Expansion Canberra

[Canberra Pear]

Not the scope of this thread, but the AFL could have used the new AFLW competition to re-imagine the current club based system, rather than replicating it - they could thus have reduced the number of Victorian teams and have teams from Tasmania, ACT and possibly NT/ North Queensland in the AFLW. If this had occurred, Canberra would have had an AFLW team

I'm torn. I think the AFLW has benefited by working off a pre-existing base.

I'd say crowds have probably been bigger than they would've been with standalone teams. And the AFLW teams have benefited by being able to leverage the men's facilities.

But it was definitely a missed opportunity to more evenly redistribute teams.

 

[LordLucifer]

The final poll had only 11% of Canberra-based GWS members supporting the Giants as their primary team, which would extrapolate to 667 members.

Small sample size, but interesting perspective. And it shows that the Giants are definitely better off focusing on their Sydney base.

Totally agree, the western suburbs of Sydney has a very large population that needs to be conquered through hard work and persistence.

I'm heavily supportive of expansion into new markets and growing the number of clubs overall by another four.

Canberra is on my hitlist as the location for a fully fledged stand alone club, not a FIFO model like we currently have with the Giants.

With Tassie coming in, the number of clubs goes up to 19 meaning there will be one club per round having a bye which is not ideal, especially as some clubs will get two byes in a season. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that a 20th club is created to coincide with the Tassie team entering the AFL.

NSW
1. Sydney Swans
2. GWS Giants
3. North Shore Sentinels (new entity)
4. Illawarra Irons (new entity)

ACT
5. Canberra Kangaroos (North Melbourne to relocate)

QLD
6. Brisbane Lions
7. Gold Coast Suns
8. Sunshine Coast Saints (St. Kilda to relocate)
9. Boondall Battalion (new entity)

WA
10. West Coast Eagles
11. Fremantle Dockers

SA
12. Adelaide Crows
13. Port Adelaide Power

TAS
14. Hobart Hustlers (new entity)

VIC
15. Collingwood Magpies
16. Essendon Bombers
17. Carlton Blues
18. Richmond Tigers
19. Geelong Cats
20. Melbourne Demons
21. Hawthorn Hawks
22. Western Suburbs Bulldogs

 

[Coolangatta]

Can't see any Vic club ever being relocated because the AFL can't force any club to.

I would add Canberra as the 20th team and not even think about a 21st team until late 2040s/50s and even then it's a big if.

It's what makes secondary markets so important. I think Canberra should do everything they can now to upgrade Manuka to at least 20k capacity. Imagine if they had 20k crowds at Giants games before their own team.

It would make them easily the strongest case for a 20th side apart from a 3rd WA side that I struggle to see anyone would give a shit about if it's not a WAFL club with history:

East Perth Royals or West Perth Falcons (not gonna happen, west + bird mascot, North Perth/Joondalup Falcons maybe)
Subiaco Bears (can't use Lions, similar to Hawks colours)
Peel Thunder (too small), Thunder similar to Power, maybe Peel Pirates, but would they capture Bunbury support? Doubtful. I think a south-west side could actually work in 25-30 years cause like Geelong does with Melbourne it could capture Perth supporters: South-West Sharks.
Not gonna be a 2nd Fremantle team so forget south or east
Claremont Pirates (cool but expansion would likely come from northern or eastern suburbs)
Swan Districts (doubtful, swans mascot black swans is still too close, black and white colours would be funny just to see Eddie's head explode). Maybe Swan Districts Diggers, add gold to their mascot but West Coast

There are options, but a WAFL connection gives them something to start with and future generations would make or break them.

But why bother with all of that if Canberra is getting good crowds, which they are already.

In any case, any 21st or 22nd team needs to be tested out. Any talk of Newcastle or wherever is ridiculous unless they can get good crowds (and TV numbers will matter, too).

edit: truth be said, if the work is done and the numbers hold up, NZ could be a good pick for team 21, they'd certainly have everyone else beat in terms of population, but you'd want to be sure they're keen. if there's no obvious team 22, that is when a south-west WA team could work, I think. Possibly the Sunshine Coast but I'd be tempted to leave a 3rd QLD side option open for NQ which won't have the population by then.

So maybe: 19 TAS 20 ACT 21 NZ 22 SW-WA 23 NQ 24 NT, with 23 and 24 not happening for 50+ years if ever.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I saw this posted on LU and I thought it showed an interesting comparison.

