Boutique Stadium in Melbourne

[Billy ray]

hello

ive read bits and pieces in posts about a call for a boutique stadium in melbourne.
being up here on the coast i havent been able to follow the discussion, but what is the talk about?
a greenfields site? if so where is the likely spot?
or a rebuild of existing training ground/VFL ground?
what type of capacity?

would something like metricon fit the bill? capacity of 27,500?
its a fairly simple structure for 3/4 of the ground with two decks covered by roof (but obviously for climatic conditions the roof would be sealed at the back so no cold winds to flow through), with remaining 1/4 having the corporate boxes, clubrooms etc? plus a hill section like the AO?

 

[The Blue Baggers]

We already have a dozen of them ..

 

[Dirty Bird]

Which are obsolete

 

[Billy ray]

We already have a dozen of them ..

yeh, but with modern facilities or would revamps be needed?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

We've got the ludicrous situation where Sydney has three AFL venues and Melbourne has two. I'd like to see one of the old suburban grounds revamped but I agree with Dirty Bird - they are all obsolete. The only one that could possibly host AFL games is Optus Oval. It has parking, public transport and decent facilities. However Carlton have ripped out a heap of seating - not sure if you could have people watching games there or not.

I've always thought you could pop a ground at Sandown Racecourse. Heaps of parking, public transport and easy access. Don't know if Melbourne people would travel out that far these days but I reckon it would be awesome. A lot of the infrastructure is in place. The problem of course would be you couldn't block the view for the races. I'd build into the ground rather than on top of it. Reading it back it all sounds pretty crazy but it would still be awesome.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Well the most logical and promising, which is probably a flattering term, for a third stadium was E-Gate. The first time it came up was 2009 when the World Cup bid was on, they were saying it could've held 44,000 for that but reverted to 27,000 for AFL games. Would've been up near North Melbourne station. Close enough to the CBD, and North Melbourne station is fairly large, and the general idea for the ground and area was to be a second Docklands: unused land near the city being revived for housing, a few businesses, and some kind of secondary cultural hub. By no means a shocking idea and something decent in notion but the issue was the cost – they were saying it'd be as much as AAMI Park.

Of course, AAMI Park actually has a purpose. There wasn't a rectangular stadium in Melbs. In summer it hosts two A-League clubs, in winter there's the two rugby teams, and then the Demons have their administration there. So it serves a purpose. It has a match on every weekend plus the Socceroos game, a few concerts...

But what are you going to do with E-Gate? The mock ups are cool enough (here) but that's it. It's a totally redundant idea. By the time the place is operational, Etihad'll be owned or close to by the AFL. Even if it wasn't, what's the point in spending money on something that doesn't serve a pressing use? Politically it's irrelevant, it's not like it's going to accrue the votes of every Bulldogs and Saints fan in the country, and even if it did... well it's not going to get you a seat.

Now E-Gate's being discussed a bit more but more in the suburban sense. There's room in the plans for an oval, but it'll probably be a community space. I doubt it'll happen.

Melbourne doesn't actually need a third stadium at all. There's no issue with scheduling and both grounds are stellar, total assets to the city and country: big, spacious, nice seats, good viewing, right in the city, accessible by tram and train and car and foot, they really have everything and it's nothing but Victorian pampered privilege where the absolute gem of Etihad is designated as secondary at most and undesirable at most. Put that stadium anywhere in the world, with a massive train station right at the door of the gates and the city, and no one would complain. The only reason people think you need a third ground is for atmosphere. Which is a nice thing but if you want atmosphere, you should get more members or play better footy. You cannot expect billions of dollars being spent for the sake of atmosphere and a nice TV image. It's just ludicrous.

