Expansion 3rd Western Australian club

[Coolangatta]

If TAS get a team, I don’t think there will be a team 20. 19 teams has a lot of positives for the AFL. Especially when no one is working hard to be team 20.

Which means I don’t think there should/will be a WA3.

But if there was a WA3 team, it should be called Perth. As it provides the largest number of people to tap into their parochialism. Look how many went to the BBL grand final on the weekend (53,000) to watch a ‘Perth’ team. Any other region specific name is just limiting the size of your potential catchment.

Have them play at Optus Stadium, but with the top tier closed to reduce hiring fees, until such time that the crowds are large enough to warrant it being used. With the top tier closed Optus Stadium has a capacity of 37,000 which is more than enough for a WA3, whilst still providing all of the corporate facilities.

Co-locate the WA3 HQ and training ground with an existing WAFL club. This allows the WAFL field to be upgraded, and have a second tenant paying leasing fees to help pay for upkeep. Possibly Leederville Oval due to its centrality, or Bassendean Oval as one of the last grounds yet to get a redevelopment.

If it was to be Leederville Oval, then perhaps relocate East Perth to be co-tenants at Bassendean Oval with Swan Districts, meaning WA3 are co-tenants with Subiaco. With the upgraded Leederville Oval becoming a State Footy Centre where the state youth teams train and play, all 3 AFLW teams play, potential to host country carnivals.

Make such a team work to the benefit of WA Footy, with more content at Optus Stadium, helping with it’s financial sustainability, more people employed in the footy industry, upgraded WAFL fields benefiting teams and fans, and the potential for a State Footy Facility, like what soccer is getting out in Cannington.

Yeah, the name is half the reason West Coast is bigger than Fremantle, not just because they were the first, but because it’s much broader than Fremantle.

Perth would have to have a unique mascot unaffiliated with any of the WAFL clubs, though, so you don’t isolate people who don’t like that club. There’s plenty of options.

I think there will be team 20. Why wouldn’t there be? The fixture becomes a problem if you have more than 24 teams, but we’re a long way off that yet.

If the problem is too many mouths to feed, then you don’t expand so often. Team 20 could come in one or two decades after Tasmania.

 

[madmug]

I understand your case but if the AFL had to be dragged kicking and screaming into adding Tasmania, why would they even bother with team 20 for another decade or two after them?

Unless they think adding a 10th game will give them more media rights money and that supersedes all their concerns.

They're not dragged kicking & screaming by anyone, for anything.

I've always said on BF that if the AFL was less than 18 teams, Tasmania probably wouldn't get a look in.

However the competition is at 18 teams & is clearly unbalanced with so many Port Phillip bay teams in it. If they are favoured to be still in a national competition, then Tassie has done more than enough to get a gig too.

A reasonable spread of teams but with unequal support.


Yes, the nominal association are the historical locations - not an issue.


So, what's your point ?


There were submissions ages ago. If they were prime then they would have been taken up.
Canberra had a better case when first mooted.



Sydney vs GWS produces very good crowds - well above the GWS average.

Average 500k per Vic team as against 0ver 1million per WA team. My point is. I thought, quite obvious.

Some Vic teams will always really struggle without huge AFL subsidy/Welfare/support to exist in a national competition. Simply Melbourne is clearly over serviced, Perth is under serviced in professional Football terms.

Perth misses out on more games, more economic activity, more money from the AFL bucket, more money filtering down to WAFL & development programs, more use of the new stadium, thus less cost per game for clubs at the new stadium, overall, more opportunity for players to be drafted, more opportunity to stay in Perth or return if they want to.

When & why would ACT have a better case than Tassie? What do the comparable applications show? Perhaps tell us where the application from ACT is & when offered up to the AFL? Also by whom. The ACT Government have just signed an extension to GWS games. So they can't be too interested.

Syd/GWS crowds would be called 'fair' at best. The TV component of viewership is poor to say the least. TV rights is where so much of the AFL money comes from.

 

[madmug]

I understand your case but if the AFL had to be dragged kicking and screaming into adding Tasmania, why would they even bother with team 20 for another decade or two after them?

