Expansion 3rd Western Australian club

[Johnny Bananas]

It’s also worth noting that by 2035, the SC will have about 150k fewer people than GC did when the Suns entered the league. It is also a region with traditionally smaller interest in AFL footy than the GC and significantly less infrastructure in terms of community clubs.

How are you measuring that? Also the Suns' problems come from a losing team (compounded by terrible facilities and administration on startup) and their stadium being located miles away from anywhere with practically no parking and inadequate public transport. A team anywhere else doesn't have to have the same problems if the AFL and the government are willing to learn the lessons.

 

[Bjo187]

In fairness every area is growing when you bring in record numbers of immigrants like has been the case this year. More than the entire population of Tasmania and the ACT in one year.

I assume the idea was to help the economy/ cost of living, but it doesn't appear to have worked at all. But yeah all potential locations should go up in population a fair bit with so many people flooding in.

 

[Coolangatta]

The whole SEQ region is growing incredibly fast. Over the next 12 years, the population of each city is projected to grow by the following amount:

• Brisbane: 370k
• GC: 110k
• SC: 57k

It’s also worth noting that by 2035, the SC will have about 150k fewer people than GC did when the Suns entered the league. It is also a region with traditionally smaller interest in AFL footy than the GC and significantly less infrastructure in terms of community clubs.

The main argument in favour of a future SC-based club would be that there’s no competition from clubs in other codes - this reason alone is not a strong enough reason to base another club there. The case for the region will be stronger by the year 2050+; however, the case for a second Brisbane club will also be stronger as the city grows to 3m+ people and has a world class stadium that’s only used for 11 rounds of footy each year.

As I’ve said before, my tip for a 3rd SEQ club (if it eventuates) would be a Northern corridor club (like the Dolphins) playing most games at the Gabba, with 3-4 games on the Sunny Coast each year.

Yes, I could see them wanting to use the new Gabba more.

As for the north of Australia, they may yet do a joint venture with emphasis on Darwin if QLD already has three sides. Or they might target both areas.

I don’t think there’ll be WA3 or SA3, they’ll target the northern states for future expansion and possibly NZ.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all after Tassie and Canberra to see a third Sydney side linked to Newcastle and a second Brisbane side linked to Sunshine Coast as the next round of expansion in the 2050s/60s.

 

[RedV3x]

It took the NRL 35 years before they expanded from two to three clubs in SEQ

Yes, ridiculous lack of action by the NRL or jealously by the Sydney clubs.
AFL shouldn't make the same mistake.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

How are you measuring that? Also the Suns' problems come from a losing team (compounded by terrible facilities and administration on startup) and their stadium being located miles away from anywhere with practically no parking and inadequate public transport. A team anywhere else doesn't have to have the same problems if the AFL and the government are willing to learn the lessons.

Gold Coast is widely accepted as the strongest region for footy in QLD. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to read that. They have a significant spread of senior clubs that are well-established across multiple tiers. For example, from Southport in the VFL, to 4 state league clubs and another 6 that form the lions share of QFA Div 2 South. Compare this with the SC who only have like 4 senior clubs - Noosa, Maroochydore, Caloundra and Hinterland.

GC have always provided a large portion of junior state team players and are hugely over represented in rep teams when their population is considered. I dare say that if we looked at metrics like junior participation rates and TV viewership that Gold Coast would be leading the state there as well (can’t be bothered looking for this atm). There’s also only one public high school on the SC with a footy program compared to about five on the Goldy.

My point is that the Sunny Coast has a lot of growing to do in terms of raw numbers + footy culture before they can be considered and even then I don’t think they’ll have a stronger case than Brisbane 2 (particularly if Dolphins-like model can be used to capture the SC as well).

Agree with all of your comments re the shitshow with the Suns’ establishment. Thankfully that should never happen again.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Gold Coast is widely accepted as the strongest region for footy in QLD. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to read that. They have a significant spread of senior clubs that are well-established across multiple tiers. For example, from Southport in the VFL, to 4 state league clubs and another 6 that form the lions share of QFA Div 2 South. Compare this with the SC who only have like 4 senior clubs - Noosa, Maroochydore, Caloundra and Hinterland.

