Bulldogs want a 25-30k NEW stadium in Melbourne.

[Balony_pony16]

The problem is that it wouldn't be filled regularly. You build a cheap 20k seater and the average crowd would be about 10k. It would soon become the most hated place in Melbourne, with all clubs begging the AFL not to schedule games there.

I dont think the FAL would give a shiit... Im sure the lions request each year to not play the Hawks in Tassie

 

[Rob]

I dont think the FAL would give a shiit... Im sure the lions request each year to not play the Hawks in Tassie

Bit of a difference between away games and home games. It's the home teams that will be crying the most at any new cheap stadium.

 

[Balony_pony16]

Bit of a difference between away games and home games. It's the home teams that will be crying the most at any new cheap stadium.

Yeah I was thinking as a away team. Surely a club wouldnt sign themself up for a small stadium unless it was in their interest though?

 

[Rob]

Yeah I was thinking as a away team. Surely a club wouldnt sign themself up for a small stadium unless it was in their interest though?

Lol.

Victorians hate Etihad. Think about that, and then think about how much of a worse stadium a cheap boutique ground would be. What do you think the result is going to be?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

tl;dr

your going to have to pay for it just like Etihad and nobody will want to attend.

 

[DERIBERATE]

Lol.

Victorians hate Etihad. Think about that, and then think about how much of a worse stadium a cheap boutique ground would be. What do you think the result is going to be?

Instead of losing a fist full on a crowd of 18,000 they'll break even on 15k.

 

[Rob]

Instead of losing a fist full on a crowd of 18,000 they'll break even on 15k.

Rubbish.

To both breaking even on 15k and getting 15k in the first place.

 

[DERIBERATE]

Rubbish.

To both breaking even on 15k and getting 15k in the first place.

Depends on how the venue is designed. Automation, rationalization and placement of outlets, etc. On a small parcel of land to help yields...

As for your hyperbole, please. Princes Park's a dump. Last year Bulldogs played there they got 13.5 against Freo, 15k v Port and 17k+ against West Coast. When the Dogs were rubbish they were down to 7-8k, when they're up and against another Victorian draw it was above 20. Looks like 15k mean and a variation of about 7k. A 20k capacity venue would be ideal. Clear gap in the market.

 

[Rob]

Depends on how the venue is designed. Automation, rationalization and placement of outlets, etc. On a small parcel of land to help yields...

That is absolutely true. But generally, the cheaper it is the worse it's going to be. Longer lines, less room to move around the ground, less undercover areas, harder to get to and get out of.
What's more important is high yields on seats. You might be able to save a few dollars a seat by going cheap. But if you can make an extra $20 revenue a seat, then that's where you'll be making money. Effectively force people to pay more. Either way, it's a lot of money to spend on what is a marginal proposition at best. If it's such a great idea, why don't the clubs organise it? Might even be able to take an equity stake. It shouldn't be up to the AFL to fund stadiums.

As for your hyperbole, please. Princes Park's a dump. Last year Bulldogs played there they got 13.5 against Freo, 15k v Port and 17k+ against West Coast. When the Dogs were rubbish they were down to 7-8k, when they're up and against another Victorian draw it was above 20. Looks like 15k mean and a variation of about 7k. A 20k capacity venue would be ideal. Clear gap in the market.

You mean in 1999, nearly 20 years ago? And a year in which the Dogs finished top 4, after coming 2nd on the ladder the year before? SO they're bandwagon crowds. Never mind Victorians are a lot softer now than they were back then. You can probably discount 20% off those crowds alone just for that. (Let's also not mention the Dogs were hardly profitable back then either)

The other problem with a 20k capacity venue is being able to sell tickets. How many do you reserve for members? If you don't release enough for non members then you won't make any money. If you release too many then your members get pissed off.
Ideally you'd be able to find 17,000 members that are prepared to pay $500+ a year for a reserved seat. But I just don't think that sort of demand exists in Melbourne with the small clubs. And I doubt they'd want to play too many games at a 20k capacity venue to make it worthwhile for members to make that sort of commitment.

 

[DERIBERATE]

A few things that stick out to me:

That is absolutely true. But generally, the cheaper it is the worse it's going to be.

The highest cost per seat is the high value seat - bars, corporate. The overall cost will come down to many factors, one of those being which value customer is prioritsed. A top heavy corporate venue would cost more. In the end it comes down to supply/demand.

