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

[1061]

I'd love each club to still have their own grounds up and running. Even if they only hold 20,000. Could hold 2-3 'spiritual' home games a year there which would be fantastic for the clubs supporters.

Just need a billionaire to come in and be willing to fund it for all clubs

Collingwood did that for years with Vic Park but it just wasn't feasible when the MCG was prepared to offer the a good deal to play all home games at the G. That's the issue here, the two Melbourne stadiums have the market locked up in a duopoly where they no longer need to offer sweeteners to clubs as clubs are forced to use the two grounds.

 

[JD Tomahawk]

I like the idea of letting teams survive on there own. But hawks deal with Tassie annnoys me. Though I know afl were to scared to introduce a Tassie team I want nothing more than to see it happen. Every time hawks extend Tassie deal the less likely itl happen in our life time. They play what four games a yr down there.So a Tassie team would play 8. You can't say a tas team wouldn't fill the stadium every home game for the next 50 years. That sounds more successful than gc and gws put together. They could have not had those expansion teams, put Tassie in, upgrade stadium and move hawks 4 games back to Melbourne. And would have made and could make a lot more $ than they do now. Wam bam there's your extra dosh for a 3rd Melbourne stadium for north, saints, dogs to share against interstate sides. While the bigger teams continue to use the bigger stadiums. All clubs are now making profit.

 

[Boxhead_31]

...not compared to Hawthorn and Collingwood anyway who are both subject to major taxation from the AFL

What a load of bollocks. As a percentage of your profit how much are Collingwood and Hawthorn "taxed". Which were the two clubs who fought to cap the "tax" they pay?

 

[Kwality]

What a load of bollocks. As a percentage of your profit how much are Collingwood and Hawthorn "taxed". Which were the two clubs who fought to cap the "tax" they pay?

Keeping tax to a minimum is reality in the real world.

 

[bombersfan4000]

really? the vic government is just going to gift them a third stadium during a time when global economic uncertainly remains?

are they planning to sell of a state asset to pay for it through a fully costed fund where all tenders and bids must come in under that budget?

what do the roughly 3.6 million victorians who don't regularly watch or attend AFL games think of this move?

well they do in Sydney! the majority of those stadiums are built for a crap sport NRL that draws pathetic numbers!

 

[Sydney Bloods]

well they do in Sydney! the majority of those stadiums are built for a crap sport NRL that draws pathetic numbers!

wrong, the last stadium built was the showgrounds. it houses the cricket AFL and the royal show, built and paid for by a joint effort between the AFL the NSW government and horticultural councils development fund. Before that ANZ which was built for the olympics. you have to go back to 1986 for the SFS which was again a joint effort this time between the state government the SCG trust and the ARL and ARU, it was actually built to keep the ground free for cricket. every other ground in Sydney are local council grounds.

there's several key differences between Sydney and Melbourne.
1: Sydney has a biggest economy in the country backing it.
2: apart from ANZ every ground developed by the NSW government has come from a some form fully funded development and the state did not have incur noticeable debt to pay it off. (the next upgrade is coming from rents from electricity privatisation)
3: clean stadium deals in Sydney come with an increased rent fee which is passed on to point of sale, thus it costs more to attend sports then Victorian footy fans are prepared to pay.
4: the state owned grounds all host multiple sports and have almost no significant down time.

the simple fact is vic does not have a dedicated development fund for new stadia or even significant upgrades, they don't have as much money, vic fans are cheap and vic doesn't have the co-operation of multiple private entities willing to help foot the bill.
and even if you did, you still wouldn't attend and the clubs would still go broke anyway.

as usual small man syndrome from vic's thinking "But, But, But Sydney" oh and lol at the crowds for the NRL, where the clubs can still make money (more money in fact then several vic clubs) utilising small crowds, smaller memberships and is only played in two states. I'm all for taking shots at NRL, But it seems the NRL are better money managers then vast majority of AFL clubs. something nobody is comfortable admitting.

 

[Rich]

Very misleading thread title. Journo saying it's inevitable =/= it's happening.

Dwayne Russell is a journo?

 

[TwentyNine]

Dwayne Russell is a journo?

Media person I suppose more accurate description.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Where is the money coming from to fund this extravagance?

Well either the Bulldogs or the AFL.
You can't expect the Taxpayers to fund it.

 

[Billy ray]

25-30k will be too small. Go for 40 or even 50.
Oh, and put a roof on it, it gets cold and wet in winter...

 

[juss]

25-30k will be too small. Go for 40 or even 50.
Oh, and put a roof on it, it gets cold and wet in winter...

