Expansion Canberra

[WesternSydneyHawk]

It'd be nice if Ainslie and Eastlake could learn to cooperate with each other. It'd be hard to keep Canberra out of the league if they were willing to work together for a VFL team, and then an AFL team.

Just to put those Ainslie revenue figures I quoted earlier into perspective:

"In 2021, West Coast reported the least funding from the AFL distribution at $11.8 million, but generated $61.7 million in revenue - with only second-placed Richmond close ($13.3 million from the AFL, $39.7 million self-generated plus $21 million from fitness and leisure centres).

"In contrast that year Gold Coast was given $25.4 million from the AFL but self-generated just $12.8 million."

Revealed: Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder... and who’s getting the most help

Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder as league’s wealth divide explained

www.foxsports.com.au

Taking the Gold Coast figures, the magic number is somewhere around $38.2 million.

So depending on the AFL's TV rights distribution and the ACT government's support, a standalone Ainslie bid would be well on the way to that mark.

And that's before any members and sponsors have signed up!

I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'd Imagine a merged Ainslie–Eastlakes would probably have a better balance sheet than many of the Victorian clubs. And that's without AFL members and sponsors!

 

[Bjo187]

Just to put those Ainslie revenue figures I quoted earlier into perspective:

"In 2021, West Coast reported the least funding from the AFL distribution at $11.8 million, but generated $61.7 million in revenue - with only second-placed Richmond close ($13.3 million from the AFL, $39.7 million self-generated plus $21 million from fitness and leisure centres).

"In contrast that year Gold Coast was given $25.4 million from the AFL but self-generated just $12.8 million."

Revealed: Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder... and who’s getting the most help

Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder as league’s wealth divide explained

www.foxsports.com.au

Taking the Gold Coast figures, the magic number is somewhere around $38.2 million.

So depending on the AFL's TV rights distribution and the ACT government's support, a standalone Ainslie bid would be well on the way to that mark.

And that's before any members and sponsors have signed up!

I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'd Imagine a merged Ainslie–Eastlakes would probably have a better balance sheet than many of the Victorian clubs. And that's without AFL members and sponsors!

Whilst I agree the club should come from existing clubs that have massive assets (Like Southport should have on the gc), how do you merge two teams that are the saints and demons and retain any look of it being an Ainslie and Eastlake club? Coz you'd effectively have the name Canberra, completely different colours and mascot coz both are already taken in the afl.

So I like the idea, just wonder what's in it for those two clubs? And how could it be made to work?

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

However, would there be enough sponsorships and fundings available from the private sector and memberships/ merchandise to make a full time AFL Canberra team viable?

The smaller companies give the boxes to employees of the month or are used when trying to woo a company. You shouldn’t be quick to dismiss the benefit these smaller local companies have to clubs financially.

I'll cross-post this reply from the 20th club thread.

The short answer is that Canberra has an edge over other cities its size because it's home to the federal government.

That means it has a very strong base of companies that consult or contract to the federal government, as well as lobbyist firms and peak industry bodies.

You might also find government departments and agencies that are interested in a corporate box (DFAT and Tourism Australia come to mind).

Some foreign embassies could potentially also be interested in a corporate box for when foreign dignitaries visit.

For corporate hospitality, Canberra is likely to be a far stronger market than you would imagine.

The public perception is that the major market for private corporate suites is for high-net-worth individuals and executive entertainment.

And while they're an important market for corporate hospitality at sports events, they often prefer coterie groups and match day events where they can network and make contacts with other business leaders.

(I'll have more to say about coterie groups in a sec.)

A far bigger market for those private suites tend to be executive-level B2B sales leaders, who are responsible for building or maintaining relationships with enterprise clients (such as ASX-100 companies, universities, and government departments). Many of Australia's largest companies maintain corporate suites basically to schmooze current or potential customers.

A (usually) smaller but still important market are lobbyists, businesses, governments, and industry groups who use them as part of their lobbying efforts.

Here's where Canberra punches above its weight.

You want to sell corporate boxes to companies that are trying to win big-dollar contracts with enterprise clients?

Well, Canberra is home to pretty much all if the federal departments and agencies. That includes some, like Defence, that aee responsible for multi-billion-dollar tenders and procurements. That's why most major government suppliers and contractors maintain a sales office somewhere in Civic.

