AFL Purchases Etihad Stadium

[Gigantor]

There wasn't 10 years ago when Princes Park was canned. Why would there be now?

Nine teams in Melbourne, playing out of two stadiums, occasionally against interstate teams where we might be lucky to get 20k.

On top of that, we have VFL finals, and now AFL Womens, which will want to play finals at a decent venue, but one still with a smallish capacity.

There might still be a case to have a quality venue with a capacity in the region of 25k to 30k.

You mention Princes Park, and that might well remain one of the options.

 

[Rob]

Nine teams in Melbourne, playing out of two stadiums, occasionally against interstate teams where we might be lucky to get 20k.

On top of that, we have VFL finals, and now AFL Womens, which will want to play finals at a decent venue, but one still with a smallish capacity.

There might still be a case to have a quality venue with a capacity in the region of 25k to 30k.

You mention Princes Park, and that might well remain one of the options.

That's all fine, but you reckon any monetary saving from playing games at a smaller venue might be somewhat offset (arguably greatly exceeded) by the cost of said smaller stadium?

You're also making an assumption that a game that attracts 25k at Docklands would attract a similar crowd at another (cheaper and likely inferior) venue. The last year Princes Park hosted more than a handful of Carlton games it attracted such great crowds like 8k, 2 x 9k, 2 x 11k and 12k. Even Carlton struccgled to draw fans to the venue, with games that drew 14k and 16k. And Victorians are a fair bit softer and more fickle now than they were back then.

In the end, if a club or clubs want to arrange it, go for it. But the AFL shouldn't have much involvement.

 

[Mat Mann]

I think a few of you misunderstand what the medallion club is, how it works, and why it costs so much.

The exclusive access and privileges of being a Medallion Club Member extend well beyond the sporting arena.
Benefits Include
Access to restaurants The Carvery and The Grille as well as the Sports Bar and Terrace Bar
Fully transferable ticketing
Access to the 2016 Toyota AFL Grand Final
VIP car parking underneath the stadium
One fully transferable Medallion AFL Membership at the MCG, including finals
Access to the Chairman's Club at Flemington
Access to premier Australian golf courses
Exclusive access to function facilities
Access to tickets to events at ANZ Stadium, The Gabba and Adelaide Oval
Access to selected sporting events at the Sydney Cricket Ground, including all Sydney Swans home games and 2016 NRL Premiership Season
Box Office specials, including priority access to major events, concerts, theatre and film releases
Special offers from Treasury Wine Estates

A Medallion membership gets you a ticket to every event held at Etihad, all you have to do is reserve it. Footy, soccer, concerts, rugby. Any event, And club members are very actively encouraged to give away unused seats to friends, business. How ever they can. Been lucky enough to get regular seating their for the last few years. There is no way the AFL will get rid of it. As for who runs it, doubt management will change, they just work for a different boss.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The AFL funded waverly and docklands, can't see why this would be any different?....

Some context please. The AFL built and paid for Waverley because they were in a 30 year s**t fight with the MCC for more money. That's basically been resolved. They invested in Docklands, put in $30mil of the $430mil needed because it was a BOOT project, they didn't have to come up with the money up front and they got the site unencumbered after 25 years for just $30. It was a great bit of financial engineering by then AFL Commissioner Graeme Samuel. Docklands started as a concept to be a rectangle stadium and the initial impetus was to be ready to play games of 2000 Olympic soccer there. The AFL saw the location and said we have to get involved and turn it into an oval. The initial investors were sold a pup, but the AFL got a shiny new stadium - great deal for it - but s**t stadium deal for the clubs playing home games there.

Under what context/circumstances would the AFL get involved in a new billion dollar stadium "across the road' from the MCG??

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If the private sector offered the AFL $1B+ for the land docklands stadium sits on, the oval would be gone as soon as look at you and replaced with towers.

I forgot to answer this bit, nobody in the private sector is going to offer $1bil for the land to build towers on. The stadium is worthless to them it costs money to knock it down and take it away. You might end up building a few buildings on the site that are worth in total $1bil maybe $1.5bil and say $2bil at a stretch but, that's the value of the finished buildings not the value of the land. At $ 7,000 to $10,000 per square metre to construct office or apartment towers, no developer is paying $1bil for the land.

 

[Fire]

I'm not saying this because I'm a North fan (we don't own it anyway so we wouldn't profit) but how realistic would an upgraded arden st be for a small stadium, now that there will be a major metro station next to it?

 

[pazza]

I'm not saying this because I'm a North fan (we don't own it anyway so we wouldn't profit) but how realistic would an upgraded arden st be for a small stadium, now that there will be a major metro station next to it?

I don't see why the club doesn't do it now anyway.

