Expansion Canberra

[Canberra Pear]

How are they contributing to those sides anyway?

The Brumbies get $1.75m per year, the Raiders get $2.6m per year. This new deal makes the Giants the biggest club recipient of ACT government funding. Weirdly, horseracing gets $7m.

A Canberra AFL side would have massive economic benefits for the ACT. Do you know how many people would travel up from Melbourne to games in Canberra, it's a no brainer for a government that actually wants a team.

The ACT government definitely recognises the importance of AFL.

Fans travel more, so every game attracts more away fans, so more tourism money. In 2021, Canberra only received two games (and they were impacted by Covid and travel restrictions), but the ACT budget revealed it delivered an estimated $1.47 million to Canberra. Outside of Covid, you could probably round that up to $1m per game.

A lot of the worth also comes from national recognition of the Canberra brand. In a RiotACT article, it mentions AFL's greater reach meaning a greater worth for sponsorship.

"GWS also receives more funding per game than either the Brumbies or the Raiders because the AFL has a greater national reach in terms of television coverage than the other codes."

In 2019, the exposure from the Giants' grand final appearance was apparently worth $1m to Canberra, based mostly on the "Canberra" on the back of the guernsey.

You'd think having an actual team in the competition called "Canberra", the name "Canberra" appearing in every sportscast, on every ladder, would be more valuable than a spot on the back of a guernsey. If a guernsey spot in one game was worth $1m in exposure, the name everywhere, all season would be worth at least $10 million in exposure. Add the estimated ~$11m benefit from games, a Canberra AFL team would absolutely be beneficial for Canberra.

I agree they are idiots with stupid ideas, but Eddie is often the mouthpiece for Gillon in the AFL media. Just like caro was for Demetriou in the past.

When Eddie came out with that piece about North playing 11 games in Tasmania and 11 in Victoria, he lost any credibility for me. Seriously, playing 11 away games in Victoria against 9 Victorian teams? He could have been acting as a mouthpiece this time, but he's spouted so much bs it's hard to filter what's real and not.

Thinking about this lifeboat idea. I did agree that was the theory, but I'm now thinking, could the AFL ever actually pull out of a market as big as Sydney and only have 1 team? I think they would see that as suicide. I liked the idea of flipping the deal, so make gws the Canberra side but with 3 games at showgrounds. The problem with that is, one side in that market isn't enough. My disappointment comes in the fact those 3 games would have been perfect at a redeveloped north sydney oval, or Henson park or somewhere to pull a new fan base, as getting fans out of WS seems near impossible at the moment.

Seriously though the AFL marketing team are absolutely clueless with their crap ideas. I posted somewhere previously 7 ideas to make going to giants games more appealing in WS, but when you have private school corporates from the eastern suburbs of Melbourne making the decisions about what works in multicultural neighborhoods in WS, no wonder they are struggling.

I agree that Sydney is too important for one team, and that's the irony of this situation. Keeping the Giants in Canberra stops GWS growing and maintains the perception that they need Canberra.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I've done some further digging on comparisons.

The AFL Tasmania Taskforce report has an estimated economic impact of 11 home games. The low end (estimated on crowds of 14k, which I'd expect Canberra to surpass) predicted a fan expenditure of $34m-$63m and an increase to the GSP of between $12m and $22m. It estimated the creation of 120-220 permanent jobs.

In 2008, Tourism Tasmania estimated they received $3.4m worth of exposure through their sponsorship ($4.8m in 2022 dollars). Having Canberra physically in the name would be way more valuable than a spot on a uniform (as I mentioned above, the name would be referenced in every sportscast, "CBR" on the scorecard etc), so having a "Canberra" team in the national competition would be worth at least triple that.

Admittedly, I'm not an economist, but by these comparisons, a Canberra AFL team would bring in tens of millions of dollars into the territory. It's almost irresponsible for the ACT government to not be pursuing a team.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

One of the issues is that as we are not an AFL heartland, there’s going to be criticism of any ACT government funding of a Canberra AFL team - and without significant ACT Government lobbying and funding, we won’t have a Canberra team 20.

