Expansion Canberra

[Bjo187]

Whilst I really like both the rams and griffins names I don't think they'll go with them:

Griffins - it's a mix of a lion and eagle which are both already in the comp
Rams - it's a male sheep, the pc brigade will have a whinge it doesn't accommodate an aflw team.

On the name I would like 'Canberra snsw - somethings'. This means they will get support across snsw, as well even able to push into Wollongong if need be for the occasional game.

 

[Sinnthesis]

Canberra Wombats
It should be a native Australian animal as its the nations capital

 

[Canberra Pear]

Whilst I really like both the rams and griffins names I don't think they'll go with them:

Griffins - it's a mix of a lion and eagle which are both already in the comp
Rams - it's a male sheep, the pc brigade will have a whinge it doesn't accommodate an aflw team.

On the name I would like 'Canberra snsw - somethings'. This means they will get support across snsw, as well even able to push into Wollongong if need be for the occasional game.

It's quite a mouthful, but I'd be okay with something like the "Canberra-Southern New South Wales Football Club trading as the Canberra Whatevers". Similar to what I think Sydney does.

Then everyone would call them Canberra, but they could have CSNSWFC on their back like Sydney have SMFC.

Canberra Wombats
It should be a native Australian animal as its the nations capital

I'd support the Wombats. Cockatoos seems to be another native animal popular choice because of the alliteration, but I think we already have too many bird teams.

I'd also be keen on the Canberra Bunyips. It might sound silly, but there's quite a cultural connection to Canberra (even a statue of one in Gungahlin). They're ambiguous, so you can make the mascot whatever you want. And it's definitely unique

 

[Milang_Panthers]

Good crowd tonight!

 

[Bjo187]

Interesting I heard them say gws have extended their Canberra contract for another 5 years. Perfect timing for the end of the next tv rights and expansion clubs coming through 2028.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Interesting I heard them say gws have extended their Canberra contract for another 5 years. Perfect timing for the end of the next tv rights and expansion clubs coming through 2028.

Somebody mentioned that on the Manuka Oval thread, too. I haven't found anything online or on socials (and you'd think it'd be something they'd announce), so I don't think they were meant to say anything yet.

It would be huge if true. GWS have been pushing hard for 10-year extension, and the feeling was that it was inevitable, but a 5-year extension could mean that Canberra is very well on the radar for the AFL.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Interesting I heard them say gws have extended their Canberra contract for another 5 years. Perfect timing for the end of the next tv rights and expansion clubs coming through 2028.

I just went back over the game and found it. It was BT, really just blurted it out quickly.

The chairman (GWS chair Dave Matthews) announcing a deal tonight where they’re here for another five years as well. - Brian Taylor

I still haven't been able to find it anywhere but that snippet. It's interesting though, there was an article published just two days ago that said GWS were intent on a 10-year deal, which would have had the Giants in Canberra through to the end of the 2032 season (meaning Canberra couldn't start until 2033).

If it's true, it doesn't necessarily mean the AFL (or even the ACT government if they're the reason why) is sold on a Canberra team, but at least enough to hold the door open for us.

2028 is pretty much bang on when a 20th team would join, and there's always the option to do single-year deals if Canberra were to join in 2029 or 2030.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Move giANTS to Canberra fulltime. Simples.

You can't have a team called GWS playing out of Canberra full time. Not unless you are talking about relocating them and calling them the Canberra Giants

 

[Aussie in exile]

Somebody mentioned that on the Manuka Oval thread, too. I haven't found anything online or on socials (and you'd think it'd be something they'd announce), so I don't think they were meant to say anything yet.

It would be huge if true. GWS have been pushing hard for 10-year extension, and the feeling was that it was inevitable, but a 5-year extension could mean that Canberra is very well on the radar for the AFL.

For me having GSW playing games in Canberra is the fly in the ointment to Canberra having its own team. Just saying

 

[Canberra Pear]

For me having GSW playing games in Canberra is the fly in the ointment to Canberra having its own team. Just saying

I think you're absolutely right.

The best thing for a Canberra team is a successful GWS in Western Sydney. Ironically, I think their relationship with Canberra is holding back success in Western Sydney.

It's quite frustrating that Canberra keeps doing its part, but could miss out on what could be the the last round of expansion because the AFL is too scared to let GWS swim in the deep end.

