A new Stadium Idea

[barmy44]

You're right. We shouldn't dislike anything. Ever.

kind of, yeah. you have a $500 million state of the art stadium in the centre of your very wealthy city, purpose built for entertainment.

the 'inconvenience of attending the footy' really is a kind of pathetic gripe, in my opinion.

 

[ManWithNoName]

kind of, yeah. you have a $500 million state of the art stadium in the centre of your very wealthy city, purpose built for entertainment.

the 'inconvenience of attending the footy' really is a kind of pathetic gripe, in my opinion.

Pretty sure nobody is saying it makes their life worse. They're saying compared to other available stadiums, it's not as good.

 

[barmy44]

Pretty sure nobody is saying it makes their life worse. They're saying compared to other available stadiums, it's not as good.

i know, my first comment was meant a touch tongue-in-cheek... i stand by it, though.

some western world perspective wouldnt go astray though, we are very lucky to have the luxuries we have. and etihad stadium is definitely a luxury, in the scheme of how 2.5-3 billion people worldwide are currently living.

to try yank myself right back on topic, ive heard nothing but good things about it as a venue.

 

[Daveismad]

Visy no

Two is enough

 

[knife]

Etihad had the scummy hands of Ian Collins running the place for over a decade, and they're still trying to clean the stench he left. When you go to Etihad you feel like its designed to extract the most amount of money from you, and if won't or can't pay for a pre-booked/reserved seat/medallion club etc they'll make the process of getting into the game on general admission at the gate as unpleasant as possible.

Carlton learned the unfortunate lesson when their then president, Ian Collins, who was also the CEO of Etihad Stadium screwed their members by moving many of their home games to Etihad, a deal which they are just starting to reverse now.
The vibe of the place is completely different to when you go to the MCG.

It may have got better, but first impressions count for a lot of people and it will take time and a cultural change from the owners of the ground before many will truly accept it.

 

[Righteo]

Being Victorian is suffering, truly.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

I see one huge problem...

When your small club starts doing well and more members sign up your little boutique stadium or even a 25,000 capacity upgrade to your local would limit the attendances. Which is stupid.

It would forever make your club a small time one.

Any money to invest should go to helping clubs with extra staff. Development coaches whatnot

 

[aCunningPlan]

Look, after spending my first fifteen years going to Footy Park I have to say everything about docklands is much much better...except the atmosphere. Inside it is a soul less ground that reminds me of one of those generic stadiums you find of FIFA. The facilities and infrastructure are world class, still feels like a morgue. The only time I ever feel like I can enjoy myself there is when the roof is open and even then the shadows are terrible.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

whereas in india you just share your 2 room house with 42 other people, palestine you are merely constantly in fear of a warhead destroying your suburb, and in rural china there is only f*** all to eat and the drinking water is full of smelted titanium.

must really suck having to watch the footy at etihad 11 times a year!

FFS. Moronic post.

It's a s**t stadium. It has a hell of a lot of issues which still need addressing 15 years after it was built.

It's not terrible watching my team there, but I pay a lot more to do so, and each of the points I raised above has a negative impact on the experience and on taking people there.

It's relatively new and cost a bomb. It's a long way behind the G, Adelaide Oval, SCG and even the Gabba IMO. It shouldn't be.

What's frustrating is that the mistakes aren't generally an issue of costs cutting etc - just really stupid, basic mistakes that are difficult to comprehend.

But hey... we don't die when we go there, so let's just close the thread.

 

[Kram]

Quick summary for our interstate friends, please now stop asking

- their clubs lose money playing there, rather than making it (not an issue for us thankfully)
- train is fine, for those who choose to drive (can be easier with young kids etc), parking is either (a) impossible, or (b) like $35 to park at the stadium. Yes, they charge the car more to get in than the driver
- if you wish to pre-book, you pay a ridiculous booking fee
- if you want to buy at the gate, you line up for about 35 mins as they generally have about 20% of the ticket windows open. Or you can arrive 2 hours early and stare at empty grass
- the prices are ridiculous. You can't get a seat for the regular price unless it's in the clouds. If you want a more reasonable seat, the prices go up very steeply
- standing room isn't catered for except for a small bay on either wing. Standing anywhere else gives a s**t view
- there's nothing around the ground for before or after the game. A couple of tiny bars which hold about 12 people each, otherwise you have go walk for 15 mins down to the docks (which are dead. Kind if like a serial killer's haunt), or go to King St, maybe to the strippers and/or get king-hit by some maniac in the street
- the Docklands area was to make Melbourne into a waterfront city. More than anything else, the catastrophic design and placement of the stadium destroyed that. Docklands is now a wasteland. People resent it. It's all so amateur.
- it replaced Waverley which was much loved by many in the far outer east and right down to the Peninsula. Huge footy loving population and many are still bitter
- the surface is often s**t, players slipping over which can ruin a game
- if the roof is open, the huge shadows cast by the design make viewing (and playing) difficult as the ball constantly goes from pitch black to blinding light
- the gloss is taken off every big game there. A full house of 50k is fine, but you just know it could have been up the road with another 20k+ people there

Yes, it's better than Subiaco. Big ****in deal. Melbourne 2013 was better than Fitzroy 1996.

You have to keep in mind this was a very modern, terribly expensive stadium that was sold to everybody as worlds best. Over promise, under deliver has a lot to do with it.

Just lol, talk about 1st world problems.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Quick summary for our interstate friends, please now stop asking

- their clubs lose money playing there, rather than making it (not an issue for us thankfully)
- train is fine, for those who choose to drive (can be easier with young kids etc), parking is either (a) impossible, or (b) like $35 to park at the stadium. Yes, they charge the car more to get in than the driver
- if you wish to pre-book, you pay a ridiculous booking fee
- if you want to buy at the gate, you line up for about 35 mins as they generally have about 20% of the ticket windows open. Or you can arrive 2 hours early and stare at empty grass
- the prices are ridiculous. You can't get a seat for the regular price unless it's in the clouds. If you want a more reasonable seat, the prices go up very steeply
- standing room isn't catered for except for a small bay on either wing. Standing anywhere else gives a s**t view
- there's nothing around the ground for before or after the game. A couple of tiny bars which hold about 12 people each, otherwise you have go walk for 15 mins down to the docks (which are dead. Kind if like a serial killer's haunt), or go to King St, maybe to the strippers and/or get king-hit by some maniac in the street
- the Docklands area was to make Melbourne into a waterfront city. More than anything else, the catastrophic design and placement of the stadium destroyed that. Docklands is now a wasteland. People resent it. It's all so amateur.
- it replaced Waverley which was much loved by many in the far outer east and right down to the Peninsula. Huge footy loving population and many are still bitter
- the surface is often s**t, players slipping over which can ruin a game
- if the roof is open, the huge shadows cast by the design make viewing (and playing) difficult as the ball constantly goes from pitch black to blinding light
- the gloss is taken off every big game there. A full house of 50k is fine, but you just know it could have been up the road with another 20k+ people there

Yes, it's better than Subiaco. Big ****in deal. Melbourne 2013 was better than Fitzroy 1996.

You have to keep in mind this was a very modern, terribly expensive stadium that was sold to everybody as worlds best. Over promise, under deliver has a lot to do with it.

I've been there once. Drove in, parked nearby, can't remember how much that cost but not much. Walked up to the gates, bought tickets for the entire family of five for less than then price of a single seat at Subi, went and got something to eat from one of the many options right next to the ground, went into the ground and had a great view of the match, walked back to the car and drove away.

It was hell.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Just lol, talk about 1st world problems.

Yes yes, same moronic answers.

People always ask, that's why. It's a substandard experience compared to other stadiums.

It's the same thing as people whinging about Homebush. If you put another stadium in Adelaide that didn't measure up in any way, people would complain about playing there too.

It just doesn't measure up, sorry to say. People seem to be trying to explain that it's better than death, which I don't think is the point here.

 

[Engimal]

I like Etihad.

 

[Kram]

Yes yes, same moronic answers.