Unless they think adding a 10th game will give them more media rights money and that supersedes all their concerns.

The AFL states a role in protecting & enhancing the interests of 'the game'. That is a greater part of why Tas1 is so strongly on the agenda. The AFL protect suburban teams in one city so are under pressure to show their care about the health of the game overall.

Its not all about media rights.

If it was all about TV rights & money, they surely would have dumped 2 or 3 continually struggling old welfare dependent suburban VFL teams, not have done GC & GWS at the same time, if at all. At least grown another WA & possibly SA team. Maybe stopped at 16 teams even?

If that was the case we probably wouldn't be looking at A tas1 team. Nor ACT, nor any more in Qld/NSW.

 

[RedV3x]

Average 500k per Vic team as against 0ver 1million per WA team. My point is. I thought, quite obvious.

No. Different AFCs have different population catchment areas.
Let's strip Geelong from the AFL because their population doesn't measure up.

Some Vic teams will always really struggle without huge AFL subsidy/Welfare/support to exist in a national competition.

The AFL is the 18 clubs and some clubs require some of their money back.

Simply Melbourne is clearly over serviced,

Utter B.S. DISTRIBUTION is the problem in Melbourne. Some clubs have out performed others - simple as that.
Those 'struggling" Melbourme clubs are still big clubs and it has been shown that they can be turned around.
In fact put me down for Melb10 - Frankstown.

Perth is under serviced in professional Football terms.

Perth has two AFL teams and 9 WAFL teams. Yes we need more WAFL teams.

Perth misses out

Yes, when they built Perth Stadium the costs diminished the amount available to local football.
Economically WA3 would be feasible and beneficial if they remained at Subiaco.

When & why would ACT have a better case than Tassie?

If you read my comments properly you will see that they were in the past tense and applicable a long time ago.
A long time there was no NRL in Canberra and the local league was strong.
There was a good case for Canberra then - much stronger then than now.

Syd/GWS crowds would be called 'fair' at best.

Then WA3 derbies would be even less.

 

[RedV3x]

What if East Perth joined the VFL?

Even many AFL fans are unaware that towards the end of 1980, WAFL club East Perth put in an application to join the VFL.…

www.theroar.com.au

Interesting comment about East Perth as a WA3 candidate.

"The final note to this story is that given East Perth were the first club coin the idea of interstate clubs competing, which set the spark for a national comp they should therefore be the 3rd Western Australian team in any future expansion.

That's when E.P. were strong. After that came a E.P./W.P. proposal.
Since then E.P. have left Perth Oval for Leederville.

Without a WCE reserves team, there would be nine clubs that could be split into 3 geographically based feeder clubs

One of the few good rationales of WA3

In regards to team names and colours

With S.D. E.P. and P.D. the logical name would be Perth Black Swans.
All three teams have black. E.P. has the only unique combination but a good opportunity for Noongar colours.
That could be a good point of differentiation.

 

[Coolangatta]

That's when E.P. were strong. After that came a E.P./W.P. proposal.
Since then E.P. have left Perth Oval for Leederville.



One of the few good rationales of WA3



With S.D. E.P. and P.D. the logical name would be Perth Black Swans.
All three teams have black. E.P. has the only unique combination but a good opportunity for Noongar colours.
That could be a good point of differentiation.

Two problems with Black Swans.

1. It's too similar to the Sydney Swans and there may be licensing issues there.
2. It's another bird emblem.

If the AFL demanded WA3 as team 20, and they wanted it in by 2032-4 for the next media rights deal, I'd go:

Perth Quokkas, black and gold, state colours, playing at Optus. The Tigers have black and gold, sure, but that's what clash jumpers are for.

