News Victoria Park the sequel

[Reykjavik]

I don't know if this is for real or Collingwood putting the AFL's feet to the fire post the equalisation tax. Sydney have told Mike Fitzpatrick where to stick it post the COLA changes by moving their games from ANZ Stadium (in which Fitzpatrick has financial interests) to the SCG in a 30 year deal. Given that move and the Cats getting plenty of money at Skilled, I wouldn't rule it out as a serious, long-term, proposal.

It cost $450 million to build Docklands stadium in 2000 so to build a smaller 50k capacity stadium today might cost $500-600 million depending on where it's built.

You wouldn't pay the whole cost yourself and in one go. Pert mentioned joint partnerships and private equity and you could add to that significant government contributions for sure. Building loans are paid as costs are accrued so you pay don't start paying interest on $500 million straight off the bat.

At Skilled the redevelopment investment there has been to date $13 million from Geelong Football Club, $26 million federal govt, $40 million from the state govt, city of Geelong $10.5 million and AFL $7.75 million. It's a marginal seat which explains some of the pork-barrelling but you're looking at $97 million of which GFC have chipped in around 13%. Collingwood might look to build in some growth corridor and get some political largesse and AFL help and as a club we have our own political capital so I'd be confident we'd get significant money from government.

The outlays are undoubtedly large but you have to look at the revenue as well. You have naming rights deals (with Etihad paying $5-8 million per year at Docklands), a lower threshold cost for opposition clubs to house games there, tenancy agreements, a social club/venue element and of course the gate revenue.

If you can knock $100 million off from government and AFL sources to start with you might end up with a $400 million loan over 30 years and be paying $20 million per year on the loan. Money for naming rights, from Spotless for catering, a competitive cost for opposition clubs to hold their home games there so they don't run at a loss (day cost plus profit split), renting of premises etc.

I suspect we could offer a much better deal to clubs like Dogs, North and Saints who are totally gouged by Etihad and turn a profit to both them and us. They could host one home game per season at the stadium and be assured of a modest return rather than a massive loss. It's all very difficult to know if this is a goer or not without the detail so look forward to hearing more in the future.

Herein lies the many problems

Mega Problem 1: There is no way anyone lends us the money to make this happen. Nobody would enter into even prelimiary contracting without the money being guaranteed, and a lot more than you are saying up front. A private equity group would be required alongside government fundng, for a lot, trouble is, there is no way the bolded revenue streams would survive that involvement. Any partner we involve capable of bringing this off will carve off the critical revenue streams and leave us the debt. Its Catch 22.

Mega Problem 2: Infrastructure projects in Australia are by world standards ridiculously expensive. Like worst in the world, Ive seen studies that place us last in the OECD by a comfortable margin. We are terrible. Partly its due to lack of competition, both in contracting and financing, partly due to accepted bad work practices and high labour costs with low productivity. This will ratchet up the cost while massively increasing the risk. Once again, any partner capable of making this happen will transfer the risk to us while retaining control of revenue streams.

Mega Problem 3:The fixturing. Controlled by the AFL. There are currently barely enough games in Melbourne to meet the contracted requirements for the MCC which the AFL relies on for its long term contract (including the grand final), and to have enough revenue to make docklands work. Docklands is ruinously expensive to run, and will soon be owned by...guess who. There simply arent enough matches available to move to a third stadium wihtout those two crying foul, and the debt is already in place for those.

Barcelona? They play a guaranteed 19 home games a season, plus home fixtures of cup ties. And a soccer stadium is cheaper and easier to build thanks to the ground dimensions and geometry. And Barca are like an order of magnitude bigger than us.

 

[Vicky Park]

Building our own stadium seems farcical to me, but I suppose you can never say never. It aint gonna be Victoria Park, though. Its not 1892 anymore. The constraints are enormous, plus I'm pretty confident the City of Yarra would not sell. The local residents are not exactly pro-Pies either.