And let me assure you that Canberra has no shortage of government lobbyists, businesses, embacies, and industry groups looking to influence government policy. And many would gladly pay for a corporate suite where they can host government ministers, ministerial staff, and departmental secretaries.

As for the coterie groups, if it is known that a particular minister or departmental secretary is a member, there will be lobbyists looking to join so they can network with them.

Now, if you think this lobbying activity isn't great for democracy.

But I will assure you that if you offer corporate boxes for a Canberra-based AFL club, it won't be too difficult to find buyers.

Apart from a redeveloped stadium they aneed to build a training and administration base there’s another 50-100 million

Using a club like Ainslie as a starting point gives you four options on this point:

1) The club already has usage rights at Alan Ray Oval and has spent several million on the facilities there.

In the short-to-medium term, you could upgrade these facilities to AFL standard.

2) Also in the short-to-medium term, you could also lease facilities at the Australian Institute of Sport in Bruce.

The added benefit here is that instead of hiring skills coaches full time, you could maximise the soft cap by gaining access to Olympic coaches from the AIS on a consultancy basis.

3) Medium-to-long term, you could build a joint centre of excellence in conjunction with the AIS or Canberra Uni. This potentially splits and spreads the cost out.

4) Long term, you bulldoze Gungahlin Golf Club (which Ainslie owns) and build an AFL training and administration centre on the site.

The land costs have already been covered.

You would put up some new apartment blocks on a corner of the land to cover the cost of facilities.

The final benefit: Because Ainslie has over $30 million in net assets (that's the value of assets minus debt), you have plenty of equity to borrow against to fund new facilities.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

how do you merge two teams that are the saints and demons and retain any look of it being an Ainslie and Eastlake club? Coz you'd effectively have the name Canberra, completely different colours and mascot coz both are already taken in the afl.

So I like the idea, just wonder what's in it for those two clubs? And how could it be made to work?

Ainslie's a bit easier on this front.

It'd be a matter of swapping red for another colour (blue perhaps? Or maybe green?) and the Canberra Tricolours are ready to go.

That's assuming you just have one of the clubs form the basis of the Canberra AFL club.

If you merge them into a single entity, you get Canberra–Eastlake Tricolours in blue, white, and black.

But they probably won't agree to a merger so instead you could have one of the clubs get the AFL licence and the other run the VFL side, academies, etc.

Ainslie get the AFL licence as the Canberra Tricolours, and the Canberra Demons in the VFL and U18s/Coates League.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I'll cross-post this reply from the 20th club thread.

The short answer is that Canberra has an edge over other cities its size because it's home to the federal government.

That means it has a very strong base of companies that consult or contract to the federal government, as well as lobbyist firms and peak industry bodies.

You might also find government departments and agencies that are interested in a corporate box (DFAT and Tourism Australia come to mind).

Some foreign embassies could potentially also be interested in a corporate box for when foreign dignitaries visit.




Using a club like Ainslie as a starting point gives you four options on this point:

1) The club already has usage rights at Alan Ray Oval and has spent several million on the facilities there.

In the short-to-medium term, you could upgrade these facilities to AFL standard.

2) Also in the short-to-medium term, you could also lease facilities at the Australian Institute of Sport in Bruce.

The added benefit here is that instead of hiring skills coaches full time, you could maximise the soft cap by gaining access to Olympic coaches from the AIS on a consultancy basis.

3) Medium-to-long term, you could build a joint centre of excellence in conjunction with the AIS or Canberra Uni. This potentially splits and spreads the cost out.

4) Long term, you bulldoze Gungahlin Golf Club (which Ainslie owns) and build an AFL training and administration centre on the site.

The land costs have already been covered.

You would put up some new apartment blocks on a corner of the land to cover the cost of facilities.

The final benefit: Because Ainslie has over $30 million in net assets (that's the value of assets minus debt), you have plenty of equity to borrow against to fund new facilities.

Geez, we gotta get you on the committee.

I had initially been against using a legacy club, but you've made some great points, and it alleviates some gaps in the bid, namely asset base and an early training base.

You obviously couldn't use Ainslie's uniform as it's nearly identical to the Saints, but if Canberra has three colours, the tricolours nickname (even if it's informal), can continue. I've been a fan of green, blue and yellow (a bit like Woodville-West Torrens). Represents the blue and gold colours of Canberra, plus the green of the bush capital.

