20th AFL Team

[Purple Suit]

If the 20th team isn't Canberra we are looking at another GWS and Suns which are huge financial blackholes for the game.
Canberra or nobody it has to be.

Not if you pick WA3, it’ll make more money than anywhere else including Canberra.

Remember, when Canberra has a team, GWS will struggle even more.

 

[Badger17]

You definitely have better insight to the rugby codes than me, but it's an interesting intersection of Brumbies crowds dropping at the same time the Raiders rose. But correlation doesn't equal causation.

The Brumbies, and all Australian Super Rugby sides, crowds and support have been on a consistent downward trend since the mid-to-late 00s. 20 years ago the Brums were regularly pulling crowds around 20k, 10 years ago crowds in the low teens, now well under 10k.

Aside from one offs and short periods, each with their individual explanations, the Raiders crowds have consistently sat around 10-13k since 1990. There's been a jump in general support since 2016, 2019, and post covid to a lesser extent, but a bit of success after decades of mediocrity will do that.

In other words I'm not even seeing the correlation, and I see no reason why people with an interest in both codes wouldn't support both to varying degrees throughout that period.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Not if you pick WA3, it’ll make more money than anywhere else including Canberra.

People always assume this, but I don't think it's necessarily true.

We know a Canberra team will get government funding like the Giants and all ACT team get. The ACT Govt will also likely reinstate some favourable stadium conditions they used to initially entice the Giants (in-season naming rights, stadium signage). Those combined are $5-6m a year that WA3 doesn't have.

Optus is also expensive. A team needs 25-30k to make money. WA3 will get that for the derbies and big oppositions, but smaller games will be loss-makers. Those same crowds will be profitable at Manuka.

Not to mention Canberrans are wealthier than West Australians. Yes, I know miners inflate the average wage, but Canberrans have a 40% higher median income, which means a higher percentage of people can afford memberships and merch at the same pricepoint.

At the very least, I think Canberra and WA3 are similar for financial viability.

Remember, when Canberra has a team, GWS will struggle even more.

The Giants currently get $2.85m from the ACT Government.

That includes a $1m sponsorship spot on the guernsey. Plus paying hundreds of thousands of dollars on staff in Canberra.

The Giants could mostly cover the loss of Canberra by selling just one game, and still having 10 home games in Sydney.

Newcastle seems the obvious option to me.
They're also looking at the California game, and leaving Canberra would free that up.

 

[RedV3x]

Governments are capable of doing multiple things at once.

Capable yes, reality no, not when it comes to stadiums.

A tender has already gone out for the design work for Manuka.

A tender is a good sign, but only a good sign.

The ACT Govt is looking to replicate Tasmania and package the stadiums together.

Looking, looking, looking.

Expensive new stadium, cheaper redeveloped stadium, like Hobart and Launceston.

That's already hit multiple snags like skyline and a tree.

They're not wrong though. Look at Adelaide Oval and Optus.

Perth and Adelaide had to wait decades until they got their decent stadiums.

A roofed stadium in the city where we could see Matildas games, host concerts etc, would still be great for the city, regardless of whether it can host footy.

Perth has an acclaimed world class stadium and we still get the scraps.
Melbourne and Sydney will always get the big games.
This build and they will come philosophy has been proven to be totally false.
Stadiums are always loss making and I don't see plans for a "multi-purpose" stadium
that would be the most cost mitigating.

Would put us in contention for bigger cricket tests too.

Same deal for cricket. Join the queue.

 

[Purple Suit]

People always assume this, but I don't think it's necessarily true.

We know a Canberra team will get government funding like the Giants and all ACT team get. The ACT Govt will also likely reinstate some favourable stadium conditions they used to initially entice the Giants (in-season naming rights, stadium signage). Those combined are $5-6m a year that WA3 doesn't have.

Optus is also expensive. A team needs 25-30k to make money. WA3 will get that for the derbies and big oppositions, but smaller games will be loss-makers. Those same crowds will be profitable at Manuka.

Not to mention Canberrans are wealthier than West Australians. Yes, I know miners inflate the average wage, but Canberrans have a 40% higher median income, which means a higher percentage of people can afford memberships and merch at the same pricepoint.

At the very least, I think Canberra and WA3 are similar for financial viability.



The Giants currently get $2.85m from the ACT Government.

That includes a $1m sponsorship spot on the guernsey. Plus paying hundreds of thousands of dollars on staff in Canberra.

The Giants could mostly cover the loss of Canberra by selling just one game, and still having 10 home games in Sydney.

