Docklands Stadium (Marvel Stadium) - Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Silent Alarm said:
And level three isn't that bad at all. Great perspective. You're not going to get it as intimate and over the pitch at AAMI, but I like the view. Heaps better than sitting on the first level, which is just s**t for soccer when the touchline is 35 metres away.
Click to expand...
It's actually hurts your neck because you have to watch the game with your head bowed down in an awkward position.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality said:
There is so much footy in Melbourne its bred nonsense like that, on a par with fans who will go the G but refuse to travel to Docklands. Fair dinkum ...
Click to expand...

Good point, and it's a qualm born from privilege. If Perth had the accessibility, cleanliness, and capacity of Etihad, everyone would love it (well, maybe give it another 5, 10,000 seats).

What's odd is that people like the idea of Optus Oval returning. Despite the fact it has car parks and a single tram line servicing it, not to mentioning archaic facilities (though I maintain the Legends Stand in its current state is still better than Subi). A truly odd double standards.
 
Silent Alarm said:
Good point, and it's a qualm born from privilege. If Perth had the accessibility, cleanliness, and capacity of Etihad, everyone would love it (well, maybe give it another 5, 10,000 seats).

What's odd is that people like the idea of Optus Oval returning. Despite the fact it has car parks and a single tram line servicing it, not to mentioning archaic facilities (though I maintain the Legends Stand in its current state is still better than Subi). A truly odd double standards.
Click to expand...

They don't actually. What would happen is that clubs would sign up for long term deals to play there in return for $50 million to upgrade the ground to barely inhabitable. By round 3 of the first season everyone's realised why they abandoned the shithole in the first place and crowds plummet. The AFL proceeds to be blamed for locking clubs into long term deals at the ground in front of s**t crowds and how the 'stadium deal' is so bad there. They will then demand compensation for said poor 'stadium deals' despite their club signing up to it in the first place.

Melbourne is the home of unaccountability. At least when it comes to football. There are Victorians that genuinely believe that their club would be better off at a stadium like Subiaco.
 
Rob said:
They don't actually. What would happen is that clubs would sign up for long term deals to play there in return for $50 million to upgrade the ground to barely inhabitable. By round 3 of the first season everyone's realised why they abandoned the shithole in the first place and crowds plummet. The AFL proceeds to be blamed for locking clubs into long term deals at the ground in front of s**t crowds and how the 'stadium deal' is so bad there. They will then demand compensation for said poor 'stadium deals' despite their club signing up to it in the first place.

Melbourne is the home of unaccountability. At least when it comes to football. There are Victorians that genuinely believe that their club would be better off at a stadium like Subiaco.
Click to expand...

I usually head to Melbourne with some mates for a footy weekend yearly, and TBH i actually prefer Docklands for viewing the game. ( sacrilege i know:rolleyes: ), i like the history etc of the MCG, but for football viewing i feel Docklands is better.
 
I totally agree with the posts above, Melburians generally bitch about the stadium, there is a real double standard between the MCG and Etihad. However, I think this mainly has to do with a lot of older fans simply remembering fond memories of Waverly, from a football perspective Waverly was great, the surface was fantastic and compared to Etihad the majority of seats where well placed. Obviously Waverly had a host of other issues that let it down. IMO it isn't hard for people to see the issues with the surface and think "this wouldn't have happened at Waverly."
In its opening year Etihad was very heavily criticized, in fact I can still remember going to a game in 2000 and having to wait almost a quarter to get tickets to game I didn't even want to go to. Of course, know I don't have to worry about that, I guess that's one of the good things about supporting a small team.
 
Silent Alarm said:
And level three isn't that bad at all. Great perspective. You're not going to get it as intimate and over the pitch at AAMI, but I like the view. Heaps better than sitting on the first level, which is just s**t for soccer when the touchline is 35 metres away.
Click to expand...

I love Etihad, having sat on all levels and attending different games with different crowd sizes, I would have to say my favourite place to sit is anywhere near the front of level 3. Level 2 is only really good if you have 40k plus, and level ones is fine until the ball goes down the other end.
 
Personally not a fan. Don't quite enjoy the atmosphere, which other grounds (MCG, AAMI Park, Visy Park, Footy Park) can ensue the spectator has a sensational day at the footy!
 
Franklinmouse said:
Personally not a fan. Don't quite enjoy the atmosphere, which other grounds (MCG, AAMI Park, Visy Park, Footy Park) can ensue the spectator has a sensational day at the footy!
Click to expand...

This is what I mean. People dislike the atmosphere! If its a good game the atmosphere will be good, as a stadium Etihad stacks up reasonably well. Close to public transport, in the heart of the city, and an adequate size for 99% of games.

The round 14 clash @ the MCG with Melbourne and the Gold Coast was played in front of 13,840 fans, just 14% of the 'Gs total capacity, what do you think the atmosphere was like there.

Simply put, saying the atmosphere was bad is a cop out, if you said it was because of the poor seats, cost of tickets/food/drinks, or terrible surface then fair enough.

