Melbourne Stadium Issues

[wal]

So IPL did win in 92 & 94 playing in a suburban comp with a state side.

Cheers for the text book reference.

 

[Father Jack]

So IPL did win in 92 & 94 playing in a suburban comp with a state side.

Cheers for the text book reference.

No, the book was published in 2005, so 15 years previous was 1990, meaning our soulless franchise won our flags in the national era.

 

[AlecDuncan]

Carlton fans won't argue with the logic of a smaller stadium for playing interstaters - that was the premise behind building up Princes Park ten years ago. Good on The Cats for backing their venue and reaping the rewards. I wish we'd had the same backing.

 

[wal]

No, the book was published in 2005, so 15 years previous was 1990, meaning our soulless franchise won our flags in the national era

I think your textbook means just before the actual national era, the period when Melbourne clubs still played on their small suburban grounds, and the VFL was still granting concessions to IPL to ensure the future survival of the prospective national competition.

 

[tandino]

Yet this is what happens interstate - that's why the non-vic clubs get such good 'stadium deals', and why Victorian clubs need bigger numbers through the gates to break even on stadium costs.

You can't have it both ways - if you want to make money from crowds of 30k you need to start charging big premiums on reserved seats.

The reason why the interstate clubs (talking about SA and WA here) have these great stadium deals is because they are essentially one entity. The WAFC and the SANFL controls the clubs and controls the stadiums, as long as people keep coming through the gates they can make as much or as little money as they desire.

You guys would make so much more out of sponsorship, corporates, catering, etc. than Melbourne-based clubs would. The situations are totally different, you don't have versions of Collo taking their cut off the top.

 

[Zvim]

Carlton fans won't argue with the logic of a smaller stadium for playing interstaters - that was the premise behind building up Princes Park ten years ago. Good on The Cats for backing their venue and reaping the rewards. I wish we'd had the same backing.

I agree, it is all about maximising your returns from your 11 home games. It doesn't represent a big enough slice of Melbourne club revenue as it does for other clubs.

AFL invested in TD to generate money, they have never made any suggestion that when it passes into their hands that the operation or principal of it will change. We just lack competition for games, clubs have a lack of choice.

Pratt always had the desire to see PP be used to play some games, I was surprised the club went forward with the plan to demolish part of it for training facilities.

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

1) Who's going to pay for it?
2) Are clubs going to be happy signing long term contracts when all past evidence suggests that Melbournians don't like showing up to smaller, 2nd rate stadiums?
3) What's going to happen if those clubs get locked into a contract to play at a venue that draws deplorable crowds?

1. AFL
2. Get rid of contracts. Have your corporate entertaining but otherwise a flat fee to get in. 1st in, best dressed.
3. Market it properly. Highlight the novelty of watching footy like we used to. (hate seeing less than 30k at the G and the Dome. Looks shocking!)

 

[Rob]

1. AFL
2. Get rid of contracts. Have your corporate entertaining but otherwise a flat fee to get in. 1st in, best dressed.
3. Market it properly. Highlight the novelty of watching footy like we used to. (hate seeing less than 30k at the G and the Dome. Looks shocking!)

If only the AFL had $200 million to blow on a white elephant stadium. If there's ever an AFL Commission decision to be vetoed by the clubs. that would be it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If only the AFL had $200 million to blow on a white elephant stadium. If there's ever an AFL Commission decision to be vetoed by the clubs. that would be it.

Yep!

 

[MarkT]

I heard the AD interview. I must say I got a different impression to many. I thought he was talking about giving money to Vic clubs to partly make up the differential. I can’t imagine there will be any new stadium built. They wouldn’t have axed Carlton’s ground if they wanted another venue. What the AFL ultimately wants, IMO, is to negotiate directly with the MCC and TD and even out the money with the clubs. The issue AD was talking about was not disparity between Collingwood and North it was the disparity between the Vic and non Vic clubs. As good as Collingwood’s deal with the MCC is it isn’t a patch on what WCE can do. Make no mistake though, this is about more evening up of competitive advantages and more revenue control for the AFL.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

IMake no mistake though, this is about more evening up of competitive advantages and more revenue control for the AFL.

I'm sure it is from AD's point of view. And I can't see another stadium being built - Princes Park would have been a perfect size for smaller games against interstate clubs, so if they don't make the most of that existing ground it's hard to see them starting from scratch. I guess in the new TV age, the night access thing might have been too hard to get over. And Waverley, while a long way for lots of people, is close to huge numbers, so it was more about accessibility than remoteness - and is academic now.