Newcastle seems the obvious option to me.
They're also looking at the California game, and leaving Canberra would free that up.

The money the giants gets disappeared. Another 4m the AFL have to find. WA3 will get sponsorship, easy but it will not be a net loss.

Our population is 5 times the size of Canberra. So there is a heap more money & a captive audience who isn’t cross code. Canberra is competing with other National teams just like WA3 would be but in a much smaller pie.

Not sure how break even is 25-30k when they play test cricket at Optus that draws a lot less. Are they losing money deliberately when they could go to the WACA? You’re off there too.

Canberra already get GWS so it’s much the same as WA3 expect 25-30k seats are being passed up 11 times a year compared to 13k, 8 times a year.

It’s the biggest under serviced market with existing facilities and growing faster from a numbers point of view. Putting WA3 in also solves some of the travel burden for WA teams to counter Tassie coming in which will increase it.

 

[RedV3x]

It's the ACT Liberals, all they can do is "pissfart".

Yes, but political parties like to have parallel proposal.

Canberra absolutely needs a new rectangular stadium if it ever wants to host rep and international football or other major events ever again.

Do you know how long Perth and Adalaide needed decent stadiums - decades.
The current economic situation says no, we cannot afford it

We also need a new arena, a convention centre, an ice rink, Olympic diving boards, investment into half a dozen major roads around the city, et cetera, et cetera, and all sorts of other major projects that've been neglected by Labour and the Greens for the last two decades.

So a new stadium has to join the queue.
I can hear it now " for that amount of money you could......."

 

[RedV3x]

The Brumbies, and all Australian Super Rugby sides, crowds and support have been on a consistent downward trend since the mid-to-late 00s. 20 years ago the Brums were regularly pulling crowds around 20k, 10 years ago crowds in the low teens, now well under 10k.

Aside from one offs and short periods, each with their individual explanations, the Raiders crowds have consistently sat around 10-13k since 1990. There's been a jump in general support since 2016, 2019, and post covid to a lesser extent, but a bit of success after decades of mediocrity will do that.

In other words I'm not even seeing the correlation, and I see no reason why people with an interest in both codes wouldn't support both to varying degrees throughout that period.

So why does Canberra need an upgraded rectangular stadium let alone $600 ~ $700 million spent on one?

 

[RedV3x]

Those combined are $5-6m a year that WA3 doesn't have.

People absolutely hate these political dependencies.
Look at the constant flak aimed currently aimed at the Giants.

Optus is also expensive. A team needs 25-30k to make money. WA3 will get that for the derbies and big oppositions, but smaller games will be loss-makers.

That was the initial costing when the government was trying to squeeze the AFL's rent.
Perth stadium hosts lots of smaller events these days.
The WA government was big on attracting events to Optus so a new tennant would be trumps.

Those same crowds will be profitable at Manuka.

Assuming crowds almost double.

Not to mention Canberrans are wealthier than West Australians.

So why aren't we seeing that advantage now ?

They're also looking at the California game, and leaving Canberra would free that up.

California game ?

 

[RedV3x]

The money the giants gets disappeared. Another 4m the AFL have to find. WA3 will get sponsorship, easy but it will not be a net loss.

Our population is 5 times the size of Canberra. So there is a heap more money & a captive audience who isn’t cross code. Canberra is competing with other National teams just like WA3 would be but in a much smaller pie.

Not sure how break even is 25-30k when they play test cricket at Optus that draws a lot less. Are they losing money deliberately when they could go to the WACA? You’re off there too.

Canberra already get GWS so it’s much the same as WA3 expect 25-30k seats are being passed up 11 times a year compared to 13k, 8 times a year.

It’s the biggest under serviced market with existing facilities and growing faster from a numbers point of view. Putting WA3 in also solves some of the travel burden for WA teams to counter Tassie coming in which will increase it.

This is all technically true and with immigration it all gets truer.
Perth has a world class stadium to utilise and Canberra doesn't.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The money the giants gets disappeared. Another 4m the AFL have to find. WA3 will get sponsorship, easy but it will not be a net loss.

Where'd you get $4m from? It's $2.85m.

We take up a $1m sponsorship spot, so that'll get snapped up. The Giants expenditures will be hundreds of thousands less not paying for Canberra staff, so that's half of it already.

Sell just one game, and difference is only hundreds of thousands. Nowhere near $4m.

Our population is 5 times the size of Canberra.

About four times. You're only counting the ACT.