50k probably too large for the Bulldogs, with all due respect. The whole point would be to have a packed stadium and great atmosphere every week. 30-35k would be plenty.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

wrong, the last stadium built was the showgrounds. it houses the cricket AFL and the royal show, built and paid for by a joint effort between the AFL the NSW government and horticultural councils development fund. Before that ANZ which was built for the olympics. you have to go back to 1986 for the SFS which was again a joint effort this time between the state government the SCG trust and the ARL and ARU, it was actually built to keep the ground free for cricket. every other ground in Sydney are local council grounds.

there's several key differences between Sydney and Melbourne.
1: Sydney has a biggest economy in the country backing it.
2: apart from ANZ every ground developed by the NSW government has come from a some form fully funded development and the state did not have incur noticeable debt to pay it off. (the next upgrade is coming from rents from electricity privatisation)
3: clean stadium deals in Sydney come with an increased rent fee which is passed on to point of sale, thus it costs more to attend sports then Victorian footy fans are prepared to pay.
4: the state owned grounds all host multiple sports and have almost no significant down time.

the simple fact is vic does not have a dedicated development fund for new stadia or even significant upgrades, they don't have as much money, vic fans are cheap and vic doesn't have the co-operation of multiple private entities willing to help foot the bill.
and even if you did, you still wouldn't attend and the clubs would still go broke anyway.

as usual small man syndrome from vic's thinking "But, But, But Sydney" oh and lol at the crowds for the NRL, where the clubs can still make money (more money in fact then several vic clubs) utilising small crowds, smaller memberships and is only played in two states. I'm all for taking shots at NRL, But it seems the NRL are better money managers then vast majority of AFL clubs. something nobody is comfortable admitting.

I was under the impression that the NRL clubs made all there money from their huge leagues clubs which each have hundreds of pokies machines in them. Each team basically has their own small casino behind them.
The AFL Clubs riddled with debt find themselves in that situation because they are paying off Etihad for the rest of the competition. Hence why they are compensated for this. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are bad money managers. They are just up against it.
You would think things would improve when the AFL takes possession of the ground in 10 years or so.

 

[1061]

50k probably too large for the Bulldogs, with all due respect. The whole point would be to have a packed stadium and great atmosphere every week. 30-35k would be plenty.

Bazinga

 

[Borussia Teeth]

50k probably too large for the Bulldogs, with all due respect. The whole point would be to have a packed stadium and great atmosphere every week. 30-35k would be plenty.

Sorry if this joke has been made already, but could Fremantle be sent to play a final there? If so, then carry on...

 

[magic_johnson!]

No it doesn't, it's about having half a clue and being economically rational, and flexible.

Every week at Etihad shiteloads of seats on levels one and two, not in any membership area, sit empty. Why wouldn't you sell them instead? It's a good experience and people might come back.

I have an Essendon reserved seat on level one, for which I pay a premium. There wouldn't be any at our games because almost the entire two levels are reserved for members.

But at another game where those seats aren't sold, why wouldn't you sell them at the right price to people who've come along? Theyre obviously too expensive, they just sit empty. They've got the whole supply / demand thing wrong.

Go on eBay any week and look at medallion club tickets. That there is the market value.

Its simply moronic to leave people in s**t seats when others are empty, almost as if out of spite. Of course people will resent the place.

So if someone were to sit in premium seats paying peanuts, would you continue to buy a premium membership? How can you ask people to pay one price when you let others pay another? Can't imagine too many members would be very happy about that. Instead of being seen as undercharging people buying a normal ticket, it would just be seen as overcharging loyal members. You get what you pay for; if you want good seats, you pay a lot.

 

[Kwality]

So if someone were to sit in premium seats paying peanuts, would you continue to buy a premium membership? How can you ask people to pay one price when you let others pay another? Can't imagine too many members would be very happy about that. Instead of being seen as undercharging people buying a normal ticket, it would just be seen as overcharging loyal members. You get what you pay for; if you want good seats, you pay a lot.

Part of the problem for footy in Melbourne - fans want footy but wont pay.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I was under the impression that the NRL clubs made all there money from their huge leagues clubs which each have hundreds of pokies machines in them. Each team basically has their own small casino behind them.
The AFL Clubs riddled with debt find themselves in that situation because they are paying off Etihad for the rest of the competition. Hence why they are compensated for this. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are bad money managers. They are just up against it.
You would think things would improve when the AFL takes possession of the ground in 10 years or so.

nonsense the bigger clubs like my panthers have a large amount of pokies. in fact there's several small clubs we've bought right across the state.
But most leagues clubs would be lucky to have more then 30 and unlike victoria the pokie tax significantly hurts clubs.
You can blame Eitihad all you want. fact is its the culture of reckless spending on upgrading facilities that has hurt clubs the most along side the salary cap floor and asking for yet another stadium will only extend the pain felt by clubs. check out the doomsayers in the perth stadium thread. the amount of people who think stadiums are somehow "free" for clubs is bizarre. You want a new stadium be prepared to open a check book.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

nonsense the bigger clubs like my panthers have a large amount of pokies. in fact there's several small clubs we've bought right across the state.
But most leagues clubs would be lucky to have more then 30 and unlike victoria the pokie tax significantly hurts clubs.
You can blame Eitihad all you want. fact is its the culture of reckless spending on upgrading facilities that has hurt clubs the most along side the salary cap floor and asking for yet another stadium will only extend the pain felt by clubs. check out the doomsayers in the perth stadium thread. the amount of people who think stadiums are somehow "free" for clubs is bizarre. You want a new stadium be prepared to open a check book.

