20th AFL Team

[Bjo187]

If you say so, I doubt it and it's irrelevant.



RU was strong in Australia and now it struggles.
The same possibility can be said for any sport.



RU is the dominant sport In N.Z. but you're a fool if you think any sport has a "stranglehold".
The cracks are already showing in N.Z. RU.
NRL fans would disagree with you.



Yes but getting participation up to 35k is quite impressive.
and shows acceptance of accepting something new.


No, Soccer participation is skewed to young juniors and kick-around competitions.
The ABS, when it did proper census showed that soccer participation in the critical post 15 age group was poor.
The 35k participation for Australian Football in N.Z. was in that critical age group.



Drop the Hyperbole not anyone can drum up a good crowd.



That's bloody good for a cellar dweller and good compared to NRL.


Now imagine what those numbers would have looked like if they had a team performing well
and named as Auckland !


With no respect to you, you are completely out of touch with the reality of the popularity and presence of the AFL that existed in NZ.pre-Covid.
I was there and reported on a number of international games in Auckland.
I was most impressed with the player's attitude which was akin to an Australian playing basketball.
The fact that it wasn't an indigenous sport never surfaced.

35k participants seems really high, that's higher than Tasmania and ACT combined. That's awesome if accurate. Do the kiwis even get footy on tv over there? I would hope the afl find a way to get it on fta there regularly.

 

[Canberra Pear]

35k participants seems really high, that's higher than Tasmania and ACT combined. That's awesome if accurate. Do the kiwis even get footy on tv over there? I would hope the afl find a way to get it on fta there regularly.

Pretty sure it includes in-school programs. Even single sessions.

It's similar in Canada. 25k junior participants meant thousands of one-day or one-week participants, and a few hundred ongoing full-term junior participants.

It's good that that many are being introduced to the game, but they're apples and oranges in comparison to participation numbers in Tasmania or the ACT.

 

[Walshawk]

I don't think people on here really get what AFL expansion means.

The AFL are not like just about any other sporting body in the world. When they expand into a new market, they expect to make a loss. For a generation. For two generations. For as many generations as it takes.

When South first moved to Sydney, they were AVERAGING around 10k a game. And a nice chunk of that were away supporters who were living or visiting the city. Brisbane was even worse, where a 10k average was a good year.

Now, nearly two generations on, they are powerhouses in their own right and still growing. The Suns and Giants are already doing better than what they were early on, and in another generation and a half, they will be key members of the AFL.

You want to talk about Vietnam and Afghanistan... and you are right. But the AFL knows this. And they are prepared for it. If there is a market which they are willing to develop, then they will develop it. They have never failed. Because they will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.

Not really.
Sydney and Brisbane were privately owned, so the AFL profited via entry/licence fees.
The AFL would also have expected WC/Adel/Freo/Port to be profitable.
They also expect Tassie to be profitable.
So it is really just the GC and GWS. And in those cases I reckon that they might have expected a profit within a generation.

 

[Gibbke]

I don't think people on here really get what AFL expansion means.

The AFL are not like just about any other sporting body in the world. When they expand into a new market, they expect to make a loss. For a generation. For two generations. For as many generations as it takes.

When South first moved to Sydney, they were AVERAGING around 10k a game. And a nice chunk of that were away supporters who were living or visiting the city. Brisbane was even worse, where a 10k average was a good year.

Now, nearly two generations on, they are powerhouses in their own right and still growing. The Suns and Giants are already doing better than what they were early on, and in another generation and a half, they will be key members of the AFL.

You want to talk about Vietnam and Afghanistan... and you are right. But the AFL knows this. And they are prepared for it. If there is a market which they are willing to develop, then they will develop it. They have never failed. Because they will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.

Nope. That's not how it works.

