Expansion Canberra

[Giant YoYo]

I do not understand how 3 consistent games a year with a consistent team that has only seen crowds grow is a worse situation for the people of Canberra than the reality of literally just 1 game a year before GWS existed. What are you on about?

Do you honestly think 3 games is enough for Canberra?


I don't.

If you look at the search results for Canberra over the years footy went backwards in the region and only just recovered but what would I know.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Do you honestly think 3 games is enough for Canberra?


I don't.

If you look at the search results for Canberra over the years footy went backwards in the region and only just recovered but what would I know.

Not now, but clearly yes on average for between 2012-2024

 

[Canberra Pear]

It's only the actual I doubt crowds would have been bigger anyway. 11 home games a year is a lot, or even 8 or 9 if Canberra took games to Albury or whatever. Not every game in Canberra has sold out in recent years. Suggesting games 4 through 8 would have similar interest to games 1 through 3 is very doubtful. It's the same logic as to why every other small market team does not play 11 home games because the 11th home game for a team has next to no demand from fans of a team that small.

Crowds grow when it's an actual home team playing. At the moment, the Giants get buy-in from AFL fans, but don't get buy-in from wider Canberra.

The best example I can find is the Gold Coast.

They were hosting three games a year. In the those three years they averaged crowds of just over 10k.

Then they got their own team, played a bunch more games, and average attendance rose to nearly 16k over the next three years.

And average increase of nearly 60%. And a fivefold increase in total attendance.

The Giants are a nice base measure, but it's not a like for like measure. A team of our own will be a lot more popular.

Again, I appreciate all the Giants have done, but there's a ceiling on what the AFL can be without our own team.

 

[Giant YoYo]

Crowds grow when it's an actual home team playing. At the moment, the Giants get buy-in from AFL fans, but don't get buy-in from wider Canberra.

The best example I can find is the Gold Coast.

They were hosting three games a year. In the those three years they averaged crowds of just over 10k.

Then they got their own team, played a bunch more games, and average attendance rose to nearly 16k over the next three years.

And average increase of nearly 60%. And a fivefold increase in total attendance.

The Giants are a nice base measure, but it's not a like for like measure. A team of our own will be a lot more popular.

Again, I appreciate all the Giants have done, but there's a ceiling on what the AFL can be without our own team.

As usual you are correct mate.

No one from this region seems to get it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Footy in Canberra is barely treading water.

What the Giants are doing in the region is commendable but if you want to sustain footy interest in the region 3 games isn't enough.

For what it's worth, it's incredibly important we have a strong footy presence in Canberra but what the Giants are doing isn't fostering it.

It's incredible that an increase from either 1 or 2 games - effectively doubling the amount of games played - and a consistent team to support with actual engagement through things like academies and actual proof that the kids of Canberra support the Giants etc - is being characterised at treading water.

Maybe it's time for a new Canberra team. It's probably to do with the strong population growth and the willingness to support the Giants between 2011 and now. But it's because of that, not despite it.

If we had another 13 years of Sydney being the away team for 1-2 games a year or games not involving Sydney having crowds of less than 7,000, does anyone honestly think that there would subsequently be a Canberra team being discussed as a realistic future possibility?

 

[Canberra Pear]

It's incredible that an increase from either 1 or 2 games - effectively doubling the amount of games played - and a consistent team to support with actual engagement through things like academies and actual proof that the kids of Canberra support the Giants etc - is being characterised at treading water.

Maybe it's time for a new Canberra team. It's probably to do with the strong population growth and the willingness to support the Giants between 2011 and now. But it's because of that, not despite it.

You're weirdly fixated on taking Sydney out of the average crowds.

You can cherry pick stats all you like. Melbourne's last away game against the Giants got 9,563, Melbourne's last away game against the Kangaroos was 12,626. Does that mean the Kangaroos were more popular than the Giants?

If we had another 13 years of Sydney being the away team for 1-2 games a year or games not involving Sydney having crowds of less than 7,000, does anyone honestly think that there would subsequently be a Canberra team being discussed as a realistic future possibility?

There have only been three crowds at Manuka under 7k, and they were all Giants crowds.

Again, I'm grateful for what the Giants have done, but the crowds aren't that different. Considering we have been pushing for a team for four decades, and our other competition is the NT, I think we'd absolutely still be discussed. We are, and would be, the largest unrepresented market.