Surely you must be taking the piss, your seriously saying Visy Park has a better atmosphere.
 
TommyVercetti said:
This is what I mean. People dislike the atmosphere! If its a good game the atmosphere will be good, as a stadium Etihad stacks up reasonably well. Close to public transport, in the heart of the city, and an adequate size for 99% of games.

The round 14 clash @ the MCG with Melbourne and the Gold Coast was played in front of 13,840 fans, just 14% of the 'Gs total capacity, what do you think the atmosphere was like there.

Simply put, saying the atmosphere was bad is a cop out, if you said it was because of the poor seats, cost of tickets/food/drinks, or terrible surface then fair enough.

Surely you must be taking the piss, your seriously saying Visy Park has a better atmosphere.
Click to expand...


Have you ever been to Visy Park when it is pumping? its just a good ground for footy, none of this other nonsense.
 
Franklinmouse said:
Have you ever been to Visy Park when it is pumping? its just a good ground for footy, none of this other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Any ground is electric when it's "pumping", put in 2 teams how want the win and you've got a good atmosphere. Doesn't matter what ground your at, as long as you've got a decent crowd in.

Franklinmouse said:
Have you ever been to Visy Park when it is pumping? its just a good ground for footy, none of this other nonsense.
Click to expand...
If that was the case it would still be used today.

Franklinmouse said:
Have you ever been to Visy Park when it is pumping? its just a good ground for footy, none of this other nonsense.
Click to expand...
Want nonsense. If people want to go to games for the atmosphere then they can stick to showdowns, ANZAC day, the Perth derby, the Q clash and "the battle of the bridge".
 
Franklinmouse said:
Have you ever been to Visy Park when it is pumping? its just a good ground for footy, none of this other nonsense.
Click to expand...
visy park was a good ground, it was the best of club grounds, to compare visy park to Etihad is ridiculous.
one is a world class stadium the other is a dated suburban oval.
a crowd of 15 to 20k at the old club grounds gave is a packed house feel, where a crowd of 20 or 30k at etihad still gives a rather empty feel.
its a shame there are none of the club grounds are used any more, aside from Kadinia park in geelong. but the expense of keeping them up to people's expected standards now days to Etihad & MCG standards to great.

the NRL is going through the similar problem the AFL did 20 years ago, where the Clubs are asking for money from the state government & commission to up grade their home club grounds due to having dated facilities & ln hope to help build their pathetic crowd figures, but many of the games have been shifted to the modern stadiums o ANZ and allianz
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I like Etihad, i've been there about 21 times in the past four years (from the country, so only get to games when I can). Used to hate having to go up to level 3 because I like being close to the action. The thought of possibly getting the ball kicked into your vicinity (never happened to me) or being shown on camera (happened in the Round 3 game against Geelong in 2012) is exciting, plus if you're at a quiet North game with not many people, you can hear the shouts from the players.

But I do like level 3 because you get to see a side of the game you don't see on the telly. Especially as a North fan, watching some of our plays start from deep in defence and go the whole length of the ground to finish in a goal is a beauty to watch, as you can really see the play unfold before it actually does.

Haven't been to the MCG since 2010 (well I went there last year for a cricket game) so am keen to get back there.
 
Spitta2Azza said:
I like Etihad, i've been there about 21 times in the past four years (from the country, so only get to games when I can). Used to hate having to go up to level 3 because I like being close to the action. The thought of possibly getting the ball kicked into your vicinity (never happened to me) or being shown on camera (happened in the Round 3 game against Geelong in 2012) is exciting, plus if you're at a quiet North game with not many people, you can hear the shouts from the players.

But I do like level 3 because you get to see a side of the game you don't see on the telly. Especially as a North fan, watching some of our plays start from deep in defence and go the whole length of the ground to finish in a goal is a beauty to watch, as you can really see the play unfold before it actually does.

Haven't been to the MCG since 2010 (well I went there last year for a cricket game) so am keen to get back there.
Click to expand...

I go to Etihad for every Bulldogs game, I think it was about 14 or 15 this year, and I'd usually end up on level 3 as a GA Bulldogs member/ticket buyer and didn't mind the viewing angles and freedom of seat choice, but later in the 2013 season I upgraded my ticket for most of the games, the experience down in the cheersquad is brilliant. Hearing the air come out of the ball as it's kicked for goal, seeing Gia work his magic up close, standing by the race as the players are clapped off the field if we win, running into some of the boys after the game's over.
You definitely do get a good perspective on the play unfolding from level 3 though. I used to love watching Hawthorn live from the top deck at the MCG (I'm an MCC member) in 2008 because their rolling zone starting from the backline and eventually hitting up Buddy/Roughead on the chest was just awesome.
 
WILL ETIHAD SELL OUT THIS FRIDAY NIGHT? IT'S A TOUGH ONE, WITH FREMANTLE THE REIGNING PREMIERS AND COLLINWOOD'S FANS FULL OF FALSE HOPE CONSIDERING THE TIME OF YEAR
 
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
13K
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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top