It shows Google search trends between the AFL (red) and NRL (blue) in the ACT.



The Giants have no doubt been good for player development, but it doesn't look they've necessarily done much in terms of public interest.

The AFL had a little (and growing) lead over NRL before the creation of the Giants, which is impressive for only three games a year.
But the drop in AFL interest almost coincides with the introduction of GWS. And the NRL has been gaining ground ever since.

Some of that NRL gain would likely come from the diminishing Brumbies crowds. Though elsewhere around the country, the traditional transition has been from union to AFL, so it's been a missed opportunity without a local AFL team to scoop up all of the fans and media.

 

[LordLucifer]

Can't see any Vic club ever being relocated because the AFL can't force any club to.

I understand your position on this but I disagree purely on the basis of my wish to see the AFL grow to become a stronger competition with transparency & equity for all clubs.

The AFL can't keep bailing out the poorly performing (or poorly managed) clubs with financial aid and/or draft concessions when they are their own worst enemy. It extremely unfair on the other existing clubs who work hard to balance the books & maintain a strong membership base too.

I also don't see how a club can flatly refuse when they are being constantly propped up with the welfare activities.

"hey Mr. AFL, we want as much of your help as possible because we are not able to manage our own affairs but even so, we know a move interstate will not work for us" ............................ it smacks of a 'head in the sand' mentality to me.

If my club was in a serious ongoing pickle, whilst I'd be disappointed with the option, I'd look at a move interstate as the best option for long-term success.

Best of all (and I don't live in Melbourne now), I'd be able to see my team play live one week and then on TV the next, I'd also be able to take out an interstate membership to ensure I'm still part of the throng.

Every time the AFL has tried to move a club they in the past, they have put some juicy enticements on the table to go with that move which if accepted, virtually guaranteed strong onfield success. The other clubs went along with those inducements in the knowledge that the move was designed to grow the game overall.

I strongly believe that a lot of clubs are really tiring of these regular assistance packages being handed out and it wouldn't surprise me to see a number of clubs confront the AFL over it in unison.

At present, we have clubs going 'cap in hand' to the AFL asking for help due to issues that were of their own doing.

I think it's time that ALL welfare packages to stop for ALL clubs because at present, there is no penalty for poor management. The threat of extinction or relocation would change that mindset & the competition would be stronger overall with some mergers & relocations IMO. We moved on from a local suburban competition many years ago and we cannot put the genie back in the bottle now.

 

[Coolangatta]

I understand your position on this but I disagree purely on the basis of my wish to see the AFL grow to become a stronger competition with transparency & equity for all clubs.

The AFL can't keep bailing out the poorly performing (or poorly managed) clubs with financial aid and/or draft concessions when they are their own worst enemy. It extremely unfair on the other existing clubs who work hard to balance the books & maintain a strong membership base too.

I also don't see how a club can flatly refuse when they are being constantly propped up with the welfare activities.

"hey Mr. AFL, we want as much of your help as possible because we are not able to manage our own affairs but even so, we know a move interstate will not work for us" ............................ it smacks of a 'head in the sand' mentality to me.

If my club was in a serious ongoing pickle, whilst I'd be disappointed with the option, I'd look at a move interstate as the best option for long-term success.

Best of all (and I don't live in Melbourne now), I'd be able to see my team play live one week and then on TV the next, I'd also be able to take out an interstate membership to ensure I'm still part of the throng.

Every time the AFL has tried to move a club they in the past, they have put some juicy enticements on the table to go with that move which if accepted, virtually guaranteed strong onfield success. The other clubs went along with those inducements in the knowledge that the move was designed to grow the game overall.

I strongly believe that a lot of clubs are really tiring of these regular assistance packages being handed out and it wouldn't surprise me to see a number of clubs confront the AFL over it in unison.

At present, we have clubs going 'cap in hand' to the AFL asking for help due to issues that were of their own doing.

I think it's time that ALL welfare packages to stop for ALL clubs because at present, there is no penalty for poor management. The threat of extinction or relocation would change that mindset & the competition would be stronger overall with some mergers & relocations IMO. We moved on from a local suburban competition many years ago and we cannot put the genie back in the bottle now.

But if the Giants and Suns don't get help, those clubs would fold and then you can forget about 3rd or 4th teams in NSW and QLD. Even Tassie wouldn't last without help, I can't see them being self-reliant from day one.

