Eddie McGuire reveals $1b plan to replace Etihad Stadium with new indoor venue near MCG

[Allan Shorty]

if you were building Docklands from scratch you wouldn't build a stadium in that spot. That has been well understood by planners for a long time.

But eddies proposed location seems excessively difficult and expensive. There's e gate and Ron barassi Snr for starters. If he can get that location to fly good luck to him but it would be a brave government.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Good read. Sums it up really, who is Eddie trying to kid??

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/10/eddies-laugh-new-stadium-idea/

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Was there really that much going on in the area before Etihad Stadium went in?

No, hence the regeneration. It's absolutely prime position - it basically is CBD, with a waterfront aspect.

The execution was completely FUBAR. And the stadium was a part of that. It's long recognised in planning circles, even those involved at the time now talk about its crucial failures.

 

[Scotland]

No, hence the regeneration. It's absolutely prime position - it basically is CBD, with a waterfront aspect.

The execution was completely FUBAR. And the stadium was a part of that. It's long recognised in planning circles, even those involved at the time now talk about its crucial failures.

Hard to argue it 'killed' the area then if there wasn't anything there to start with.

Assuming Etihad is knocked down tomorrow, what happens to transform the area?

 

[Kwality]

Hard to argue it 'killed' the area then if there wasn't anything there to start with.

Assuming Etihad is knocked down tomorrow, what happens to transform the area?

More high rise commercial & residential - there is demand. More people, both workers & residents.

The 'killed' claim is because it (the stadium) blocks through access. Spent a lot of time doing a job down that way & I can see why people make that claim.

 

[Kwality]

if you were building Docklands from scratch you wouldn't build a stadium in that spot. That has been well understood by planners for a long time.

But eddies proposed location seems excessively difficult and expensive. There's e gate and Ron barassi Snr for starters. If he can get that location to fly good luck to him but it would be a brave government.

I'm all for ideas/proposals but how does it address the problems for the clubs that battle to average crowds less than 30,000?

60,000 is about the size of the G available to our footy clubs home games (excluding the MCC members & AFL members) & its not as if ticketed games are common.

 

[The_Wookie]

60,000 is about the size of the G available to our footy clubs home games (excluding the MCC members & AFL members) & its not as if ticketed games are common.

A lot of AFL members have club support and count as their club members, theres no reason to count the AFL members area out. The MCC area accomodates 23,000. Now the MCC members are a different story, some 10,000 nominate no club when asked who they support, and about half the clubs average less than 10,000 supporters on the mcc member rolls.

 

[Kwality]

A lot of AFL members have club support and count as their club members, theres no reason to count the AFL members area out. The MCC area accomodates 23,000. Now the MCC members are a different story, some 10,000 nominate no club when asked who they support, and about half the clubs average less than 10,000 supporters on the mcc member rolls.

I talked about the available seating to a footy club at a home game at the G - is the AFL Members area available to the club for seating? I'd say not.

When Perty (e.g) sits down to budget a blockbuster, how many seats his club can sell .... seating for his members, can a game be offered to 3 seat members at a particular game, its not 77,000, its less than that, is it not? You seem to suggest the home club controls seating in the AFL members reserve?

 

[Pessimistic]

So when It gets down to it, the issues of the MCC and AFL reserves are the key

not location of stadiums

not train lines

not roads

Just the ridiculous seating structure at our otherwise adequate stadium. Friends, our so called envy of the world sporting landscape is a pathetic joke

clubs have sold out the areas available to them, realize theres more actual seating to sell at Etihad, but club members who like the MCG wont go there, and the anchor tenants of Etihad, essendon and carlton, are an impotent joke

 

[Pessimistic]

In other words, abolish the mcc and afl reserves in a PUBLiC stadium and the only problem this propsal solves is gone overnight

How many footy grounds are you going to build and demolish dancing around the issue.

Apparently ron walker will be presenting this in canberra, as its more relevant now theres an election on.

He says it will attract major events to melbourne

They should have two questions for him

1. What events in particular cannot be achieved with the spcurrent set up - etihad seems to have no problem attracting world events

2 what other problem is solved by the 'solution'


After theyve enjoyed sosme doughnuts, they should have a right old laugh

 

[Kwality]

So when It gets down to it, the issues of the MCC and AFL reserves are the key

not location of stadiums

not train lines

not roads

Just the ridiculous seating structure at our otherwise adequate stadium. Friends, our so called envy of the world sporting landscape is a pathetic joke

clubs have sold out the areas available to them, realize theres more actual seating to sell at Etihad, but club members who like the MCG wont go there, and the anchor tenants of Etihad, essendon and carlton, are an impotent joke

Hope you aren't misrepresenting what I said to support whatever you are on about.
My comments were in the context of how a 60,000 seat stadium helped clubs that cant pull crowds of 30k, & that 60k is effectively the seating available now to clubs for home games at the G. Seems its more like 70k at G.