There was also some hoo-ha about Optus Oval and Punt Road. Optus makes sense. It's close to the city but then so is Etihad. The romanticism will last three games and then most Melburnians will deride its distance and the fact the Legends Stand has poor viewing and the rest of the place is stuck in 1980. With the money needed to rebuild Optus to a nice level, you might as well call it a brand new facility. Punt Road was insane for me. There's Richmond station and centrality but there's also a massive intersection where a wing and end are pushed up against (there'd be literally three metres at most between fence and road). You'd have to move the brand new training house, knock down the beautiful old grand stand and build something brand new while probably forcing some issues onto the Tigers. Simply insane.

Essentially, Melbs doesn't need a third stadium. And I get the feeling people, contrary to their thoughts now, don't want one either.

 

[brisbane13]

Well the most logical and promising, which is probably a flattering term, for a third stadium was E-Gate. The first time it came up was 2009 when the World Cup bid was on, they were saying it could've held 44,000 for that but reverted to 27,000 for AFL games. Would've been up near North Melbourne station. Close enough to the CBD, and North Melbourne station is fairly large, and the general idea for the ground and area was to be a second Docklands: unused land near the city being revived for housing, a few businesses, and some kind of secondary cultural hub. By no means a shocking idea and something decent in notion but the issue was the cost – they were saying it'd be as much as AAMI Park.

Of course, AAMI Park actually has a purpose. There wasn't a rectangular stadium in Melbs. In summer it hosts two A-League clubs, in winter there's the two rugby teams, and then the Demons have their administration there. So it serves a purpose. It has a match on every weekend plus the Socceroos game, a few concerts...

But what are you going to do with E-Gate? The mock ups are cool enough (here) but that's it. It's a totally redundant idea. By the time the place is operational, Etihad'll be owned or close to by the AFL. Even if it wasn't, what's the point in spending money on something that doesn't serve a pressing use? Politically it's irrelevant, it's not like it's going to accrue the votes of every Bulldogs and Saints fan in the country, and even if it did... well it's not going to get you a seat.

Now E-Gate's being discussed a bit more but more in the suburban sense. There's room in the plans for an oval, but it'll probably be a community space. I doubt it'll happen.

Melbourne doesn't actually need a third stadium at all. There's no issue with scheduling and both grounds are stellar, total assets to the city and country: big, spacious, nice seats, good viewing, right in the city, accessible by tram and train and car and foot, they really have everything and it's nothing but Victorian pampered privilege where the absolute gem of Etihad is designated as secondary at most and undesirable at most. Put that stadium anywhere in the world, with a massive train station right at the door of the gates and the city, and no one would complain. The only reason people think you need a third ground is for atmosphere. Which is a nice thing but if you want atmosphere, you should get more members or play better footy. You cannot expect billions of dollars being spent for the sake of atmosphere and a nice TV image. It's just ludicrous.

There was also some hoo-ha about Optus Oval and Punt Road. Optus makes sense. It's close to the city but then so is Etihad. The romanticism will last three games and then most Melburnians will deride its distance and the fact the Legends Stand has poor viewing and the rest of the place is stuck in 1980. With the money needed to rebuild Optus to a nice level, you might as well call it a brand new facility. Punt Road was insane for me. There's Richmond station and centrality but there's also a massive intersection where a wing and end are pushed up against (there'd be literally three metres at most between fence and road). You'd have to move the brand new training house, knock down the beautiful old grand stand and build something brand new while probably forcing some issues onto the Tigers. Simply insane.


a 27k seater or even a 35k seater is short sighted, as the bulldogs, North Melbourne & co already average around 25k each for their home games in melbourne, and population growth, you would think crowds are going to grow. ive always been of the opinion that there is at least 1 or 2 teams to many in in based in Melbourne. the other problem of having a new stadium built would be by the time it was approved and construction took place and completed it would be around 2018 at the earliest. then who ever invested their money in to have the stadium built would want their investment returns, so another situation similar to etihad will develop & clubs have bad stadium deals. in this time the AFL will own Etihad and can structure what ever deals they want for the clubs. so in the mean time, the AFL will just keep topping up the smaller clubs financialy

the only ground or stadium that i can see needing to be built is for Cricket Victoria. playing shield games at the MCG in front of a hand full of people is a joke. funding was made available to CA to up grade the junction oval but that was in a deal to see possibly st kilda return their training base there. but since then they have been given funding to up grade morabbin oval in to a community hub.
so if there are a plans for a oval to built in the new Egate area it would only need to be small oval with a few small stands 10 to 15k max for state cricket & potentially VFL games anything bigger would be a waste of money