 

[LordLucifer]

But if the Giants and Suns don't get help, those clubs would fold and then you can forget about 3rd or 4th teams in NSW and QLD. Even Tassie wouldn't last without help, I can't see them being self-reliant from day one.

Start-up operations will always require help for the first decade, there is no escaping that. I'm referring to the older established clubs who take turns to ask for help.

If a club was created in or relocated to Canberra (and I'm all-in on having an ACT-based club) then they would require some support from the start.

The sooner we have an ACT club the better actually.

 

[Bjo187]

I saw this posted on LU and I thought it showed an interesting comparison.

It shows Google search trends between the AFL (red) and NRL (blue) in the ACT.

View attachment 1830403

The Giants have no doubt been good for player development, but it doesn't look they've necessarily done much in terms of public interest.

The AFL had a little (and growing) lead over NRL before the creation of the Giants, which is impressive for only three games a year.
But the drop in AFL interest almost coincides with the introduction of GWS. And the NRL has been gaining ground ever since.

Some of that NRL gain would likely come from the diminishing Brumbies crowds. Though elsewhere around the country, the traditional transition has been from union to AFL, so it's been a missed opportunity without a local AFL team to scoop up all of the fans and media.

This is interesting and contradicts hunter fujaks data that uses internet traffic to determine afl as the most popular sport in Canberra (up till 2020 when the book was written).

 

[The Educator]

I saw this posted on LU and I thought it showed an interesting comparison.

It shows Google search trends between the AFL (red) and NRL (blue) in the ACT.

View attachment 1830403

The Giants have no doubt been good for player development, but it doesn't look they've necessarily done much in terms of public interest.

The AFL had a little (and growing) lead over NRL before the creation of the Giants, which is impressive for only three games a year.
But the drop in AFL interest almost coincides with the introduction of GWS. And the NRL has been gaining ground ever since.

Some of that NRL gain would likely come from the diminishing Brumbies crowds. Though elsewhere around the country, the traditional transition has been from union to AFL, so it's been a missed opportunity without a local AFL team to scoop up all of the fans and media.

Yeah, I would say there was a change in methodology after 2010 that favoured the AFL previously (i.e. that dotted line)

The Raiders have obviously had a solid 5 years and the NRL has improved its digital footprint. Broadly though the AFL has increased over the last 6 years on that graph

 

[Canberra Pear]

This is interesting and contradicts hunter fujaks data that uses internet traffic to determine afl as the most popular sport in Canberra (up till 2020 when the book was written).

From memory (I've misplaced the book), that data was from 2014-2018, so the graph looks like AFL might have had a slight edge in that period.

But the NRL have seemingly pulled away since.

 

[Bjo187]

From memory (I've misplaced the book), that data was from 2014-2018, so the graph looks like AFL might have had a slight edge in that period.

But the NRL have seemingly pulled away since.

That's a surprise if so, not sure why that's happened.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

That's a surprise if so, not sure why that's happened.

Well Canberra did make the 2019 GF (loss against Sydney) and then have made continuous finals series in 2020, 2022 and 2023 so popularity in rugby league has been solid (not excellent though) in Canberra ever since.

Wonder what’ll happen if the Raiders have a couple of lean years now though that Crocker and Wighton (star players) are gone and GWS continues to finish well in the Top 4/8 during that period of time.

 

[Coolangatta]

Start-up operations will always require help for the first decade, there is no escaping that. I'm referring to the older established clubs who take turns to ask for help.

If a club was created in or relocated to Canberra (and I'm all-in on having an ACT-based club) then they would require some support from the start.

The sooner we have an ACT club the better actually.

I’d love to see 3rd clubs in WA, SA, NSW, and QLD plus clubs in ACT, NT, and NZ.

If your goal is to keep it to 24 clubs playing once over 23 games then you’d need to relocate two Victorian clubs to do all of that.

But what I want and reality are two different things. I can see the future viability of 3rd teams in WA and SA and an ACT team, and a 3rd QLD side if it’s in the south east region (and as I’ve said I’d prefer North Queensland). But a 3rd NSW team, NT and NZ side are going to be very difficult.

And so you probably don’t need to look at relocating any Vic clubs for a long while yet unless the unlikely becomes likely.

But in 20-30 years time all the Vic clubs might have their act together. If they don’t then you would have a look, especially if the AFL knows there’s a strong market. People say it’s lunacy to lose TV viewers of said clubs yet the AFL did try to move North to Gold Coast.

