Australia vs England - a different stadium mindset

[Augustine]

There is a huge difference in mindset between how we in Australia build and schedule for stadiums and how they do it in England. In England they seem to build stadiums just below demand so they are usually filled to capacity. For example when Arsenal built their new 60,000 seat stadium they did so with the knowledge that there would be a huge season ticket waiting list which is now around 45,000 people long. Over 200,000 people lined the streets of London for Arsenal open top bus when they won the FA Cup. But as a result, Arsenal sell 60,000 tickets every single game.

The attitude in Australia is to schedule games at stadiums which have a capacity that exceeds demand. This is so everyone who wants a ticket can get one. For example North vs Geelong semi final which got 66,000 people was scheduled at the 100,000 seat MCG rather than the 55,000 seat Etihad. There was a thread on the main board which was questioning whether Adelaide Oval was too small, and this gives you an idea of the attitude.

There is no doubt in my mind that a packed out small stadium with no empty seats has a better atmosphere than a half empty large stadium even if the crowd for the latter may be larger. This is why the new Perth stadium being 60k seats and the Adelaide Oval 50k are in my opinion very good moves.

 

[RobRocket]

\
There is no doubt in my mind that a packed out small stadium with no empty seats has a better atmosphere than a half empty large stadium even if the crowd for the latter may be larger. This is why the new Perth stadium being 60k seats and the Adelaide Oval 50k are in my opinion very good moves.

Not to mention the 80k ANZ stadium which gets sold out probably like 3 times a year and looks deserted most of the other times .

 

[calyam]

There is a huge difference in mindset between how we in Australia build and schedule for stadiums and how they do it in England. In England they seem to build stadiums just below demand so they are usually filled to capacity. For example when Arsenal built their new 60,000 seat stadium they did so with the knowledge that there would be a huge season ticket waiting list which is now around 45,000 people long. Over 200,000 people lined the streets of London for Arsenal open top bus when they won the FA Cup. But as a result, Arsenal sell 60,000 tickets every single game.

The attitude in Australia is to schedule games at stadiums which have a capacity that exceeds demand. This is so everyone who wants a ticket can get one. For example North vs Geelong semi final which got 66,000 people was scheduled at the 100,000 seat MCG rather than the 55,000 seat Etihad. There was a thread on the main board which was questioning whether Adelaide Oval was too small, and this gives you an idea of the attitude.

There is no doubt in my mind that a packed out small stadium with no empty seats has a better atmosphere than a half empty large stadium even if the crowd for the latter may be larger. This is why the new Perth stadium being 60k seats and the Adelaide Oval 50k are in my opinion very good moves.

England has a long history of rewarding he 'elite' at the expense of the masses so it's hardly a surprise that they take the approach that they do. Australia, however, was built on egalitarian principles so it makes sense that we have traditionally built stadiums with excessive supply.

Honestly I don't see the problem with providing infrastructure that can be widely used. Our stadiums are typically paid for by taxpayers so there's no good reason to limit capacity to raise ticket prices.

 

[fabulousphil]

There is a huge difference in mindset between how we in Australia build and schedule for stadiums and how they do it in England. In England they seem to build stadiums just below demand so they are usually filled to capacity. For example when Arsenal built their new 60,000 seat stadium they did so with the knowledge that there would be a huge season ticket waiting list which is now around 45,000 people long. Over 200,000 people lined the streets of London for Arsenal open top bus when they won the FA Cup. But as a result, Arsenal sell 60,000 tickets every single game.

The attitude in Australia is to schedule games at stadiums which have a capacity that exceeds demand. This is so everyone who wants a ticket can get one. For example North vs Geelong semi final which got 66,000 people was scheduled at the 100,000 seat MCG rather than the 55,000 seat Etihad. There was a thread on the main board which was questioning whether Adelaide Oval was too small, and this gives you an idea of the attitude.

There is no doubt in my mind that a packed out small stadium with no empty seats has a better atmosphere than a half empty large stadium even if the crowd for the latter may be larger. This is why the new Perth stadium being 60k seats and the Adelaide Oval 50k are in my opinion very good moves.

Another reason to build stadium capacity below demand is to place a premium on membership ( actual seated membership ) the only real way to get membership seats at Eagles or Dockers games is to have them handed down by older family members, waiting lists are crap and you can never get 3 or 4 seats together this makes memberships quite valuable, if Perth had a MCG membership would be cheaper and possibly the AFL clubs would sell less season tickets.

Rather than build a bigger stadium, Perth should be looking at a 3rd AFL team, IMO that would make for a better derbies and give more people a chance to experience live football.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I'm inclined to believe this is why 60k was chosen for Perth. There is still sufficient demand to place a premium on tickets.