The only difference is that whenever the Canberra option comes up, it wouldn't be dismissed as "Giants territory". We'd be in a relatively similar situation, but unshackled.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You're weirdly fixated on taking Sydney out of the average crowds.

Because they were clearly the most supported team in Canberra pre-Giants. It's not a weird fixation, it's making a point that to even get to comparable crowds of a team that had no history and therefore no supporters before 2012, today.

the crowds aren't that different.

They are. They ceased playing non-Sydney games in Canberra pre GWS for a reason.

I cannot believe you cannot accept the premise of this.
.
In 2004, North played 3 games in Canberra. 14k for the first game, then 8k and 7k for the teams that weren't Sydney.

In 2005, North played 3 games in Canberra - 13 vs Sydney and 12 and 10k to the teams that weren't Sydney

In 2006 North played 3 games in Canberra - 14k vs Sydney and 9k against the teams that weren't Sydney

They stopped playing games without Sydney in Canberra after that, once Melbourne and Bulldogs started playing in Canberra.

Say what you like about being "invested" in a team or whatever but when the opportunity to watch a 3rd game of footy in the city presented itself 2004-6, Canberrans just didn't attend.

At least you can say with GWS crowds have increased. Which suggests actual support for the team is too.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Because they were clearly the most supported team in Canberra pre-Giants. It's not a weird fixation, it's making a point that to even get to comparable crowds of a team that had no history and therefore no supporters before 2012, today.

They are. They ceased playing non-Sydney games in Canberra pre GWS for a reason.

I cannot believe you cannot accept the premise of this.
.
In 2004, North played 3 games in Canberra. 14k for the first game, then 8k and 7k for the teams that weren't Sydney.

In 2005, North played 3 games in Canberra - 13 vs Sydney and 12 and 10k to the teams that weren't Sydney

In 2006 North played 3 games in Canberra - 14k vs Sydney and 9k against the teams that weren't Sydney

They stopped playing games without Sydney in Canberra after that, once Melbourne and Bulldogs started playing in Canberra.

Say what you like about being "invested" in a team or whatever but when the opportunity to watch a 3rd game of footy in the city presented itself 2004-6, Canberrans just didn't attend.

At least you can say with GWS crowds have increased. Which suggests actual support for the team is too.

Pre-Giants (non-Sydney) average crowds = 10,152
Giants average Manuka crowds = 10,567

Giants crowds are almost 5% larger than pre-Giants (non-Sydney) crowds. Meanwhile the city has grown by about 40%.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Pre-Giants (non-Sydney) average crowds = 10,152
Giants average Manuka crowds = 10,567

Giants crowds are almost 5% larger than pre-Giants (non-Sydney) crowds. Meanwhile the city has grown by about 40%.

City also grew from 2003 to 2007 for the crowds to decline

 

[Canberra Pear]

City also grew from 2003 to 2007 for the crowds to decline

I'm not really even sure what you mean or what point you're trying to make there.

 

[Badger17]

Why would it be less culturally relevant in the past than now? When Canberra was built as a city, it was originally an Aussie Rules one as government departments and parliamentary function slowly got moved from Melbourne by the late 70s/early 80s. That tap stopped then, the immigration to Canberra since is more likely to be from Sydney/regional NSW with the Raiders there. A Canberran person in 2015 is far more likely to be culturally removed and not a descendant of a person who moved from Melbourne to Canberra in the 1950's, when compared to 1995.

It's only the actual large increase in population growth that sees AFL gave an interest but there's no argument that the population is more interested in AFL now than they were in 2000 or whatever.

Because you were never a big enough city.

It wasn't until 1960 that Canberra's population hit 50,000 people. Broken Hill was a stronger regional NSW Aussie Rules town and would consistently defeat Canberra in representative games. Was Broken Hill neglected by the AFL?

Also, one person's "source of income" is another person's "they're bringing high-level football to my city when they didn't have to".



In the sense of proving that 40,000 people could show up to three games in Canberra, they were.

Because without GWS non-Sydney crowds were declining through the 2000's. This led to by 2009 only a single game involving Sydney being played.

Sure, but the AFL weren't flush with cash until the 2007 TV deal that precipitated the introduction of GWS and GC. The 2002 deal allowed for payments to clubs to ensure they wouldn't fold. Before that AFL was living a hand to mouth existence more or less. Why would the AFL "push growth" in Canberra before 2007 with what money?

