AAMI Stadium redevelopment...

[Mego Red]

Increase corporate boxes, reduce cat 1 members, increase general public tickets.

Thought needs to be given to increasing attendance. One way would be to increase the cost of a membership ("bah! But what about all of the poor people who won't be able to afford to go! Attending the footy is a god-given right!"), so that people feel the pinch of not going. THEN you need to have a better ability for people to legally "resell" tickets - return a seat for a game to the club which can resell as a single seat. That seems easy.

Plus, there should be four and six game memberships, with folks having to login on the Monday prior to the game and reserve seats on a first come-first served basis.

There just needs to be an overhaul of the ticketing and online support.

 

[Vince Van Mackay]

Increase corporate boxes, reduce cat 1 members, increase general public tickets.

No....

 

[relapse]

Difference between selling out and filling the stadium. Whats the point in increasing the capacity if we are going to sell it out everygame but still only get 40 something thousand?

and thats the problem, the SANFL are putting their head in the sand as to the reasons why people arent going.

The story yesterday that stated that the SANFL was pushing for an upgrade more than a month ago proves that the SANFL had no interest what-so-ever in pursuing the new stadium option. It was just hot air to quieten the masses at least it has been exposed now.

 

[Alex99]

Also one more thing, if we increase capacity by 10,000 odd that means the operating cost of AAMI will increase quite a bit. This means the break even crowd will increase. Seeing as Port Adelaide is already struggling, it will never happen.

More corporate boxes is the way of the future. Which I think is part of the SANFL's plan.

Sorry but who gives a **** what they can and cannot afford, if the AFC can provide a business plan that will pay for 10,000 more seats and it is financially viable they should do it. With or with out knowing if it will benefit Port Adelaide. .

You really are a closet Port fan aren’t you?

 

[KingsCrow]

Sorry but who gives a **** what they can and cannot afford, if the AFC can provide a business plan that will pay for 10,000 more seats and it is financially viable they should do it. With or with out knowing if it will benefit Port Adelaide. .

You really are a closet Port fan aren’t you?

I could be...


The SANFL for one would give a **** about Port Adelaide. That is why they are spending alot of money on corporate boxes and not increasing capacity a great deal.

The AFC doesn't own AAMI, so their business plan will be completely irrelevant.

 

[KingsCrow]

No....

Why not?

Cat 1 (I am one by the way) is never full, its a waste of space.


Kristof just said some really good ideas by the way, and that won't cost millions like a new stand, but could possibly increase crowds by thousands. If we can get 50,000 average home crowd, that would be great for SA. Especially if these new rules brought in by Port also lift their crowd numbers.

 

[relapse]

Thought needs to be given to increasing attendance. One way would be to increase the cost of a membership ("bah! But what about all of the poor people who won't be able to afford to go! Attending the footy is a god-given right!"), so that people feel the pinch of not going. THEN you need to have a better ability for people to legally "resell" tickets - return a seat for a game to the club which can resell as a single seat. That seems easy.

Plus, there should be four and six game memberships, with folks having to login on the Monday prior to the game and reserve seats on a first come-first served basis.

There just needs to be an overhaul of the ticketing and online support.

I dont agree with the increase price mechanism and the AFC would never go for that. I think serious thought needs to be given the capacity of AAMI stadium. I dont care what anyone says the AFC has clearly outgrown it. I think it needs to be raised to approximately 65,000.

I think extra seating is a priority as far as the AFC goes, no point doing a bandaided half assed job like what normally happens in SA. Things are never done right always done by half and then end up costing more in the long run.

This will be exactly the same, the ideal option is to build a stadium in the CBD at the railyards, the next best is to upgrade football park and to do everything that is required (increased seating etc) to cater it for the long term needs of SA or the 3rd option is to do some half assed job to get it over the line ignoring much of what needs to be done to get it to a FIFA standard as cheap as possible.

The football park redevelopment will be the new "one lane freeway" of SA adequate, but something that essentially will cost far more down the track instead of doing it properly in the first place.

 

[Alex99]

I could be...


The SANFL for one would give a **** about Port Adelaide. That is why they are spending alot of money on corporate boxes and not increasing capacity a great deal.The AFC doesn't own AAMI, so their business plan will be completely irrelevant.

Of course they would be as any owner is but the Adelaide Football Club shouldn’t give a **** about it.

