think WA3 is the only other option. But fingers crossed the AFL plays for growth!

 

[parano1a]

Interesting article from the The Canberra Times in 1982, the then-head of the VFL indicated Canberra would be almost certainly have a team in the future.