Fair points, but I don't see that as a great barrier to success in the Sunshine Coast. We've seen in other sports that professional teams can be a success if they're the only professional team in town (or one among very few) and are exciting to watch, for example the JackJumpers. And when you have a newly developing area, getting in early can create cultural change. There's a lot of room to expand development on the Sunshine Coast over the next few decades. It won't ever be as big as the Gold Coast but over the next 30 years it will become a sizeable city in its own right.

GC have always provided a large portion of junior state team players and are hugely over represented in rep teams when their population is considered. I dare say that if we looked at metrics like junior participation rates and TV viewership that Gold Coast would be leading the state there as well (can’t be bothered looking for this atm). There’s also only one public high school on the SC with a footy program compared to about five on the Goldy.

Participation rates are fundamentally about developing local talent. It's not only people who participated who eventually take an interest in the professional game. Actually I'd say success in a new market fundamentally depends on getting a lot of people who never really participated to take an interest. And that's something Gold Coast couldn't do because they had a poor team playing in a poorly accessible stadium.

I reckon those are two very big factors, more so than how many senior clubs there are. For that reason, I don't think we can extrapolate from the example of the Suns and the Gold Coast footy culture to make definite statements about the Sunshine Coast in future.

My point is that the Sunny Coast has a lot of growing to do in terms of raw numbers + footy culture before they can be considered and even then I don’t think they’ll have a stronger case than Brisbane 2 (particularly if Dolphins-like model can be used to capture the SC as well).

I don't think Dolphins model would work in Brisbane for AFL. The Dolphins were a fixture in Redcliffe for decades before there was a national competition and built a lot of loyalty there. There's no equivalent for the Sunshine Coast, or in footy at all in SEQ really.

And Redcliffe is close enough to Brisbane to describe it as part of greater Brisbane. You wouldn't describe the Sunshine Coast the same way, it's an entirely separate city. But even if people from the Sunshine Coast were happy with a part time team, why would people from Brisbane get on board with it when the Lions are already a full time Brisbane team? This is exactly the same concern I have with the Giants winning over Sydney.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

You’ve made some good points too that certainly relate to that school of thought about expansion. Another would be to ensure that the major metropolitan areas of Australia are adequately serviced by the # of clubs and amount of content that can serve them as they continue to grow over the next 50+ years. I believe that the Lions have a lot of potential and that they will become a bigger player within the league in the coming decades.

Having an identity that is distinct from the Lions would be crucial for a second Brisbane side to be successful. I agree that the Redcliffe Dolphins were a unique case that gave the NRL a natural location for a second team. The AFL can’t replicate that. However, the Lions move to Springfield could actually pave a way for a Northern corridor club to serve a different region of the city.

If the Lions remain based in Springfield then it potentially could allow them to pivot in the future by becoming the team for Southern Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan etc. Meanwhile, a new club, based somewhere like Aspley, could focus on the Northern suburbs of Brisbane, Moreton Bay Council and the Sunny Coast. I know that the majority of people aren’t going to dump their current allegiances to back a new club, but like I said, it’s about what will best serve the region for the next 50+ years. There’s over 40km between the Lions’ new base at Brighton Homes Arena and Aspley so they’re vastly different areas of the Brisbane metro area.

Below are the population projections of LGA’s in QLD. Personally, I’d find it a strange decision to have the Lions remain as the sole club of a city that will (one day) be home to 3.5 million people, while only 100km up the road, you plonk a club on the Sunny Coast where at a similar time they’re projected to only have a bit over 500k (even the Goldy is predicted to have around 1 million then). If the popularity of the sport continues to grow in SEQ then I can see a day in the future when the Lions are a bit of a powerhouse and they won’t necessarily need Brisbane all to themselves. On the flip side, what if the NRL put a third club in Brisbane ? Having another club out there to spread the gospel and get media coverage for our sport in the country’s third biggest city may become vital.

I just think that having a club that represents the Northern-region would be more successful than a specifically SC-based club. People within SEQ are well connected and readily travel around the region in my experience, so it’s a concept worth pursuing.

https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/issues/5276/qld-population-projections-regions-reports-local-government-areas-sa2-report-2023-edn.pdf

 

[Tigerlaird]

The AFL could realistically expand to 24 teams by 2035 if it really wanted to.

 

[RedV3x]

The AFL could realistically expand to 24 teams by 2035 if it really wanted to.