You don’t run a business worrying about what your competitors cannot achieve in the market place, you look at there maximum growth and devise a strategy to counter that growth. We cannot counter Port Adelaide growth because we cannot grow any more.

I am not going to go to my shareholders and say we should slow down any potential growth because jimmy down the road only has 3 customers, I am going to go to them and say “Jimmy has 3 customer so we have to grow and put his sorry arse out of business” The objective the AFC should have is to wipe the Power out, not allow them to stay or become competitive.

It would only happen (increasing capacity of AAMI Stadium) if the Adelaide Football Club went to the SANFL with a business plan outlining future growth for both the Power and Crows, hence why they had to provide a business plan.

 

[Alex99]

I dont agree with the increase price mechanism and the AFC would never go for that. I think serious thought needs to be given the capacity of AAMI stadium. I dont care what anyone says the AFC has clearly outgrown it. I think it needs to be raised to approximately 65,000.

I think extra seating is a priority as far as the AFC goes, no point doing a bandaided half assed job like what normally happens in SA. Things are never done right always done by half and then end up costing more in the long run.

This will be exactly the same, the ideal option is to build a stadium in the CBD at the railyards, the next best is to upgrade football park and to do everything that is required (increased seating etc) to cater it for the long term needs of SA or the 3rd option is to do some half assed job to get it over the line ignoring much of what needs to be done to get it to a FIFA standard as cheap as possible.

The football park redevelopment will be the new "one lane freeway" of SA adequate, but something that essentially will cost far more down the track instead of doing it properly in the first place.

I agree with what you have said because I am worried they have made the wrong decision. The Adelaide Football Club and other Australian Rules football associated sides are precariously sitting at a cross roads.

Last week the SANFL decided to stay (was leaving ever an option?) at West Lakes and upgrade the facilities already there, however increasing the attendance figure and capitalizing on the popularity of the Adelaide Football Club doesn’t seem to be part of the agenda. Since the inception into the AFL the Adelaide Football Club have continued to run hot with memberships and today they could have as many as 65,000 – 75,000 members. I am not sure how long this trend will last; 5 maybe 6 more years before loyal and frustrated consumers look elsewhere. Since we do not have the facility readily available to turn them into supporter now the probability is that they will look elsewhere, PAFC or Adelaide United seems to be the greatest competition at the moment.

The Port Adelaide football club are always looking at increasing there membership numbers and for families or AFL fans who want to attend games now and don’t want to wait 24 months for as season ticker they are a attractive option.

If I was a board member of the Adelaide Football Club I would be ropable at the SANFL for not seriously considering this an important factor in the long term strategic direction of the stadium. It’s not a conflict of interest but it is a serious negative to having the sole owner of both licences.

The A League in this country is ready to explode with supporters and corporate support. Adelaide United is going to provide both means and opportunity to the fans who cannot attend AFL games. Long term this is the code that will challenge the AFL to its number 1 football tag. AUFC will become a very attractive option especially to the parent who doesn’t want there child playing a rough game.

Now the decision has been made to stay at AAMI Stadium, the SANFL should be hoping like hell the A League doesn’t continue to increase in popularity. Within 30 year Australia will host a FIFA WC, if Australia host the WC in 2018 I can see a significant dent in the popularity in AFL. If the A League and AUFC attendances increase over the next 3 or 4 years making a new city based stadium viable to the current day sitting government the SANFL maybe out in the cold. They will not receive $250,000,000 for nothing, so that means no upgrades and who will want to go to and old and decrypted stadium in the middle of no where. If Australia wins the right to host a FIFA WC a city based stadium will get the go ahead if the A League can provide evidence that a new stadium will be viable.

Crossroad – hopefully the SANFL have not taken the wrong road.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Yes we have thousands, I think its 2000 or something. But your talking of adding another 10,000 seats to AAMI.

And you must remember Port Adelaide is a tenant of AAMI also. Why the hell would they want to see the SANFL spend money on increasing capacity? I think they would rather it seen making the stadium more attractive and adding corporate boxes.

Because the SANFL is raking in the cash from us.

I know for a FACT that the SANFL has already tried to increase general public attendance for Crows home games in an attempt to increase the revenue we make in order to counterbalance the money they arent making off power home games.

