Boutique Stadium in Melbourne

[TommyVercetti]

I'd rather clubs just wait it out TBH. I highly doubt any clubs are actually going to fold because they aren't making enough $, of course the Dogs, North and Saints have suffered because of the Etihad deal but we won't know the toll that takes for another 10-20 years.

Realistically, Melbourne doesn't need a third stadium you could make an argument for it but ultimately its not really necessarily. The cold hard fact is there's 10 teams in Victoria which means come the end of the season unless you've got all 10 teams playing for finals, crowds are going to drop. Currently its looking like Essendon, Carlton and Richmond will miss finals if that happens; crowds will drop and it'll be fascinating to compare the Tigers crowd figures of 2013 to 2014.

There are two schools of thought:
1). Go overboard and have empty seats every week while the team struggle
2). OR go down the Gold Coast model and have adequate crowds week in week. This method might be great now but what happens when the Suns are finally successful and are playing deep in September? Are the really prepared to lock out 5K-10K fans? Will they give up their home advantage?

My point is as a person that goes every week to Etihad I would much rather look round and see empty seats then not be able to get into the game.

 

[flamethrower]

Rather than spending $50K to $100K on a new or refurbished 25,000 seat stadium, the AFL would be better off using that money to buy Etihad Stadium early.

 

[Kwality]

Why are so many Victorian clubs selling their home games interstate?

In the Melbourne market supply exceeds demand & demand is trending down aka its going to get worse.

1. Melbourne supporters only go to the MCG
2. There are clubs that cant pull a viable crowd, they need fans of opposing clubs to get them above breakeven
3. Geelong is a goldmine due to the deal with the ratepayers of Geelong.

Boutique stadium is a nonsense, a lower break even stadium is what is required. The ratepayers support Geelong, the taxpayers support SA & WA footy, the Vic taxpayers punt money, year in/year out to the Melbourne Cricket Club. Break even is lower with the support of the taxpayer/ratepayer but the FIXture is so compromised already.

WA & SA markets have demand that exceeds supply - where to from here, only easy with deep pockets.

 

[Crawb]

Whilst AAMI Park still should have mainly been used for rectangular sports, they should have made and designed it with retractable seating so the AFL can play the low drawing games there. Obviously can't do that now however...

Playing these games at Geelong wouldn't work. Crowds would be lucky to crack 10k with non-Geelong teams. Best thing the AFL can do is to just buy the Docklands Stadium early or wait it out if it is more cost effective.

The only way Melbourne gets a 3rd AFL standard stadium is if Cricket Victoria, AFL and the Victorian Government all contribute to some 20-25k stadium. However the only other benefit this would generate for the AFL is the ability to use the MCG much earlier and thus allowing an earlier start to the year. But the cons (ie cost for the AFL) would almost certainly out-weight the pros for this...

 

[Kwality]

Whilst AAMI Park still should have mainly been used for rectangular sports, they should have made and designed it with retractable seating so the AFL can play the low drawing games there. Obviously can't do that now however...

Playing these games at Geelong wouldn't work. Crowds would be lucky to crack 10k with non-Geelong teams. Best thing the AFL can do is to just buy the Docklands Stadium early or wait it out if it is more cost effective.

The only way Melbourne gets a 3rd AFL standard stadium is if Cricket Victoria, AFL and the Victorian Government all contribute to some 20-25k stadium. However the only other benefit this would generate for the AFL is the ability to use the MCG much earlier and thus allowing an earlier start to the year. But the cons (ie cost for the AFL) would almost certainly out-weight the pros for this...

Would this stadium pay for itself?
How many games?
Which stadiums lose games & does it affect their viability? We know the taxpayer will subsidise the Melbourne Cricket Club, what about footy?

 

[speedybundy]

Would this stadium pay for itself?
How many games?
Which stadiums lose games & does it affect their viability? We know the taxpayer will subsidise the Melbourne Cricket Club, what about footy?