 

[lenny2013]

From a pure fixturing point of view Melbourne probably doesn't need a third stadium, but from a stadium deals point of view the smaller Victoria clubs are in an urgent need of lower cost venue to provide competition with the MCG & Etihad to ensure the smaller clubs get a more farer deal.

The AFL & the VCA should be looking at Princess park instead of the Junction oval to upgrade in a joint venture to become the home of Vic cricket to ensure the MCG becomes available in October, this would be a big win for AFL as well because after October the AFL could utilise the ground and schedule smaller drawing games there.

I think Etihad's crowd breakeven point is about 30K for AFL which is ridiculous, I have heard that A league soccer games have a crowd breakeven figure of about 10K which is a big difference, if true the little AFL clubs are taking it in the a&$?!.

The Question is, would the AFL be better off spending the money on a boutique stadium now in the quest to provide more competition on the stadium deals front instead of buying Etihad early, and just wait till 2025 and inherit Etihad for free.

 

[Silent Alarm]

The other thing with a third ground, is that you need to still get money. You make money from selling tickets. Any third stadium'll hold about 27,000

In 2014, North've gotten 31,449 to their games with a membership of 37,576. The Saints get 27,000 to games and have 30,000 members. The Bullies have around the same number of members but get 24,900 to games. The Dees, for interests sake, have 35,379 members with 28,348 coming through to watch them on average.

Whatever way you look at it, you tend to get 4,000 less people through. I couldn't even hazard a guess on how many of those people are actually paying, but those lower sides have a bigger concentration of member-to-attendant and that's not healthy. You're not going to make money with 6,000 people coming through the gates. You just aren't. Not unless you make people pay $40 instead of $20 and then disenfranchise a big chunk of that attendance.

The sort of games most likely be shoved to the third ground are:
North v Lions, Etihad, 21,000
North v Gold Coast, 19,000
Western Bulldogs v Crows, 17,000
Melbourne v Swans, 25,000
Melbourne v Suns, 17,000
St Kilda v Crows, 22,000

So you're looking at 15,000 to 25,000ish. You'll also end up with a situation where every game will be ticketed, because there's less space to allocate to general admission and be fair to sponsors, members, Auskick kids, whatever. That turns people off because AFL members will have to pay a $7 fee, I doubt you'll see an AFL Members Reserve, not to mention the redundancy of the MCC which'll dilute the Demons numbers. It's just flawed and expensive. The issue is membership culture and the fact clubs just don't make money on them, yet they bring in sponsors et al with them.

You could seriously end up with like 2,000 people paying $20. That is not enough to keep your club afloat. Even if a small side like the Bulldogs were still playing games at Western Oval, how are they going to afford security, ticket attendants, those pre-match spruikers, let alone keep their facilities so that piss isn't pooling on the outer and the members have a roof for those freezing West Footscray days? If you think about it, you're starting to actually see more parallels with a WAFL club. A big state side like East Perth or Port Adelaide will probably be getting comparable money for a comparable amount of people to watch the game. And those sides, as you'd expect, rely on government funding, raffle tickets, and Freo and the Eagles' yearly payments to stay afloat.

Now I'm not saying that I want the Bulldogs turfed. It's no good for anyone and the lifetime of emptiness on Saturdays is something no one should feel. Everyone deserves to have their club until the end. The AFL has more than enough to keep these teams going too. It's fine. I'm just saying that clubs struggle because there aren't enough people who are paying to see them play. And that'll exist everywhere.