Allowing the Crows a larger crowd would increase revenue for the SANFL, regardless of what happens with the poower.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Thought needs to be given to increasing attendance. One way would be to increase the cost of a membership ("bah! But what about all of the poor people who won't be able to afford to go! Attending the footy is a god-given right!"), so that people feel the pinch of not going. THEN you need to have a better ability for people to legally "resell" tickets - return a seat for a game to the club which can resell as a single seat. That seems easy.

Plus, there should be four and six game memberships, with folks having to login on the Monday prior to the game and reserve seats on a first come-first served basis.

There just needs to be an overhaul of the ticketing and online support.

Easy to say for someone living thousands of miles away and doesn't look like returning.

 

[KingsCrow]

Of course they would be as any owner is but the Adelaide Football Club shouldn’t give a **** about it.

You don’t run a business worrying about what your competitors cannot achieve in the market place, you look at there maximum growth and devise a strategy to counter that growth. We cannot counter Port Adelaide growth because we cannot grow any more.

I am not going to go to my shareholders and say we should slow down any potential growth because jimmy down the road only has 3 customers, I am going to go to them and say “Jimmy has 3 customer so we have to grow and put his sorry arse out of business” The objective the AFC should have is to wipe the Power out, not allow them to stay or become competitive.

It would only happen (increasing capacity of AAMI Stadium) if the Adelaide Football Club went to the SANFL with a business plan outlining future growth for both the Power and Crows, hence why they had to provide a business plan.

Port Adelaide folding would be a bad outcome for the AFC and SANFL.

The objective of the AFC should be to 1. Provide the best services possible to acheive onfield sucess 2. Try to acheive the best possible income growth and 3. To strenghten South Australian football

 

[KingsCrow]

I agree with what you have said because I am worried they have made the wrong decision. The Adelaide Football Club and other Australian Rules football associated sides are precariously sitting at a cross roads.

Last week the SANFL decided to stay (was leaving ever an option?) at West Lakes and upgrade the facilities already there, however increasing the attendance figure and capitalizing on the popularity of the Adelaide Football Club doesn’t seem to be part of the agenda. Since the inception into the AFL the Adelaide Football Club have continued to run hot with memberships and today they could have as many as 65,000 – 75,000 members. I am not sure how long this trend will last; 5 maybe 6 more years before loyal and frustrated consumers look elsewhere. Since we do not have the facility readily available to turn them into supporter now the probability is that they will look elsewhere, PAFC or Adelaide United seems to be the greatest competition at the moment.

The Port Adelaide football club are always looking at increasing there membership numbers and for families or AFL fans who want to attend games now and don’t want to wait 24 months for as season ticker they are a attractive option.

If I was a board member of the Adelaide Football Club I would be ropable at the SANFL for not seriously considering this an important factor in the long term strategic direction of the stadium. It’s not a conflict of interest but it is a serious negative to having the sole owner of both licences.

The A League in this country is ready to explode with supporters and corporate support. Adelaide United is going to provide both means and opportunity to the fans who cannot attend AFL games. Long term this is the code that will challenge the AFL to its number 1 football tag. AUFC will become a very attractive option especially to the parent who doesn’t want there child playing a rough game.

Now the decision has been made to stay at AAMI Stadium, the SANFL should be hoping like hell the A League doesn’t continue to increase in popularity. Within 30 year Australia will host a FIFA WC, if Australia host the WC in 2018 I can see a significant dent in the popularity in AFL. If the A League and AUFC attendances increase over the next 3 or 4 years making a new city based stadium viable to the current day sitting government the SANFL maybe out in the cold. They will not receive $250,000,000 for nothing, so that means no upgrades and who will want to go to and old and decrypted stadium in the middle of no where. If Australia wins the right to host a FIFA WC a city based stadium will get the go ahead if the A League can provide evidence that a new stadium will be viable.

Crossroad – hopefully the SANFL have not taken the wrong road.

Your exactly right about Adelaide potentially losing members because of the waiting list. But the SANFL is in control and as you said they have two licenses to look after.


The SANFL should take the road of playing the waiting game. Not investing millions into the stadium just yet. If we get the WC bid, then it will mean MILLIONS of dollars of government investments into upgrading and constructing new stadiums. The SANFL could easily move in and stake a claim in a new stadium with money they have saved and with the two AFL teams they posess and get a new stadium for less then they bargained for.

 

[Alex99]

Port Adelaide folding would be a bad outcome for the AFC and SANFL.

