Relocation within Melbourne?

Remove this Banner Ad

Johnny Bananas said:
Your exact words were "Teams like St Kilda, North and Melbourne aren’t going to draw good crowds against interstate opposition at the G or Docklands". I gave you an example of precisely this happening, and you've decided to shift the goalposts. What their present crowds are isn't the most relevant thing anyway. The key question is, are their crowds going to be bigger somewhere else in Melbourne? And if so, where? It has to be somewhere easily reachable for their whole fanbase, and the problem is that there are very few places in the east of Melbourne that are well connected to every other part of the east. At least until the Suburban Rail Loop is built. Then some options might open up. But even that can only do so much on its own, there needs to be more.


And now there is no stadium and still no public transport. Who is going to make the necessary investment? There hasn't been a new railway line in the east in that whole time IIRC, and there won't be until the SRL is built. On top of that, traffic has become a lot worse.


That's an issue of renegotiating the stadium deal, not the fact they're playing centrally. Again, it'll cost a lot of money to build a new ground with no certainty that crowds will be larger in the suburbs. Who is going to make that investment?


So what? Are they willing to spend that cash on professional sports teams? I raised the idea some time back of Melbourne moving their training base to Glen Iris or somewhere else close to their fanbase, and I was told that open spaces are hard to come by and local governments would rather save them for community facilities. How is it different with a stadium that will cost much more?


Not all sport. Only sport in marginal electorates which are already a fair distance from existing examples of the same sport. If you can identify a specific marginal electorate in Melbourne where people have stated they'd rather have local professional sport rather than faster buses or more schools, I'd be very interested to hear where it is.


Except we're not, we had suburban stadiums until the 90s. You even gave an example of one above. They didn't work for a reason, the transport infrastructure simply isn't there.


Of course they would. But, that's a big if. My experiences of suburban people is that they're more keen for public transport funding or schools than they are for stadiums near them, but I'm open to being corrected if I'm wrong.

Now all of that being said, there is one place in Melbourne that I think could be a good option for suburban relocation: sending the Bulldogs back to Western Oval. The problem is, that area isn't marginal politically, it's an incredibly solid area for Labor at every level of government. There's no government incentive to spend there.
Click to expand...
The irony was that David Smorgan FFC Pres sucked $23 million out of his Liberal mate Howard a number of years ago to do some overdue upgrades.
I was at the Western Oval the day little Johnny made the announcement with with well known LNP supporter David Smorgan at his side
 
Kwality said:
Is there any evidence this thinking has any substance ..... feel good only?
Click to expand...

Only if it comes from long term success on field - and even that is no guarantee. The North fans that jumped on board in the 90s are well and truly adults now so in theory they should be getting a huge spike in support.....this hasn't really happened.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rob said:
Only if it comes from long term success on field - and even that is no guarantee. The North fans that jumped on board in the 90s are well and truly adults now so in theory they should be getting a huge spike in support.....this hasn't really happened.
Click to expand...

To be fair, its little short a miracle that the Dogs now sit as one of the 6 strongest clubs in the AFL (understanding that the WA and SA clubs are hamstrung to a large degree by the WAFC and the SANFL)

Selling the pokies, getting the redevelopment locked away and winning the 2016 flag has been invaluable for the Dogs.

As it stands right now, the Dogs are much stronger off field than North was in any time during the 1990s - whether its 1993, 1996 or 1999.
 
Hawkk said:
To be fair, its little short a miracle that the Dogs now sit as one of the 6 strongest clubs in the AFL (understanding that the WA and SA clubs are hamstrung to a large degree by the WAFC and the SANFL)

Selling the pokies, getting the redevelopment locked away and winning the 2016 flag has been invaluable for the Dogs.

As it stands right now, the Dogs are much stronger off field than North was in any time during the 1990s - whether its 1993, 1996 or 1999.
Click to expand...

Partly, but having read their financials it's mainly a result of a big gift of land a couple of years ago. Without that they'd be on a similar position to North, with their only major asset being a lease on land they don't own. Banks won't lend against that, but they will on freehold land.

It's more government generosity than anything else.
 
Rob said:
Partly, but having read their financials it's mainly a result of a big gift of land a couple of years ago. Without that they'd be on a similar position to North, with their only major asset being a lease on land they don't own. Banks won't lend against that, but they will on freehold land.

It's more government generosity than anything else.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but that’s the cards they have been dealt. And that’s why they are in a getter position than North.

Some clubs have mass generational support, others have affluent / political connections and some have a strategic geographic advantages.

As it stands, they are in a much stronger, more robust position than North Melbourne in the 1990s - I don’t see the comparison at all.
 
Hawkk said:
Perhaps but that’s the cards they have been dealt. And that’s why they are in a getter position than North.

Some clubs have mass generational support, others have affluent / political connections and some have a strategic geographic advantages.

As it stands, they are in a much stronger, more robust position than North Melbourne in the 1990s - I don’t see the comparison at all.
Click to expand...

Take away the land and there isn't much difference - that's the only point I was making.
 
Rob said:
Take away the land and there isn't much difference - that's the only point I was making.
Click to expand...

Like other clubs (Haw, Carl, Bris, Ess, Gee, Rich) the 2019 financial statements didn't reflect the substantial worth of the club's gaming machine venues. Furthermore, if you look at (Cash and Receivables and Prepayments - Payables and Borrowings and Provisions) there's about a $8m difference.

