GWS in Canberra

[Colonial]

The deal with Canberra is in no significant way impacting crowds up here in Sydney. Maybe a few dozen? Most of our supporters are so casual they don't even find it unusual, or rusted on to the point they find it the norm for us at least.

Can’t build something’s if you’re not 100% in.
The club isn’t.
Looks as if they have a foot out the door.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Can’t build something’s if you’re not 100% in.
The club isn’t.
Looks as if they have a foot out the door.

The club doesn’t see it as a mutually exclusive choice between WS and Canberra? The Easter show means that GWS needs to pay a couple of matches away from Giants Stadium so why not play them in Canberra and make it a long term (21 year) relationship that is mutually beneficial to Canberra as well?

 

[Canberra Pear]

The club doesn’t see it as a mutually exclusive choice between WS and Canberra? The Easter show means that GWS needs to pay a couple of matches away from Giants Stadium so why not play them in Canberra and make it a long term (21 year) relationship that is mutually beneficial to Canberra as well?

The club might not, but it doesn't mean potential fans don't.

The Canberra connection is a common criticism I've read from Sydneysiders in other sports threads or on Twitter. Perception is very important in growing the club. It might not seem huge, but even if it stops a few hundred a year getting on board, it adds up over the decades.

There's a five-round gap where GWS can't play at Giants Stadium. That means the Giants could realistically still play 10 games at GS. There are other options in Western Sydney for the other game.

I'm not going to deny that GWS has been good for Canberra in its first decade, but it's still holding Canberra back.

Apart from the obvious holding back a potential Canberra team, the GWS-Canberra relationship has no flexibility. Excluding the Covid exception, Canberra can't get more than three games a year. And the Giants definitely shouldn't be playing fewer than eight WS games a year. There's no flexibility for the Giants to cover all of Western Sydney and give up more games to Canberra. Launceston and Hobart both get four games a year because they have Melbourne teams with more flexibility. A team covering 2 million people by themselves doesn't have that flexibility.

 

[Colonial]

The club doesn’t see it as a mutually exclusive choice between WS and Canberra? The Easter show means that GWS needs to pay a couple of matches away from Giants Stadium so why not play them in Canberra and make it a long term (21 year) relationship that is mutually beneficial to Canberra as well?

Not about the club, about fans and grassroots.
There are other options than Canberra during the Easter show, which if that’s the reason there would be a maximum of 2 games.

 

[Land of the Giants]

There are other options than Canberra during the Easter show, which if that’s the reason there would be a maximum of 2 games.

The only plausible options would be Accor Stadium or BISP.

We would need big-drawing clubs for Accor Stadium to work. We know we'd get 25K for the Swans, but that would rob Giants Stadium of the only H&A game likely to sell out. So we would need to schedule one of Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond. Fair enough, it's do-able, but a near-empty stadium wouldn't be a good look for either the club or code.

BISP has the opposite problem. Not enough seats, not enough parking, difficult public transport. We'd have to play Fremantle, Gold Coast, Port, maybe North. Again, it's do-able, but the limitations would be a pain in the backside for a lot of members.

The SCG? Not credible, and too hard for most people to get there.

The only other remote possibilty would be to develop Tom Wills Oval at Giants HQ, but as it's now surrounded by home units, we'd probably get knocked back on noise, traffic objections etc.

There's really nowhere else we could play in Sydney.

 

[Colonial]

The only plausible options would be Accor Stadium or BISP.

We would need big-drawing clubs for Accor Stadium to work. We know we'd get 25K for the Swans, but that would rob Giants Stadium of the only H&A game likely to sell out. So we would need to schedule one of Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond. Fair enough, it's do-able, but a near-empty stadium wouldn't be a good look for either the club or code.

BISP has the opposite problem. Not enough seats, not enough parking, difficult public transport. We'd have to play Fremantle, Gold Coast, Port, maybe North. Again, it's do-able, but the limitations would be a pain in the backside for a lot of members.

The SCG? Not credible, and too hard for most people to get there.

The only other remote possibilty would be to develop Tom Wills Oval at Giants HQ, but as it's now surrounded by home units, we'd probably get knocked back on noise, traffic objections etc.

There's really nowhere else we could play in Sydney.

