Crowds question MCG V Etihad

[Scotland]

What’s that got to do with anything? A decent seat at Etihad is a ripoff. What’s more, the thread is specifically about Etihad v the G

Subiaco also being a ripoff somehow cancels this out?

Depends on your definition of decent. A $75 seat at Etihad is orders of magnitude better than the Subiaco equivalent.

Would you guys all love Etihad if you could sit in Medallion Club for $20?

 

[Scotland]

No. It's simple. Personal attacks = Nope. If you're incapable of dealing with that, then you're a waste of everyone's time.

This is what you posted:

Pls keep telling me about the stadium from your handful of experiences there. For I am unsure about Etihad and welcome your wisdom.

Get off your high horse.

So you have a go at me for summarising your experiences, and then immediately proceed to summarise the opinions of every single Victorian fan?

The *? I haven't summarised anything. I'm responding to exact points you made. How about you try doing the same?

No. I don't dismiss it. I acknowledge and disagree with it. You say "lol pathetic Victorians". That's just stupid.

Pls keep telling me about the stadium from your handful of experiences there. For I am unsure about Etihad and welcome your wisdom.

You're right, not sanctimonious and dismissive at all.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I just don't like indoor football. I've been to the rugby a Etihad as well a few times, and it doesn't feel right (yes, I'm an old man). Although it's a much smaller stadium, somehow you feel further from the action than at the MCG. It's something to do with the closed roof. Somehow I find it difficult to comprehend that amount of space being inside.

I also think the MCG has a better atmosphere outside the ground - more space, grass for the kids to have a kick.....................

Other than that - facilities, access - much the same (Etihad better for country trains).

Rugby is atrocious at Etihad. Thank god next year's test is at Aami!

 

[blue harvest]

Probably depends where you live. Someone from the eastern suburbs going to the MCG will probably take half an hour less to get home than they would getting home from a game at Etihad, regardless of the mode of transport.

I'm from the East and it takes about 8 minutes more to get home on the train, it's 3 or 4 extra stops through the loop to Richmond.

 

[Tas]

For you guys that live in Melbourne what is the difference between going to the MCG and going to Etihad?
I was a little disappointed with the crowd at the Pies/Eagles match on the weekend and did a little research and it seems clear that people just won't go to Etihad on the surface?

Collingwood V Eagles since 2008

2008 MCG - 52968
2009 No game in Melbourne
2010 Etihad - 38781
2011 MCG - 52560
2012 MCG - 62957
2013 MCG - 41198
2014 MCG - 53049
2015 MCG - 36527

Is this common for all clubs in Melbourne? Is there a reason some fans won't go to Etihad? Is it a seating issue? Saints and Tigers never seem to have that issue on Sunday.
Just interested in your thoughts guys, not knocking anyone or any club, used Collingwood as an example against us the Eagles.
But as you can see it is a significant swell in crowds at the MCG v Eagles. Going into last weekends game I was expecting a full house at Etihad. Was way wrong.

It is because the game wasn't at the MCG. MCC and AFL members have access to half of the stadium, so clubs basically have 50k to sell.

MCC has 103k members and a waiting list of 233k with more than 10k joining the list each year, the waiting list for new applicants has hit 41 years for full membership.

AFL has 30k full members and 23k silver members, AFL doesn't say how many are on the waiting list but it is about 7-8 years.

MCC has no seating access at Docklands, AFL has access to 2k seats. Docklands has Access One and Medallion Club but they are significantly smaller in size and outside of Friday Night games only have a token amount of support even for highly anticipated games, it is primarily why there are huge sparsely attended areas visible even when a decent crowd is in attendance and it is why it is extremely rare for even two Victorian clubs to get anywhere near capacity, even when two teams play there who both have more members than the capacity of the stadium.

A big problem we have in Melbourne is that the AFL and third parties compete against the clubs for membership, clubs can do what they can to help market and promote the sale of seats or to encourage their members to attend, but have no access to the people that comprise third party members of the stadium.

Even though MCC and AFL members do not fill out the stands, outside of blockbuster games, they do provide a significant number of patrons who wont attend at Docklands, you can probably take an MCG crowd and lower it by 20-30k for a bigger club and by a bit less for Melbourne.

Approximately 12k of the 53k AFL members are Collingwood members, these are counted as Collingwood members, but AFL only has very limited access to seating at Docklands, I think it's 2k seats.

Collingwood also have approximate 12% of the MCC membership, so that is about another 12k MCC members, approximately half are also Collingwood members, so there is a significant pool of Collingwood supporter/members of various forms that do not have paid up access to Docklands compared to MCG and I would assume some of those forking out $450+ for a membership do not feel they should be forking out more for access to games that the AFL force Collingwood to play at Docklands.

In reality, if clubs supported playing games at Docklands it would only encourage the AFL to move more games there, this would be a negative if you are an AFL or MCC member without having a Collingwood membership as well.

 

[Kram]

The Vics complaining about Docklands is why I laugh at suggestions that Melbourne get a 3rd 'boutique' stadium, after the initial novelty wore off after about 3 games can you imagine how much complaining and whinging there would be about that!

 

[KissKiss]

I'm from the East and it takes about 8 minutes more to get home on the train, it's 3 or 4 extra stops through the loop to Richmond.

I'm from the east too and it barely adds much time for me but if you have to change trains (not all lines go round the loop) it can add a little bit. Half an hour is probably a slight exaggeration though

 

[Goady138]

Take a look at Ivebeenhad tonight.
Problems?

 

[Scotland]

Take a look at Ivebeenhad tonight.
Problems?

Your fans don't want to go there.

Neutrals don't want to watch Carlton lose by 10 goals (in a half) anywhere.

Carlton fans don't want to watch football and are probably at the soccer.

 

[Goady138]

The short history of this dump is pathetic.
This stadium has earned its reputation.

 

[go you pups]

I know I am in a minority group that likes Etihad over the MCG. In fact I dislike the MCG quite a bit. Love Etihad though and are glad North play home games there.

Etihad has great proximity to public transport and is easy to get to from the western suburbs (where I'm from)

Convenience wise I prefer going to Etihad though, but will never say no to the MCG, even if it takes a little longer to get to. The MCG you can sit virtually anywhere you want for most games also whereas Etihad has limited general admission normally

 

[Brad Goodman]

I'm from the East and it takes about 8 minutes more to get home on the train, it's 3 or 4 extra stops through the loop to Richmond.

I was basing this on the assumption that you'd miss the first train, which is likely if you stay until the end and are sitting on level 3.

 

[flamethrower]

The biggest bugbear at Etihad Stadium seems to be seating allocation.
When the AFL take the reigns (hopefully sooner rather than later), they would do well to rectify this by having general admission seating on areas of level 1 for all but the games with highest expected attendance.

 

[Mkcaptain]

At the MCG and Etihad all of the top level should be general admission for most games I reckon. I hate having to sit rows back when I see heaps of free seats to the front of the top level. It's fair enough that the first and second levels are reserved but the last tier should be first in best dressed.

It would be great if there were members tickets buy backs. Just for the fact it would look much better on television having full stands

 

[Chewy316]

I prefer Etihad for the location (30 second walk from my apartment to gate 1), but it really is quite a "sterile" stadium. It comes across like no team actually can make the ground it's "home" so to speak. The same could probably be said of the G. The sight lines on the lower levels are probably better than the G, though I think the Medallion Club is overrated personally. I've sat on level 2 numerous times and it can be quite difficult to see what is going on, on the opposite side of the ground (or wing). My preferred seats at Etihad is centre wing row B on Level 3. Can see all parts of the ground, not so high that the players are ants, and there are no obstructions blocking your view (row A has the barricade in front and it blocks far too much of the ground at Etihad). Getting in and out of Etihad is very easy. Southern Cross is a huge station. Sure, the MCG has Jollimont in addition to Richmond, but Jollimont is a very small 2 platform station and gets very little foot traffic. I've actually found that Richmond station can be quite a bottleneck when leaving the G, but in comparison to some other stadia I've been to around the world, it's still above average.

As for the G, I'm not a big fan of it. The "new" members stand is brilliant, but some of the other stands are quite tired and in need of refurbishment imo. It brands itself as the world's best stadium, but the reality is that it's not even close. Look at any of the top stadia in Europe (Nou Camp, Wembley, Bernabeau, Old Trafford, Allianz Arena etc) and in the USA (MetLife stadium, AT&T Stadium, Lambeau Field, Bryant-Deny Stadium etc) and they all s**t on the G.

I'm hard pressed to find a better football stadium than the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. I'm sure that Perth's new arena will be amazing too.

 

[Boxhead_31]

No MCC members
AFL members area is tiny compared to the MCG
Getting in/out of the ground is a nightmare
Unpleasant atmosphere outside the ground with all those buildings built directly outside the stadium
Nowhere near the amount of walkup seats at the G. Understandable with the smaller capacity, but it still feels so much more restricted than the G
It's all a bit bland inside. Compared to the G with the National Sports Museum, the different stands, the views, etc. Etihad's kind of all the same.

Yes I know they're all probably minor complaints but the fact is we compare it to the MCG. So it comes up short.

So what you're saying is that it should have been built exactly like the MCG?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Depends on your definition of decent. A $75 seat at Etihad is orders of magnitude better than the Subiaco equivalent.

Would you guys all love Etihad if you could sit in Medallion Club for $20?

Why are you so confused?

Subiaco has nothing to do with it.

It's about the G vs Etihad. It's not difficult.

 

[Tas]

The Vics complaining about Docklands is why I laugh at suggestions that Melbourne get a 3rd 'boutique' stadium, after the initial novelty wore off after about 3 games can you imagine how much complaining and whinging there would be about that!

It isn't for the novelty, when you take out the padding of third party patrons, pretty much any Victorian club vs interstate team would be better off playing the game at a 30k stadium, someone like Collingwood might be able to get more than 30k to these games, but they will make much more on a 30k sell-out of a 30k stadium than getting 40k at the MCG. Hell, you would probably make more pulling a Hawthorn vs GWS 2014 MCG crowd of 17,904 than you would from selling out Docklands.

All the clubs had suburban home bases that were around 30k capacity or less and we had MCG for bigger games or Waverley/Docklands, even when AFL takes ownership of Docklands, it will still be a relatively expensive stadium, even if it becomes clean. Reality is it is much better to have demand be higher than supply to maximise your earning potential, that way the premium seating is more likely to be taken up, the corporate boxes are more likely to be sold and clubs can justify expending money on selling the games as the return would justify the outlay, at present the return on investment is very small at the larger stadiums.

Based on our Melbourne based supporter base, a 30k stadium would be more suitable for us for all 11 games, I would imagine Dogs and Saints would be in the same boat. For the other clubs, any home games against interstate clubs would be far more lucrative at a 30k stadium. If North, Dogs and Saints played 33 games there then you would only have to draw 11 games from the 6 remaining Melbourne teams against the smaller interstate teams and the stadium would be used twice a week, any stadium used twice a week to host AFL games would be economically viable.

 

[ManWithNoName]

This is what you posted:



Get off your high horse.



The ****? I haven't summarised anything. I'm responding to exact points you made. How about you try doing the same?





You're right, not sanctimonious and dismissive at all.

"Get off your high horse" in reply to the post where you felt it appropriate to tell everyone what they should do. Not sanctimonious at all.

 

[Scotland]

It isn't for the novelty, when you take out the padding of third party patrons, pretty much any Victorian club vs interstate team would be better off playing the game at a 30k stadium, someone like Collingwood might be able to get more than 30k to these games, but they will make much more on a 30k sell-out of a 30k stadium than getting 40k at the MCG. Hell, you would probably make more pulling a Hawthorn vs GWS 2014 MCG crowd of 17,904 than you would from selling out Docklands.

All the clubs had suburban home bases that were around 30k capacity or less and we had MCG for bigger games or Waverley/Docklands, even when AFL takes ownership of Docklands, it will still be a relatively expensive stadium, even if it becomes clean. Reality is it is much better to have demand be higher than supply to maximise your earning potential, that way the premium seating is more likely to be taken up, the corporate boxes are more likely to be sold and clubs can justify expending money on selling the games as the return would justify the outlay, at present the return on investment is very small at the larger stadiums.

Based on our Melbourne based supporter base, a 30k stadium would be more suitable for us for all 11 games, I would imagine Dogs and Saints would be in the same boat. For the other clubs, any home games against interstate clubs would be far more lucrative at a 30k stadium. If North, Dogs and Saints played 33 games there then you would only have to draw 11 games from the 6 remaining Melbourne teams against the smaller interstate teams and the stadium would be used twice a week, any stadium used twice a week to host AFL games would be economically viable.

You're conflating two issues.

Would your club be better off drawing 20k at some 'boutique' stadium rather than Etihad Staidum or the MCG? Yeah, probably. It's not going to be free, though. If you want Geelong's deal, relocate to Geelong and negotiate with Skilled Stadium.

Kram81's point stands, though. Etihad Stadium is brilliant. It's central, it's modern, it has a roof, it holds 55,000 people... and Victorian footy fans do nothing except complain about it because it's not the MCG. What makes you think that fans of North or the Bulldogs or Saints would be interested in attending games at a 'boutique' ground? Remember when you used to play the odd game at Princes Park? How did that turn out for you in terms of fans through the gate?

The idea that the AFL or govt are going to stump up for another stadium in Melbourne is laughable, but I don't know why people go along with the notion that if someone magically plonked Spotless Stadium or Metricon Stadium in Melbourne that fans would flock there. If I were doing the forecasting for a 'boutique' stadium in Melbourne I'd be banking on lower crowds than clubs currently get at Etihad.

 

[Tas]

You're conflating two issues.

Would your club be better off drawing 20k at some 'boutique' stadium rather than Etihad Staidum or the MCG? Yeah, probably. It's not going to be free, though. If you want Geelong's deal, relocate to Geelong and negotiate with Skilled Stadium.

Kram81's point stands, though. Etihad Stadium is brilliant. It's central, it's modern, it has a roof, it holds 55,000 people... and Victorian footy fans do nothing except complain about it because it's not the MCG. What makes you think that fans of North or the Bulldogs or Saints would be interested in attending games at a 'boutique' ground? Remember when you used to play the odd game at Princes Park? How did that turn out for you in terms of fans through the gate?

The idea that the AFL or govt are going to stump up for another stadium in Melbourne is laughable, but I don't know why people go along with the notion that if someone magically plonked Spotless Stadium or Metricon Stadium in Melbourne that fans would flock there. If I were doing the forecasting for a 'boutique' stadium in Melbourne I'd be banking on lower crowds than clubs currently get at Etihad.

The major problem with Docklands is it is a bit of a morgue, it is a kind of weird experience during the day and I just think people aren't used to it. Given a choice I would prefer to go to Docklands than MCG. MCG is just too big and it is like watching ants run around when you are on the top deck.

I am not sure why the concept is laughable, the reason the AFL considered a boutique stadium a while ago was because a potential development near the CBD was proposed by the government and it required the developer to build in public facilities, of which a smaller boutique stadium would have ticked the boxes, there is 1 Docklands like development currently in progress and two others in the planning stage, the potential exists to have a boutique stadium built at a relatively low cost in a prime position, it would obviously have to be centrally located.

Football clubs generate a lot of revenue and business activity for the state, it makes sense to look after the clubs so they don't lose them to other states.

What did Carrara cost? $106m for one club to use 11 times a year. Government has given Geelong $28m in 2003, $26m in 2007, another $25m in 2011 and has now promised an additional $70m for yet another redevelopment, totalling $149m since 2003 for one club who plays 8 games at the stadium.

A boutique stadium built once off would be cheaper than that, it would service 9 clubs and should be used for 40-50 games per season.

It is the only outlay of money that makes any sense, forking out the other ludicrous amounts of cash for so few games is a complete waste of money.

 

[Scotland]

Pie in the sky stuff.

I think Metricon/Spotless are a waste of money, but those areas don't have football infrastructure - Melbourne does. There is also only one stadium in Geelong too, so it's not like the govt have invested millions into a ground next door to Kardinia Park.

There are 198 H&A games each year. 88 of those are played in WA, SA, NSW and Qld. 7 o 8 are played in Geelong. At most there are about 100 games in Melbourne each year, and you think someone is going to build a third ground to play half of them? As I said, laughable.

 

[Rob]

It isn't for the novelty, when you take out the padding of third party patrons, pretty much any Victorian club vs interstate team would be better off playing the game at a 30k stadium, someone like Collingwood might be able to get more than 30k to these games, but they will make much more on a 30k sell-out of a 30k stadium than getting 40k at the MCG. Hell, you would probably make more pulling a Hawthorn vs GWS 2014 MCG crowd of 17,904 than you would from selling out Docklands.

All the clubs had suburban home bases that were around 30k capacity or less and we had MCG for bigger games or Waverley/Docklands, even when AFL takes ownership of Docklands, it will still be a relatively expensive stadium, even if it becomes clean. Reality is it is much better to have demand be higher than supply to maximise your earning potential, that way the premium seating is more likely to be taken up, the corporate boxes are more likely to be sold and clubs can justify expending money on selling the games as the return would justify the outlay, at present the return on investment is very small at the larger stadiums.

Based on our Melbourne based supporter base, a 30k stadium would be more suitable for us for all 11 games, I would imagine Dogs and Saints would be in the same boat. For the other clubs, any home games against interstate clubs would be far more lucrative at a 30k stadium. If North, Dogs and Saints played 33 games there then you would only have to draw 11 games from the 6 remaining Melbourne teams against the smaller interstate teams and the stadium would be used twice a week, any stadium used twice a week to host AFL games would be economically viable.

It's all based on the assumption that every person that turned up to a game at Docklands would do so to the same game at any new stadium, which (assuming it's built and run to be a budget stadium) is virtually assured of not being the case. You could lose half your crowds because the new venue is likely to be a far worse viewing experience, never mind that not having the guarantee of being able to buy a ticket at the gate 5 minutes before the game and park yourself on the wing is a clear turnoff for Victorian fans.

What you're saying about supply and demand is great on paper but isn't going to work in Melbourne. That's why Optus Oval was virtually never full (and hosted plenty of abominable crowds as well), and the same is true at Etihad, where you could take a game that would draw 40k at the MCG which you would think the supply and demand theory would result in people clamouring to buy tickets to Etihad, but the opposite happens and you'd probably only get 30k. The same would occur at hypothetical budget stadium, your 20k crowds would become 13k and your 15k crowds would become 10k. Good luck making money out of that.

What you're asking of the government (who I assume is expected to pay for it) is spend $150m+ on a ground that will be about as popular as smallpox. Good on you if you can do it, but it's going to be a tough sell.

 

[Goady138]

Your fans don't want to go there.

Neutrals don't want to watch Carlton lose by 10 goals (in a half) anywhere.

Carlton fans don't want to watch football and are probably at the soccer.

Essendon home game on a saturday night, 23,700 with a record 60,000 membership.
May well be writing a cheque.

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

Id say for hawks fans coming from the east mcg feels more convenient. I lived in melbourne for a few years and it just didn't feel right watching the hawks at etihad when we are an mcg team. There is much frustration playing home games there especially against Essendon or Carlton when they are up and about because it's hard to get a ticket. Also due to the tassie home games victorian supporters already feel a little bit jipped on games so a home match at etihad is a bit of salt in the wound.