20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

Who's going to pay for an AFL standard stadium in Queanbeyan?

I doubt the NSW government would be interested.

Sorry, meant that as a joke.

The stadium in Civic isn't happening, there is neither the space nor political will for it anymore, but if it did it would cost significantly more that $350mil these days anyway. You could pretty much double that cost at the very least.

I can never even tell any more. I knew Barr was cold on Civic, but I just saw the latest $500m-700m price tag associated with levelling Parkes Way.

Looks like the latest plan is for a Bruce redevelopment?

Redeveloping Manuka might do, however you'd need to find a way to squeeze in roughly 10k more seats on top of that 20k, and find a way to get more coverage over all the seating, otherwise the stadium will be too small to support larger crowds and the conditions in Canberra will turn away a significant percentage of potential supporters just like Bruce does.

Besides, the nimbys in Manuka have made it very clear that they'll fight any significant upgrades to Manuka Oval, and nimbys rule this city. So even if you could make the necessary upgrades to Manuka (which I doubt BTW) you'd have an uphill battle to get them over the line.

The was plenty of room around the 20k in that masterplan, so I think getting to ~25k could be done pretty comfortably.

The nimbys are trickier than the space I think. I completely get their opposition in 2016 to GWS' Manuka Green proposal back in the day. It was essentially just a land grab by Grocon.

I think the biggest opposition by Manuka nimbys would be large crowds and the parking associated with it. Hopefully the light rail in the vicinity will help alleviate it a bit, though it would've been better if the ACT government had stuck to their preferred route along National Circuit.

Phillip Oval on the other hand is in a better spot, has less residents around it, better public transport links, parking, restaurants and bars within walking distance, everything you need in a good location for a stadium. That's the place to do it if it's possible to fit a stadium big enough on the plot.

I do like Phillip Oval as an option, but you're essentially starting from scratch, so it'd be a bigger cost (and a harder sell to the public).

Development is happening pretty fast in Phillip though, so hopefully they save enough room around the oval for any potential development.

 

[Tigerlaird]

3rd NSW team = North Sydney Bears.

They're struggling to get into the NRL, might as well try a different code.

 

[Badger17]

Sorry, meant that as a joke.

People are seriously considering it as a solution for the rectangular sports, so why not Aussie Rules as well?!

Looks like the latest plan is for a Bruce redevelopment?

The plan is same as everything in the ACT over the last 15 years; bring it up before each election to win votes, fund an expensive study to make it look like there's movement, then publicly complain that it's all just too difficult and expensive when we've got money to waste on trams and bike paths.

The stadium will end up like the arena. It'll have to be closed indefinitely for safety reasons before they'll even seriously consider investing in it, and even then they'll refuse to do anything other than the bare minimum necessary to get it open again. In my mind the only way you avoid the above scenario is if either Labour and the Greens are voted out, the Raiders, and Brumbies to a lesser extent, seriously explore relocating and clearly articulate that it's because of a lack of facilities in the ACT, or the Federal government funds and builds it themselves, all of which are extremely unlikely to happen.

The two main issues with the stadium (and the AIS more generally) are that it's federally owned, and as such the ACT government is loath to invest much into to it, and that the ACT is effectively a one party state because a majority of the electorate refuses to vote for anyone other than Labour or the Greens.

 

[Tigerlaird]

What exactly is the issue with Manuka Oval being the home ground for the Canberra Griffins?

 

[czns]

What exactly is the issue with Manuka Oval being the home ground for the Canberra Griffins?

NIMBYs stopped the upgrade

 

[Badger17]

What exactly is the issue with Manuka Oval being the home ground for the Canberra Griffins?

It's too small.

Ideally you'd want a stadium with around 30k seats for an AFL side in Canberra, but it's unlikely that you'd be able to build one that big at Manuka.

 

[Badger17]

The government if it has any sense.

So the NSW government should build a stadium, that's almost certainly going to end up being a white elephant, for an ACT based team.

We have a very different definition of sense.