Not have a home game during it or take 1 game to regional nsw?
Maybe the 1 game could be the yank game they are always talking about.
Either option isn’t losing 3 or 4 home games elsewhere.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The Canberra connection is a common criticism I've read from Sydneysiders in other sports threads or on Twitter. Perception is very important in growing the club. It might not seem huge, but even if it stops a few hundred a year getting on board, it adds up over the decades.

There's a five-round gap where GWS can't play at Giants Stadium. That means the Giants could realistically still play 10 games at GS. There are other options in Western Sydney for the other game.

I'm not going to deny that GWS has been good for Canberra in its first decade, but it's still holding Canberra back.

Apart from the obvious holding back a potential Canberra team, the GWS-Canberra relationship has no flexibility. Excluding the Covid exception, Canberra can't get more than three games a year. And the Giants definitely shouldn't be playing fewer than eight WS games a year. There's no flexibility for the Giants to cover all of Western Sydney and give up more games to Canberra. Launceston and Hobart both get four games a year because they have Melbourne teams with more flexibility. A team covering 2 million people by themselves doesn't have that flexibility.

So what happens to Canberra fans and players if GWS leaves? Do we go back to the “Canberra’s Roos” type arrangements that existed pre-GWS, where short term deals were stuck with the poorer Victorian clubs, who left us as soon as a better financial deal was offered elsewhere. No thanks! I prefer and appreciate the regular long term investment and commitment GWS has made to Canberra and the surrounding region - 21years!! In any case I don’t think the Victorian clubs will agree to such 3 game deals - even financially exposed St Kilda has decided not to sell one game to Cairns in 2023 and wants to play all its matches in Melbourne!

I also don’t think the departure of GWS will lead to a standalone Canberra Team 20 (after Tasmania Team 19) - unlike Tasmania which gets 8 matches regularly (and is an AFL heartland), we only get 3 matches annually. I think it’s significant that under the new 10 year deal, the ACT government is only looking at the possibility of purchasing a 4th game - no more, as presumably that’s the limit of what the market (and government funding) can support.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

There's really nowhere else we could play in Sydney.

Yes, agree - that’s why the long term 3 games annual commitment in Canberra works for GWS, AFL, ACT government as well as ACT fans and players

 

[Canberra Pear]

So what happens to Canberra fans and players if GWS leaves? Do we go back to the “Canberra’s Roos” type arrangements that existed pre-GWS, where short term deals were stuck with the poorer Victorian clubs, who left us as soon as a better financial deal was offered elsewhere. No thanks! I prefer and appreciate the regular long term investment and commitment GWS has made to Canberra and the surrounding region - 21years!!

I'm a GWS member, I've travelled to Sydney a couple of games, the Giants are firmly my second team. And I would expect that'd be the same for the majority of Canberra members. Personally, I know one guy who has GWS as his first team. I know multiple Canberra-based Swans, Port, Roos, Richmond, Geelong fans. As a first team, I wouldn't think GWS would even be in the top five for supporters, maybe not even in the top half.

A team that could offer more games, more chances for fans to see their first team, would be better for more Canberra AFL fans.

In any case I don’t think the Victorian clubs will agree to such 3 game deals - even financially exposed St Kilda has decided not to sell one game to Cairns in 2023 and wants to play all its matches in Melbourne!

Hawthorn and North will be without a secondary ground pretty soon. I imagine North would jump at the chance for four (or more) games in Canberra.

I also don’t think the departure of GWS will lead to a standalone Canberra Team 20 (after Tasmania Team 19) - unlike Tasmania which gets 8 matches regularly (and is an AFL heartland), we only get 3 matches annually. I think it’s significant that under the new 10 year deal, the ACT government is only looking at the possibility of purchasing a 4th game - no more, as presumably that’s the limit of what the market (and government funding) can support.

GWS departing Canberra won't necessarily lead to a standalone team, but the current relationship is keeping us out of the conversation.

A 20th team is inevitable. Only Canberra or WA3 realistically make any sense. But the perception that GWS "needs" Canberra, means that Canberra is overlooked in the conversation.

The limit to four games isn't a Canberra market restriction, it's a GWS restriction. There's no chance of fewer games in Western Sydney.

Presumably that’s the limit of what the market (and government funding) can support.

In terms of what the market can support, Canberra has higher crowds than Western Sydney for a club that's primarily a second team for most fans. Three out of four of GWS' highest AFLW crowds are all in Canberra. The market is there.

