20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

The difference is that Perth just has more footy fans.

I know it has more footy fans, but those footy fans also already have options.

Canberra is a captive market for its 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.

The ABS page I'm looking at that has Canberra at ~750k for the medium range also has Perth at 2.95m.

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.

Fair point on the corporate boxes, but I would say we have enough contracting companies vying for the government dollar to fill that hole.

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.

Long-term, I absolutely think WA3 can be successful. But I don't see it as the immediate easy option as it's often touted.

 

[RedV3x]

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

Much more likely that a person will swap to the team that's doing the best in multi-code situations.

Canberra has a 40% higher median income.

Perth has much more gross income.

the leftover Perth catchment

as opposed to the leftover Canberra catchment.

Canberrans will be able to afford it

west Australians 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.

There is a huge difference in infrastructure builds that dwarf yearly payments.

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

Exactly.

 

[RedV3x]

I know it has more footy fans, but those footy fans also already have options.

Of other AFL teams.

Canberra is a captive market for its footy fans.

but has established options of two other major codes.

Fair point on the corporate boxes, but I would say we have enough contracting companies vying for the government dollar to fill that hole.

I don't believe in "competition" when it comes to code-wars but sponsorship is one definite area of competition.
Perth would have two established AFL sides for competition.
Canberra would have two major codes as established competition.

Long-term, I absolutely think WA3 can be successful. But I don't see it as the immediate easy option as it's often touted.

Short-term they could move the Giants to Perth and get 25k per fortnight.

 

[Purple Suit]

I know it has more footy fans, but those footy fans also already have options.

Canberra is a captive market for its footy fans.



The ABS page I'm looking at that has Canberra at ~750k for the medium range also has Perth at 2.95m.



Fair point on the corporate boxes, but I would say we have enough contracting companies vying for the government dollar to fill that hole.



Long-term, I absolutely think WA3 can be successful. But I don't see it as the immediate easy option as it's often touted.

That is the whole point on the Population numbers. If Canberra doubles to 1m and can afford a 40K stadium to service the bigger crowd, Perth will be 4-5m and the 80-90% current ticket allocation will be absolutely rammed. The attendance numbers will always be greater with WA3 over Canberra and that is without spending any money on a stadium.

The WA clubs make huge profits after paying for all grassroots footy in WA. WC have an extortionary amount of cash in the bank. The AFL really need to siphon off this and at least reduce the power that the WA teams will develop if left unchecked in such a big market. Maybe they aren't worried since they have changed the rules so there is no avenues to use the money anymore.

 

[RedV3x]

That is the whole point on the Population numbers. If Canberra doubles to 1m and can afford a 40K stadium to service the bigger crowd, Perth will be 4-5m and the 80-90% current ticket allocation will be absolutely rammed. The attendance numbers will always be greater with WA3 over Canberra and that is without spending any money on a stadium.

The WA clubs make huge profits after paying for all grassroots footy in WA. WC have an extortionary amount of cash in the bank. The AFL really need to siphon off this and at least reduce the power that the WA teams will develop if left unchecked in such a big market. Maybe they aren't worried since they have changed the rules so there is no avenues to use the money anymore.

Any WA3 would be under the WAFC umbrella or it would be boycotted.
We need the WAFL and SANFL to grow grassroots.

 

[Bjo187]

The WAFC has been terrible at growing the game in W.A. I think they're incompetent, they barely make any money too which is an amazing effort considering Freo and west coast send them millions every year for simply existing.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Can the population and (the seemingly) dwindling participation rates support 20 teams in the AFL? Most kids these days in the city all seem to be playing soccer over AFL. People kept saying that Richmond's premierships were the worst skilled sides to ever win a flag, well that could be the only way to actually win one is through pressure and get it forward at all costs, no matter how ugly. Expansion for expansion's sake usually bites hard when things go backwards. I mean you could argue there has not been a lot of growth in the AFL since the average attendance from PRE-expansion in 2010 was 38,423 per game vs 2024 37,816.

Could probably make the argument the distribution should be

VIC: 5 Teams
SA/WA: 3 Teams
QLD/NSW: 2 Teams
ACT/TAS: 1 Team
Total: 16 Teams

16 makes sense with the top 8 system. The talent pool is also more concentrated and could arguably make a better viewing experience by having more skilled players on the field at anyone time.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Can the population and (the seemingly) dwindling participation rates support 20 teams in the AFL? Most kids these days in the city all seem to be playing soccer over AFL. People kept saying that Richmond's premierships were the worst skilled sides to ever win a flag, well that could be the only way to actually win one is through pressure and get it forward at all costs, no matter how ugly. Expansion for expansion's sake usually bites hard when things go backwards. I mean you could argue there has not been a lot of growth in the AFL since the average attendance from PRE-expansion in 2010 was 38,423 per game vs 2024 37,816.