It's all TV - read Ross Oakley's book. To attract billion dollar TV rights, you need to have a significant presence in Australia's eastern seaboard markets, preferably simultaneously. The beginning, where in the early 80's games were being taken to Sydney, might follow your statement, but that ended by the mid-90's when the reaction to team rationalisation showed it was a bad idea. Suits running FTA want advertising opportunities, and they've deemed the upcoming set up to be worth over $4b, which puts every team in the black, stabilises nine games a week and has given Tasmania a foot in the door...

Because all that has now been achieved, there is no drive to expand. It's very token, and the big key was always solidifying a local presence in Qld and NSW every week to complete the balance. They got the head over heels attention because there was a billion dollar objective, but Tassie is discovering the angst adding an extra child to the perfect planned family can bring. And no one else has that attraction...not until the FTA suits say so, anyway...

 

[RedV3x]

35k participants seems really high, that's higher than Tasmania and ACT combined.

I watched N.Z. closely for quite a few years and the participation AFL figures steadily climbed.
There is a lack of information and I presume that these were from school programs.
The "proof of the pudding" is always in the number of registered players, clubs, leagues and school competitions.
My observation in N.Z. was that the AFL was just starting to get some follow-through

That's awesome if accurate. Do the kiwis even get footy on tv over there? I would hope the afl find a way to get it on fta there regularly.

AFL was getting more frequent of N.Z. FTA (I'm reasonably confident about that)
I don't know what the situation is now.

 

[Bjo187]

I watched N.Z. closely for quite a few years and the participation AFL figures steadily climbed.
There is a lack of information and I presume that these were from school programs.
The "proof of the pudding" is always in the number of registered players, clubs, leagues and school competitions.
My observation in N.Z. was that the AFL was just starting to get some follow-through



AFL was getting more frequent of N.Z. FTA (I'm reasonably confident about that)
I don't know what the situation is now.

Yeah it likely includes school visits whereby the tassie and ACT figures are registered participants. Still it's not bad. The afl should almost be paying to be on tv in places like n.z and Ireland, as they're the only international markets where an ok percentage of people know the game, so that needs to be nurtured.

 

[Coolangatta]

Nope. That's not how it works.

It's all TV - read Ross Oakley's book. To attract billion dollar TV rights, you need to have a significant presence in Australia's eastern seaboard markets, preferably simultaneously. The beginning, where in the early 80's games were being taken to Sydney, might follow your statement, but that ended by the mid-90's when the reaction to team rationalisation showed it was a bad idea. Suits running FTA want advertising opportunities, and they've deemed the upcoming set up to be worth over $4b, which puts every team in the black, stabilises nine games a week and has given Tasmania a foot in the door...

Because all that has now been achieved, there is no drive to expand. It's very token, and the big key was always solidifying a local presence in Qld and NSW every week to complete the balance. They got the head over heels attention because there was a billion dollar objective, but Tassie is discovering the angst adding an extra child to the perfect planned family can bring. And no one else has that attraction...not until the FTA suits say so, anyway...

But can’t they get more value out of the TV rights if they continue to build the game in NSW and QLD?

One game a week in those states is all they’re after? Don’t they make up half the population?

And surely NZ would add more value to the TV rights.

If what you’re saying is correct, though, can we at least get a Canberra relocation and Northern Australia based fed funded side if we want to stop at 20? Talk of NT as the only last piece of the jigsaw puzzle is nauseating.

 

[Fire]

Nope. That's not how it works.

It's all TV - read Ross Oakley's book. To attract billion dollar TV rights, you need to have a significant presence in Australia's eastern seaboard markets, preferably simultaneously. The beginning, where in the early 80's games were being taken to Sydney, might follow your statement, but that ended by the mid-90's when the reaction to team rationalisation showed it was a bad idea. Suits running FTA want advertising opportunities, and they've deemed the upcoming set up to be worth over $4b, which puts every team in the black, stabilises nine games a week and has given Tasmania a foot in the door...

Because all that has now been achieved, there is no drive to expand. It's very token, and the big key was always solidifying a local presence in Qld and NSW every week to complete the balance. They got the head over heels attention because there was a billion dollar objective, but Tassie is discovering the angst adding an extra child to the perfect planned family can bring. And no one else has that attraction...not until the FTA suits say so, anyway...