Even this $28.5 million 10 year deal has drawn mixed reaction from the wider Canberra community, as seen in the comments from this community site (Are the GWS Giants worth $28.5 million over 10 years? | Riotact)

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I appreciate your optimism, but for me it was the worst possible option, a few reasons:

• do the act government not want their own team, so intentionally made it a long deal
• do the AFL not want a Canberra team, so intentionally made it a long deal
• the deal extends 1 year past when the new tv rights are starting, that doesn't make sense
• I haven't heard Canberra mentioned once in conversations by the media including Eddie McGuire it's all n.t our north qld.
• $2.85m in 2030 will be pretty much nothing, why would gws even agree to that.

The whole thing is stupid and disappointing from all 3 parties if you ask me.

I think also that with chatter of us getting an Aleague soccer team in Canberra, as the Aleague seeks to expand by a further 2 teams, the prospect of a full time Canberra Team 20 got more difficult. The ACT government will also have to fund a Manuka upgrade if we want a full time team, and a soccer team will lead to the prioritisation of the rectangular Bruce stadium upgrade/replacement as that will also satisfy the Raiders and Brumbies.

I also thought that if the AFL wanted a future Canberra T20, they would have only had a 9 year deal as that would then (with the inclusion of a Tasmanian T19) enable extra $ when the next media rights are negotiated to account for the extra game a week

 

[Canberra Pear]

One of the issues is that as we are not an AFL heartland, there’s going to be criticism of any ACT government funding of a Canberra AFL team - and without significant ACT Government lobbying and funding, we won’t have a Canberra team 20.

Even this $28.5 million 10 year deal has drawn mixed reaction from the wider Canberra community, as seen in the comments from this community site (Are the GWS Giants worth $28.5 million over 10 years? | Riotact)

There's definitely been a mixed reaction, but I think the biggest issue in all the comments I've read have been specific to the club, not the code. A lot of people don't want ACT money going to a Sydney team. They don't think a fifo team playing three games should get more money than a Canberra-based team playing 11 games.

The stats show that AFL is worth the return on investment (and that we have the support), but it still looks icky propping up an interstate team compared to actual local teams.

 

[Bjo187]

Why is the ACT government giving money annually to the two rugby teams anyway? The gws sponsorship is to get games in the city and for sponsorship. What other places fund their sporting teams with taxpayers money?

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

The ACT Government can't afford one new stadium, let alone two (a condition of entry would be a new, probably roofed, stadium).

 

[Rob]

Exactly, and all the while GWS are playing home games in Canberra there is zero chance of Canberra getting its own AFL team, and rumours are suggesting that the A League are looking at putting a team in Canberra, which will require an up grade to where the union and Rugby League play out of at the moment, or perhaps a new stadium if an upgrade is to expensive.

Why on earth would an A League team need an upgraded stadium? I would have thought even best case scenario they're getting 5k a game.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Why is the ACT government giving money annually to the two rugby teams anyway? The gws sponsorship is to get games in the city and for sponsorship. What other places fund their sporting teams with taxpayers money?

That's actually a good point, I hadn't considered how few cities actually fund their pro teams. I think having the single level city/state government works in Canberra's favour.

Canberra does it for all sports at a national level. The UC Capitals (WNBL) and Canberra United (W-League) each cash in about $125k per year, the ACT Meteors (cricket) get $33k, the Canberra Cavalry (baseball) gets $40k, and the CBR Brave (ice hockey) gets $29k.

But if a Canberra AFL team would bring in tens of millions of dollars, I'd say the Raiders and Brumbies are proving their worth. They may not be worth as much as an AFL team, but they'd bring in more than the $2.6m and $1.75m per year, respectively.

The ACT government recognises both rugbies and AFL as a bigger return on investment, so they get more. So I'd expect ACT government funding to continue, if not increase, if we ever got an AFL team.

Canberra's not alone, but it seems not to be a thing in bigger markets. The NT Thunder got $400k a year, the JackJumpers get $250k, and the Tasmania AFL team will get 12m. I think it's not a thing in bigger markets, because then you're more likely to more teams to split the pie and a diminishing return on tourism.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The ACT Government can't afford one new stadium, let alone two (a condition of entry would be a new, probably roofed, stadium).

I don't know if a brand new stadium will be a condition for wherever gets Team 20. The AFL didn't want Team 19 so made Tasmania jump through hoops, I think they'll be more flexible for Team 20 as it'll help even up the fixture.

