Unequal stadium deals and the impact of massive spending increases by the Rich Clubs

[Periphery]

Why would the AFL want to sell something that costs so much to build, just so they can build another?
And if they did why would they tell Robert Doyle their plans?

Because they could pocket the difference between what they sell Etihad ($1b+) for and what it takes to establish another one.

Who gives a s**t about Doyle. He's largely irrelevant.

 

[saintbill]

don't overlook the convenience of the proximity of Etihad to Southern Cross Station

I personally love going to games at etihad. Easy to get to by train but also better to drive to then the G. I often get the missus just to drop me off at south wharf. Easy for her to get back to port melbourne. I knock back a few pre game brews with the lads, short stroll over the walkway to the ground. Everybody wins.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Because they could pocket the difference between what they sell Etihad ($1b+) for and what it takes to establish another one.

Who gives a s**t about Doyle. He's largely irrelevant.

Perth Oval is costed at something like 1.5 Billion and expected to blow out.
Adelaide Oval cost 500 million.

They would have to pay for land at a new site.
There would probably be less than ideal transport at the new site.

The land is arguably worth that much if it was cleared and developed into salable parcels, but that would cost money.

Sorry I just can't believe its even on the radar right now.

It would make more sense, once they got ownership of it, to sell it to another private operator and pocket the cash.
FWIW i don't think that would happen either.

 

[RoundCubic]

If the state gov went to change zoning laws they would still have to compensate the AFL would be able to sue on good faith grounds. A small game 15000-20000 seat stadium which could also host cricket would be good

Docklands problem is not the stadium its in the design its been widely criticised for its sterile layout that discourages foot traffic compared to the cbd laneways they would be better off burying the tracks after spencer st station before the turn to flinders st station and develop that land into office+shops and penthouse res removing the physical barrier to the docklands. Right now Etihad is the only thing that brings in foot traffic.

I hate sports haters, professional sports brings billions into melbourne every year not poetry jams or experimental dance preformances

 

[Nutsngum]

If the state gov went to change zoning laws they would still have to compensate the AFL would be able to sue on good faith grounds. A small game 15000-20000 seat stadium which could also host cricket would be good

Docklands problem is not the stadium its in the design its been widely criticised for its sterile layout that discourages foot traffic compared to the cbd laneways they would be better off burying the tracks after spencer st station before the turn to flinders st station and develop that land into office+shops and penthouse res removing the physical barrier to the docklands. Right now Etihad is the only thing that brings in foot traffic.

I hate sports haters, professional sports brings billions into melbourne every year not poetry jams or experimental dance preformances

Pretty much. They would have been much much better off developing the land slowly in a higher density fashion, pushing out from the stadium area. Instead of having busy streets with the laneways shooting out from the sides like the CBD they have huge open avenues that just funnel the wind through them.

 

[Periphery]

Perth Oval is costed at something like 1.5 Billion and expected to blow out.
Adelaide Oval cost 500 million.

They would have to pay for land at a new site.
There would probably be less than ideal transport at the new site.

The land is arguably worth that much if it was cleared and developed into salable parcels, but that would cost money.

Sorry I just can't believe its even on the radar right now.

It would make more sense, once they got ownership of it, to sell it to another private operator and pocket the cash.
FWIW i don't think that would happen either.

They wouldn't be building a Perth size stadium. And it'd probably be smaller than AO.

Even if they spent 500m building it they'd still have 500m left over.

If they got in on the E-gate redevelopment the land would come cheap (in the same way as it did for Etihad). It's also right near North Melb station. However, I prefer the idea of building a 2nd stadium on the punt road oval site and turning the area into Fotty mecca.

If the state gov went to change zoning laws they would still have to compensate the AFL would be able to sue on good faith grounds. A small game 15000-20000 seat stadium which could also host cricket would be good

Docklands problem is not the stadium its in the design its been widely criticised for its sterile layout that discourages foot traffic compared to the cbd laneways they would be better off burying the tracks after spencer st station before the turn to flinders st station and develop that land into office+shops and penthouse res removing the physical barrier to the docklands. Right now Etihad is the only thing that brings in foot traffic.

I hate sports haters, professional sports brings billions into melbourne every year not poetry jams or experimental dance preformances

The AFL wouldn't be suing the council because the only really likely direction the zoning for Etihad would go in is beneficial to the AFL.