 

[CURVE]

With Tassie coming in, the number of clubs goes up to 19 meaning there will be one club per round having a bye which is not ideal, especially as some clubs will get two byes in a season. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that a 20th club is created to coincide with the Tassie team entering the AFL.

Or they will do what the NRL do and have a number of weeks where 3 or 5 teams have the bye. Whatever they do, they will ensure every team has the same number of byes, and if it works as well as it did the NRL last season they can take their time in deciding if a 20th team is required.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Well Canberra did make the 2019 GF (loss against Sydney) and then have made continuous finals series in 2020, 2022 and 2023 so popularity in rugby league has been solid (not excellent though) in Canberra ever since.

Wonder what’ll happen if the Raiders have a couple of lean years now though that Crocker and Wighton (star players) are gone and GWS continues to finish well in the Top 4/8 during that period of time.

2019 was actually a pretty good insight with the Giants and Raiders both making (and losing) the grand final in the same fortnight. The Giants were an afterthought compared to the Green Machine in Canberra.

I really think the demise of the Brumbies has elevated the Raiders' popularity. The Raiders get the lions' share of the media now.

Will be interesting to see if the AFL can catch up with the Giants performing well, but the Raiders will still get the lions' share of the media. Even if they win a grand final, GWS will still be an interstate team compared to the Raiders.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Or they will do what the NRL do and have a number of weeks where 3 or 5 teams have the bye. Whatever they do, they will ensure every team has the same number of byes, and if it works as well as it did the NRL last season they can take their time in deciding if a 20th team is required.

A Tasmanian team isn't expected to enter the men's comp until 2028. I'd be very surprised if the AFL didn't have Team 20 locked in (at least privately) by then.

There might be a few years between Teams 19 and 20 entering, but I reckon that'll be more about giving Tasmania a chance to settle and not distorting the draft too much, rather than not settling on a location.

 

[Coolangatta]

A Tasmanian team isn't expected to enter the men's comp until 2028. I'd be very surprised if the AFL didn't have Team 20 locked in (at least privately) by then.

There might be a few years between Teams 19 and 20 entering, but I reckon that'll be more about giving Tasmania a chance to settle and not distorting the draft too much, rather than not settling on a location.

Exactly.

If it's Canberra I think it will be 2033, with the Giants playing full time in Western Sydney/Newcastle.

If it's WA3 I think it will be 2032, which would be year one of the new media rights deal.

Either way, it'll be early on in the new deal as a dangling gold carrot for broadcasters to pay extra for that 10th game.

 

[Badger17]

2019 was actually a pretty good insight with the Giants and Raiders both making (and losing) the grand final in the same fortnight. The Giants were an afterthought compared to the Green Machine in Canberra.

I really think the demise of the Brumbies has elevated the Raiders' popularity. The Raiders get the lions' share of the media now.

Will be interesting to see if the AFL can catch up with the Giants performing well, but the Raiders will still get the lions' share of the media. Even if they win a grand final, GWS will still be an interstate team compared to the Raiders.

No, if anything Union's struggles have benefited AFL in Canberra, not RL. The Raiders, and RL by extension, just had a lot of latent support that had been lying dormant since the 90s, most of which has been woken up by making the prelim in 2016, the GF in 2019, and just not being perennial also-rans for the first time in decades. That support will slowly start to go dormant again once the hope of success dries up.

There's more cooperation between the two Rugby codes in Canberra than in most other places in the country, but the class and cultural divide still holds true here, and the ardent Union types will never switch to RL or the Raiders. They're just not engaging with RU like they used to because it's probably the most diabolically run code in the country. RU supporters will slowly start to come back once RA stops doing everything in their power to run them off lol.

The only way GWS will ever draw similar interest to the Raiders is if the Raiders completely fall off, and no amount of media coverage will change that. GWS are more or less at their ceiling in Canberra, and the only thing that could result in a significant boost to their numbers would be if they played games against the Swans and larger Melbourne teams here, which is never going to happen.

 

[Canberra Pear]

No, if anything Union's struggles have benefited AFL in Canberra, not RL. The Raiders, and RL by extension, just had a lot of latent support that had been lying dormant since the 90s, most of which has been woken up by making the prelim in 2016, the GF in 2019, and just not being perennial also-rans for the first time in decades. That support will slowly start to go dormant again once the hope of success dries up.