It depends on what model you're trying to achieve - ie more clubs playing out of boutique stadiums.
The trouble is that the AFL has powerhouse clubs and they will resist all changes to their authority.
I see stupid people want a return to an AFL reserves competition.
Well that sort of money wasting undertaking would definitely be out.
In fact there would be all sorts of equalisation measures like - coach salary cap, staff outlay, general expenditure and home ground improvements etc.

 

[PenrithGWS]

Would this really work??

Is the population bigger enough?

I favour a new NRL team in WA before another AFL team?

 

[Bjo187]

Would this really work??

Is the population bigger enough?

I favour a new NRL team in WA before another AFL team?

What's you favouring a new nrl team in w.a got to do with w.a3 exactly? . They are different sports, ones actually popular in Perth the other basically irrelevant.

 

[Coolangatta]

Would this really work??

Is the population bigger enough?

I favour a new NRL team in WA before another AFL team?

It probably would in the long-term, especially if it's got a cool name and mascot like Perth Sharks or Perth Pirates that young kids will probably get behind, but you've got to think about what the max limit of teams in the AFL is going to be.

We can't have all of WA3, SA3 (they'll want a 3rd if WA get a third), NSW3, QLD3, ACT, and NT, and that's not including NZ who'd be a big fish to land if the work is put in.

That's 26 teams.

Who's going to miss out? I'm not sure we'll get to 22, let alone beyond that.

I think if you were to ask the AFL behind closed doors if they'd prefer to have 3rd teams in NSW and QLD in 50 years time as opposed to WA3 and SA3, they'd pick the eastern seaboard.

 

[stallon]

Would this really work??

Is the population bigger enough?

I favour a new NRL team in WA before another AFL team?

Yes, if VIC can handle 10 clubs then WA is easily big enough for 3
I think it would comfortably work, a bunch of people cant get memberships to the eagles, and they might jump across just to be able to go to games. I wouldnt be surprised if by their second year they had more members than GC and GWS.
More would have to be invested in junior footy, but thats doable.

 

[Rob]

Yes, if VIC can handle 10 clubs then WA is easily big enough for 3

Vic can't handle 10 clubs though, a few of them need millions in additional handouts just to balance the books.

I think it would comfortably work, a bunch of people cant get memberships to the eagles, and they might jump across just to be able to go to games. I wouldnt be surprised if by their second year they had more members than GC and GWS.
More would have to be invested in junior footy, but thats doable.

The AFL would need more convincing than that. They don't want to be paying $20m a year to a club that doesn't really grow the game.

 

[stallon]

Vic can't handle 10 clubs though, a few of them need millions in additional handouts just to balance the books.



The AFL would need more convincing than that. They don't want to be paying $20m a year to a club that doesn't really grow the game.

Where else would be cheaper then? the only possible place is SA(cant see SA being cheaper, maybe similar value, which is likely very little compared to anywhere else), they have a much smaller population than WA, and WA teams probably need the extra home game it would allow more than anybody else, especially with 23 games per season now.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Where else would be cheaper then? the only possible place is SA(cant see SA being cheaper, maybe similar value, which is likely very little compared to anywhere else), they have a much smaller population than WA, and WA teams probably need the extra home game it would allow more than anybody else, especially with 23 games per season now.

Canberra would be way cheaper than SA, and on par, if not better than WA.

We'll likely have an upgraded stadium being heavily pushed by cricket.

Canberra has a 40% higher median income than Perth, so more money for memberships, tickets and merch.

Canberra teams get government funding that an SA3 or WA3 team won't get. Likely more than ~$3m a year.

A boutique stadium like Manuka also has its perks. Cheaper breakeven attendance, clean stadium advertising rights, in-season naming rights.

So a Canberra team would likely have a $5-6m annual headstart on a Perth team, plus a wealthier fanbase to sustain it.

 

[Rob]

Where else would be cheaper then? the only possible place is SA(cant see SA being cheaper, maybe similar value, which is likely very little compared to anywhere else), they have a much smaller population than WA, and WA teams probably need the extra home game it would allow more than anybody else, especially with 23 games per season now.

Maybe nowhere, but if the AFL is going to prop up a team for decades, they'd want to be doing something to grow the game. That's why they're prepared to cop the hit on the Suns and Giants.