Sorry but all your moronic whinging about a few piddly problems with a modern and quality stadium deserve is a silly answer.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I've been there once. Drove in, parked nearby, can't remember how much that cost but not much. Walked up to the gates, bought tickets for the entire family of five for less than then price of a single seat at Subi, went and got something to eat from one of the many options right next to the ground, went into the ground and had a great view of the match, walked back to the car and drove away.

It was hell.

Of course it's not hell. But it inferior to other football stadiums in Australia.

Wow it's better than Subiaco. That's worth an award. Christ.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yes yes, same moronic answers.

People always ask, that's why. It's a substandard experience compared to other stadiums.

It's the same thing as people whinging about Homebush. If you put another stadium in Adelaide that didn't measure up in any way, people would complain about playing there too.

It just doesn't measure up, sorry to say. People seem to be trying to explain that it's better than death, which I don't think is the point here.

Would you still prefer Etihad to some redeveloped suburban ground with seating exposed to the elements, or just standing room - like the OP is proposing? Would the "traditional atmosphere" be an added attraction?

 

[Allan Shorty]

I d

I've been there once. Drove in, parked nearby, can't remember how much that cost but not much. Walked up to the gates, bought tickets for the entire family of five for less than then price of a single seat at Subi, went and got something to eat from one of the many options right next to the ground, went into the ground and had a great view of the match, walked back to the car and drove away.

It was hell.

The Subi comparisons are irrelevant. Perth is full of similar architectural abortions; the whole urban form is an enormous sprawling disaster. Just because it's not as bad as Subi doesn't mean melbourne should tolerate it.

Etihad is badly sited and ruins access to an important part of the CBD. Knock it down.

 

[radiojake]

I don't understand people's hate of Docklands Stadium

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Sorry but all your moronic whinging about a few piddly problems with a modern and quality stadium deserve is a silly answer.

Whatever, people don't really like the place and it shows in the attendances.

The list is some of the reasons why.

We're entitled to opinions - it's our stadium, we pay for it. How much do you reckon my membership was when we played home games at Waverley and the G (excl inflation of course)?

Nobody did us a favour by building it - it's our money they used. And at Etihad they've got a lot of things wrong.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I d
The Subi comparisons are irrelevant. Perth is full of similar architectural abortions; the whole urban form is an enormous sprawling disaster. Just because it's not as bad as Subi doesn't mean melbourne should tolerate it.

Etihad is badly sited and ruins access to an important part of the CBD. Knock it down.

Bang on my friend.

The entire Docklands area could have taken Melbourne to a whole different level. They've cocked it up, badly.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I have no idea why you Vics rag on Etihad so much

Agreed - the dome is great

 

[lmach]

When you have a Ferrari in your garage, a Holden just isn't as good. No matter how new. It doesn't matter that other people drive beat up 1980 Fords, you have a Ferrari so whenever you have to drive the Holden it just isn't the same.

So what about Etihad? Ever drive that?

 

[Underarm]

I have been thinking of this idea for a while now. And knowing the AFL there is close to 0 chance it will ever happen, but I still think it's a good idea and is worth throwing out there.

So there is a reasonably general consensus that Ethiad stadium isn't great for footy.

Against most Stadiums in Australia it would stack up nicely.

Well 9/10 games there are Victorian teams (Usually Dogs, North, Saints) playing interstate sides where there isn't a big crowd expected. So what would it be like if the AFL gave funds to St Kilda, North Melbourne and Bulldogs to extend their training venues so games against teams like GWS, Gold Coast, West Coast, etc.
I think you would lose no more than a couple of thousand attendance MAX and if the AFL think more than that will be lost just fixture it at the G.
One thing I like about the NRL is that each team is actually from somewhere, whereas the AFL Vic team just plays at the G or Ethiad.
What do people think of this?

Location is a majorly important. look at Port Adelaide and Adelaide's attendance spike this season. Just because a club gets 20k to North Melbourne vs Fremantle at Etihad doesn't mean people would be willing to go to Arden st to do it. Especially if you are forced into Standing room or worse seating (which it absolutely would be).

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The poster said "it wasn't great for footy" but didn't exactly expand on that. Is it the stadium deals or the stadium itself? Never been but it seems a quality stadium to me and seems to have better viewing angles than say, Subi.

