Adelaide Oval - Discussion
- Thread starter Red Crow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Oct 3, 2008
- 7,403
- 7,882
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
does anybody think that the capacity should of been made more e.g. 60,000 ??
I think there was too much comparing with crowds at Aami...Now that football is in the city people actually want to go. It is hard to get a ticket...good luck during finals etc
ANd i know people are going to say the novelty will wear off... truth is i don't think it will. i believe football in the city is bringing people to the game who normally would never of gone...thus bigger crowds therefore capacity should be more IMO.
I think there was too much comparing with crowds at Aami...Now that football is in the city people actually want to go. It is hard to get a ticket...good luck during finals etc
ANd i know people are going to say the novelty will wear off... truth is i don't think it will. i believe football in the city is bringing people to the game who normally would never of gone...thus bigger crowds therefore capacity should be more IMO.
Port doesn't sell out the mediocre games at the moment (Lions, Freo) even though they are flying, but easily sell out the blockbusters, so perfect size for them. Crows could probably use a few more seats, but its not essential just yet.
The only way to get it up to 60k would be to build a northern stand, and good luck getting that done in the next 20 years. That score board aint going anywhere. I guess rebuilding the western stand like the eastern would bring it up to 58k but that just seems unnecessary for a stand that is 5 years old. Will be interesting to see what happens in the next decade or 2 though.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
Actually, Redeveloping the Western Stand to be equal of the Eastern could just about push 60k.
Though, that doesn't become economically logical for another 10-15 years MINIMUM (Probably 20-30 realistically)
Though, that doesn't become economically logical for another 10-15 years MINIMUM (Probably 20-30 realistically)
People have been saying this on the Port board and I have copied my thoughts from there.
Adelaide will never need a stadium bigger than what we have now. We'll never get the Grand Final, so who gives a s**t? As the WA teams have shown, keeping up demand for tickets and then selling them at a premium is the way to go. In the NFL the biggest stadium over there holds 82,000 and that's in New York. Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears, in a city of 10 million only holds 63,000. They only play 8 home games a year too. Adelaide does not need a stadium bigger than the current Adelaide Oval.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
Well, besides FedEx Field (85k in Washington)
Having said that, your reasoning is sound.
Teams in the NFL like smaller capacity stadiums for 2 reasons. Sell seats at a premium, more room for corporates (though, you could argue they're one in the same)
In fact, alot of the new stadiums being built for franchises recently are going for that 65-70k range despite there being much more demand. They want to exploit demand and reap in the money.
Minnesota Vikings, they're building a new stadium, but it only has about 600 more seats than their old stadium. (going to 65k)
Atlanta Falcons, they're building a new stadium and losing 6k seats (going to 65k)
Colts just built a new stadium, went to 62k (up from 55k)
Giants/Jets only added 2k to their stadium.
49ers lost 1k with theirs.
Not quite. I believe the western stand holds 14k and the eastern stand holds 17k.
Not a follower of American footy BUT heard an interview with an ex Geelong Falcon, Cam Johnston, now punter for Ohio State, not the top level it seems but he plays in front of 100k crowds week in, week out, up to 115k.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
There's at least 5 teams in college football (Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Alabama and Texas) who all play in 100k seat stadiums. Michigan keep adding slightly more and more each season, I think they have a capacity of about 112k atm.
But colleges don't have the expenses of the NFL, while a lot of these schools still get the huge income from tv rights. So forcing huge profits from corporate facilities isn't a necessity.
But colleges don't have the expenses of the NFL, while a lot of these schools still get the huge income from tv rights. So forcing huge profits from corporate facilities isn't a necessity.
The Eastern Stand holds 19,000. If you redeveloped the Western Stand to be equal of that, the capacity would be approx. 58,500, so nearly 60,000. If you could get 60,000 without touching the hill, it's well worth it.
I have a feeling the Western stand would get an upgrade first as well just based on the complaints of it not working as well as the Eastern for footy. Probably a lot easier to get rid of the heritage stuff over there than the hill. If they were to increase capacity they would be able to make it just that bit bigger than the East and get to 60k. Although I think we need a couple of decades of high prices due to demand before anything major will be done.
I Follow PAFC
Senior List
- Jul 13, 2008
- 169
- 116
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Newcastle Knights
Southern stand (14,000 capacity)
Eastern stand (19,000 capacity)
Western Stand (14,000 capacity)
3,500 on the hill.
Eastern stand (19,000 capacity)
Western Stand (14,000 capacity)
3,500 on the hill.
The college stadiums hold many people, but they are not in the same sort of class as the pro stadiums in the USA or even the AFL grounds here.
They don't have seats per se but aluminium benches with no backs generally and are not anywhere near the same standard back of house
Seats at metlife in ny.
"Seats" at penn state
The college stadiums hold many people, but they are not in the same sort of class as the pro stadiums in the USA or even the AFL grounds here.
They don't have seats per se but aluminium benches with no backs generally and are not anywhere near the same standard back of house
Seats at metlife in ny.
"Seats" at penn state
& people attend these stadiums, lots of people/lots of times - is the demand for better stadiums downunder driven by theatre goers or footy fans?
Better stadiums cost more money & footy is one product that can draw crowds. see the Adelaide Oval experience:
Demetriou admitted to Fairfax Media that he had some sympathy with the disenchantment being harboured by Adelaide and Port Adelaide with their bright new home at the Adelaide Oval.
Advertisement
Despite record crowds and - for Port Adelaide - an unprecedented membership high of 53,000, both clubs have been shocked at their poor financial returns from the stadium. Port Adelaide hosted the sold-out Showdown in round two and received a $35,000 cheque as its match-day profit. The Crows are still waiting for the breakdown of their first home game, again Sydney in round three.
Both clubs are blaming exorbitant costs placed on them by the Stadium Management Authority. Port was charged $18,000 for match-day traffic management, whereas the MCG charges clubs $1000 for the same service. Port and the Crows also fear the AFL signed away key stadium rights in its zeal to get the deal done.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stadium-issues-rile-afl-clubs-20140523-38uft.html#ixzz32aU5KEgz
Portsmeff
All Australian
- Banned
- #2,216
You're trying your hardest to find any negatives with the Adelaide Oval. The $17,000 that was charged on the first showdown was overkill due to the unexpected of a brand new stadium. Its now down to about $5,000 per game from traffic management. Catering and staff numbers were also huge for the first few games due to the unexpected, now they are getting more practice/feedback of what happens on games days, the costs are being cut down each week from reducing surplus staff. And hey, you really believe sensationalist newspapers for "facts". I am waiting to hear from my football club on the real profit & loss of gamedays. Until then all this geriatric sensationalism about poor financial returns is just speculative, media driven crap to get interest in a story.
Ive got one fact for you - the Adelaide Oval is the best thing to happen for SA football and our city in decades.
And if they play a few more SANFL games there it will also be the best thing to happen to the local league also (ie Anzac Day)
Anyway feel free to post more of your anti South Australia/Adelaide Oval bullshit
the big college stadiums host a grand total of
6 (SIX) games a year. not lots, not 11, not 22 like AO and Subi or 50 like the MCG. 6. that's all.
and you think high quality stadia are an australian thing. lol.
lets have a peek at some that make even the AO seem a little tatty. AT&T Dallas. a palace. Metlife NY. another palace albeit outdoors but stunningly equipped. Yankee Stadium, the link has the food and drink options - http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news...0326&content_id=70144710&vkey=pr_nyy&c_id=nyy Levis Stadium SF49ers looks like it's pretty plush. these are 3 examples in the US alone. lets not get into all the NFL stadia which are ALL very well appointed. or most of MLB stadia. or the bigger stadia in Europe. etc etc etc
- Mar 11, 2012
- 6,746
- 16,756
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
Actually it's more like 9 as the bigger teams play most of their non-conference games at home to make more $$$, plus even the spring practice games can get >50,000 fans.
Not anti SA footy, not anti Adelaide Oval, but wont buy a crock of crap - anyone with an abacus could calculate a profit or loss on a game unless something is being hidden & it is.
Not a cheerleader here, Portsmeff its not anti things to question, its certainly mindless not to question.