So there is a heap more money & a captive audience who isn’t cross code. Canberra is competing with other National teams just like WA3 would be but in a much smaller pie.

Is it fair to say that the West Freo split is about 60/40? I think, if everything goes incredibly well, that's the ratio that WA3 would hope for with Freo.

Which means their catchment if about a fifth of Perth. Which is 460k people. So a smaller market than Greater Canberra with 570k. And even smaller than the ~700k in the Capital Region that Canberra would service.

Not sure how break even is 25-30k when they play test cricket at Optus that draws a lot less. Are they losing money deliberately when they could go to the WACA? You’re off there too.

I got it from this article about the WAFL grand final. It said breakeven was 20k, but 25-30k would be needed for a profit.

Canberra already get GWS so it’s much the same as WA3 expect 25-30k seats are being passed up 11 times a year compared to 13k, 8 times a year.

The difference is that the investment is lower. We go to the Giants because it's all we've got, but it's not bringing many in who aren't already big AFL fans.

It’s the biggest under serviced market with existing facilities and growing faster from a numbers point of view.

The bigger underserviced market is the city without a team with every game selling out. There's thousands of seats every fortnight that WA fans can buy if they're desperate.

Still think they should upgrade Optus to 70k though.

Putting WA3 in also solves some of the travel burden for WA teams to counter Tassie coming in which will increase it.

It's one game less a year of travel. It's a nice to have, but not reason enough to bring in a whole new team.

 

[RedV3x]

Is it fair to say that the West Freo split is about 60/40? I think, if everything goes incredibly well, that's the ratio that WA3 would hope for with Freo.

Which means their catchment

Is still all of Perth and surrounds.
When it was just W.C.E. it was 100% Eagles. The Dockers have changed that.
Dockers and Eagles support runs up and down the coast.
WA3 could target the East from Ellenbrook to Armadale and eventually be as big as the Dockers.

So a smaller market than Greater Canberra with 570k. And even smaller than the ~700k in the Capital Region that Canberra would service.

You have broken Perth into Eagles and Dockers.
To be fair you should break Canberra down into Brumbies and Raiders.

I got it from this article about the WAFL grand final. It said breakeven was 20k, but 25-30k would be needed for a profit.

Yes, it depends on what the landlord charges.
The SCG trust used to charge the Swans $500,000 for the SCG and the NRL only $100,00 for the new stadium next door.

The difference is that the investment is lower.

For WA3.

There's thousands of seats every fortnight that WA fans can buy if they're desperate.

Desperate for watching competitive games.

Still think they should upgrade Optus to 70k though.

Yes, but you seem to underestimate the politics of achieving stadium upgrades.

It's one game less a year of travel. It's a nice to have, but not reason enough to bring in a whole new team.

Technically WA3 has a strong case. Canberra, you're going to have to be more demonstrative.

 

[Canberra Pear]

People absolutely hate these political dependencies.
Look at the constant flak aimed currently aimed at the Giants.

The main flak is that it's for an interstate team. Don't really hear any of it aimed at the Brumbies or Raiders who get similar deals.

That was the initial costing when the government was trying to squeeze the AFL's rent.
Perth stadium hosts lots of smaller events these days.
The WA government was big on attracting events to Optus so a new tennant would be trumps.

How recent is that? Because the article's from 2023.

So why aren't we seeing that advantage now ?

How would you identify that before we get a team?

The biggest example I can think of it the fact that we bought more Tasmania foundation jumpers per capita than any mainland state, despite not being a footy heartland. Because we have more disposable income.

California game ?

This has been percolating for a few years. The Giants want to play a home game in California. The Canberra partnership means they'd only get seven home games in Sydney, but Canberra getting its own team would actually open that up.

 

[Canberra Pear]

You have broken Perth into Eagles and Dockers.
To be fair you should break Canberra down into Brumbies and Raiders.

Difference is that people are more likely to support two teams from the same city if their from different codes.

I'd say the majority of Storm fans also support an AFL team.

All three people in my work team that follow NRL also have AFL teams.

Technically WA3 has a strong case. Canberra, you're going to have to be more demonstrative.

I think both teams have a strong case.

I just get annoyed when people assume WA3 will automatically be more financially viable.

We have more favourable stadium deals, more income, not in the shadows of two AFL teams. We have weaknesses, but I think our strengths make us pretty level with WA3.

The only argument I'm making, is that until we have feasibility studies done for both, WA3 shouldn't just default be considered the more financially viable option.

 

[RedV3x]

The main flak is that it's for an interstate team.