Its an excellent vieing venue, but the stadium deals are shockers and the surface has been responsible for a number of injuries. Only over the last two years or so has that bit been fixed. It doesn't seem to shift or anything now, even when turf gets replaced.

 

[Scotland]

Quick summary for our interstate friends, please now stop asking

- their clubs lose money playing there, rather than making it (not an issue for us thankfully)
- train is fine, for those who choose to drive (can be easier with young kids etc), parking is either (a) impossible, or (b) like $35 to park at the stadium. Yes, they charge the car more to get in than the driver
- if you wish to pre-book, you pay a ridiculous booking fee
- if you want to buy at the gate, you line up for about 35 mins as they generally have about 20% of the ticket windows open. Or you can arrive 2 hours early and stare at empty grass
- the prices are ridiculous. You can't get a seat for the regular price unless it's in the clouds. If you want a more reasonable seat, the prices go up very steeply
- standing room isn't catered for except for a small bay on either wing. Standing anywhere else gives a s**t view
- there's nothing around the ground for before or after the game. A couple of tiny bars which hold about 12 people each, otherwise you have go walk for 15 mins down to the docks (which are dead. Kind if like a serial killer's haunt), or go to King St, maybe to the strippers and/or get king-hit by some maniac in the street
- the Docklands area was to make Melbourne into a waterfront city. More than anything else, the catastrophic design and placement of the stadium destroyed that. Docklands is now a wasteland. People resent it. It's all so amateur.
- it replaced Waverley which was much loved by many in the far outer east and right down to the Peninsula. Huge footy loving population and many are still bitter
- the surface is often s**t, players slipping over which can ruin a game
- if the roof is open, the huge shadows cast by the design make viewing (and playing) difficult as the ball constantly goes from pitch black to blinding light
- the gloss is taken off every big game there. A full house of 50k is fine, but you just know it could have been up the road with another 20k+ people there

Yes, it's better than Subiaco. Big ****in deal. Melbourne 2013 was better than Fitzroy 1996.

You have to keep in mind this was a very modern, terribly expensive stadium that was sold to everybody as worlds best. Over promise, under deliver has a lot to do with it.

Cliffs notes: The MCG is better and cheaper. I only go to watch footy if I can have my pick of seating in a 100k seat stadium for $20.

1. Irrelevant. Whatever your "stadium deal" your club loses money if you don't go to their games.
2. Cry me a river. If parking at the MCG is so great, why not just park there? It's a couple of blocks away.
3. Dry the tears a bit more. How much should parking underneath a state of the art stadium cost?
4. How many windows do the MCG have open?
5. The prices aren't ridiculous, you are.
6. Please outline on a stadium map where you get a 's**t view' at Etihad Stadium. I'm sure it's much worse than Princes Park or Waverley - you know, where matches used to be held before they built Etihad Stadium.
7. If your tears aren't completely dry, walk to Young & Jackson then. It's not far from equidistant between the MCG (which is soooo much easier to get to) and Etihad.
8. Good thing 100% of people love Fed Square, would hate for it to turn people off going to that part of the city. Really? You're actually pushing this line? Jesus.
9. History revisionism. Waverley was meh. It's miles from anywhere, had eff all shelter from the elements and less PT coverage. Your own club would not have filled the Etihad Stadium capacity in any of your matches there in the last 20 years.
10. First decent point so far. Surface is not up to scratch and stadium management have copped it for years, but would you prefer to play at Whitten Oval or the MCG when the centre square was a cricket pitch mud pit?
11. Again, decent point. No idea why no one can get this right. The orientation is set, the movement of the sun is pretty consistent. Work it out. Still, not many tears when it is 10 degrees and raining 5 min down the road and you are under the roof.
12. Ever thought of supporting your team instead of expecting MCG/AFL members to do it? When you start selling out 11 games a year get back to me.

Subiaco is s**t, what's your point? It's outdated and too small, hence we're building a new ground. I guess when Burswood is eventually done we should all pine for the nostalgia of the 180m long Subiaco where the lower decks were angled 5 degrees from horizontal and leg room was a luxury for people under 5'4''. Those were the days...