Which club has the biggest supporter base? Collingwood, Richmond or West Coast?

Which club has the biggest supporter base?


  • Total voters
    284

Remove this Banner Ad

NeXus Nick

All Australian
Jan 28, 2014
686
810
AFL Club
St Kilda
There's is no argument, WC has more members and more $$ than richmond.
This is the exact reason why the AFL should bring in a third WA team. After 25 years of growth all 3 teams would have over 75,000 members each. SA has the same capacity but I would wait another 10 years before bringing a third team for them.
 

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
3,810
6,823
AFL Club
West Coast
This is the exact reason why the AFL should bring in a third WA team. After 25 years of growth all 3 teams would have over 75,000 members each. SA has the same capacity but I would wait another 10 years before bringing a third team for them.
The two teams in WA are set.

Allegiances have already been made, and WA footy fans already have deep ties to their club given that they have been around for 25+ years.

A third WA team won't grow the pie in the WA, it may siphon off support from the two existing clubs (likely more so from Freo than West Coast).

Why would you weaken the weaker of the two WA clubs in some misguided attempt to curtail the the influence and wealth of West Coast?

Not only is it misguided, but it plunges deep in to the old trope of the competition administration finding innovative ways to contain and restrict West Coast out of the misguided fear that they will dominate the comp (a trope that also got thrown at Adelaide/GWS/GCS for a time as well).

A West Coast Eagles that is profitable, successful on and off the field is good for the competition.
 

NeXus Nick

All Australian
Jan 28, 2014
686
810
AFL Club
St Kilda
The two teams in WA are set.

Allegiances have already been made, and WA footy fans already have deep ties to their club given that they have been around for 25+ years.

A third WA team won't grow the pie in the WA, it may siphon off support from the two existing clubs (likely more so from Freo than West Coast).

Why would you weaken the weaker of the two WA clubs in some misguided attempt to curtail the the influence and wealth of West Coast?

Not only is it misguided, but it plunges deep in to the old trope of the competition administration finding innovative ways to contain and restrict West Coast out of the misguided fear that they will dominate the comp (a trope that also got thrown at Adelaide/GWS/GCS for a time as well).

A West Coast Eagles that is profitable, successful on and off the field is good for the competition.
You have NFI. There are so many people on waiting lists who cannot buy a membership. You are just being greedy and want all the spoils of a 2 teaqm town.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
3,810
6,823
AFL Club
West Coast
You have NFI. There are so many people on waiting lists who cannot buy a membership. You are just being greedy and want all the spoils of a 2 teaqm town.
It's actually you that has NFI.

How does introducing a third team mean more people get to see West Coast play live?

Your solution does not solve the issue that you have identified as being a problem.

I'm not greedy. You're just engaging in the politics of envy, given you support a club with poor history of on field success and a off-field history of being poor.

West Coast reserved seating is 50K of a 60K stadium.

6K available for general public.

4K for tourism packages etc.

The issue is expanding the stadium (which can be done) over the next 10 or so years. In order to do that, Freo need to get up and about again, expand their member base and attendance to 2015 levels.

We'll be fine. You just look after your own (broke AF) club.
 
Last edited:

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
26,918
9,878
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
You have NFI. There are so many people on waiting lists who cannot buy a membership. You are just being greedy and want all the spoils of a 2 teaqm town.
Its the opposite to the Melbourne scenario BUT the AFL club ownership model set up feeds WA footy (not just the WAFL) without pokies.
Perhaps its 1920s thinking holding the Melbourne clubs back, the days where the cheapest way for fans who went every week was a membership, it was cheaper.
At the Eagles its premium $s to be attend home games.
 