I'd be running a poll on BigFooty for jumper designs and pay the winner to use the best design, there's some talent on these boards. Nail the aesthetics and you're off to a good start, I think it'd build momentum after 10 years.

edit: use the East Perth theme, someone could write better lyrics

Quokkas forever boys
Perth boys are we
Quokkas a great tradition
With the premiership our mission
Quokkas forever boys
And to the cause
For we are the mighty Quokkas
Perth is the greatest team of all
We'll beat the Eagles
Whether it be wet or fine
We'll beat the Dockers, too
At the bell they'll be behind
No doubt about it
The reason for it
Quokkas forever boys
Perth boys are we
Quokkas a great tradition
With the premiership our mission
Quokkas forever boys
And to the cause
For we are the mighty Quokkas
Perth is the greatest team of all

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

The only people who want a third WA team are Victorians.

 

[RedV3x]

Two problems with Black Swans.

1. It's too similar to the Sydney Swans and there may be licensing issues there.

it's as opposite as black and white.and imagine the call "black swans Vs the white swans" - a ready-made contest.
The black swan is the W.A. state emblem.
South Melbourne were the "Blood Stained Angels" and only became the "Swans" due to presence of so many West Australians at the time.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Really? I thought their numbers were s**t weren't they? Wouldn't make much sense to have a NZ team without the figures to support it unless you're going for an underrepresented market that you know gives a toss about footy i.e. WA, ACT.

I hate to s**t on my own team here, but let's look at the facts.

1. Brissy have the highest debt in the AFL.
2. Brissy have 43,319 members. That's less than North if we're using them as a yardstick for s**t returns, although they've been around a LOT longer than we have; then again, we're only a one team city and they're competing with 8 other teams in the same city.
3. Brissy average home attendances last year: 25,818

These aren't numbers that inspire me a lot of confidence for a second team in Brisbane.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a rival club in Brisbane, but Brisbane isn't Perth or Melbourne. If they were, the Lions would have 100k members and already have a new stadium with at least 60k capacity.

I don't think BR2 or Syd3 is needed anytime soon.

I thought Gold Coast was the rival derby opponent for Brisbane?

 

[Canberra Pear]

When & why would ACT have a better case than Tassie? What do the comparable applications show? Perhaps tell us where the application from ACT is & when offered up to the AFL? Also by whom. The ACT Government have just signed an extension to GWS games. So they can't be too interested.

While Tasmania is the obvious Team 19 now, Canberra would've had a better case than Tassie through the '80s, and early '90s. We were an Aussie Rules town.

Canberra made several bids in the '80s and '90s (including the first bid for a non-Victorian team). In 1992, an independent survey said 12% of Canberrans said they would attend "most or all games" for an AFL team. Probably a bit optimistic, but that would've equated to average crowds of 35k (or crowds of 60k with our current population). In that same year, Tasmania said it would be 10 years before they were in a position to bid.

So early on, Canberra definitely had a better case than Tasmania. Then we were neglected (repeatedly), the Raiders moved in, and we settled for whatever AFL we could get.

 

[madmug]

The only people who want a third WA team are Victorians.
[/QUOTE]

Oh really!

 

[madmug]

While Tasmania is the obvious Team 19 now, Canberra would've had a better case than Tassie through the '80s, and early '90s. We were an Aussie Rules town.

Canberra made several bids in the '80s and '90s (including the first bid for a non-Victorian team). In 1992, an independent survey said 12% of Canberrans said they would attend "most or all games" for an AFL team. Probably a bit optimistic, but that would've equated to average crowds of 35k (or crowds of 60k with our current population). In that same year, Tasmania said it would be 10 years before they were in a position to bid.

So early on, Canberra definitely had a better case than Tasmania. Then we were neglected (repeatedly), the Raiders moved in, and we settled for whatever AFL we could get.

Why & When has ACT ever had a better case than Tasmania?

 

[Coolangatta]

Why & When has ACT ever had a better case than Tasmania?

It isn’t an either or situation now, though, he’s suggesting Canberra as team 20, on the grounds they’d be just as, if not more successful than Tasmania due to the population, median wages, and locals level of interest in footy.

Do you think a Canberra team would fail?

 

[Canberra Pear]

Why & When has ACT ever had a better case than Tasmania?

I thought my answer pretty much covered it.

When: Through the eighties and nineties.

Why: Canberra had similar support levels to Tasmania, except Canberra still had more people and money than Hobart.