I also don't know if a roof is necessary on a Canberra stadium. Through the AFL season (measured March through September), Canberra is the driest capital city in Australia (though a wet March skews Darwin). In that period, Canberra (usually) receives less rain than anywhere that hosts an AFL team except for Geelong.

We'll absolutely need a stadium upgrade, but I don't think a brand new stadium is necessary. Wouldn't say no to some heating though.

 

[Bjo187]

I don't know if a brand new stadium will be a condition for wherever gets Team 20. The AFL didn't want Team 19 so made Tasmania jump through hoops, I think they'll be more flexible for Team 20 as it'll help even up the fixture.

I also don't know if a roof is necessary on a Canberra stadium. Through the AFL season (measured March through September), Canberra is the driest capital city in Australia (though a wet March skews Darwin). In that period, Canberra (usually) receives less rain than anywhere that hosts an AFL team except for Geelong.

We'll absolutely need a stadium upgrade, but I don't think a brand new stadium is necessary. Wouldn't say no to some heating though.

Yeah I feel like they could put about 50 mill into simply upgrading Manuka and it would be a decent stadium. Haven't been there, but my mate is from Canberra and reckons it's a nice little stadium already.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Yeah I feel like they could put about 50 mill into simply upgrading Manuka and it would be a decent stadium. Haven't been there, but my mate is from Canberra and reckons it's a nice little stadium already.

I do like Manuka. It's just missing some amenities and capacity.

Your mate's not far off. The masterplan had upgrades to get it just under 20k for $59m. Long-term, you'd want a bigger capacity, but I think 20k is acceptable to start with. The plan looks like it allows room to go bigger if the crowds justify it.

If we got a team with it, the AFL would probably chip in $15m (in line with the deals for GWS, GC and Tasmania), so it'd only cost the government ~$44m. A bargain compared to the $500m-$700m pricetag for the Civic stadium.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

There's definitely been a mixed reaction, but I think the biggest issue in all the comments I've read have been specific to the club, not the code. A lot of people don't want ACT money going to a Sydney team. They don't think a fifo team playing three games should get more money than a Canberra-based team playing 11 games.

The stats show that AFL is worth the return on investment (and that we have the support), but it still looks icky propping up an interstate team compared to actual local teams.

Thanks- yes a very valid point. Whilst there has been some negative chatter about the deal, it’s true that they were mainly directed at $28.5 million being given to an interstate team. Also some criticism that per game the AFL gets more funding than what ACT based rugby codes get. Plus the usual criticism (after any funding to sports) on how money could be better spent instead on roads and education etc

 

[Canberra Pear]

Thanks- yes a very valid point. Whilst there has been some negative chatter about the deal, it’s true that they were mainly directed at $28.5 million being given to an interstate team. Also some criticism that per game the AFL gets more funding than what ACT based rugby codes get. Plus the usual criticism (after any funding to sports) on how money could be better spent instead on roads and education etc

Yeah, that criticism is to be expected.

Tasmanian newspapers got the same funding comments on the new stadium posts.

I think GWS and the ACT government need to push the economic impact angle more. It's highly likely that more than the $2.85m per year will get pumped back into the Canberra economy.

Footy games are great, but if they can show that there's a net economic benefit, then it would silence a lot of critics.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I think GWS and the ACT government need to push the economic impact angle more. It's highly likely that more than the $2.85m per year will get pumped back into the Canberra economy.

Footy games are great, but if they can show that there's a net economic benefit, then it would silence a lot of critics.

Yes, that’s one of the main justification for the deal. The CBR logo is going to be on our GWS guernsies, and Barr states of “expanded opportunities to market Canberra leveraging the GIANTS and AFL profile, particularly into the Sydney market”. Not clear what that specifically means, but obviously the ACT Government is happy with the economic feasibility of its funding.

 

[Rob]

Yeah, that criticism is to be expected.

Tasmanian newspapers got the same funding comments on the new stadium posts.

I think GWS and the ACT government need to push the economic impact angle more. It's highly likely that more than the $2.85m per year will get pumped back into the Canberra economy.

Footy games are great, but if they can show that there's a net economic benefit, then it would silence a lot of critics.

You'd hope so, but you'd want a lot more economic impact than your spend to make it worthwhile. A government could spend $3m in a local shopping centre and expect economic impact of at least $10m.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Why on earth would an A League team need an upgraded stadium? I would have thought even best case scenario they're getting 5k a game.

