Expansion Canberra

[Giant YoYo]

They also added the ‘Greater’ once Canberra was added. Two mistakes right there.

The GWS acronym is terrible and it's not often you see a small, growing organisation want to relegate itself to a 3 letter acronym.

The only ones that do it are the IMF, IBM, NIB etc which are large (especially the first two) well known organisations.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Labor won the ACT election over night (again).

I think it was probably the best result for an AFL team.

I didn't read of the LNP even mentioning Manuka. Labor made pushing for a BBL team an election promise, which is tied to upgrading Manuka. Personally, I think the stadium is the biggest hurdle for a team, so this was probably the best result for Manuka, and subsequently, an AFL team of our own.

 

[errant bounce]

The GWS acronym is rubbish and it's not often you see a small, growing organisation want to relegate itself to a 3 letter acronym.

The only ones that do it are the IMF, IBM, NIB etc which are large (especially the first two) well known organisations.

So many shitty local organisations and small companies do this and it's the worst branding. it's just a load of initials to any old random person and then they wonder why the income isn't increasing.

 

[speedpeck23]

They also added the ‘Greater’ once Canberra was added. Two mistakes right there.

They should just bite the bullet and replace "Greater" with "Canberra"

and rename the club Canberra Western Sydney.

It'll be the AFL's version of St George Illawarra except bigger.

 

[Canberra Pear]

They should just bite the bullet and replace "Greater" with "Canberra"

and rename the club Canberra Western Sydney.

It'll be the AFL's version of St George Illawarra except bigger.

That just disenfranchises both markets.

 

[parano1a]

rename the club Canberra Western Sydney

It would be better to just call the club "Giants" or "NSW/ACT Giants"

 

[Canberra Pear]

It would be better to just call the club "Giants" or "NSW/ACT Giants"

No point incorporating the ACT in the name.

With any luck, the Giants will be out of Canberra soon enough.

Don't hate the concept of the NSW Giants though. Aiming to be the team for everybody in NSW not is eastern Sydney.

 

[speedpeck23]

That just disenfranchises both markets.

Seems like that's what you want. Kick the Giants out of Canberra

No point incorporating the ACT in the name.

With any luck, the Giants will be out of Canberra soon enough.

Don't hate the concept of the NSW Giants though. Aiming to be the team for everybody in NSW not is eastern Sydney.

...and change the name to NSW.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Seems like that's what you want. Kick the Giants out of Canberra

I don't want both markets disenfranchised. I want what's best for both. Which is a full-time team each.

A full-time Giants in Sydney so they don't have to go a month without home games; build momentum, and without constant jabs or rumours about relocating to Canberra.

And a full-time Canberra team. Supply is clearly not meeting demand currently. Plus AFL is not reaching its potential in Canberra with only three games and an interstate team. Even if the Giants are "Canberra's team", they're still not Canberran in the same way the Raiders or Brumbies are, and AFL suffers for that.

Canberra coming in as the 20th team is best for both fanbases.

 

[speedpeck23]

I don't want both markets disenfranchised. I want what's best for both. Which is a full-time team each.

A full-time Giants in Sydney so they don't have to go a month without home games; build momentum, and without constant jabs or rumours about relocating to Canberra.

And a full-time Canberra team. Supply is clearly not meeting demand currently. Plus AFL is not reaching its potential in Canberra with only three games and an interstate team. Even if the Giants are "Canberra's team", they're still not Canberran in the same way the Raiders or Brumbies are, and AFL suffers for that.

Canberra coming in as the 20th team is best for both fanbases.

You seem pretty passionate . You should buy a Giants membership , help grow the club, have a say in club policy and see what happens.

 

[Canberra Pear]

You seem pretty passionate . You should buy a Giants membership , help grow the club, have a say in club policy and see what happens.

I am a Giants member. Have been buying two Giants memberships most years since 2016.

 

[speedpeck23]

I am a Giants member. Have been buying two Giants memberships most years since 2016.

Good to hear. I hope you stick with them. They need you.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Good to hear. I hope you stick with them. They need you.

I will.

I'll keep buying three-game memberships until a 20th team is announced.

If Canberra gets the 20th team, I'll probably keep buying a Giants interstate membership to help them out.

But if Canberra misses out on the 20th team, I'll drop my Giants membership. If we lose out to anybody but the NT, I'll squarely blame the Giants partnership, and I couldn't keep supporting them after that.

 

[speedpeck23]

I will.