 

[Gavin Brossisca]

Yes Councils are a complete joke. Thousands of Staff sitting around talking shi# all day whilst ripping off all the locals. They are paying big $ to caterers to feed their faces for stupid meetings on a weekly basis. At our expense

Darebin Council wanted $35 for a photocopy of a block of land recently. Everything from town planning to the health inspectors is corrupt like you would not believe.

They'll all collapse one day. From greed


That's my rant

- Must not get into argument - Must hold back -

 

[Reykjavik]

- Must not get into argument - Must hold back -

Resist...

 

[Old Spice]

Herein lies the many problems

Mega Problem 1: There is no way anyone lends us the money to make this happen. Nobody would enter into even prelimiary contracting without the money being guaranteed, and a lot more than you are saying up front. A private equity group would be required alongside government fundng, for a lot, trouble is, there is no way the bolded revenue streams would survive that involvement. Any partner we involve capable of bringing this off will carve off the critical revenue streams and leave us the debt. Its Catch 22.

Mega Problem 2: Infrastructure projects in Australia are by world standards ridiculously expensive. Like worst in the world, Ive seen studies that place us last in the OECD by a comfortable margin. We are terrible. Partly its due to lack of competition, both in contracting and financing, partly due to accepted bad work practices and high labour costs with low productivity. This will ratchet up the cost while massively increasing the risk. Once again, any partner capable of making this happen will transfer the risk to us while retaining control of revenue streams.

Mega Problem 3:The fixturing. Controlled by the AFL. There are currently barely enough games in Melbourne to meet the contracted requirements for the MCC which the AFL relies on for its long term contract (including the grand final), and to have enough revenue to make docklands work. Docklands is ruinously expensive to run, and will soon be owned by...guess who. There simply arent enough matches available to move to a third stadium wihtout those two crying foul, and the debt is already in place for those.

Barcelona? They play a guaranteed 19 home games a season, plus home fixtures of cup ties. And a soccer stadium is cheaper and easier to build thanks to the ground dimensions and geometry. And Barca are like an order of magnitude bigger than us.

On the first point you wouldn't go for it unless you had govt and private partners tipping in obviously. The investors wouldn't be fly-by-nighters but long term investors. Super funds are investors at Etihad for precisely this reason, a long term view on returns.

On the second point the labour costs didn't dissuade investors at Etihad. In any case the significant ongoing cost here I think is land value, interest on that and staffing the stadium on a week-to-week basis. I don't think those labour costs are that significant from my, thankully short, experience in hospitality.

The third point is significant but clubs have the right to negotiate ground deals and the AFL accommodate them in the fixture. Sydney have clearly thumbed their nose at the AFL by cutting a deal at the SCG. I don't see why we couldn't moot a ground proposal and bring clubs on board for a better slice of revenue.

Barcelona are clearly much bigger than us but if we found a ground close to the right proportions and with surrounding land for development who knows.

I think it does sound a bit OTT at the minute but I also reckon the AFL feel threatened by soccer and might be amenable to a boutique stadium which is partly bankrolled by a club.

 

[fabulousphil]

Building our own stadium seems farcical to me, but I suppose you can never say never. It aint gonna be Victoria Park, though. Its not 1892 anymore. The constraints are enormous, plus I'm pretty confident the City of Yarra would not sell. The local residents are not exactly pro-Pies either.

My bet is even if Collingwood owned Victoria park which as you probably know was gifted to the council.....

1882 - In return for the biulding of the surrounding roads the 10 1/4 acres of the Victoria Park site is gifted to the Collingwood City Council for 'the resort and recreation of the citizens of Collingwood'. From this point a covenant restricts the use of the land and Victoria Park can never be owned by individuals and must be free to be accessed by the citizens of Collingwood.

http://www.victoriapark.net.au/2.html

then by now the club in times of financial stress would have hocked it or it would be partly owned by the banks.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I don't know if this is for real or Collingwood putting the AFL's feet to the fire post the equalisation tax. Sydney have told Mike Fitzpatrick where to stick it post the COLA changes by moving their games from ANZ Stadium (in which Fitzpatrick has financial interests) to the SCG in a 30 year deal.

