Bulldogs want a 25-30k NEW stadium in Melbourne.

Remove this Banner Ad

If anyone was going to build anything it would be a 30k stadium at Dingley.

As others have suggested, Showgrounds given there is already a train line there.

Princes Park would have to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch and parking has been an issue.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

198 home and away games each year, 88 of which must be played in WA, SA, Qld and NSW.

Take away 8 home games for Geelong and that leaves 102 potential home games in Melbourne. Currently after games in Tassie, Darwin, Cairns, Alice Springs, NZ and anywhere else there are about 45 games each for Etihad Stadium and the MCG. If you take away the need for selling home games then it's about 50 each.

Business case for spending hundreds of millions on another ground... Go!
 
Scotland said:
198 home and away games each year, 88 of which must be played in WA, SA, Qld and NSW.

Take away 8 home games for Geelong and that leaves 102 potential home games in Melbourne. Currently after games in Tassie, Darwin, Cairns, Alice Springs, NZ and anywhere else there are about 45 games each for Etihad Stadium and the MCG. If you take away the need for selling home games then it's about 50 each.

Business case for spending hundreds of millions on another ground... Go!
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Unless a lot of teams go, Melbourne needs 2 grounds, with a 3rd just being an extra expense for little benefit. So the only way I could see it happening would be if, after getting Docklands, the AFL sells it (the land alone would be worth a mint) and uses some of the money to build a smaller ground and splits games pretty firmly on 'big' (MCG) and 'small' (new place) with little reference to 'home ground', which wouldn't please non-vic clubs who wanted to play more on the G...It'd still need to be bigger then 25K, more like 35-40K.

So *maybe* in 10 years the AFL *might* do something....Perhaps.
 
I am not having a go at the expansion clubs here as I firmly believe they are good for the game. But how they are talking about average crowds being down it is the fault of these clubs
 
telsor said:
Pretty much.

Unless a lot of teams go, Melbourne needs 2 grounds, with a 3rd just being an extra expense for little benefit. So the only way I could see it happening would be if, after getting Docklands, the AFL sells it (the land alone would be worth a mint) and uses some of the money to build a smaller ground and splits games pretty firmly on 'big' (MCG) and 'small' (new place) with little reference to 'home ground', which wouldn't please non-vic clubs who wanted to play more on the G...It'd still need to be bigger then 25K, more like 35-40K.

So *maybe* in 10 years the AFL *might* do something....Perhaps.
Click to expand...

Why would the AFL sell Etihad Stadium? Once they own it they can just do 'big' and 'small' with the two grounds they have. The only reason they don't do that now is contracts between the ground and tenant clubs and the fact that they don't want Etihad to be seen as the venue for 'B' fixtures.

The idea that clubs are going to get a Geelong-like deal with a new AFL-funded stadium is just ridiculous, though.
 
Scotland said:
198 home and away games each year, 88 of which must be played in WA, SA, Qld and NSW.

Take away 8 home games for Geelong and that leaves 102 potential home games in Melbourne. Currently after games in Tassie, Darwin, Cairns, Alice Springs, NZ and anywhere else there are about 45 games each for Etihad Stadium and the MCG. If you take away the need for selling home games then it's about 50 each.

Business case for spending hundreds of millions on another ground... Go!
Click to expand...
Plus the AFL has a deal with Etihad that ensures 45(?) games there a year. The stadium being built would be for 10 games a year, max.
The hundreds of millions would be better spent on reducing the Etihad Debt and making better stadium deals for those clubs that would be looking to use a new boutique stadium.
 
If they want to do small at etihad just shut off level 3 or large parts of it, there's your boutique stadium.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scotland said:
198 home and away games each year, 88 of which must be played in WA, SA, Qld and NSW.

Take away 8 home games for Geelong and that leaves 102 potential home games in Melbourne. Currently after games in Tassie, Darwin, Cairns, Alice Springs, NZ and anywhere else there are about 45 games each for Etihad Stadium and the MCG. If you take away the need for selling home games then it's about 50 each.

Business case for spending hundreds of millions on another ground... Go!
Click to expand...

Fact remains there is an excess of supply in the Melbourne market, in what seems to be a softening in demand.