Now, I'm more than willing to wait for Team 20, but early on, Canberra definitely had a better case than Tasmania.

 

[Walshawk]

The only people who want a third WA team are Victorians.

I doubt any Victorians want WA3. Why would we? It is a ridiculous notion. If WA warrants a third team (just because WC have 100k members and 50k crowds), then Richmond and Collingwood need a second team

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

I doubt any Victorians want WA3. Why would we? It is a ridiculous notion. If WA warrants a third team (just because WC have 100k members and 50k crowds), then Richmond and Collingwood need a second team

Well no one in WA wants it, main argument I see in favour is coming from Victorians from a population standpoint, Vic has this many people and supports this many teams, therefore WA needs an extra team to even up the population to team ratio.

I agree with you that it's a ridiculous notion. If anything, other states should match WA's population to team ratio.

 

[Coolangatta]

Well no one in WA wants it, main argument I see in favour is coming from Victorians from a population standpoint, Vic has this many people and supports this many teams, therefore WA needs an extra team to even up the population to team ratio.

I agree with you that it's a ridiculous notion. If anything, other states should match WA's population to team ratio.

Haha yeah it’s almost as if Victoria wouldn’t have any struggling clubs if…

 

[Billy ray]

19 teams is the perfect number.
No need for any team for 50 years

 

[Coolangatta]

19 teams is the perfect number.
No need for any team for 50 years

I think 20 is ideal to max out on, but it isn’t a national competition without FNQ and ACT.

People keep saying add NT and you have a truly national competition. No, you don’t. So how do you fit 4 teams into 20?

Tasmania Devils (7 Hobart, 4 Launnie)

Canberra Kangaroos (the only relocation option that wouldn’t be all bad imo, 3 home Melbourne games)

DC Crocodiles (7 Darwin, 4 Cairns)

Could be a 19 team competition for decades until FNQ/NT club.

Don’t worry about Newcastle etc and follow WA’s model of two strong teams per state.

 

[madmug]

I thought my answer pretty much covered it.

When: Through the eighties and nineties.

Why: Canberra had similar support levels to Tasmania, except Canberra still had more people and money than Hobart.

Now, I'm more than willing to wait for Team 20, but early on, Canberra definitely had a better case than Tasmania.

ACT should have another application in right now stating its case then.

Canberra Certainly had more people than Hobart but not Tasmania. Also crowds here were far superior to ACTAFL. Just look at Grandfinal crowds before the AFL dominated TV & other media & sucked us dry of players. We had 3 quite good leagues producing competitive state teams & VFL players for many years. Then initially a State league strong enough the beat WAFL & SANFL in the 1990's.

Registered players, despite the mess footy is in here now, is near twice ACT numbers.

The bigger ACTAFL clubs rely on pokies. Similar to Queensland clubs who've recruited 'southern' players over the years.

 

[Canberra Pear]

ACT should have another application in right now stating its case then.

Canberra Certainly had more people than Hobart but not Tasmania. Also crowds here were far superior to ACTAFL. Just look at Grandfinal crowds before the AFL dominated TV & other media & sucked us dry of players. We had 3 quite good leagues producing competitive state teams & VFL players for many years. Then initially a State league strong enough the beat WAFL & SANFL in the 1990's.

Registered players, despite the mess footy is in here now, is near twice ACT numbers.

The bigger ACTAFL clubs rely on pokies. Similar to Queensland clubs who've recruited 'southern' players over the years.

I agree, we should have an application now. But that's not really what we're discussing.

We had multiple applications through the eighties and early nineties, and Tasmania literally said they weren't ready yet. We had a better case.

 

[Coolangatta]

I agree, we should have an application now. But that's not really what we're discussing.

We had multiple applications through the eighties and early nineties, and Tasmania literally said they weren't ready yet. We had a better case.

The “no” crowd will just say that was back then but Canberra got taken over by rugby. I don’t agree with that, but that’s what they’ll claim.

When did Tassie start making a big push again? Wasn’t it 2018? So maybe 2025-6 Canberra could try, without any official announcements too soon before the GWS deal expires.

