Expansion prospects in the the future NRL vs afl

[elbusto]

My point was you were commenting on things you clearly had no idea about.

I don't necesarily agree that adding another team to Perth is the way to go. I would much prefer they build a bigger stadium that allows fans that can't currently get tickets to watch football.

But you are right on one point. This comment about expansion was made to placate Tasmanians. Once he said he may add Tassie, he needed another side to avoid byes.

and my point to you is I got an AFL Teams name wrong - what else did I say that deserved your response?

 

[Digga Hole]

I'd say Rugby Union is also ironically an ally of ours, at least in the AFL states.

Remember, Melbourne Victory and Super Rugby along with Melbourne Storm were the bait for Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. No Victory ment no stadium.

Result? 31,500 stadium that will be used for half of Victory games (rest at Etihad), a super rugby team (that isn't even guarenteed yet) playing a handful of games there, and the odd Union and Soccer international, some of which will be at Etihad since MRS can't be upgraded!

Melbourne Storm will be the primary tenants there hands down.

The same is VERY possible in Perth; Force, Glory, Socceroos paving the way for a Rugby League primary tenant. Meanwhile, Subiaco crumbles into dust. GREAT!

The point on Melbourne is well made, even though with the inclusion of a second soccer team in Melbourne I don't think anyone can claim to be primary tenants.

The issue with Perth is a little harder.

Would rectangle sports be worse off with a hugely expensive and too large stadium that would have significant running costs making the financial viability of teams playing there with the stadium only half full nigh on impossible.

Putting the hate aside, having two AFL clubs (plus cricket) selling out a new stadium each week to help pay for it may mean that the World Cup organisers may be more willing to have a stadium that suits AFL post World Cup than one that only suits rectangle pitch sports.

 

[elbusto]

The point on Melbourne is well made, even though with the inclusion of a second soccer team in Melbourne I don't think anyone can claim to be primary tenants.

The issue with Perth is a little harder.

Would rectangle sports be worse off with a hugely expensive and too large stadium that would have significant running costs making the financial viability of teams playing there with the stadium only half full nigh on impossible.

Putting the hate aside, having two AFL clubs (plus cricket) selling out a new stadium each week to help pay for it may mean that the World Cup organisers may be more willing to have a stadium that suits AFL post World Cup than one that only suits rectangle pitch sports.

That is my concern. If they build a super stadium for all codes an oval version is likely.

 

[Digga Hole]

and my point to you is I got an AFL Teams name wrong - what else did I say that deserved your response?

The population of Perth is over 1.5 million and projected to reach closer to 2.5 million in 15 years (which would be a reasonable time frame for a third side).

Using 1 million showed either a lack of research/knowledge or simply trying to make up facts to suit you argument.



http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0

 

[elbusto]

The population of Perth is over 1.5 million and projected to reach closer to 2.5 million in 15 years (which would be a reasonable time frame for a third side).

Using 1 million showed either a lack of research/knowledge or simply trying to make up facts to suit you argument.



http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0

No it was just an estimate and my point is that three AFL sides will be a difficult fit. One is already struggling.

NRL needs to get in their fast in my view.

That I hope we can agree on.

 

[Digga Hole]

No it was just an estimate and my point is that three AFL sides will be a difficult fit. One is already struggling.

NRL needs to get in their fast in my view.

That I hope we can agree on.

I agree that the NRL moving into Perth quickly would be a good decision.

Despite being terrible on-field for almost their entire existence, the Dockers are actually quite profitable and very solid off-field.
You may be thinking of Port Adelaide, and hence the lack of urgency in the NRL moving there.

 

[elbusto]

I agree that the NRL moving into Perth quickly would be a good decision.

Despite being terrible on-field for almost their entire existence, the Dockers are actually quite profitable and very solid off-field.
You may be thinking of Port Adelaide, and hence the lack of urgency in the NRL moving there.

I think SA is a waste of time for the foreseeable future.