In terms of government support, if the ACT government took the leap for a Canberra team, it'd get way more bang for its buck. The increase to the ACT GSP, plus the greater exposure of the Canberra brand, would be a net profit for the ACT government.

And the ACT government isn't against a standalone team, it's just not actively pursuing it like Tasmania. Andrew Barr said: "If the AFL are financially able to support a 20th team, Canberra would be a logical choice".

 

[Canberra Pear]

The only plausible options would be Accor Stadium or BISP.

We would need big-drawing clubs for Accor Stadium to work. We know we'd get 25K for the Swans, but that would rob Giants Stadium of the only H&A game likely to sell out. So we would need to schedule one of Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond. Fair enough, it's do-able, but a near-empty stadium wouldn't be a good look for either the club or code.

BISP has the opposite problem. Not enough seats, not enough parking, difficult public transport. We'd have to play Fremantle, Gold Coast, Port, maybe North. Again, it's do-able, but the limitations would be a pain in the backside for a lot of members.

The SCG? Not credible, and too hard for most people to get there.

The only other remote possibilty would be to develop Tom Wills Oval at Giants HQ, but as it's now surrounded by home units, we'd probably get knocked back on noise, traffic objections etc.

There's really nowhere else we could play in Sydney.

I'd love for BISP to get a game. GWS territory stretches so far an it'd be great to have a game there, but it'd definitely require an upgrade.
Is the train line that goes past easily accessible? Building a closer station on that line could put the stadium only 200m away.

Accor would definitely have to be against a bigger team. I agree not playing it against the Swans. Covering up the top bowl would bring Accor down to about 50k, so getting it to about half full isn't unachievable.

Could Henson Park be upgraded to a decent level for smaller crowds? A game there would help poach the inner west market.

Or it would make for the perfect gap for the California game the Giants have been working towards.

 

[Land of the Giants]

Not have a home game during it or take 1 game to regional nsw?
Maybe the 1 game could be the yank game they are always talking about.

If Canberra is slowing growth of the club in western Sydney, I can't see how playing in Los Angeles or Wagga would be an improvement.

 

[Canberra Pear]

If Canberra is slowing growth of the club in western Sydney, I can't see how playing in Los Angeles or Wagga would be an improvement.

Because Canberra looks like a lifeboat. It makes the attempts in Sydney look half-hearted.

Canberra gets 3-4 men's games, a preseason game, 1-2 AFLW games, its own unique guernsey, and a verse in the song.

Nobody's going to be worried about the Giants relocating to Wagga or LA for playing one game a year.

 

[Land of the Giants]

Nobody's going to be worried about the Giants relocating to Wagga or LA for playing one game a year.

No-one would be worried, because no-one would take us seriously.

The Swans tried LA about 20 years ago for absolutely zip return. Why anyone thinks it would work for us is Great Mysteries of the World stuff.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I'm a GWS member, I've travelled to Sydney a couple of games, the Giants are firmly my second team. And I would expect that'd be the same for the majority of Canberra members. ……..As a first team, I wouldn't think GWS would even be in the top five for supporters, maybe not even in the top half.

A team that could offer more games, more chances for fans to see their first team, would be better for more Canberra AFL fans.
Hawthorn and North will be without a secondary ground pretty soon. I imagine North would jump at the chance for four (or more) games in Canberra.
GWS departing Canberra won't necessarily lead to a standalone team, but the current relationship is keeping us out of the conversation.

A 20th team is inevitable. Only Canberra or WA3 realistically make any sense. But the perception that GWS "needs" Canberra, means that Canberra is overlooked in the conversation.

The limit to four games isn't a Canberra market restriction, it's a GWS restriction. There's no chance of fewer games in Western Sydney.
In terms of what the market can support, Canberra has higher crowds than Western Sydney for a club that's primarily a second team for most fans. Three out of four of GWS' highest AFLW crowds are all in Canberra. The market is there.

In terms of government support, if the ACT government took the leap for a Canberra team, it'd get way more bang for its buck. The increase to the ACT GSP, plus the greater exposure of the Canberra brand, would be a net profit for the ACT government.

And the ACT government isn't against a standalone team, it's just not actively pursuing it like Tasmania. Andrew Barr said: "If the AFL are financially able to support a 20th team, Canberra would be a logical choice".