I'll keep buying three-game memberships until a 20th team is announced.

If Canberra gets the 20th team, I'll probably keep buying a Giants interstate membership to help them out.

But if Canberra misses out on the 20th team, I'll drop my Giants membership. If we lose out to anybody but the NT, I'll squarely blame the Giants partnership, and I couldn't keep supporting them after that.

Fair enough. So second choice for 20th team behind Canberra is NT ?

 

[Canberra Pear]

Fair enough. So second choice for 20th team behind Canberra is NT ?

My logic is more what has to be done for the NT to get a team.

I don't think the NT is feasible. It would never stand on its own two feet.

For them to get a team, they have to have done a ridiculous amount of lobbying. They need a brand new climate-controlled stadium, plus tens of millions of dollars of government funding, annually, locked in for an incredibly long time.

I don't think the NT is feasible, but if they manage to clear those hurdles, I can't begrudge them getting a team ahead of Canberra.

 

[Bjo187]

My logic is more what has to be done for the NT to get a team.

I don't think the NT is feasible. It would never stand on its own two feet.

For them to get a team, they have to have done a ridiculous amount of lobbying. They need a brand new climate-controlled stadium, plus tens of millions of dollars of government funding, annually, locked in for an incredibly long time.

I don't think the NT is feasible, but if they manage to clear those hurdles, I can't begrudge them getting a team ahead of Canberra.

It's interesting if I were a Canberran, I'd be most upset if we were trumped by a really poor option like the n.t more than any other. At least with Perth you can see reasons as to why they chose it due to the growth potential.

 

[Canberra Pear]

It's interesting if I were a Canberran, I'd be most upset if we were trumped by a really poor option like the n.t more than any other. At least with Perth you can see reasons as to why they chose it due to the growth potential.

I think it's because I see Canberra and Perth in the same ballpark.

If Canberra wasn't in the running, WA3 would be the obvious choice, but to me, Canberra is better in most aspects. So if Canberra lost out to Perth, I would blame the Giants partnership holding us back.

If the NT got it, it's a completely different situation. I think it's incredibly unlikely. But if they swing some massive federal government deal, that's probably not something Canberra could compete with, even if we dropped the Giants.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think it's because I see Canberra and Perth in the same ballpark.

That's just the way that you see it though. One third of the football fans in Perth is still more than the number of football fans in Canberra by a significant margin, and the absolute rate of growth in Perth is still bigger than the absolute rate of growth in Canberra.

I would blame the Giants partnership holding us back.

I've said this before but I find it an incredibly strange characterisation as before the Giants having an AFL team in Canberra was far beyond a pipe dream that to think that in the absence of the current Giants setup that Canberra would be in a position to hold an AFL team.

Crowds of fewer than 10,000 going to a single or two games a year. Nobody turning up to games that didn't have Sydney involved. How has the Giants prevented a Canberra team as opposed to actually inspire more people to be AFL fans in the state (of any team), thus making a Canberra team possible at all?

There wasn't demand for non-GWS football when crowds of sub-10k went to North vs Geelong and West Coast games.

There were still combined crowds of less than 25,000 across just two games a year when both of them had Sydney playing in 2007-8.

Giants weren't holding back, the fundamental lack of AFL supporters in the city as proven by the 2005-2010 crowds in Canberra held back a team. I can equally argue that the Giants has allowed for a perception of greater AFL fans.

 

[Canberra Pear]

That's just the way that you see it though. One third of the football fans in Perth is still more than the number of football fans in Canberra by a significant margin, and the absolute rate of growth in Perth is still bigger than the absolute rate of growth in Canberra.

But WA3 isn't going to attract a third of Perth fans.

WA3 won't be anywhere near as big as West Coast or Freo.

So when it comes to what's left, WA3 won't have much more than Canberra's fanbase.

Then throw in ACT Govt funding, no WAFC royalty, cheaper stadium, wealthier population, then I feel pretty comfortable saying Canberra and WA3 are pretty similarly financially viable.

I've said this before but I find it an incredibly strange characterisation as before the Giants having an AFL team in Canberra was far beyond a pipe dream that to think that in the absence of the current Giants setup that Canberra would be in a position to hold an AFL team.

None of the historical bits you've cherry picked are relevant.

I'm not saying the Giants were holding us back.

But if WA3 gets in before us, I'm saying the Giants will be holding us back.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't think funding for an NT team is going to happen now the way our country and the world is going and just the general angry, struggling, left behind vibe of it all.