 

[lenny2013]

The other thing with a third ground, is that you need to still get money. You make money from selling tickets. Any third stadium'll hold about 27,000

In 2014, North've gotten 31,449 to their games with a membership of 37,576. The Saints get 27,000 to games and have 30,000 members. The Bullies have around the same number of members but get 24,900 to games. The Dees, for interests sake, have 35,379 members with 28,348 coming through to watch them on average.

As I mentioned in my last post I think the crowd breakeven figure is about 30K for most Etihad tenants, as you have mentioned the crowd averages for the smaller clubs are below this figure hence the clubs are making a loss playing their smaller drawing games at the G & Etihad.

This is why we have seen a trend of the Victorian clubs selling their smaller drawing home games to interstate governments.
Hawthorn (Tasmania)
North Melbourne (Tasmania)
Melbourne (NT)
St Kilda (NZ)
Western Bulldogs (Canberra)

I'm sure if you asked the supporters of the Victorian clubs selling their home games to interstate governments what they would prefer in respect to either playing home games interstate or at a smaller more viable boutique stadium in Melbourne I know which way they'd vote.

 

[Silent Alarm]

As I mentioned in my last post I think the crowd breakeven figure is about 30K for most Etihad tenants, as you have mentioned the crowd averages for the smaller clubs are below this figure hence the clubs are making a loss playing their smaller drawing games at the G & Etihad.

This is why we have seen a trend of the Victorian clubs selling their smaller drawing home games to interstate governments.
Hawthorn (Tasmania)
North Melbourne (Tasmania)
Melbourne (NT)
St Kilda (NZ)
Western Bulldogs (Canberra)

I'm sure if you asked the supporters of the Victorian clubs selling their home games to interstate governments what they would prefer in respect to either playing home games interstate or at a smaller more viable boutique stadium in Melbourne I know which way they'd vote.

But the thing is, a smaller ground isn't more viable. It's not viable for a government to build. It's not viable for teams to put money towards. It's not even viable if someone built it and the club's moved in: as I said, in anyone's language, you can't afford to sell 1,000-4,000 tickets at $20 each and expect to make heaps of money. And it's not like Etihad are evil and fleecing clubs, all stadiums have to pay heaps of staff, pay for upkeep, and there's a bit of cash involved in general.

A third stadium wouldn't be a whole lot more viable to occupy and rent. And I reckon you could even argue it would be less viable, not to mention bad for a club's growth (what does stadium shrinking say about a clubs intentions and getting more people along?).

 

[Dont be a lemon]

What's the point?

Who would pay for it?

As I mentioned in my last post I think the crowd breakeven figure is about 30K for most Etihad tenants

When clubs do the "We aren't making money at Docklands" they're usually deliberately excluding their membership revenue per match.

 

[lenny2013]

I'm not talking about building a new stadium, I'm saying to revamp say Princess Park.

The AFL & the VCA & the Vic government are looking at revamping the Junction oval into a state quality cricket facility, to enable the AFL to use of the MCG in March & October.

Might as well do it at a facility that could benefit the AFL.

 

[Silent Alarm]

But that's not going to be cheap. I'm not entirely sure how many it'd sit now but they've ripped out a fair bit of seating. I doubt you'd be allowed to have commentary teams and supporters in that old stand. It'd be a pretty expensive exercise, you're keeping a third of the ground and essentially redeveloping and rebuilding the rest.

And I want footy to come back to Optus Oval, it'd be great fun, but it's just too expensive for such a little gain. The only way it'll happen is if Carlton are dumb enough to pour money into the place, as they did with the Legends Stand which nearly bankrupted the team, and try and entice Cricket Victoria (or more likely) Victorian rugby union into chucking some cash in.

 

[lenny2013]

What's the point?

Who would pay for it?
When clubs do the "We aren't making money at Docklands" they're usually deliberately excluding their membership revenue per match.

Why are so many Victorian clubs selling their home games interstate?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Because the smaller clubs aren't popular so have low supporter revenue.