 

[Roylion]

relocation to Canberra would work.

Why would a club in Melbourne relocate to Canberra?

the AFL still need to get 1 or 2 teams out of Melbourne.

How will they do that?

 

[Walshawk]

NIMBYs stopped the upgrade

It will need to have a roof, obviously. The AFL will want an enclosed stadium floating on Lake Burley Griffen.

 

[Canberra Pear]

NIMBYs stopped the upgrade

They opposed Manuka Green. My understanding is Grocon would've got to develop extra space surrounding the oval in return for a new stadium.

The unsolicited bid included a hotel, 1000 apartments, and a lot of commercial and retail space. It was an $800m proposal for an extra ~5k seats (only 19k total). I personally would've liked it, but it still would've been a bit small for a full-time team.

NIMBYs would likely still oppose a government-led redevelopment, but I imagine the opposition wouldn't be as strong. As I mentioned earlier, the masterplan from 2013 had a long-term capacity of just under 20k and I hadn't seen any public opposition to that.

 

[RedV3x]

So the NSW government should build a stadium,

Why not. The NSW government has spent $ billions on rectangular stadiums in NSW
so why not a little balance for a change.

 

[Badger17]

Why not. The NSW government has spent $ billions on rectangular stadiums in NSW
so why not a little balance for a change.

How long do you reckon it'll be before there's an equal spend on rectangular infrastructure in Vic, WA, and SA? I can guarantee that the spend on ovals compared to rectangles in those states is significantly more disproportionate than the spending on rectangles compared to ovals in NSW.

Hell there's only one good rectangular stadium between the three of them, and none of them have one big enough to host big games. The same cannot be said about ovals in NSW and QLD...

The rectangular sports are no more victims in the Vic, WA, SA, and TAS, than the Oval sports are in NSW and QLD. Demand and political machinations informs decisions on such things, not fairness.

 

[Badger17]

NIMBYs would likely still oppose a government-led redevelopment, but I imagine the opposition wouldn't be as strong. As I mentioned earlier, the masterplan from 2013 had a long-term capacity of just under 20k and I hadn't seen any public opposition to that.

That's only because there's zero chance of it actually happening any time soon. The "people of Manuka" (i.e. a couple hundred noisy entitled hipsters without any real problems in their lives) would come out in force to protest against it if it was serious.

 

[Tigerlaird]

We should indeed have a better rectangular stadium in SA - and an NRL team!

 

[Canberra Pear]

That's only because there's zero chance of it actually happening any time soon. The "people of Manuka" (i.e. a couple hundred noisy entitled hipsters without any real problems in their lives) would come out in force to protest against it if it was serious.

From what I can tell, they've already completed through to "Phase 2a", which has added about 2400 seats. That seemed to get through with minimal opposition. That was ahead of the Cricket World Cup and GWS' early years.

It was just Phase 2b and and Phase 3 that didn't get done. Ironically, I think the Manuka Green proposal may have derailed progressing the masterplan, so now we have neither.

I found the letter that the Inner South folks submitted regarding Manuka Green. Their main motion was to "ensure that any proposal restricts development to sporting facilities and other improvement of Manuka Oval, and not include shops, residential or other development".

The loss of the surrounding real estate was the main objection. So I don't think it'd be impossible for a Manuka redevelopment to get done, but it'd still be more of an uphill battle than a Phillip Oval development.

 

[Badger17]

From what I can tell, they've already completed through to "Phase 2a", which has added about 2400 seats. That seemed to get through with minimal opposition. That was ahead of the Cricket World Cup and GWS' early years.

It was just Phase 2b and and Phase 3 that didn't get done. Ironically, I think the Manuka Green proposal may have derailed progressing the masterplan, so now we have neither.

I found the letter that the Inner South folks submitted regarding Manuka Green. Their main motion was to "ensure that any proposal restricts development to sporting facilities and other improvement of Manuka Oval, and not include shops, residential or other development".

The loss of the surrounding real estate was the main objection. So I don't think it'd be impossible for a Manuka redevelopment to get done, but it'd still be more of an uphill battle than a Phillip Oval development.