As for Etihad I was of the understanding the Bombers were close to selling out all its available seating in 2015, something around 45k.

So what are you on about pessimistically ?

 

[Pessimistic]

Hope you aren't misrepresenting what I said to support whatever you are on about.
My comments were in the context of how a 60,000 seat stadium helped clubs that cant pull crowds of 30k, & that 60k is effectively the seating available now to clubs for home games at the G. Seems its more like 70k at G.

As for Etihad I was of the understanding the Bombers were close to selling out all its available seating in 2015, something around 45k.

So what are you on about pessimistically ?

Not sure, just trying to work out why on earth you would need a 60k stadium rigt next to a 100k one

 

[KissKiss]

Not sure, just trying to work out why on earth you would need a 60k stadium rigt next to a 100k one

Because having them all in the one spot makes us the worlds most liveable city or "making Melbourne great"

 

[Galileo9]

Because having them all in the one spot makes us the worlds most liveable city or "making Melbourne great"

It's an illusion. On world stage afl is a nothing sport and certainly doesn't count to "sporting capital of world" that they like to think.

Really it's F1 and tennis that people will count. Probably London is by a country mile.

 

[Pessimistic]

Its the greatest collingwood precinct in the world

Not so sure about sports precinct, as eddie had the athletics and field sports shipped off to albert park

Today he wants to remove the velodrome

Next itll be the pesky tennis, unless they can work out how to play it on a huge oval



Just need a way to get capt collinwoods monument here from tyneside

 

[iBeng]

 

[FootyJunkie]

Having the second Melbourne ground just a torp or 2 away from the MCG will make things even more sterile... at least Etihad's location makes it distinct from the MCG, despite its misgivings.

The idea behind Etihad was good, but there was a bit of a lack of foresight with it... now apparently the stadium is "in the way"... the often talked about E-Gate ground should have been the way to go when building a new modernized secondary stadium in Melbourne in the late 90s... further up north, but leaving the new Docklands precinct to be given a chance to grow on its own. Perfect for the North/West sides of Melbourne (Essendon, Bulldogs, North Melbourne).

And we should have kept Waverley... maybe having downsized it a bit, but upgraded it in terms of facilities... perfect for the Hawthorn, St.Kilda east/south east fan bases as well as for neutrals from Melbourne's population center... a train line extension from the Pakenham line would have helped punters to get there for games from other areas of Melbourne (state politics, grrr...).

Keeping one old school suburban ground would have been nice too... Princes Park.

MCG - Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood
E-Gate - Essendon, Bulldogs, North Melbourne
Waverley - Hawthorn, St.Kilda
Princes Park - Carlton

 

[bombersfan4000]

Having the second Melbourne ground just a torp or 2 away from the MCG will make things even more sterile... at least Etihad's location makes it distinct from the MCG, despite its misgivings.

The idea behind Etihad was good, but there was a bit of a lack of foresight with it... now apparently the stadium is "in the way"... the often talked about E-Gate ground should have been the way to go when building a new modernized secondary stadium in Melbourne in the late 90s... further up north, but leaving the new Docklands precinct to be given a chance to grow on its own. Perfect for the North/West sides of Melbourne (Essendon, Bulldogs, North Melbourne).

And we should have kept Waverley... maybe having downsized it a bit, but upgraded it in terms of facilities... perfect for the Hawthorn, St.Kilda east/south east fan bases as well as for neutrals from Melbourne's population center... a train line extension from the Pakenham line would have helped punters to get there for games from other areas of Melbourne (state politics, grrr...).

Keeping one old school suburban ground would have been nice too... Princes Park.

MCG - Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood
E-Gate - Essendon, Bulldogs, North Melbourne
Waverley - Hawthorn, St.Kilda
Princes Park - Carlton

agree with most of it, E gate was only going to be 30k to small for a secondary stadium, & deffinatly to small for Essendon

 

[Pessimistic]

Theres talk of a joint fifa world cup bid with new zealand

Now the whole thing comes to light, its a bidding war between melb and sydney for an unlikely world cup final

2026 apparently.