Some say no one will go to the Giants games in Canberra if they know they’re getting a team. That’s because of what happened in Hobart with the North games but I think that was because Tasmania wanted to send a clear message that they didn’t want North. I don’t think Canberra would abandon the Giants unless the AFL tries to move them there.

 

[madmug]

I agree, we should have an application now. But that's not really what we're discussing.

We had multiple applications through the eighties and early nineties, and Tasmania literally said they weren't ready yet. We had a better case.

It seemed SANFL, WAFL & TANFL administrations all resisted the VFL approaches in the 70' & 80's. It was administrators looking to protect their own power & little empires. I recall a story that Allan Aylett made overtures to Tasmania with the idea of putting a side in the VFL. I can't find where or exactly when that was. Around 1980 I guess. State Government clearly had no vision at the time. Certainly Hobart City Council didn't either as they were asked to look at money to expand the small North Hobart Oval for VFL footy.

I did see a proposition & a ground design plan in 1983 put to the Hawke Federal Government that the KGV ground be improved to VFL standard. That didn't fly either. The word being that Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray (who really hated Hobart as he was from Launceston) wanted to develop York Park for football. It happened a few years after that when there was a push to fund a football ground at the Hobart Showgrounds. John Howard (1996 or so) gave money for York Park & Bellerive Oval (cricket) which ended yet another effort for a modern footy ground in Hobart.

This latest, certainly more united push, looks just like our latest best last hope.

 

[Canberra Pear]

It seemed SANFL, WAFL & TANFL administrations all resisted the VFL approaches in the 70' & 80's. It was administrators looking to protect their own power & little empires. I recall a story that Allan Aylett made overtures to Tasmania with the idea of putting a side in the VFL. I can't find where or exactly when that was. Around 1980 I guess. State Government clearly had no vision at the time. Certainly Hobart City Council didn't either as they were asked to look at money to expand the small North Hobart Oval for VFL footy.

I did see a proposition & a ground design plan in 1983 put to the Hawke Federal Government that the KGV ground be improved to VFL standard. That didn't fly either. The word being that Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray (who really hated Hobart as he was from Launceston) wanted to develop York Park for football. It happened a few years after that when there was a push to fund a football ground at the Hobart Showgrounds. John Howard (1996 or so) gave money for York Park & Bellerive Oval (cricket) which ended yet another effort for a modern footy ground in Hobart.

This latest, certainly more united push, looks just like our latest best last hope.

Tasmania definitely seems united these days, which I'm not so sure (from what I read) that it was in the past. I'd be very surprised if we didn't have a Tasmanian team by the end of the decade.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The “no” crowd will just say that was back then but Canberra got taken over by rugby. I don’t agree with that, but that’s what they’ll claim.

When did Tassie start making a big push again? Wasn’t it 2018? So maybe 2025-6 Canberra could try, without any official announcements too soon before the GWS deal expires.

Some say no one will go to the Giants games in Canberra if they know they’re getting a team. That’s because of what happened in Hobart with the North games but I think that was because Tasmania wanted to send a clear message that they didn’t want North. I don’t think Canberra would abandon the Giants unless the AFL tries to move them there.

Canberra is less of an Aussie Rules town now, but still has more Aussie Rules fans overall than it did for our first bids.

Canberra made its first bid in 1981. Our population has since more than doubled, and will be nearly triple by the time the GWS deal ends. So less of a dominance, but more fans overall (and more room for growth).

I think Hobart fans were done with North before their own team became a likelihood. Their crowds dropped of in 2017. But that could have in-part helped spurred this latest push. I don't think Canberra would abandon the Giants to the same extent. In fact, I feel it might be a bit the opposite if we got our own team. There'd be an increased excitement around AFL and likely more people watching the few games we have before we get our own team.

I'd prefer a fresh team, and for GWS to embrace Western Sydney. But if the Giants were relocated to Canberra, and became the Canberra Giants, I'd get behind them. I think a lot of others would, too. I think a lot of the discontent is the part-time/interstate nature of the club, not the Giants entity itself.