Marc_Remillard
Maderator
- Jan 4, 2015
- 6,783
- 7,711
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Waverley was a terrible ground though, the design was so poorly done, the seats were so far from the ground it was terrible viewing.
Relocation within Melbourne?
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Waverley was a terrible ground though, the design was so poorly done, the seats were so far from the ground it was terrible viewing.
Oh good, another person who completely missed the point because they have a pavlovian response to anyone mentioning another sport.
- Thread starter
- #28
?
How is it silly buggers?
I know about the MLS but the reality is Melbourne and it’s AFL clubs are a very unique beast. They were originally nine inner-city clubs in a city that is unrecognisable from just a few decades ago.
We have two new CBD stadiums that is the MLS model... yet multiple clubs are playing home games in regional areas and interstate. So clearly the current CBD model doesn’t fit all.
People are bringing up Waverley but when it was closed... they were still basically nine inner-city clubs in a much smaller city.
Waverley isn’t in what is now the outer suburbs that I’m talking about. The south-east is enormous and a very long way from the CBD.
If you start thinking of it more like Geelong - but with a much, much larger population - then that’s the discussion to be had.
In a parallel universe where there’s no Geelong FC, the same people would be laughing at a proposal to play games there. But look at Geelong and it’s fantastic model... can it really not be replicated in the long term?
Spot on.
We are seduced by the idea that Collingwood has a local base, all the Melbourne clubs ... public transport supports inner city locations, not so outer suburban venues.
Because you're asking an inane question that you know the answer to, that isn't relevant. It doesn't matter a fig how many teams a city has, you can see across all sports that inner city stadiums work better than ones out in the boondocks for attendance. You're either too busy attacking the example I gave to realise the point, or deliberately missing the point.
Riddle me this, are attendances higher or lower with present inner city stadiums compared to the suburban stadiums of the 80s and earlier? Do you honestly believe a club would higher attendances in Casey or Werribee than at the MCG or Marvel, if they built a stadium as big?
It's been explained to you already in this thread, that the only reason they do this is because they're given a huge wad of cash by governments for doing so. Who is going to do that for suburban stadiums?
I'd buy that logic if there weren't teams in other sports based in or playing regular games in Geelong, or its NSW counterpart, Wollongong. But there are, so no, I don't think people would laugh at it. And Geelong is a separate city to Melbourne. Casey/Werribee/Craigieburn are not.
Would not disagree but it still was a football ground well out in southern eastern suburbs that could hold over 70,000 people and was very useful for those from Gippsland and other regions down south that found game in inner city a bridge too far. Allowed plenty of people from Dandenongs and Yarra Valley regions too
Marc_Remillard
Maderator
- Jan 4, 2015
- 6,783
- 7,711
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I think what really killed it was when the government decided to not follow through with the plans to build public transport to it. The parking was terrible and traffic horrendous. If they had of completed the plans it would have been great
Who knows, in time it may have happened but once Wayne ******* Jackson sold out to private investors to profiteer on back of inner city Docklands there is no football ground out this way at all now. City of over 5 million with population well spread out down that way and all we got is two grounds within walking distance of CBD but nothing out where millions of others live in outer eastern or middle suburbs. There was no long term football vision to what Jackson did. It is why I hate him more than any other league CEO we had. Even clown Gil is not as bad as that *******.
- Thread starter
- #34
I’d argue it’s not the only reason at all. These clubs often go above and beyond just playing games in those areas, trying to properly develop them as a “second home” because they recognise the value of capturing a supporter base and therefore membership. Hawthorn and North have significant membership revenue from Tassie. It’s a longer-term play then the pure cash grabs that typified some earlier examples of Melbourne clubs playing home games elsewhere.
But for getting paid to play there, of course they’d be looking to do a deal with local and state government. There’s absolutely nothing to say that couldn’t happen. Huge money has been poured into Geelong and Ballarat so it can’t just be dismissed. Govts have shown they’re open to it.
Crowds? Teams like St Kilda, North and Melbourne aren’t going to draw good crowds against interstate opposition at the G or Docklands.
And none of that would happen without the fat stack of cash. Regardless, the difference there is that the people who live in most of those areas cannot easily hop on a train and be at a regular AFL game within 90 minutes. But that would be exactly the case for Casey or Werribee. The only exception to this is Ballarat, and that's probably why crowds at the Ballarat games have been considered disappointing.
There's a lot to say that couldn't happen. Name me a single time where any state government has given clubs good money to play games at suburban grounds within capital cities.