 

[lenny2013]

But that's not going to be cheap. I'm not entirely sure how many it'd sit now but they've ripped out a fair bit of seating. I doubt you'd be allowed to have commentary teams and supporters in that old stand. It'd be a pretty expensive exercise, you're keeping a third of the ground and essentially redeveloping and rebuilding the rest.

And I want footy to come back to Optus Oval, it'd be great fun, but it's just too expensive for such a little gain. The only way it'll happen is if Carlton are dumb enough to pour money into the place, as they did with the Legends Stand which nearly bankrupted the team, and try and entice Cricket Victoria (or more likely) Victorian rugby union into chucking some cash in.

Revamping say Princess Park would cost a lot less than buying Docklands out for 400 Million.

Get Docklands for free in 2025!

 

[lenny2013]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-25/afls-boutique-push

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/boutique-stadium-in-wings-20130319-2gdoa.html

 

[piesnz]

How much would it cost to revamp a ground such as Moorabbin to a 20k stadium if you allowed much of it to be standing room? Lower drawing games with Melbourne and the Saints against some interstate teams could be played there while the Dogs and North can play similar games in Geelong and Ballarat respectively.

 

[parano1a]

It would make sense for the Western Bulldogs to play a few smaller drawing home games at Simonds Stadium, given its relative proximity to the Western suburbs.

Also Ballarat would be a good option for a partial re-location for North Melbourne (say 5 Etihad / 5 Ballarat / 1 MCG split of home games). It should certainly be more palatable to fans than playing games or relocating interstate.

Given the above potential arrangements as well as other clubs selling home games to interstate venues, there isn't really a need for another stadium in Melbourne, especially in the CBD area.

 

[piesnz]

If Hawthorn hadn't have made a success out of their move to the MCG, the southeast would have been the ideal location. It's a shame that the teams no longer have any geographical identities with everyone in the CBD.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Revamping say Princess Park would cost a lot less than buying Docklands out for 400 Million.

Get Docklands for free in 2025!

Exactly, so you can tread water until then. Optus Oval is the best option of them all, but the place is far from being able to host AFL. It'd be like going back to the WACA. It's just too old and not enough work's been done to keep it maintained, which is totally fair and reasonable because why why would Carlton maintain anything but the gym and grass? People are only going to want to sit in the Legends Stand. That one next to it miiiiiiiiight be tenable for romantics and die hards if you charge $10 only. But the little old pavilion has poor sight lines and probably wouldn't pass a health and safety check. I'm not sure how much the AFL would like a big training facility directly behind a goal, but if they turned a blind eye, there's still this big old box from the 70s that'd need serious work to house the media crew it always used to.

It's an expensive exercise unfortunately. If Etihad was never going to be AFL owned then they'd definitely be making Optus Oval a 25,000 seat venue.

You theoretically could house a game at the last three suburban grounds. They're a lot better serviced for TV and fans, and probably even players, than some of the pre-season venues. If we had the World Cup on and the MCG was out of action, you could definitely hold two or three games at each and it'd just be a farce (you'd end up swapping fixtures so Collingwood only host the Suns at Vic Park, the Bullies and Kangas at Western Oval, Carlton and Port at Optus etc). I mean as a one-off if you had to, it could happen. But when you have better options, why opt for the inferior?

How much would it cost to revamp a ground such as Moorabbin to a 20k stadium if you allowed much of it to be standing room? Lower drawing games with Melbourne and the Saints against some interstate teams could be played there while the Dogs and North can play similar games in Geelong and Ballarat respectively.

About as much as Optus Oval. Which is still too much. And for a worse gain. It's a 20 minute walk, a terrible one along a highway, from the station to the ground. And the station isn't massive, either, it's a typical suburban stop. Plus it's about half an hour from the CBD. Which might be alright for most of the Saints fans, who seem to still be dotted along the peninsula, but what about North, Bulldogs, or even Dees fans? Why pay so much money for one club to be serviced when it's three or four who need it most? The least likely of all options. Its biggest asset is the space around. But Princes Park is a big area, too.