 

[Bjo187]

On gws I was listening to their podcast and it's always been the plan to shorter the name after about 10 years apparently. Has me wondering would it be better shortened to 'western sydney' or 'greater sydney' (apparently not allowed to use just Sydney as agreed with the swans). Option 1 gives more identity to the region, but there are barely any footy fans in western sydney, option 2 they lose their identity a bit but it allows them to pull fans from more AFL friendly areas like north sydney etc.

 

[Rob]

On gws I was listening to their podcast and it's always been the plan to shorter the name after about 10 years apparently. Has me wondering would it be better shortened to 'western sydney' or 'greater sydney' (apparently not allowed to use just Sydney as agreed with the swans). Option 1 gives more identity to the region, but there are barely any footy fans in western sydney, option 2 they lose their identity a bit but it allows them to pull fans from more AFL friendly areas like north sydney etc.

If you could find one person in North Sydney that would start supporting them simply by changing their name to "Greater Sydney" then i'd be amazed.

Football clubs will never ever get more supporters by losing any of their identity. You can appeal to other people whilst still maintaining a strong identity.

 

[Bjo187]

If you could find one person in North Sydney that would start supporting them simply by changing their name to "Greater Sydney" then i'd be amazed.

Football clubs will never ever get more supporters by losing any of their identity. You can appeal to other people whilst still maintaining a strong identity.

I know north sydney relatively well they'd never support a team from west sydney or 'westies' as they call them, if it just appears as a second sydney team there is more chance they'll give it a go. Overall though I somewhat agree about identity being lost, but do they really have an identity in the ws community at the moment anyway?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I know north sydney relatively well they'd never support a team from west sydney or 'westies' as they call them, if it just appears as a second sydney team there is more chance they'll give it a go. Overall though I somewhat agree about identity being lost, but do they really have an identity in the ws community at the moment anyway?

They can create one. Western Sydney is a much sweeter plum than the North if they can crack it, because there are so many more people there.

 

[Walshawk]

If you could find one person in North Sydney that would start supporting them simply by changing their name to "Greater Sydney" then i'd be amazed.

Football clubs will never ever get more supporters by losing any of their identity. You can appeal to other people whilst still maintaining a strong identity.

Wasn’t the whole reason for GWS to grow support amongst the ‘2 million people in Western Sydney’. You would only change name if the whole focus was on WS, and they left Canberra.

 

[Rob]

I know north sydney relatively well they'd never support a team from west sydney or 'westies' as they call them, if it just appears as a second sydney team there is more chance they'll give it a go. Overall though I somewhat agree about identity being lost, but do they really have an identity in the ws community at the moment anyway?

You really think anyone that would never support a team from West Sydney suddenly start supporting the Greater Sydney Giants training and playing out of Homebush?

Nah.

If they don't have a strong enough identity in Western Sydney then they need to create one. Maybe they can start by dropping the "Greater" in their name, I don't know.

 

[Badger17]

I agree with incorporating the Riverina-Murray. Huge Aussie Rules heartland with a population itself the size of the NT.

One of the reasons I like the names Griffins is that Walter Burley and Marion Griffin did a bunch of work there, too. They designed Canberra, but also Griffith and a bit of infrastructure in the towns there. Plus a Griffin is a bad-ass mascot.

I'd still maintain they should he called Canberra though. The Brumbies removed their ACT name and they lost a bit of identity. The Raiders manage to the Wagga's team while still being called Canberra.

Trying to include the Riverina and Murray regions in the team's catchment in anything more than the most token sense would be a massive mistake.

Put simply there're huge cultural and geographical differences between those regions and the ACT. People in those regions don't tend to have a high opinion of Canberra or Canberrans, and would be highly unlikely to jump from the teams they already support to the new Canberra team en masse. As you alluded to the Brumbies learned this the hard way.

Canberra is where the real money, and honestly, having a bad following in Canberra would be better financially than having a good one in the other two. Focus on building a strong following in Canberra and you'll succeed, try to be everything to everyone south of Sydney and you'll only end up being nothing to anybody.

Besides, it'd only be feasible to play regular season games in Wagga and/or Albury if the NSW Government payed for them. IMO it isn't a given that they'd offer enough to make it worthwhile, but if they are willing to spend big money to get teams to play games in those regions regularly, then it'd probably be more in the AFL's interest for GWS to take up that offer then Canberra.