Yes. That's the issue. It would have just plodded with sub-10k, even sub-8k
crowds for any game not involving Sydney, the most supported team in Canberra.



Yes but the nut of western Sydney is bigger hence why that's the logic.

I doubt crowds would have been bigger anyway. 11 home games a year is a lot, or even 8 or 9 if Canberra took games to Albury or whatever. Not every game in Canberra has sold out in recent years. Suggesting games 4 through 8 would have similar interest to games 1 through 3 is very doubtful. It's the same logic as to why every other small market team does not play 11 home games because the 11th home game for a team has next to no demand from fans of a team that small.

Yes but ACT government support is largely based upon the fact that people are externally entering into the territory, with both actual GWS fans from Sydney (there's a few hundred) making the treck and tourists coming in. The ACT government isn't going to want to pay for home games against the 4 western teams or GC, places where there are far fewer direct flights and it being harder to drive to Canberra, because the amount of away Fremantle fans in a Canberra game will basically be nil. At least even when the Dogs travel, maybe 1500-2000 Dogs fans make the trip

And FWIW I'm not saying there shouldn't be a Canberra team currently. It's a growing city obviously and maintains roughly half AFL support as it did in the 90's. Just dumb arguments about GWS and what demand may be or where money might come from frustrates me. Make the argument because there's going to be 300,000 engages AFL fans who will almost all change support to Canberra by 2032. Don't make the argument for other silly reasons such as blaming GWS or whatever.

With all due respect, you don't know enough about the subject to be talking about it if you seriously have to ask the question 'Why would it be less culturally relevant in the past than now?'.

During the 00s there were only 3 draftees from Canberra, a sudden and steep drop off from the 90s when there was 8, and 80s when there were 11. So something happened that made the kids that grew up in the 90s significantly less likely to be interested in the AFL than their predecessors. Five seconds of Googling should be enough to give you the answer why, but I'll give you a hint; the identity of "Canberran" wasn't really a thing until something started in 1989 which suddenly made it cool to be from Canberra for a while.

Your assumption that immigration into Canberra is significantly disproportionately from Sydney/regional NSW is a bad one.

Nobody is debating the reasons why Canberra was an afterthought for the AFL until recently, just observing the fact that we were and that's a major reason for Aussie Rules position in Canberra.

No games that have been played here have ever been an act of charity, and anybody that would assert otherwise is naive at best. From Fitzroy to GWS, Canberra has always been used as a means for struggling clubs to get an easy cash injection. Not that I'm knocking them for that BTW, just don't BS me and pretend that it's something it's not.

To be honest I got bored and stopped reading after that... I'll say this though, you seem incapable of understanding what it's like to live in a place where the AFL isn't the dominant cultural force that's easily accessible to everybody. You also seem to assume that GWS's presence in Canberra has more or less the same impact as the teams in Melbourne have in Melbourne, and thus the interaction between them and Canberrans is more or less the same as what happens in Melbourne as well.

 

[Badger17]

Crowds grow when it's an actual home team playing. At the moment, the Giants get buy-in from AFL fans, but don't get buy-in from wider Canberra.

They don't even get buy-in from most AFL fans if we're being honest. I've been to 3 GWS games, all about a decade ago. Most people I know with an interest in AFL are similar.

They've only really captured a minority of hardcore AFL fans, most of which aren't genuinely GWS fans. Their fanbase here is massively overrepresented by expats as well.

Their fanbase here could best be described as largely people who came to Canberra for work or uni that will take any live footy they can get. The broader AFL fanbase in Canberra is much larger though, and the only way you'll get most of them under the one roof is with a local team.

 

[Roylion]

From Fitzroy to GWS, Canberra has always been used as a means for struggling clubs to get an easy cash injection.

Fitzroy applied to the AFL in late 1995 to play at least four home games in Canberra and as many as seven home games, with a view to a full relocation down the track.

The Club's application to play in Canberra had the support of 'AFL for Canberra' organisation, the Canberra Raiders, the Ainslee Football Club and the ACT chief minister who had offered for the ACT government to upgrade Bruce Stadium if there were two national teams (one was the Raiders) playing out of the stadium. When adding in corporate sponsorship, and ground rights at Bruce Stadium (which would have been upgraded), the projections showed Fitzroy would have made an extra $1 million per season.