If Hawthorn hadn't have made a success out of their move to the MCG, the southeast would have been the ideal location. It's a shame that the teams no longer have any geographical identities with everyone in the CBD.

Nah, it's a good thing. Like in Sydney you battle to entice people to the SFS and Olympic Stadium because they're so used to parochial, easier accessible (to them but no one else) grounds. The result is having all these untenable stadiums around. The only way things are built is through politics. That's not healthy. That makes the future of an oval, and considering the status of the NRL, the club, a little shaky – look at Manly. They own a nice little ground but it's falling apart, it's ugly, it's in an awkward spot for opposition fans, and it simply shouldn't be a venue for professional, billion-dollar sports.

If not, look at Parramatta Stadium. It's kind of ludicrous that they're adding more seats and tidying up the place when there's the Olympic Stadium close by. If we still had suburban grounds in Melbourne we'd just end up with clubs on shaky finances upgrading their own stands (Carlton proved this is just dumb and not worth the gamble) or crossing their fingers for a local polly to snatch votes by offering up upgrades (which might well be redundant when you look where suburban grounds are: affluent, nice, inner-city areas full of lawyers and doctors and people who aren't into footy. Optus Oval was killed off early partly due to the intense pressure of the local residents – which are, statistically, something crazy like 80% young professional single female).

I wish we had one or two suburban grounds but it is smarter and cheaper to have two awesome, world-class facilities that are central than a dotting of average to uncomfortable in nice suburbs but poorly serviced by trains and trams.

 

[brisbane13]

How much would it cost to revamp a ground such as Moorabbin to a 20k stadium if you allowed much of it to be standing room? Lower drawing games with Melbourne and the Saints against some interstate teams could be played there while the Dogs and North can play similar games in Geelong and Ballarat respectively.

it would be far easier to revamp
vic park or even western oval, there is nothing left of Moorabbin, the old main stand which has seen far better days, & the rest of the ground is grass hills

 

[brisbane13]

Nah, it's a good thing. Like in Sydney you battle to entice people to the SFS and Olympic Stadium because they're so used to parochial, easier accessible (to them but no one else) grounds. The result is having all these untenable stadiums around. The only way things are built is through politics. That's not healthy. That makes the future of an oval, and considering the status of the NRL, the club, a little shaky – look at Manly. They own a nice little ground but it's falling apart, it's ugly, it's in an awkward spot for opposition fans, and it simply shouldn't be a venue for professional, billion-dollar sports.

If not, look at Parramatta Stadium. It's kind of ludicrous that they're adding more seats and tidying up the place when there's the Olympic Stadium close by. If we still had suburban grounds in Melbourne we'd just end up with clubs on shaky finances upgrading their own stands (Carlton proved this is just dumb and not worth the gamble) or crossing their fingers for a local polly to snatch votes by offering up upgrades (which might well be redundant when you look where suburban grounds are: affluent, nice, inner-city areas full of lawyers and doctors and people who aren't into footy. Optus Oval was killed off early partly due to the intense pressure of the local residents – which are, statistically, something crazy like 80% young professional single female).

I wish we had one or two suburban grounds but it is smarter and cheaper to have two awesome, world-class facilities that are central than a dotting of average to uncomfortable in nice suburbs but poorly serviced by trains and trams.[/QUOTE]
the AFL kind of do, they have simmonds stadium in geelong. i haven't been to it but it looks a treat on the TV its a shame only a few games a year is played there

 

[Julius Seizure]

Princess Park is really the only option if this happens due to its location. Would require so much money it wont happen. Clubs themselves arent financially strong enough to support a stadium themselves, and the government isnt going to shell out for a stadium with very limited use.Etihad and the G have such perfect locations. I dont think most people realise how spoiled Melbourne is that its three main Stadiums can be reached incredibly easy by PT from any part of the city.