 

[Canberra Pear]

On gws I was listening to their podcast and it's always been the plan to shorter the name after about 10 years apparently. Has me wondering would it be better shortened to 'western sydney' or 'greater sydney' (apparently not allowed to use just Sydney as agreed with the swans). Option 1 gives more identity to the region, but there are barely any footy fans in western sydney, option 2 they lose their identity a bit but it allows them to pull fans from more AFL friendly areas like north sydney etc.

I listened to that too. My take on it was that they were trying to make the Giants brand bigger than the GWS side of things. He (can't remember who was speaking) said they needed GWS as a place name to start with, but I think it was about making the Giants name ubiquitous. I think that's why they named their stadium Giants Stadium as opposed to GWS Stadium. A bit like the Sydney Thunder or Sixers, you barely say Sydney, just the moniker. Interestingly, Gil McLachlan actually wanted to go with "Giants FC".

I didn't like it initially, but the "GWS" name has really grown on me. I think it's become more famous than they expected and has more brand power than the "Giants". I think it's probably here to stay now.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Trying to include the Riverina and Murray regions in the team's catchment in anything more than the most token sense would be a massive mistake.

Put simply there're huge cultural and geographical differences between those regions and the ACT. People in those regions don't tend to have a high opinion of Canberra or Canberrans, and would be highly unlikely to jump from the teams they already support to the new Canberra team en masse. As you alluded to the Brumbies learned this the hard way.

Canberra is where the real money, and honestly, having a bad following in Canberra would be better financially than having a good one in the other two. Focus on building a strong following in Canberra and you'll succeed, try to be everything to everyone south of Sydney and you'll only end up being nothing to anybody.

Besides, it'd only be feasible to play regular season games in Wagga and/or Albury if the NSW Government payed for them. IMO it isn't a given that they'd offer enough to make it worthwhile, but if they are willing to spend big money to get teams to play games in those regions regularly, then it'd probably be more in the AFL's interest for GWS to take up that offer then Canberra.

Selfishly, I'd be more than okay with 11 games in Canberra. I think we'd be more than capable. But if the argument for NT is that it's such an AFL heartland, it's a handy ace up the sleeve for Canberra with an AFL heartland bigger than the NT on its doorstep.

I agree with not trying too hard to please everybody. That's why I think it has to be called Canberra, even if games are played elsewhere. It'd be too blurry and too much of a mouthful to get one name that covers everything. I don't have an answer for not alienating the Riverina though. My hope is, similar to the Raiders, crowds would rock up to support the sport and support Canberra as neutrals, maybe picking up a few kids on the way. Enough Riverina locals should play on the Canberra team that they'd at least have the support of most neutrals.

But I like you're thinking about GWS. It might make them less against a Canberra team if they get to keep the Riverina. I couldn't find the exact details, but the Wagga council paid $300k back in the day for early GWS preseason games. Albury just spent $20m upgrading its ground. I would say they'd be willing to spend ~$400k for an annual game to stop it from becoming a white elephant.

 

[The_JHF_Clinic]

Selfishly, I'd be more than okay with 11 games in Canberra. I think we'd be more than capable. But if the argument for NT is that it's such an AFL heartland, it's a handy ace up the sleeve for Canberra with an AFL heartland bigger than the NT on its doorstep.

I agree with not trying too hard to please everybody. That's why I think it has to be called Canberra, even if games are played elsewhere. It'd be too blurry and too much of a mouthful to get one name that covers everything. I don't have an answer for not alienating the Riverina though. My hope is, similar to the Raiders, crowds would rock up to support the sport and support Canberra as neutrals, maybe picking up a few kids on the way. Enough Riverina locals should play on the Canberra team that they'd at least have the support of most neutrals.

But I like you're thinking about GWS. It might make them less against a Canberra team if they get to keep the Riverina. I couldn't find the exact details, but the Wagga council paid $300k back in the day for early GWS preseason games. Albury just spent $20m upgrading its ground. I would say they'd be willing to spend ~$400k for an annual game to stop it from becoming a white elephant.

If having those regions involved was crucial to the Canberra bid being seen as more favourable to the others for #20 then superficial links would probably be insufficient in getting existing footy fans from a heartland (like Albury-Wodonga) to switch teams. You’d think that the club would have to be a decent representation of their communities as well to get a decent percentage of them on board and make it worthwhile.