I would be very surprised if the AFL aren't thrilled with the Swans' SCG deal ... It gives GWS a clearer ownership of Western Sydney.

Think how annoying it is that we play home games at Etihad ... swans playing games at ANZ was far worse.

It cost $450 million to build Docklands stadium in 2000 so to build a smaller 50k capacity stadium today might cost $500-600 million depending on where it's built.

You wouldn't pay the whole cost yourself and in one go. Pert mentioned joint partnerships and private equity and you could add to that significant government contributions for sure. Building loans are paid as costs are accrued so you pay don't start paying interest on $500 million straight off the bat.

At Skilled the redevelopment investment there has been to date $13 million from Geelong Football Club, $26 million federal govt, $40 million from the state govt, city of Geelong $10.5 million and AFL $7.75 million. It's a marginal seat which explains some of the pork-barrelling but you're looking at $97 million of which GFC have chipped in around 13%. Collingwood might look to build in some growth corridor and get some political largesse and AFL help and as a club we have our own political capital so I'd be confident we'd get significant money from government.

The outlays are undoubtedly large but you have to look at the revenue as well. You have naming rights deals (with Etihad paying $5-8 million per year at Docklands), a lower threshold cost for opposition clubs to house games there, tenancy agreements, a social club/venue element and of course the gate revenue.

If you can knock $100 million off from government and AFL sources to start with you might end up with a $400 million loan over 30 years and be paying $20 million per year on the loan. Money for naming rights, from Spotless for catering, a competitive cost for opposition clubs to hold their home games there so they don't run at a loss (day cost plus profit split), renting of premises etc.

I suspect we could offer a much better deal to clubs like Dogs, North and Saints who are totally gouged by Etihad and turn a profit to both them and us. They could host one home game per season at the stadium and be assured of a modest return rather than a massive loss. It's all very difficult to know if this is a goer or not without the detail so look forward to hearing more in the future.

Moving out of the MCG and into our own 50,000 seat stadium that we share with other clubs?

Not sure that would work.

A dodgy deal on a couple of pubs almost sent us bust .... Imagine what a dodgy stadium deal could do!!

 

[76woodenspooners]

Herein lies the many problems

Mega Problem 1: There is no way anyone lends us the money to make this happen. Nobody would enter into even prelimiary contracting without the money being guaranteed, and a lot more than you are saying up front. A private equity group would be required alongside government fundng, for a lot, trouble is, there is no way the bolded revenue streams would survive that involvement. Any partner we involve capable of bringing this off will carve off the critical revenue streams and leave us the debt. Its Catch 22.

Mega solution 1: Have you heard of Kickstarter?

Mega Problem 2: Infrastructure projects in Australia are by world standards ridiculously expensive. Like worst in the world, Ive seen studies that place us last in the OECD by a comfortable margin. We are terrible. Partly its due to lack of competition, both in contracting and financing, partly due to accepted bad work practices and high labour costs with low productivity. This will ratchet up the cost while massively increasing the risk. Once again, any partner capable of making this happen will transfer the risk to us while retaining control of revenue streams.

Mega solution 2: Wait for a recession, a really really big one, one that starts with a 'D'. That's probably when a lot of the works were done at the original suburban grounds.

Mega Problem 3:The fixturing. Controlled by the AFL. There are currently barely enough games in Melbourne to meet the contracted requirements for the MCC which the AFL relies on for its long term contract (including the grand final), and to have enough revenue to make docklands work. Docklands is ruinously expensive to run, and will soon be owned by...guess who. There simply arent enough matches available to move to a third stadium wihtout those two crying foul, and the debt is already in place for those.

Mega solution 3: with Suns and GWS since joining the comp, that's gotta amount to an extra handful of games played in Melbourne. Get Saints to move back from New Zealand. Hawks to move back from Tassie (and give Tassie their own club while we're at it). North and Richmond to move back from whichever backwaters they've been playing in!