Perth isn't and I think Demetriou knows it which is why he has made a statement like this without consulting the WA Clubs.

It smells of a knee jerk reaction to the sniff of NRL expansion. I like it.

 

[Digga Hole]

I think SA is a waste of time for the foreseeable future.

Perth isn't and I think Demetriou knows it which is why he has made a statement like this without consulting the WA Clubs.

It smells of a knee jerk reaction to the sniff of NRL expansion. I like it.

I hate Demetriou and pretty much everything he does. But thinking that every move he makes is aimed purely at the NRL is taking things too far. He wants his legacy to be that he expanded the AFL, if he needs to take on the NRL then he needs to, but it is not the primary objective.

On Perth, the NRL needs to do it IMO. A significant and growing population, a sports orientated city, thanks to mining a growing corporate centre, and like NZ it provides flexibility in scheduleing. Perth can provide a 4-5 pm or a 9pm live TV time slot on the eastern seaboard without the negative impact on crowds.

 

[morley101]

THe AFL are almost guaranteed to have TV rights deal reduced at the time of their next contract renewal. They were paid over the odds for this current contract, at the time when Packer made channel 7 pay more than what they were commercially worth. Channel 7 had to flog off some the rights to Channel 10 and Fox to waterdown the costs. The ratings in Sydney this year dropped 20% . There is also rumblings from both Channel 7 and 10 that want to drop their live coverage into Sydney and Brisbane of non Swans and Lions matches because of poor ratings. The AFL can not let this happen and will have to negotiate a lower price for the live coverage to continue.
The advent of the the 2 new teams by the time of the new contract and the the contract being smaller each team will have a smaller piece of a smaller pie. I'm waiting for the current teams to whinge very loudly.
The money to cover the losses for these 2 new teams will impact greatly on the entire AFL.
I believe the new Sydney West AFL team will merge into the Sydney Swans within 5 years of them starting. The Swans themselves will be needing aid from the AFL within 5 years if the current trends continue.

 

[Goddo]

Would rectangle sports be worse off with a hugely expensive and too large stadium that would have significant running costs making the financial viability of teams playing there with the stadium only half full nigh on impossible.

It depends on how big they want to go in Perth. If Perth is to be a 60k plus semi final venue, then convertable to Oval is the way to go. If its just round of 8, then 45-50k reducable to say 30-40k, a rectangular is the way to go.

If its a big rectangular stadium, it would end up paying clubs to play there to generate advertising money, (its primary source of income) a bit like ANZ in Sydney or Bluetongue in Gosford now. Crowds won't really come into it.

If it is purpose built for football codes, it won't be a problem (think MRS, a small version of Suncorp or the new Durban Stadium for 2010). Its only if its a cavernous multi sport stadium like ANZ that its becomes an issue for crowds at club matches.

Remember, for FIFA, they want to leave a legacy to their sport. They have some requirements of hosts to help grow the game, and their stadium rules are very specific. If a stadium is not good enough, it is a no go. No negotiating. You get 1 historic venue (in our bid the MCG) that can go outside the limits, and the rest have to comply.

Putting the hate aside, having two AFL clubs (plus cricket) selling out a new stadium each week to help pay for it may mean that the World Cup organisers may be more willing to have a stadium that suits AFL post World Cup than one that only suits rectangle pitch sports.

Why Cricket and AFL don't get on (stadium wise) in WA or SA absolutely baffles me. It is holding them both back.

As far as the world cup goes, the only options with Perth are;

1)
+60,000 semi-final host venue, multipurpose stadium like ANZ, primarily for AFL/cricket but convertable for big international union and soccer matches, plus an upgrade of ME Stadium to +30,000 (size determined primarily by the Force as they would be the biggest club there);

This was pretty much the previous WA Governments plan. The current gov scrapped the plan. They want to use Subiaco oval, but FFA and the Federal Gov have said no. So its build the previous gov's plan or...