I know what you’re saying about spreading the support too thin and losing identity, but being from a smaller market, it’s also important to think outside of the box so the club has the best opportunity to be successful.

The Carter report into the Tassie business case was very enthusiastic about the potential for co-locations moving forward. In regards to the NT bid, I think that a co-location should be explored, as this model could somewhat mitigate the obvious challenges associated with Darwin’s climate, small population, economy etc that would make it difficult for a team to be based there full-time. It will be interesting to see what pans out. For me, Tassie 19 and Canberra 20 makes the most sense at the moment.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Canberra Pear]

If having those regions involved was crucial to the Canberra bid being seen as more favourable to the others for #20 then superficial links would probably be insufficient in getting existing footy fans from a heartland (like Albury-Wodonga) to switch teams. You’d think that the club would have to be a decent representation of their communities as well to get a decent percentage of them on board and make it worthwhile.

I know what you’re saying about spreading the support too thin and losing identity, but being from a smaller market, it’s also important to think outside of the box so the club has the best opportunity to be successful.

The Carter report into the Tassie business case was very enthusiastic about the potential for co-locations moving forward. In regards to the NT bid, I think that a co-location should be explored, as this model could somewhat mitigate the obvious challenges associated with Darwin’s climate, small population, economy etc that would make it difficult for a team to be based there full-time. It will be interesting to see what pans out. For me, Tassie 19 and Canberra 20 makes the most sense at the moment.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It's definitely much easier for the NT and Tasmania to claim their secondary cities as they're in the same state/territory.

I kind of equate the idea of Albury and Wagga to Canberra, as Canberra is now to the Giants.

I have a GWS membership to go to the games, I support the Giants when I go to the games, and I even travelled to Sydney for a couple of finals, but I wouldn't switch teams for them and I imagine 90% of Canberran Giants members would be the same. But I know a few people for whom the Giants have become their kids' number one team. The Giants still make money from my membership and patronage, despite not being my #1 team.

If we played a game each in Wagga and Albury, you'd get a decent number of members purely to get into games and have their favourite seat. Early on, Canberra had to secure 6000 members to ensure GWS games, you could do something similar (lower threshold) to get Riverina members. We'd also get theoretically $400k per game in sponsorship. Over time, we'd have an academy there so locals end up playing for us and people go for the team their friends and family play for (like the Tom Green marquee at Manuka Oval). You'd have Auskick geared towards Canberra and school visits from the players. It'd be a #2 team at first (which we'd still make money from), but eventually, like the Giants in Canberra, a #1 team for the kids.

That being said, I still maintain Canberra could support a team in its own right. But it almost seems like a waste to have three ACT/NSW teams without a presence in the Riverina. GWS could do it, but the geography just seems messy.

 

[Badger17]

Where has this nonsense idea that somehow Canberra is only worthy of a team if they are forced to share it with Wagga and/or Albury come from.

Aside from maybe some academies in the regions around Canberra, which is a good idea but doesn't require the club to play games in the regions or pretend that they somehow represent the Riverina (or any other regions of NSW) as well as Canberra and Queanbeyan, there'd be very little for a Canberra side to gain out of Wagga and/or Albury, and any gains they did make would come at the expense of growth back home.

The whole idea seems to come from people whom haven't got the faintest clue about the region, it's geography, and the cultural differences, suggesting that the regions are close therefore it's a good idea to bundle them together. It's akin to saying Geelong is close to Melbourne therefore you could bundle them into a Melbourne side.

If the AFL wants a Canberra club then fine let's do it, but these ideas of a an effectively everything south of Sydney side are nonsense, and would do more harm than good.

 

[Badger17]

Selfishly, I'd be more than okay with 11 games in Canberra. I think we'd be more than capable. But if the argument for NT is that it's such an AFL heartland, it's a handy ace up the sleeve for Canberra with an AFL heartland bigger than the NT on its doorstep.

I agree with not trying too hard to please everybody. That's why I think it has to be called Canberra, even if games are played elsewhere. It'd be too blurry and too much of a mouthful to get one name that covers everything. I don't have an answer for not alienating the Riverina though. My hope is, similar to the Raiders, crowds would rock up to support the sport and support Canberra as neutrals, maybe picking up a few kids on the way. Enough Riverina locals should play on the Canberra team that they'd at least have the support of most neutrals.