In a league without the Saints and Dees, an Ainslie-Eastlakes merger would've had an easy identity. They already share two out of three colours. The nickname could've been the Tridents (the tricolours, with a demons symbol).

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Labor has made pushing for a BBL team an official election platform.

Would strengthen the case for a Manuka upgrade.

View attachment 2111992

Maybe someone who subscribes can post relevant extract, but it seems Canberra’s A league men’s bid also wants Barr to throw some $ their way, based on this

'It's likely the tipping point': Canberra A-League bid calls for Big Bash money

The Big Bash's $3 million could save Canberra's A-Leagues chances.

www.canberratimes.com.au

 

[Giant YoYo]

Maybe someone who subscribes can post relevant extract, but it seems Canberra’s A league men’s bid also wants Barr to throw some $ their way, based on this

'It's likely the tipping point': Canberra A-League bid calls for Big Bash money

The Big Bash's $3 million could save Canberra's A-Leagues chances.

www.canberratimes.com.au

'It's likely the tipping point': Canberra A-League bid calls for Big Bash money

Canberra's A-League bid team says the capital's chances of having an A-League Men's team could hinge on increased ACT government support in line with ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr's $3 million commitment to fund a Big Bash team.

In addition to that, it could also ensure the future of A-League Women's team Canberra United as well.

Canberra's A-League bid wants a $3 million annual commitment from ACT Labor in the lead-up to next month's election.

Currently, the bid to bring an A-League Men's team to the capital has an in-principle agreement with the ACT government for $1.2 million per year - less than half of what The Canberra Times revealed Barr would pay for both a BBL and WBBL team.

Bid leader Michael Caggiano has written to the ACT soccer community calling on them to lobby Barr for soccer to get its fair share of the political pie - and he's also contacted ACT Sports Minister Yvette Berry personally.

It's believed the Australian Professional Leagues, who run the A-Leagues, were also considering writing to Barr about the issue.

Caggiano said an increased investment from the government could help seal the deal on an ALM investor.

He said it could also ensure the future of Canberra United, who needed a $200,000 bailout from the government to save them from folding this year.

Capital Football have pledged to run United for the upcoming A-League Women's season, but they face extinction if a new ALM team doesn't take them over after that.

That means the guaranteed future of both a men's and women's team could hinge on increased funding.

"Andrew Barr had committed to providing $3 million per year into a Canberra Big Bash franchise," Caggiano said.

"This is great news for the city and we don't begrudge other sports their fair share of funding, but we are calling on Mr Barr to make sure football isn't left behind.

"If Mr Barr can match the funding he has committed to the Big Bash, it's likely the tipping point that will get our A-League teams over the line."

Barr's $3 million pledge makes a potential future Big Bash team the best funded of any team in Canberra - even bigger than AFL team GWS Giants' $2.85 million per annum.

The Giants would still get the most on a per-game basis, given they only play three AFL and two AFLW games at Manuka Oval per season - equating to $570,000 per game.

In comparison, each BBL team plays five home games and the WBBL plays seven - equal to $250,000 per game.

An ALM team would play at least 13 home games - not including any Australia Cup or Asian games - plus they would also take over the running of Canberra United, who play 11 home games.

The government currently provides United with $250,000 per year - taking the total funding of an A-League club up to $1.45 million or $60,416 per game.

That would be the smallest amount of any of the major codes funded by the government.

The ACT Brumbies get $1.8 million per year for seven Super Rugby Pacific home games and two or three SuperW ones - or at least $180,000 per game.

The Canberra Raiders get $2.6 million and play at least 11 NRL games and four NRLW games at home - or $173,000 per game.

Caggiano pointed to Barr saying a Big Bash team would increase the usage of Manuka Oval and also improve the case for improvements of the ground.

He said that's also what an ALM team would do at Canberra Stadium by providing games during summer.

Caggiano also said both the A-Leagues and Big Bash provided similar direct revenue into the ACT economy - their budget was $13.5 million per year, while the Big Bash was $12 million.

"At a minimum a Canberra A-League club would deliver as much if not more economic revenue than the $12 million quoted that a Big Bash team will create," he said.

"For their $12 million of revenue their grant represents 25 per cent of revenue generated, whilst the current offer we have represents 10 per cent."

Caggiano gave an update of how far away they were from finalising an owner.

They've also been linked with forming a partnership with English Premier League club Aston Villa.

"We are close," Caggiano said.