They wont lower the rail lines, they'll just build above them. It's cheaper. They are already planning on doing this over the section of rail to the east of fed square: http://www.majorprojects.vic.gov.au/project/federation-square-east/?tab=overview

As far as I know, Docklands was originally meant to be mid rise high quality development, but the council changed it's mind when it realised it could make a lot more money by going high rise. This inevitably screwed everything up as developers went nuts. A very similar thing has happened to Fishermans bend so far (it was zoned as a 'capital city' area - the highest possible).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

They wouldn't be building a Perth size stadium. And it'd probably be smaller than AO.

Even if they spent 500m building it they'd still have 500m left over.

If they got in on the E-gate redevelopment the land would come cheap (in the same way as it did for Etihad). It's also right near North Melb station. However, I prefer the idea of building a 2nd stadium on the punt road oval site and turning the area into Fotty mecca.



The AFL wouldn't be suing the council because the only really likely direction the zoning for Etihad would go in is beneficial to the AFL.

They wont lower the rail lines, they'll just build above them. It's cheaper. They are already planning on doing this over the section of rail to the east of fed square: http://www.majorprojects.vic.gov.au/project/federation-square-east/?tab=overview

As far as I know, Docklands was originally meant to be mid rise high quality development, but the council changed it's mind when it realised it could make a lot more money by going high rise. This inevitably screwed everything up as developers went nuts. A very similar thing has happened to Fishermans bend so far (it was zoned as a 'capital city' area - the highest possible).

Its not just the size. Stadium Australia cost the same to build as Docklands more or less. Construction costs have gone up.
For the AFL there is more money in televison licensing then there is in real estate.
I don't believe they would get 1.2 Billion for the uncleared Etihad land if the Stadium was not to be used. The gains for them simply are not worth the mucking around.
However if they wanted the cash that bad, they could sell it to a private operator and pay like they do now.

I live east of Melbourne. MCG is already crap for me to get to , since our rail system doesn't really facilitate anyone who lives outside walking distance of a railway station.
Its just so easy to park at the Casino or near Costco and walk to Etihad. Its just so easy to get out of both those carparks and onto a freeway after a game. ( MCG parking is the biggest load of crap ever ).

Councils all around the city cave into developers for cash. ( my local one likes taking parkland bequeathed to the community and selling it to supermarkets , or quietly deciding they can't be bothered turning a huge area set aside for parkland , into and actual park, and just rezoning it residential.).
Their aim seems to be to turn melbourne into a megaslum.
The newest buildings built close in around Etihad have worsened the atmosphere.
Take away the stadium and put more high rises there. Yeah whatever.

 

[Gangnam Saint]

Not sure I'd listen to Robert Doyle. The costs & practicalities make it a very, very low probability event.
First question is: Where's the benefit for the AFL to move?

 

[Nutsngum]

Something people are kind of ignoring is that crowd sizes are inevitably going to go up regardless simply due to population growth. Yes Etihad averages 25,000 or whatever people now but give it another 10 years that could easily jump by 5000 people on average.

You can only host so many games at the MCG and a 20k boutique stadium just isnt going to cut it. I think the lowest ive been to at a game was 18k vs port or something along those lines.. when our membership was scraping 30k people. What happens when we want 40k and above signing up?

 

[RoundCubic]

They wouldn't be building a Perth size stadium. And it'd probably be smaller than AO.

Even if they spent 500m building it they'd still have 500m left over.

If they got in on the E-gate redevelopment the land would come cheap (in the same way as it did for Etihad). It's also right near North Melb station. However, I prefer the idea of building a 2nd stadium on the punt road oval site and turning the area into Fotty mecca.



The AFL wouldn't be suing the council because the only really likely direction the zoning for Etihad would go in is beneficial to the AFL.

They wont lower the rail lines, they'll just build above them. It's cheaper. They are already planning on doing this over the section of rail to the east of fed square: http://www.majorprojects.vic.gov.au/project/federation-square-east/?tab=overview

As far as I know, Docklands was originally meant to be mid rise high quality development, but the council changed it's mind when it realised it could make a lot more money by going high rise. This inevitably screwed everything up as developers went nuts. A very similar thing has happened to Fishermans bend so far (it was zoned as a 'capital city' area - the highest possible).

Don't want to get into a Matho scale argument but the difference with Fed Square east is that it becomes the new end to the CBD and the streets are already built up above the track level with Batman Ave. The problem with Docklands is that it is a large area currently cut off from the CBD people must make a deliberate choice to cross a physical barrier to enter the docklands area.