The Raiders have a much different relationship with the regions than any other ACT based side has ever been able to foster.

I comes from the fact that at their heart the Raiders are an outgrowth of the Queanbeyan Blues and are still operated by the same family (the Macintyre family), and their friends, that have operated the Blues, and by extension Raiders, for generations (with the exception of a short period in the 90s because of the Super League war). Even so the Raiders are still not particularly popular outside of Canberra and the rough region around it sometimes referred to as the Capital Region. Souths, St. George, probably quite a few of the other Sydney clubs, and whichever club is the most successful at any given time, are all more popular in the Riverina than the Raiders and probably always will be.

Neutrals aren't as valuable as hardcore fans and the support that grows amongst kids always almost completely evaporates after the games stop.

But I like you're thinking about GWS. It might make them less against a Canberra team if they get to keep the Riverina. I couldn't find the exact details, but the Wagga council paid $300k back in the day for early GWS preseason games. Albury just spent $20m upgrading its ground. I would say they'd be willing to spend ~$400k for an annual game to stop it from becoming a white elephant.

You realise that $300-400k isn't that much right?

Lets take the median ticket price to GWS games at Manuka, $34, for conveniences sake round it down to $30, and say that's roughly the average price of a ticket. Now lets estimate that a Canberra side would average 15k a game (a reasonably conservative estimate IMO). IMO, that's leaves us with a reasonable estimate of an average of roughly $450k per game in Canberra.

To make it worth the club's while they'd be wanting quite a bit more than that number, and the Wagga and Albury councils simply don't have that kind of money to spend annually on games. Maybe the NSW government would be willing to step in and make it worth the club's while, but who knows what they'd offer and even then it might not be worth the club's while when other factors are considered.

 

[Bjo187]

Canberra sides have always been just called 'Canberra' so why would southern nsw have any attachment to them. A team that represents Canberra and snsw from the start is more likely to get that permanent support from the riverina, as it is labelled as the team from where they live too and the club would be genuinely invested by playing games there from the start and throughout. I think the examples you give are different as I assume the raiders only started playing the occasional game there recently.

 

[Canberra Pear]

You realise that $300-400k isn't that much right?

Lets take the median ticket price to GWS games at Manuka, $34, for conveniences sake round it down to $30, and say that's roughly the average price of a ticket. Now lets estimate that a Canberra side would average 15k a game (a reasonably conservative estimate IMO). IMO, that's leaves us with a reasonable estimate of an average of roughly $450k per game in Canberra.

To make it worth the club's while they'd be wanting quite a bit more than that number, and the Wagga and Albury councils simply don't have that kind of money to spend annually on games. Maybe the NSW government would be willing to step in and make it worth the club's while, but who knows what they'd offer and even then it might not be worth the club's while when other factors are considered.

You'd get a bit more with ticket sales in the Riverina, too, but I get your point, it ends up mostly evening out.

There's an annual NRL game in Wagga, and I would say Wagga's slightly AFL-leaning, so there might be a chance they'd swap down the track. Albury's even bigger and more AFL leaning, so I imagine if Wagga can find the dough, they can. I couldn't find out the figure for how much the Raiders are getting per game, but each game apparently injects $2 million into the local economy, so while it doesn't go directly back to the budget, it more than pays for itself through the community.

Even if Manuka hosted all 11 home games, I'd still be keen for Canberra to play an annual preseason match at Wagga or Albury.

Canberra sides have always been just called 'Canberra' so why would southern nsw have any attachment to them. A team that represents Canberra and snsw from the start is more likely to get that permanent support from the riverina, as it is labelled as the team from where they live too and the club would be genuinely invested by playing games there from the start and throughout. I think the examples you give are different as I assume the raiders only started playing the occasional game there recently.

There really isn't a catch-all name that'd make people happy. Unlike the NT and Tasmania, it's more just two adjacent areas that are kind of vaguely linked.

I understand Riverinians not getting fully behind a team called Canberra. I myself couldn't really get behind a team called Southern NSW as I don't really identify with the state and I imagine other Canberrans would be similar. "Canberra" would have to be the name as that's where the core of the fanbase would be.

As mentioned earlier, I'd be okay with a "Canberra-Southern New South Wales Football Club trading as Canberra" with a CSNSWFC on the guernsey (similar to the Swans), but anything more than that is a mouthful and would alienate the core base.