Expansion 3rd Western Australian club
- Thread starter SgtSchulz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Sounds like an argument for North to move west then!
It would both be a completely shit move, and possibly better than WA3.
Which should tell you something.
On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app
It was the perfect place for the W.C.E. but they chose Lathlain.
Stirling would be ideal for Subiaco but that's about all.
You might be using hyperbole but it's close to actuality.
I've never heard any inclination for Pth3.
There is a monopoly over the market. That's the point. Adding a third team doesn't change that.
And Eagles supporters don't think a third team is a bad idea because it challenges that duopoly, they don't think its a good idea because that duopoly makes a third team unviable.
My_Username
Club Legend
- Jun 23, 2022
- 1,759
- 1,571
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
The solution is easy.
Split WCE in two.
I'm sure all the enlightened WA fans who have been calling for Vic clubs to be kicked out 'for the good of the game' will understand that this is for the best.
More games in WA, less travel, better use of Optus, better attendance (no more membership wait lists) more support for the WAFL.
It's a clear win for football in WA.
Yeah it’s definitely a risk putting a third club in Perth due to the Eagles popularity.
I’m not convinced north of the river or the eastern suburbs would be a strong enough identity to peel off.
The only area I can think of that could establish a strong identity is the south west, but there’s two problems:
1. South West is too small.
2. Freo is too small and would get more impacted by a south west team for support.
I still believe if there’s ever more than 20 teams, a 2nd in Brisbane and SW WA make the most sense in 30 years time the way the game is going.
I’m not convinced north of the river or the eastern suburbs would be a strong enough identity to peel off.
The only area I can think of that could establish a strong identity is the south west, but there’s two problems:
1. South West is too small.
2. Freo is too small and would get more impacted by a south west team for support.
I still believe if there’s ever more than 20 teams, a 2nd in Brisbane and SW WA make the most sense in 30 years time the way the game is going.
"As of 2023, the population of the South West region of Western Australia is estimated to be 374,388, with a population density of 9.71 people per square kilometer. The South West is the most populated country region in Western Australia, making up about 7% of the state's total population."
The Educator
All Australian
- Jan 23, 2023
- 875
- 864
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
7% of WA's population would be less than 200,000.
Wiki says there are 170K people in the SW region. You could throw in Peel and Great Southern region and you get 360K.....but then these three regions combined have a larger geographic area than Tasmania!
Wiki is written by anyone.
Western Australian Parliamentary Library https://profile.id.com.au/wapl/about?WebID=740
The Estimated Resident Population (ERP) is the Australian Bureau of Statistics' official 2023 population figure.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Counting the population of both Mandurah and Albany for the purposes of having a population base to support a team is so self-evidently silly it's strange that you're insisting on it.
Albany's 40,000 population cannot be considered part of this. It's a four hour drive to Bunbury. As people have pointed out, it's a two and a half hour drive Launceston to Hobart. Wagga to Canberra is a three hour drive.
From an earlier post.
As of 2023, the estimated population of the South West region of Western Australia is 374,388,
So the catchment area might extend from Harvey, Geographe Bay, Margaret River, Bridgetown to Collie.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
The population of all of the local government areas you listed in this picture in 2023 (estimated) was only 197,587.
I calculated this by adding together all 12 of the populations for the local government areas from the picture I have just quoted from ABS e.g. https://dbr.abs.gov.au/region.html?lyr=lga&rgn=50770
To get to 300,000, you have to include areas such as Mandurah and Albany.
This is the same estimated resident population that you insisted be used but clearly are incapable of using
Yet you're the one accusing others of not understanding the data that they're dealing with.
Mandurah is NOT in the SW.
The ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics says the population of the S.W. is 370,000 people.
Who am i to argue with the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
You say that there is 200,000 in the catchment area that I defined well that sounds about right.
If you take the 370,000 and subtract Albany, Denmark, Walpole. Augusta and a huge tract of land to the Indian ocean
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
I literally provided the link and you're still insisting that this is wrong?
You're clearly not aware of what ABS data is.
The ABS does not define a "S.W" WA region.
It has SA4s (statistical area 4's) as standard: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/s...ty-statistical-areas/statistical-area-level-4
It has named what we would all generally consider to be the SW's region's SA4 as Bunbury:
Data by region | Australian Bureau of Statistics
dbr.abs.gov.au
You can click on the link. You can look at the ABS's mapping of the region and its estimated resident population.
This goes as far SE as Walope and as North as Preston Beach (so not Mandurah), and has estimated the resident population as 202,044, in the link above, which is not 370,000
WTF are you on about insisting on a 370,000 population that doesn't include Mandurah and Albany as being correct in the ABS when we can clearly click on the SA4 region by the ABS that clearly states a population that is almost half of the 370,000 you are insisting on? The very source you're insisting is right?
To get to 370,000 people you need to count a different SA4 (the Mandurah one), which has 118,338 people.
https://dbr.abs.gov.au/region.html?lyr=sa4&rgn=502 and the Albany SA3 (which is one of the three SA3s that form the Wheatbelt SA4) which has a population of 65,218 https://dbr.abs.gov.au/region.html?lyr=sa3&rgn=50901
Maybe someone from the ABS has once added together these two SA4s and the one SA3 to get to a 370,000 figure but it's pointless to insist on using it because we can break down the maths that got to that number and it's an incredibly silly argument, speaks to the pointlessness of using population centers that are no way related to each other. Mandurah and Albany are not related to each other in any way that counting then both as a population catchment (either for the purposes of an AFL team, or not), is so silly, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve here.
You yourself said that Mandurah is not part of the SW, but you cannot get to 370,000 any other way except for including it.
This is the map that shows what is considered to be the ‘South West region’ as per you link that provides your numbers.
It represents one of the six regions that WA was split into for electing members of the upper house of state parliament.
There were three regional regions (averaging 200,000 people each) and three metro regions (averaging 700,000 people each). Each region elected the same number of members to parliament.
It lead to bias against the metropolitan population, meaning the upper house was generally dominated by liberal and National politicians.
These regions have now been abolished by the current labor government, and the upper house is now divided up based of the voting percentage for the entire state, and not these former regions.
Last edited:
Similar threads