I am not saying you are right (or wrong for that either) so can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

The objective of the AFC should be to 1. Provide the best services possible to acheive onfield sucess 2. Try to acheive the best possible income growth and 3. To strenghten South Australian football

1) Don’t they do that already?
2) Don’t they do that already?
3) If you’re talking about the SANFL competition fulfilling all expectation on your second criteria will look after that.

 

[Smoooothy]

Why not?

Cat 1 (I am one by the way) is never full, its a waste of space.


Kristof just said some really good ideas by the way, and that won't cost millions like a new stand, but could possibly increase crowds by thousands. If we can get 50,000 average home crowd, that would be great for SA. Especially if these new rules brought in by Port also lift their crowd numbers.

i agree with this also (i'm not a member, but my bro in law is, and we use his tickets quite often)

you would need to decrease the members area by only 3 or 4 bays, and then sell them off as general admin seating, you would suddenly see 5000 more people at the footy!

 

[Geoffa32]

The difference in sell out and actual crowd figure is the Members area, or at least 90%. I would say half of these ar Port Cat 1 members. These people will rarely go to our games. Perhaps a way of the SANFL being able to resell these tickets could be an option. ie the member gets credit back on next yeras ticket if they tell the SANFL the games they wont be attending.

As for the Stadium, now that Footy is staying at West lakes, why not a near total rebuild. Capacity for Crows games should be at 65K. We would get crowds of 60 easily (if my above idea was implemented). Extend Coporate seating and add a food court. The "back" area needs to indercover as well. One of the great things about the G and the Dome is that once you get in you are not exposed to the elements. You dont get wet whilst lining up for hot chips.

 

[Crow-mo]

Easy to say for someone living thousands of miles away and doesn't look like returning.

that's a lazy cop out.

simple laws of economics dictate that an increase in ticket price would increase attendance, without a corresponding drop in ticket sales.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

that's a lazy cop out.

simple laws of economics dictate that an increase in ticket price would increase attendance, without a corresponding drop in ticket sales.

No cop out you silly silly boy, just taking the piss as I'm sure he was looking for a bite.


As was I and look who I got.

 

[KingsCrow]

I am not saying you are right (or wrong for that either) so can you explain how you came to that conclusion?



1) Don’t they do that already?
2) Don’t they do that already?
3) If you’re talking about the SANFL competition fulfilling all expectation on your second criteria will look after that.

Well for one it would mean less AFL in South Australia. It would mean the local coverage of the sport would be minimized, and the SANFL would have a stadium being used 11 times a year. The Crows wouldn't have a showcase game in the Showdown. All that.


1) They try
2) At the moment I don't think the Crows are actually attaining the best growth in revenue. And this is especially true if they want to spend money on increasing membership (which as a means of total income is decreasing each year).

 

[Vince Van Mackay]

that's a lazy cop out.

lmao pretty funny that you also do not live in Adelaide.

Ofcourse you still have a right to your opinion, its just your opinion will always be of someone who is not affected regardless of what happens.

simple laws of economics dictate that an increase in ticket price would increase attendance, without a corresponding drop in ticket sales.

You're right, people are more willing to go to a game when they have paid more for it.

 

[Crow-mo]

lmao pretty funny that you also do not live in Adelaide.

no, what's funny is a supposed newcomer knows that???

Ofcourse you still have a right to your opinion, its just your opinion will always be of someone who is not affected regardless of what happens.

absolutely. it's called being unbiased.

You're right, people are more willing to go to a game when they have paid more for it.

the price for 11 games is sufficiently cheap, it makes sense for people who only intend to attend 8 or 9 games.

 

[AC07]

2) At the moment I don't think the Crows are actually attaining the best growth in revenue. And this is especially true if they want to spend money on increasing membership (which as a means of total income is decreasing each year).

Some important things to note.

1. The waiting list would be no where near 10,000 strong. Maybe 2,000-5,000.

2. I would suggest 5,000 - 10,000 hold on to their tickets to simply avoid losing membership and to have the privlidge of having season tickets. Lose capacity membership you actually lose regular season ticket holders. eg. I have an extra 2 memberships this year even though I don't need them so in the future for family or friends. If it was not at capacity then I would give them up knowing I could always take up a season ticket the year after or just go when I want.

3. Increasing Port's attendance is more important than increasing Crows attendance. (Increasing capacity would hamper this).

