9000. What a farce.

[whythelongface]

As Mantis pointed out, Western Sydney is a key strategic plank with regard to TV rights and advertising revenue. It's not just about having 9 games a week - the region is ripe with major corporations and subsequent advertising revenue opportunities, and as we all know filthy lucre is the only God that City Hall bows to.

All well and good, but if you have a product that the demographic you are targeting aren't buying you surely need to scrap it. How long can the AFL support a product that is not generating any profit from their return? Will corporate giants continue to support a club that provides them with little exposure when an average of 11,000 people see their advertising once a fortnight. Will other clubs continue to support the AFL in trying to prop up both the GWS and the Gold Coast? Unless supporter numbers rise significantly in the short term I just can't see how they will continue to exist.

[Twodogs]

I would say that the experience that I have is completely different. I work in Parramatta in the heartland of Rugby League and the game itself is still strong - there of course are issues with the NRL board and individual club boards (Parramatta) in particular but the area is still RL heartland. There is little conversation around the AFL with the NRL being the main talking point.

Average crowd numbers are decent for RL for those teams in the western suburbs of Sydney - someone mentioned < 10K but in actual fact of the four teams that comprise the heartland of the western suburbs the average attendance this year is around the 15,690 (Canterbury 18,169; Parramatta 17,976; Penrith 10,914 and West Tigers 18,706) mark. Small compared to AFL but decent for RL. Only one of those teams plays at a stadium that holds > 25,000 (that being Canterbury who play at ANZ stadium). Crowd numbers are up for this year. TV numbers for NRL are decent as well.

The largest crowd that the GWS at their home base of Spotless was just under 20,000 against Sydney with the Hawthorn game attracting 13,000. You would think that playing against the reigning premiers would, particularly with the club travelling well, that they would have cracked at least 20,000.

In reality Australian Rules Football does, and always, will struggle with a foothold in this territory. I understand the objectives of the AFL in trying to garner support from this region, however I just don't believe that the public will resonate with the GWS, even if they win the flag multiple times. I understand they want to make the game truly national but feel they would be better served at looking at areas other than the Western Sydney Region.

Really good post. Hot the nail on the head.

The problem is there are far less people in Sydney into sport than there are in Melbourne.

[Sedat]

All well and good, but if you have a product that the demographic you are targeting aren't buying you surely need to scrap it. How long can the AFL support a product that is not generating any profit from their return? Will corporate giants continue to support a club that provides them with little exposure when an average of 11,000 people see their advertising once a fortnight. Will other clubs continue to support the AFL in trying to prop up both the GWS and the Gold Coast? Unless supporter numbers rise significantly in the short term I just can't see how they will continue to exist.

I'm no expert in TV rights revenue but what if the presence of a team in Western Sydney was responsible for an extra 5-10% in TV rights revenue due to the ability of the AFL to on-sell advertising space? Their level of investment into the team could then be justified under such clinical numbers-based analysis.

Doesn't make it any less authentic or contrived, but then City Hall doesn't really care about that. They know the vast majority of us in the Southern States are rusted-on for life, and they are just in it to gouge as much as they can out of the pig's trough.

[whythelongface]

I'm no expert in TV rights revenue but what if the presence of a team in Western Sydney was responsible for an extra 5-10% in TV rights revenue due to the ability of the AFL to on-sell advertising space? Their level of investment into the team could then be justified under such clinical numbers-based analysis.

Doesn't make it any less authentic or contrived, but then City Hall doesn't really care about that. They know the vast majority of us in the Southern States are rusted-on for life, and they are just in it to gouge as much as they can out of the pig's trough.

Good point - that seems to be the case with 202,000 watching yesterday's game nationally. That is 202,000 more viewers than they wouldn't have if GWS weren't playing. It would be interesting to note the free to air numbers and how many viewers are actually from Western Sydney.

[bornadog]

I'm no expert in TV rights revenue but what if the presence of a team in Western Sydney was responsible for an extra 5-10% in TV rights revenue due to the ability of the AFL to on-sell advertising space? Their level of investment into the team could then be justified under such clinical numbers-based analysis.

Doesn't make it any less authentic or contrived, but then City Hall doesn't really care about that. They know the vast majority of us in the Southern States are rusted-on for life, and they are just in it to gouge as much as they can out of the pig's trough.

Stick them in Tassie and you get the same revenue. The only thing is AFL want a game a week broadcast in NSW and QLD with their teams.

[BulldogBelle]

My disclaimer up front: I hate the confected nature of GWS and GC, and the thought of them getting an arm chair ride to a flag makes my guts turn.

But the business decision making would go something like this...

The inclusion of 2 new teams (regardless of their location) increases the games in a season by 12.5%. If income generated overall increase by more than they invest in the new sides, then it is a decent investment. Say the league generates $400m a year across all lines of revenue (this I suspect is less than actual), then the inclusion of these two teams adds ~$50m a year to the league collectively. So long as head office is pumping less than this amount into them annually, its a fair investment.

Now, in the afl's forward planning, they would've modeled some modest gains in support, patronage, sponsorhips for the new clubs which would require lesser and lesser funding from head office, and voiala, the afl has increased their earnings over the medium term and have probably not been out of pocket in the near term. The expansion is entirely self funded.

If we could all build business models that did this we'd be laughing

[Sedat]

Stick them in Tassie and you get the same revenue. The only thing is AFL want a game a week broadcast in NSW and QLD with their teams.