Is North really benefitting by having it's reserves playing at Werribee or would it benefit from having a standalone side based at Arden St itself?
Suggest the new hierachy might have a look into such moves.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I'm not saying this because I'm a North fan (we don't own it anyway so we wouldn't profit) but how realistic would an upgraded arden st be for a small stadium, now that there will be a major metro station next to it?

Unrealistic - there's no room to build any stands particularly along the Macauley Rd side.

 

[telsor]

I'm not saying this because I'm a North fan (we don't own it anyway so we wouldn't profit) but how realistic would an upgraded arden st be for a small stadium, now that there will be a major metro station next to it?

It comes down to how many games would be played on it, and who would fund the ground.

Given that the AFL wont want to move too many games away from 'their' ground at Docklands, you'd probably struggle to get many games there, making backers hard to find, and as a result you'd struggle to make a profit.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Some context please. The AFL built and paid for Waverley because they were in a 30 year s**t fight with the MCC for more money. That's basically been resolved. They invested in Docklands, put in $30mil of the $430mil needed because it was a BOOT project, they didn't have to come up with the money up front and they got the site unencumbered after 25 years for just $30. It was a great bit of financial engineering by then AFL Commissioner Graeme Samuel. Docklands started as a concept to be a rectangle stadium and the initial impetus was to be ready to play games of 2000 Olympic soccer there. The AFL saw the location and said we have to get involved and turn it into an oval. The initial investors were sold a pup, but the AFL got a shiny new stadium - great deal for it - but s**t stadium deal for the clubs playing home games there.

Under what context/circumstances would the AFL get involved in a new billion dollar stadium "across the road' from the MCG??

If docklands or Waverley did not exist the MCC would still be shafting them, Dpcklands is insurance against further s**t fights.

The same can be said about football park in Adelaide

 

[AstroboyUK]

the single best thing about this is that we now can stop calling it 'docklands', colonial, etihad' etc... and revert to the true, time honoured name for our leagues own ground... "Headquarters"!!

 

[walhawk]

I don't see why the club doesn't do it now anyway.

Is North really benefitting by having it's reserves playing at Werribee or would it benefit from having a standalone side based at Arden St itself?
Suggest the new hierachy might have a look into such moves.

Now AFL own Etihad, there is zero chance of a third venue ever in Melbourne. They will want more games there, and bigger games there. AFL ownership might slightly help the finances of tenant clubs, but will not be good for football.

 

[workhorse]

That's all fine, but you reckon any monetary saving from playing games at a smaller venue might be somewhat offset (arguably greatly exceeded) by the cost of said smaller stadium?

You're also making an assumption that a game that attracts 25k at Docklands would attract a similar crowd at another (cheaper and likely inferior) venue. The last year Princes Park hosted more than a handful of Carlton games it attracted such great crowds like 8k, 2 x 9k, 2 x 11k and 12k. Even Carlton struccgled to draw fans to the venue, with games that drew 14k and 16k. And Victorians are a fair bit softer and more fickle now than they were back then.

In the end, if a club or clubs want to arrange it, go for it. But the AFL shouldn't have much involvement.

Basically this. Apart from the look of a half full stadium (which we see at the MCG week in/week out, too), the only real rationale for building a 'bespoke' third stadium in Melbourne was to shift low-drawing games from Etihad where the tenants, namely St.Kilda, North Melbourne and the Bulldogs were making financial losses due to their poor Etihad contracts. Buying Etihad now for ~$200mil is the best thing the AFL could've done. Why spend (likely) hundreds of millions upgrading Princes Park or Punt Road, or building E-Gate Stadium for the sake of a few games every year?

 

[Gigantor]

Basically this. Apart from the look of a half full stadium (which we see at the MCG week in/week out, too), the only real rationale for building a 'bespoke' third stadium in Melbourne was to shift low-drawing games from Etihad where the tenants, namely St.Kilda, North Melbourne and the Bulldogs were making financial losses due to their poor Etihad contracts. Buying Etihad now for ~$200mil is the best thing the AFL could've done. Why spend (likely) hundreds of millions upgrading Princes Park or Punt Road, or building E-Gate Stadium for the sake of a few games every year?

Re Princes Park or Punt Road, you and Rob are right, we would not want to spend millions of dollars to upgrade them for a few smaller games, but what if we played the community card, to be used by VFL, AFL womens and U18s, and Government pays some $50 mill to upgrade one of those grounds?

 

[madmug]

Re Princes Park or Punt Road, you and Rob are right, we would not want to spend millions of dollars to upgrade them for a few smaller games, but what if we played the community card, to be used by VFL, AFL womens and U18s, and Government pays some $50 mill to upgrade one of those grounds?

But haven't the AFL put solid contracts in place for specific numbers of games at the G. They surely wouldn't want any less games at Etihad either since they'll own it.

