"Boutique" Stadium

[Max Power 83]

Whether it be a redeveloped Visy Park, Junction Oval, the proposed E-Gate stadium, or further down the track perhaps a development at Casey Fields, IF the AFL were to introduce a 20-25,000 seat "boutique" stadium would you be happy to play low drawing matches there?

Since the start of last season we've hosted Adelaide at the G for a crowd of 19,987.

Freo at the G for 19,092.
West Coast at Etihad for 15,739
Gold Coast at the G for 21,534 (their first game at the G)
GWS at the G for 20,070 (boosted somewhat by the Scully factor)
And of course yesterday's pathetic effort.

This year we still have Gold Coast and Adelaide (Sunday twilight) at the G.
I'd be surprised if we got anywhere near 20,00 for either match

On top of this we have our annual "home" game against Port in Darwin.

Obviously if we had these same crowds at a smaller stadium as a club we would be better off financially and the atmosphere would be much better, but the question is: Would you, Melbourne supporters, turn up to such a venue?

Playing home games in Darwin isn't ideal.
Playing home games at the G for a crowd of 20,000 isn't ideal.
Playing home games at Etihad in front of 13,000 is just f*cking pathetic.


I know people don't like Etihad (I'm not a big fan myself even though i live within walking distance), but is it that they don't like the stadium, or that they don't like the fact that it isn't the G?

Apparently we have 36,000 members so the easy solution to all of this would be to just turn up to the ******* game. You can guarantee if we had of got 30,000 there yesterday, the corresponding fixture next year would be played at the G.

 

[Tulip]

We've played at the stadium for 150 ******* years.

Short answer is NOO

 

[Bluelegs]

It'd need to be partnered by the MCC. I don't really see the point to be honest. What do we have to gain by playing at this stadium? A smaller stadium against interstate sides wouldn't really attract more people than mcg games against interstate sides.

 

[d33my]

It'd need to be partnered by the MCC. I don't really see the point to be honest. What do we have to gain by playing at this stadium? A smaller stadium against interstate sides wouldn't really attract more people than mcg games against interstate sides.

I'm guessing it would be cheaper/more profitable for the club to fill a smaller stadium than fill up a fraction of the G (or Docklands). From memory the break even point at the G is close to 25-28000 people, anyone know if this is correct? I've got no idea what it would be at Docklands.

The reason I'm reluctant to go to Docklands is less the fact that it is Docklands and more the fact that it isn't the G (I'm an MCC/MFC member). Unless I got some sort of reciprocal rights at the boutique stadium I imagine I would feel similarly.

Worth discussing though. In an ideal world we'd play all our home games at the G but in this ideal world we'd also be sitting atop the ladder at 15-0.

 

[Bluelegs]

Worth discussing though. In an ideal world we'd play all our home games at the G but in this ideal world we'd also be sitting atop the ladder at 15-0.

One of those things is easier to achieve than the other. I'm developing a theory that maybe the AFL plays us at etihad to make sure we don't stop selling our games in Darwin.

 

[Jordie_tackles]

I think its a bums on seats situation, as said if every member and no other supporters or opposition fans at all went to every game we would still be fine.

Problem is we have lot of members who pay there share but dont seem to turn up to games imo which makes us have small crowds.

i would think we should have a minimum of 17K members at most games half the total plus opposition fans but this just doesnt happen, and often more than have more than 17K members turn up.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

For me it would depend on the nature of our profitability at the 'G. If those low crowds lose us money, then I'd be more than happy for the club to play interstate teams at some boutique venue provided it was going to be more profitable.

I know we lose $ when we play home games at Etihad so obviously more than happy to move that one.

But if we aren't losing money on those low drawing games at the 'G then I'd ask what is the point in moving...

 

[Max Power 83]

I'm guessing it would be cheaper/more profitable for the club to fill a smaller stadium than fill up a fraction of the G (or Etihad). From memory the break even point at the G is close to 25-28000 people, anyone know if this is correct? I've got no idea what it would be at Etihad.

The reason I'm reluctant to go to Etihad is less the fact that it is Etihad and more the fact that it isn't the G (I'm an MCC/MFC member). Unless I got some sort of reciprocal rights at the boutique stadium I imagine I would feel similarly.

Worth discussing though. In an ideal world we'd play all our home games at the G but in this ideal world we'd also be sitting atop the ladder at 15-0.

Exactly. In some cases we actually lose money. Not sure if it is as high as 28k, but I'm sure we haven't reached the break even point many times. It's even worse at Etihad (hence closing the top level yesterday).

Obviously there would have to be arrangements for various member types. Perhaps the mcc/mfc are entitled to 2 games at the smaller stadium or something similar.

The fact is you need to be strong financially to be really competitive. It's no coincidence that the higher spending clubs are the ones at the top. I would much rather we played a few games away from the G (but still in Melbourne) if it meant we would be more stable financially and able to invest more in the footy dept. It was only a couple of years ago we were in real strife financially.

Every Victorian club plays "home" games away from their home ground. It's the reality of football these days. I'd much rather these "home" games stayed in Melbourne AND we were able to profit from them.

 

[tasmanlvr]

From memory the break even point at the G is close to 25-28000 people, anyone know if this is correct? I've got no idea what it would be at Docklands.