No worry, the stretcherball people can buy etihad, and footy can buy out the mcc from the mcg

 

[telsor]

Having the second Melbourne ground just a torp or 2 away from the MCG will make things even more sterile... at least Etihad's location makes it distinct from the MCG, despite its misgivings.

The idea behind Etihad was good, but there was a bit of a lack of foresight with it... now apparently the stadium is "in the way"... the often talked about E-Gate ground should have been the way to go when building a new modernized secondary stadium in Melbourne in the late 90s... further up north, but leaving the new Docklands precinct to be given a chance to grow on its own. Perfect for the North/West sides of Melbourne (Essendon, Bulldogs, North Melbourne).

And we should have kept Waverley... maybe having downsized it a bit, but upgraded it in terms of facilities... perfect for the Hawthorn, St.Kilda east/south east fan bases as well as for neutrals from Melbourne's population center... a train line extension from the Pakenham line would have helped punters to get there for games from other areas of Melbourne (state politics, grrr...).

Keeping one old school suburban ground would have been nice too... Princes Park.

MCG - Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood
E-Gate - Essendon, Bulldogs, North Melbourne
Waverley - Hawthorn, St.Kilda
Princes Park - Carlton

Tying clubs to grounds is a nice idea, and everyone claims to want it, so long as they get to play where they want....

For example, Carlton outgrew PP long ago, and moved big games to the G...

Of course, you could do it the other way, and place games according to expected crowds, but Non-Vic clubs would have issues with not playing at the G often enough, and if you give those clubs games at the G, it forces bigger games off, meaning you need a 50K second stadium, which rules out E-gate, PP and a downsized Waverley (depending on how much you downsized it).

Meanwhile you're stuck paying the overheads for 4 grounds.

 

[Tarzans grip]

Ridiculous idea.
Etihad stadium is only 15 years old, is serviced by nearby trains at southern cross station / several tram lines and has affordable parking complexes towards Cosco.
This looks like an attempt by Eddie to turn this idea in Collingwood's favour in the future. Calling the ground a name similar to the one in Abbotsford is telltale sign. Next plan will be to move the pies admin base there and to create a Collingwood fortress by scheduling about 8 pies home games there with games v's Ess, Carl and Rich to stay at the MCG.
Traffic is already horrific along Alexandra ave/Olympic Blv/Punt Rd with the 5 stadiums that are already located in the area that host rugby, footy and concerts. Adding another stadium would compound the problem. Typical that Dan the traffic jam man also supports the idea.

 

[Spiral_Out]

Let me just firstly say, I am not biased in any way at all, just because I'm a pies man.

I am a Melbourne man. I go to the footy every weekend, even non pies games.

Etihad is and always has been absolute s**t.

s**t location, disgusting design and horrific for athletes to run around on.

Easily the worst turf in Australia for professional sport.

This is an opportunity to have another go and learn from the mistakes of Etihad.


While Eddie might be a bit outlandish with his proposal, he knows Melbourne.

Docklands is no place for a stadium.


And where he is proposing the new stadium be, makes sense.

There is already everything serving the place (trains/parking), it is where every single other stadium in Melbourne is located and there is room for it.

The AFL would own it.
The AFL would get profits from A-league games/Big bash games.

The new stadium would safeguard AFL for 100 years and also the teams that struggle for attendance, dogs/saints/north.

Those are all very good things for our game, right?


As for the name, I don't like Victoria Stadium, but it's the only name that would make sense.
Eddie's ideas aren't ridiculous at all, not it you have been born and raised in the heart of Melbourne and watch the footy during winter and big bash during summer.
Keeping Etihad is ridiculous, it's bad for Victoria's economy and in turn Australia's, it's ridiculous to keep especially when there is an opportunity to redeem the terminal errors of Etihad's location and design.

 

[The_Wookie]

lol wtf

 

[hairy biker]

While Eddie might be a bit outlandish with his proposal, he knows Melbourne.
Keeping Etihad is ridiculous, it's bad for Victoria's economy and in turn Australia's,

And he knows Victoria and Australia too.

Because Melbourne is in Victoria.

And Victoria is part of Australia.

 

[FootyJunkie]

And he knows Victoria and Australia too.

Because Melbourne is in Victoria.

And Victoria is part of Australia.

Melbourne.... the greatest city in the world... according to SEN