Expansion Canberra

[Teen Wolf]

Think it hurts us.
We need to concentrate on one region not 2.

Ok so your solution to not having access to the Showgrounds for the whole season is... Play at Blacktown where there's no financial incentive? Think that'd hurt a bit more.

 

[Colonial]

Ok so your solution to not having access to the Showgrounds for the whole season is... Play at Blacktown where there's no financial incentive? Think that'd hurt a bit more.

When don’t we have access to the Showgrounds all season?
Easter show only. That works out to 1 maybe 2 home games, If any really, that we have to move.
See no reason why we can’t take it to the western nsw regions. I also would be so against the future USA game.

We may get more individuals buying into the Giants being a Sydney club if we didn’t have one foot in Canberra.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Easter show only. That works out to 1 maybe 2 home games, If any really, that we have to move.

"If any"? Nice try. Unavailable for 5 weekends minimum, every season.

 

[Colonial]

"If any"? Nice try. Unavailable for 5 weekends minimum, every season.

“Nice try”? So argumentative. [emoji849]
Not at all. Wouldn’t be so hard, especially in this post covid world, to have 5 away games in a row.
But there are alternatives.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Clearly the AFL doesn't agree, at least not yet.

I agree that we're not ready yet. I think a good target for entry would be 2028 for Tasmania and 2030 for Canberra.

Tasmania is inevitable for expansion (if not a relocation), and if the AFL wants to maintain even numbers, which it usually does, then Canberra is the obvious choice.

We're the second largest city without a team, but Newcastle isn't likely. NT and NQ are often floated but we have three times the population of Darwin or Cairns.

The only other feasible expansion at the moment would be a third Perth team, but that doesn't open up any new markets.

 

[Canberra Pear]

When don’t we have access to the Showgrounds all season?
Easter show only. That works out to 1 maybe 2 home games, If any really, that we have to move.
See no reason why we can’t take it to the western nsw regions. I also would be so against the future USA game.

We may get more individuals buying into the Giants being a Sydney club if we didn’t have one foot in Canberra.

I agree (I say that as a five-year Canberra Giants member). The Canberra deal doesn't give GWS much flexibility. We're guaranteed of three AFLM, an AFLW and a preseason match. That means no flexibility to take preseason games around the state (with the exception of a busy Manuka).

At the moment the proposed USA game would come out of the eight Sydney games, which definitely isn't great for growing the Sydney market.

There's flexibility to schedule more home games later in the season. Canberra also receives only two of its games around the Easter Show, meaning the current schedule already allows nine games at the Showgrounds.

What I'd like to see with the Giants is nine games at the Showgrounds, a game at Blacktown and a game at Newcastle. Blacktown would only need to be slightly upgraded to cater for a crowd against Freo or the Suns and would bring footy to more parts of western Sydney. I'd also like to see preseason games in Wollongong and the Central West. If the US game got up, ideally it'd be a Victorian home game like the Saints in Shanghai, but it'd likely come at the expense of the Blacktown game.

 

[Badger17]

Canberra is miles and miles behind Tassie in terms of getting an AFL side.
And that's really saying something.
Be thankful to get our 3 Giants games each season.

I don't think it's fair to say that Tasmania is miles ahead of Canberra. In fact I reckon it can reasonably be argued that Canberra is a better option than Tasmania from a purely commercial point of view.

Canberra has a much more centralised population that is already effectively twice as large as Hobart and is projected to outgrow Tasmania as a whole in the next few decades. Canberra's average disposable income is larger than the national average. The corporate and sponsorship opportunities in Canberra would currently be roughly equal to Tasmania's, but again will almost certainly outgrow Tasmania's given time.

The only things that Tasmania really has over the ACT is that a Tasmanian AFL team would face less competition in the market than a Canberran AFL team, that there're currently more fanatical Aussie Rules fans in Tasmania than in Canberra, and that there's significant grassroots support for Tasmania to get an AFL club across the AFL's support base. But from a future growth potential POV Canberra has Tassie's number on most counts IMO.

 

[kranger]

The problem for Tas and Canberra is that they are on the cusp or below being capable of sustaining a team.