There'd be too much "what about hospitals, housing" etc rhetoric. And fair enough.

The funding for the PNG rugby league team was unpopular, if that's even still happening.

It'll surely come down to Canberra or WA3.

 

[Badger17]

That's just the way that you see it though. One third of the football fans in Perth is still more than the number of football fans in Canberra by a significant margin, and the absolute rate of growth in Perth is still bigger than the absolute rate of growth in Canberra.

I've said this before but I find it an incredibly strange characterisation as before the Giants having an AFL team in Canberra was far beyond a pipe dream that to think that in the absence of the current Giants setup that Canberra would be in a position to hold an AFL team.

Crowds of fewer than 10,000 going to a single or two games a year. Nobody turning up to games that didn't have Sydney involved. How has the Giants prevented a Canberra team as opposed to actually inspire more people to be AFL fans in the state (of any team), thus making a Canberra team possible at all?

There wasn't demand for non-GWS football when crowds of sub-10k went to North vs Geelong and West Coast games.

There were still combined crowds of less than 25,000 across just two games a year when both of them had Sydney playing in 2007-8.

Giants weren't holding back, the fundamental lack of AFL supporters in the city as proven by the 2005-2010 crowds in Canberra held back a team. I can equally argue that the Giants has allowed for a perception of greater AFL fans.

That's quite the slanted history you've got there.

The AFL's numbers in Canberra prior to about 2015 were a product of multiple factors, neglect being foremost amongst them. Whether you realise it or not, you're numbers also highlight a very specific period in Canberra's history when AFL was at it's most culturally irrelevant in the city, the 90s and 00s.

We were basically an afterthought for the AFL for 100 years until they saw an opportunity to use us as a source of income for other struggling teams. However the idea that the Giants specifically are/were necessary for the AFL's growth in Canberra is complete nonsense, any team, or even just semiregular one off events and a decent budget for grassroots and marketing could have pushed growth in Canberra similar to how the Giants have.

Even without the Giants Aussie Rules would have continued to plod along in Canberra, and a Canberra team in 2012 would have had a higher average attendance in it's first season than GWS has in Sydney now and would have grown more after 12 years than the Giants have. Not that I'm having a crack at the Giants for that. Canberra would have been starting from a larger base, and Western Sydney is a harder nut to crack.

It's also ridiculous to suggest that GWS's continued presence in Canberra won't be a major factor in whether Canberra gets it's own team any time soon or not. The support and $$$ the ACT provides GWS will definitely come into the AFL's considerations if/when it comes to an ACT side, and at that point GWS will almost certainly be holding Canberra back if we miss out on our own side.

 

[Walshawk]

That's quite the slanted history you've got there.

The AFL's numbers in Canberra prior to about 2015 were a product of multiple factors, neglect being foremost amongst them. Whether you realise it or not, you're numbers also highlight a very specific period in Canberra's history when AFL was at it's most culturally irrelevant in the city, the 90s and 00s.

We were basically an afterthought for the AFL for 100 years until they saw an opportunity to use us as a source of income for other struggling teams. However the idea that the Giants specifically are/were necessary for the AFL's growth in Canberra is complete nonsense, any team, or even just semiregular one off events and a decent budget for grassroots and marketing could have pushed growth in Canberra similar to how the Giants have.

Even without the Giants Aussie Rules would have continued to plod along in Canberra, and a Canberra team in 2012 would have had a higher average attendance in it's first season than GWS has in Sydney now and would have grown more after 12 years than the Giants have. Not that I'm having a crack at the Giants for that. Canberra would have been starting from a larger base, and Western Sydney is a harder nut to crack.

It's also ridiculous to suggest that GWS's continued presence in Canberra won't be a major factor in whether Canberra gets its own team any time soon or not. The support and $$$ the ACT provides GWS will definitely come into the AFL's considerations if/when it comes to an ACT side, and at that point GWS will almost certainly be holding Canberra back if we miss out on our own side.

GWS and the AFL is the same thing. It the AFL want a team in Canberra, the GWS deal won’t make any difference. It will be absorbed into and new deal for the new team.

 

[Giant YoYo]

GWS and the AFL is the same thing. It the AFL want a team in Canberra, the GWS deal won’t make any difference. It will be absorbed into and new deal for the new team.

Exactly.

Footy in Canberra is barely on life support with this deal. Yet we have footy fans saying how great it is.

There's nothing great about it and Canberra needs it's own team.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Exactly.

Footy in Canberra is barely on life support with this deal. Yet we have footy fans saying how great it is.

There's nothing great about it and Canberra needs it's own team.

I do not understand how 3 consistent games a year with a consistent team that has only seen crowds grow is a worse situation for the people of Canberra than the reality of literally just 1 game a year before GWS existed. What are you on about?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The AFL's numbers in Canberra prior to about 2015 were a product of multiple factors, neglect being foremost amongst them. Whether you realise it or not, you're numbers also highlight a very specific period in Canberra's history when AFL was at it's most culturally irrelevant in the city, the 90s and 00s.

Why would it be less culturally relevant in the past than now? When Canberra was built as a city, it was originally an Aussie Rules one as government departments and parliamentary function slowly got moved from Melbourne by the late 70s/early 80s. That tap stopped then, the immigration to Canberra since is more likely to be from Sydney/regional NSW with the Raiders there. A Canberran person in 2015 is far more likely to be culturally removed and not a descendant of a person who moved from Melbourne to Canberra in the 1950's, when compared to 1995.

It's only the actual large increase in population growth that sees AFL gave an interest but there's no argument that the population is more interested in AFL now than they were in 2000 or whatever.

We were basically an afterthought for the AFL for 100 years until they saw an opportunity to use us as a source of income for other struggling teams.

Because you were never a big enough city.

It wasn't until 1960 that Canberra's population hit 50,000 people. Broken Hill was a stronger regional NSW Aussie Rules town and would consistently defeat Canberra in representative games. Was Broken Hill neglected by the AFL?

Also, one person's "source of income" is another person's "they're bringing high-level football to my city when they didn't have to".

However the idea that the Giants specifically are/were necessary for the AFL's growth in Canberra is complete nonsense,

In the sense of proving that 40,000 people could show up to three games in Canberra, they were.

Because without GWS non-Sydney crowds were declining through the 2000's. This led to by 2009 only a single game involving Sydney being played.

or even just semiregular one off events and a decent budget for grassroots and marketing could have pushed growth in Canberra similar to how the Giants have.

Sure, but the AFL weren't flush with cash until the 2007 TV deal that precipitated the introduction of GWS and GC. The 2002 deal allowed for payments to clubs to ensure they wouldn't fold. Before that AFL was living a hand to mouth existence more or less. Why would the AFL "push growth" in Canberra before 2007 with what money?

Even without the Giants Aussie Rules would have continued to plod along in Canberra,

Yes. That's the issue. It would have just plodded with sub-10k, even sub-8k
crowds for any game not involving Sydney, the most supported team in Canberra.

Even without the Giants Aussie Rules would have continued to plod along in Canberra, and a Canberra team in 2012 would have had a higher average attendance in it's first season than GWS has in Sydney now and would have grown more after 12 years than the Giants have. Not that I'm having a crack at the Giants for that. Canberra would have been starting from a larger base, and Western Sydney is a harder nut to crack.

Yes but the nut of western Sydney is bigger hence why that's the logic.

I doubt crowds would have been bigger anyway. 11 home games a year is a lot, or even 8 or 9 if Canberra took games to Albury or whatever. Not every game in Canberra has sold out in recent years. Suggesting games 4 through 8 would have similar interest to games 1 through 3 is very doubtful. It's the same logic as to why every other small market team does not play 11 home games because the 11th home game for a team has next to no demand from fans of a team that small.

The support and $$$ the ACT provides GWS will definitely come into the AFL's considerations if/when it comes to an ACT side, and at that point GWS will almost certainly be holding Canberra back if we miss out on our own side.

Yes but ACT government support is largely based upon the fact that people are externally entering into the territory, with both actual GWS fans from Sydney (there's a few hundred) making the treck and tourists coming in. The ACT government isn't going to want to pay for home games against the 4 western teams or GC, places where there are far fewer direct flights and it being harder to drive to Canberra, because the amount of away Fremantle fans in a Canberra game will basically be nil. At least even when the Dogs travel, maybe 1500-2000 Dogs fans make the trip

And FWIW I'm not saying there shouldn't be a Canberra team currently. It's a growing city obviously and maintains roughly half AFL support as it did in the 90's. Just dumb arguments about GWS and what demand may be or where money might come from frustrates me. Make the argument because there's going to be 300,000 engages AFL fans who will almost all change support to Canberra by 2032. Don't make the argument for other silly reasons such as blaming GWS or whatever.