From another perspective, I heard Eugene Arocca on the radio before yesterday's game saying that - having been involved - Docklands and the MCG provide sweet deals to Collingwood and Essendon to play at their grounds, which the other clubs subsidise, and that needs to be evened up in future agreements. It will be interesting to see if it is, as other clubs (Hawthorn and Carlton, for instance) have picked up growing crowds and could be expected to get even bigger - and interesting to see if the AFL chooses to bring pressure to bear.

 

[tandino]

If only the AFL had $200 million to blow on a white elephant stadium. If there's ever an AFL Commission decision to be vetoed by the clubs. that would be it.

Obviously the AFL wouldn't fund the whole cost of a redevelopment of any particular surburban ground, it would probably be split between the state and federal governments and the AFL.

Remember, Australia is bidding for the 2018 World Cup, and as such will need 32 seperate facilities for each team to be based out of, they might be able to get a bit of coin from there as well.

In any case, if the AFL are willing to splash around $100mill to "fix" the AFL Members area, I'm sure that paying a portion of $200mill for the direct benefit of a portion of clubs isn't a stretch.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Obviously the AFL wouldn't fund the whole cost of a redevelopment of any particular suburban ground, it would probably be split between the state and federal governments and the AFL.

The AFL paid only $30mil of the $430mil it cost to build Docklands. Why would they pay more than this for a stadium and hock themselves in debt when they will need the money to subsides the 17th and 18th sides. The Carrara upgrade has been reported in the media to cost between $120mil and $200mil and they are very reluctant to commit more than a few million dollars.

And the state and federal governments aren't going to commit any real funding for this new ground. It isn't a necessity and there wouldn't be many votes in it.

Remember, Australia is bidding for the 2018 World Cup, and as such will need 32 separate facilities for each team to be based out of, they might be able to get a bit of coin from there as well.

This is rubbish. The WC teams wont need an Aussie rules stadium to train on. They will have the new MOP ground and the training fields around it. This will be shared by more than one team. Then there is Bob Jane Stadium and a by 2018 there will be a second Melbourne A league team which will have a training base that will be rented out as well as grounds run by the state league sides.

Also if the AFL were to continue during the WC and they had built this ground they would use it for matches.

In any case, if the AFL are willing to splash around $100mill to "fix" the AFL Members area, I'm sure that paying a portion of $200mill for the direct benefit of a portion of clubs isn't a stretch.

No the AFL haven't put up $100mil for this. They have requested the MCC to pay for the upgrade.

http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=357

Princess Park didn't work as a neutral venue as the reserved seating was considered too expensive by supporters of the clubs who played there and it was perceived as Carlton making profits of the fans to pay for the debt on the stand. If the AFL purchased PP they would have to keep up the higher reserved seating prices as they would have to borrow to buy the stadium.

 

[Rob]

Obviously the AFL wouldn't fund the whole cost of a redevelopment of any particular surburban ground, it would probably be split between the state and federal governments and the AFL.

Without question - but I doubt the government would be overly interested unless it was in a marginal electorate that would generate votes. Perhaps one of the outskirt areas like Casey - but of course such a facility would draw abominable crowds, which defeats the purpose.

Remember, Australia is bidding for the 2018 World Cup, and as such will need 32 seperate facilities for each team to be based out of, they might be able to get a bit of coin from there as well.

Nah, it's a pipedream. Certainly not something to be relied upon.

In any case, if the AFL are willing to splash around $100mill to "fix" the AFL Members area, I'm sure that paying a portion of $200mill for the direct benefit of a portion of clubs isn't a stretch.

Difference being that it actually generates income. Such a new stadium - given it would only be used by basketcase clubs that can't afford to play at first rate stadiums - would be a definite money loser.

 

[Geoffa32]

wasnt the whole idea of consolidating the games in Melbourne to two grounds meant to save the Melbourne clubs money, and thus increase profits....Good to see that the break even point projections for the future were looked at by each club.

How bout bringing back Princess Park and having that as the "boutique ground" for the Saints/Bulldogs/NMFC play out of. It is also a nice ground for us interstate supporters to get to when we visit your fine city.

 

[erpel9999]

what a romantic little topic,

but don't forget that princes park was (is) a hole and the only people who liked it were Carlton fans.
Also have a look at how well Fitzroy, Footscray, Melbourne, Richmond and all the other teams who were forced to play home games there in the 90's went.