Could probably make the argument the distribution should be

VIC: 5 Teams
SA/WA: 3 Teams
QLD/NSW: 2 Teams
ACT/TAS: 1 Team
Total: 16 Teams

16 makes sense with the top 8 system. The talent pool is also more concentrated and could arguably make a better viewing experience by having more skilled players on the field at anyone time.

Participation levels are far, far higher (especially in NSW and Qld) when we had 15 teams in 1995, and there was still some leftover talent in the state leagues at the time, evidenced by the fact that Fremantle were still a vaguely competitive team fielding numerous players per game that were playing WAFL the previous season.

It's a silly argument.

 

[Canberra Pear]

That is the whole point on the Population numbers. If Canberra doubles to 1m and can afford a 40K stadium to service the bigger crowd, Perth will be 4-5m and the 80-90% current ticket allocation will be absolutely rammed.

Neither of those projections are happening within the next 50 years, at which point Canberra and WA3 should have both happened.

The attendance numbers will always be greater with WA3 over Canberra and that is

For derbies, sure. I don't think it's a guarantee for every other team.

For instance, I reckon Canberra vs Giants will outdraw WA3 v Giants. Capacity allowing, a few others might, too.

without spending any money on a stadium.

The Manuka upgrade is happening independent of Canberra getting a team.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The ABS page I'm looking at that has Canberra at ~750k for the medium range also has Perth at 2.95m.

That page shows me 2.88m for greater Perth in 2050 and 638k for the ACT. Granted, the ACT figure doesn't include Queanbeyan, but I doubt it'll grow to 110k by then.

 

[Canberra Pear]

That page shows me 2.88m for greater Perth in 2050 and 638k for the ACT. Granted, the ACT figure doesn't include Queanbeyan, but I doubt it'll grow to 110k by then.

Currently, Queanbeyan is about 40k, but the hour radius is a lot more. That includes Googong, Yass, Murrumbateman, Bungendore etc.

Rough guess, but by 2050, I'd say that hour radius would have between 120k and 150k.

 

[Badger17]

Yes, but political parties like to have parallel proposal.



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


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

There's been discussions about the need for a new stadium in Canberra since the 90s, it's been an election promise since at least 2008 (IIRC), and the economic situation is almost exclusively a product of ALP and Greens mismanagement.

As I alluded to before, it's not just the stadium either. They've been intentionally neglecting infrastructure and programs that doesn't fit within their ideological framework since they came back into power in 2001, and particularly in the post Stanhope era. . .

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

Because it's a frozen shithole built in the middle of a suburban desert, that's so outdated and in such a state of disrepair that it's literally incapable of hosting most events.

It doesn't meet the minimum standards to host most major sporting events anymore (FIFA, WR, NRL rep games, etc), and touring acts won't touch the joint at all anymore. Technically it doesn't meet the NRL's minimum standards to host semis or prelims either, but so far they've waved it for fear of the public backlash that would result from forcing the Raiders to play home finals in Sydney.

On top of that it's the single biggest factor holding both the Brumbies, and especially Raiders, crowds back. Realistically the Raiders could, and should, be averaging about 20k a season, but that will never happen until Bruce is replaced.

Even if you left it in Bruce and replaced it with an absolute bare minimum, no thrills at all, modern built for purpose rectangular stadium, the Raiders crowds would jump by at least 3-5k per-match depending on the opposition. Move it to a location with public transport and atmosphere outside the stadium, chuck some bells and whistles on the stadium, and those numbers would jump by even more.

 

[Purple Suit]

Neither of those projections are happening within the next 50 years, at which point Canberra and WA3 should have both happened.



For derbies, sure. I don't think it's a guarantee for every other team.

For instance, I reckon Canberra vs Giants will outdraw WA3 v Giants. Capacity allowing, a few others might, too.



The Manuka upgrade is happening independent of Canberra getting a team.

What would the capacity be for Manaka if Canberra was the 20th team?

In 1995, the lowest attended home game for Freo was 16,161 vs Melbourne at Subi. The population was 60% of what it is now and the stadium is now 33% larger. I doubt it's going anywhere near that low unless the weather is terrible as there would be a few walkups.