Thanks for your comments and insights

1. When GWS started they became my second team, as they made a long term 10 year commitment to our city. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been a member, which was the situation when Norths sold 3 games and were our “home” team. There are 6400 members, almost 20% of the GWS membership

2. To be honest, I really cannot see Hawthorn and Norths selling 4 home games in Canberra. There has been significant disquiet about the lucrative 4 game deals with Tasmania, and I understand that the Norths Board is looking to bring games back to Victoria (someone from Norths may have more info on this)

3. I think the best chance to increase games in Canberra is to build on the current GWS deal and persuade the AFL to have Norths, Saints and hawthorn play a “home” game in Canberra against the GWS.

4. I do agree with you that Team 20 will be between WA3 and Canberra. I really think we are behind this race as we need Manuka upgraded, need to increase the current 3 games a year schedule and most importantly need our ACT government to lobby hard for this

 

[dlanod]

I'd love for BISP to get a game. GWS territory stretches so far an it'd be great to have a game there, but it'd definitely require an upgrade.
Is the train line that goes past easily accessible? Building a closer station on that line could put the stadium only 200m away.

BISP is really poor for AFL level games for many reasons. Ultimately there's no interested parties in throwing in tens of millions required to bring it up to even a marginal standard.

Accor would definitely have to be against a bigger team. I agree not playing it against the Swans. Covering up the top bowl would bring Accor down to about 50k, so getting it to about half full isn't unachievable.

Accor is a pretty poor viewing experience but the atmosphere of a full one really is electric.

Could Henson Park be upgraded to a decent level for smaller crowds? A game there would help poach the inner west market.

Not really. It's very suburban, hemmed in on every side by residential, with no dedicated parking and only bus routes.

 

[Canberra Pear]

No-one would be worried, because no-one would take us seriously.

The Swans tried LA about 20 years ago for absolutely zip return. Why anyone thinks it would work for us is Great Mysteries of the World stuff.

They dabbled, but it wasn't a real effort, was it? The Swans played one away preseason match in front of 3200 people (which was a sell-out). It was played on an oval drawn onto a university field, and I assume temporary seats and facilities.

LA (well, the OC) is looking likely get a cricket stadium for its new cricket league and possibly for the Olympics, so the game would have a greater capacity (and comfort).

The Giants proposal is an annual game, actually in the home and away season. So many of Australia's most followed celebrities (many of whom are AFL supporters) are based (or frequently) in LA. Done properly, with a campaign with Australian celebrities, an annual LA game could become the most watched game of the season.

One annual game in LA could do more for exposure and sponsorship than 5-7 AFL/AFLW/preseason matches in Canberra.

 

[Colonial]

If Canberra is slowing growth of the club in western Sydney, I can't see how playing in Los Angeles or Wagga would be an improvement.

A 1 off is a bit different to 3+1.
Especially when you see the marketing pushing the Giants as the name more and more and Canberra is also home.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Thanks for your comments and insights

1. When GWS started they became my second team, as they made a long term 10 year commitment to our city. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been a member, which was the situation when Norths sold 3 games and were our “home” team. There are 6400 members, almost 20% of the GWS membership

2. To be honest, I really cannot see Hawthorn and Norths selling 4 home games in Canberra. There has been significant disquiet about the lucrative 4 game deals with Tasmania, and I understand that the Norths Board is looking to bring games back to Victoria (someone from Norths may have more info on this)

3. I think the best chance to increase games in Canberra is to build on the current GWS deal and persuade the AFL to have Norths, Saints and hawthorn play a “home” game in Canberra against the GWS.

4. I do agree with you that Team 20 will be between WA3 and Canberra. I really think we are behind this race as we need Manuka upgraded, need to increase the current 3 games a year schedule and most importantly need our ACT government to lobby hard for this

1. Interesting. Was Melbourne your first team? I just assumed the Melbourne in your name was a previous location rather than a club. Who do you consider you first team now?

2. I hadn't heard that about North (and can't find anything about that online, any North fans in this thread?). The fact that North upped their game amount since 2019, from three to four, I'd assumed the opposite. Hawthorn clearly aren't ready to give up all of their games, they're clinging to keep one game when Tasmania joins.

3. I would love it if this could be done. But the ACT government would have to make deals with three or four separate AFL teams, which wouldn't be cheap.