Melbourne you say? The same Melbourne that drew 39 000 to a home game vs Port? You think they'll get more than that at Casey?
thegreig
Club Legend
The only way I could see anything like this happening is if they built a boutique 30k stadium that is actually comfortable and designed properly somewhere around Dandenong near the East Link and the train line. St Kilda, Hawthorn and Melbourne could play 4-5 games a season there against low drawing interstate teams with perhaps North Melbourne playing 1-2 as well (potentially 17 H&W games). It would cost a lot though and there’s still more infrastructure needed out that way, so I don’t give it much of a chance.
- Thread starter
- #37
Yes well done. Pull out one game for one of the clubs I mentioned.
Over the past 3 years against interstate opposition at the G and Docklands, Melbourne’s median is 29k. North’s is 19k and St Kilda’s is 22k.
And that’s with exporting their lowest drawing games elsewhere. God help them if Tassie or the NT dry up as options.
And St Kilda’s last year at Waverley, against interstate opposition? Exact same median. 22k. We’re talking 21 years ago, when Melbourne had 1.7m less in population, at a falling down stadium with no public transport.
Yeah, crowd powerhouses these in the CBD these clubs.
Not to mention how they lose money with such small crowds at the G and Docklands.
The local govts are rolling in cash given their huge rates base and as I’ve said, the state govt had shown multiple times they’ll spend on sport. You seem obsessed with “suburban” examples but we’re in uncharted territory here. ‘Melbourne’ has never had a sprawl like this and such a massive decentralised population. Of course the govts would listen to the case if there could be money and votes in it.
Last edited:
It makes sense for St Kilda.
Moving from the inner city to Moorabbin 50 years ago prevented them from going the way of Fitzroy and South Melbourne. The majority of their support comes from the South East and takes the train into the city.
As it stands St Kilda will always be a financially week club that is dependent on AFL handouts.
Considering that their support base already comes from that region, a small stadium with access to the same train line their supporters already use to go to matches makes sense.
They can play a 2-3 matches a year there (aka what the Dogs do with Ballarat) and eventually increase the number of matches.
The big games would still be played in the CBD (as with Geelong).
Moving from the inner city to Moorabbin 50 years ago prevented them from going the way of Fitzroy and South Melbourne. The majority of their support comes from the South East and takes the train into the city.
As it stands St Kilda will always be a financially week club that is dependent on AFL handouts.
Considering that their support base already comes from that region, a small stadium with access to the same train line their supporters already use to go to matches makes sense.
They can play a 2-3 matches a year there (aka what the Dogs do with Ballarat) and eventually increase the number of matches.
The big games would still be played in the CBD (as with Geelong).
The biggest state government in Australia loves pissing away money on suburban venues.
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
You're right it's a long way from the CBD--- Why should club supporters from the inner suburbs and West or North of Melbourne going to be forced to travel further because these games are moved further away from them??
Why are the people of the Outer East so 'special' that they deserve stadiums closer to them?? The CBD is the central location that is the centre of our Public Transport network and possible for everyone who lives in Melbourne to get to. Ever tried to get from South Morang to Cranbourne??
thegreig
Club Legend
I agree it should stay in the CBD but I don’t think anyone is claiming the south east is “special” it’s just where the majority of the population is spread geographically
- Thread starter
- #42
It’s simply where the majority of the population is.
At the moment they’re playing in far smaller markets in Tassie, NT, Ballarat etc.
The south east dwarfs all these locations.
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
....and for the past 20 years the "demographic centre" of Melbourne has been moving back towards the CBD with increased development in the inner suburbs combined with population growth in in the North & West (Point Cook, Caroline Springs, Cragieburn) occurring at a faster rate than the population growth the the South-East.
Source: https://blog.id.com.au/2018/population-forecasting/is-the-demographic-centre-of-melbourne-shifting/
The AFL predicted this trend when they closed Waverley Park. The fact this thread is even created demonstrates that people in the South-East think they are 'special'.
- Thread starter
- #44
I’m not in the south east.
How many supporters does lets say St Kilda have in the inner suburbs, the western suburbs or the north?
The reason the outer east people are so 'special' is that a club (lets say St Kilda) is struggling to compete with the other 8 Victorian clubs for support and wants to build a supporter base in the south east.
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,965
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
didn't ST Kilda experiment with training out whoop whoop for a couple of years and then returned to their old home?
the reason why they move back towards the city, is basically the same reason why you don't send games out whoop whoop
the reason why they move back towards the city, is basically the same reason why you don't send games out whoop whoop
Not really. They moved back because the players hated it out there.
Playing games out there is a completely different issue - there are lots of reasons why clubs don't, but the players themselves probably don't give a s**t as long as they can live close to the CBD and train relatively nearby.
- Thread starter
- #48
Where clubs train doesn’t matter in the slightest. 99% of fans will never go there.
Those games in Launceston and Darwin though. A-OK
