Docklands Stadium (Marvel Stadium) - Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Ok, so we've played limited-overs (one-day and T20) cricket on and off at the Dome for some time now. Roof open and roof closed. Haven't seen any T20 games there but seen 3 ODI's during the Super Series vs the World XI in 2005 - seems to work pretty well; and a good size for cricket (a little on the smaller side but nothing tiny)
Without any debate about "cricket should only be at the MCG" etc etc etc:
Now that the ICC has approved day/night Test cricket, provided the participating boards can agree on ball brand/colour and playing times, how do you think the ground would go as a smaller Test venue? Eg Aus v NZ, late October.
What would need to be changed from what they do for ODI/T20 cricket? Etc etc.
 
I'm of the view that Etihad should host all Melbourne one-dayers, keeping test matches and T20s at the 'G. I also believe that Melbourne should have a second test match like you said in late October. When the Junction gets redeveloped I reckon that it should host (WACA style) but having the roof on Etihad is such a major benefit and especially with rain prominent at this time in the city it would be logical for Etihad to host.
 
millsy29gopies said:
I'm of the view that Etihad should host all Melbourne one-dayers, keeping test matches and T20s at the 'G. I also believe that Melbourne should have a second test match like you said in late October. When the Junction gets redeveloped I reckon that it should host (WACA style) but having the roof on Etihad is such a major benefit and especially with rain prominent at this time in the city it would be logical for Etihad to host.
Click to expand...
Anything you can think of that would need fixing/changing to host longer-form cricket at Etihad?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

millsy29gopies said:
Not to my knowledge no. Maybe installing proper boards behind the stumps instead of tarp.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen the tarps work better except for advertising - keeps people away from the view of the batsman and no issues with it not moving or the advertising getting stuck. AO, WACA and SCG now also use shade-cloth (well AO uses shade-cloth at least) over seats/hill for this reason, as does a lot of the world.

All I can think of is maybe the players would need some net facilities not on the edge of the playing field so they can have a net during play?
 
hitthepost said:
From what I've seen the tarps work better except for advertising - keeps people away from the view of the batsman and no issues with it not moving or the advertising getting stuck. AO, WACA and SCG now also use shade-cloth (well AO uses shade-cloth at least) over seats/hill for this reason, as does a lot of the world.
Click to expand...

MCG also uses shade cloth/tarps.

Interestingly, in the past Etihad has had the more conventional sight screens, but it's just been the tarp/shade cloth for the Renegades.
 
brucetiki said:
MCG also uses shade cloth/tarps.

Interestingly, in the past Etihad has had the more conventional sight screens, but it's just been the tarp/shade cloth for the Renegades.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I forgot the MCG, but they do a half-arse job anyway IMO and didn't even bother for the Test, which had a number of "get that person away from the sightscreen" issues.

Also remember at one point Etihad actually had video screen sight screens, as a trial. Channel 9 put their video feed on it at one point with their scorecard graphic. Never seen again but I'm a fan of developing the idea. Purely for advertising, with a black/white area behind, of course! :p
 
hitthepost said:
Also remember at one point Etihad actually had video screen sight screens, as a trial. Channel 9 put their video feed on it at one point with their scorecard graphic. Never seen again but I'm a fan of developing the idea. Purely for advertising, with a black/white area behind, of course! :p
Click to expand...

I remember them too - I'm surprised they never took off.
 
brucetiki said:
I remember them too - I'm surprised they never took off.
Click to expand...
I think done correctly they'd be a brilliant thing. Black/white behind the bowler's arm, of course, then you can have massive attention-seeking moving ads between overs, and slow moving or still ads during overs. If they die just turn off and it's black, and have a white tarp if it's a Test match. Basically an extension of the LCD advertising boards on the fences (well they use at some AFL and I'd like to see them introduced at the cricket too - hoping this happens at AO when the AFL moves in, that the AAMI Stadium advertising boards come across permanently, like happened at the Power vs Melbourne 2011 game).
 
I read the afl were given a price of $200 m to buy out etihad soon

They thought it was too much but surely something could be negotiated, particularly if there was a threat to build the egate stadium
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland said:
What would be the future of soccer at Docklands once the AFL owns it? I know it’s not for 10+ years, but there’s the prospect they could buy it early. Do you reckon the AFL would possibly refuse the Victory playing there? I wouldn’t put it past them.

Do Victory have a contract and when does it expire?
Click to expand...

As far as Im aware there are no contracts currently for after 2025. AFL buyout wont happen before that, they dont have the money at the moment. If soccer remains in the summer, the AFL would be stupid not to have soccer and big bash tenants. You could almost certainly say goodbye to anything happening mid footy season though.

I cant find anything official on Victory's contract at Etihad beyond fan statements.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
What would be the future of soccer at Docklands once the AFL owns it? I know it’s not for 10+ years, but there’s the prospect they could buy it early. Do you reckon the AFL would possibly refuse the Victory playing there? I wouldn’t put it past them.

Do Victory have a contract and when does it expire?
Click to expand...

Surely the AFL would keep Victory as tennants (and probably up their rent) as an income stream during the non-footy months. Victory don't really have anywhere else to play their higher-drawing games
 
To be honest, the AFL are probably the only sports organisation to not want to coexist. Soccer games getting 45,000 people means money for soccer and interest for soccer. As far as the AFL concerned, they want to dominate everything. How much are hiring costs? Because unless it's huge money, they might see limited Victory crowds as a benefit greater than income.
 
