Expansion Canberra

[Canberra Pear]

2. Good point about 3 games in Canberra being preferable to 0 games, but not when compared to a full time team. I am pessimistic about Canberra being team 20, but there are others like Canberra Pear who are far more optimistic and good luck to them. In any case if and when a Canberra team enters the competition in 2033, I would have been a Foundation Giants member for 21 years, and will continue supporting them!

But I really don't understand your pessimism. We both agree that Canberra makes more sense than WA3. I think we agree that the NT won't happen without some incredible lobbying and some ridiculously larger commitments from the government.

So that leaves Canberra. We're likely already getting a stadium upgrade, so that won't cost us anything extra.

I really don't understand why you wouldn't think we're in with a real chance for Team 20.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The Giants weren't introduced to service Canberra though. Canberra came once the money did.

The original scope was purely a team for Western Sydney.



The docs Sherb loaded from 2009 don't mention Canberra once. It even said that they'd play up to 11 games in Western Sydney. The Giants weren't created to include Canberra, it's been a bastardisation of the vision.

But it's not wrong that motivations and desires would evolve over time.

You're acting like it's a bad thing. Concepts like talent academies evolved in lockstep but not entirely alongside the northern teams - ideas such as the NSW scholarship program still existed in the dates that you mention.

Keep in mind that irrespective of if Canberra came before the money did, that they did allow for three games a year in Canberra, and there wasn't any proof of enough support for a Canberra team before GWS and it being a fait accompli cannot be determined independently of the work GWS have done in the region. Crowds were not self-evidently good when North played multiple games a year there, and crowds were not bigger despite only one/two games (therefore only one/two opportunities to play) plus some support from Sydney adding to the crowd: https://afltables.com/afl/venues/manuka_oval_gm.html

One can easily argue that a consistent crowd of 10,000+ of low-drawing matchups in Canberra for three games has precisely come about because GWS have activated several thousand football fans in the region of which these fans are entirely fine with supporting GWS rather than "waiting" for a Canberra team to come about.

 

[Bjo187]

I actually think the Canberra 3 games move was smart initially, but it was always going to out grow it's welcome, particularly if Canberra became big enough to service a club on it's own.

The extra money, academy, giving Canberra some content and the fall back option if the giants were a disaster was a smart move until the giants got a more solid foundation.

 

[Canberra Pear]

But it's a convenient given that:

• It's better to create some links than to have no links at all. Canberra is geographically somewhat closer to Western Sydney than other locations, there's academy tie-ins and GWS should slowly become the most supported team by 2031, as kids become adults. For some fans, it's good to have a common team to see every week, especially as for the most hardcore fans, the drive between Sydney and Canberra is not as great as other homes. Big clubs are never playing in Canberra irrespective of opposition so that's beside the point.

It wasn't a perfect analogy, but my point stands that they're not sacrificing real growth for inflated numbers in Canberra.

They're gaining some fans, no doubt. But the majority of those fans even would probably still prefer a real Canberra team.

• I would argue that they are still gaining some fans, generationally so. GWS would be the most supported team among children in Canberra. Claims of there not being any true GWS fans is belied by the fact that there are large amounts of GWS merchandise in Canberra games. If they were not true fans they'd be wearing neutral colours.

Incorrect. I wear Giants gear. Plenty of neutrals do. We get Giants gear as part of the membership pack and they are a secondary team to go for. If you got tickets to the grand final without your team in it, you'd probably wear the colours of your preferred of the two teams. That's what happens here. We prefer the Giants over who they're playing, but the majority of us aren't Giants fans.

• GWS is a loss-making enterprise, so AFL is basically diverting the fact that Canberra is a profit-generating enterprise (through both profitable ticket-selling matches and ACT government payments) to slightly mitigate some of those losses to GWS. GWS is effectively owned by the AFL, so the money is all circular and would have to find its way to GWS anyway.

This pisses me off the most. I have been incredibly supportive of the Giants as a whole. I want them to succeed, but not at the expense of Canberra. If the Giants can't survive without Canberra, then move to Canberra. We shouldn't be held hostage to prop them up when we could support our own team. Just like Hobart didn't for North.

• This guarantees three Canberra games a year in the long term. Only one match per year was being played immediately before GWS entered the league.

That was 15 years ago now. Bulldogs, Saints, North and Melbourne have all shifted secondary grounds in that time. Can't predict anything, but Canberra is an attractive secondary market (too attractive) and the hole would likely have been filled by now.