3 football codes using the stadium

 

[MelbourneGWS]

3 football codes using the stadium

The addition of a Canberra A-league (men’s) team will probably happen within the next 5 years - if not much sooner as the Aleague expands from 12 to 14 teams in the next couple of seasons. Chatter from media is we have a good chance to get one of these spots, having just missed out on the previous soccer expansions. As League, Union and soccer can all use the rectangular stadium, I fear the Manuka stadium upgrade will be a secondary priority.

 

[Rob]

3 football codes using the stadium

You don't need to upgrade the stadium for a new tenant if that tenant isn't actually going to make use of the upgrades.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

You don't need to upgrade the stadium for a new tenant if that tenant isn't actually going to make use of the upgrades.

The raiders and brumbies as well some in the business community, have been lobbying for a new rectangular stadium in the city to replace the stadium, which so far Barr has resisted. I agree that it’s unlikely that any new Canberra soccer team will have more crowds than the raiders, but it will be another voice for the replacement/ upgrade of Bruce stadium. I am not sure if our government can make significant upgrades to both Bruce and Manuka

 

[Canberra Pear]

This article on the expected demographic change of states by 2032-2033 was discussed on the Tasmania thread.

Coincidentally, it happens to be when the GWS-Canberra deal next expires.

By 2032-33, the ACT is expected to reach 550k people.

That change means the ACT is expected to grow 19.6% over the next decade - more than any state or territory (Victoria was closest on 18.1%).

Close to 100k will live within an hour in NSW, so Greater Canberra will have 650k people by then, which is more than enough to support a team of our own.

Interestingly, that growth is expected to be boosted by a higher-than-national-average birth rate (we have a bit of a millennial bulge).

 

[Aussie in exile]

This article on the expected demographic change of states by 2032-2033 was discussed on the Tasmania thread.

Coincidentally, it happens to be when the GWS-Canberra deal next expires.

By 2032-33, the ACT is expected to reach 550k people.

That change means the ACT is expected to grow 19.6% over the next decade - more than any state or territory (Victoria was closest on 18.1%).

Close to 100k will live within an hour in NSW, so Greater Canberra will have 650k people by then, which is more than enough to support a team of our own.

Interestingly, that growth is expected to be boosted by a higher-than-national-average birth rate (we have a bit of a millennial bulge).

Potential good news as all the while GWS play games in Canberra, Canberra wouldn't have it's own AFL team.
GWS was the fly in the ointment for a Canberra team

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

This article on the expected demographic change of states by 2032-2033 was discussed on the Tasmania thread.

Coincidentally, it happens to be when the GWS-Canberra deal next expires.

By 2032-33, the ACT is expected to reach 550k people.

That change means the ACT is expected to grow 19.6% over the next decade - more than any state or territory (Victoria was closest on 18.1%).

Close to 100k will live within an hour in NSW, so Greater Canberra will have 650k people by then, which is more than enough to support a team of our own.

Interestingly, that growth is expected to be boosted by a higher-than-national-average birth rate (we have a bit of a millennial bulge).

Clearly the best option for team 20 IMO. Hopefully the ACT government seize the day and start showing at least a modicum of interest in the concept.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Clearly the best option for team 20 IMO. Hopefully the ACT government seize the day and start showing at least a modicum of interest in the concept.

Unfortunately the ACT government has not lobbied strongly for a standalone Canberra AFL team in contrast to the Tasmanian and even the NT government. I think this lack of strong explicit support and Manuka upgrade issues make a WA3 team more likely as Team 20 over Canberra

 

[MelbourneGWS]

This article on the expected demographic change of states by 2032-2033 was discussed on the Tasmania thread.

Coincidentally, it happens to be when the GWS-Canberra deal next expires.

By 2032-33, the ACT is expected to reach 550k people.

That change means the ACT is expected to grow 19.6% over the next decade - more than any state or territory (Victoria was closest on 18.1%).

Close to 100k will live within an hour in NSW, so Greater Canberra will have 650k people by then, which is more than enough to support a team of our own.

Interestingly, that growth is expected to be boosted by a higher-than-national-average birth rate (we have a bit of a millennial bulge).

Thanks for the information- interesting that our population growth rates exceeds all other states and NT.