"We have some impressive investors on the cusp of signing on the dotted line, including the potential of a revolutionary partnership with a top-tier European club that will bring substantial expertise and resources to Canberra and to the A-League.

"We just need one last push."

 

[Canberra Pear]

What's the value of the A-leagues to the tourist economy in Canberra?

The Giants funding aren't a charitable donation to play games in Canberra, they're an investment that the Government expects a return on investment from. Clearly, the Government/economy receives a return on investment from Giants games because they extended the Canberra deal.

There's no way A-Leagues club is worth more to Canberra than the Raiders (who get $2.6m).

But $3m is way more than I expected a BBL team to get. Shows he's really making the push.

Also shows that the ACT Government is more liquid for sports funding than has been previously suggested.

 

[Bjo187]

The A league guy talking like it's the premier sporting comp in the country. How many people travel for A league games, a few hundred perhaps?

*Edit, also I wonder if Barr is offering cricket 3 mill so he can then offer footy like 5 mill when they get their own team. The reasoning of 'well cricket gets 3 mill, footy has more games and brings more travelers, so it's only fair'. I honestly think the guy is pulling a masterclass for the end goal of getting a Canberra team by stealth.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The A league guy talking like it's the premier sporting comp in the country. How many people travel for A league games, a few hundred perhaps?

*Edit, also I wonder if Barr is offering cricket 3 mill so he can then offer footy like 5 mill when they get their own team. The reasoning of 'well cricket gets 3 mill, footy has more games and brings more travelers, so it's only fair'. I honestly think the guy is pulling a masterclass for the end goal of getting a Canberra team by stealth.

We’ll wait and see but I think Barr is happy with the AFL status quo, and has other priorities- however, Barr is the longest reigning Chief Minister in ACT’s history, so obviously he knows how to play the (political) game

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

I had initially been against using a legacy club, but you've made some great points, and it alleviates some gaps in the bid, namely asset base and an early training base.

There's a few other intangible benefits as well.

If you used Ainslie as the basis of the Canberra AFL club, you could rightfully claim the club was established in 1927.

Assuming a licence is granted sometime around 2030, claiming over a century of history sounds a lot more impressive than it's a new club.

At a deeper level, it directly connects the new AFL team to over a century of the history of footy in Canberra.

You could also imitate Port Adelaide's trick of counting SANFL Premierships. That's a 28 AFL Canberra/NEAFL/AFL Premiership track record!

More importantly, it gives you a connection to the many past players who have played for Ainslie over the years.

That includes both juniors who went on to bigger things in the V/AFL, like Nathan Buckley and James Hird, or had a stint in Canberra with the Tricolours, like Cowboy Neale.

I could foresee getting someone like Buckley to either use his public profile to advocate for the Tricolours' inclusion in the AFL, or even getting directly involved with the bid, would be of huge benefit.

And having an existing senior side (even if the players you start with aren't at AFL standard) gives you more options for building out a list over a number of years, without completely compromising the draft by trying to find 44 players in one offseason. (I can share more about how I think this could work if you're interested?)

You obviously couldn't use Ainslie's uniform as it's nearly identical to the Saints, but if Canberra has three colours, the tricolours nickname (even if it's informal), can continue. I've been a fan of green, blue and yellow (a bit like Woodville-West Torrens). Represents the blue and gold colours of Canberra, plus the green of the bush capital.

And there's certainly precedent for AFL clubs using the same basic jumper design in different colours. Think Richmond and Essendon. Or Geelong and Adelaide. Or Collingwood, Hawthorn, and North.

Instead of three vertical bands of red, white, and black, it might be three bands of blue, gold, and green.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

There's a few other intangible benefits as well.

If you used Ainslie as the basis of the Canberra AFL club, you could rightfully claim the club was established in 1927.

Assuming a licence is granted sometime around 2030, claiming over a century of history sounds a lot more impressive than it's a new club.

At a deeper level, it directly connects the new AFL team to over a century of the history of footy in Canberra.

You could also imitate Port Adelaide's trick of counting SANFL Premierships. That's a 28 AFL Canberra/NEAFL/AFL Premiership track record!

More importantly, it gives you a connection to the many past players who have played for Ainslie over the years.

That includes both juniors who went on to bigger things in the V/AFL, like Nathan Buckley and James Hird, or had a stint in Canberra with the Tricolours, like Cowboy Neale.