I wouldn't say upgrading facilities to a certain standard is reckless spending at all but a necessary investment and one that would allow a club to compete. Arden Street, Whitten Oval and Visy park are no Lexus Centre but they are industry standard. The reasons you need such facilities are obvious. State and Federal Governmet funding has made the upgrading of these Stadiums possible so are you referring to reckless spending by government??
Now when the Bulldogs say they think a smaller boutique stadium would be a good idea they are not referring to a ground for only one team. It would be available to any low drawing game on the fixture in Melbourne. Instead of building a giant stadium that might get filled once or twice a year, build or redevelop a smaller one that will be filled regularly, create great atmosphere and actually make some money. If the AFL wants to present a great product then it is a fantastic idea.

 

[TBellicious]

To people thinking that the stadium should/could be Princes Park, there is no chance.

The parking is awful
The public transport is non-existent
And the stands/entrances/terraces are bottom of the barrel
Not to add Carlton's multi-million dollar gym and facilities that take up a whole end of the ground.

 

[pinot]

To people thinking that the stadium should/could be Princes Park, there is no chance.

The parking is awful
The public transport is non-existent
And the stands/entrances/terraces are bottom of the barrel
Not to add Carlton's multi-million dollar gym and facilities that take up a whole end of the ground.

It doesn't mean it cant be redeveloped. Princes Park needs a facelift and parking wont be an issue for when played with interstate clubs. I remember going to games against Hawthorn, North, Melbourne and was great atmosphere with nightmare parking. But parking was easy to find against Eagles, Crows, Sydney, Brisbane.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I wouldn't say upgrading facilities to a certain standard is reckless spending at all but a necessary investment and one that would allow a club to compete. Arden Street, Whitten Oval and Visy park are no Lexus Centre but they are industry standard. The reasons you need such facilities are obvious. State and Federal Governmet funding has made the upgrading of these Stadiums possible so are you referring to reckless spending by government??
Now when the Bulldogs say they think a smaller boutique stadium would be a good idea they are not referring to a ground for only one team. It would be available to any low drawing game on the fixture in Melbourne. Instead of building a giant stadium that might get filled once or twice a year, build or redevelop a smaller one that will be filled regularly, create great atmosphere and actually make some money. If the AFL wants to present a great product then it is a fantastic idea.

there's a big difference between meeting the minimum standard and constantly putting in money to move and renovate. governments cover most of the cost but the clubs Always incur some of the debt and many have had issues covering that debt. as for the ground being "available" you make it sound like an option. again your not addressing the cost. If the ground is not being used its not being paid off, which means clubs HAVE TO play there. and you can bet that collingwood, melbourne, richmond and hawthorn wont be taking games to the new ground essendon is married to docklands. Which means contracts forcing the remaining clubs to the new ground an incurring the costs. The fact it's the AFL your talking about some poncey little RL ground with a grand stand or two. the clubs want the whizz bang facilities, they want the corporate seats, the bars, the giant screen, the car parking, train access, the media rooms and on and on and it goes. these things cost money and lots of it and that means when the stadium opens one of two things needs to happen in order to pay it off.

A there's a surge charge on ticket prices like there is in Sydney sparing the clubs but costing the consumer more.
B the clubs take reduced gate takings.

For years the AFL has convinced you that the issue is with the Evil Etihad group. But the truth is this isn't the 1980's any more this is industry standard for large stadia around the world. If you build a new stadium you will be stuck with a similar arrangement. Commentators and spokespersons are happy to talk up the good stuff, like as you mentioned new revenue streams, filled stands, great atmosphere. what they don't mention is who's paying for it and how.

But Sydney, is not an answer. Sydney does things different then Victoria for a variety of reasons i touched on a few earlier. people don't fathom just how much new stadiums cost. there talking about a new ground out at Parra up here a 35,000 seater price tag $350 MILLION for a RL ground. Metrocon went about $144 million for 25K and its in the middle of nowhere has no train access or parking. stadiums are not cheap. the costs we're talking about are hundreds of millions of dollars regardless of size. In Melbourne with prime real estate? and all the bells and whistles? there's no chance of that being under $200 mill. If you think clubs wont be expected to pay your dreaming.

in a few years the AFL will own docklands. Average time for approval for choosing a site, allocating funding and going through tender process for government infrastructure is 18-24 months. Average build time for stadia is 22 months. If it we're given the nod next week it would be 2019 before its finished but as the seasons already under way and games are already sold, So that's 2020 before you could even play there if you wanted to. That means you start paying for the new stadium at a minimum in 2020. pushing your restrained financial situation well into 2030.