You'd have to be pinching those sold games from TIO, Alice Springs, maybe 1/2 of North's hobart games etc. That gives you 4, could taking about 3 from the MCG and 6 from Etihad justify it? 13 games would have to be close but I can't see the AFL taking many more games from the G/Etihad than that

 

[brisbane13]

Would this stadium pay for itself?
How many games?
Which stadiums lose games & does it affect their viability? We know the taxpayer will subsidise the Melbourne Cricket Club, what about footy?

a basic stadium like metricon cost 140 million to build. its a very very nice stadium but wouldnt work in Melbourne due to different weather climates. people would whinge and go back to etihad. for what ever money it would cost to build a new stadium its better to just pay etihad off & have a clean state of the art world class stadium

 

[lenny2013]

Boutique stadium is a nonsense, a lower break even stadium is what is required. The ratepayers support Geelong, the taxpayers support SA & WA footy, the Vic taxpayers punt money, year in/year out to the Melbourne Cricket Club. Break even is lower with the support of the taxpayer/ratepayer but the FIXture is so compromised already.

So what your saying the answer to getting more competitive stadium contracts for smaller Victorian teams is to get the Victorian government to contribute money to the AFL?

The answer imo is to get more games played at Stadiums owned by the AFL to ensure money stays in football and not going to third party people like the MCC and Etihad.

Options
a)Wait till 2025 to inherit Etihad for $1, while smaller Etihad tenants bleed and the AFL has to pay them 6 to 7 million compensation a year each to keep them alive.

b)Buy Etihad out early for 250-300 Million.

c)Retro fit say Princess Park for 100 Million, and compete against G & Etihad for low attending games offering lower cost stadium deals which will force Etihad & The G to drop prices for rent.

Costs
a)230 Million
b)250-300 Million
c)100 Million

Note: The AFL is looking at contributing approx. 15 Million to upgrade the junction oval for the VCA to get availability of the MCG in March & October.

This should be done at a facility which AFL can be played at in winter.

 

[Kwality]

So what your saying the answer to getting more competitive stadium contracts for smaller Victorian teams is to get the Victorian government to contribute money to the AFL?

The answer imo is to get more games played at Stadiums owned by the AFL to ensure money stays in football and not going to third party people like the MCC and Etihad.

Options
a)Wait till 2025 to inherit Etihad for $1, while smaller Etihad tenants bleed and the AFL has to pay them 6 to 7 million compensation a year each to keep them alive.

b)Buy Etihad out early for 250-300 Million.

c)Retro fit say Princess Park for 100 Million, and compete against G & Etihad for low attending games offering lower cost stadium deals which will force Etihad & The G to drop prices for rent.

Costs
a)230 Million
b)250-300 Million
c)100 Million

Note: The AFL is looking at contributing approx. 15 Million to upgrade the junction oval for the VCA to get availability of the MCG in March & October.

This should be done at a facility which AFL can be played at in winter.

 

[Yoda_]

Would have thought the most viable option would be to upgrade an ageing VFL venue to AFL standard to seat 30,000. Princess Park is the most likely option being central to most melbourne based clubs but a venue like Casey Fields would certainly bring people to the area and the basic infrastructure is in place as well as having the room to move for stands etc. Would never happen but it should !

 

[Kwality]

So what your saying the answer to getting more competitive stadium contracts for smaller Victorian teams is to get the Victorian government to contribute money to the AFL?

The answer imo is to get more games played at Stadiums owned by the AFL to ensure money stays in football and not going to third party people like the MCC and Etihad.

Options
a)Wait till 2025 to inherit Etihad for $1, while smaller Etihad tenants bleed and the AFL has to pay them 6 to 7 million compensation a year each to keep them alive.

b)Buy Etihad out early for 250-300 Million.

c)Retro fit say Princess Park for 100 Million, and compete against G & Etihad for low attending games offering lower cost stadium deals which will force Etihad & The G to drop prices for rent.

Costs
a)230 Million
b)250-300 Million
c)100 Million

Note: The AFL is looking at contributing approx. 15 Million to upgrade the junction oval for the VCA to get availability of the MCG in March & October.

This should be done at a facility which AFL can be played at in winter.

AFL owned stadiums: nil/zip/squat ..
AFL friendly stadiums: Adelaide, Geelong, Subi - ratepayer/taxpayer subsidy plus Aurora Stadium where Tas taxpayers kick in

The there are AFL subsidised games nominally growing the game in NZ, NT & Nth Q.

Missed the bit where you costed your dreams &, surprise surprise you ignored who pays .. too much for Mum & her purse ?

Melbourne clearly has a problem where the supply (too many games) exceeds the demand (too few bums on seats) & its being exacerbated with increasing seat prices, increasing club memberships reducing attendances with members only attending home games.