There's more cooperation between the two Rugby codes in Canberra than in most other places in the country, but the class and cultural divide still holds true here, and the ardent Union types will never switch to RL or the Raiders. They're just not engaging with RU like they used to because it's probably the most diabolically run code in the country. RU supporters will slowly start to come back once RA stops doing everything in their power to run them off lol.

Canberra has a lot of people that go for Team Canberra when they're doing well. You can see the excitement when the UC Caps won back-to-back championships. Union fans may not have necessarily hopped over to NRL, but I think their proportion of media has, which would've helped get the Team Canberra folks on board.

The only way GWS will ever draw similar interest to the Raiders is if the Raiders completely fall off, and no amount of media coverage will change that.

I agree. Very few Canberrans see GWS as actually Canberran. You can't expect to draw similar levels of interest with a part-time team.

GWS are more or less at their ceiling in Canberra, and the only thing that could result in a significant boost to their numbers would be if they played games against the Swans and larger Melbourne teams here, which is never going to happen.

This sums it up perfectly. With three games a year, generally against smaller sides, the Giants are pretty much at their peak in Canberra (which is not "unassailably no. 1" as Gil predicted). The members have hovered around 6k for the past decade. The crowds will probably go up a bit next year with performance and hopefully some better opposition. But in general, they seem to have reached a ceiling that can't be broken through without a greater presence.

 

[Bjo187]

Interesting I was looking at the voting blocks for yesterday's referendum and I read 40 percent of Canberran's are degree qualified, the highest in the country. Now if you look at the demographics of where footy is popular in the northern states, it's the wealthier more educated suburbs. This is also a good thing for a Canberra AFL team, the demographics of the local population.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Interesting I was looking at the voting blocks for yesterday's referendum and I read 40 percent of Canberran's are degree qualified, the highest in the country. Now if you look at the demographics of where footy is popular in the northern states, it's the wealthier more educated suburbs. This is also a good thing for a Canberra AFL team, the demographics of the local population.

It also aligns with where rugby union is popular, and at last check, union has triple the number of RU men's teams as RL teams in the ACT.

Which is also why the AFL would want to jump so quickly if the Brumbies did fold.

It also fits with the Canberra Owls as a symbol of wisdom (or at least the perception of it).

 

[Walshawk]

I saw this posted on LU and I thought it showed an interesting comparison.

It shows Google search trends between the AFL (red) and NRL (blue) in the ACT.

View attachment 1830403

The Giants have no doubt been good for player development, but it doesn't look they've necessarily done much in terms of public interest.

The AFL had a little (and growing) lead over NRL before the creation of the Giants, which is impressive for only three games a year.
But the drop in AFL interest almost coincides with the introduction of GWS. And the NRL has been gaining ground ever since.

Some of that NRL gain would likely come from the diminishing Brumbies crowds. Though elsewhere around the country, the traditional transition has been from union to AFL, so it's been a missed opportunity without a local AFL team to scoop up all of the fans and media.

Swans used to come to town before the introduction of the Giants. Now they get the lower drawing clubs there. Could that be a factor? Or is it simply that RU fans have moved across to RL?

 

[Walshawk]

Interesting I was looking at the voting blocks for yesterday's referendum and I read 40 percent of Canberran's are degree qualified, the highest in the country. Now if you look at the demographics of where footy is popular in the northern states, it's the wealthier more educated suburbs. This is also a good thing for a Canberra AFL team, the demographics of the local population.

That is why it is the only part of Australia where Union has been number 1

 

[Canberra Pear]

Swans used to come to town before the introduction of the Giants. Now they get the lower drawing clubs there. Could that be a factor? Or is it simply that RU fans have moved across to RL?

I'm sure there are a multitude of factors. I've only been in Canberra for eight years so don't have any first-hand experience of a time before the Giants.

But Sydney upping their away games in Canberra definitely seemed to coincide in that small spike in the late 2010s, and most of Manuka's highest crowds involve Sydney, so I'd agree that'd be likely a factor.

But it shows the Giants aren't really capturing the hearts of Canberra the way the AFL had hoped, especially when you see the earlier comparison to the Swans.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The Giants AFLW home crowds this year (from the AusStadiums website).

- Manuka average crowd of 1,919
(Rd 2 vs Melbourne- 2,028; Rd 4 vs Adelaide- 1809)
- Blacktown average crowd of 989
(Rd 3 vs Richmond- 1,051; Rd 6 vs West Coast- 927)
- Henson Park 1,574 (Rd 8 vs Carlton)