You can't just opt in to play at a ground occasionally your not "selling games" in this situation. your going to shackled with the costs not only of paying it off but playing a large chunk of games there for YEARS! and given the increasing costs of competing in AFL (what's there another 2 salary cap increase in the next 6 years alone?) its just a bad, bad idea.

 

[Kram]

If you want to play games at a suburban dump like Princes Park drop back to the VFL.

 

[Rob]

I wouldn't say upgrading facilities to a certain standard is reckless spending at all but a necessary investment and one that would allow a club to compete. Arden Street, Whitten Oval and Visy park are no Lexus Centre but they are industry standard. The reasons you need such facilities are obvious. State and Federal Governmet funding has made the upgrading of these Stadiums possible so are you referring to reckless spending by government??
Now when the Bulldogs say they think a smaller boutique stadium would be a good idea they are not referring to a ground for only one team. It would be available to any low drawing game on the fixture in Melbourne. Instead of building a giant stadium that might get filled once or twice a year, build or redevelop a smaller one that will be filled regularly, create great atmosphere and actually make some money. If the AFL wants to present a great product then it is a fantastic idea.

The problem is that it wouldn't be filled regularly. You build a cheap 20k seater and the average crowd would be about 10k. It would soon become the most hated place in Melbourne, with all clubs begging the AFL not to schedule games there.

 

[undefined]

I would have thought the lack of nearby train station makes it the least likely of the three.

Would it be such a bad idea proposing a new station on say the Hurstbridge/Craigieburn Line called 'University'? Servicing Princes Park & Melb Uni.

There's seemingly a lack of train stations around the Northern inner city (Carlton/Fitzroy/Parkville)

 

[TBellicious]

there's a big difference between meeting the minimum standard and constantly putting in money to move and renovate. governments cover most of the cost but the clubs Always incur some of the debt and many have had issues covering that debt. as for the ground being "available" you make it sound like an option. again your not addressing the cost. If the ground is not being used its not being paid off, which means clubs HAVE TO play there. and you can bet that collingwood, melbourne, richmond and hawthorn wont be taking games to the new ground essendon is married to docklands. Which means contracts forcing the remaining clubs to the new ground an incurring the costs. The fact it's the AFL your talking about some poncey little RL ground with a grand stand or two. the clubs want the whizz bang facilities, they want the corporate seats, the bars, the giant screen, the car parking, train access, the media rooms and on and on and it goes. these things cost money and lots of it and that means when the stadium opens one of two things needs to happen in order to pay it off.

A there's a surge charge on ticket prices like there is in Sydney sparing the clubs but costing the consumer more.
B the clubs take reduced gate takings.

For years the AFL has convinced you that the issue is with the Evil Etihad group. But the truth is this isn't the 1980's any more this is industry standard for large stadia around the world. If you build a new stadium you will be stuck with a similar arrangement. Commentators and spokespersons are happy to talk up the good stuff, like as you mentioned new revenue streams, filled stands, great atmosphere. what they don't mention is who's paying for it and how.

But Sydney, is not an answer. Sydney does things different then Victoria for a variety of reasons i touched on a few earlier. people don't fathom just how much new stadiums cost. there talking about a new ground out at Parra up here a 35,000 seater price tag $350 MILLION for a RL ground. Metrocon went about $144 million for 25K and its in the middle of nowhere has no train access or parking. stadiums are not cheap. the costs we're talking about are hundreds of millions of dollars regardless of size. In Melbourne with prime real estate? and all the bells and whistles? there's no chance of that being under $200 mill. If you think clubs wont be expected to pay your dreaming.

in a few years the AFL will own docklands. Average time for approval for choosing a site, allocating funding and going through tender process for government infrastructure is 18-24 months. Average build time for stadia is 22 months. If it we're given the nod next week it would be 2019 before its finished but as the seasons already under way and games are already sold, So that's 2020 before you could even play there if you wanted to. That means you start paying for the new stadium at a minimum in 2020. pushing your restrained financial situation well into 2030.

You can't just opt in to play at a ground occasionally your not "selling games" in this situation. your going to shackled with the costs not only of paying it off but playing a large chunk of games there for YEARS! and given the increasing costs of competing in AFL (what's there another 2 salary cap increase in the next 6 years alone?) its just a bad, bad idea.

tl;dr