If we compare their populations to the cities with the existing teams. And factor in the levels of interest in AFL as reported by the book Code Wars as shared by Noobpie (I used the same percentage from Sydney and Brisbane for Canberra and Gold Coast respectively):

List of cities in Australia by population - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Location - Number of Residents in Location

Level of Interest in AFL in Location - Number of Interested Residents in Location

Number of AFL Teams in Location - Number of Interested Residents in Location per AFL Team


Sydney - 5.4 million residents
22% interest - 1.2 million interested
2 teams - 600,000 per team

Brisbane - 2.6 million
24% - 600,000
1 team - 600,000

Perth - 2.1 million
49% - 1 million
2 teams - 500,000

Adelaide - 1.4 million
57% - 800,000
2 teams - 400,000

Melbourne & Geelong - 5.4 million
56% - 3.0 million
10 teams - 300,000

Tasmania - 550,000
54% - 300,000
1 teams - 300,000

Gold Coast - 700,000
24% - 170,000 (48% - 340,000)
1 team - 170,000 (340,000 through growth)

Hobart - 240,000
54% - 130,000
1 teams - 130,000

Canberra & Queanbeyan - 470,000
22% - 100,000 (44% - 210,000)
1 teams - 100,000 (210,000 through growth)

This is similar to what is seen with Roy Morgan supporter polls. But you have to add on more supporters from the above city stats due to the rest of the relevant state. And the VFL teams are likely to have legacy support from the other states from before the conversion to AFL and the addition of the interstate teams. And in the two team towns there is not an equal balance.



Hobart and Canberra are well below Gold Coast, which is already struggling. And you wouldn’t want to enter new teams that are going to be similar to the lowest performers, and with limited potential of converting people to AFL. You would want new teams to atleast be on par with the middle performers to help their financial viability and not be a drain.

Tasmania as a whole state is comparable to Melbourne & Geelong combined. But if we used Tas as a state, then surely we should use Victoria as a state:

Vic - 6.6m - 56% - 3.7m - 10 teams - 370,000

But that is an average, with the bigger Vic clubs having more of the share, and the smaller Vic clubs having less of the share.

So this is likely the dilemma of the AFL in regards to a Tas team, and into the future the potential for a Canberra team.

The upside for a Tas team, is they can consolidate all fans into one team, and aren’t competing with rival football codes. However, since the people are already interested in AFL, growing new local teams in Tas or Canberra would cannibalise support for the existing teams in Tasmania especially from Melbourne. Weakening the existing teams, which is not really a benefit.

[edit: I updated the numbers for Gold Coast and Canberra to show in brackets what the potential could be from growing the game and increasing interest in AFL]

 

[threenewpadlocks]

A Canberra team would be greater than the 22% and 24% of Sydney/SEQ. It's more of a traditional footy city.

 

[kranger]

A Canberra team would be greater than the 22% and 24% of Sydney/SEQ. It's more of a traditional footy city.

Even if you double it to 44% which is close to Perth, it would still only be 200,000. So still at the very low end.

 

[Gigantor]

Those numbers tell the story.
Canberra absolutely zero chance in our lifetime, and yes, Tassie way ahead (even if the are buckleys in the short term).

 

[Canberra Pear]

The problem for Tas and Canberra is that they are on the cusp or below being capable of sustaining a team.

If we compare their populations to the cities with the existing teams. And factor in the levels of interest in AFL as reported by the book Code Wars as shared by Noobpie (I used the same percentage from Sydney and Brisbane for Canberra and Gold Coast respectively):

List of cities in Australia by population - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Location - Number of Residents in Location

Level of Interest in AFL in Location - Number of Interested Residents in Location

Number of AFL Teams in Location - Number of Interested Residents in Location per AFL Team


Sydney - 5.4 million residents
22% interest - 1.2 million interested
2 teams - 600,000 per team

Brisbane - 2.6 million
24% - 600,000
1 team - 600,000

Perth - 2.1 million
49% - 1 million
2 teams - 500,000

Adelaide - 1.4 million
57% - 800,000
2 teams - 400,000

Melbourne & Geelong - 5.4 million
56% - 3.0 million
10 teams - 300,000

Tasmania - 550,000
54% - 300,000
1 teams - 300,000

Gold Coast - 700,000
24% - 170,000 (48% - 340,000)
1 team - 170,000 (340,000 through growth)