Times are very different now than when they did the early stages of the redevelopment, and almost all significant development proposed in Manuka is strongly opposed by the aforementioned group. Their letter is meaningless as well, they'll take whatever angle they think will work to squish each specific proposal, but if you actually talk to them it's all about maintaining the "atmosphere" or "feel" of the joint, and other airy-fairy nonsense.

I don't think that completing the upgrades of Manuka is impossible either, just very unlikely to happen within the next decade or so, but who cares either way as the upgrades aren't enough to build a stadium big enough to sustain professional sides long term or attract larger events, and that should be the goal. In other words it's lipstick on a pig that won't extend the useful lifespan of the ground for very long.

 

[RedV3x]

Demand and political machinations informs decisions on such things, not fairness.

That's the only half intelligent thing you've said.
There is demand for ovals and quality oval stadiums all throughout Australia.
Quality oval stadia can be used for all sports including the main drivers AFL and cricket.
there are quality rectangular stadiums all around Australia that more than adequately fill the demand.
You really should get that huge chip off your shoulder.

 

[Badger17]

That's the only half intelligent thing you've said.
There is demand for ovals and quality oval stadiums all throughout Australia.
Quality oval stadia can be used for all sports including the main drivers AFL and cricket.
there are quality rectangular stadiums all around Australia that more than adequately fill the demand.
You really should get that huge chip off your shoulder.

Mr there's a conspiracy to keep Aussie Rules down says I have a chip on my shoulder lol.

Outside of NSW and QLD there isn't a single rectangular stadium that would meet FIFA's minimum standards to host a pool game in the WC, and only one that meets WR's minimum standards. Sure they'll both lower their standards for the right price (probably not that low in the case of FIFA though), but that is still abysmal for a supposed nation of sports lovers, and, as I said before, flies in the face of your complaint.

Outside of AAMI there isn't a single good rectangular stadium in VIC, SA, and WA, or even TAS, the ACT, and NT if you want to include them as well, and for you to pretend otherwise is just blatant hypocrisy that speaks to your ignorance and entitlement.

 

[Walshawk]

Mr there's a conspiracy to keep Aussie Rules down says I have a chip on my shoulder lol.

Outside of NSW and QLD there isn't a single rectangular stadium that would meet FIFA's minimum standards to host a pool game in the WC, and only one that meets WR's minimum standards. Sure they'll both lower their standards for the right price (probably not that low in the case of FIFA though), but that is still abysmal for a supposed nation of sports lovers, and, as I said before, flies in the face of your complaint.

Outside of AAMI there isn't a single good rectangular stadium in VIC, SA, and WA, or even TAS, the ACT, and NT if you want to include them as well, and for you to pretend otherwise is just blatant hypocrisy that speaks to your ignorance and entitlement.

Well it depends on what you mean by 'good'. Coopers (Adelaide) and HBF (Perth) are decent - as good as either oval stadium in Tas, better than some NRL venues in Sydney.

And there is no demand for better rectangular stadiums. The existing ones are fine for the current content. One off games like Origin/EPL teams need the larger capacity of Optus/MCG/AO. Optus has 5k drop in seats to make it quasi rectangular but they don't use them. If Perth get the next NRL licence I am sure that they will further upgrade HBF Park.

 

[RedV3x]

Mr there's a conspiracy to keep Aussie Rules down says I have a chip on my shoulder lol.

Outside of NSW and QLD there isn't a single rectangular stadium that would meet FIFA's minimum standards

You said "Demand and political machinations informs decisions on such things, not fairness."
Why mention FIFA when there is no demand for FIFA stadia?

that is still abysmal for a supposed nation of sports lovers,

What's abysmal - that we don't cater for sports that have little demand?
That sounds like good business practice to me.

Outside of AAMI there isn't a single good rectangular stadium.

The W.A. government built HBF Stadium for the rectangular codes and it's pretty much a wasted effort.