 

[fabulousphil]

I'm inclined to believe this is why 60k was chosen for Perth. There is still sufficient demand to place a premium on tickets.

I would agree. although personally ( many people would disagree ) i would like to see a smaller stadium 45/50k and 3 AFL teams in Perth, or the current 60k stadium for 2 teams and a team based around Mandurah/Rockingham with a 30k stadium.

 

[IQ3]

Don't forget soccer fields are alot smaller so it wouldn't make sense to make stadiums like the MCG for a small playing field.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Whats aami park hold?

 

[Shoei]

There is a huge difference in mindset between how we in Australia build and schedule for stadiums and how they do it in England. In England they seem to build stadiums just below demand so they are usually filled to capacity. For example when Arsenal built their new 60,000 seat stadium they did so with the knowledge that there would be a huge season ticket waiting list which is now around 45,000 people long. Over 200,000 people lined the streets of London for Arsenal open top bus when they won the FA Cup. But as a result, Arsenal sell 60,000 tickets every single game.

The attitude in Australia is to schedule games at stadiums which have a capacity that exceeds demand. This is so everyone who wants a ticket can get one. For example North vs Geelong semi final which got 66,000 people was scheduled at the 100,000 seat MCG rather than the 55,000 seat Etihad. There was a thread on the main board which was questioning whether Adelaide Oval was too small, and this gives you an idea of the attitude.

There is no doubt in my mind that a packed out small stadium with no empty seats has a better atmosphere than a half empty large stadium even if the crowd for the latter may be larger. This is why the new Perth stadium being 60k seats and the Adelaide Oval 50k are in my opinion very good moves.

Arsenal also struggled to get building permission for 60k. The London transit system has to absorb most of the fans travelling to and from Premier league games. Add on top of that at any given time you can have West Ham, Tottenham, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Fulham, Queens Park Rangers, Charlton Athletic, Milwall etc as playing home games within London aswell as Wembly Stadium hosting events at the same time, thats an extra tens of thousands of people needing to use the subway system on top of the 13 million people that live there+ all the police and emergency services that need to be on standby on any given Weekend.

 

[bombersfan4000]

the same thing happens in the USA in the NFL.
they have the highest crowd average in the world 68,401k the stadiums that are build only ever have around a 65 to 70k capacity. the games are never shown on tv live against the gate either.some of the clubs have over a billion dollar annual revenue.

it makes you wonder why they never build any bigger stadiums

 

[Silent Alarm]

The issue is, though, how many middle of the road EPL clubs sell out every game? Not many. There are sides with brand new stadiums, especially Wigan when they were in the Premier League, not even selling 60% of tickets.

Furthermore, Adelaide Oval could hold 65,000-70,000 and probably sell out most games considering the Crows always do and Port are playing well.

Perth is also a massively growing city. At present, 60,000 is short-minded. How limited and restrictive will it be in 20 years?

Bigger capacities are much better. Expands growth and allows for a better culture to brew.

 

[aCunningPlan]

The issue is, though, how many middle of the road EPL clubs sell out every game? Not many. There are sides with brand new stadiums, especially Wigan when they were in the Premier League, not even selling 60% of tickets.

Furthermore, Adelaide Oval could hold 65,000-70,000 and probably sell out most games considering the Crows always do and Port are playing well.

Perth is also a massively growing city. At present, 60,000 is short-minded. How limited and restrictive will it be in 20 years?

Bigger capacities are much better. Expands growth and allows for a better culture to brew.

Yeah I'm with you on this one. AAMI Park is great for Melbourne City because you can lock off the top level and make a crowd of 10 000 look great with the option of opening the top level if there is demand for it like the opening match this season. However if Victory had to play only out of AAMI it would severly cripple the club's attendances. Making memberships a premium does make sense but only up to a point, AAMI Park should have always been a 42 000 seat stadium minimum. There would have never been a need to play any games out of the Etihad, even any future World Cup bid could have used AAMI had they built the ground properly for the likes of Victory and internationals.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Don't forget soccer fields are alot smaller so it wouldn't make sense to make stadiums like the MCG for a small playing field.

Its harder, but there are 80k, even 100k+, stadia used for the game.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Yeah I'm with you on this one. AAMI Park is great for Melbourne City because you can lock off the top level and make a crowd of 10 000 look great with the option of opening the top level if there is demand for it like the opening match this season. However if Victory had to play only out of AAMI it would severly cripple the club's attendances. Making memberships a premium does make sense but only up to a point, AAMI Park should have always been a 42 000 seat stadium minimum. There would have never been a need to play any games out of the Etihad, even any future World Cup bid could have used AAMI had they built the ground properly for the likes of Victory and internationals.

its easy to say it should have been a 42k seater, but the Storm, Melbourne, City & rebels only average 12k for their regular season games.
the Capacity of 30k is about right, but it should've been built so it could have been easily upgraded to around 40k

 

[Kappa]

In 20 years time people in WA will be bemoaning the decision to make the stadium only 60k seats.