 

[76woodenspooners]

My bet is even if Collingwood owned Victoria park which as you probably know was gifted to the council.....

1882 - In return for the biulding of the surrounding roads the 10 1/4 acres of the Victoria Park site is gifted to the Collingwood City Council for 'the resort and recreation of the citizens of Collingwood'. From this point a covenant restricts the use of the land and Victoria Park can never be owned by individuals and must be free to be accessed by the citizens of Collingwood.

http://www.victoriapark.net.au/2.html

then by now the club in times of financial stress would have hocked it or it would be partly owned by the banks.

You can't borrow against land that cannot be legally sold.

Aboriginal development has a similar problem over land rights ... They now have use of the land, but they can't raise capital against it because the land cannot be sold in case of default.

 

[Reykjavik]

I think it does sound a bit OTT at the minute but I also reckon the AFL feel threatened by soccer and might be amenable to a boutique stadium which is partly bankrolled by a club.

All the more reason for them to maximise returns from their existing asset...Docklands.

 

[fabulousphil]

You can't borrow against land that cannot be legally sold.

Aboriginal development has a similar problem over land rights ... They now have use of the land, but they can't raise capital against it because the land cannot be sold in case of default.

My point was if Brown and Trenerry gifted it to the CFC and not the council, unless they put some sort of caveat on it, CFC would probably have sold all or part of it off by now.

 

[Reykjavik]

On the second point the labour costs didn't dissuade investors at Etihad. In any case the significant ongoing cost here I think is land value, interest on that and staffing the stadium on a week-to-week basis. I don't think those labour costs are that significant from my, thankully short, experience in hospitality.

The labor cost issue is most acute in construction. It is labour, materials, on costs. It didnt dissuade investors in Etihad...though it did lead to a build cost for the time up to 30% higher than equivalent projects in Europe.

What it did do though is force the operator to recoup those inflated costs, on behalf of investors, by insisting on an excessive number of guaranteed matches, sell a ridiculous portion of the ground to the medallion club, and * over the clubs forced to pay there by holding back a ridiculous proportion of revenue.

Understand in your hypothetical example where we get this built, we are going to do at best as well as North currently do from Etihad, in order to ensure returns to the investors. Thats what I mean when I talk about risk being transferred to the clubs in favour of the financial interests once you bring them on board.

The third point is significant but clubs have the right to negotiate ground deals and the AFL accommodate them in the fixture. Sydney have clearly thumbed their nose at the AFL by cutting a deal at the SCG. I don't see why we couldn't moot a ground proposal and bring clubs on board for a better slice of revenue.

The afl have no direct stake in ANZ. Forget Fitzpatrick, the AFL itself has the interest here. The AFL also has obligations to the MCC for th MCG it doesnt have in Sydney thanks to the tradeoffs for guaranteeing the grand final and getting the many ground expansions there done. Its not in any way coompatable, in Melbourne there simply isnt room for it with the existing interests under existing AFL obligations.

 

[fabulousphil]

Would redeveloping Victoria Park be out of the question?

If you could attract other games for clubs like the Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and St Kilda to play a couple of their home games at your stadium you might be able to generate enough cash for it to be viable. possibly in the off season the venue could be used for concerts, A-league matches or maybe T20 Cricket as well.

The problem is CFC could never own it.

This was coming, i will bet you that Eddie has pangs for Victoria park, a home stadium for a club the size of Collingwood is needed, a ground that Collingwood and just Collingwood calls its own.

At the time Collingwood moved it was needed fast forward to now and Collingwood needs it's identity back.

IMO it actually needs to hold it's AGM at the Collingwood Town Hall once in a while.

 

[Old Spice]

The labor cost issue is most acute in construction. It is labour, materials, on costs. It didnt dissuade investors in Etihad...though it did lead to a build cost for the time up to 30% higher than equivalent projects in Europe.

Can you refer me to the evidence here?

