The next configuration change to the AFL

[Silent Alarm]

The issue with a 'country' team is much like that of what Tasmania faces.

This club can claim to represent Bunbury, Albany, Geraldton, but those towns can't support a stadium. So they'd have to play in the largest non-metropolitan area: Mandurah. But if this 'country' team is playing out of Mandurah, how many kids in Broome or Albany are going to respond to them?

What about sponsorship? Can Mandurah support the franchise? Sure, the state has a huge mining boom. But once those resources are expelled, what industry can sponsor and support Team Three?

 

[cos789]

But if this 'country' team is playing out of Mandurah, how many kids in Broome or Albany are going to respond to them?

Mandurah is the "capital" of Peel which is rural butting onto the SW.
IMO a country "feel" is the best way to go.
Do Fremantle rely soley on sailor sets as members.
Do the Eagles rely on soley on aged care facilities ?

Sure, the state has a huge mining boom. But once those resources are expelled, what industry can sponsor and support Team Three?

Forget football mate, WA, Australia and the world would be F....d.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Mandurah is the "capital" of Peel which is rural butting onto the SW.
IMO a country "feel" is the best way to go.
Do Fremantle rely soley on sailor sets as members.
Do the Eagles rely on soley on aged care facilities ?

But Fremantle never set out to appeal to sailors. Not even to people who like the beach.

West Coast have never set out to rely on older supporters.

But you're saying this club is to be built on a country ethos. There's a huge difference. You're premise is that Team Three is for the country people of Western Australia. That is unattainable, and unsustainable.

If rural Western Australia was within the size of Tasmania, and there was a clear cut 'capital', that would be okay. But why should someone in Broome or Port Hedland feel compelled to support Team Three? Their base is far south. The state is geographically far too large to cater for a 'country' market.

 

[cos789]

But Fremantle never set out to appeal to sailors.

Red/green, port/starboard, anchor and dockers - ring the slightest bell.

West Coast have never set out to rely on older supporters.

No, but Fremantle targetted a younger spectator.

But you're saying this club is to be built on a country ethos.

FFS I said as a suggestion a team could try the country feel.
That's along way from demanding ever member produce a tractor licence as being evidence of a farmer.

Do you really thing GWS is targetting Giants as members and the GC is dependant on livesavers for there following ?

 

[Silent Alarm]

Red/green, port/starboard, anchor and dockers - ring the slightest bell.

No, but Fremantle targetted a younger spectator.

FFS I said as a suggestion a team could try the country feel.
That's along way from demanding ever member produce a tractor licence as being evidence of a farmer.

Do you really thing GWS is targetting Giants as members and the GC is dependant on livesavers for there following ?

I'm not trying to start back and forth bickering. But you are contradicting yourself.

I think most expansion clubs target a younger spectator. Unless you were Adelaide or West Coast. Those clubs had a monopoly. Their market was every footy fan in the state. Fremantle, Gold Coast, Greater Western Sydney, they all appeal to younger people for one reason: Future support. If they concentrate on an older market, and aim marketing toward 35-60 year olds, it'll be wasted - GC could lose fans to Brisbane, GWS to Sydney. If every fourth kid in Parramatta is a Giants fan, his kid will likely be a Giants fan. That is the aim of any reasonably smart franchise.

I never said GWS is targeting a following of Giants.

My argument came from one point. That country WA is unable to support its own AFL team. I gave reasons for this. You never touched on that at all.

 

[blaze036]

Why does it need to be a country appeal? just wait for WAs population to keep booming for 10-20 years then u put a 3rd one in perth and it'd get good crowds and support and stop the waiting lists for memberships

 

[cos789]

My argument came from one point. That country WA is unable to support its own AFL team. I gave reasons for this. You never touched on that at all.

Because it's not a country team.
It's a team with a country flavour.The Dockers had a very heavy nautical flavour (which you seemed to overlook). Who did they attract ? Fans from everywhere, disgruntled Eagles fans and a very multi-cultural spread.
A team (for argument sake, because this is just a debate) out of Mandurah could appeal to Peel and the SW and where ever.

I think most expansion clubs target a younger spectator.

Good point.
But I certainly didn't say target old people.
Eagles fans are old because we don't have a stadium big enough to allow new members and have to rely on attrition.