If they make it 60k with the option to put on an additional 10k in a decade or so that would be a pretty good decision, and if WA get a 3rd team all the more reason to have a bigger stadium.

Perth's population won't stop growing anytime soon

 

[telsor]

its easy to say it should have been a 42k seater, but the Storm, Melbourne, City & rebels only average 12k for their regular season games.
the Capacity of 30k is about right, but it should've been built so it could have been easily upgraded to around 40k

Always easy to say 'make it bigger' when somebody else is footing the bill.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Always easy to say 'make it bigger' when somebody else is footing the bill.

it is, but the way the stadium was designed has made it impossible to up grade with out costing $$$$. its mainly got to do with the roof structure.
it was a short sighted, job like the new perth stadium. the stadiums should of been built so in a number of years, if the capacity needed to be upgrad it can be easily done so with out major reconstruction

 

[TommyVercetti]

I'd be pretty pissed off, if I had to miss out on going to the game because they wanted a better atmosphere for the other people that actually could get in.

This also has to do with poor planning IMO, all stadiums should be able to easily cater for future expansion, again i'd be pretty pissed of I couldn't get a ticket because there aren't enough seats regularly. Stadiums like AAMI Park might look great and cater well for small crowds ultimately they're just plain stupid IMO. Expansion would be near impossible in the future because of the roof, looking at Etihad it's the same thing but ultimately if you take the roof you're destroying the venue anyway. As a fan give me a stadium that meets 80% of the requirements and ensure the stadium can be easily upgraded later on.

I seriously feel for the Perth teams, not being able to see your team play because there aren't enough seats must seriously suck.

 

[telsor]

it is, but the way the stadium was designed has made it impossible to up grade with out costing $$$$. its mainly got to do with the roof structure.
it was a short sighted, job like the new perth stadium. the stadiums should of been built so in a number of years, if the capacity needed to be upgrad it can be easily done so with out major reconstruction

Even more so when they built the foundations so it could be expanded, then when putting the roof on clearly decided to just throw that away. That said, if they hadn't put the roof on (or a less problematic roof), I would have said it could be upgraded whenever the tenants were willing/able to pay for it.

 

[telsor]

I'd be pretty pissed off, if I had to miss out on going to the game because they wanted a better atmosphere for the other people that actually could get in.

This also has to do with poor planning IMO, all stadiums should be able to easily cater for future expansion, again i'd be pretty pissed of I couldn't get a ticket because there aren't enough seats regularly. Stadiums like AAMI Park might look great and cater well for small crowds ultimately they're just plain stupid IMO. Expansion would be near impossible in the future because of the roof, looking at Etihad it's the same thing but ultimately if you take the roof you're destroying the venue anyway. As a fan give me a stadium that meets 80% of the requirements and ensure the stadium can be easily upgraded later on.

I seriously feel for the Perth teams, not being able to see your team play because there aren't enough seats must seriously suck.

The thing is, AAMI meets well over 80% of requirements (not sure of numbers, but I'd say more than 80% of games can be played there), and for those that it doesn't, there is another stadium not too far away that gets the job done. Is it worth paying another significantly more than $100Million just to avoid the 'inconvenience' of having to play a few games on a ground that isn't the right shape?

 

[bombersfan4000]

Even more so when they built the foundations so it could be expanded, then when putting the roof on clearly decided to just throw that away. That said, if they hadn't put the roof on (or a less problematic roof), I would have said it could be upgraded whenever the tenants were willing/able to pay for it.

that what i dont get about it. the foundation, footings were over engineered to hold a 50k seater stadium. then they built the current 30k seater

 

[telsor]

that what i dont get about it. the foundation, footings were over engineered to hold a 50k seater stadium. then they built the current 30k seater

They built them planning/assuming that it'd be upgraded/expanded later....Then decided to put a pretty roof on instead.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Don't the clubs in England mostly build and own their stadiums? Different business model applies in Australia, where the various state governments have a large say in what happens.

 

[Admiral Byng]

that what i dont get about it. the foundation, footings were over engineered to hold a 50k seater stadium. then they built the current 30k seater

They forget to tell the bloke who designed the roof, which is a complex one-off design.

 

[magic_johnson!]

How often does Aami Park sell out? It's a perfect little stadium, not hard at all to get tickets to any match played there. Compare this to the 'small' english stadiums... I'm pretty sure all of the ashes tickets are sold and sold at a premium for every day of every test (except for lords which is belloted). That is small.