Doashuey

Club Legend
Sep 13, 2017
2,305
4,575
AFL Club
West Coast
Realistically, if there were a 3rd team set up in WA, it would have to be at the expense of a Vic team- relocation or otherwise. The competition is already diluted IMO with 18 teams, the quality of the 2nd tier is pretty low.
WA people are pretty passionate about their footy teams- I dont see many that would jump to a new team, especially if it was a relocated Vic team. WC got great support as it was WA's first own footy team, fans were proud sandgroupers and many dropped their VFL team in favour of them. Freo got great support because of the diehard EF and SF fans. I dont see where a 3rd team would garner its passion.
Equally I reckon if the AFL decided to relocate one of the Vic teams, the majority of their supporters would not follow and many would probably even abandon the sport altogether. As much as I think less Vic teams would be better for the competition as a whole, I dont like seeing teams with tradition and supporters being axed or moved. I didn't like it with Fitzroy and wouldn't like to see it happen to another club.
 

Farang83150

Norm Smith Medallist
May 23, 2010
9,086
7,814
Chalong 83130
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth (Demons)
This is the exact reason why the AFL should bring in a third WA team. After 25 years of growth all 3 teams would have over 75,000 members each. SA has the same capacity but I would wait another 10 years before bringing a third team for them.
Nah wont happen, WA's way to spread out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Farang83150

Norm Smith Medallist
May 23, 2010
9,086
7,814
Chalong 83130
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth (Demons)
Doesn't Perth have 2m people? Not saying a 3rd team would work for a whole host of other reasons, but surely that's enough of a population base in an AFL city to support 3 teams. Melbourne's just shy of 5m.
The entire population don't follow AFL same as Melbourne, the ones that do already support teams.
 

kranky al

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 30, 2009
20,523
26,323
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
Big 4 (ref crowds, unique ip, tv, social media, youtube, merch, membership)
1.WCE 1.2 mill fans ref west australian survey.
2. Coll 1.1 mill ref (Eddie McGuire CFClub) highest number if unique youtube views

3. Carlton 1 mill Ref (Greg Swann, R Geminder) second highest youtube unique views second highest website hits.

3. Essendon 1 mill EFC.com, linkedin, Graham McMahon, highest number of website hits. Supercoach number 1.

4. Adelaide Crows 800,000 ref above.
Freo have around 450,000.. less than Crows Tigers, Hawks,Cats Swans Lions.
difficult to believe richmond arent up there
 

Frank Grimes

Premiership Player
May 8, 2007
3,563
5,983
between two bowling alley
AFL Club
Richmond
The two teams in WA are set.

Allegiances have already been made, and WA footy fans already have deep ties to their club given that they have been around for 25+ years.

A third WA team won't grow the pie in the WA, it may siphon off support from the two existing clubs (likely more so from Freo than West Coast).

Why would you weaken the weaker of the two WA clubs in some misguided attempt to curtail the the influence and wealth of West Coast?

Not only is it misguided, but it plunges deep in to the old trope of the competition administration finding innovative ways to contain and restrict West Coast out of the misguided fear that they will dominate the comp (a trope that also got thrown at Adelaide/GWS/GCS for a time as well).

A West Coast Eagles that is profitable, successful on and off the field is good for the competition.
I personally in favour of a third WA team.

It has nothing to do with weakening West Coast. In fact it will benefit West Coast and Fremantle because it will help resolve a problem West Coast supporters have been complaining a lot about lately. That is the amount of travel they do compared to the Victorian teams.

With a third WA team it will mean there will be another two games in WA for each of those teams.

While I don't think the third team will have the support as much as West Coast or even Fremantle due to allegiance being set, I think there will be enough support from a combination of people haven't followed a team before and from some who a siphoned from West Coast and Fremantle.

West Coast already has a massive waiting list. If the supporters have to wait years and years on end to be able to watch a game live then they may like to have the option of following a club which they can actually watch live.
 

LoungeLizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 15, 2009
8,933
7,016
gippsland
AFL Club
Collingwood
I personally in favour of a third WA team.