Hobart - 240,000
54% - 130,000
1 teams - 130,000

Canberra & Queanbeyan - 470,000
22% - 100,000 (44% - 210,000)
1 teams - 100,000 (210,000 through growth)

This is similar to what is seen with Roy Morgan supporter polls. But you have to add on more supporters from the above city stats due to the rest of the relevant state. And the VFL teams are likely to have legacy support from the other states from before the conversion to AFL and the addition of the interstate teams. And in the two team towns there is not an equal balance.

View attachment 1176749

Hobart and Canberra are well below Gold Coast, which is already struggling. And you wouldn’t want to enter new teams that are going to be similar to the lowest performers, and with limited potential of converting people to AFL. You would want new teams to atleast be on par with the middle performers to help their financial viability and not be a drain.

Tasmania as a whole state is comparable to Melbourne & Geelong combined. But if we used Tas as a state, then surely we should use Victoria as a state:

Vic - 6.6m - 56% - 3.7m - 10 teams - 370,000

But that is an average, with the bigger Vic clubs having more of the share, and the smaller Vic clubs having less of the share.

So this is likely the dilemma of the AFL in regards to a Tas team, and into the future the potential for a Canberra team.

The upside for a Tas team, is they can consolidate all fans into one team, and aren’t competing with rival football codes. However, since the people are already interested in AFL, growing new local teams in Tas or Canberra would cannibalise support for the existing teams in Tasmania especially from Melbourne. Weakening the existing teams, which is not really a benefit.

[edit: I updated the numbers for Gold Coast and Canberra to show in brackets what the potential could be from growing the game and increasing interest in AFL]

Good timing, I actually got that book yesterday.

I still don't have the raw data to compare to the above, but I think the below map comes from that data. The caption reads "AFL (green) versus combined Rugby (red) interest across Australia by region".



It suggests the ACT's interests lean towards AFL. The shade of green is also a similar level to Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth from what I can tell. I'm obviously not saying the popularity of AFL is the same in Canberra as those cities, but the map suggests it's close enough to at least be in the same category. So it would be closer to your updated estimate of 44% (200k people), which means Canberra has about 50% more people than Hobart (130k) already interested in AFL.

Canberra has more interest in AFL than combined rugby (according the that data). This is despite having no AFL team and two rugby teams. The support is already there; a Canberra AFL team could be the most popular team in town. After a generation of kids growing up with it, it's almost guaranteed.

Hobart and Canberra are well below Gold Coast, which is already struggling. And you wouldn’t want to enter new teams that are going to be similar to the lowest performers, and with limited potential of converting people to AFL. You would want new teams to atleast be on par with the middle performers to help their financial viability and not be a drain.

[edit: I updated the numbers for Gold Coast and Canberra to show in brackets what the potential could be from growing the game and increasing interest in AFL]

I agree that we don't want to bring in teams before Gold Coast and GWS have properly settled. The early 2030s should be okay. Greater Canberra will have 600k people by then and it gives GWS time to pivot full-time to Sydney.

Those numbers with the updated Canberra data also suggest there are already 17% more AFL-interested people in Canberra than the Gold Coast (200k-170k). And the Canberra number would grow with an actual team of our own.

People also forget how successful Gold Coast initially were and could have been. They averaged a Metricon attendance of 18k in their first season. Understandably, the rugby-leaning territory, without a rusted on base, didn't stick around after prolonged poor performances. If they had had GWS' run they could very well have been looking to expand Metricon already. I expect that support will eventually come back as the Suns climb the ladder.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Those numbers tell the story.
Canberra absolutely zero chance in our lifetime, and yes, Tassie way ahead (even if the are buckleys in the short term).

I don't know how much longer you expect to live, but I fully expect a Canberra team in my lifetime.

If you'd said 30 years ago that Sydney would have a second team, people probably wouldn't have believed you.

It's ridiculous to say an AFL-leaning, fast-growing, wealthy city has "zero chance" of entering in the comp next 30-40 years.