I'm sorry but I don't see anything in your post that contradicts anything i said.

I stated how the AFL approaches expansion. You stated why. What is the disagreement?

 

[RedV3x]

But can’t they get more value out of the TV rights if they continue to build the game in NSW and QLD?

Exactly.

One game a week in those states is all they’re after? Don’t they make up half the population?

One home game and one away game are the biggest ratings performers.

And surely NZ would add more value to the TV rights.

Absolutely.

 

[Aussie in exile]

How ?



LOL.
They didn't do too well w.r.t. to NRL then, did they.

Friends in high places.

 

[Aussie in exile]

If you say so, I doubt it and it's irrelevant.



RU was strong in Australia and now it struggles.
The same possibility can be said for any sport.



RU is the dominant sport In N.Z. but you're a fool if you think any sport has a "stranglehold".
The cracks are already showing in N.Z. RU.
NRL fans would disagree with you.



Yes but getting participation up to 35k is quite impressive.
and shows acceptance of accepting something new.


No, Soccer participation is skewed to young juniors and kick-around competitions.
The ABS, when it did proper census showed that soccer participation in the critical post 15 age group was poor.
The 35k participation for Australian Football in N.Z. was in that critical age group.



Drop the Hyperbole not anyone can drum up a good crowd.



That's bloody good for a cellar dweller and good compared to NRL.


Now imagine what those numbers would have looked like if they had a team performing well
and named as Auckland !


With no respect to you, you are completely out of touch with the reality of the popularity and presence of the AFL that existed in NZ.pre-Covid.
I was there and reported on a number of international games in Auckland.
I was most impressed with the player's attitude which was akin to an Australian playing basketball.
The fact that it wasn't an indigenous sport never surfaced.

Have you got a independent link to back up your participation claims?

 

[RedV3x]

Yeah it likely includes school visits whereby the tassie and ACT figures are registered participants. Still it's not bad.

it was all about momentum. the next step would have been an awesome school competition.

The afl should almost be paying to be on tv in places like n.z and Ireland,

I don't know if the AFL really tried giving it away to payTV. but AFL was/is on a number of sites.
Currently it seems that AFL is more interested in selling their streaming product.

as they're the only international markets where an ok percentage of people know the game, so that needs to be nurtured.

ireland is a logical target but in reality the local league struggles to gain visibility.
AFL players come direct from the the GAA.
N.Z. would be a great pathway and was in it's infancy.
Canada has been the best result with Australian Football being an official sport and AFL and local Australian Football being shown on RobertsTV.
When Australian Football was shown on U.S.A. payTV before the addition of the big4 sports Australian Football was number two on cable and result in a huge boom of Australian Football.
It is now history that AFL was buried on cable and as a result Australian Football became more pedestrian.
You only have to see what the NFL has done in England and parts of Europe to see the advantage of television exposure.

 

[RedV3x]

Have you got a independent link to back up your participation claims?

It's common knowledge that "RU was strong in Australia and now it struggles."

 

[Aussie in exile]

35k participants seems really high, that's higher than Tasmania and ACT combined. That's awesome if accurate. Do the kiwis even get footy on tv over there? I would hope the afl find a way to get it on fta there regularly.

35k no way.
They must have been counting arms and legs.
The interesting bit for me is when you ask these posters for independent links to back up claims they really can't provide them

 

[Run n Spread]

Just been in Tassie. And been round Belleieve and their new stadium site. There is a lot of community goodwill but also pettiness and yes they're been ripped off by the AFL.
But if they get this development right the team will explode. Community passion wins the day. Just like they did for the Jack jumpers.
The NT is the same. And AFL is lived and breathed in tas and nt as much as Vic. Someone numbers don't matter. Sure they matter but identity branding and representation matter more.
Tassie going gang busters as the 19th team than NT as the 20th is a true fit. Australia is truly represented in a footy sense but also on a national scale to sell the game if need be.