What it did do though is force the operator to recoup those inflated costs, on behalf of investors, by insisting on an excessive number of guaranteed matches, sell a ridiculous portion of the ground to the medallion club, and **** over the clubs forced to pay there by holding back a ridiculous proportion of revenue.

Understand in your hypothetical example where we get this built, we are going to do at best as well as North currently do from Etihad, in order to ensure returns to the investors. Thats what I mean when I talk about risk being transferred to the clubs in favour of the financial interests once you bring them on board.

The afl have no direct stake in ANZ. Forget Fitzpatrick, the AFL itself has the interest here. The AFL also has obligations to the MCC for th MCG it doesnt have in Sydney thanks to the tradeoffs for guaranteeing the grand final and getting the many ground expansions there done. Its not in any way coompatable, in Melbourne there simply isnt room for it with the existing interests under existing AFL obligations.

Que? Fitzpatrick led a consortium which acquired the rights to ANZ Stadium in 2009 so is up to pussy's bow in self-interest. In fact he had to absent himself from decisions on the AFL commission because of it. Sydney were not at all obliged to continue the ANZ rort which is why they have moved to the SCG in a 30 year deal. It's well known that the AFL have had running conflicts with Etihad over their commercial behaviour and clearly clubs have had issues over their financial dividends which remain a sore point.

Can you point me toward the AFL obligations regarding the MCC/MCG?

 

[Reykjavik]

Can you refer me to the evidence here?



Que? Fitzpatrick led a consortium which acquired the rights to ANZ Stadium in 2009 so is up to pussy's bow in self-interest. In fact he had to absent himself from decisions on the AFL commission because of it. Sydney were not at all obliged to continue the ANZ rort which is why they have moved to the SCG in a 30 year deal. It's well known that the AFL have had running conflicts with Etihad over their commercial behaviour and clearly clubs have had issues over their financial dividends which remain a sore point.

Can you point me toward the AFL obligations regarding the MCC/MCG?

Yes, I am well aware of Fitzpatricks interest in ANZ. A personal interest of Fitzpatrick, for which he has to absent himself from relevant decisions. And which leaves the AFL with no obligation one way or the other, and no interest except whatever is in the best interests of its clubs in Sydney, and indeed every incentive to be seen not to be favouring Fitzpatrick, in whose personal interest they could not be interested.

As opposed to the actual ownership of Etihad by the AFL itself, due to which it can legally and reasonably argue that ensuring clubs remain playing there is in the interests of the competition as a whole, and enforce the same.

Which is the crucial difference, and why I think the situation in Sydney is not reflectivve of the issue facing someone trying to pry AFL matches away from Etihad any time soon, leaving aside the contract there until 2025.

On the MCC, a JV agreement between the AFL, State Govt and MCC was entered into in September 2009. Under its terms, Yarra Park was transferred to the MCC, the state govt provided funding for the members refurbishment amongst other things, the MCC agreed to certain minimum returns to the clubs who remain tenants, and the AFL guaranteed minimum numbers of matches and the grand final until 2037. It extended an existing agreement in place until 2032.

 

[Old Spice]

Yes, I am well aware of Fitzpatricks interest in ANZ. A personal interest of Fitzpatrick, for which he has to absent himself from relevant decisions. And which leaves the AFL with no obligation one way or the other, and no interest except whatever is in the best interests of its clubs in Sydney, and indeed every incentive to be seen not to be favouring Fitzpatrick, in whose personal interest they could not be interested.

As opposed to the actual ownership of Etihad by the AFL itself, due to which it can legally and reasonably argue that ensuring clubs remain playing there is in the interests of the competition as a whole, and enforce the same.

Which is the crucial difference, and why I think the situation in Sydney is not reflectivve of the issue facing someone trying to pry AFL matches away from Etihad any time soon, leaving aside the contract there until 2025.

On the MCC, a JV agreement between the AFL, State Govt and MCC was entered into in September 2009. Under its terms, Yarra Park was transferred to the MCC, the state govt provided funding for the members refurbishment amongst other things, the MCC agreed to certain minimum returns to the clubs who remain tenants, and the AFL guaranteed minimum numbers of matches and the grand final until 2037. It extended an existing agreement in place until 2032.