While i think that Carlton was foolish to not play smaller drawing games at PP anymore, I am also happy that I will never have to go there again.

 

[retroparty]

I wish Essendon would redevelop Windy Hill and move back there...

 

[Spook]

Its not rocket science really is it!!! If a few clubs and the AFL got together and built a ground of around 40k capacity, it would greatly benefit the smaller clubs.

Why not buy TD then? It would be a hell of allot cheaper than building a new stadium.

 

[zero]

i think its fantastic that the AFL is FINALLY taking this issue seriously. makes you wonder why they werent so concerned with it last year or the year before?

perhaps now they have stopped trying to squeeze the vic market to rationalize and are setting about trying to make every club as profitable as possible.

princess park making a comeback is a brilliant idea, if it improves the profitability of of the clubs, but i think the problem can be solved by sorting out the deals at the G and the telstra dome

 

[Spartacus]

Here's another good argument for a "boutique" venue...or outright home grounds.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/more-venue-switch-questions/2008/03/25/1206207106771.html

Why on earth is the AFL wasting a fixture on MEL/WB?

There needs to be a system to flex the schedule that will satisfy the MCC aggreement that doesn't inconvenience the clubs or supporters.

 

[shintemaster]

i think its fantastic that the AFL is FINALLY taking this issue seriously. makes you wonder why they werent so concerned with it last year or the year before?

perhaps now they have stopped trying to squeeze the vic market to rationalize and are setting about trying to make every club as profitable as possible.

princess park making a comeback is a brilliant idea, if it improves the profitability of of the clubs, but i think the problem can be solved by sorting out the deals at the G and the telstra dome

This all sounds fairly reasonable. Perhaps the AFL is hoping to make the right noises in order for the MCC & TD management to take them seriously when it comes to negotiating deals. If it looks like they'll go elsewhere if necessary it would certainly help their cause. Let's face it. At the moment the main part of the problem is that there is no way for the smaller clubs to negotiate, they will be scheduled at wherever the AFL chooses ie TD or MCG. There is no bargaining power for the clubs at all.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Bah.... the lack of home grounds in Victoria is one of the things that makes the AFL a boring joke of a competition these days (along with the Final 8) and one of the reasons I don't follow it as much anymore.

The fact is, the only team in Victoria that actually has a home ground is Geelong. It's a completely stupid situation.

Bring back the good old days.... Windy Hill.... Vic Park... etc... When football felt like football..... when you almost felt fear heading into enemy territory for that one occasion every year to watch your team play in front of a rabid opposition crowd.... or when you gave hell to any opposition supporters who dared enter your territory. (all in fun of course!)

That's all gone these days. All you have left is 2 sterile boring stadiums shared by all the Vic teams.... no feeling of "home" or "away".... just different shit, same bucket, week after week after week.... until it gets to finals time where we let half the competition play anyway...

It's not football anymore.

It's television entertainment.

No different to Big Brother.

God I hate the direction our footy has gone over the past 15 years. And you should too!

Yep.

 

[tandino]

Bump-skies.

With Olympic Park now subject to redevlopment, is there an opportunity for a boutique AFL stadium to be shoe-horned into the general area?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

How about Hawthorn and St Kilda working together to secure a Boutique Stadium (something like Kardinia Park 30-40k), to play against the lower drawing sides. They could place it at Cranbourne or just outside of Frankston.

I think Baxter might be an idea across from the current station that could be upgraded, the Frankston bypass is going to be in that area so it would make it easy for cars to get away. The station could be upgraded to 3 platforms with express services to Caulfield and Richmond. A lot of Hawks and Saints fans come from the area only 20-30 mins from Dandenong and Cranbourne. No need to put a roof on it so that should keep costs down. Could be used for other events as well. I think that or Casey fields in cranbourne would be the ideal areas.

Big matches would still be played in the city of course.

 

[MarkT]

I blame Aylett and his mates. We had a whole bunch of perfectly good small and mid capacity grounds in well served location but they wanted to pump up Waverley in heir power play with the MCC and then decreed that suburban grounds should be eliminated one by one. Be it Carlton or Collingwood in one direction, Moorrabin or St. Kilda Junction in the other or Footscray in the west the VFL or AFL as they have been called from time to time could have had everything nicely covered with far less investment than either new stadium which won’t happen or subsidising club deals with venues forever.

The problem the Commission ran into was that the pesky upstart clubs refused to die!