View Full Version : South-East Melbourne Kangaroos?
dom_105
2nd November 2007, 15:04
Obviously I wasn't totally serious with the name change, but think about it for a minute..
Casey is the third-fastest growing council in Australia (behind the Gold Coast and Brisbane City Councils) with a projected future population of 350,000, which is the size of Canberra (not taking into account, of course, the population of Melbourne Metro + Gippsland areas)
Children aged 0 - 4 make up 8.2 per cent of the City’s population, while young people (10-24) make up around 21.2 per cent of the City’s population.
Currently, up to 50 families move in every week or, approximately 8,000 people each year.
Relatively easy to get to from anywhere in Melbourne with a car, especially when you take into account the opening of Eastlink next year, and also close to the Gippsland region.
Play most home games at a boutique stadium built on the cheap (picture a small Waverley/Moorabbin) while playing a few home games in Melbourne against the Essendon's/Collingwood's/Carlton's etc.
Opportunity to capture a portion of the AFL fans disinfranchised with the closure of Waverley, gives the AFL a presence in an area where Soccer is taking off with the school kids, and keeps North in Melbourne (well, sorta)
Any thoughts?
Seanason
2nd November 2007, 15:31
There are pros and cons.
one of the main pros is that the Kangas stay in melbourne.
negs are moving to the South East would alienate a few people.
dom_105
2nd November 2007, 16:24
There are pros and cons.
one of the main pros is that the Kangas stay in melbourne.
negs are moving to the South East would alienate a few people.
The only person it would alienate would be Demetriou himself.
I would think that the vast, vast majority of Roos fans would want their club to remain in Melbourne.
Captain Afterworld
2nd November 2007, 16:27
Might of worked in the long term if it was attempted before the game turned fully professional but in 2007 I don't think it would work.
hawker11
2nd November 2007, 16:33
A club like Hawthorn would be more likely to relocate a portion of its games to that area if a stadium existed.
Hit And Rum
2nd November 2007, 16:35
The Spectres!!!
walhawk
2nd November 2007, 21:19
Stupid idea.
Even a basic stadium will cost $150 million plus.
That would really spell the end of the Kangaroos.
Waverley anyone???
Ice-Wolf
2nd November 2007, 23:08
Obviously I wasn't totally serious with the name change, but think about it for a minute..
Casey is the third-fastest growing council in Australia (behind the Gold Coast and Brisbane City Councils) with a projected future population of 350,000, which is the size of Canberra (not taking into account, of course, the population of Melbourne Metro + Gippsland areas)
Children aged 0 - 4 make up 8.2 per cent of the City’s population, while young people (10-24) make up around 21.2 per cent of the City’s population.
Currently, up to 50 families move in every week or, approximately 8,000 people each year.
Relatively easy to get to from anywhere in Melbourne with a car, especially when you take into account the opening of Eastlink next year, and also close to the Gippsland region.
Play most home games at a boutique stadium built on the cheap (picture a small Waverley/Moorabbin) while playing a few home games in Melbourne against the Essendon's/Collingwood's/Carlton's etc.
Opportunity to capture a portion of the AFL fans disinfranchised with the closure of Waverley, gives the AFL a presence in an area where Soccer is taking off with the school kids, and keeps North in Melbourne (well, sorta)
Any thoughts?
You do realise that is mostly St. Kilda Territory, hell St. Kilda are the affliate of the local VFL side.
yioughtta
3rd November 2007, 01:45
IIRC there was actually some talk about North using Casey fields as a 'second base' or something like that a couple of years back. This was when it was still being developed.
But strangely I never heard another thing about it after that...
dom_105
3rd November 2007, 14:25
You do realise that is mostly St. Kilda Territory, hell St. Kilda are the affliate of the local VFL side.
What's your point?
Gold Coast is Brisbane Lions/NRL territory.
flamethrower
3rd November 2007, 14:48
Obviously I wasn't totally serious with the name change, but think about it for a minute..
Casey is the third-fastest growing council in Australia (behind the Gold Coast and Brisbane City Councils) with a projected future population of 350,000, which is the size of Canberra (not taking into account, of course, the population of Melbourne Metro + Gippsland areas)
Children aged 0 - 4 make up 8.2 per cent of the City’s population, while young people (10-24) make up around 21.2 per cent of the City’s population.
Currently, up to 50 families move in every week or, approximately 8,000 people each year.
Relatively easy to get to from anywhere in Melbourne with a car, especially when you take into account the opening of Eastlink next year, and also close to the Gippsland region.
Play most home games at a boutique stadium built on the cheap (picture a small Waverley/Moorabbin) while playing a few home games in Melbourne against the Essendon's/Collingwood's/Carlton's etc.
Opportunity to capture a portion of the AFL fans disinfranchised with the closure of Waverley, gives the AFL a presence in an area where Soccer is taking off with the school kids, and keeps North in Melbourne (well, sorta)
Any thoughts?
What is your idea of "on the cheap"? A stadium suitable for AFL football would cost well over $100 million, and probably closer to $250 milion. Who would fund such a project?
Nezzar
3rd November 2007, 19:33
What is your idea of "on the cheap"? A stadium suitable for AFL football would cost well over $100 million, and probably closer to $250 milion. Who would fund such a project?
Australia vying for the fifa world cup in 2018? perhaps government?
Mitchell Madness
3rd November 2007, 20:06
I live in the south east, in the City of Kingston. Casey Fields are a good 40min drive, and hardly is classed as sth-east.
dom_105
4th November 2007, 00:59
What is your idea of "on the cheap"? A stadium suitable for AFL football would cost well over $100 million, and probably closer to $250 milion. Who would fund such a project?
State Government/Federal Government/AFL/Business sector.
Built on the cheap means that it has to be functional, without having too many stupid little things that serve no purpose yet cost money (for example, that bubble around the new soccer stadium on Swan Street.)
Seanason
4th November 2007, 09:31
Australia vying for the fifa world cup in 2018? perhaps government?So we want to stage a World Cup, so we will spend ~$200 million dollars on an AFL ground?
Someone please tell me why the Government would do that.
KingMullet
4th November 2007, 10:14
What is your idea of "on the cheap"? A stadium suitable for AFL football would cost well over $100 million, and probably closer to $250 milion. Who would fund such a project?
Good point but if the Roos moved to the Gold Coast who would fund the upgrade of Carrara or a new stadium in a better location (ie more accessible). That would be a costly exercise in itself.