The application was refused by the AFL commission because they wanted to keep the number of clubs in the AFL at 16 (with Port Adelaide's imminent entry). Keeping the pressure on Fitzroy to merge would have allowed them to do this.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Fitzroy applied to the AFL in late 1995 to play at least four home games in Canberra and as many as seven home games, with a view to a full relocation down the track.

The Club's application to play in Canberra had the support of 'AFL for Canberra' organisation, the Canberra Raiders, the Ainslee Football Club and the ACT chief minister who had offered for the ACT government to upgrade Bruce Stadium if there were two national teams (one was the Raiders) playing out of the stadium. When adding in corporate sponsorship, and ground rights at Bruce Stadium (which would have been upgraded), the projections showed Fitzroy would have made an extra $1 million per season.

The application was refused by the AFL commission because they wanted to keep the number of clubs in the AFL at 16 (with Port Adelaide's imminent entry). Keeping the pressure on Fitzroy to merge would have allowed them to do this.

Keeping one club and one history; only seven hours from Melbourne; nearly three decades of full-time footy in Canberra.

The Canberra Lions could've been great.

 

[Bjo187]

Keeping one club and one history; only seven hours from Melbourne; nearly three decades of full-time footy in Canberra.

The Canberra Lions could've been great.

I agree but you can see why the afl didn't wanna go past 16, 18 already feels too much, decades later.

They should just do this with the kangaroos now anyway, it's the perfect fit, even the kangaroo as the mascot is perfect for the nation's capital.

On reflection relocations have proven to be successful. There is another world where 6 Victorian clubs were relocated elsewhere over time and we'd have only 5 clubs in Victoria and some stronger interstate clubs. Plus we'd have better distribution across the country, with less clubs than 18, meaning easier for each team to win a flag.

 

[Roylion]

I agree but you can see why the afl didn't wanna go past 16, 18 already feels too much, decades later.

No it doesn't. 18-20 teams is about right.

They should just do this with the kangaroos now anyway, it's the perfect fit, even the kangaroo as the mascot is perfect for the nation's capital.

Who's going to do that?

On reflection relocations have proven to be successful.

One relocation.

There is another world where 6 Victorian clubs were relocated elsewhere over time and we'd have only 5 clubs in Victoria and some stronger interstate clubs.

A fantasy world. Was never going to happen.

Plus we'd have better distribution across the country, with less clubs than 18, meaning easier for each team to win a flag.

10 Victorian clubs and 10 non-Victorian clubs is fine.

 

[Bjo187]

No it doesn't. 18-20 teams is about right.

16 was the perfect number, the only reason we're at 18 and soon 20 is because there are too many teams in one spot and the fear of having another Fitzroy situation.

Who's going to do that?

The afl should force it through the clubs if North don't wanna take a good deal on their own accord. It's actually poor they prefer to live on life support with minimal growth potential than become a big and popular club based out of Canberra. Stubbornness.

One relocation.

One successful relocation, one successful merger. 4 flags and 6 grand finals since the merger says it was a success, although I would have preferred Fitzroy to relocate and keep their full identity.

A fantasy world. Was never going to happen.

Because it was too much hard work and heartbreak at the time, but the competition would be stronger for it now if it did happen I think.

10 Victorian clubs and 10 non-Victorian clubs is fine.

It might be fine, but it's not ideal by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Roylion]

16 was the perfect number, the only reason we're at 18 and soon 20 is because there are too many teams in one spot and the fear of having another Fitzroy situation.

Very good blend of the old and the new. The history and tradition of the VFL-AFL competition is one oi its strengths.

The afl should force it through the clubs if North don't wanna take a good deal on their own accord.

They can't force it through. History has shown that.

It's actually poor they prefer to live on life support with minimal growth potential than become a big and popular club based out of Canberra. Stubbornness.

Whether they would become a big and popular club out of Canberra is debatable.

One successful relocation, one successful merger.

One successful relocation only.

4 flags and 6 grand finals since the merger says it was a success,

A very successful example of a club rebrand, but there was more to it than that. Moving to Brisbane for the 1994 season and AFL pre-draft concessions were also important.

Because it was too much hard work and heartbreak at the time,

And the AFL lacked power to force anything. 1989, 1996 and 2008 showed that.

but the competition would be stronger for it now if it did happen I think.

The competition is currently very strong due to the influx of TV money which wouldn't be as much for a smaller amount of clubs.

It might be fine, but it's not ideal by any stretch of the imagination.

20 clubs is ideal.