2)
45-55,000 for round of 8, purpose build football stadium, reducable to 30-40k, and a major redevelopment of Subiaco Oval.

3)
Perth, Australia's 4th largest city, is not part of the bid. Australia doesn't host the world cup.

Regardless, the Force, Glory and Reds will need somewhere decent to play, as will the fagballers. If WA wants to draw big international events other than cricket, they have to think beyond the myopic AFL outlook they currently have.

 

[Perth Red]

I plead guilty to not knowing the name of an AFL side in Perth! OK its the Dockers.

TBH I am pretty pleased with myself for forgetting who they were.

My point is that crowding three AFL Teams in Perth is not good business or sporting sense is very much a reactive position by Vlad to potential NRL expansion there.

TBF the Dockers, whilst poor on the field, are doing well of it. making a$million+ profit and crowds over 30,000. You might be right re trying to keep NRL out though, the Dockers were introduced to stifle the Reds chances in 1995. Sadly with Gallop in charge the AFL in WA has nothing to fear!

I think most sensible people agree that Perth, CC, an other Q'land team and Wellington are probably the key markets for the next 20-30 years with teams "adopting" Darwin and Adelaide. Wether that comes about from relocation or expansion seems to be where most disagreement lies.

 

[Digga Hole]

Goddo, i think that is a very good explanation of the situation in Perth.

The comment about FIFA wanting to leave a legacy for their sport is a very important one.

I guess I just struggle with the concept of financing and building a stadium and then pulling half of it down. Especially considering the issues with Subiaco, two birds, one stone and all that..

 

[Perth Red]

Perth would benefit enormously from having a 40,000 rectangular stadium. When we get an NRL team that will be 3 teams that would use it. All 3 are more than capable of drawing 20,000+ now and as Perth continues to boom over the next two decades that will only grow. It would also mean more Int soccer and RU games and who knows, one day RL might deem us worthy of a test match!

AFL ground of 65,000 with extending stands would suck big time for non AFL fans.

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

the Dockers were introduced to stifle the Reds chances in 1995

That's not really true. A second AFL team was discussed in 1990 and agreed upon in 1992 for a 1995 entry. The Dockers were formed to soke up the football public who were not interested in the Eagles, and to exploit the area with the richest Australian Football tradition in the state being Fremantle. The Perth Puma's / Reds on the other hand where really irelevent to the formation of the Dockers, if anything RL is stonger in WA now than back in 1992 when the WARL and NSWRL got serious about putting a team in Perth.

I can't see a 3rd AFL in Perth because after Fremantle there is no traditional centre of Australian Football which has the strength and pull factor to attract fans away from West Coast and Fremantle. Other old centres like Guildford are tiny and dont have the football success of Fremantle. The rest is just suburbs with no real culture or identity that could support a national sporting club. The WAFL never had a local team that polarised fans the the levels of ther SANFL's Port Adelaide nor a club with fanatical support of that size for a minor league so I can't see the likes of a WAFL club like East Perth being elevated.

I think this is good for the other codes in WA. The city will have over 2.5 million in 15/20 years. Perth will continue to only have 2 AFL teams, both of which are off field powerhouse with West Coast already the AFL's wealthiest club. Another 900000 people in the city will for the most part be from interstate and international migration. Its just creates more room for RL and RU, while not really affecting the AFL sides who are already financially strong and well supported with the current population of 1.6 million. Infact, according to the Stadium Taskforce Report complete during the last Goverenment. West Coast had ticket demand for 54 000 a game for 2 seasons in a row. This can't be satisfied with the lack of appropiete venues but does create the odd sports fan who will look at a more accessable alternative. WA doesn't have the cultural animosity between the the Cities and codes of Sydney and Melbourne, there is far more cross codes support in Perth.