The AFL don't own Eithad until 2025 at which point they can buy it for $1.

On MCC/AFL joint venture agreement, the detail would be interesting to see if you have a link but unless clubs are a party to that agreement that remains a user end (i.e. AFL) problem to resolve. This might be a move by Collingwood to put AFL nuts in a vice.

 

[Reykjavik]

The AFL don't own Eithad until 2025 at which point they can buy it for $1.

On MCC/AFL joint venture agreement, the detail would be interesting to see if you have a link but unless clubs are a party to that agreement that remains a user end (i.e. AFL) problem to resolve. This might be a move by Collingwood to put AFL nuts in a vice.

The trouble with any club putting the AFL's nuts in a vice is the way the competition is structured. We really are franchises, its not just hyperbole. Our ability to go against AFL wishes is strictly limited, and the AFL is empowered to act in the interests of the AFL as a whole freely, witness the elaborate regime by which it forbids certain comepting advertising for clubs which crosses its own major sponsors.

It holds the ultimate sanction in extreme circumstances, which is that it is the ultimate holder of all the meaningful rights and property. If it came down to it, it really could reconstitute the Collingwood Football Club under its own people and structure.

For example, all meaningful contracts including those for the players could be novated automatically to the new entity, and the AFL, not Collingwood, is the holder of the following trademarks which are only licensed to the club;

Collingwood Football CLub
Collingwood Magpies

The last three shield designs, including any that include a magpie, black and white, and a football.

In the end, any entity conrolling a ground who contracted with Collingwood alone for matches, knowing that the league is responsible for scheduling and that the agreements between Collingwood and the league acknowledge same, would be batshit insane to contract without requiring signoff from the AFL to know the entity actually responsible would uphold it. Any competent lawyer would advise them accordingly. Absent that signoff, nobody is going to sign that contract. Nobody.

 

[Old Spice]

The trouble with any club putting the AFL's nuts in a vice is the way the competition is structured. We really are franchises, its not just hyperbole. Our ability to go against AFL wishes is strictly limited, and the AFL is empowered to act in the interests of the AFL as a whole freely, witness the elaborate regime by which it forbids certain comepting advertising for clubs which crosses its own major sponsors.

It holds the ultimate sanction in extreme circumstances, which is that it is the ultimate holder of all the meaningful rights and property. If it came down to it, it really could reconstitute the Collingwood Football Club under its own people and structure.

For example, all meaningful contracts including those for the players could be novated automatically to the new entity, and the AFL, not Collingwood, is the holder of the following trademarks which are only licensed to the club;

Collingwood Football CLub
Collingwood Magpies

The last three shield designs, including any that include a magpie, black and white, and a football.

In the end, any entity conrolling a ground who contracted with Collingwood alone for matches, knowing that the league is responsible for scheduling and that the agreements between Collingwood and the league acknowledge same, would be batshit insane to contract without requiring signoff from the AFL to know the entity actually responsible would uphold it. Any competent lawyer would advise them accordingly. Absent that signoff, nobody is going to sign that contract. Nobody.

The AFL Commission is formally elected by the clubs. It's also clear that North, Dogs, Saints and others are being ripped off in Stadium deals in Melbourne and that there is no legal impediment to them striking better ground deals. The real issue is whether a Collingwood ground is economically viable.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The AFL Commission is formally elected by the clubs. It's also clear that North, Dogs, Saints and others are being ripped off in Stadium deals in Melbourne and that there is no legal impediment to them striking better ground deals. The real issue is whether a Collingwood ground is economically viable.

With the Saints moving to the redeveloped junction oval ... Will that just be their training ground, or will there be the seating capacity to hold AFL matches there?

 

[Old Spice]

With the Saints moving to the redeveloped junction oval ... Will that just be their training ground, or will there be the seating capacity to hold AFL matches there?

They can't afford it but wouldn't that be a great venue?