What is geriatric sensationalism? something that isn't in agreement from the position you dream to be true?
I am closely following Adelaide Oval because WA is following with a number of differences. Both projects are laced with superlatives that are unlikely to be ever realised, particularly financial - I am more bullish about the results at Adelaide Oval than the doom & gloom suggests but the profit or loss on the game should be calculated by the end of the following week. The burgeoning cost of the Stadium Management Authority should worry you Portsmeff, its got Melbourne Cricket Club ALL OVER IT.
Being Melbourne based all we hear over here is Andy D set the deal up but in Adelaide it seems it MrMcLachlan (not Gil).
thethinkingcat
Senior List
- May 20, 2014
- 259
- 159
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #2,220
Kwality have you actually been to the ground to watch your west coast eagles play either the crows or port adelaide? Have you been to the cricket there? It used to be a bit like the waca ground where cricket was only played there. It's now like the gabba where both the footy and the cricket can be played there.
You say your melbourne based if waverley park had of been done up like the adelaide oval i'd reckon you'd still complain.
I'm saying don't judge the grounds until you have actually seen the footy or the cricket on them.
Adelaide oval is a lovely oval. When on camp one year we happed to have access to watch the older west indies team train in the nets. Great experience! Saw the bradman muesum which is absolutely awesome.
Maybe you should look at gaining a membership so that you can watch the cricket and the footy all year long. That way it won't cost you a lot of money. Ask the customer service people at the adelaide oval to see if you can gain a yearly pass so that you don't have to pay to get in.
You say your melbourne based if waverley park had of been done up like the adelaide oval i'd reckon you'd still complain.
I'm saying don't judge the grounds until you have actually seen the footy or the cricket on them.
Adelaide oval is a lovely oval. When on camp one year we happed to have access to watch the older west indies team train in the nets. Great experience! Saw the bradman muesum which is absolutely awesome.
Maybe you should look at gaining a membership so that you can watch the cricket and the footy all year long. That way it won't cost you a lot of money. Ask the customer service people at the adelaide oval to see if you can gain a yearly pass so that you don't have to pay to get in.
Last edited:
Watching the Power game on TV last night, I must say I was impressed with the crowd and the stadium, it really looked great , nice to see "the hill" was still there
Yep I've been there albeit the old ground for both footy & cricket, just like the WACA - the new development is not what I'm on about, my worry is the $magic pudding approach that its going to be a gold mine for the SMA, SACA, SANFL & those AFL clubs that were supposed to profit most - I'm not complaining about the facility, I had no problems with Waveley or Footy Park because I go to the footy for the footy not the experience, but the clubs need to be profiting from the game they put on.
The money cat, not the experience & I'll only be satisfied when the details of the financial arrangement is made public - surely the AFL haven't stuffed up again, loading the AFL clubs up with long term debt to the SANFL whilst not ensuring they're on a good deal at the new facility.
Stewies Power
Premiership Player
- Sep 14, 2011
- 4,722
- 1,924
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aus Cricket Team & F1 Ricciardo
- Banned
- #2,223
RussellEbertHandball is your friend. If you haven't checked it out, have a look at the stadium deals thread on the Port board. No stadium deals have been signed long term, and the AFL is reviewing the $MA financials in July.
brisbane13
Cancelled
- Nov 27, 2012
- 2,618
- 757
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #2,224
they also never show live games against the gate as well.
but what is interesting they do have several 100k plus seat stadiums but from my understanding they are mainly used for college football
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._stadiums_by_capacity
many of those NFL clubs have billion dollar turn overs as well
I
I hope you are right that no deals have been signed for the long term but question your claim.
IF you are relying on the AFL, I'm nervous - the SACA thru McLachlan led Andy D into the deal & I doubt the AFL have any role in SMA decisions unlike the SACA, unlike the SANFL - hope I'm wrong Stewie ...
I hope you are right that no deals have been signed for the long term but question your claim.
IF you are relying on the AFL, I'm nervous - the SACA thru McLachlan led Andy D into the deal & I doubt the AFL have any role in SMA decisions unlike the SACA, unlike the SANFL - hope I'm wrong Stewie ...