No. people question the N.T. bid for the same reason

Don't really hear any of it aimed at the Brumbies or Raiders who get similar deals.

Yes, because the rugbies live in a different world where they are politically gifted.

How recent is that? Because the article's from 2023.

The point is profitability depends on what the landlord charges.
The WAFL does have to pay a lot.
Other codes are PAID to play there.

How would you identify that before we get a team?

Decent crowds.

The biggest example I can think of it the fact that we bought more Tasmania foundation jumpers per capita than any mainland state, despite not being a footy heartland. Because we have more disposable income.

They were only $10 weren't they. Not really indicative of anything.

This has been percolating for a few years.

So not going to happen.

 

[Canberra Pear]

No. people question the N.T. bid for the same reason

That's because it's tens of millions of dollars needed. A different ballpark to the figures Canberra teams are getting.

Decent crowds

Well, we've sold out every game this year, so we can't really do much better on that metric.

They were only $10 weren't they. Not really indicative of anything.

That's the memberships. I'm referring to the guernseys. They're $100 each. You need a bit of disposable income to buy one of those.

So not going to happen.

That article was this year. Covid held the idea back, but it's had a bit of coverage since. It's not definitely going to happen, but the point is, they've got options outside of Canberra.

 

[RedV3x]

Difference is that people are more likely to support two teams from the same city if their from different codes.

People are more likely to support a team that they are passionate about - full stop.

I think both teams have a strong case.

WA3 has a much much stronger technical case. Other possibilities are rather emotional based.

I just get annoyed when people assume WA3 will automatically be more financially viable.

It's not automatic it's logical.

We have more favourable stadium deals,

You have talk.

more income,

No, Perth has thousands of FIFO workers

not in the shadows of two AFL teams.

Not in constant media focus either.

We have weaknesses, but I think our strengths make us pretty level with WA3.

Logic, not thinking and hoping.

WA3 shouldn't just default be considered the more financially viable option.

I believe that WA3 is by far the most technically feasible option.
I don't want WA3 just because it's the most technically feasible option.
I believe there has to be an emotional and technical need for the long term benefit of Australian Football as well.
So while I believe there is a good technical argument for WA3 and a lot of what you're saying is flimsy and based on hope my preference is for Canberra, but you wont get an AFL team simply because Canberra "deserves" an AFL team.
If Canberra wants an AFL team it will have to work a lot harder to overcome the forces similar to that which was evident when the Swans and the Giants came to Sydney.

 

[RedV3x]

That's because it's tens of millions of dollars needed. A different ballpark to the figures Canberra teams are getting.

Like a prostitute we're just arguinbg about the price.

Well, we've sold out every game this year, so we can't really do much better on that metric.

Well, where's the bigger ground - even temporary.

That's the memberships. I'm referring to the guernseys. They're $100 each. You need a bit of disposable income to buy one of those.

You don't need a jumper if you've already got one. i.e. alreadu have an AFL team.

That article was this year. Covid held the idea back, but it's had a bit of coverage since. It's not definitely going to happen, but the point is, they've got options outside of Canberra.

Everybody technically has options, even struggling Melbourne teams.

 

[Canberra Pear]

People are more likely to support a team that they are passionate about - full stop.

Exactly. Much more likely it's the only team of that code in your city.

No, Perth has thousands of FIFO workers

Which inflates the average income. But Canberra has a 40% higher median income.

Rough maths, but if it's a price point that 250k people in the leftover Perth catchment can afford, that means 350k Canberrans will be able to afford it.

Like a prostitute we're just arguinbg about the price.

There's a huge difference between $3m for a team where there's a return on investment, and the government having to fill the gap for $15m a year.

You don't need a jumper if you've already got one. i.e. alreadu have an AFL team.

Are you saying the demand for jumpers is greater in Canberra because we don't have a team?

 

[Bjo187]

Is the interest there in Perth? Their tv ratings are absolutely appalling. The finals in Perth rated roughly the same as in qld and less than nsw.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's impossible to know what a random WA3 home game could get. It could get 25k, it could get 40k. A lot depends on the possible geographic footprint, branding and initial recruitment of players that the team would get. Being dogged about saying it will or won't be a success is a bit off the mark.

There is absolutely enough football support in the city of Perth, it's more about working through the politics of the WAFC as well as the branding/where the fans will come from, rather than suggesting that there'll be an oversupply of AFL games generally in the city of Perth, which there won't be.

 

[Purple Suit]

Where'd you get $4m from? It's $2.85m.