 

[Bjo187]

Merging is not pulling the plug. It is increasing the chances of success.

Just thinking about it, do you reckon the AFL panicked back in 2006 after the success of the socceroos back then that soccer was goiing to takeover?

Western Sydney having a massive population and putting an A league team in there I think played a part in the AFL rushing through GWS. It was a stupid idea to put a brand new team there and not a relocated one, it's proven to be a s**t decision.

They are a lot smaller than I ever thought they would be and I remember thinking at the time that they'd be the smallest team in the comp and it was a baffling idea to not have the backing of another club, like the successful South Melbourne model.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Just thinking about it, do you reckon the AFL panicked back in 2006 after the success of the socceroos back then that soccer was goiing to takeover?

Western Sydney having a massive population and putting an A league team in there I think played a part in the AFL rushing through GWS. It was a stupid idea to put a brand new team there and not a relocated one, it's proven to be a s**t decision.

They are a lot smaller than I ever thought they would be and I remember thinking at the time that they'd be the smallest team in the comp and it was a baffling idea to not have the backing of another club, like the successful South Melbourne model.

I actually think the trigger for GWS' entry was the Gold Coast Titans.

I think the Gold Coast region was a "must-have". Huge-growth, AFL-friendly market (compared to the rest of Queensland and NSW). When the ball started rolling for the Titans, North started playing games up there. It's not a market we could allow the NRL to monopolise. When North wouldn't relocate, the AFL pulled the expansion trigger.

A second Sydney team was a "nice-to-have". The AFL clearly wanted a second team in Sydney, they'd had extra games up there in the early 2000s. Not sure if Western Sydney was always the preferred option, or whether the Swans kicked up about proximity to their territory. But it was always to complement the Gold Coast.

If North relocated to the Gold Coast, I think there's a good chance GWS wouldn't exist in their current form. If the Titans didn't exist, I think a Suns expansion may have been a bit more careful and gradual (or possibly even a gradual relocation).

 

[Walshawk]

I actually think the trigger for GWS' entry was the Gold Coast Titans.

I think the Gold Coast region was a "must-have". Huge-growth, AFL-friendly market (compared to the rest of Queensland and NSW). When the ball started rolling for the Titans, North started playing games up there. It's not a market we could allow the NRL to monopolise. When North wouldn't relocate, the AFL pulled the expansion trigger.

A second Sydney team was a "nice-to-have". The AFL clearly wanted a second team in Sydney, they'd had extra games up there in the early 2000s. Not sure if Western Sydney was always the preferred option, or whether the Swans kicked up about proximity to their territory. But it was always to complement the Gold Coast.

If North relocated to the Gold Coast, I think there's a good chance GWS wouldn't exist in their current form. If the Titans didn't exist, I think a of Suns expansion may have been a bit more careful and gradual (or possibly even a gradual relocation).

The timing suggests that the Titans were the catalyst, even though there have been other RL teams on the GC. Panic. Yes.

If North went to the GC, we would still be at 16 teams. Right now we would be taking about Tas being 17, and where might team 18 be.

Than again, North would have been more successful than the Suns, so we might be thinking more positively about expansion via relocation. Depending on how GC Roos went, there may have been a harder push for Saints or WB to move to WS 5 - 10 years ago.

 

[RedV3x]

Just thinking about it, do you reckon the AFL panicked back in 2006 after the success of the socceroos

No.

back then that soccer was goiing to takeover?

Swns had just won a premiership so AFL was high in Sydney.

Western Sydney having a massive population

And that's why the AFL established a team there.

It was a stupid idea to put a brand new team there and not a relocated one,

relocated teams have more initial support but the fans love the home grown product.

They are a lot smaller than I ever thought they would be.

So you must have thought they would be big. Good for you.

 

[Seedsfan]

by state i meant territory but i also count the NT as a state so I also count the ACT even though they are terriortys, I think colts or stallions works best animal which is kinda aussie and there's a lot in the ACT and is a better name than capitals

You can’t have a horse related name. ACT Brumbies are already in that market.