20K is the BE at the G. I don't mind the idea of playing Boutique games at Visy Park as it is a little closer to my place. We have 36,000 members but how many of them are opposition fans who buy their membership simply to help the club? I've no idea, but that would still leave 33,000 members per sé.

 

[d33my]

It's a shame AAMI park isn't built for AFL because that's a great small stadium. I can imagine that if it's done well then we can have a much happier time at a smaller, boutique stadium. Especially if it feels more like a second home ground rather than a soulless concrete monster which is at least how I picture Docklands.

 

[640MD]

Had a VERY poor experience at Etihad first time I went, has coloured the place for me.

Had to sit miles in the air and vacant seats thousands of them on ground level.

Nasty little Station masters with nothing better to do than save seats for Non existent occupiers

(Sorry to real Station Masters and tram conductors if there are any left! )

They can shove it where it fits best !!

 

[stretcharmstrong]

It's a shame AAMI park isn't built for AFL because that's a great small stadium. I can imagine that if it's done well then we can have a much happier time at a smaller, boutique stadium. Especially if it feels more like a second home ground rather than a soulless concrete monster which is at least how I picture Docklands.

I go to Storm games there all the time and it is a fantastic venue. In fact, short of a 50k+ MCG crowd, I'd say AAMI with 20k has the best atmosphere of any stadium I've been to.

 

[Bluelegs]

For me it would depend on the nature of our profitability at the 'G. If those low crowds lose us money, then I'd be more than happy for the club to play interstate teams at some boutique venue provided it was going to be more profitable.

I know we lose $ when we play home games at Etihad so obviously more than happy to move that one.

But if we aren't losing money on those low drawing games at the 'G then I'd ask what is the point in moving...

I agree with this. If it was a good stadium I'd be all for it. Not really a fan of the 'tradition' argument when it stands in the way of progress. That being said, the best current option is to play all our home games at the G

 

[Max Power 83]

Had a VERY poor experience at Etihad first time I went, has coloured the place for me.

Had to sit miles in the air and vacant seats thousands of them on ground level.

Nasty little Station masters with nothing better to do than save seats for Non existent occupiers

(Sorry to real Station Masters and tram conductors if there are any left! )

They can shove it where it fits best !!

Yeah, it's such a bullsh*t situation when there are more security guards guarding seating bays than there are spectators sitting in the bay.

Whatever happened to common sense?

 

[Blackas87]

If we were actually any good we would be getting close to 30000-35000 to these games I would hope, but we've won 2 games, it's the second half of the season and our season is dead, our exciting drawcard players like Clark, Jurrah and Watts are out, only die hard fans are going to continue to go. Went to the Freo game and there wasn't much excitement leading into it. Once we get back up the crowds will roll back in.

 

[syl]

G breakeven is around 20k, Docklands 30k IIRC.

 

[Syrus]

I would say contractually with the stadium the AFL would probably have to schedule us to play one home game there a year.

 

[Bluelegs]

G breakeven is around 20k, Docklands 30k IIRC.

Why does the docklands have a higher break even point? It's half the size of the G

I would say contractually with the stadium the AFL would probably have to schedule us to play one home game there a year.

Why? I don't understand why we would have to play a home game every year. What does anyone gain from it?

 

[syl]

Why does the docklands have a higher break even point? It's half the size of the G

Because of a s**t deal the AFL has with its operators. That's why the clubs who play home there are all struggling and why the AFL wants to buy the ground early!

MCG is way cheaper, we will be getting reimbursed by the AFL for playing a home game at Docklands each year no doubt, otherwise it wouldn't happen, it's bad for the club and the AFL.

 

[Jeebs]

It would only be of benefit to us if we continued to stay down the bottom for the next ten years. If that were to occur, well..

Me? I despise etihad. Soul-less, occupational health and safety hazard, hole of a concrete echo chamber that's a anchor around too many clubs viability (to the benefit of one club only).

 

[fushy]

Dont we also get a cheaper rate when hosting at the G as apart of the realignment with the MCC?

 

[MUYB]

If it worked out better financially for the club I'd be happy playing games vs interstate teams at a 30k or so stadium, and as long as it had good public transport access I'd turn up.

 

[d33my]

Dont we also get a cheaper rate when hosting at the G as apart of the realignment with the MCC?

Not sure exactly of the details but there's definitely an increased financial incentive from the MCC if you're an MFC/MCC member. From a letter I got today:

Just by attending MFC home games in the MCC Reserve, you make a significant financial contribution to the football club when you scan through the turnstiles with your MCC membership

(Of course, there's no real mention of how significant 'significant' is)

But it would seem we miss out on a fair chunk of potential revenue whenever we don't play a home game at the G. For this reason I would be reluctant to play home games at a boutique unless MFC/MCC members had some sort of reciprocal deal at the boutique that injects money to the club in a similar way, but as far as I can tell the odds of that happening would be next to nil.

 

[Dee Won]

Is it feasible or viable to close the top deck of the G? especially for games that are likely to draw 20k or less

 

[Syrus]

Why? I don't understand why we would have to play a home game every year. What does anyone gain from it?

I think the AFL contractually has to schedule one home game for every Victorian club there as part of the contract they have with the stadiums operators, whether we like it or not. Im pretty sure Richmond is in the same boat and had to play a home game against West Coast at the start of the season there.