Overall, the difference currently between the two clubs is very large. I don't know what North's financial position was back in the 1990s but I doubt it was better than today.
 
Rob said:
Fair call, if there's been a change in values since balance date then it's going to be an unknown.
Click to expand...

Interesting presentation from February 2016 on how Richmond doubled its membership by shifting its focus from Craigieburn in the north to Cardinia in the south-east.

 
Last edited:
Bunk Moreland said:
Im sure the players would find something agreeable in the “shithole outer suburbs”.

www.domain.com.au

520 Real Estate Properties for Sale in Mount Eliza, VIC, 3930 | Domain

Domain has 520 Real Estate Properties for Sale in Mount Eliza, VIC, 3930 & surrounding suburbs. View our listings & use our detailed filters to find your perfect home.
www.domain.com.au www.domain.com.au
Click to expand...

Having lived in Mt Eliza for many years previously I can tell you unless the entire stadium is corporate boxes no one will be tuning up. ;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hawkk said:
Perhaps but that’s the cards they have been dealt. And that’s why they are in a getter position than North.

Some clubs have mass generational support, others have affluent / political connections and some have a strategic geographic advantages.

As it stands, they are in a much stronger, more robust position than North Melbourne in the 1990s - I don’t see the comparison at all.
Click to expand...

Geez, here's me being told that Government largesse is a bad thing!! Certainly have been told that when applied to the Tasmanian Government's AFL bid, seeing a team as a part of its tourism strategy.

I guess it doesn't apply to clubs within Victoria then. ;)
 
Saucery said:
Hey now they went to Seaford, slightly fewer discarded syringes (unless you go near the Pines).
Click to expand...

They weren't in Seaford, they were in Belvedere / Seaford north, which is shithole part of that area (and spitting distance from the pines)
 
I'm going to start with, no place in my creative mind could I forsee a scenario to make this vaguely realistic. Stadium deals sponsorship, money etc. The Pro vs Con list is relatively one sided I'm not sure I can find many pros for the OP of this thread.

If you went batshit crazy and tore down everything as we know it coronavirus is trying you would need to go another level to armageddon.

Change all teams to a franchise model that can have owners or be 100% state owned and controlled. Remove all equalization measures so teams can spend at free will, advertise anything they want. Basically just do what they want as long as they can afford it.

Let Bunnings buy a team the bunnings kangaroos 😂😂😂. Bunnings Bulldogs.

Billionaires or large organizations. With licenses regulated by the AFL to become owners of a franchise.

Make somebody build stadiums and away we go.

Boom Bunnings Bulldogs in Cranbourne
 
I wonder why no club ever attempted to put training facilities or even a social club in Dandenong, considering the amount of money the government ploughed into renovating the area. Surely there was some industrial land available for redevelopment.
 
thegreig said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the only thing I can see working.
 
The only clubs that could even consider this due to demographics would be Melbourne, St Kilda and Hawthorn. Hawthorn are probably too big though if they gave up Tassie it could be a possibility. Melbourne wouldn't do it due to our links to the MCG/MCC. Saints maybe but again it would have to be a home run deal and as pointed out the AFL would have to be on board which they'd be unlikely to do.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
The only clubs that could even consider this due to demographics would be Melbourne, St Kilda and Hawthorn. Hawthorn are probably too big though if they gave up Tassie it could be a possibility. Melbourne wouldn't do it due to our links to the MCG/MCC. Saints maybe but again it would have to be a home run deal and as pointed out the AFL would have to be on board which they'd be unlikely to do.
Click to expand...


I would say, only St Kilda and Hawthorn. Surely Melbourne's supporters are disproportionately from the inner south?
 
Demonic Ascent said:
The only clubs that could even consider this due to demographics would be Melbourne, St Kilda and Hawthorn. Hawthorn are probably too big though if they gave up Tassie it could be a possibility. Melbourne wouldn't do it due to our links to the MCG/MCC. Saints maybe but again it would have to be a home run deal and as pointed out the AFL would have to be on board which they'd be unlikely to do.
Click to expand...

Nothing will change for a club like St Kilda under their current situation. They don't draw big crowds and it's not cost effective for them to play 11 games at the G and Docklands.

The AFL know this and would be on board if there was an alternative. The kicker is you'd need state govt and local council support to put up a compelling venue and offer. That's far from impossible, but it'd only really be a chance in a marginal electorate. Governments love that stuff. Geelong haven't been gifted a brand new stadium over the last decade or two just for fun. By the time they've finished over $250m will have been spent on it - for 9 home games a year.

Post-election pendulum for the 2018 Victorian state election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Nothing will change for a club like St Kilda under their current situation. They don't draw big crowds and it's not cost effective for them to play 11 games at the G and Docklands.

The AFL know this and would be on board if there was an alternative. The kicker is you'd need state govt and local council support to put up a compelling venue and offer. That's far from impossible, but it'd only really be a chance in a marginal electorate. Governments love that stuff. Geelong haven't been gifted a brand new stadium over the last decade or two just for fun. By the time they've finished over $250m will have been spent on it - for 9 home games a year.

Post-election pendulum for the 2018 Victorian state election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Geelong is actually majority Geelong supporters though. Is there any council in Melbourne where a majority of footy supporters are St Kilda fans? You'd probably be struggling to find one with even a quarter.

The only way you'd get it done is if you had 4 or 5 clubs sign up to play a few home games a year there. Which would obviously be tough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BigVic
Moved Thread Mergers and relocations
Replies
10
Views
660
Roylion
Roylion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top