 

[Gigantor]

I don't know how much longer you expect to live, but I fully expect a Canberra team in my lifetime.

If you'd said 30 years ago that Sydney would have a second team, people probably wouldn't have believed you.

It's ridiculous to say an AFL-leaning, fast-growing, wealthy city has "zero chance" of entering in the comp next 30-40 years.

No one in head office pondering a 2nd team in Australia's largest city some 30 years ago?
It would have been uttered in the halls of power on at least one occasion.
And that's one more than what anyone in HQ would be saying about Canberra.

 

[Bjo187]

Sensing a bit of bias here from gigantor not wanting to lose canberra as a giants town, which is understandable.

 

[Established1870]

No one in head office pondering a 2nd team in Australia's largest city some 30 years ago?
It would have been uttered in the halls of power on at least one occasion.
And that's one more than what anyone in HQ would be saying about Canberra.

The AFL were desperately trying to stop the Swans folding 30 years ago and there were constant discussions about Canberra getting a relocated Melbourne club at the same time with Fitzroy being balls deep in those talks and North being mentioned a few times as well.

To say the AFL have never considered Canberra is just factually wrong. They've been considered lots of times and it just never came to fruition because of Melbourne sides not wanting to leave (or the AFL refusing to let them) or other areas such as SA and WA still needing a second side. If one or two things turned out differently there would have been a Canberra side in the AFL 15-20 years before the Giants came in.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The AFL were desperately trying to stop the Swans folding 30 years ago and there were constant discussions about Canberra getting a relocated Melbourne club at the same time with Fitzroy being balls deep in those talks and North being mentioned a few times as well.

To say the AFL have never considered Canberra is just factually wrong. They've been considered lots of times and it just never came to fruition because of Melbourne sides not wanting to leave (or the AFL refusing to let them) or other areas such as SA and WA still needing a second side. If one or two things turned out differently there would have been a Canberra side in the AFL 15-20 years before the Giants came in.

Exactly. So many almosts. Given the support already existing for footy, you'd think an AFL team coming in in the 80s or 90s would easily be the biggest team in town by now. Manuka Oval actually comes off Fitzroy Street. It could've been perfect.

The former VFL general manager said Canberra would "almost certainly" be represented in the future. That was in 1982 when Canberra had half its population.

Then in 2017 Gil McLachlan said they committed to Canberra and hoping "hoping in five years time it's unassailably No. 1" the "dominant code in this market". Yes, at that point he meant in partnership with GWS, but it shows we're a part of the bigger picture, not just a few dollars for the Giants.

This isn't the NRL we're talking about. The AFL is so forward-thinking, it'd be irresponsible by their standards not to have a loose plan for Canberra expansion.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Sensing a bit of bias here from gigantor not wanting to lose canberra as a giants town, which is understandable.

Gigantor's starting to sound a bit like Jeff Kennett scolding Tasmania for not just accepting Hawthorn games.

I understand not wanting to lose a Giants territory, but we're talking at least a decade away. And surely the best long-term growth for GWS is more home games in Sydney.

 

[Colonial]

They're starting to sound a bit like Jeff Kennett scolding Tasmania for not just accepting Hawthorn games.

I understand not wanting to lose a Giants territory, but we're talking at least a decade away. And surely the best long-term growth for GWS is more home games in Sydney.

They? Not all of the Giants faithful are against a Canberra team and concentrating on Western Sydney.

 

[Canberra Pear]

They? Not all of the Giants faithful are against a Canberra team and concentrating on Western Sydney.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound generalising. I know most of GWS have been really supportive of the capital!

That was directed at Gigantor but didn't want to assume a gender (how Canberra did that sound?). Should've just used their name though (which I've just edited it to).

 

[Gigantor]

The AFL were desperately trying to stop the Swans folding 30 years ago and there were constant discussions about Canberra getting a relocated Melbourne club at the same time with Fitzroy being balls deep in those talks and North being mentioned a few times as well.