Silent Alarm said:
To be honest, the AFL are probably the only sports organisation to not want to coexist. Soccer games getting 45,000 people means money for soccer and interest for soccer. As far as the AFL concerned, they want to dominate everything. How much are hiring costs? Because unless it's huge money, they might see limited Victory crowds as a benefit greater than income.
Click to expand...

Nice biased comment there. The Melbourne Victory Soccer club have the cheapest rent of all the clubs at Etihad, it's about time they paid their fair share.
 
BLUES crusade said:
Nice biased comment there. The Melbourne Victory Soccer club have the cheapest rent of all the clubs at Etihad, it's about time they paid their fair share.
Click to expand...
What?! Biased?! How is that even remotely biased? I like Aussie Rules and I like soccer. It's not favouritism at all. It's obvious that the AFL don't like coexisting with other sports. They were unsupportive and hard to deal with during the World Cup bid.
 
BLUES crusade said:
Nice biased comment there. The Melbourne Victory Soccer club have the cheapest rent of all the clubs at Etihad, it's about time they paid their fair share.
Click to expand...
The part you highlighted had no relevance to the content of your reply. Silent Alarm is totally correct. Regardless of whether MVFC pays 5 cents or $100,000,000,000 rent.
 
BLUES crusade said:
Nice biased comment there. The Melbourne Victory Soccer club have the cheapest rent of all the clubs at Etihad, it's about time they paid their fair share.
Click to expand...

Another stuff up by those who negotiated a dismal financial agreement at both the MCG & Docklands - played off the break by the stadium managers.
SA footy has to hope the AFL ground mismanagement is not extended to Adelaide Oval.
 
Kwality said:
Another stuff up by those who negotiated a dismal financial agreement at both the MCG & Docklands - played off the break by the stadium managers.
SA footy has to hope the AFL ground mismanagement is not extended to Adelaide Oval.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause the AFL was party to the Docklands-Victory deal and had any say in the matter at all. Oh wait. They didn't. And even a court wouldn't allow them to have a look at it. You can blame the stadium deals on poor negotiating - but you cant lay the blame for the Victory getting a better deal at the feet of the AFL. Theres also every indication that the present administration handles its negotiations much better than the previous ones responsible for the old deals.
 
Silent Alarm said:
What?! Biased?! How is that even remotely biased? I like Aussie Rules and I like soccer. It's not favouritism at all. It's obvious that the AFL don't like coexisting with other sports. They were unsupportive and hard to deal with during the World Cup bid.
Click to expand...

Bit harsh. All they appeared to do was ensure they could still run their season. The arrogance only seemed to come from the bid team, who just expected to be handed anything they asked for, having no regard to other sports. Truth be told, the AFL were well within their rights to wave a copy of the contracts they had in place with the MCG and Docklands and tell them to go f**k themselves. That they let them have the MCG for such a massive chunk of the season was a huge concession on their part.
 
Rob said:
Bit harsh. All they appeared to do was ensure they could still run their season. The arrogance only seemed to come from the bid team, who just expected to be handed anything they asked for, having no regard to other sports. Truth be told, the AFL were well within their rights to wave a copy of the contracts they had in place with the MCG and Docklands and tell them to go f**k themselves. That they let them have the MCG for such a massive chunk of the season was a huge concession on their part.
Click to expand...

In the end Ian Collins on behalf of Etihad Stadium basically said that the AFL had contractual rights - Stephen Gough said the same thing.

On February 10, 2010, Etihad CEO Ian Collins made the following statement in the Heraldsun.

“It’s pretty simple to us. Our major tenant is the AFL and they have pre-emptive rights on scheduling. And if the AFL decides that they want to schedule 100 footy matches here between February and September then they are entitled to do it.
“They have those rights. If it was in summer time it would be a different kettle of fish. But the real issue is the World Cup is going to be held during winter.
“The other issue is that there are a lot of contractual arrangements afoot here, whether that be naming rights or the commercial business with car parking. You can’t just close those businesses down or jettison somebody out of the area when they have strong contractual rights,” Collins said.”
Click to expand...
On the issue of compulsory acquisition he added
“I didn’t know that we were at war … and that’s the only time I see where governments can seize control of private property. This is all private investors, who have put money into a venture to make it happen. Basically, they are entitled to their return on that investment and it would be pretty hard for the Government to seize something without some substantial compensation. I don’t think it has been thought through”
Click to expand...

further reference: http://footybusiness.wordpress.com/the-code-wars/the-afl-and-the-2022-world-cup-bid/

​
 
The_Wookie said:
Yeah cause the AFL was party to the Docklands-Victory deal and had any say in the matter at all. Oh wait. They didn't. And even a court wouldn't allow them to have a look at it. You can blame the stadium deals on poor negotiating - but you cant lay the blame for the Victory getting a better deal at the feet of the AFL. Theres also every indication that the present administration handles its negotiations much better than the previous ones responsible for the old deals.
Click to expand...

Adjust the bi focals - since when were the AFL party to the Victory deal, what is that deal - tongue in cheek doesnt work well in the written word Wookie.

The worst stadium deals involve Melbourne clubs with the SA mismanagement a close second - the AFL administration are involved in the Adelaide Oval management arrangements, therein lies the concern raised.

Back to the Victory stadium deal - did Geoff Lord negotiate that ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Victorian
New 15,000 seat Newcastle Stadium proposal
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
RedV3x
RedV3x
E
Third Stadium in Melbourne
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
13K
catters05
C

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top