 

[cos789]

Why does it need to be a country appeal? just wait for WAs population to keep booming for 10-20 years then u put a 3rd one in perth

That's what we're talking about.
Mandurah is a bit like Frankstown geographically.
"Country feel" is just that.
It's not like NM attempting to re-locate to Ballarat .

 

[Silent Alarm]

Because it's not a country team.
It's a team with a country flavour.The Dockers had a very heavy nautical flavour (which you seemed to overlook). Who did they attract ? Fans from everywhere, disgruntled Eagles fans and a very multi-cultural spread.
A team (for argument sake, because this is just a debate) out of Mandurah could appeal to Peel and the SW and where ever.

What is a 'flavour'? I think you're referencing the work of a marketing department. Those who choose the name, the logo, the colours. Fremantle is a town rich with port history. No other team in the AFL offered that. Inevitably, it was a strong idea to combine that part of Freo with the AFL team.

Fremantle had a few names in which they were nearly called. One was 'Hammers'. What if Freo ditched their coastal influence? I'm sure the Hammers would have the same amount of fans as the Dockers.

You also can't compare the two like that. A second WA team based in Perth will fare better than a third WA team based in Mandurah. It's simple geographical evaluation and economics.

A country team is also going to alienate those in Perth. If this club has a country 'flavour' (which, by the way, you've not clarified what a flavour is), why would a Perth-ite watch them? You're also faced with a dilemma. Do you base a country-marketed team in Perth? Because that's not going to draw more fans from Mandurah or other rural centres. Why would it? Just because they've got a name representative of country WA, why would a young fan pick them over Fremantle or West Coast? It's just murky.

Then if you had a country based team playing out of Mandurah, or sharing games with Bunbury and Albany even, they will get very little Perth support. Perth has two clubs. And in the projected inauguration of Team Three, Freo and WCE will have be embedded into Perth's sporting landscape. Why would someone go against the grain? They can go to a game with their friends, and see their club every week in their town. Yet a country team is unable to appeal to every country person in WA - because the club simply can never cater for them all.

Team Three has to be a Perth team. It's fraught with issues. But those issues are minor compared to your proposal.

 

[cos789]

Team Three has to be a Perth team.

I have said that.

It's fraught with issues.

That's why people are discussing it now.

But those issues are minor compared to your proposal.

My proposal is to play a team out of Perth. We agree.
The team has to be based somewhere in Perth. We agree.

The options are :
Perth - a bit cheeky, but technically there is no Perth AFL team.
IMO it'll be hard to establish yet another inner city club.
NW, Joondalup(City of) - a huge area but basically aliagned with the Eagles.
Two WAFL clubs are interested. probably not the way to go looking at the history of PA.
NE, Swan Valley- not really populated enough.
SE,Armadale- a strong football area, but still falls short of the mark and probably lacks sufficient growth.
Fremantle - has a strong connection with the Dockers.
SW,Mandurah(City of), a suburb of Perth like just Fremantle and Joondalup.
Big area, only going to get bigger.

Now once you based you team ,somewhere in Perth which Mandurah is part and parcel of, you need to sell the idea. The Fremantle Dockers is a good example. They sold the Nautical theme. Yes they could have sold another theme. That's just backing up what I say. You could have a rural theme and maybe get some extra patrons from the SW. At least with a country theme you could play some pre-season games in the SW. I don't know why you're finding this so difficult. If you look at the GC and GWS they've all got an angle even though their population catchment areas are well defined.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I think that is a very good point.
Being one of nine in the SANFL funnels supporters into the AFL in the same ratio. If they'd dropped the SANFL they would have carried their strong local following into the AFL as they did and any new supporters would look at either one of two teams, but instead they could be prejudged by the anti PA feeling of the other SANFL teams or just simply because they appear greedy having two teams.
It's a simple(but hard) question of market share.
Fremantle has grown having identified itself with idea of Fremantle, it's history and it's football teams. It has done well (off field) with only two teams in the WAFL with "Fremantle" in their name. The "Port" in PA is a good foil for "Adelaide" but they haven't the support in the SANFL.Maybe they have to "buy" support by exiting from the SANFL.

Just to add to that point, Fremantle not being directly linked to any of the old WAFL teams makes it easy for supporters of whichever WAFL flavour to follow Fremantle in the AFL.

It took a while for Fremantle to get established and financially secure, the conventional wisdom around 2001 was that it was a mistake to create a new team from scratch, and the Port Adelaide model (drawing directly from an older club tradition) was the way to go. In the long term that seems to have been swung the other way.