Don't know if any of you have seen these pics of the WA stadium taskforce proposal which was put on hold but the Barrnet Gov due to the Financial Crisis and Blackmail from the Nationals. While AFL, Soccer, RU, RL and a large % of the sports loving public beg for new stadium, not a nother bandaid for sh*tty subi. Designed by Populous (formerly HOK Sport) who did ANZ, Suncorp, Etihad and Skilled Park in Australia. To seat 60 000 and designed for cheap and easy expansion to 70 000. Lets all hope it's not dead.

(note, the distance between the sidlines and the fence will be 14m, which is better than Etidad and Stade de France, while close on the ends than ANZ, it will be about the same dimensions as Croke Park and Twickenham which for some reason has a lot of side line space).

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Their 2009 average was about 54k, 1989 about 33k. Of course the move from Victoria Park to the MCG would have helped there.

As for who gives a sh*t, about 46k members, and probably at least a million other people.

:crazy:

 

[Lockyer4President!]

That's not really true. A second AFL team was discussed in 1990 and agreed upon in 1992 for a 1995 entry.

Wrong. The Reds were given the license in 1992 for a 1995 entry. The AFL just got scared and rushed into a second team, and as a result it came very close to failure.

That stadium is pretty crap considering the proposed cost. Look how far the crowd is from the footy pitch in football mode. Ridiculous... It's good they dumped it and are focussing on separate football and AFL venues.

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

^ The Reds where never a threat to Freo or the AFL, it just all happened at the same time. After consulting my range of books on the subject, the Dockers license was given in 93, yes after the Perth NSWRL licence which really was a rushed expansion and bid, not enough ground work had been put in. A bloody shame because life was hard enough for the Reds who were mediocre but rarely terrible.

The Dockers were according to West Coast the creation of a push from the Victorian clubs to further dilute the size of the Eagles, after the WCE initial list restrictions and the implementation of a full national draft didn't limit the Eagles success. In reality it was all busines where after long feasibility studies, the AFL believe their was the market for a second Perth team, WC was against their inclusion right til the Dockers debut in '95, not unlike the Brisbane Broncos now. If anything the Dockers had galvanised support for both teams by creating a local rival.

By the way I loved the Reds but loave the Dockers.

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

As for who gives a sh*t, about 46k members, and probably at least a million other people

I guess he means their estimated fan base. Which according to Roy Morgan is anywhere between 700 000 to 900 000. No more larger than Essendon or West Coast. But as we all know passive fans are not the same thing as contributing supporters. Hell the Broncos would probably have well over a million fans.

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

double post

 

[Pj,Rj,Hj]

That stadium is pretty crap considering the proposed cost. Look how far the crowd is from the footy pitch in football mode. Ridiculous...

Yeah, the cost shocked a lot of people but it's an expensive city to build in. The stadium proper was estimated at $800 million with $300 million in extra infrastructure like road acces etc. I think the cost also has to do with Perth wanting a landmark iconic civic building in a bid to complete for event with Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne rather than just utilitarian what was needed stadium, which I think Adelaide was happy for. Obviously to do that, Perth needed something special, note in the Rugby Union pic, it's a Bledisoe Cup match which would most likley never be play in Perth. The moveable ground tier would cost $50 million. As for the shape, this venues are never perfect, more jack of all trades but still a lot better than an oval.

It's good they dumped it and are focussing on separate football and AFL venues.

The Stadium Taskforce also recomended that Perth develope Perth Oval (MES) or build a new rectangular stadium for 22000/25 000. While the multi purpose larger stadium be used for AFL and big matches of RL, RU, Soccer and cricket. So there was always a 2 stadium solution, this version just makes it easier for Perth to compete for RU and Soccer internationals and helps Australia far more in it FIFA WC bid than a pure Oval stadium where the views suck for Rectangle sports.

Note, the WACA is to have its own redevelopment soon, financed by private money which will include apartments facing the oval, it no longer can fit and AFL field (it's be shortened) and is still far too wide for RL, RU and Soccer (wider than Subi). The WACA has its own financial plan for its future which has many non sporting revenue streams and no need for public money.