Expansion Canberra

[Canberra Pear]

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.

View attachment 1530691

Probably didn't expect it to take another 40-plus years.

But he clearly saw us as a viable option back then. Pretty much an inevitability. And our population has more than doubled since.

It would've been interesting to see how ingrained a team could've been in the community by now if we'd got a team in the eighties.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Any one know any news yet on the GWS deal with Canberra? The club still says it’s being finalised, but I am genuinely stumped why it has taken so long for this to be finished, given that serious negotiations started in 2021. My understanding is that it is with the AFL, and having 3 AFL games seem to have broad consensus from both GWS and Barr - indeed our CEO announced 3 games in Canberra at the GWS members forum. And more AFLW games (than the current 1) that Barr wants in Canberra should not be an issue, as at most there would only be 2 games in Canberra with parity of 3 games with mens to occur, if and when the AFLW expands.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Any one know any news yet on the GWS deal with Canberra? The club still says it’s being finalised, but I am genuinely stumped why it has taken so long for this to be finished, given that serious negotiations started in 2021. My understanding is that it is with the AFL, and having 3 AFL games seem to have broad consensus from both GWS and Barr - indeed our CEO announced 3 games in Canberra at the GWS members forum. And more AFLW games (than the current 1) that Barr wants in Canberra should not be an issue, as at most there would only be 2 games in Canberra with parity of 3 games with mens to occur, if and when the AFLW expands.

It's truly staggering how long this has taken. These negotiations might end up taking even longer than the initial contract negotiation.

The fact that both this, and the Tasmanian announcement is dragging on, makes me think they're somewhat connected. I can't see how it could take so long otherwise when they've been essentially on the cusp since April. That could mean GWS departing for a Canberra team, or the AFL making room for North after they're shafted from Hobart.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

It's truly staggering how long this has taken. These negotiations might end up taking even longer than the initial contract negotiation.

The fact that both this, and the Tasmanian announcement is dragging on, makes me think they're somewhat connected. I can't see how it could take so long otherwise when they've been essentially on the cusp since April. That could mean GWS departing for a Canberra team, or the AFL making room for North after they're shafted from Hobart.

Maybe there hasn’t been any part-time stadium deal on the new GWS/ACT partnership being proposed for 2023+, because the women’s season hasn’t finished yet and they are waiting for that to conclude before announcing it to the public (extra ACT home game for AFLW maybe).

Personally can see GWS playing another AFLW home game in Canberra (makes it 2 games) depending on how long they expand the season for next year as a result of the deal still not being finalised with the Canberra public, and sticking with the original 3 home games (pre-COVID) deal for their AFL men’s team (as confirmed before), with the unlikely hope that one of Carlton / Collingwood / Essendon (who haven’t played in Canberra before) play at Manuka Oval against GWS in 2023, to reward ACT members for their loyal support.

Basically, it’s what MelbourneGWS has said about the possibility of extra AFLW game in Canberra for GWS.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Maybe there hasn’t been any part-time stadium deal on the new GWS/ACT partnership being proposed for 2023+, because the women’s season hasn’t finished yet and they are waiting for that to conclude before announcing it to the public (extra ACT home game for AFLW maybe).

Personally can see GWS playing another AFLW home game in Canberra (makes it 2 games) depending on how long they expand the season for next year as a result of the deal still not being finalised with the Canberra public, and sticking with the original 3 home games (pre-COVID) deal for their AFL men’s team (as confirmed before), with the unlikely hope that one of Carlton / Collingwood / Essendon (who haven’t played in Canberra before) play at Manuka Oval against GWS in 2023, to reward ACT members for their loyal support.

Basically, it’s what MelbourneGWS has said about the possibility of extra AFLW game in Canberra for GWS.

I would definitely expect AFLW certainties to be a part of it.

Have we had any inkling on when the AFLW season is set to expand (in terms of rounds)? The season's not really long enough to share more than one game with Canberra, so they could be waiting for a confirmed lengthened season before announcing anything like multiple AFLW games.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The fact that both this, and the Tasmanian announcement is dragging on, makes me think they're somewhat connected. I can't see how it could take so long otherwise when they've been essentially on the cusp since April. That could mean GWS departing for a Canberra team, or the AFL making room for North after they're shafted from Hobart.