WA taxpayers are questioning why they are being called on to subsidise Melbourne clubs who after 100 years find it TOO HOT in the kitchen.

A boutique stadium wont fix 'bums on seats' , only Melbournes footballing public can do that & clearly they domnt.

 

[The_Wookie]

AFL owned stadiums: nil/zip/squat ..
AFL friendly stadiums: Adelaide, Geelong, Subi - ratepayer/taxpayer subsidy plus Aurora Stadium where Tas taxpayers kick in

The there are AFL subsidised games nominally growing the game in NZ, NT & Nth Q.

Missed the bit where you costed your dreams &, surprise surprise you ignored who pays .. too much for Mum & her purse ?

Melbourne clearly has a problem where the supply (too many games) exceeds the demand (too few bums on seats) & its being exacerbated with increasing seat prices, increasing club memberships reducing attendances with members only attending home games.

WA taxpayers are questioning why they are being called on to subsidise Melbourne clubs who after 100 years find it TOO HOT in the kitchen.

A boutique stadium wont fix 'bums on seats' , only Melbournes footballing public can do that & clearly they domnt.

The AFL does NOT subsidise games in the Northern Territory. The money comes froim the NT government at a rate of $600,000 per match. (2 matches per year, $6 million over five years). That deal ends this year. The AFL does contribute to games in NZ though. Its unclear if the AFL subsidises the games in North Queensland or whether they simply helped pay for the infrastructure upgrades at Cazalys with funding for the games coming from Events Qld. That saidn, given that the AFL hasnt subsidised games in Tasmania, Canberra, Darwin or Alice Springs to date, it seems logical to believe that the league isnt subsidising games in Cairns either.

WA Taxpayers are barking up the wrong tree. They arent subsidising anyone. Larger teams in the Melbourne market subsidise the smaller teams in the Melbourne market and will be even more true now. Equalisation simply means that now instead of the Big Victorian clubs being the only clubs forking out for equalisation (via the Blockbuster tax), the WA and SA clubs will actually be helping to carry the burden - of the other interstate clubs in Qld and NSW.

 

[Kwality]

So Wookie, what about this boutique stadium is it viable in either the short or the long term?

 

[Kwality]

Would have thought the most viable option would be to upgrade an ageing VFL venue to AFL standard to seat 30,000. Princess Park is the most likely option being central to most melbourne based clubs but a venue like Casey Fields would certainly bring people to the area and the basic infrastructure is in place as well as having the room to move for stands etc. Would never happen but it should !

Fans demand Rolls Royce facilities at bargain basement prices Yoda ... to watch a footy match !!
Facilities not used often each year bar the G & Etihad, perhaps ANZ & the SCG in Sydney.

 

[The_Wookie]

So Wookie, what about this boutique stadium is it viable in either the short or the long term?

If they are4 smart and can tie it in with Cricket at the Junction oval then it may well be viable in the short term until the league takes over Docklands at least. The question for the league is whether contributing to junction oval is worth more or less than the amounts being forked over to clubs in equalisation, and then inevitable penalties for not meeting fixture requirements under the contract. When the penalties are considered, its probably not worth it.

 

[Johnny Demon]

Victoria Park due to its access to transport and vacant land adjacent to the railway for parking, training (community centre) and social facilities) is a good option. With a stand like that at Metricon on the wing and new facilities, it would be a great mix of old and new.

Potentially could get direct access to Victorial Park station. Would suit the 15000 to 25000 games.

 

[The_Reaper]

If they are4 smart and can tie it in with Cricket at the Junction oval then it may well be viable in the short term until the league takes over Docklands at least. The question for the league is whether contributing to junction oval is worth more or less than the amounts being forked over to clubs in equalisation, and then inevitable penalties for not meeting fixture requirements under the contract. When the penalties are considered, its probably not worth it.

Why would cricket victoria want to get involved with the AFL?

The whole point for Cricket Victoria is to get an elite, specialist, cricket only facility.

The last thing they want is to share with the AFL, especially with all the demand for drop in wickets that will result in

 

[The_Wookie]

Why would cricket victoria want to get involved with the AFL?

The whole point for Cricket Victoria is to get an elite, specialist, cricket only facility.