 

[stallon]

Canberra would be way cheaper than SA, and on par, if not better than WA.

We'll likely have an upgraded stadium being heavily pushed by cricket.

Canberra has a 40% higher median income than Perth, so more money for memberships, tickets and merch.

Canberra teams get government funding that an SA3 or WA3 team won't get. Likely more than ~$3m a year.

A boutique stadium like Manuka also has its perks. Cheaper breakeven attendance, clean stadium advertising rights, in-season naming rights.

So a Canberra team would likely have a $5-6m annual headstart on a Perth team, plus a wealthier fanbase to sustain it.

Canberra has a much smaller population, and a new team there will take a lot of space off GWS. They might be wealthier on average, but I dont see how that matters, memberships arent that expensive, and there are a lot of potential fans/members to grab off west coast in particular. A lot of people will jump across just to get off the waitlist, and get cheaper tickets to games. Canberra is possible, but I dont see how another team right next to GWS who are the smallest team by far, is a good idea so soon. In 20 years time if AFL takes off more in NSW perhaps

 

[stallon]

Maybe nowhere, but if the AFL is going to prop up a team for decades, they'd want to be doing something to grow the game. That's why they're prepared to cop the hit on the Suns and Giants.

This is not only about growing the game, its about balance in the competition also. The AFL just introduced 2(soon 3) teams that will all cost huge amounts to keep afloat, do they want a 4th? or do they want something that will be a bit more self sufficient, which will also quell a bit of the "vic bias" and fixture advantages the vic/east coast teams get by giving the WA teams an extra game in WA.

WA has a huge amount of fans who want memberships, but cant get them. The tickets to west coast games are much more expensive than tickets to freo games at the same stadium, and the membership waitlist is years long at west coast.

I agree it wont grow the game as much as subsidising a team in nsw/act/wherever, but it is probably the best financially and competition health-wise/fairness

 

[Rob]

This is not only about growing the game, its about balance in the competition also. The AFL just introduced 2(soon 3) teams that will all cost huge amounts to keep afloat, do they want a 4th? or do they want something that will be a bit more self sufficient, which will also quell a bit of the "vic bias" and fixture advantages the vic/east coast teams get by giving the WA teams an extra game in WA.

WA has a huge amount of fans who want memberships, but cant get them. The tickets to west coast games are much more expensive than tickets to freo games at the same stadium, and the membership waitlist is years long at west coast.

I agree it wont grow the game as much as subsidising a team in nsw/act/wherever, but it is probably the best financially and competition health-wise/fairness

Need a better business plan than "West Coast fans that can't get tickets".

And as I understand the Tassie model, it's basically underwritten by the government so they're only getting close to the base distribution every year. Who's underwriting a 3rd WA team?

 

[stallon]

Need a better business plan than "West Coast fans that can't get tickets".

And as I understand the Tassie model, it's basically underwritten by the government so they're only getting close to the base distribution every year. Who's underwriting a 3rd WA team?

The idea would be that the wa footy mob would be for it too. Im not debating who would own it, im not here to do a full business plan. Nobody can deny that WA should be at the very least in the top 2 or 3 options, and very highly considered, if for nothing other than fixture fairness. Being a footy state, with likely a pretty good membership count from day 1, and with a stadium ready to go are just bonuses.

I dont care about what tassy is doing, im comparing WA to SA, NSW, ACT, or wherever else

 

[Canberra Pear]

Canberra has a much smaller population,

Canberra does have a much smaller population than Perth.

But the majority of Perth already follow a team. Freo entered eight years after West Coast and struggle to be half the size. WA3 will enter ~35 years after Freo, and will likely struggle to be half the size of Freo.

WA3 will be fighting for 1/7th of Perth. 1/6 if they're lucky.

Canberra is smaller than Perth, but larger than the slice WA3 will be fighting for.

and a new team there will take a lot of space off GWS.

Canberra doesn't actually add that much to the GWS fanbase. We have 6k members. Less than Hawthorn has in Launceston. That's less than 20% of the total membership base.

And the vast majority of those members don't actually care that much for the Giants. They're game access members (like me).

A Canberra team is actually one of the best things that could happen to the Giants. Would force them to actually focus on their primary market without the constant Canberra relocation jabs. The Giants' current split personality is hurting their brand and growth in Sydney.