4. I'd love to see the ACT government make a more concerted effort, but as well catering to the rugby teams, Canberrans also want an NBL team, and A-League team, and a BBL team. I think any movement is going to have to come from AFL Canberra, or something similar. Like the AFL for Canberra Committee. And they'd have to take the lead, but be in synch with the ACT government.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Accor is a pretty poor viewing experience but the atmosphere of a full one really is electric.

I was at the 2016 Qualifying Final against the Swans at ANZ. I absolutely loved it, but get that it would be soulless with a smaller crowd.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

1. Interesting. Was Melbourne your first team? I just assumed the Melbourne in your name was a previous location rather than a club. Who do you consider you first team now?

2. I hadn't heard that about North (and can't find anything about that online, any North fans in this thread?). The fact that North upped their game amount since 2019, from three to four, I'd assumed the opposite. Hawthorn clearly aren't ready to give up all of their games, they're clinging to keep one game when Tasmania joins.

3. I would love it if this could be done. But the ACT government would have to make deals with three or four separate AFL teams, which wouldn't be cheap.

4. I'd love to see the ACT government make a more concerted effort, but as well catering to the rugby teams, Canberrans also want an NBL team, and A-League team, and a BBL team. I think any movement is going to have to come from AFL Canberra, or something similar. Like the AFL for Canberra Committee. And they'd have to take the lead, but be in synch with the ACT government.

1. Yes Melbourne was my AFL team and I only became a GWS foundation member due to their commitment to a long term relationship with Canberra. At the moment, although I have memberships of both clubs, I think GWS is my team as I have watched the club grow up from inception, play in the NEAFL and watched them live in Manuka.

2. The chatter is that the Norths President, Sonja Hood, wants to bring games back to Victoria as soon as it’s financially viable. Her Board believes the future of Norths is in Arden Street, and the hiring of Alistair Clarkson is part of their vision to make Norths strong and independently viable on and off field. At the most I think you will get a couple of games sold away from Marvel, when they eventually walk away from Hobart - and even then they probably will be looking at regional Victoria to maximise value for their members, before Canberra. Hawthorn’s selling of games was to a large extent driven by Kennet and with him gone, who knows what they will do? They will eventually have to leave Launceston (except maybe selling a game against the Tasmanian team there?), but they are big enough not to need to sell games to Canberra and play in MCG. Even St Kilda who are in financial straits, are not selling their one game in cairns and are playing that game in Marvel! GWS is the only AFL team that can sell 3 game’s regularly to us, with the full support of our Board!

3. Yes, true. Would only work if the AFL steps in and provided inducements to 3-4 Victorian clubs to play a game in Canberra. I think that is more likely than us convincing a Victorian club to play 3 games in Canberra- especially since we have a 21 year relationship with GWS

4. I appreciate your viewpoint on the constraints on the ACT government, but think that without the strong financial support and lobbying by our territory government, we will not get Team 20 after Tasmania enters

 

[MelbourneGWS]

I was at the 2016 Qualifying Final against the Swans at ANZ. I absolutely loved it, but get that it would be soulless with a smaller crowd.

Maybe we play our regular home derby in Accor, as the crowd will be more than the capacity at Giants Stadium, but I do understand the negative reaction to this after this year’s derby - the club backed down and committed to 8 games in Giants Stadium and 3 in Manuka.

 

[dlanod]

(except maybe selling a game against the Tasmanian team there?)

Clubs can only sell games to neutral venues, they can't sell games to opposing home locations.

 

[Land of the Giants]

A 1 off is a bit different to 3+1.
Especially when you see the marketing pushing the Giants as the name more and more and Canberra is also home.

I think we can safely rule out playing a H & A game in LA purely on logistical grounds.

There would be disruptive recovery times from jet lag for ourselves and whoever we were
playing. Major surgery would be needed to the draw.

It's not going to happen.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Clubs can only sell games to neutral venues, they can't sell games to opposing home locations.

Thanks for the clarification. Does that mean Victorian teams cannot sell a game in Canberra where GWS is the “away” team?

 

[Colonial]

I think we can safely rule out playing a H & A game in LA purely on logistical grounds.

There would be disruptive recovery times from jet lag for ourselves and whoever we were
playing. Major surgery would be needed to the draw.

It's not going to happen.

Never said it was, the club was the one pushing it.
Just pointing out other options.