Would you? I suspect that if you would there would not be a GWS. Tasmania is a very small market place with limited corporate growth potential - and it is already being catered for by Hawthorn and Norf. You won't be growing the pie by fielding a team down there - only shifting the revenue already being generated by Hawthorn and Norf over to a new Tassie team. I don't like it but that's the argument for Western Sydney - it is virgin unchartered territory that is incremental growth to the existing base (of which Tassie is already a part of).

[LostDoggy]

Underwhelming crowd and little to no atmosphere.

Talked to a couple of people yesterday, one didn't realise GWS was a thing, the other thought GWS and GCS were the same thing.

[bornadog]

Would you? I suspect that if you would there would not be a GWS. Tasmania is a very small market place with limited corporate growth potential - and it is already being catered for by Hawthorn and Norf. You won't be growing the pie by fielding a team down there - only shifting the revenue already being generated by Hawthorn and Norf over to a new Tassie team. I don't like it but that's the argument for Western Sydney - it is virgin unchartered territory that is incremental growth to the existing base (of which Tassie is already a part of).

Still have 18 teams and broadcasting rights. Hawks and North would still be able to play their, perhaps fewer games.

[Sedat]

Still have 18 teams and broadcasting rights. Hawks and North would still be able to play their, perhaps fewer games.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the size of the broadcasting rights revenue be predicated on 1) the TV ratings in the 5 key metro cities (of which Tassie is not one and Sydney most certainly is), and 2) the ability of the broadcasters to on-sell advertising revenue at a higher rate and into more lucrative markets (such as Sydney)? Tassie is 2/5 of bugger-all in terms of national TV ratings and they are a miniscule source of corporate advertising opportunities that are already being catered for by existing teams. You're not growing the pie one sliver by establishing a Tassie team but you are by plonking a new team into the unchartered waters of Western Sydney.

This is cold-hearted economics talking - I don't like it either.

[bornadog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the size of the broadcasting rights revenue be predicated on 1) the TV ratings in the 5 key metro cities (of which Tassie is not one and Sydney most certainly is), and 2) the ability of the broadcasters to on-sell advertising revenue at a higher rate and into more lucrative markets (such as Sydney)? Tassie is 2/5 of bugger-all in terms of national TV ratings and they are a miniscule source of corporate advertising opportunities that are already being catered for by existing teams. You're not growing the pie one sliver by establishing a Tassie team but you are by plonking a new team into the unchartered waters of Western Sydney.

This is cold-hearted economics talking - I don't like it either.

yeah you are probably right.

Love to see the figures for TV viewing audience of GWS games - NSW only

[Twodogs]

My disclaimer up front: I hate the confected nature of GWS and GC, and the thought of them getting an arm chair ride to a flag makes my guts turn.

But the business decision making would go something like this...

The inclusion of 2 new teams (regardless of their location) increases the games in a season by 12.5%. If income generated overall increase by more than they invest in the new sides, then it is a decent investment. Say the league generates $400m a year across all lines of revenue (this I suspect is less than actual), then the inclusion of these two teams adds ~$50m a year to the league collectively. So long as head office is pumping less than this amount into them annually, its a fair investment.

Now, in the afl's forward planning, they would've modeled some modest gains in support, patronage, sponsorhips for the new clubs which would require lesser and lesser funding from head office, and voiala, the afl has increased their earnings over the medium term and have probably not been out of pocket in the near term. The expansion is entirely self funded.

If we could all build business models that did this we'd be laughing

We all hate them. Truth be told they probably hate themselves for not winning enough all ready.

Couldn't the growth be accounted for by expanding the number of rounds played in a season?

[Twodogs]

I'm no expert in TV rights revenue but what if the presence of a team in Western Sydney was responsible for an extra 5-10% in TV rights revenue due to the ability of the AFL to on-sell advertising space? Their level of investment into the team could then be justified under such clinical numbers-based analysis.

Doesn't make it any less authentic or contrived, but then City Hall doesn't really care about that. They know the vast majority of us in the Southern States are rusted-on for life, and they are just in it to gouge as much as they can out of the pig's trough.

We love the game, not the competition. The AFL would do well to remember that and not confuse the two or people will lose interest in droves. There are plenty of football clubs in other competitions that people are enthusiastic about.

[Ozza]

Playing devils advocate (just for the sport of it....I hate the expansion clubs like everyone else)....

But GWS are still in their infancy really. They are yet to play a final, and to my knowledge (and I may be wrong) have never played a Friday night game in their existence. Like the Suns, they are almost always thrown into the worst slots for the weekend - heaps of Saturday 4:40 games etc. So they still really haven't had that period where they have a chance to gather some extra support via exposure.

Sydney had some years where they were really really struggling to get crowds at their matches, but over time, exposure and ultimately, success - they developed a following that sees them now as a successful club that averages over 30,000 at home games year in year out. GWS will never be near as popular as Sydney - but don't underestimate the drawing power of success.

For me, GWS has a far greater chance of making it as a club than Gold Coast do. Malthouse was on the money last week when he said that every sporting venture into Gold Coast has been a failure. Pair that, with what a shambles they are in terms of their football department - and its a much bigger issue than the giants.

[FrediKanoute]

AGree with Ozza, the main worry is GCS. The leg up has failed. They are almost going to have to start from scratch when really this year and next year they should have been peaking.