The old state league concept of home & away games needs to be revisited - the Hawks are chalking up the profits of the Tas sponsorship dismissed by the yesterday men as selling games, Geelong dont follow the state league (last century) home & away model - how've Geelong & the Hawks done over recent years: OK?

Pipe certainly asks the question about the future of Docklands in 10+ years & who pays?
 
Underarm said:
Plus the AFL has a deal with Etihad that ensures 45(?) games there a year. The stadium being built would be for 10 games a year, max.
The hundreds of millions would be better spent on reducing the Etihad Debt and making better stadium deals for those clubs that would be looking to use a new boutique stadium.
Click to expand...

And they have contracts with the MCG, too.

Once they own Etihad Stadium they can do what they like, and you can guarantee that won't be spending millions of dollars to build another venue to compete with it.

Clubs looking to use a new boutique stadium will be looking for the AFL to build it for them, which is why it won't happen.
 
Scotland said:
Why would the AFL sell Etihad Stadium? Once they own it they can just do 'big' and 'small' with the two grounds they have. The only reason they don't do that now is contracts between the ground and tenant clubs and the fact that they don't want Etihad to be seen as the venue for 'B' fixtures.

The idea that clubs are going to get a Geelong-like deal with a new AFL-funded stadium is just ridiculous, though.
Click to expand...

Not saying I like the idea, but it's been floated.

The theory is basically that even in AFL hands, Docklands will remain costly to operate (the roof is an extra cost for example) and selling the ground would raise ~$1Billion.
Spend ~$500M on building a 35-40K stadium that is cheaper to operate, and pocket the rest, leaving the clubs who play there making more money. Win win. (in theory)

Of course, exactly where that would be is an open question and one of the points where it 'has issues'.
 
rdhopkins2 said:
If anyone was going to build anything it would be a 30k stadium at Dingley.

As others have suggested, Showgrounds given there is already a train line there.

Princes Park would have to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch and parking has been an issue.
Click to expand...

Dingley

And I thought Derwayne's statement was stoopid
 
telsor said:
Not saying I like the idea, but it's been floated.

The theory is basically that even in AFL hands, Docklands will remain costly to operate (the roof is an extra cost for example) and selling the ground would raise ~$1Billion.
Spend ~$500M on building a 35-40K stadium that is cheaper to operate, and pocket the rest, leaving the clubs who play there making more money. Win win. (in theory)

Of course, exactly where that would be is an open question and one of the points where it 'has issues'.
Click to expand...

Is Etihad really more expensive to operate because it has a roof? Construct yes, but operate I wouldn't have thought so.

As far as I'm concerned as a venue competing with the AFL Etihad isn't worth much, let alone $1b. Soccer, rugby league and rugby union don't need Etihad for more than a handful of times a year. The AFL gets by currently with two stadiums. A third is a complete luxury. If you knew they were going to build a third venue why would you buy Etihad Stadium from them? Without contracts in place guaranteeing a minimum number of fixtures then you'd basically own a 55,000 seat oval in Melbourne that isn't used for football - the ultimate white elephant - and as the AFL if you're going to guarantee a big chunk of games to Etihad then it's a waste of money building another venue...
 
I'm not saying I want it to happen (I don't) but possibly the Saints and Hawks could share a 25k seat stadium somewhere in and around Frankston or otherwise in Melbourne's South East.

The Hawks will move out there and the Saints have a large fan base in the region.

Particularly if the Port moves to Hastings and population continues to boom in the Cranbourne/Frankston/Hastings area and it almost becomes it's own functioning city.

If the Hawks get kicked out of Tassie they could do with a small venue to host 4 games for good profits and the Saints have never been comfortable at Etihad IMO. The area has a lot of swing seats so Government funding could play a huge role as it has for Geelong.
 
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
12K
catters05
C
BanquoUtd
Stadium proposals for Darwin team
Replies
1
Views
1K
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas
M
Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
409
Views
27K
Mitchell Madness
Mitchell Madness
S
  • Poll
MCG redevelopment - incorporating safe standing room to temporarily increase capacity.
Replies
17
Views
1K
Pakenhamsaint
Pakenhamsaint
The_Wookie
Summit Sport and Recreation Park (Mt Barker, SA)
Replies
10
Views
2K
glengowan
G
calculon559
MCG: Collingwood may lose Ponsford stand reserved seats for away games
Replies
17
Views
2K
Underarm
Underarm

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top