We take up a $1m sponsorship spot, so that'll get snapped up. The Giants expenditures will be hundreds of thousands less not paying for Canberra staff, so that's half of it already.

Sell just one game, and difference is only hundreds of thousands. Nowhere near $4m.



About four times. You're only counting the ACT.



Is it fair to say that the West Freo split is about 60/40? I think, if everything goes incredibly well, that's the ratio that WA3 would hope for with Freo.

Which means their catchment if about a fifth of Perth. Which is 460k people. So a smaller market than Greater Canberra with 570k. And even smaller than the ~700k in the Capital Region that Canberra would service.



I got it from this article about the WAFL grand final. It said breakeven was 20k, but 25-30k would be needed for a profit.



The difference is that the investment is lower. We go to the Giants because it's all we've got, but it's not bringing many in who aren't already big AFL fans.



The bigger underserviced market is the city without a team with every game selling out. There's thousands of seats every fortnight that WA fans can buy if they're desperate.

Still think they should upgrade Optus to 70k though.



It's one game less a year of travel. It's a nice to have, but not reason enough to bring in a whole new team.

We cannot buy seats except for expensive nose bleed section at Freo games they want $100 a ticket for. The prices are redicoulous and we still get huge crowds. WC got less to games than Freo this season yet they are full sellouts.

Every 2nd week they are missing out on more than the capacity of the Manuka.

Exactly. Much more likely it's the only team of that code in your city.



Which inflates the average income. But Canberra has a 40% higher median income.

Rough maths, but if it's a price point that 250k people in the leftover Perth catchment can afford, that means 350k Canberrans will be able to afford it.



There's a huge difference between $3m for a team where there's a return on investment, and the government having to fill the gap for $15m a year.



Are you saying the demand for jumpers is greater in Canberra because we don't have a team?

We have 5 times the people in Perth than Canberra. If you want to count the surrounding zone too, we can do that for Greater Perth and put Mandurah and Bunbury in to the numbers too.

It doesn't matter if the median income is higher in Canberra, the pool of money is a lot smaller and so is the population. Collingwood fans earn less than Melbourne fans but there is 5 times as many as them so Collingwood rake it in.

Both locations are competing with other professional teams but their is huge scope in WA, especially if they target Perth / WC excess fans. If they came in at the same time as Tassie I recon they would absolutely kill it since WC is likely to still be building. Maybe in 2030, they would have managed to lift and people won't want to jump as much but out of the 50K waiting in the wings fans they have, I recon some will. They will average 30K per game in their first year, easy.

The Perth population is growing at a much faster rate than Canberra due to the starting population, percentage means nothing. The games are currently at 80% capacity for sales and this will decrease as the population increases. The AFL needs to fill the void or other sports will.

 

[Canberra Pear]

We cannot buy seats except for expensive nose bleed section at Freo games they want $100 a ticket for. The prices are redicoulous and we still get huge crowds. WC got less to games than Freo this season yet they are full sellouts.

Every 2nd week they are missing out on more than the capacity of the Manuka.

I still think the obvious solution is to upgrade Optus to 70k as it was designed to do.

We have 5 times the people in Perth than Canberra. If you want to count the surrounding zone too, we can do that for Greater Perth and put Mandurah and Bunbury in to the numbers too.

The 2.3m of Greater Perth does include Mandurah.

Queanbeyan is literally minutes from Manuka. It'd be ridiculous not to include our NSW suburbs.

So within an hour of the stadiums, Greater Perth is about four times the population of Greater Canberra.

It doesn't matter if the median income is higher in Canberra, the pool of money is a lot smaller and so is the population. Collingwood fans earn less than Melbourne fans but there is 5 times as many as them so Collingwood rake it in.

It does matter though.

WA3 isn't going to have five times as many fans as Canberra.

Roughly (with round numbers for easy maths), if Canberra had 500k fans, WA3 would need 700k to match their purchasing power.

Both locations are competing with other professional teams but their is huge scope in WA, especially if they target Perth / WC excess fans.

The difference is WA3 is trying to scrape fans from the other two teams, while Canberra would unite most fans in the Canberra region.

Look, I'm not opposed to WA3 in concept, I just don't think they should come in before Canberra.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Roughly (with round numbers for easy maths), if Canberra had 500k fans, WA3 would need 700k to match their purchasing power.

The difference is that Perth just has more footy fans.

According to the below post you have 49% penetration in the population divided three ways. Lets assume the new team marginally increases overall AFL support from 49% to halfway to getting to Melbourne/Adelaide support of 56%, so split the difference and go 52%.