 

[The_Wookie]

IF the AFL has learnt anything in the last 20 years, its that taking an established club and effectively promoting it is bad for all concerned. (see Port Adelaide). Neither was it enough to just have crap loads of money (see Southport/Gold Coast)

 

[FootyJunkie]

A third side in Perth could make way for a LIVE Friday Night double header to be a regular fixture on TV (FTA) and could be sold as a separate package for TV rights. It's technically possible to do it now with just West Coast and Fremantle, but you can't expect that all Perth games to take place on Friday nights. Adding a third side in Perth would allow for 2 Perth games some weeks with the second to be played in another time slot on Saturday or Sunday. Would have to happen with the new stadium being built. Subiaco council would not allow 22 or more night games a year at Pattersons Stadium.

7:10pm - East game (Melbourne or token game from Sydney/SEQ)
9:40pm - Perth game

TV coverage to wrap up at 12:30am out east. A top match to feature in the first game could be a decent lead in to the second game from Perth.

 

[Papa G]

Excellent deflective arguement there by SLF.

Seriously any Perthite arguing for a a third WA team, unless they are one of the 2% of Western Australian's that don't already support one of the the 2 local teams or another team already, has freaking rocks in their heads. It's like Fremantle were an over night sensation and there are 40,000 people just waiting to join a new club. They weren't and there isn't. Freo, through a combination of bloody hard work by the club and fortuitous economic conditions have become a quite wealthy and stable off field club, but again it did not happen over night. Why is there an expectation that a 3rd WA team would not find it triply hard as Fremantle did?

It's kind of like the arguement that Port, who by most estimates have 30% of the market share in SA, would somehow be much more popular if they weren't Port. It's like there is this critical mass of people who, didn't want to support the vanilla state coloured, state based, kick a Vic, team for all South Australian's club, but would have supported a new carbon copy. It defies belief. Unfortunately for Port, the club is going through it's worst patch in it's history on and off field and therefore it is easy to kick. Fine, I except that, but seriously it was only 4 years ago that we were drawing 37,000 to a minor round game against Freo (only use the example of Freo as a lowly supported interstate team) at a s**t venue. Clubs like the Dogs, Kangaroos and Demons couldn't get that in million years and only get by by having bigger Vic teams to play to boost their crowd figures.

But, I will concede that if Port are still drawing poor crowds in a 2 or 3 years time when we are in all likely hood playing much better football and at a far better home venue, then yes maybe it all was a mistake. Maybe we should just go back to the SANFL. I would hate my club to become what North Melbourne are. It would be sickening.

 

[cos789]

Why is there an expectation that a 3rd WA team would not find it triply hard as Fremantle did?

Nobody has said it will be easy for the reasons stated.
That means it has to be addressed as early as possible.

It's kind of like the arguement that Port, who by most estimates have 30% of the market share in SA, would somehow be much more popular if they weren't Port.

The clear reasoning given is the link to P.A. in the SANFL. which is affecting their AFL attraction (as well as their shyte performances)

 

[Papa G]

The clear reasoning given is the link to P.A. in the SANFL. which is affecting their AFL attraction (as well as their shyte performances)

Point 1, the link P.A. in the SANFL (actually it's not a link, we are the same club) is not the reason we are getting poor crowds, in fact you could easily argue the dilution of that link is effecting our crowds more, but your second point, shyte performances is a very clear reasoning. In times of mid table mediocrity our home crowds are pretty similar to that of Sydney.

 

[cos789]

IF the AFL has learnt anything in the last 20 years, its that taking an established club and effectively promoting it is bad for all concerned. (see Port Adelaide). Neither was it enough to just have crap loads of money (see Southport/Gold Coast)

I think the AFL has learned a lot in the last two decades or more.

That new teams are the best in the long term.
Relocated teams are cheaper and easier but not so good.
Merged teams do not equate to the sum of the two teams.
It does not make sense to create "super clubs" (by eliminating the weaker clubs)as this restricts teams to the five cities with populations over 1 million.
By creating smaller boutique style clubs the overal costs will stop increasing and teams will be able to play out places like Tasmainia, Canberra, Newcastle and Townsville if and when there is the demand.

