Analysis Should we be pursuing a secondary market post-Hobart? If yes, then where?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Still in tassie……**** off

And once tassie has its own team….that 2 games in WA will jump to 4.

They (the club) could have done good by the members with this deal and they chose to continue fisting us.
we're making 2 million dollars off of 2 games in WA.

If I'm not mistaken that's as much as the 4 in Tassie.

It's 2 in Tassie now and then becomes 0 when our contract with them ends because we've effectively replaced the 4 with 2, so why would it then jump to 4?
 
Sorry if I intrude, and I haven't heard anything official, but I honestly don't think it's going to be Perth, I honestly think it'll be Busselton. It makes too much sense.
  • You can avoid perceptions of competition unfairness by the other team having a true 12th home game. While WCE/Freo would have a HGA in Busselton, it won't be as strong as Optus, and more palatable. It's arguably no different than North and Dogs playing in Canberra vs. Sydney back in the day when a lot of AFL fans in Canberra at the time were Sydney supporters.
  • There's an airport there, you can charter a flight.
  • Lets just assume with local government money or something North would be making the same money either way.
  • It's still accessible for North and Perth fans who want to drive down. You could still give priority ticketing to WA based North fans ahead of locals, and still have enough tickets for locals.
  • There's a model to temporarily upgrade a stadium for not that expensive an amount with what they've done with Mt Barker in Gather Round. They're looking to do it for the Barossa for future Gather Round events. This doesn't have to be a large infrastructure investment
  • It is the fastest growing area of WA and the AFL will want to have a presence there strategically. Counting the Bunbury and wider Margaret River region, it's going to be far more critical that, if one or the other, this region (population 200,000 and growing faster in % terms than Perth) gets 1 AFL game as opposed to the 2.2 million population of Perth gets a 23rd game from the 22 it already hosts.
  • I would assume that Busselton as a city council would actually want this game, as it justifies their spend in "activating" the region such as investing in the airport in the first place.
  • WA government may actually prefer it to simply buying a Perth game, it encourages WA residents to spend their toursim dollars within WA by giving them a reason do drive down or stick around rather than flying off to Bali or whatever.
  • If not in Busselton (though this is the more relevant tourism region) a lot of the arguments hold true for flying into Busselton, then driving 45 mins north to Bunbury to play the game there (with a bigger local population).

For what it's worth, I made my original point simply because I of the growth of the region.

The Busselton airport direct flight routes to Melbourne and Sydney are only growing in strength etc:


The wider south-west region is the fastest growing tourism region in Australia: https://www.amrtimes.com.au/news/au...ountry-tourism-region-in-australia-c-12482595

What you said now may be true today, but things can move very quickly. If the rate of growth continues in the region, the tourism flights to the east coast continue to grow and be successful, and demand for the region (as shown by 20% growth in property prices), this can only lead to a desire for the region to host an AFL game in the near future. It might not have the facilities now but with money flowing into the region, it's almost inevitable that it will in the future.

Ultimately, we're talking about decisions North has to make in 2027/28, not 2025. And the rate of growth for the region since post-Covid, from 2022 to 2024 has been immense. One can only assume 2027 in the region will look far different than 2024.

Presumably they would want to play games there - even if it's only in a 10,000 capacity ground or whatever - before they determine that. Get a bit of a feel for the local vibes of AFL. If they struggle to sell tickets they can pull out after a year or two or at least have a datapoint for future activities.

Getting a stadium up to speed to host that little shouldn't be that much of an issue. - Mt Barker and Traeger Park host AFL games and meet minimum standards, for instance.

It'll cost a couple of tens of millions but presumably an upgraded stadium that could host AFL games would also help service/drive other tourism-related activities including other sports events (carnivals or whatever) or whatever else you can do with upgraded facilities on a big oval.


I agree a bus trip for them is a bit more travel than another game in Perth, but it's still less travel than the alternative theoretical away fixture against North somewhere in an eastern state.




Sorry, I'm allowed to toot my own horn here for predicting this, surely.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

we're making 2 million dollars off of 2 games in WA.

If I'm not mistaken that's as much as the 4 in Tassie.

It's 2 in Tassie now and then becomes 0 when our contract with them ends because we've effectively replaced the 4 with 2, so why would it then jump to 4?
Bugs Bunny Money GIF by Looney Tunes


I’ve heard it all before with past CEO’s/presidents…..

“We’re looking at doing 1 game”
“We’re looking at doing a maximum of 2 games”
“We’re looking at doing a maximum of 3 games”
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Should we be pursuing a secondary market post-Hobart? If yes, then where?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top