I could foresee getting someone like Buckley to either use his public profile to advocate for the Tricolours' inclusion in the AFL, or even getting directly involved with the bid, would be of huge benefit.

And having an existing senior side (even if the players you start with aren't at AFL standard) gives you more options for building out a list over a number of years, without completely compromising the draft by trying to find 44 players in one offseason. (I can share more about how I think this could work if you're interested?)


And there's certainly precedent for AFL clubs using the same basic jumper design in different colours. Think Richmond and Essendon. Or Geelong and Adelaide. Or Collingwood, Hawthorn, and North.

Instead of three vertical bands of red, white, and black, it might be three bands of blue, gold, and green.

do you run the risk of other clubs in ACT not supporting it as they see it as a Ainslie initiative? To my dismay Ainslie and Eastlake could not work together to even put a combined Canberra club in the NEAFL - in fact it was Eastlake that used the Canberra Demons name and represented Canberra

 

[Canberra Pear]

do you run the risk of other clubs in ACT not supporting it as they see it as a Ainslie initiative? To my dismay Ainslie and Eastlake could not work together to even put a combined Canberra club in the NEAFL - in fact it was Eastlake that used the Canberra Demons name and represented Canberra

I think that'd be a little bit of the case, but most would get over it as things developed. Especially if they made enough of a change to differentiate.

Plenty of players from other clubs played for the Canberra Demons.

I wouldn't say AFL Canberra clubs have as fervent support as the major state leagues. It's not like asking Norwood supporters to follow Port Adelaide. I don't think many would have an issue supporting a rebranded Eastlake.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I think that'd be a little bit of the case, but most would get over it as things developed. Especially if they made enough of a change to differentiate.

Plenty of players from other clubs played for the Canberra Demons.

I wouldn't say AFL Canberra clubs have as fervent support as the major state leagues. It's not like asking Norwood supporters to follow Port Adelaide. I don't think many would have an issue supporting a rebranded Eastlake.

I think if this option of Ainslie (or Eastlake) became a reality, they may need to present themselves as a new Canberra entity, rather than Ainslie (Eastlake) being “promoted” into the AFL? I don’t know how much it costs Eastlake to play as the Canberra Demons, but unlike Southport they didn’t want to play on in the VFL when the NEAFL was disbanded

 

[Canberra Pear]

I think if this option of Ainslie (or Eastlake) became a reality, they may need to present themselves as a new Canberra entity, rather than Ainslie (Eastlake) being “promoted” into the AFL? I don’t know how much it costs Eastlake to play as the Canberra Demons, but unlike Southport they didn’t want to play on in the VFL when the NEAFL was disbanded

I agree.

It would have to be the Canberra somethings.

In theory, if they were the Canberra Owls, or Canberra Griffins, that would be far enough removed from the original name, but Ainslie could still own the licence. And if it uses green, blue and yellow, they could still informally be the Tricolours, similar to Sydney being the Bloods.

I think the financial side of things would be easier than the VFL. Guaranteed distro from the AFL, ACT funding and national sponsors. The cost of running is less of an issue, but the Ainslie connection would give Canberra a more stable base. An asset base and training ground from the very beginning.

 

[Bjo187]

I agree.

It would have to be the Canberra somethings.

In theory, if they were the Canberra Owls, or Canberra Griffins, that would be far enough removed from the original name, but Ainslie could still own the licence. And if it uses green, blue and yellow, they could still informally be the Tricolours, similar to Sydney being the Bloods.

I think the financial side of things would be easier than the VFL. Guaranteed distro from the AFL, ACT funding and national sponsors. The cost of running is less of an issue, but the Ainslie connection would give Canberra a more stable base. An asset base and training ground from the very beginning.

I definitely like having clubs with their own revenue streams that are already set up. It means that their distribution from the afl can be put into promotion, their academies etc and then more afl funding is available for extra development officers in Canberra. Again, this could have happened with Southport and the club would be a lot bigger and more successful than it is now.

The AFL could in fact play Ainslie and Eastlake off each other, by getting them both to bid for the licence. The AFL would still wanna have a good 4 or 5 of their own appointees on the board though, to maintain some control.

 

[Badger17]

If you used Ainslie as the basis of the Canberra AFL club, you could rightfully claim the club was established in 1927.

That would be an incredibly bad idea. It'd cement the idea that the AFL side is just Ainslie promoted into the AFL, and that would alienate a lot of potential fans.

A local club owning the team would be fine, but there'd need to be a firm distinction between the AFL side and the local team, like there is between the Queanbeyan Blues and Raiders for example, otherwise it'd end in tears.

 

[Bjo187]

Is there a way to sort it whereby the club appears to all and sundry like a new franchise, but cashes in on the revenue and assets of an Ainslie or Eastlake? I think that's the ideal if so.

I was actually thinking you could do that with the suns/ sharks even now. Merge them, call them the gold coast sharks, but the same red and yellow colours. The club then acquires all the revenue and assets of Southport and changes the jumper to the sharks design, but in red and yellow colours, which would look like a better jumper than the suns currently have anyway. It just feels really silly to have a big, successful and rich club in the gold coast playing in vfl grand finals every year and no benefit in that to the afl.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Is there a way to sort it whereby the club appears to all and sundry like a new franchise, but cashes in on the revenue and assets of an Ainslie or Eastlake? I think that's the ideal if so.

I was actually thinking you could do that with the suns/ sharks even now. Merge them, call them the gold coast sharks, but the same red and yellow colours. The club then acquires all the revenue and assets of Southport and changes the jumper to the sharks design, but in red and yellow colours, which would look like a better jumper than the suns currently have anyway. It just feels really silly to have a big, successful and rich club in the gold coast playing in vfl grand finals every year and no benefit in that to the afl.

Southport already contribute significantly to the Suns, through Southport's president being on the Suns board, through dual membership schemes, and through social events and the like being held at Southport. Southport's pokies money both indirectly and directly supports the Suns.

The AFL were never going to give up control of the Suns, and Southport were never going to hand over control of their team to the AFL in terms of how its constituted. Indeed, the purpose of the Suns is to facilitate the growth of the code generally - not just because you would have to encourage people to start supporting a team they previously barracked against, but also how the ideas of being a Pokies club is a bit icky to the growth of families etc and how Southport is only geographically relevant to one part of Gold Coast. Consider, for instance, how Gold Coast runs academies and fields teams in nationals etc - you can see why the AFL would want unique branding names after the city as a whole recruiting players from a wide range of existing clubs with the AFL having effective control of the board etc. For the Academy and Division 2 nationals.

A similar thing will happen with a Canberra team.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

Is there a way to sort it whereby the club appears to all and sundry like a new franchise, but cashes in on the revenue and assets of an Ainslie or Eastlake? I think that's the ideal if so.

I think the way to do this would be a two-stage process where the club spends five or 10 years in the VFL before joining the AFL, rather than joining the AFL directly from AFL Canberra.

I'll use Eastlake as an example here.

If Eastlake jumped directly from AFL Canberra to the AFL, where one season it's competing against the likes of Ainslie and Belconnen and then representing the entire ACT, I can see that causing issues.

What would be more likely to work is if Eastlake withdrew its senior sides from AFL Canberra and spent five or 10 years in the VFL.

So its senior men's and womens teams would be pulled from AFL Canberra, and instead it would field teams as the Canberra Demons in the VFL and Women's VFL.

Likewise, its U18 boys and girls teams would play in the AFL's U18 Talent League as the Canberra Demons, rather than AFL Canberra.

The club would then spend the next five to 10 years in the VFL acting as the representative side for the Canberra region, and making incremental changes to prepare for entry to the AFL.

That might include changing its brand from Canberra Demons to something like the Canberra Griffins.

It might also include things like changes in governance, so the AFL, AFL Canberra, and potentially some of the other clubs in the ACT get guaranteed Board seats.

Eventually, after five or 10 years, the Canberra Griffins are ready for entry to the AFL.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

8Likewise, its U18 boys and girls teams would play in the AFL's U18 Talent League as the Canberra Demons, rather than AFL Canberra.

This inherently causes difficulties though when talented youngsters at other clubs (some of whom would already be playing senior football) are not going to be giving up their players to instead play Canberra Talent league matches for a direct rival.

That has been an issue consistently when teams have jumped up a level including Traralgon playing a couple of seasons in the VFL with the intention of getting Gippsland youngsters to play with them (didn't last) as well as Ballarat/Bendigo teams as standalones. These issues have also raised their head in the NEAFL/VFL and QAFL where many of the teams in Queensland slowly dropped themselves back down a level over the years.

You're effectively asking clubs that see themselves on a similar level to supersede themselves, you can see why they would object to that, or that, practically, the new promoted club simply can't actually get better quality talent to actually play for them vs. Their existing clubs.

 

[Bjo187]

I think the way to do this would be a two-stage process where the club spends five or 10 years in the VFL before joining the AFL, rather than joining the AFL directly from AFL Canberra.

I'll use Eastlake as an example here.

If Eastlake jumped directly from AFL Canberra to the AFL, where one season it's competing against the likes of Ainslie and Belconnen and then representing the entire ACT, I can see that causing issues.

What would be more likely to work is if Eastlake withdrew its senior sides from AFL Canberra and spent five or 10 years in the VFL.

So its senior men's and womens teams would be pulled from AFL Canberra, and instead it would field teams as the Canberra Demons in the VFL and Women's VFL.

Likewise, its U18 boys and girls teams would play in the AFL's U18 Talent League as the Canberra Demons, rather than AFL Canberra.

The club would then spend the next five to 10 years in the VFL acting as the representative side for the Canberra region, and making incremental changes to prepare for entry to the AFL.

That might include changing its brand from Canberra Demons to something like the Canberra Griffins.

It might also include things like changes in governance, so the AFL, AFL Canberra, and potentially some of the other clubs in the ACT get guaranteed Board seats.

Eventually, after five or 10 years, the Canberra Griffins are ready for entry to the AFL.

I like this idea and funnily enough, Southport are now playing in the vfl anyway, which makes the whole thing even harder to comprehend. The rivalry stuff would have been forgotten about once they built their own identity as the club representing the gold coast on the national stage.

 

[Badger17]

Is there a way to sort it whereby the club appears to all and sundry like a new franchise, but cashes in on the revenue and assets of an Ainslie or Eastlake? I think that's the ideal if so.

I was actually thinking you could do that with the suns/ sharks even now. Merge them, call them the gold coast sharks, but the same red and yellow colours. The club then acquires all the revenue and assets of Southport and changes the jumper to the sharks design, but in red and yellow colours, which would look like a better jumper than the suns currently have anyway. It just feels really silly to have a big, successful and rich club in the gold coast playing in vfl grand finals every year and no benefit in that to the afl.

Yeah, it's easy.

Simply start up the AFL franchise as a subsidiary of the other club or a holding company that owns both. That way there's ownership with a degree of separation as both are run as separate businesses (at least nominally), but resources can easily be shared between the two.

Both the Raiders and Knights are run that way in the NRL. Global organisations like CFG in soccer are similar setups as well.

 

[Badger17]

I think the way to do this would be a two-stage process where the club spends five or 10 years in the VFL before joining the AFL, rather than joining the AFL directly from AFL Canberra.

I'll use Eastlake as an example here.

If Eastlake jumped directly from AFL Canberra to the AFL, where one season it's competing against the likes of Ainslie and Belconnen and then representing the entire ACT, I can see that causing issues.

What would be more likely to work is if Eastlake withdrew its senior sides from AFL Canberra and spent five or 10 years in the VFL.

So its senior men's and womens teams would be pulled from AFL Canberra, and instead it would field teams as the Canberra Demons in the VFL and Women's VFL.

Likewise, its U18 boys and girls teams would play in the AFL's U18 Talent League as the Canberra Demons, rather than AFL Canberra.

The club would then spend the next five to 10 years in the VFL acting as the representative side for the Canberra region, and making incremental changes to prepare for entry to the AFL.

That might include changing its brand from Canberra Demons to something like the Canberra Griffins.

It might also include things like changes in governance, so the AFL, AFL Canberra, and potentially some of the other clubs in the ACT get guaranteed Board seats.

Eventually, after five or 10 years, the Canberra Griffins are ready for entry to the AFL.

This is also a terrible idea. In fact the Tuggeranong Vikings have tried exactly what you're describing multiple times, and it always ends in disaster.

Firstly, running a semi-pro side in an interstate comp is expensive and will struggle to attract an audience in a competitive market like Canberra, which is why Eastlake declined the offer to join the VFL after the NEAFL died in the first place. Doing it for a decade would just be burning money.

Playing in the VFL wouldn't change the way Eastlake are perceived in Canberra anyway. People won't hold more allegiance to them simply because they're representing all of Canberra on paper.

 

[Bjo187]

My goodness, he's alive, Richard Goyder speaks. My filter can't get past the security, can anybody else see this article?