But it's not wrong that motivations and desires would evolve over time.

You're acting like it's a bad thing. Concepts like talent academies evolved in lockstep but not entirely alongside the northern teams - ideas such as the NSW scholarship program still existed in the dates that you mention.

Not a bad thing, but it shows that it was not always a predestined part of the plan. It was brought in later, and can be removed just as easily.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I actually think the Canberra 3 games move was smart initially, but it was always going to out grow it's welcome, particularly if Canberra became big enough to service a club on it's own.

The extra money, academy, giving Canberra some content and the fall back option if the giants were a disaster was a smart move until the giants got a more solid foundation.

I think the fact that they weren't banking on expanding so quickly is a factor too. The Giants servicing Canberra would've worked just fine if there was no expansion for another 40 years, but Tasmania's imminent entry has changed the landscape.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The Giants weren't introduced to service Canberra though. Canberra came once the money did.

The original scope was purely a team for Western Sydney.



The docs Sherb loaded from 2009 don't mention Canberra once. It even said that they'd play up to 11 games in Western Sydney. The Giants weren't created to include Canberra, it's been a bastardisation of the vision.

There was also an ACT 4 GWS campaign that was a Canberra grassroots movement that lobbied heavily to have the Giants play AFL home matches here from inception. There used to be a website for this as I signed up and contributed as well, but this link below gives some insight as well. I think only the Canberra socccer community’s various efforts to have an A-League team, and save Canberra United, had drawn more widespread for a sport team.

How Coordinate helped bring the GWS Giants to Canberra.

The Greater Western Sydney Giants have made it to their first AFL Grand Final. To celebrate, we thought we’d take a trip down memory lane to when the journey for the GWS Giants was just beginning. In 2010, Coordinate was approached by GWS Giants board member and proud Canberran, Peter Taylor, to...

coordinate.com.au

In any case the Constitution of a club is its key document, and has primacy over any brochures?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

But the majority of those fans even would probably still prefer a real Canberra team.

But it's not a zero sum game for losing overall AFL support or not supporting GWS, and there isn't a natural claim based on history for Canberra to deserve a team like it is for Tasmania in terms of representing the culture and history of the code

Incorrect. I wear Giants gear. Plenty of neutrals do.

Your willingness to throw on GWS merchandise (and therefore presumably prefer GWS to win in those games) thus indicates a level of support for GWS, which makes it strange that you claim that you somehow don't support GWS. You're allowed to go to the footy games in Canberra and support the sport at its highest level without demonstrating a preference for either team participating!

secondary team to go for.

My point being is that if it's a primary or secondary team to go for, it's a distinction without a difference.

One would suggest that much of Gold Coast's week-by-week support base is from expats or former expats or second generation expects who many would still claim to support their home Melbourne team or whatever over Gold Coast. The fact that they choose to buy Gold Coast memberships, wear merchandise and go to home games in a manner that's identical to if they supported Gold Coast instead of other teams, is a distinction without a difference, is the point I'm making. A willingness to engage with GWS has proven to be the case, unlike (e.g.) with Hobart and North.

We prefer the Giants over who they're playing, but the majority of us aren't Giants fans.

The act of preferencing one team over opposition consistently does represent some version of support and fandom. It's strange that you're claiming otherwise. Reality speaks for itself!

This pisses me off the most. I have been incredibly supportive of the Giants as a whole. I want them to succeed, but not at the expense of Canberra. If the Giants can't survive without Canberra, then move to Canberra. We shouldn't be held hostage to prop them up when we could support our own team. Just like Hobart didn't for North.

GWS's introduction immediately increased Canberra's number of AFL games from 1 to 3 a season and gave a consistent team for you to support. If that's being held hostage, I don't know what is.

That was 15 years ago now. Bulldogs, Saints, North and Melbourne have all shifted secondary grounds in that time. Can't predict anything, but Canberra is an attractive secondary market (too attractive) and the hole would likely have been filled by now.

And I'm not disrespecting the evolution of AFL in Canberra in 15 years, but Canberra wasn't an attractive market for North, it wasn't attractive for the Dogs and Melbourne, it was the realatites of being a small club in Melbourne.

It wasn't self-evidently attractive until GWS entered the picture though, that's the point. It was a market. It wasn't clearly more attractive in 2011.

Not a bad thing, but it shows that it was not always a predestined part of the plan. It was brought in later, and can be removed just as easily.

Yes, but being angry at the realities of the 2012-2031 relationship between GWS and Canberra just seems a bit strange to me as anything but a natural and good transitional step to service the city of Canberra in terms of footy and toward a potential full-time team.

The city increased its number of games and got an element of consistency in terms of branding, centralising support and talent development over a longer period of time. I'm on the record here for suggesting that the AFL would naturally look at a full-time Canberra team at the time of both the end of the TV deal in 2031, which lines up with the ACT governmen'ts contract, which that date was almost certainly chosen to line up.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There was also an ACT 4 GWS campaign that was a Canberra grassroots movement that lobbied heavily to have the Giants play AFL home matches here from inception. There used to be a website for this as I signed up and contributed as well, but this link below gives some insight as well. I think only the Canberra socccer community’s various efforts to have an A-League team, and save Canberra United, had drawn more widespread for a sport team.

How Coordinate helped bring the GWS Giants to Canberra.

The Greater Western Sydney Giants have made it to their first AFL Grand Final. To celebrate, we thought we’d take a trip down memory lane to when the journey for the GWS Giants was just beginning. In 2010, Coordinate was approached by GWS Giants board member and proud Canberran, Peter Taylor, to...

coordinate.com.au

In any case the Constitution of a club is its key document, and has primacy over any brochures?

Which shows that there was genuine support in the city to want to have 3 games a year, rather than 1/2, and to have a team that the fanbase could understand that it could consistently watch as a home team over a longer-term period, without any baggage of rivalries or historical association, which has proven to be the case.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

GWS's introduction immediately increased Canberra's number of AFL games from 1 to 3 a season and gave a consistent team for you to support. If that's being held hostage, I don't know what is.

And I'm not disrespecting the evolution of AFL in Canberra in 15 years, but Canberra wasn't an attractive market for North, it wasn't attractive for the Dogs and Melbourne, it was the realatites of being a small club in Melbourne.

It wasn't self-evidently attractive until GWS entered the picture though, that's the point. It was a market. It wasn't clearly more attractive in 2011.

Exactly. And none of the smaller Victorian clubs have shown any interest in playing home games in Canberra. North which some here have suggested should relocate here, has only played 1 AFL game in Manuka in the 18 years since they left us in 2006. St Kilda did not renew their contract to play in Cairns, and want to play more games in MCG.

 

[Canberra Pear]

There was also an ACT 4 GWS campaign that was a Canberra grassroots movement that lobbied heavily to have the Giants play AFL home matches here from inception. There used to be a website for this as I signed up and contributed as well, but this link below gives some insight as well. I think only the Canberra socccer community’s various efforts to have an A-League team, and save Canberra United, had drawn more widespread for a sport team.

How Coordinate helped bring the GWS Giants to Canberra.

The Greater Western Sydney Giants have made it to their first AFL Grand Final. To celebrate, we thought we’d take a trip down memory lane to when the journey for the GWS Giants was just beginning. In 2010, Coordinate was approached by GWS Giants board member and proud Canberran, Peter Taylor, to...

coordinate.com.au

When there wasn't a chance for a team of our own, this absolutely made sense. This was the best we could get. The landscape has changed.

In any case the Constitution of a club is its key document, and has primacy over any brochures?

Constitutions change. Are you able to find an original GWS constitution for 2009? I'd say it's unlikely that Canberra was in there then. Which means it can be taken out just as easily.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Exactly. And none of the smaller Victorian clubs have shown any interest in playing home games in Canberra. North which some here have suggested should relocate here, has only played 1 AFL game in Manuka in the 18 years since they left us in 2006. St Kilda did not renew their contract to play in Cairns, and want to play more games in MCG.

Because it became evident that crowds for any match not involving Sydney in that time were so low that it was pointless. Sub-10k.

Which adds weight that good, consistent crowds to GWS games is evidence of at least a few thousand fans attending because they had reinvigorated support to attend games consistently in their city because GWS happened to be playing and provided an element of a home team to support (however it's haracterised that support not being "truly" representative of the city or of "primary" support) that represents something in terms of identity and support rather than just the presence of an AFL game existing in the city full stop.

 

[sherb]

In any case the Constitution of a club is its key document, and has primacy over any brochures?

Of course, but the existence of that brochure shows that the GWS Giants were initially sold to the people of the west as our team, solely our team, not something to be shared with Canberra. That can't be denied. In hindsight, it shows the AFL and the Giants were full of shit.

In my case, it wasn't the Canberra thing that turned me off supporting GWS (which I was 100% prepared to do) anyway, it was the harebrained decision to support Manly in the local Sydney AFL competition. The management of the Giants couldn't have been more tone deaf if they tried.

It's just that Canberra and other things since continue to cement the reality that the Giants are no longer what we were told they were going to be.

My favourite part of that brochure by the way is a whole page being taken up by a picture of Blacktown ISP. That's turned out well.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

When there wasn't a chance for a team of our own, this absolutely made sense. This was the best we could get. The landscape has changed.

And the point is it's changed because of GWS (which you yourself are part of, actively wearing merchandise to games), so it's something to look to build up and transition from, rather than be angry about its presence. Instead of GWS preventing Canberra having a team, alternatively, you can say it's only because of GWS that we are talking about a 11-home game, full-time Canberra team being a realistic possibility.

This is without even talking about the fact that in the interim, Canberrans had three games to attend to and their interest in the code has evolved with at least an element of consistency of having a team play there without any historical baggage to their existing teams, and the time of year that it's played. It's a far better scenario than the one game a year that could only specifically be a Dogs vs Sydney matchup that the Dogs wanted to get out of anyway that was in 2010-2012.

Keep in mind that Dogs took over in Cairns in 2014, taking over from Richmond, and also had a longer-term plan for Ballarat post development in 2015. There was no guarantee that without GWS's introduction, Canberra would have had any AFL, or if they did, it would have been a forced and difficult search for a new club that would have been of a lessor benefit with more uncertainty for Canberrans.

Constitutions change. Are you able to find an original GWS constitution for 2009? I'd say it's unlikely that Canberra was in there then. Which means it can be taken out just as easily.

This is missing the point. It's almost irrelevant if GWS was meant to represent or not represent Canberra pre its initial constitution because before a constitution, it by definition was not constituted, therefore it couldn't exist. It didn't represent Western Sydney any more than it didn't represent Canberra in 2009, because, by definition, before its first constitution, it did not exist, so it could not have represented anything.

 

[Canberra Pear]

there isn't a natural claim based on history for Canberra to deserve a team like it is for Tasmania in terms of representing the culture and history of the code

Not the same argument, but we're not without history. We were by most accounts an Aussie Rules town before being neglected.

We were then the first non-Victorian jurisdiction to apply for a VFL/AFL team. We have been trying for a team for more than 40 years (longer than Tasmania). We've had at least five serious attempts.

And Tom Wills was literally born here. Different history, but deserving history.

GWS's introduction immediately increased Canberra's number of AFL games from 1 to 3 a season and gave a consistent team for you to support. If that's being held hostage, I don't know what is.

If Canberra misses out on Team 20 because the Giants claim ownership over Canberra, I'd absolutely call that being held hostage.

Yes, but being angry at the realities of the 2012-2031 relationship between GWS and Canberra just seems a bit strange to me as anything but a natural and good transitional step to service the city of Canberra in terms of footy and toward a potential full-time team.

I am grateful for what the Giants have done previously. But at the moment, they stand as the number one hurdle to us getting a team. We tick the most boxes. The number one argument I hear is that it won't happen because the Giants "need Canberra".

The moment Canberra is promised Team 20, then I'll back off my criticism for the remainder of the Giants relationship. And I'll keep them as my third team (and probably continue by buying an interstate membership).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Of course, but the existence of that brochure shows that the GWS Giants were initially sold to the people of the west as our team, solely our team, not something to be shared with Canberra. That can't be denied. In hindsight, it shows the AFL and the Giants were full of shit.

In my case, it wasn't the Canberra thing that turned me off supporting GWS (which I was 100% prepared to do) anyway, it was the harebrained decision to support Manly in the local Sydney AFL competition. The management of the Giants couldn't have been more tone deaf if they tried.

It's just that Canberra and other things since continue to cement the reality that the Giants are no longer what we were told they were going to be.

My favourite part of that brochure by the way is a whole page being taken up by a picture of Blacktown ISP. That's turned out well.

You're putting a lot of weight into the establishment and "initial branding" of a team that was always intended to be flexible and changing according to local demands and responses in its attempt to establish itself.

It doesn't inherently devalue the club just because things change, as much as you believe it does, or if it does for you, it's not also true for the community in general. You might be upset with it, and I'm not here to devalue the fact that you feel that, but your feelings doesn't make it a bad thing per se nor does it make it an incorrect strategy.

And the Blacktown ISP thing is at least partially due the double-crossing by other vested interests in local councils and Cricket NSW which has been discussed a lot on this board - perhaps GWS and the AFL could have been more politically astute but it's not really their "fault" for how they then failed to represent Blacktown afterwards.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Not the same argument, but we're not without history. We were by most accounts an Aussie Rules town before being neglected.

We were then the first non-Victorian jurisdiction to apply for a VFL/AFL team. We have been trying for a team for more than 40 years (longer than Tasmania). We've had at least five serious attempts.

And Tom Wills was literally born here. Different history, but deserving history.



If Canberra misses out on Team 20 because the Giants claim ownership over Canberra, I'd absolutely call that being held hostage.



I am grateful for what the Giants have done previously. But at the moment, they stand as the number one hurdle to us getting a team. We tick the most boxes. The number one argument I hear is that it won't happen because the Giants "need Canberra".

The moment Canberra is promised Team 20, then I'll back off my criticism for the remainder of the Giants relationship. And I'll keep them as my third team (and probably continue by buying an interstate membership).

Naturally the history shouldn't be devalued but it's clearly not as strong as Tasmania etc. who their history with the code (as an aside from raw economic facts) is a factor for their ultimately successful bid.

All of your points can be true at the same time as suggesting that GWS are equally as responsible for helping there be the possibility of a team as much as there is the possibility of it being held hostage.

When only 8,000 Canberrans were going to a random Kangaroos vs. Fremantle game in 2006 or whatever there was no possibility of a full-time team. That same or equivalent matchup now gets 13,000, which opens up the possibility of a team.

When whatever combination of Melbourne-based teams that were losing money in home games at Docklands pre-AFL purchase and there was an oversupply of games in Melbourne were only taking one or two games a year to Canberra and the away team had to be Sydney to bump up the crowd, there was no possibility of a full-time Canberra team, circa 2010.

GWS might have put up the hurdles but they laid out the track in the first place.

Keep in mind though that if GWS continue to "need" Canberra long term - beyond 2031 or a short term amount of time beyond that date - that creates a lot of issues for the AFL beyond just the fact that there isn't a Canberra team, because it effectively meant that there's no path for GWS to have grown as a team after a generation of existing. It isn't solely an issue for Canberra, it's an issue for the code.

 

[sherb]

You're putting a lot of weight into the establishment and "initial branding" of a team that was always intended to be flexible and changing according to local demands and responses in its attempt to establish itself.

It doesn't inherently devalue the club just because things change, as much as you believe it does, or if it does for you, it's not also true for the community in general. You might be upset with it, and I'm not here to devalue the fact that you feel that, but your feelings doesn't make it a bad thing per se nor does it make it an incorrect strategy.

And the Blacktown ISP thing is at least partially due the double-crossing by other vested interests in local councils and Cricket NSW which has been discussed a lot on this board - perhaps GWS and the AFL could have been more politically astute but it's not really their "fault" for how they then failed to represent Blacktown afterwards.

The initial branding was clear. A new AFL team for the Greater Western Sydney area. Stick to that and the club has a profile, maintains that clear branding, has its own area - all things that can be built on.

And what has the deviation from that initial branding produced? A weird hybrid that gives the distinct impression that it is lost and has not the slightest idea what it wants to be. Is it a Western Sydney club? Is it Sydney's second club with no geographical ownership? Is it destined to be Canberra's club? Do the Giants even know what their strategy is?

How do you market yourselves to Western Sydney (or Canberra for that matter) when you are a bit of this and a bit of that? Why should people of Western Sydney fully embrace the club when they seemingly don't want to touch the area with a 10 foot pole? Or why should people of Canberra fully embrace the club based on 4 games a year.

I mean - I gave a perfect example of how the Giants disregard the West a couple of weeks ago. The argument for them playing AFLW games at Henson Park/Canberra is that Blacktown was taken up by cricket. Yet several Sundays back, they played a home AFLW game at Manuka while BISP was hosting - get ready for it - the Sydney AFL finals (and on that particular day, womens' finals). Why not play that Manuka AFLW game at Blacktown and have the local womens' finals as curtain raisers?

I've said it before, the Giants really need to decide what they want to be. And run with it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The initial branding was clear. A new AFL team for the Greater Western Sydney area. Stick to that and the club has a profile, maintains that clear branding, has its own area - all things that can be built on.

And what has the deviation from that initial branding produced? A weird hybrid that gives the distinct impression that it is lost and has not the slightest idea what it wants to be.

I disagree that this is a key takeaway. It still plays 8 of its home games and has its training and administration out of Western Sydney. It runs academies that the junior players of Western Sydney funnel through. I don't the distinct impression of you thinking it is lost, or it being the slighest idea of what it wants to be is generally true of its wider fanbase. I don't disagree it's true to a small extent, but it's only that, a small extent.

Is it a Western Sydney club? Is it Sydney's second club with no geographical ownership? Is it destined to be Canberra's club? Do the Giants even know what their strategy is?

These don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Nobody is confused at an attempt for the Bulldogs to simultaneously represent the western suburbs of Melbourne and the Ballarat region, for instance.

You also have to consider financial expediency. AFLW in Henson Park and games in Canberra is so they don't lose as much money as they otherwise would, threatening the existance of the club.

If they never existed, you wouldn't have a club for Western Sydney or Canberra. It may be imperfect but it's better than nothing.

 

[Canberra Pear]

When only 8,000 Canberrans were going to a random Kangaroos vs. Fremantle game in 2006 or whatever there was no possibility of a full-time team. That same or equivalent matchup now gets 13,000, which opens up the possibility of a team.

I would agree that we are in a stronger place than we were. And the Giants have definitely partially contributed to that.

Not to the extent that you've said, because you've made those numbers up. Freo has never drawn that highly against the Giants, nor that lowly against North at Manuka. But we are in a stronger place than we were, and I am grateful for the Giants' contribution to that.

GWS might have put up the hurdles but they laid out the track in the first place.

Contributed to. And as I said, I'm grateful. But am I expected to continue to be grateful if that prevents us getting Team 20?

Keep in mind though that if GWS continue to "need" Canberra long term - beyond 2031 or a short term amount of time beyond that date - that creates a lot of issues for the AFL beyond just the fact that there isn't a Canberra team, because it effectively meant that there's no path for GWS to have grown as a team after a generation of existing. It isn't solely an issue for Canberra, it's an issue for the code.

I wouldn't say they even "need" the Giants now. They've had four record crowds in Sydney this year. And would grow even quicker if they had consistent games in Sydney.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Not to the extent that you've said, because you've made those numbers up. Freo has never drawn that highly against the Giants, nor that lowly against North at Manuka. But we are in a stronger place than we were, and I am grateful for the Giants' contribution to that.

Top of my head example.

Manuka crowds excluding Sydney as an opposition: 10,062
Excluding the one year of return in 2001, which had an artificially high crowd due to the return of footy in the city (and had Collingwood play for the biggest crowd): 9,670

Games that didn't have Sydney as the opposition stopped being played in 2006, because that is evidence in itself that the crowds were not big enough, the point being, is around the time of 2006, a typical crowd of North vs. a generic non-Victorian team was about 9,000, despite the fact that it was often one of only two opportunities for Canberrans to attend an AFL game in the city, which demonstrates that there wasn't this pent-up support for the code that would ever possibly sustain 11 home games.

The biggest crowd a non-GWS team had against a non-Victorian/non-Sydney team at Manuka was 11,613 in 2002, with only one of the four subsequent games against non-Victorian teams getting at least 10,000.

Since 2016, GWS have had 7 crowds of over 10k vs non Victorian opposition

GWS crowds at Canberra in its early years were clearly small as GWS had not established a fanbase, and crowds would have been similar if it had been a North or Bulldogs game vs another interstate team (e.g. crowds from 2012-2014 of 6.5-8k against Gold Coast, Bulldogs Port, Melbourne).

But they grew as demonstrated by the above example.

Contributed to. And as I said, I'm grateful. But am I expected to continue to be grateful if that prevents us getting Team 20?

But was Team 20 ever a realistic proposition when a crowd of 9,541 turned up to Kangaroos vs West Coast in April 2006, the year after West Coast made the grand final and would go on to win the flag? You can't avoid that fact.

It's clearly more realistic now that crowds vs. Fremantle in 2018 and 2019 were over 11,000 or against Gold Coast last year was above 10,000, despite the fact that Canberrans had a greater number of games that they could choose to attend, because they had 3, not 1 or 2 in the years before GWS entered. That represents the fact that there is an apparent increase in footy support because of GWS, or at least, proven by GWS. We weren't to know that until GWS played its games in Canberra.

I wouldn't say they even "need" the Giants now. They've had four record crowds in Sydney this year. And would grow even quicker if they had consistent games in Sydney.

Largely due to do with specific scheduling nuances that were newly unique to 2024. Lets see if it continues.

Even these record crowds in Sydney doesn't represent a self-sustaining team in terms of local ticket purchasing, merchandise purchasing and memberships to generate approximately $30 million of revenue independent of AFL distributions. GWS will have to get to that point eventually, or at least close enough that losses are only small that it's a reasonable expense to continue to grow the code in perpetuity.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Top of my head example.

Manuka crowds excluding Sydney as an opposition: 10,062
Excluding the one year of return in 2001, which had an artificially high crowd due to the return of footy in the city (and had Collingwood play for the biggest crowd): 9,670

Games that didn't have Sydney as the opposition stopped being played in 2006, because that is evidence in itself that the crowds were not big enough, the point being, is around the time of 2006, a typical crowd of North vs. a generic non-Victorian team was about 9,000, despite the fact that it was often one of only two opportunities for Canberrans to attend an AFL game in the city, which demonstrates that there wasn't this pent-up support for the code that would ever possibly sustain 11 home games.

The biggest crowd a non-GWS team had against a non-Victorian/non-Sydney team at Manuka was 11,613 in 2002, with only one of the four subsequent games against non-Victorian teams getting at least 10,000.

Since 2016, GWS have had 7 crowds of over 10k vs non Victorian opposition

GWS crowds at Canberra in its early years were clearly small as GWS had not established a fanbase, and crowds would have been similar if it had been a North or Bulldogs game vs another interstate team (e.g. crowds from 2012-2014 of 6.5-8k against Gold Coast, Bulldogs Port, Melbourne).

But they grew as demonstrated by the above example.

A lot of selective data there, but I agree, we're in a better position now. We also now have a 45% larger population.

But was Team 20 ever a realistic proposition when a crowd of 9,541 turned up to Kangaroos vs West Coast in April 2006, the year after West Coast made the grand final and would go on to win the flag? You can't avoid that fact.

And that exact fixture two years later drew 6.3k on the Gold Coast. And then they were selected for Team 17. You can pick out any game to make it seem like we weren't worthy.

Largely due to do with specific scheduling nuances that were newly unique to 2024. Lets see if it continues.

You could credit their Collingwood game with that. Not sure about their record crowds against Port, North and Carlton.

Even these record crowds in Sydney doesn't represent a self-sustaining team in terms of local ticket purchasing, merchandise purchasing and memberships to generate approximately $30 million of revenue independent of AFL distributions. GWS will have to get to that point eventually, or at least close enough that losses are only small that it's a reasonable expense to continue to grow the code in perpetuity.

The ACT Government provides $2.85m a year. That includes a sponsorship spot worth $1m. The Canberra partnership also costs money. It has permanent staff in Canberra that'd be worth a few hundred thousand.

The Giants could sell just one game and almost breakeven, and then get to play 10 home games in Sydney. And then be much better off in the long run.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

These don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Nobody is confused at an attempt for the Bulldogs to simultaneously represent the western suburbs of Melbourne and the Ballarat region, for instance.

You also have to consider financial expediency. AFLW in Henson Park and games in Canberra is so they don't lose as much money as they otherwise would, threatening the existance of the club.

If they never existed, you wouldn't have a club for Western Sydney or Canberra. It may be imperfect but it's better than nothing.

Completely agree. I believe that our club can successfully represent both Western Sydney and Canberra, and indeed the club has publicly stated many times it is also Canberra’s AFL team. I see the club playing in WS and Canberra as good for both regions, as it brings AFL games to these areas and grows and develops our code in these regions in accordance with our club’s constitution.

I am pretty sure the club and the AFL would have done their sums, and the continuing of the 8 WS, 3 Manuka arrangements seem to indicate that is the best (or the least worse) option. This will continue unless there is a dramatic fall in attendance at Canberra (akin to what happened with North in Hobart) or there is consistent sellouts at Giants Stadium. Our previous Chairman had also speculated moving some of the WS games to SCG.