GWS is the AFL's biggest problem - not North, GC, or Tassie

[Bjo187]

I think the current AFL admin under Goyder and Dillon are too weak to wanna try, but if the commission chair changes (which hopefully it does in the next year), there might be a more bust down doors approach that will try and do what's best for the code, despite the criticism.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yeah I know all this, I'm saying you can still make it happen if you have the drive to do so and it would be a success for North, Canberra and the afl, so they should forge forward on the idea. It's why the afl and commission exist, to do what's best for the code.

If North didn't relocate in 2008 with 32,000 members they're not going to relocate in 2024 with 51,000 members.

It's not a success for North by virtue of the fact that their members want to remain playing in Melbourne. It is still a club whose operations are run by a board voted by the members that operate under the members' desire, no?

 

[Coolangatta]

If North didn't relocate in 2008 with 32,000 members they're not going to relocate in 2024 with 51,000 members.

It's not a success for North by virtue of the fact that their members want to remain playing in Melbourne. It is still a club whose operations are run by a board voted by the members that operate under the members' desire, no?

Yes, but you could argue in the best interests of the game, WA and ACT no longer be under represented markets. While you could argue Victoria is NOT over represented, that doesn’t mean other markets are proportional to their demand and growth either.

The northern states are off limits for relocation because they’re for the good of the game, so the logical relocation would come from Victoria.

There are only two other alternatives:

1. ACT or WA remains under represented.

2. We go to 22 teams in less than 20 years.

I think the North relocation is the ideal kill two birds with one stone solution but failing that, ACT getting the nod and WA remaining a two team state is the next best option.

But if the game goes to 22 teams, I do agree that WA3 should be one of them. For them to stay at two teams permanently would be money left on the table IMO. But at least they have teams, ACT doesn’t, hence ACT > WA3 if forced to pick.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yes, but you could argue in the best interests of the game, WA and ACT no longer be under represented markets. While you could argue Victoria is NOT over represented, that doesn’t mean other markets are proportional to their demand and growth either.

The northern states are off limits for relocation because they’re for the good of the game, so the logical relocation would come from Victoria.

There are only two other alternatives:

1. ACT or WA remains under represented.

2. We go to 22 teams in less than 20 years.

I think the North relocation is the ideal kill two birds with one stone solution but failing that, ACT getting the nod and WA remaining a two team state is the next best option.

But if the game goes to 22 teams, I do agree that WA3 should be one of them. For them to stay at two teams permanently would be money left on the table IMO. But at least they have teams, ACT doesn’t, hence ACT > WA3 if forced to pick.

None of which addresses the fact that North's 51,000 members, which provide a base level financial security of the club, want to move.

 

[Coolangatta]

None of which addresses the fact that North's 51,000 members, which provide a base level financial security of the club, want to move.

It kinda does. It means Canberra gets team 20 if North can’t and won’t move, and that WA has to wait > 2050 for a third team. But I’ve said before I don’t think the AFL will have WA3 in mind if they ever expand beyond 20 teams.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It kinda does. It means Canberra gets team 20 if North can’t and won’t move, and that WA has to wait > 2050 for a third team. But I’ve said before I don’t think the AFL will have WA3 in mind if they ever expand beyond 20 teams.

The AFL has committed to an odd number of teams already without feeling too rushed to bring it back to even. What evidence is there that the introduction of any given team would significantly influence another, if it makes sense to introduce the team? What does North's membership desire to stay in Melbourne have anything to do with those plans?

 

[Bjo187]

If North didn't relocate in 2008 with 32,000 members they're not going to relocate in 2024 with 51,000 members.

It's not a success for North by virtue of the fact that their members want to remain playing in Melbourne. It is still a club whose operations are run by a board voted by the members that operate under the members' desire, no?

I think you're missing my whole point, but that's ok.

 

[RedV3x]

I still think north is the elephant in the room, regardless of gws and gc issues

North absolutely should have relocated to gc when they had the chance imo.

North are either super honest or super-stupid.
The first thing North do when they play these venture games is say "We're not moving".
The business thing to do is say "we will consider moving" and simply use the fans.

 

[Canberra Pear]

If Canberra doesn’t get team 20 then relocation would be the only way to get a full time team before 2050. I agree with Bjo187, Canberra and Perth 3 together would shore up the game for another 30 years.

But I’d be shocked if North moves so hopefully you guys don’t have to wait another 30 years to get a team of your own!

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but if Canberra don't get Team 20, I'll probably be on the relocation train. I can't wait until the 2050s, to one day, maybe get a team if the competition expands again.

I've been one of the biggest advocates for the Giants to do well in Sydney. I've even travelled to Sydney for a few games. It's a huge market. It's ridiculous not to have the Giants there full-time.

But if Canberra misses out on Team 20 to Perth, I will 100% blame the Giants. At that point, I might start advocating for the Giants to move to Canberra. If they need Canberra, then move to Canberra. And if they don't want to relocate, then set us free.