The last thing they want is to share with the AFL, especially with all the demand for drop in wickets that will result in

They dont, at the time I thought the Government might since it would defray the costs of the venue. Since that post in June the Government has declined to have the AFL involved, opting instead to help St Kilda move back to Moorabin. Not that Cricket hasnt minded taking AFL money for the last 118 years.

There wont be a boutique stadium. The AFL would be mad to spend money on something that will probably cost more than it will cost to buy Etihad, and rob the league of fixtures for its venue. It wont happen.

 

[theRainbowGame]

This stadium in my view encompasses more issues than simply placing smaller crowds in a better environment.

1) Melbournes population is growing, hence crowds should theoretically grow for all clubs. Therefore another stadium may not be necessary later on.
2) The VFL should be able to play some larger games there.
3) What will happen in 2025 when the AFL takes over docklands? Should a new stadium be built with no view to upgrading it ever.
4) Is it possible that people are attending sport more as a big game fan? In which case is it better to relocate low drawing teams?
5) If a new stadium is built should it be built with the future in mind, in upgrading it continuously to become a 50,000 seat stadium, or even a rival to the MCG.

 

[Silent Alarm]

This stadium in my view encompasses more issues than simply placing smaller crowds in a better environment.

1) Melbournes population is growing, hence crowds should theoretically grow for all clubs. Therefore another stadium may not be necessary later on.
2) The VFL should be able to play some larger games there.
3) What will happen in 2025 when the AFL takes over docklands? Should a new stadium be built with no view to upgrading it ever.
4) Is it possible that people are attending sport more as a big game fan? In which case is it better to relocate low drawing teams?
5) If a new stadium is built should it be built with the future in mind, in upgrading it continuously to become a 50,000 seat stadium, or even a rival to the MCG.

1) Perth should stick to this philosophy and should have had a 70,000 capacity stadium. Victoria has 10 clubs and far more than enough to account for growth. In fact, ten clubs with 60,000 members would see them all with an Eagles/Crows/Dockers cashflow
2) VFL matches might get like 12,000 at the absolute maximum and that's for their GF. Not needed
3) They'll keep it. The clubs will benefit from having good stadium deals. The AFL will benefit from having less cash to pay those lesser clubs, while the AFL will be able to extort the A-League, concert, rugby, and flogs having gay punch ups at the darts for money
5) Nah. A new stadium will only be built when Etihad is about to cark it. When it's getting close to irrelevance or outdated status, they'll end up building a brand new stadium (and $50 says they repeat the stupid mistakes of Waverley in some shithole suburb that doesn't exist yet) and paying for it by selling the Docklands real estate in 30 years.

 

[incubi]

Victoria Park due to its access to transport and vacant land adjacent to the railway for parking, training (community centre) and social facilities) is a good option. With a stand like that at Metricon on the wing and new facilities, it would be a great mix of old and new.

Potentially could get direct access to Victorial Park station. Would suit the 15000 to 25000 games.

Victoria Park is about the 5th best option of the old grounds to be developed.Princes park, Arden street (when metro tunnel complete), punt rd and whitten oval all make more sense.

 

[Max Power 83]

Victoria Park is about the 5th best option of the old grounds to be developed.Princes park, Arden street (when metro tunnel complete), punt rd and whitten oval all make more sense.

Arden Street? You've got to be joking.

 

[speedybundy]

Not enough room or parking at Arden unfortunately

 

[Silent Alarm]

If Arden Street was home to a club with millions of dollars, it wouldn't be used anymore. There is just no room around the place and it's a while from any decent transport links.

It was also pretty poorly handled with the redevelopment. There were a lot of cool little relics hanging around. Obviously the old grandstand was rotting out, but you still could've kept the turnstiles, gates, club shop, and the chairs out the front. Could've had a Lakeside Oval type thing and keep the top of the grandstand as a shell/roof too. But they absolutely ruined it.

 

[Rouel_14]

I don't understand what is so bad about Etihad!
It has so many positives and just can't understand all the hate towards the place.

It is so close to biggest and cleanest train station in Melbourne, even regional people can get off and go straight to the ground, it has a roof so no one ever gets wet (unless your Brad Scott), it has a pretty decent atmosphere when it is even half full!

To me the solution of getting people to attend Etihad seems a lot easier and financially better off than building a new stadium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk