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

[Stevi_Tigers]

just play more games in geelong. or better yet relocate a low drawing melb side

 

[captain cotch 9]

Peter Gordon is a bigger flog that Sydney player

 

[Bunk Moreland]

That sounds awfully like they're either in the wrong league or in the wrong city to me, and both of those things they absolutely can change. No team has an absolute god given right to be in the AFL.

Same question to you. What do you want? An eight team league?

 

[Father Jack]

A twelve team league would give us a fair fixture.

 

[Kram]

Will never happen.

 

[Father Jack]

yeah, we whinge enough about the odd split round as it is, little loan having a season full of them

 

[Bunk Moreland]

A twelve team league would give us a fair fixture.

Never gonna happen. The drop in TV revenue would hurt every club too much.

Be realistic.

 

[Father Jack]

Would it though? A smaller pie with bigger slices? And would the pie even be that much smaller? Plus the clubs it would hurt the most wouldn't be an issue anymore, as they wouldn't be there.

I don't know, I'm merely asking the question.

 

[rocket18]

Never gonna happen. The drop in TV revenue would hurt every club too much.

Be realistic.

12 is a too few, 14 could work.

The decrease in TV rights would be offset with less teams to distribute the income to plus the dollars spent propping up the smaller clubs that cant make it by themselves.

Increase in skill level with 4 less teams, better standard of footy, less crappy games each week, less competition for supporters in the crowded Victorian market.

The only losers would be the clubs sent back to the VFL those few supporters could still go and watch their team each week - just in a different league.

 

[Underarm]

Would it though? A smaller pie with bigger slices? And would the pie even be that much smaller? Plus the clubs it would hurt the most wouldn't be an issue anymore, as they wouldn't be there.

I don't know, I'm merely asking the question.

It really would. Would result in only 6 games in a weekend which might half the AFL rights. There would be no competition for games between 7 and Fox...

Plus there's no room for expanding, and the fans of the demoted clubs would be a massive loss to the veiwing public.

 

[Tas]

Building a 56k stadium and having 19k rock up doesn't make money. All you're doing is searching for ways to drop the losses on someone else.

How did you get that s**t from the post you quoted?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

12 is a too few, 14 could work.

The decrease in TV rights would be offset with less teams to distribute the income to plus the dollars spent propping up the smaller clubs that cant make it by themselves.

Increase in skill level with 4 less teams, better standard of footy, less crappy games each week, less competition for supporters in the crowded Victorian market.

The only losers would be the clubs sent back to the VFL those few supporters could still go and watch their team each week - just in a different league.

You really think the AFL would (or could) just boot four teams from the league? That’s over 20% of the league.

The stench from Fitzroy is still around. How would this be?

You really think that would be cheaper and easier than just upgrading a ground somewhere in Melbourne to hold 30k people?

Or simply making the Etihad situation a bit more even?

 

[Kwality]

Not quite.

Hawthorn has 8700 members in Tasmania.

Once the AFL run the audit on the Richmond figures they have a tendancy to lose 10,000 to 15,000 members every season (I blame the Tiger Insider memberships) but hey I'm just a numbers man

Tiges lose member numbers, please explain.

Do the Hawks have more 3 (?) game memberships ( is it 4?) than other clubs Hawkk?

 

[rocket18]

You really think the AFL would (or could) just boot four teams from the league? That’s over 20% of the league.

The stench from Fitzroy is still around. How would this be?

You really think that would be cheaper and easier than just upgrading a ground somewhere in Melbourne to hold 30k people?

Or simply making the Etihad situation a bit more even?

I think the AFL should.

We can continue to tinker around the edges all we like and no doubt we will continue to do so.

Equalization funds, soft caps on coaching, building a smaller capacity ground in Melbourne etc etc all designed to keep the small (too small for AFL) clubs afloat.

Lets have the tough discussions and look at business plans, supporter numbers etc to see which clubs can make a go of it in the Elite national comp. Pretty much everyone outside of Vic can see there are too many teams based in Melbourne for the national comp.

That is the reason a Tasmanian team gets knocked on the head all the time, not enough supporter numbers, business plan cant sustain a team and yet this same argument is NOT made for the saturated Melbourne market.

 

[Purple Suit]

You really think the AFL would (or could) just boot four teams from the league? That’s over 20% of the league.

The stench from Fitzroy is still around. How would this be?

You really think that would be cheaper and easier than just upgrading a ground somewhere in Melbourne to hold 30k people?

Or simply making the Etihad situation a bit more even?

The AFL keeping Etihad and giving a better deal is the only solution. Building another stadium would be stupid as it would take 2-3 years to complete anyway, far easier to wait till 2020.

I think longer term, the AFL needs to look at what they can do to maximise attendances and interest but still keep 9 games per week. It would be more profitable to give a third team to WA and maybe one to Tassie (instead of the Hawks/North games) at the expense of merging 4 Melbourne sides. Hawks will pull crowds in Melbourne 11 games a year so it's time to get them out of Tassie with their own team replacing them. This move would make the league more money.

With our population forecast, another WA side wouldn't take long to get going based in Perth imo.

In theory, if the 4 merged sides became 2 Melbourne sides with 50-60,000 member teams, it would make it a lot more profitable. This would leave 8 sides in Vic, 7 which would be nearly bullet proof + Geelong and another lone survivor of the lesser supported Vic teams.

I'd be doing all of this after 2020 when the new deal is in place at Etihad. Maybe a ten year plan from now and give the clubs plenty of opportunity to be the lone survivor if that is their goal. Reduce the propping up after 5 years and see who has the desire to stand alone. If supporters embraced the mergers and they were accepted, you could go from a low struggler to the top of the big 8 with a massive fan base in no time.

I don't see why merging is considered so bad, I was a West Coast fan till I knew Freo was entering the comp. I instantly knew I would be following Freo considering I live here and would have been going for them had I had a choice at the start.

 

[Tiger2709]

Not quite.

Hawthorn has 8700 members in Tasmania.

Once the AFL run the audit on the Richmond figures they have a tendancy to lose 10,000 to 15,000 members every season (I blame the Tiger Insider memberships) but hey I'm just a numbers man

Now your just speaking BS, that was three or four years ago when there was disputes over teams like Hawthorn and Richmond over how they calculated the membership numbers since then our figures match what the AFL shows our members to be, the AFL announced that we reached 70,000, Id like to see how may members the Hawks would have if they had no flags in 35 years, then again I doubt the Hawks would even exist in that situation.

 

[Father Jack]

It really would. Would result in only 6 games in a weekend which might half the AFL rights. There would be no competition for games between 7 and Fox...

Plus there's no room for expanding, and the fans of the demoted clubs would be a massive loss to the veiwing public.

It wouldn't halve the rights because the games that would be lost would be nowhere near half the audience, you'd simply have bigger rating (and more attractive) games left.

12 teams would leave plenty of room for expanding, much more so than the current situation, and I don't think that the loss of fans would be that great, as there wouldn't be that many affected to begin with (hence why their clubs struggle) and not all of them would abandon the game, and it probably isn't likely to be generational. Of course every club would be given options going forward, ie merge, relocate, relegate or attempt to make their way in Melbourne without redistribution of other clubs money. Building a boutique stadium because they can't compete with the big clubs is a bit silly I reckon.

But yes, 12 would probably be too few, but I only mentioned it as it would neatly fix the issues with the fixture.

 

[master bate]

It would be more profitable to give a third team to WA and maybe one to Tassie (instead of the Hawks/North games) at the expense of merging 4 Melbourne sides. Hawks will pull crowds in Melbourne 11 games a year so it's time to get them out of Tassie with their own team replacing them. This move would make the league more money.

Hawthorn crowds are already suffering from winning fatigue. They don't turn up when assured of a win against a lowly side. It's kind of ridiculous but true. They might do well when up and about but if they eventually drop back then watch their crowds fall. Tassie is crucial for them still. There's very little to say a stand alone Tassie team will be a success either. It's almost certain to cost the league money in terms of TV deals if you replace a Victorian side with a Tassie side.

I don't see why merging is considered so bad, I was a West Coast fan till I knew Freo was entering the comp. I instantly knew I would be following Freo considering I live here and would have been going for them had I had a choice at the start.

Swapping allegiance from a team that you had been following for at most 8 years is much different to a merger. If you were young then you didn't have a huge link to the Eagles, if you were old then I'm tipping you'd been a WAFL fan for many years before the Eagles anyway.

Adding a 2nd team to a city/state and then supporting it is really the opposite to a merger. All the reasons why you chose to jump to the Dockers are the reasons why mergers suck. Freo is where you live, where you belong, they don't have the Eagles song or colours. A merger takes your team and tries to blend it together with a team you hate.

 

[fumbler]

Tiges lose member numbers, please explain.

Do the Hawks have more 3 (?) game memberships ( is it 4?) than other clubs Hawkk?

I left it to his dribbling.

I said around 9000 tassie hawk members, he got all snooty as they only have 8400 you know.

Menopausal Aliens.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I think the AFL should.

We can continue to tinker around the edges all we like and no doubt we will continue to do so.

Equalization funds, soft caps on coaching, building a smaller capacity ground in Melbourne etc etc all designed to keep the small (too small for AFL) clubs afloat.

Lets have the tough discussions and look at business plans, supporter numbers etc to see which clubs can make a go of it in the Elite national comp. Pretty much everyone outside of Vic can see there are too many teams based in Melbourne for the national comp.

That is the reason a Tasmanian team gets knocked on the head all the time, not enough supporter numbers, business plan cant sustain a team and yet this same argument is NOT made for the saturated Melbourne market.

Again, you're blaming the clubs for not making a go of it, yet at the same time they don't have the ability to implement change.

Stadium deals are the single biggest problem. The AFL wanted a brand new shiny house at Docklands, but couldn't afford it, so they took out an enormous mortgage.

And the clubs who are forced to play there are making the repayments (apart from Essendon, we're fortunate to have a ripping deal).

That's why there's "equalisation". Geelong get 30k down the road and they make a million bucks in a day. St Kilda get 30k up the road and write a sizeable cheque.

If you gave the clubs freedom to really do a "business plan" as you say, they'd be outta there in a heartbeat.

 

[Kwality]

Bunk remember the Bombers cherry picked the Etihad deal & the rest were stuck with what was left.

 

[Father Jack]

Renegotiate the deals then, no need to build a bloody new stadium to do that.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Nah I wanna talk about stadiums. A lot more fun.

Anyway, Optus Oval:

It has a lot of romance, heritage, and recent history. It's got a pre-existing stand that's more than serviceable and so much parkland to back new stands onto. The biggest issue I see is the local council. The residents are statistically nothing but single well-off white women, who don't like football and don't want scallywags there every second Sunday. Another minor issue is that you'd want Sunday 4:40 slots as the ones played at this hypothetical third ground... The residents aren't keen on daytime events, and would bitch to the high heavens about night time crowds and the (admittedly) intrusive lights.

I see the lack of transport as being negated with the huge space for public parking, which isn't offered at any other site. My second thought is: why not use this as an excuse to upgrade Royal Park Station? There's a heap of space to upgrade. It's also a short stroll to Optus. And it's also one of the only stations servicing that (kind of small) but general vicinity. Alternatively, you could make a major station right where Princes Park hits Brunswick.

There's also the nice benefit of a rugby team basing themselves there. TAC Cup and VFL use it regularly as well. You could have it as the designated Granny/finals venue for those comps, as well as the VAFA/EDFL.

Victoria Park:

A dark horse. No one ever discusses it, but it's currently serviced by a train and bus line that stop even closer than Southern Cross does to Etihad. The drawback is that not now, and not under any plan, could you have any carparking. Vic Park Station is also only serviced by South Morang (I think?) and the others can be serviced by more than one (I also think?).

Anyway, I'd essentially pick up and put the oval to the west. Get rid of Lulie Street and unfortunately the Sherrin Stand (which is too old anyway, and you'd need massive changes to get it up to scratch anyway). As a result, you'd have the new Victoria Park train station backing into and onto parts of the New Sherrin Stand. Two birds, one stone. The two biggest stands could then be at the ends of each ground, while the flanks would be of smaller capacity. The south wing would be single tier while the one with the old stand would have two parts – the old existing grandstand and then to its left, a brand new one mostly housing media and boxes et al.

It'd be a cramped situation but a cool one. As unlikely as Moorabbin, as cramped as a revamped Western Oval, but one that'd be far more industrial and unique.

Showgrounds:

The front-runner. You'd have an almost identical set-up to that of whatever Skoda's called now, and a bigger version of what Claremont have at the Claremont Showgrounds in Perth. It has the space of Optus Oval, meaning you can do two things – upgrade the playing arena and upgrade the station. The added benefit of that upgrade is you could spell the end for the Flemington station as well, as you'd build a pedestrian bridge for all the pissed housewives to walk to the races to. You also have the tram line (the 57?). Ascot Vale Station isn't that far away either.

Oh yeah, it's also good because it's in the hub of middle class suburbia, where the girls have a-half-to-quarter non-anglo background and a private school streak of faux-rebellion. AKA you can pull after the game.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Post of the year cos last sentence

 

[flamethrower]

This is an overhead photo of the Showgrounds in Melbourne since the redevelopment - the oval is gone.