Freo still managed 23.3K average in 1995 with only 1 Derby in a 40K stadium. WA3 would smash that, especially if they priced tickets lower, like Melbourne prices to compete against WC & Freo. If they did that and marketed it around the cheap team for Perth then they would have big attendance at the cost of revenue.

 

[blackducks]

The WAFC has been terrible at growing the game in W.A. I think they're incompetent, they barely make any money too which is an amazing effort considering Freo and west coast send them millions every year for simply existing.

I would include the AFL in this as well with respect to football in WA

 

[Canberra Pear]

What would the capacity be for Manaka if Canberra was the 20th team?

The current plan is for 20k without a team. Hopefully that can be revised up if an AFL or BBL team is announced.

In 1995, the lowest attended home game for Freo was 16,161 vs Melbourne at Subi. The population was 60% of what it is now and the stadium is now 33% larger. I doubt it's going anywhere near that low unless the weather is terrible as there would be a few walkups.

Freo still managed 23.3K average in 1995 with only 1 Derby in a 40K stadium. WA3 would smash that, especially if they priced tickets lower, like Melbourne prices to compete against WC & Freo. If they did that and marketed it around the cheap team for Perth then they would have big attendance at the cost of revenue.

Freo was the second team, and West Coast only had eight years to grow at that point. WA3 is starting really far back in comparison.

I reckon there'll be a first-year bump, but I would still expect a few sub-20k crowds in the first five years. Mostly against the Giants and Suns.

Covid was an interesting example hosting neutral teams at Optus. The Perth teams and the bigger Victorian teams with national fanbases were all averaging mid-20ks, but the Sydney derby only got 6.5k. Not much interest from neutrals.

But at the end of the day, all we can do is make stabs in the dark. In a hypothetical world, I'd love to see WA3 and Canberra come in at the same time to compare the growth in real time.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

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

There's more chance of one of us spending the night with Gal Gadot than them getting elected.

Setting aside the fact that Bruce is a decrepit dump, Canberra absolutely needs a new rectangular stadium if it ever wants to host rep and international football or other major events ever again.

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.

That's what happens in de facto one party states.

even though I am an Aussie Rules and soccer fan, I think the $ should be instead allocated to education, health, fixing the roads etc. The $ spent by Barr on the trams, has meant less funding available on health. However, Barr should win again in October, albeit with Greens support, so the Liberals stadium project will be irrelevant- in fact in response to Elizabeth Lee, Barr seems to have reiterated his commitment to a Bruce upgrade.

 

[Bjo187]

I would include the AFL in this as well with respect to football in WA

Maybe the afl should take over operations there. Women's football is terrible, producing talent is terrible, tv ratings are terrible, west coast are going terrible, the only good thing is crowds are still stacking up, but that's more to do with the clubs than the wafc.

It's also another blight on Goyder's chairmanship that footy in w.a has gone backwards under his watch, despite him being a western Australian.

 

[Purple Suit]

The current plan is for 20k without a team. Hopefully that can be revised up if an AFL or BBL team is announced.



Freo was the second team, and West Coast only had eight years to grow at that point. WA3 is starting really far back in comparison.

I reckon there'll be a first-year bump, but I would still expect a few sub-20k crowds in the first five years. Mostly against the Giants and Suns.

Covid was an interesting example hosting neutral teams at Optus. The Perth teams and the bigger Victorian teams with national fanbases were all averaging mid-20ks, but the Sydney derby only got 6.5k. Not much interest from neutrals.

But at the end of the day, all we can do is make stabs in the dark. In a hypothetical world, I'd love to see WA3 and Canberra come in at the same time to compare the growth in real time.

Crowds or Financials won't be an issue in WA.

I just grabbed this graphic off a Freo board discussion that had just been posted and this would have come from another poster on here. But it shows just how much money WC & Freo are generating from football activities due to the pricing in WA. Blind Freddie could get WA3 into profitability with those metrics and market to start in. Freo are 3rd on this ladder with no on field success, it would be great to get the 20th team who doesn't have to win to succeed offield.

It's the least risky 20th team by far and everything is already in place, just need to convince the WAFL that it's required, they will make more money so it should be easy.

 

[RedV3x]

The WAFC has been terrible at growing the game in W.A. I think they're incompetent, they barely make any money too which is an amazing effort considering Freo and west coast send them millions every year for simply existing.

So what's your involvement with West Australian football to say this ?

 

[Badger17]

even though I am an Aussie Rules and soccer fan, I think the $ should be instead allocated to education, health, fixing the roads etc. The $ spent by Barr on the trams, has meant less funding available on health. However, Barr should win again in October, albeit with Greens support, so the Liberals stadium project will be irrelevant- in fact in response to Elizabeth Lee, Barr seems to have reiterated his commitment to a Bruce upgrade.