One benefit in starting a new venue is you can incorporate design changes that aren't feasible in an existing venue - economically, design wise, or even socially. For example Docklands and the MCG were designed before European football stadiums incorporated 'safe standing' technologies (post Taylor report and changes in Euro governance).

Again it really comes down to venue design and market research - what type of customer is interested in the 'boutique' offering.

If it's such a great idea, why don't the clubs organise it? Might even be able to take an equity stake. It shouldn't be up to the AFL to fund stadiums.

It's a luxury the pissant clubs would love to afford. But having been survival oriented for so long that becomes the culture. Should it be up to the AFL? IMO yes. 2.5 billion. Crying poor doesn't work compared to the $1 million on ABC days.

I'm especially disbelieving that the AFL cannot afford to build a small venue but can afford the value destruction of their baseline attendances being unprofitable.

You mean in 1999, nearly 20 years ago? And a year in which the Dogs finished top 4, after coming 2nd on the ladder the year before? SO they're bandwagon crowds. Never mind Victorians are a lot softer now than they were back then. You can probably discount 20% off those crowds alone just for that. (Let's also not mention the Dogs were hardly profitable back then either)

In my time observing the stats one truth has remained the same. Over the last 25 years a North Melbourne V Adelaide game is good for 20k. That's long enough to call it - the glittery lights, high amenity and heavy promotion doesn't put lipstick on the pig.

The other problem with a 20k capacity venue is being able to sell tickets. How many do you reserve for members? If you don't release enough for non members then you won't make any money. If you release too many then your members get pissed off.

This isn't necessarily a design issue but a cultural one. In Australia we anchor venues with venue members. I'm not a fan of it, and it's certainly an exception in world sport.

 

[Rob]

A few things that stick out to me:

The highest cost per seat is the high value seat - bars, corporate. The overall cost will come down to many factors, one of those being which value customer is prioritsed. A top heavy corporate venue would cost more. In the end it comes down to supply/demand.

One benefit in starting a new venue is you can incorporate design changes that aren't feasible in an existing venue - economically, design wise, or even socially. For example Docklands and the MCG were designed before European football stadiums incorporated 'safe standing' technologies (post Taylor report and changes in Euro governance).

Again it really comes down to venue design and market research - what type of customer is interested in the 'boutique' offering.

I think the difference can be shown in Victoria by simply comparing attendances between Docklands and MCG. It seems to be worth 5-10,000, and a lot of that comes down to perceived seat availability (and stadium members).
I reckon a similar difference would be between el cheapo stadium and Docklands.

Interesting you bring up the top heavy corporate venue - if you can flood the ground with corporate facilities it becomes a money tree. If you can sell them. Bottom end Victorian clubs wouldn't be able to sell them, especially at a 3rd rate stadium when competing against world class facilities at Etihad or the MCG.

It's a luxury the pissant clubs would love to afford. But having been survival oriented for so long that becomes the culture. Should it be up to the AFL? IMO yes. 2.5 billion. Crying poor doesn't work compared to the $1 million on ABC days.

The AFL is owned by all clubs. Spending a s**t ton of money and then giving sweetheart deals to a few select clubs is not their role.

At the very very least, if they were to own a ground they should be charging commercial rates.

I'm especially disbelieving that the AFL cannot afford to build a small venue but can afford the value destruction of their baseline attendances being unprofitable.

Of course they can afford to, they can afford to do a lot of things.

If it's 'value destruction' that's happening it's because the AFL take ownership of Docklands in about 10 years. That's the problem with the AFL owning stadiums used by clubs - they've got a conflict of interest.

In my time observing the stats one truth has remained the same. Over the last 25 years a North Melbourne V Adelaide game is good for 20k. That's long enough to call it - the glittery lights, high amenity and heavy promotion doesn't put lipstick on the pig.

Has it ever been played outside the MCG or Etihad?

This isn't necessarily a design issue but a cultural one. In Australia we anchor venues with venue members. I'm not a fan of it, and it's certainly an exception in world sport.

In most cases, it's the best way to finance them. Not sure that's going to work at el cheapo stadium though, it'd probably only host 20 games a year, all pretty ordinary. No-one's paying for a stadium membership there.

Good post BTW.