They might be wealthier on average, but I dont see how that matters, memberships arent that expensive,

It might be fine for you, but for many, memberships are expensive.

So it matters because a higher percentage of Canberrans can afford memberships. And Canberrans can also afford more expensive memberships, so a lower total would still be more profitable.

And the bulk of people willing to fork out hundreds of dollars every year for memberships in Perth, already do for West Coast and Freo.

 

[Rob]

The idea would be that the wa footy mob would be for it too. Im not debating who would own it, im not here to do a full business plan. Nobody can deny that WA should be at the very least in the top 2 or 3 options, and very highly considered, if for nothing other than fixture fairness. Being a footy state, with likely a pretty good membership count from day 1, and with a stadium ready to go are just bonuses.

I dont care about what tassy is doing, im comparing WA to SA, NSW, ACT, or wherever else

You can't compare WA to NSW or ACT though, that's my point. In the eyes of the AFL they're not the same. The league are prepared to invest the funds into teams there because they grow the game. A 3rd WA team won't make the game much, if any, more popular over here.
And TBH, the AFL don't really care much about WA anyway. Games here are rarely put at locally convenient times, and the timezone advantage is totally ignored. They put no pressure on Channel 7 to put games on the main channel either.

Bottom line is that a 3rd WA team only becomes a serious option if it can come in and be viable from Day 1.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

This is not only about growing the game, its about balance in the competition also. The AFL just introduced 2(soon 3) teams that will all cost huge amounts to keep afloat, do they want a 4th? or do they want something that will be a bit more self sufficient, which will also quell a bit of the "vic bias" and fixture advantages the vic/east coast teams get by giving the WA teams an extra game in WA.

WA has a huge amount of fans who want memberships, but cant get them. The tickets to west coast games are much more expensive than tickets to freo games at the same stadium, and the membership waitlist is years long at west coast.

I agree it wont grow the game as much as subsidising a team in nsw/act/wherever, but it is probably the best financially and competition health-wise/fairness

During the Covid hubs, with the crowds for neutral games, we potentially got some insight regarding WA’s appetite for additional content. For example, Geelong v Melbourne prelim 58,599; Richmond v Essendon Dreamtime game 55,656; Geelong v Collingwood (Covid reduced capacity) 22,077. These are some pretty impressive numbers.

 

[stallon]

Canberra does have a much smaller population than Perth.

But the majority of Perth already follow a team. Freo entered eight years after West Coast and struggle to be half the size. WA3 will enter ~35 years after Freo, and will likely struggle to be half the size of Freo.

WA3 will be fighting for 1/7th of Perth. 1/6 if they're lucky.

Canberra is smaller than Perth, but larger than the slice WA3 will be fighting for.

Yes theyre fighting a couple of well established teams, but WA is the fastest growing state in australia at the moment, and there is a lot of room to grow. At the current rate in 15 years WA will have about 1.5mil more people, lets just make it 1 mil, in case it slows dramatically. Canberra doesnt come close.
I think its fair to say there is plenty more room to grow in WA than in ACT(who in the same 15 years, at the current rate of growth, would be to 600k population total).

Canberra doesn't actually add that much to the GWS fanbase. We have 6k members. Less than Hawthorn has in Launceston. That's less than 20% of the total membership base.

And the vast majority of those members don't actually care that much for the Giants. They're game access members (like me).

A Canberra team is actually one of the best things that could happen to the Giants. Would force them to actually focus on their primary market without the constant Canberra relocation jabs. The Giants' current split personality is hurting their brand and growth in Sydney.

This is fair, but the market honestly isnt there in NSW yet. If this conversation was happening in 10-15 years time it might be different, but we dont know whats gonna happen in that space.

It might be fine for you, but for many, memberships are expensive.

So it matters because a higher percentage of Canberrans can afford memberships. And Canberrans can also afford more expensive memberships, so a lower total would still be more profitable.

And the bulk of people willing to fork out hundreds of dollars every year for memberships in Perth, already do for West Coast and Freo.

Much the same as what I said above, the population in WA will present far more opportunity for membership sales than anything Canberra will provide, even if Canberra people are on average more able to afford a decent membership. The population difference is just too great