 

[RedV3x]

A north relocation to Canberra should be extremely appealing for them, particularly off the back of seeing the success of the swans and lions in their northern relocations. I note in the roy Morgan poll, both are now top 5 supported in the afl, north languishing down the bottom and actually lost fans in the past year.

The Canberra move is most appealing coz it's close, drivable distance, they'd get access to a goldmine of academy players in the ACT and riverina, plus no competition from 9 other Vic sides to attract players. Most importantly, it's a growing city of half a million to grow into.

Last one, the balance of 9 Vic, 11 interstate is a lot better than 10 and 10.

A North relocation to Canberra should be extremely appealing for everybody except die-hard North fans.

 

[RedV3x]

North left Canberra almost two decades ago.

Somebody should be pointing out to all and sundry at North that
Fitzroy and South Melbourne left Melbourne some time ago and look at them now.
Fitzroy and South fans are enjoying GF appearances.
Fitzroy and South fans are enjoying general success.
Fitzroy and South fans still get to see their teams in Melbourne.

North fans could possibly go back to the "Kangaroos" banner.
North fans could possibly propose a home game split.
North fans would have the least distance to travel.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but if Canberra don't get Team 20, I'll probably be on the relocation train. I can't wait until the 2050s, to one day, maybe get a team if the competition expands again.

I've been one of the biggest advocates for the Giants to do well in Sydney. I've even travelled to Sydney for a few games. It's a huge market. It's ridiculous not to have the Giants there full-time.

But if Canberra misses out on Team 20 to Perth, I will 100% blame the Giants. At that point, I might start advocating for the Giants to move to Canberra. If they need Canberra, then move to Canberra. And if they don't want to relocate, then set us free.

That’s your view. Giants are Canberra’s AFL team, and the status quo of playing 3 AFL/ 2 AFLW games in Canberra works for the club, the budgetary constrained ACT Government and the AFL. The sellout crowds at Manuka shows the acceptance of the current arrangements in Canberra. Despite the vocal opposition by some pushing an agenda, this will not change till at least 2032.

There has been no push for a full time Canberra team by the ACT Government, the club or the AFL, and there has been no grassroots or political pressure for a full time Canberra AFL team during our October elections. In fact, the most significant grassroots lobbying during this election by a sporting code has been by our local soccer community asking Barr for more $ to support the Aleague men’s bid and support Canberra United.

 

[Canberra Pear]

That’s your view. Giants are Canberra’s AFL team

And that's your view.

the budgetary constrained ACT Government and the AFL.

You keep saying this, but you don't have anything to back up how that would affect a Canberra AFL team.

The government just pulled $3m out of nowhere for a BBL team. Doesn't seem that constrained.

But please tell me what will cost the ACT government more than it does now. $2.85m for an AFL team. That goes to a full-time team instead. They're already expanding Manuka. Please explain how a "budget constrained ACT Government" would be worse off for funding our own AFL team instead of the Giants.

Plus the return on investment would be so much greater for a team of our own.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

And that's your view.



You keep saying this, but you don't have anything to back up how that would affect a Canberra AFL team.

The government just pulled $3m out of nowhere for a BBL team. Doesn't seem that constrained.

But please tell me what will cost the ACT government more than it does now. $2.85m for an AFL team. That goes to a full-time team instead. They're already expanding Manuka. Please explain how a "budget constrained ACT Government" would be worse off for funding our own AFL team instead of the Giants.

Plus the return on investment would be so much greater for a team of our own.

The fact remains that regardless of your view or that of some other vocal posters, the status quo of Giants being Canberra’s AFL team and playing matches here will not change until at least 2032.

Neither Barr nor any other political parties have publicly advocated for Canberra having a full time AFL team after that - even though we are currently in the midst of an election here. As previously stated our club, the AFL, and the Government seem content with the current situation. The sellout crowds we have drawn in Manuka, shows that the Canberra public also have no issues with the current arrangements.

In fact, I would think it’s more likely that that the current arrangements will be extended after 2032 for another significant period of time. The Giants publicly regard themselves as Canberra’s AFL team, and will be loathe to lose a 21 year relationship with us. The AFL chairman seems more concerned based on his latest statements with having more games in NT/NQ than a full time Canberra AFL team or even having a 20th AFL team.

Whilst Barr has pulled out $3 million for BBL franchises, that has now significantly increased the pressure for him to match that for the Canberra soccer teams which have significant grassroots participation. The advent of the Aleague men’s team in 2025-26 will also lead to increase in ongoing future government support for the Aleague soccer teams.

I know you disagree, but the tram expenditures have adversely impacted on health, education, housing etc, including constraining future expenditures. I would rather believe the analysis of Jon Stanhope on this than yours.

 

[Canberra Pear]

In fact, I would think it’s more likely that that the current arrangements will be extended after 2032 for another significant period of time. The Giants publicly regard themselves as Canberra’s AFL team, and will be loathe to lose a 21 year relationship with us.