There is a psychological effect on people when they are faced with barriers to cross this is why in many cities they have narrowed parade avenues and are burying highways. If they built a cafe shopping office district at the end of Spencer st over the tracks people may migrate down to Docklands maybe they can do that with landscaping instead of burying the tracks but either way its the bigger problem with the current layout then Etihad stadium.

I have no problem with high rise development with Melbourne's projected pop growth Fishermans bend is ideal to become the extension of the CBD as it has far less historic houses + buildings then the other sides of the CBD. At Docklands it seems to me it should have either been make into an ideal residential island with primary school + junior high, parks, community spaces gardens, and small local shops or an extension of the CBD but they ignored experts tried to make it both failed wildly and now want to blame footy its a joke.

 

[gringo2011]

Something people are kind of ignoring is that crowd sizes are inevitably going to go up regardless simply due to population growth. Yes Etihad averages 25,000 or whatever people now but give it another 10 years that could easily jump by 5000 people on average.

You can only host so many games at the MCG and a 20k boutique stadium just isnt going to cut it. I think the lowest ive been to at a game was 18k vs port or something along those lines.. when our membership was scraping 30k people. What happens when we want 40k and above signing up?

I guess it will be like Essendon home games where the matches go fully ticketed. I think we will be lucky to get more to games as other sports put the squeeze on the AFL and people will be able to watch in HD in the future on demand. I reckon the next 20 years will see smaller crowds.

 

[gringo2011]

Don't want to get into a Matho scale argument but the difference with Fed Square east is that it becomes the new end to the CBD and the streets are already built up above the track level with Batman Ave. The problem with Docklands is that it is a large area currently cut off from the CBD people must make a deliberate choice to cross a physical barrier to enter the docklands area.

There is a psychological effect on people when they are faced with barriers to cross this is why in many cities they have narrowed parade avenues and are burying highways. If they built a cafe shopping office district at the end of Spencer st over the tracks people may migrate down to Docklands maybe they can do that with landscaping instead of burying the tracks but either way its the bigger problem with the current layout then Etihad stadium.

I have no problem with high rise development with Melbourne's projected pop growth Fishermans bend is ideal to become the extension of the CBD as it has far less historic houses + buildings then the other sides of the CBD. At Docklands it seems to me it should have either been make into an ideal residential island with primary school + junior high, parks, community spaces gardens, and small local shops or an extension of the CBD but they ignored experts tried to make it both failed wildly and now want to blame footy its a joke.

Yep agree, if they want to make it a destination they need easy access for cars and PT and put on events there that bring families. They were too desperate to make money from developers and made a few underwhelming public spaces that were unoriginal and dull. Cosco is the biggest draw card to the place and now there are others it will get worse. They need to move things like moomba etc there so people get used to it and put on concerts and events there. Cheaper than bulldozing the stadium that is now built in by towers anyway.

 

[RoundCubic]

I guess it will be like Essendon home games where the matches go fully ticketed. I think we will be lucky to get more to games as other sports put the squeeze on the AFL and people will be able to watch in HD in the future on demand. I reckon the next 20 years will see smaller crowds.

I hope not think AFL will only get bigger and in 20 years it will be do we need a 80000 seat stadium maybe sell Etihad to the A-League they might be able to regularly drew crowds to it by then. Footy is best live part of why its so hard to explain to foreigners how many Greeks, Italians, Slavs have migrated to Melbourne since WW2 and soccer didn't take over they became AFL fans and some of the best players. The A-League is deliberately running in the AFL+Rugby off seasons and will always suffer a talent drain to the big Euro leagues which makes it a lesser spectacular. A-League at best hopes to like become Baseball to the NFL.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

I personally love going to games at etihad. Easy to get to by train but also better to drive to then the G. I often get the missus just to drop me off at south wharf. Easy for her to get back to port melbourne. I knock back a few pre game brews with the lads, short stroll over the walkway to the ground. Everybody wins.

Same.

Coming from Geelong by train it's perfect. Just a very short stroll from the platform to the stadium





Of course I make that a very long stroll by heading to the Great Western for a two hour pre game warm up

 

[Periphery]

Quoting this cause I thought some people here might be interested:

Know a lot of people in the construction industry at firms such as Mirvac and Lend Lease and a lot are saying the AFL will be buidling a boutique stadium where Olympic Park is now.