I guess all will be revealed- eventually! I too am genuinely perplexed about how long it’s taking as I didn’t think think there would be anything contentious about the extension of the current deal, with both GWS and Barr happy with the continuation of 3 AFL games and an extra AFLW game (either next year or if the AFLW season expands) with longer term parity in the number of AFL and AFLW games played in Canberra. You maybe right about it being connected to the Tasmanian team decision, but if the AFL was thinking of Norths playing an extra couple of games here to offset the loss of Tasmanian games, then the Norths members would have been vocally discussing this already?

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Personally can see GWS playing another AFLW home game in Canberra (makes it 2 games) depending on how long they expand the season for next year as a result of the deal still not being finalised with the Canberra public, and sticking with the original 3 home games (pre-COVID) deal for their AFL men’s team (as confirmed before), with the unlikely hope that one of Carlton / Collingwood / Essendon (who haven’t played in Canberra before) play at Manuka Oval against GWS in 2023, to reward ACT members for their loyal support.

Note the the Manuka AFLW game has had a bigger crowd than the GWS AFLW games in Giants Stadium and Henson park this year - even though the west coasts AFLW game was free. Probably a thread for the GWS forum board, but the only AFL teams GWS haven’t played in Canberra for premiership points are Sydney, Collingwood, West Coast, Carlton and Essendon- the latter two teams have never played in Canberra

 

[Canberra Pear]

I guess all will be revealed- eventually! I too am genuinely perplexed about how long it’s taking as I didn’t think think there would be anything contentious about the extension of the current deal, with both GWS and Barr happy with the continuation of 3 AFL games and an extra AFLW game (either next year or if the AFLW season expands) with longer term parity in the number of AFL and AFLW games played in Canberra. You maybe right about it being connected to the Tasmanian team decision, but if the AFL was thinking of Norths playing an extra couple of games here to offset the loss of Tasmanian games, then the Norths members would have been vocally discussing this already?

I guess there's a lot of "what ifs" to throw up in the air. If I were North had a back up plan to relocate games to Canberra, I'd be keeping it on the downlow until it's more concrete. There's no point getting members all in a tizzy on something that still depends on Tasmania getting a licence and GWS being crowbarred out of Canberra.

And if Tassie does fall through and North end up committing to Hobart long-term, it'd look bad if they were so ready to move on to the next thing.

Note the the Manuka AFLW game has had a bigger crowd than the GWS AFLW games in Giants Stadium and Henson park this year - even though the west coasts AFLW game was free. Probably a thread for the GWS forum board, but the only AFL teams GWS haven’t played in Canberra for premiership points are Sydney, Collingwood, West Coast, Carlton and Essendon- the latter two teams have never played in Canberra

The Canberra game is usually the best attended GWS game of the AFLW season, with the exclusion of GWS' first games at Drummoyne Oval and Henson Park (both blurring into Swans territory).

It's pretty crazy that those big clubs haven't played the Giants at the capital. I get it, the Giants need the boost more, but it would be interesting to see how high a crowd those teams could pull (or at least how quickly they'd sell out).

 

[Bjo187]

Personally I think it's good news, it probably means Canberra is keeping an eye on the Tasmania situation and not wanting to over commit in hopes of being team 20.

 

[Canberra Pear]

ACT Chief Minister (essentially our premier) Andrew Barr recently had an AMA on reddit.

I asked him about an AFL team and he said:

"If the AFL are financially able to support a 20th team, Canberra would be a logical choice."

"The challenge for the AFL will be to generate tens of millions of revenue necessary to run an AFL team."

I expected a response about GWS being our team, so that's a positive sign.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

ACT Chief Minister (essentially our premier) Andrew Barr recently had an AMA on reddit.

I asked him about an AFL team and he said:

"If the AFL are financially able to support a 20th team, Canberra would be a logical choice."

"The challenge for the AFL will be to generate tens of millions of revenue necessary to run an AFL team."

I expected a response about GWS being our team, so that's a positive sign.

Thanks for asking the question to Barr. I note that his response seems to have caveats and lacks an unqualified support that we should be the 20th team. FWIW I think due to a combination of the financial problems of St Kilda, the expansion teams of Gold Coast and GWS still not drawing crowds, and a new Tasmanian T19, the AFL will play it safe and go for WA3 over us as Team 20. That would be disappointing as by all metrics we should logically be the next locality for T20 after Tasmania.

 

[Coolangatta]

Thanks for asking the question to Barr. I note that his response seems to have caveats and lacks an unqualified support that we should be the 20th team. FWIW I think due to a combination of the financial problems of St Kilda, the expansion teams of Gold Coast and GWS still not drawing crowds, and a new Tasmanian T19, the AFL will play it safe and go for WA3 over us as Team 20. That would be disappointing as by all metrics we should logically be the next locality for T20 after Tasmania.

Honestly, looking further than that I’d go Tas 20s Canberra 30s Sunshine Coast 40s NT 50s NQLD 60s Newcastle 70s.

No need for WA3 which has Eagles and Dockers fever.

Max out at 24 teams playing each other once, no conferences.

My “expansion” beyond that would be if state leagues become more professional to consider relegation and promotion of state league champions in WAFL/SANFL/VFL/restored NEAFL.

Loan star players of relegated teams to clubs from the same state so they don’t have to leave family/friends .

Would be a pity if the AFL play safe.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Thanks for asking the question to Barr. I note that his response seems to have caveats and lacks an unqualified support that we should be the 20th team. FWIW I think due to a combination of the financial problems of St Kilda, the expansion teams of Gold Coast and GWS still not drawing crowds, and a new Tasmanian T19, the AFL will play it safe and go for WA3 over us as Team 20. That would be disappointing as by all metrics we should logically be the next locality for T20 after Tasmania.

I get why he hasn't got behind it to that extent, Canberra is a different place to Tasmania, more competing interests and a more delicate relationship with GWS. It would be nice for a full show of support, but that's still more than I expected. The fact he didn't just say "GWS is the team for Canberra" indicates to me that the longevity of GWS in Canberra isn't set in stone.

In terms of WA3 v Canberra, it really depends how the AFL is thinking. In the medium-to-long-term, Canberra is better in almost every way. WA3 would be an easy early win, but without growing the pie.

I'd like to see a business case for Canberra. I honestly think we'd be more financially feasible and eventually get higher crowds than Tasmania (no offence Tasmanians, still happy to wait for Team 20 though).

 

[MelbourneGWS]

In terms of WA3 v Canberra, it really depends how the AFL is thinking. In the medium-to-long-term, Canberra is better in almost every way. WA3 would be an easy early win, but without growing the pie

Spot on! I think your point about the medium and long term benefits of Canberra vs the short term benefits of WA3 sums up the choice for the AFL. I know there are posters, as well as the media, AFL and Eddie who have variously mooted North Q, NT, Sunshine Coast for T20, but by almost every metric, Canberra beats them. I think our only threat to Canberra being T20 is the AFL deciding on an expansion to the heartland via WA3 to mitigate the risks of Tasmania T19 and the financial issues of Victorian clubs, whilst GWS and Gold Coast establish themselves.

 

[madmug]

I get why he hasn't got behind it to that extent, Canberra is a different place to Tasmania, more competing interests and a more delicate relationship with GWS. It would be nice for a full show of support, but that's still more than I expected. The fact he didn't just say "GWS is the team for Canberra" indicates to me that the longevity of GWS in Canberra isn't set in stone.

In terms of WA3 v Canberra, it really depends how the AFL is thinking. In the medium-to-long-term, Canberra is better in almost every way. WA3 would be an easy early win, but without growing the pie.

I'd like to see a business case for Canberra. I honestly think we'd be more financially feasible and eventually get higher crowds than Tasmania (no offence Tasmanians, still happy to wait for Team 20 though).

I think the obvious difficulty of WA3 & ACT1 is the simple fact the AFL as a national competition is that its just so VFL weighted.

The historical lead weights limit how effective it is/can be as a national competition.

That & the hubris of expanding with 2 teams in northern areas at the same time. That without any sort of balance in the over supplied market in Melbourne.

As said, how the 2nd biggest footy market in WA with the most modern large stadium rates 2 teams, the same as SEQ or Sydney is way beyond me.

Many more than 20 teams become a risk & certainly unwieldy. Financial downturns can really risk the stability of the AFL.

That said the AFL should have had WA3 in it before now & should not have had GWS & GC at the same time. 1or 2 VFL clubs really shouldn't be in a national competition. 10 clubs in one area when so many of them struggle to attract enough long-term support is plainly stupid.

ACT thus should have been in the AFL by now. Probably Tasmania too. Both depend on the size of the AFL. With 16 or 18 we'd probably struggle to get in given the Melbourne numbers as they are.

The ACT has RU & RL which means the fight for sponsors & bums on seats. Peoples risk assumptions on Tassie are a bit disingenuous & based a lot on preconceived ideas. Tassie's one team will be looked after. Its not as if we have 10 teams & can afford to lose one.

Also the Tas economy is going well, as is population growth, Clearly people want to get out of the MelSyd rat races. All positives.

 

[iameviljez]

That & the hubris of expanding with 2 teams in northern areas at the same time. That without any sort of balance in the over supplied market in Melbourne.

The difficulty being, as we saw in 1981 and 1996, killing a club is a difficult thing to do and supporters pretty much tie themselves in knots to retain clubs as they are, especially in a wealthy era where all clubs are effectively financially stable and competitive on-field.

Fitzroy at its largest had 8,800 paid-up members. North Melbourne, with consecutive finishes of 17, 18 and 18, as the least-supported Melbourne club, has over 50,000 members. While that's boosted by cheaper three-game memberships, it's still vastly beyond numbers posted by Fitzroy and South.

Fitzroy and South only moved/merged/died when it was clear there was no feasible alternative. That's not the case any longer.

 

[madmug]

The difficulty being, as we saw in 1981 and 1996, killing a club is a difficult thing to do and supporters pretty much tie themselves in knots to retain clubs as they are, especially in a wealthy era where all clubs are effectively financially stable and competitive on-field.

Fitzroy at its largest had 8,800 paid-up members. North Melbourne, with consecutive finishes of 17, 18 and 18, as the least-supported Melbourne club, has over 50,000 members. While that's boosted by cheaper three-game memberships, it's still vastly beyond numbers posted by Fitzroy and South.

Fitzroy and South only moved/merged/died when it was clear there was no feasible alternative. That's not the case any longer.

The argument about Fitzroy is complicated by the fact the VFL decided to kill them off as a VFL/AFL club by blocking moving, selling games & other financial possibilities.

That just shows the oversupplied market we still see. Fitzroy could've become the Tassie team with some lateral thinking. But alas, no,

Its not about killing clubs, its possible for them to play in lower leagues or moving like South did.

Its the VFL self entitlement & fork everyone else which is the problem.

 

[Bjo187]

The argument about Fitzroy is complicated by the fact the VFL decided to kill them off as a VFL/AFL club by blocking moving, selling games & other financial possibilities.

That just shows the oversupplied market we still see. Fitzroy could've become the Tassie team with some lateral thinking. But alas, no,

Its not about killing clubs, its possible for them to play in lower leagues or moving like South did.

Its the VFL self entitlement & fork everyone else which is the problem.

Agree with all that, i think a better balance for 20 teams would be

8 Vic teams
2 NSW
2 QLD
3 WA
3 SA
1 TAS
1 ACT

Personally 16 clubs was the ideal though, so I would have relocated vic clubs to expansion areas, if it were achievable.

 

[iameviljez]

The argument about Fitzroy is complicated by the fact the VFL decided to kill them off as a VFL/AFL club by blocking moving, selling games & other financial possibilities.

The VFL offered for Fitzroy to move to Brisbane in the mid-1980s, and Fitzroy turned it down. Then Footscray backed out of the 1989 merger, Melbourne backed out of the 1994 merger, despite both having VFL/AFL support.

The VFL did not block relocations or mergers for Fitzroy AFAIK. The major blocker was the members.

 

[Coolangatta]

Agree with all that, i think a better balance for 20 teams would be

8 Vic teams
2 NSW
2 QLD
3 WA
3 SA
1 TAS
1 ACT

Personally 16 clubs was the ideal though, so I would have relocated vic clubs to expansion areas, if it were achievable.

Yeah that would’ve been better, NT and WA4 if expanding to 22 teams.

 

[iameviljez]

Agree with all that, i think a better balance for 20 teams would be

8 Vic teams
2 NSW
2 QLD
3 WA
3 SA
1 TAS
1 ACT

Personally 16 clubs was the ideal though, so I would have relocated vic clubs to expansion areas, if it were achievable.

While I agree, I think it's always easier to hypothesise about such things when you're not a North/StKilda/Melbourne/Dogs fan.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The difficulty being, as we saw in 1981 and 1996, killing a club is a difficult thing to do and supporters pretty much tie themselves in knots to retain clubs as they are, especially in a wealthy era where all clubs are effectively financially stable and competitive on-field.

Fitzroy at its largest had 8,800 paid-up members. North Melbourne, with consecutive finishes of 17, 18 and 18, as the least-supported Melbourne club, has over 50,000 members. While that's boosted by cheaper three-game memberships, it's still vastly beyond numbers posted by Fitzroy and South.

Fitzroy and South only moved/merged/died when it was clear there was no feasible alternative. That's not the case any longer.

Exactly- I think there’s too many teams from Victoria, and if we started an AFL competition from scratch there would not be 10/18 teams from Victoria. However, it’s what it is, and it’s very hard to see any of the members/ boards of the weaker Victorian teams voting to merge, relocate or fold. There’s no appetite from the AFL to forcibly do this. So very very unlikely that T19 or T20 will be relocated Victorian teams.

 

[Canberra Pear]

IThe ACT has RU & RL which means the fight for sponsors & bums on seats. Peoples risk assumptions on Tassie are a bit disingenuous & based a lot on preconceived ideas. Tassie's one team will be looked after. Its not as if we have 10 teams & can afford to lose one.

Also the Tas economy is going well, as is population growth, Clearly people want to get out of the MelSyd rat races. All positives.

I don't think RU & RL will be too much of an issue for bums on seats.

The RU season is over halfway through the AFL season, so there's only one major sports event every two weeks at the moment. The same as Tasmania, we're not up against five major sports events every week like the Melbourne teams.

I think Canberra sports fans are a bit less combative against other sports (eg; NRL v AFL). Just like you can support the JackJumpers, Hurricanes and a Tasmanian AFL team, I expect the same for many with the Raiders and an AFL team.

All the metrics I've read suggest Canberra has equal or more AFL fans than Hobart (but obviously less than Tassie). So we're likely to match Hobart crowds on that alone. Then we've got a bunch of unconverted, wealthy public servants with free weekends. If we schedule games well to complement the Raiders, bums on seats should do just fine (stadium capacity allowing). I expect we might not initially match Tassie for passion, but we should at least for crowds.

The fight for sponsors will be more interesting though. Hopefully a more national footprint than NRL can help us land a few of the larger sponsors. Hopefully we get in before a BBL, NBL or A-League team.

It's good to see the Tassie economy and population growth doing well. It's honestly great timing in terms of the bid. Canberra's doing similarly, so it's clearly a good time for the smaller cities.

The ACT has been the fastest growing state or territory for two consecutive censuses (so the fastest growing over the past 10 years). With Labor now in power, I expect that to grow even quicker. They just announced a bulkier public service, including a new "National Security Office Precinct" for 5,000 employees. Fingers crossed most of these new public servants come from the southern states.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Exactly- I think there’s too many teams from Victoria, and if we started an AFL competition from scratch there would not be 10/18 teams from Victoria. However, it’s what it is, and it’s very hard to see any of the members/ boards of the weaker Victorian teams voting to merge, relocate or fold. There’s no appetite from the AFL to forcibly do this. So very very unlikely that T19 or T20 will be relocated Victorian teams.

I agree there won't be any relocation before T19 or T20.

As time goes on, it seems less and less likely any teams will be relocated. Especially with the financial stability of the AFL and the distribution revenue. If the AFL wanted more relocations, they needed to be more aggressive in the '80s and '90s. The most I can see is a team playing six or seven games in another city, but maintaining their home base.

 

[Walshawk]

I agree there won't be any relocation before T19 or T20.

As time goes on, it seems less and less likely any teams will be relocated. Especially with the financial stability of the AFL and the distribution revenue. If the AFL wanted more relocations, they needed to be more aggressive in the '80s and '90s. The most I can see is a team playing six or seven games in another city, but maintaining their home base.

Western Sydney is the best place for a team to merge/relocate. GWS only play eight home games there so you could continue with that and play three home game in Melbourne as well (8/9 in total). West Sydney Saints (for example). Frees up Canberra for the Hawks or North once Tassie come in.