And what happens after 2032 if Perth gets Team 20? Do we just accept three games in perpetuity?

Whilst Barr has pulled out $3 million for BBL franchises, that has now significantly increased the pressure for him to match that for the Canberra soccer teams which have significant grassroots participation. The advent of the Aleague men’s team in 2025-26 will also lead to increase in ongoing future government support for the Aleague soccer teams.

I know you disagree, but the tram expenditures have adversely impacted on health, education, housing etc, including constraining future expenditures. I would rather believe the analysis of Jon Stanhope on this than yours.

Please, just answer my question though.

I get it, things are tight. But we're already getting $2.85m for an AFL team. That will just go to a team of our own.

The ACT is under no obligation to pay any more. Financials for trams shouldn't affect that.

Manuka is already getting upgraded. So please tell me how it will cost the ACT Government more than it does now?

 

[MelbourneGWS]

And what happens after 2032 if Perth gets Team 20? Do we just accept three games in perpetuity?



Please, just answer my question though.

I get it, things are tight. But we're already getting $2.85m for an AFL team. That will just go to a team of our own.

The ACT is under no obligation to pay any more. Financials for trams shouldn't affect that.

Manuka is already getting upgraded. So please tell me how it will cost the ACT Government more than it does now?

1. Why would you think Perth would get team 20? I thought the WAFC did not want a 3rd team, although I’m not sure how the NRL expansion to Perth and the future population growth of WA would impact that view. I think NT (with or without the involvement of NQ) would be a greater chance of being team 20, despite all the objective metrics placing it behind WA3 or Canberra. I only think that due to the lobbying and business case by the NT government, the majority of media being in favour, and the general public preferring this as seen in the responses to the AFL survey question on this. All that is lacking is significant Commonwealth $. The AFL Chairman also seems very focused on getting more games into NT/NQ.

2. You’ve obviously done the numbers on this, and I defer to your assessment on this issue. Yes, if the same $2.85 million currently paid to the Giants by our government is sufficient for a full time AFL/ AFLW team, then the budgetary constraints (or demands for more $ by the other codes, especially soccer) will not matter.

I just find it difficult to comprehend how the same $2.85 million which paid for 3 AFL and 2 AFLW games, is sufficient for a full time team that plays 11 AFL games and 5 AFLW games.

 

[Canberra Pear]

1. Why would you think Perth would get team 20? I thought the WAFC did not want a 3rd team, although I’m not sure how the NRL expansion to Perth and the future population growth of WA would impact that view. I think NT (with or without the involvement of NQ) would be a greater chance of being team 20, despite all the objective metrics placing it behind WA3 or Canberra. I only think that due to the lobbying and business case by the NT government, the majority of media being in favour, and the general public preferring this as seen in the responses to the AFL survey question on this. All that is lacking is significant Commonwealth $. The AFL Chairman also seems very focused on getting more games into NT/NQ.

I really don't think the NT is feasible.

It will take hundreds of millions in stadium upgrades (possibly top a billion if you count Cairns and Alice upgrades). Then it will take tens of millions in annual government funding, pretty much forever.

But if the NT gets in, then they have done an absolute crap tonne of lobbying and I won't begrudge them for getting Team 20. Unlikely, but impressive.

There is no reason WA should get Team 20 ahead of Canberra, other than the perception that the Giants need us. So if WA3 gets Team 20, it'll be because of the Giants.

I just find it difficult to comprehend how the same $2.85 million which paid for 3 AFL and 2 AFLW games, is sufficient for a full time team that plays 11 AFL games and 5 AFLW games.

I think you need to reframe your thinking about the $2.85m.

It doesn't cost $2.85m to host three games (plus AFLW and preseason).

$2.85m is what the ACT Government is willing to pay for the games, and what the Giants are willing to sell them for. It's just a market price.

 

[RedV3x]

1. Why would you think Perth would get team 20?

Because technically it's feasible.

I thought the WAFC did not want a 3rd team,

Huh ? WA3 would mean more money for the WAFC.

although I’m not sure how the NRL expansion to Perth

Some FIFO expats might attend but NRL is it's own story.

and the future population growth of WA would impact that view.

Right up there in fastest growing city.

I think NT (with or without the involvement of NQ) would be a greater chance of being team

Not very analytical are you.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Because technically it's feasible.



Huh ? WA3 would mean more money for the WAFC.



Some FIFO expats might attend but NRL is it's own story.



Right up there in fastest growing city.


Not very analytical are you.

My analytical skills are better than your comprehension skills. If you had bothered to read further, you would have noted that I acknowledged that a NT (NQ) bid is inferior to WA3 and Canberra in most metrics, but would be the Team 20 preference of most in the media and the general public based on the AFL fan survey. Also NT has a head start due to the Territory government’s business case and lobbying, but a successful NT (NQ) team 20 bid would require significant commonwealth government $ to be viable

 

[RedV3x]

If you had bothered to read further,

Why, it wasn't worthwhile.