In 2050, Greater Perth's population is 3.5 million so 1.82 million footy fans. If by 2050 the new team gets 20% (say) of that support that's 360,000 supporters.

Greater Canberra's population will be something like 750,000 in 2050. Footy will only have about 38% population penetration (compare to Sydney of 22% Perth/Brisbane/Adelaide of >50%) and lets assume that 85% of the support in the city will to the Canberra team rather than other AFL teams which is a bit over 250,000 supporters.

And while Canberans are richer, they still have to have a product to buy to get the big membership dollars. There's less corporate facilities to sell, and the total number of truly rich individuals in absolute terms (not relative terms) is lower.

Canberra and WA3 are both obvious candidates for Team 20 but like my earlier post the barriers to WA3 is not if there's enough footy support (there is) or if it adds up that they can play games and sell memberships in the stadium (they can) but the effectiveness of branding and geographic positioning to successfully siphon off WCE supporters (give people a reason to support the team) and WAFC politics. But the raw city of Perth numbers stack up more than Canberra.

I looked up the ABS population data for each significant urban area (and Tasmania's state population) to estimate how many followers there are per club in each place. There's a complicating factor with Melbourne/Geelong and Brisbane/Gold Coast, in that each pair is close enough to each other to have significant overlap in followers, so I combined each city pair for this calculation and assumed the smaller had the same percentage of interest as the bigger city.

Sydney: 554,540
Brisbane/Gold Coast: 402,936
Melbourne/Geelong: 302,712
Adelaide: 399,505
Perth: 560,895
Tasmania: 310,341

What does this tell us about how many followers of the game an area needs to sustain a team? Well, some people say Melbourne has too many teams (acknowledging that teams can't be compelled to move or merge any longer), some say Perth has too few, and some said Tasmania didn't have enough people to justify a team before they were awarded one. So none of those places have a followers per team figure that's considered by almost everyone to be perfect.

By contrast, almost everyone agrees Adelaide has the interest to justify two teams, no greater, no fewer. And while a few people still think the Gold Coast didn't deserve a team, a lot of this is down to the Suns being an embarrassment for their first 13 years, whereas they've averaged nearly 17 000 in attendance at Carrara this year. If that continues then I think almost everyone will agree Queensland has the following to justify two teams.

So that would suggest the magic number for a team to be financially viable on their own is 400 000. While it's a bit lower than that for Tasmania right now, I think once they have their own team playing games and a few more years of population growth, the number taking an interest will rise to be close to 400 000. And they'll have government support for the first few years to cover any shortfall.

So which places have anywhere close to 400 000 followers to justify a(nother) team? Well, not the NT, they only have have 253 600 people total. That's including everyone who isn't interested in Aussie Rules. As many people have said in this thread, they'd be a complete basket case financially, and would need permanent government support.

Canberra-Queanbeyan has a population of about 503 400. They'd need 60% of the population taking an interest to match Tasmania's level right now, which won't be the case. But consider, Canberra grows fast. Its population growth percentage from 2011 to 2023 was comparable to Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and comfortably ahead of Hobart and Darwin. They'll probably get up to 570 000 by the time the league wants a 20th team to come in.

Plus, I know Canberra Pear reckons they'd get plenty of interest from country towns, so the true catchment area population is higher, but I don't know how much higher. Perhaps CP or others can help estimate this?

If Perth had a third team and no increase in the number of followers total, their followers per team would be 373,930. So yes, they could justify a third team pretty much immediately. But as we've discussed in this thread, the followers won't split evenly, the vast majority will stay with the Eagles and Dockers. Might work in the long term.

 

[Bjo187]

I'd personally prefer to do both, then we are set for another 30 years. That would be move North to Canberra and start a new club in Perth. Yes I know Canberra were upset with North 20 years ago, but I'm sure that could be fixed. It won't happen, but it's the most logical solution to all problems and if the afl had a strong and ambitious leader (which Dillon isn't), they would try to make that happen.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'd personally prefer to do both, then we are set for another 30 years. That would be move North to Canberra and start a new club in Perth. Yes I know Canberra were upset with North 20 years ago, but I'm sure that could be fixed. It won't happen, but it's the most logical solution to all problems and if the afl had a strong and ambitious leader (which Dillon isn't), they would try to make that happen.

North are never going to be relocated if they can get 50,000 members while still being anchored to the bottom of the ladder. There's financial security through that number that didn't exist even 10 years ago.