It has nothing to do with weakening West Coast. In fact it will benefit West Coast and Fremantle because it will help resolve a problem West Coast supporters have been complaining a lot about lately. That is the amount of travel they do compared to the Victorian teams.

With a third WA team it will mean there will be another two games in WA for each of those teams.

While I don't think the third team will have the support as much as West Coast or even Fremantle due to allegiance being set, I think there will be enough support from a combination of people haven't followed a team before and from some who a siphoned from West Coast and Fremantle.

West Coast already has a massive waiting list. If the supporters have to wait years and years on end to be able to watch a game live then they may like to have the option of following a club which they can actually watch live.
It's only 1 extra game, you forget they have to forgo 1 home game to play the new side.
 

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
3,810
6,823
AFL Club
West Coast
I personally in favour of a third WA team.

It has nothing to do with weakening West Coast. In fact it will benefit West Coast and Fremantle because it will help resolve a problem West Coast supporters have been complaining a lot about lately. That is the amount of travel they do compared to the Victorian teams.

With a third WA team it will mean there will be another two games in WA for each of those teams.

While I don't think the third team will have the support as much as West Coast or even Fremantle due to allegiance being set, I think there will be enough support from a combination of people haven't followed a team before and from some who a siphoned from West Coast and Fremantle.

West Coast already has a massive waiting list. If the supporters have to wait years and years on end to be able to watch a game live then they may like to have the option of following a club which they can actually watch live.
Once again, why would the AFL or the WA clubs want to weaken the WA clubs, that have been an incredible success for the AFL and the national competition.

That would be like me saying we should just move North or St Kilda and those fans will just follow another team.

I know you think the Non-Victorian clubs are something other than "real clubs" and probably feel that they come off an assembly line and supporters just follow any old club, but that simply isn't the case.

It doesn't work like that.

The only reason Fremantle/Port Adelaide/GWS/Gold Coast work as 2nd teams in those states is that they represent a very clear and unambiguous geographical location. In the instances of Fremantle and Port Adelaide, those two clubs represent places that have very strong connection Aussie rules.

Just landing a 3rd team in Perth simply won't work.

If you are genuine in your interest in evening up the travel burden, you would be in favour of a fixture that allocates "home state" games and follows the precedent of finals footy. For example, each team may get 14 games in their home state, and 8 games interstate. I highly doubt you would be amenable to that idea, because I think your stated empathy for the travel burden of West Coast is insincere.

None of the issues being raised by supporters of Victorian clubs are actually issues for West Coast fans, so I am not really sure why you're all trying to solve a problem that isn't as important as what you make it out to be.
 
Last edited:

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 13, 2006
24,639
49,271
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Once again, why would the AFL or the WA clubs want to weaken the

That would be like me saying we should just move North or St Kilda and those fans will just follow another team.

I know you think the Non-Victorian clubs are something other than "real clubs" and probably feel that they come off an assembly line and supporters just follow any old club, but that simply isn't the case.

It doesn't work like that.

The only reason Fremantle/Port Adelaide/GWS/Gold Coast work as 2nd teams in those states is that they represent a very clear and unambiguous geographical location. In the instances of Fremantle and Port Adelaide, those two clubs represent places that have very strong connection Aussie rules.

Just landing a 3rd team in Perth simply won't work.

If you are genuine in your interest in evening up the travel burden, you would be in favour of a fixture that allocates "home state" games and follows the precedent of finals footy. For example, each team may get 14 games in their home state, and 8 games interstate. I highly doubt you would be amenable to that idea, because I think your stated empathy for the travel burden of West Coast is insincere.

None of the issues being raised by supporters of Victorian clubs are actually issues for West Coast fans, so I am not really sure why you're all trying to solve a problem that isn't as important as what you make it out to be.
There are 2-4 clubs that don't work in Melbourne even after 100 years. A fifth one who's won 12 premierships in the last 50 years that still has to sell games to Tasmania. I'm not sure why people "more teams" is a good idea.
 

Top Bottom