Yawn...

Spending on health and education has consistently been going up forever (at both the state/territory and national level), and throwing yet more money at them isn't going to address any of the major issues with either (excessive bureaucracy, waste, massively out of control supply and demand issues, etc).

That's also not really how political portfolios work. You won't see money for sports, business, tourism, trade and economic development, etc, etc, transferred to health and education in large amounts. The money will stay in it's portfolio, but simply be spent on other things.

In other words you aren't trading major public infrastructure projects, that the city undeniably needs, such as a stadium (multiple stadiums at this point in fact), for more/better investment into health and education. You're trading them for more underutilised bike paths/lanes, more crappy 'upgrades' to the aesthetics of dead suburban shopping arcades, and more money wasted on a tram that will never be fully completed, and is actively splitting the city into the parts that have access to functional public transport and slums where PT access has been cut to support the tram.

 

[Canberra Pear]

It's the least risky 20th team by far and everything is already in place, just need to convince the WAFL that it's required, they will make more money so it should be easy.

I'm not saying WA3 won't be financially successful, but you can't claim this as such an absolute.

Canberra has some real tangible advantages: $5-6m a year from government and stadium deals; an AFL-starved market; a lower breakeven stadium; a 40% higher median income.

To claim WA3 as "the least risky by far" is arrogant and just wrong.

 

[RedV3x]

Can the population and (the seemingly) dwindling participation rates support 20 teams in the AFL?

Not born out by facts.

Most kids these days in the city all seem to be playing soccer over AFL

Soccewr participation and interest is in fact on the decline (except women's)

.People kept saying that Richmond's premierships were the worst skilled sides to ever win a flag,

Well Richmond is not in the race is it.

well that could be the only way to actually win one is through pressure and get it forward at all costs, no matter how ugly.

The Swans Vs Giants final was roundly reported as incredible.

Expansion for expansion's sake usually bites hard when things go backwards.

But they aren't are they.

I mean you could argue there has not been a lot of growth in the AFL since the average attendance from PRE-expansion in 2010 was 38,423 per game vs 2024 37,816.

Well bringing the average back with two extra teams does mean that ther,e has been significant expansion.

16 makes sense with the top 8 system. The talent pool is also more concentrated and could arguably make a better viewing experience by having more skilled players on the field at anyone time.

No, the exact opposite. It's harder for the better players to shine with increased pressure.
The most attractive football to watch was in the WAFL before AFL (and before the VFL pinched all the star players)

 

[RedV3x]

There's been discussions about the need for a new stadium in Canberra since the 90s, it's been an election promise since at least 2008 (IIRC), and the economic situation is almost exclusively a product of ALP and Greens mismanagement.

As I alluded to before, it's not just the stadium either. They've been intentionally neglecting infrastructure and programs that doesn't fit within their ideological framework since they came back into power in 2001, and particularly in the post Stanhope era. . .

Because it's a frozen shithole built in the middle of a suburban desert, that's so outdated and in such a state of disrepair that it's literally incapable of hosting most events.

It doesn't meet the minimum standards to host most major sporting events anymore (FIFA, WR, NRL rep games, etc), and touring acts won't touch the joint at all anymore. Technically it doesn't meet the NRL's minimum standards to host semis or prelims either, but so far they've waved it for fear of the public backlash that would result from forcing the Raiders to play home finals in Sydney.

On top of that it's the single biggest factor holding both the Brumbies, and especially Raiders, crowds back. Realistically the Raiders could, and should, be averaging about 20k a season, but that will never happen until Bruce is replaced.

Even if you left it in Bruce and replaced it with an absolute bare minimum, no thrills at all, modern built for purpose rectangular stadium, the Raiders crowds would jump by at least 3-5k per-match depending on the opposition. Move it to a location with public transport and atmosphere outside the stadium, chuck some bells and whistles on the stadium, and those numbers would jump by even more.

 

[RedV3x]

Because it's a frozen shithole built in the middle of a suburban desert, that's so outdated and in such a state of disrepair that it's literally incapable of hosting most events.

So, what's your point ? Why hasn't the NRL done something about it ?
The government hasn't built anything for Australian Football.

 

[RedV3x]

Canberra has some real tangible advantages: $5-6m a year from government and stadium deals; an AFL-starved market; a lower breakeven stadium; a 40% higher median income.

Nah.

To claim WA3 as "the least risky by far" is arrogant and just wrong.

Nah, but it's the wrong choice for other reasons.