To say the AFL have never considered Canberra is just factually wrong. They've been considered lots of times and it just never came to fruition because of Melbourne sides not wanting to leave (or the AFL refusing to let them) or other areas such as SA and WA still needing a second side. If one or two things turned out differently there would have been a Canberra side in the AFL 15-20 years before the Giants came in.

Yeh, and the Swans made the grand final in 1996.
The whole way through a 2nd Sydney team was always much more desired than a team based permanently in Canberra.
The difference between the AFL, and people on here, is that they plan decades into the future, and I simply say, if there was any talk about Canberra, it was way, way bottom of the list.
Fitzroy played a home game in Canberra around 1994-95, but that's hardly evidence of a plan to move Fitzroy to Canberra.
At the time, there was probably more of a chance of Fitzroy moving to Nauru.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You'd think bringing across a Canberra senior team to the VFL would be a first step, even if there were issues with Eastlake rebranding as Canberra etc. in the old NEAFL.

 

[Established1870]

Yeh, and the Swans made the grand final in 1996.

Yes, because the AFL gave them every possible advantage they needed to succeed and even blocked Richmond from getting Plugger so he'd go to Sydney instead.

The whole way through a 2nd Sydney team was always much more desired than a team based permanently in Canberra.

A 2nd Sydney side was well and truly a pipe dream in the 90's and no one was talking about it. The main areas talked about back then were always Freo, Port, Tassie, Canberra and even Southport but never a GWS like team happening.

The difference between the AFL, and people on here, is that they plan decades into the future, and I simply say, if there was any talk about Canberra, it was way, way bottom of the list.

The AFL in the 90's was absolutely not an organization based on long term planning and foresight and to suggest it was is asinine. Canberra was, at the time, always mentioned as next cab off the rank and even people like Kevin Sheedy were big on Canberra getting a team. If you think Canberra was low on the AFL's list of priorities then either you weren't paying attention back then or you haven't gone and looked through the history of the game because a capital side was something the AFL seriously wanted to push against the Raiders.

Fitzroy played a home game in Canberra around 1994-95, but that's hardly evidence of a plan to move Fitzroy to Canberra.
At the time, there was probably more of a chance of Fitzroy moving to Nauru.

Roylion has gone into great detail many times about Fitzroy moving to Canberra in some capacity and here's one example:

The White-Ant Files #1 - The Canberra experiment

Compiled by Roylion and stated by he, and often by Wonaeamirri33, to argue against ignorance when discussing Fitzroy's AFL fate. 1- Fitzroy was refused permission by the AFL to partially relocate to Canberra, and play seven home games there each season, despite having negotiated a deal which...

www.bigfooty.com

If you actually think the AFL have never had an interest in Canberra then simply put, you don't know anything about the AFL and Canberra.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Roylion has gone into great detail many times about Fitzroy moving to Canberra in some capacity and here's one example:

The White-Ant Files #1 - The Canberra experiment

Compiled by Roylion and stated by he, and often by Wonaeamirri33, to argue against ignorance when discussing Fitzroy's AFL fate. 1- Fitzroy was refused permission by the AFL to partially relocate to Canberra, and play seven home games there each season, despite having negotiated a deal which...

www.bigfooty.com

That's an interesting read. Seven games would have been pretty close to making it a Canberra team (and you'd think potentially more down the line). For comparison, the Brumbies only play eight home games.

It's also interesting that Fitzroy were informed their Canberra initiative wouldn't be supported only two weeks before merger talks were authorised.

 

[Canberra Pear]

You'd think bringing across a Canberra senior team to the VFL would be a first step, even if there were issues with Eastlake rebranding as Canberra etc. in the old NEAFL.

That would be amazing. I would hope there's behind-the-scenes work already going on to make this happen. And for a VFLW team, too.

Back in 2014, the AFL tried to get the remaining four NEAFL teams to combine for a single team and each contribute $150k per year. Queanbeyan was not a fan of the idea, then they and Belconnen dropped out.

I think a composite Canberra team would be the best option rather any local team rebranding. A Crows rather than a Port situation.

I'd like to see it created with the expectation of being promoted into the AFL. A unique identity with no clashing mascots, uniforms with any AFL teams. That way when the time comes, the team already has history and support and can smoothly enter the competition.