So in my eye's atleast for now it's a WIN, WIN and WIN for Crows, Port and the SANFL to condsider a very small increase in the seat expansion and focus on corparate sponsorship in the redevelopment. Maybe have a future option in those plans to expand at a later date.

 

[Macca19]

Port and the SANFL have already spent a lot of money on upgrading corporate facilities and the plan is for more to happen over the next year or two as well from memory.

In my opinion upgrading AAMI still wont make it viable for the WC should we get it.

In terms of football, I dont think upgrading capacity by 5-10k will be a major negative for Port. Surely our goal in terms of SA football is to fill out the stadium every week. Obviously, the goal for Port is to try and get a bigger % of supporters turned into members so that the membership base and attendances grow. Its about getting those 1-2-3-4 games a year people to buy a season ticket. Obviously our goal over the next 20 years will be to have grown enough to start getting regular 40k+ crowds week in week out.

Either way, in my view, although I dont mind Footy Park, it is outdated. Its an outdated design, largely outdated facilities and putting a whole load of makeup on the surface still wont cover the major issues facing the ground.

 

[Macca19]

I am not going to go to my shareholders and say we should slow down any potential growth because jimmy down the road only has 3 customers, I am going to go to them and say “Jimmy has 3 customer so we have to grow and put his sorry arse out of business” The objective the AFC should have is to wipe the Power out, not allow them to stay or become competitive.

You'd have a point if jimmy wasnt owned by the same organisation as yourself.

How would wiping the Power out be advantageous to South Australian Football, the SANFL and the Crows?

 

[Alex99]

It’s good to see the AFL pushing for a $100,000,000 upgrade of the Great Southern Stand at the MCG.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...-stand-facelift/2008/03/17/1205602294190.html

AFL wants $100m Great Southern Stand facelift
Caroline Wilson | March 18, 2008

THE AFL is pushing the MCG to embark upon a multimillion-dollar redevelopment of the Great Southern Stand in the belief that its members are enduring facilities inferior to those in the recently completed Northern Stand.

Two years after the stadium's $450 million facelift was completed, the Melbourne Cricket Club has commissioned its architectural consultants to look at changes to the southern side of the ground, costing an estimated $100 million should the AFL's demands be met.

The 2008 AFL season will kick off at the MCG on Thursday when Carlton meets Richmond and the stadium has matches scheduled for Saturday and Sunday.

A decision on a rebuilding program for the Great Southern Stand, which was completed in 1992, is expected this year and, according to both parties, looks certain to go ahead, with AFL boss Andrew Demetriou hinting that the prevailing view is that the massive facelift would prove more practical in the long run.

"The Southern Stand simply looks tired," Demetriou told The Age last night. "Here we have a world-class stadium with more than half of the facilities clearly the best in the world and what we want is comparable facilities not only for our members but for all football fans."

MCC chief executive Stephen Gough confirmed yesterday that he had begun talks with Demetriou.

Should the AFL get its way, its members' area, which like the MCC members' area has about 23,000 seats, would have entrances, concourses and seating redesigned and rebuilt. The former AFL offices, which now form the administrative base of the Melbourne Football Club, would be removed. Melbourne has flagged its intention to move its offices to the yet-to-be-completed rectangular stadium at Olympic Park.

Twelve months ago, the AFL, which has about 45,000 members, commissioned architectural drawings for work that would have cost $25 million.

The MCC has spent $20,000 on another early draft version, which was recently completed by two of the firms that took part in the design of the Northern Stand. No conclusion has been reached on the funding of the proposed works, which in this latest draft would prove a far more radical and costly refurbishment than the AFL's proposals, although the Victorian Government has been consulted about the stadium's plans.

"The process is underway," Gough said. "The AFL is the prime mover among the stakeholders but there are things we all want to look at.

"We can't do costings until we know what we are doing and obviously we haven't started looking at funding at this stage. The State Government are a stakeholder and they are aware we are having these discussions."

The MCC has consulted cricket's national and state bodies — its agreement with Cricket Victoria concludes next year — along with AFL Victoria and AFL Sportsready, both of which rent offices in the Great Southern Stand.

"We have looked at the whole question of whether it is practical to have offices in the stadium," Gough said.

The AFL's agreement with the MCG runs until 2032, with the league contributing an annual indexed $5 million to the stadium's annual revenue of $85 million.