 

[cos789]

Point 1, the link P.A. in the SANFL (actually it's not a link, we are the same club) is not the reason we are getting poor crowds,

I thought you were linked by virtue you were the same club.

Without rehashing the argument which everybody seems to understand and accept, the history of PA in the SANFL reflects on the attractiveness to support PA in the AFL for newcomers. PA started excellent, but has failed to attract new supporters to replace or overcome natural attrition.

 

[Baby_Jenks]

Firstly a disclaimer. I am from Cairns and have a bias towards it.
Secondly, I'm going to use the Cowboys, an NRL team, as an example. I can see many people shooting this down because NRL is vastly different to AFL. Sporting wise absolutely. Administration and marketing wise, the AFL has a far more stable leadership and more money for a sustained marketing campaign.
The needs for a new club:
Supporter base
Corporate base
Stadium
Marketing

Argument for a Cairns team:
Most people from around here are willing to drive 4+hours to see a cowboys game. This fact is largely ignored by the NRL and completely oblivious to the AFL. This was including when the Cowboys were the whipping boys of the competition.
So yes the population of Cairns is just over the hundred thousand mark but the catchment area of cooktown to the occasional townsvillian and west into the tablelands would be pushing it over the two hundred thousand mark.
Naturally this is NRL country but the state of the local AFL leagues is surprisingly good. Junior numbers are increasing and exceeding the population growth rate. The amount of pride and excitement generated by Dixon, Liddy and Harbrow joining the GCS was profound. Front and back page coverage in the local newspaper for a month either side of round 1 2011 and once again when each was picked in the first team.
Also most of the older generation on the boards, councils and government appointed advisory roles came up 20+ years ago and they identify with Cairns but are ex-pat mexicans. The top of town push should not be ignored.
Dare I say it but the state government buys votes outside of brisbane. If the groundswell of locals combined with the AFL nod of interest takes off they will be forced into joining in.
Also if the AFL wants to be a national competition, Cairns is close to the northern most you could conceivably have a team (with the possible exception of Darwin.)
Corporate sponsorship will be the main sticking point I would imagine. Certain tourism boards and tourism operators would no doubt chip in but probably not enough for the shirt front rites. Recently we have seen a super annuation company take up sponsorship of two AFL clubs and I think they're still doing the MCG scoreboard?
Bank or investment firms would be the ones to go after. National exposure, cheaper than a Melbourne based club, access to the stunningly large amount of immigrants from WWII that have sold there little beach shacks for millions. I could see that sponsorship continuing for well over a decade.

Cairns is/has already been a AFL playing ground. Yes the stadium needs upgrading. Already well underway. AFL funding will only accelerate what is already happening. If the AFL is not happy with what AFLCairns is doing there are still sugar cane farms with in a 10min drive from the city (15min from airport). Closer still is an old drive in movie theatre just off the highway. Stadium, parking and club house would easily fit.
If they're still not happy, head north to the beaches and university. There's plenty of land on the west side of the highway. Easily big enough for a football stadium. Parking maybe a problem but with under/over passes to the other side of the road this could be safely taken into consideration.

Whilst the team would be based in Cairns it would have to be marketed to the larger area.
Whilst sharks and crocs are fearsome predators they've already been taken by the NRL and NBL respectively. Also if you're going after little kids for future supporters, how many parents are going to be pleased with the mental connotation of limb shredding or bone crushing followed by drowning?
Something to do with either, the sugar cane (the cutters?), the reef (the stingers?), the rainforest (the cassowarys?) or the weather (the thunder?)sorry peel fans))or even the cane toads if you want to spit in the face of the NRLs state of origin.
I'm leaning towards the thunder as the simplest opening campaign would be Gangagangs 'sounds of then' over top of the highlights reel of Queensland players (Dixon, Harbrow, Tippet, N.Riewoldt, Falou, Hunt). Technically the last four aren't from FNQ but they're not Melbourne boys which will be enough for us to latch onto.
I don't think most melbournians realise how rank we get over state of origin up here so automatically there's two Sydney teams will pull a crowd. The feeling of most of us is that Brisbane gets all the attention on a state and federal level so they'll be a bit of animosity there, combined with the already rusted on Brisbane supporters. Richmond has dipped there toe in during the AFL season already and while their performance this year was woeful, if that can become a permanent fixture it would be good. Add in one game from the big four, the first and last games of the season, and you've got 6 or more 15000+ crowds.