 

[Gigantor]

But haven't the AFL put solid contracts in place for specific numbers of games at the G. They surely wouldn't want any less games at Etihad either since they'll own it.

True, but if Govt were to pay for it, giving us a good size for VFL and women's finals, and the odd small drawing AFL game, wouldn't we go for that?

 

[Gigantor]

Also:

There are 9 Melbourne teams.

That's 99 home games.

Haw play 4 at Lonnie, Nth play 2 in Hobart. Melb play 1 in the Alice, dogs will play 2 (?) in Ballarat.

That's still 90 games.

You want as many as you can have at Etihad, but hard to have more than 46 games (2 per round).

That's still 44 games (not counting any Geelong games) left

What's the minimum amount of games we need to play at the MCG?

 

[The_Wookie]

Also:

There are 9 Melbourne teams.

That's 99 home games.

Haw play 4 at Lonnie, Nth play 2 in Hobart. Melb play 1 in the Alice, dogs will play 2 (?) in Ballarat.

That's still 90 games.

You want as many as you can have at Etihad, but hard to have more than 46 games (2 per round).

That's still 44 games (not counting any Geelong games) left

What's the minimum amount of games we need to play at the MCG?

46.

 

[The_Wookie]

Also:

There are 9 Melbourne teams.

That's 99 home games.

Haw play 4 at Lonnie, Nth play 2 in Hobart. Melb play 1 in the Alice, dogs will play 2 (?) in Ballarat.

That's still 90 games.

You want as many as you can have at Etihad, but hard to have more than 46 games (2 per round).

That's still 44 games (not counting any Geelong games) left

What's the minimum amount of games we need to play at the MCG?

Geelong should be included here, they currently are.

From 110 possible home games -

• Hawthorn play 4 games a year in Launceston
• North Melbourne play 3 games a year in Hobart
• Melbourne play 2 games a year in the Northern Territory
• Dogs currently play 1 game a year in Cairns.
• Geelong currently play 8 games a year at Kardinia Park and play 3 games a year in Melbourne itself.

 

[madmug]

Also:

There are 9 Melbourne teams.

That's 99 home games.

Haw play 4 at Lonnie, Nth play 2 in Hobart. Melb play 1 in the Alice, dogs will play 2 (?) in Ballarat.

That's still 90 games.

You want as many as you can have at Etihad, but hard to have more than 46 games (2 per round).

That's still 44 games (not counting any Geelong games) left

What's the minimum amount of games we need to play at the MCG?

North play 3 at Boot park.

 

[Gigantor]

Geelong should be included here, they currently are.

From 110 possible home games -

• Hawthorn play 4 games a year in Launceston
• North Melbourne play 3 games a year in Hobart
• Melbourne play 2 games a year in the Northern Territory
• Dogs currently play 1 game a year in Cairns.
• Geelong currently play 8 games a year at Kardinia Park and play 3 games a year in Melbourne itself.

So that's down to 92 games for an even 46 games apiece.

Ok, in that case, looks like Rob and others are right, no need for a smaller 3rd stadium (of course if Govt want to pay for an upgrade of one of the other central stadiums, for VFL and womens games - I'm sure we'd still say yes).

 

[JohnZ]

Geelong should be included here, they currently are.

No, they really shouldn't be. Geelong, as the only Victorian team left with a home ground should be allowed to play all 11 games at their home ground. But we're not, because of MCG and Etihad contracts, playing home games against hawthorn at the 'G because they sell games to tasmania, playing home games against north melbourne because they sell games to tasmania. It's ridiculous, we lose money playing at Etihad or at the 'G at crowds <75,000, compared to KP, and are expected to still pay the equalisation tax whilst making our home ground bigger. If Geelong play another home game at Etihad, especially against a Etihad tenant, I'll be ropeable.

 

[The_Wookie]

No, they really shouldn't be. Geelong, as the only Victorian team left with a home ground should be allowed to play all 11 games at their home ground. But we're not, because of MCG and Etihad contracts, playing home games against hawthorn at the 'G because they sell games to tasmania, playing home games against north melbourne because they sell games to tasmania. It's ridiculous, we lose money playing at Etihad or at the 'G at crowds <75,000, compared to KP, and are expected to still pay the equalisation tax whilst making our home ground bigger. If Geelong play another home game at Etihad, especially against a Etihad tenant, I'll be ropeable.

Lets not get too carried away here. Your home games at the MCG/Waverly were being played there LONG before Hawthorn or North sold games to Tasmania. You havent played all your home games in a season at Kardinia Park since 1969. So Geelong should be included.

And you dont "lose" money at either Etihad or the MCG. You might not make as much, because Clubs only count gate takings when talking about profitability of matches, and like to pretend membership income doesnt exist. Its the biggest lie modern AFL clubs tell.