 

[Reykjavik]

The AFL Commission is formally elected by the clubs. It's also clear that North, Dogs, Saints and others are being ripped off in Stadium deals in Melbourne and that there is no legal impediment to them striking better ground deals. The real issue is whether a Collingwood ground is economically viable.

Spice, we entered into contracts at Victoria Park back in the day which we could not honour as the AFL simply refused to schedule that number of games there. McAllister nearly had kittens, but in the end its that simple. They fill their quota as per contract, the headline tenants at each ground just determine who is used to fill the first part of the quota at each. The MCG tenants are still forced to play home games at Etihad whether they want to or not, in order to make up the numbers and put the AFL in the right on its obligation for not just quantity but quality of game, and they acknowledge the AFL right to do so in their contracts with the league.

The Saints, Dogs etc are welcome to try to enter into unilateral agreements with whoever they like, but in the end, if it compromises the AFL's contracted obligations to the existing venues, it wont be scheduling them. The AFL retains the ability to schedule as it requires, that is acknowledged by the clubs in all their agreements with the AFL, as is the existence of the agreements with the MCC and Etihad and their precedence, and the clubs do not have the power to enter into agreements unilaterally.

And the AFL commission is elected by the clubs. All 18 of them. Even if we get one more on side, say for example Hawthorn, do you think the commission is going to overrule the AFL in insisting on retaining games at Etihad with profits available for distribution to all 18 clubs?

 

[PAFC forever]

Have you been to Vic Park lately? It simply wouldn't be a viable option. Not enough parking, too close to residential properties to make a full size stadium a reality. The locals would go berserk and it would not even be considered by the council imo.

I've never actually been to Victoria Park before I've only ever seen it passing it on the train. Fair call it is a pretty densely populated residential area so it would be a pretty big issue if they built a 50,000 or 60,000 stadium there. Victoria Park railway station probably wouldn't be able to cope with a stadium that big either. Just build it in the middle of the Yarra Bend Golf Course I'm sure they won't mind lol

 

[DAWESOME!!]

What a stupid idea. Stay at the MCG.

 

[Seedsfan]

The Adelaide Oval redevelopment that cost $535 Million was only the southern and eastern stands. The western stand that was built about 4 or 5 years ago and that cost $95 million. So all together the redevelopment cost $630 Million.

Anything bigger than a 60,000 seat stadium would not be viable, and finding a spare 40,000 square meters of dirt within 20 minutes of the city would be hard to find. Would redeveloping Victoria Park be out of the question?

If you could attract other games for clubs like the Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and St Kilda to play a couple of their home games at your stadium you might be able to generate enough cash for it to be viable. possibly in the off season the venue could be used for concerts, A-league matches or maybe T20 Cricket as well.

We wouldn't want cricket to be played there as we would not be able to use the centre of the ground in the summer, but the A-league we could use that yo our advantage. If we brought the land at Vic Park (the club use to own the surrounding land but I am pretty sure they sold it) we could get the rich Arabs that own Melbourne city to kick some money in for the build and they they can become the secondary tennant.

Is the footprint big enough?
Would have to take over houses etc surrounding the ground.
Parking would be a no go. Train station too small.
Would be very difficult to get 50,000-60,000 people in & out of that area.
Need more land, need proper parking, need easy main road access.
Then there is the Collingwood council & heritage listing etc.
Cannot see it happening, unfortunately.

It is a shame we sold the land around it would have to buy it again at a much inflated price, the government could redevelop the station and the parking could go under the stadium like at Etihad. With the heritage list that was put in place to stop it from getting all torn down I think if we were going to redevelop they would be fine with it because IIRC the site heritage listed for cultural significance. It is not the stands as such like at the SCG

 

[1061]

The MCC built the new Ponsford on the Back of Collingwood being the head tenant of the MCG.
Can we just walk away from that contract?

I fear this is a smoke screen and there is something no one has picked up on yet, I can't see it so maybe someone else can or maybe Pert is getting a little Media happy and commenting on any and everything.