Port and Crows dont get a very good deal from AAMI either afaik. We are the sanfls cash cow, they think theyre the important part of the relationship but in reality they leech off of the 2 SA clubs.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Melbourne Stadium Issues
- Thread starter Zvim
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Technically the SANFL is the owner of both licenses, and in effect both clubs, so that can be expected.
They should build a 40,000 seat Stadium at the Show Grounds in Ascot Vale and have the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne play there home games there! That would mean:-
M.C.G :- Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond and Hawthorn.
Telstra Dome:- Essendon, Carlton and St.Kilda
Show Grounds:- Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne.
M.C.G :- Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond and Hawthorn.
Telstra Dome:- Essendon, Carlton and St.Kilda
Show Grounds:- Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne.
LOL 30k. We got over 45k and it will be our smallest home crowd for the season. A 35k stadium for the pies, I don't think so. We average over 50k per game.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,697
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
Not a bad idea. The Junction Oval or somewhere around there could be an option also.
Pretty sure the AFL are locked into scheduling games at the 2 stadiums they helped rationalise the Melbourne teams into, so I am not exactly sure how many spare home games in Melbourne there are for a 3rd stadium (unless you start culling the interstate games they sell with the AFLs approval).
The AFL recently were waffling on about $100M to revamp the Southern Stand which even as an AFL member I find totally ridiculous.
Then again the AFL are probably talking about other people's money just like the GC stadium.
This problem ain't getting fixed anytime soon, so it is up to the clubs to try and average 40K atm.
The AFL recently were waffling on about $100M to revamp the Southern Stand which even as an AFL member I find totally ridiculous.
Then again the AFL are probably talking about other people's money just like the GC stadium.
This problem ain't getting fixed anytime soon, so it is up to the clubs to try and average 40K atm.
Duvel
Team Captain
- Jul 31, 2007
- 347
- 187
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wellington Hurricanes & Phoenix
I miss the footy at Princes Park (only because it is closeby), as i recall from my youth I would watch a stream of people wearing scarfs and carrying flags walk pass my window.
i am a North Melbourne fan and I hope Bradshaw would make Princes Park one of North Melbourne's low draw home ground, and get AFL to improve it a bit by redeveloping some of the facilities only really, it has a capacity of 35,000 therefore perfect for low-crowd games (interstates).
Carlton and Bulldogs would get to benefit from this too. (and frankly so should Melbourne)
This has to be considered if AFL want clubs to be profitable, especially Melbourne based, otherwise they risk the future of melbourne clubs.
i am a North Melbourne fan and I hope Bradshaw would make Princes Park one of North Melbourne's low draw home ground, and get AFL to improve it a bit by redeveloping some of the facilities only really, it has a capacity of 35,000 therefore perfect for low-crowd games (interstates).
Carlton and Bulldogs would get to benefit from this too. (and frankly so should Melbourne)
This has to be considered if AFL want clubs to be profitable, especially Melbourne based, otherwise they risk the future of melbourne clubs.
The AFL should have seen this coming a mile off.
By the AFL pushing Melbourne-based clubs to dump their surburban grounds in favour of the MCG and the Dome has greatly limited those clubs revenue sources. Now we have hangers on, in the form of Spotless Catering, Medallion Club, various and plentiful overheads and so on all taking a cut of the money to the extent that you need to draw a decent crowd to pay the bills.
Compounding this, the AFL sold Waverley at a bargain-basement price, thereby putting further pressure on clubs. The break even crowd at Waverley was nothing compared to the MCG, and the Dome is the worst of the lot. Now Waverley is the demographic centre of Melbourne, but it's 10 years too late. It's unfortunate that Jackson lacked the foresight that bestowed Sir Kenneth Luke.
Waverley, Whitten Oval, Victoria Park, Moorabbin Oval and Princes Park were all abandoned long before they should have been. If some of those grounds were still around in some capacity I would bet that some Melbourne-based clubs would not be in the shit that they are in now.
While Waverley is a lost cause, I believe the AFL should investigate whether it is worth the financial investment to bring some, if not all, of the 4 other grounds up to AFL standard.
By the AFL pushing Melbourne-based clubs to dump their surburban grounds in favour of the MCG and the Dome has greatly limited those clubs revenue sources. Now we have hangers on, in the form of Spotless Catering, Medallion Club, various and plentiful overheads and so on all taking a cut of the money to the extent that you need to draw a decent crowd to pay the bills.
Compounding this, the AFL sold Waverley at a bargain-basement price, thereby putting further pressure on clubs. The break even crowd at Waverley was nothing compared to the MCG, and the Dome is the worst of the lot. Now Waverley is the demographic centre of Melbourne, but it's 10 years too late. It's unfortunate that Jackson lacked the foresight that bestowed Sir Kenneth Luke.
Waverley, Whitten Oval, Victoria Park, Moorabbin Oval and Princes Park were all abandoned long before they should have been. If some of those grounds were still around in some capacity I would bet that some Melbourne-based clubs would not be in the shit that they are in now.
While Waverley is a lost cause, I believe the AFL should investigate whether it is worth the financial investment to bring some, if not all, of the 4 other grounds up to AFL standard.
- Thread starter
- #59
Yes, if you read the subsequent posts I did mention I heard that as the crowd estimation by the MMM team. I wasn't there.
I don't expect Collingwood to draw many low drawing games given the club is in high demand due to needing to fill MCG/TD to make a reasonable profit. An alternative venue would put less demand on having to play Collingwood, I find that a massive bonus to the integrity of the draw.
Collingwood definitely draw well but they still draw significantly less against interstate clubs obviously. In 2006 drew 35k vs Crows (TD), 32k vs Port (TD) and 30k vs Fremantle (MCG). Last year numbers were up, got 35k vs Port but the others were pretty good. With the introduction of two new interstate teams with no supporter base here in Melbourne it adds more potential lower crowds in the future.
It is hard to say how much use, if any, they would make of a smaller stadium, but if Eddie sees a 35k stadium requiring reserved seating and making $750k+ per game or making $300k at the MCG off of 50k he would be looking at the bottom line and seeing clubs that are drawing less than Collingwood making more money from gate receipts.
It is a necessary step if we are going to get more out of MCG and TD games in the future, while they do not have to compete for business clubs here will continue to get significantly less than those with clean stadiums.
I think Collingwood would make perfect use of it. They have a side in the VFL and the VFL really needs a home, going to a suburban ground to watch Collingwood play would appeal to a lot people I think. As you said it would be a huge benefit to the smaller clubs to have a profitable stadium deal with the addition of essentially two huge game day loses against 17th and 18th clubs.
The question is where is the money going to come from, the AFL already needs to subsidize (possibly heavily) a stadium at Cararra and this new stadium would presumably by close to Melbourne which would make costs an issue. Somebody said earlier that there is land at the show grounds which is perfect, but i can't see that being a good deal for Victorian footy. The governments of Australia are soccer focused on the FIFA world cup (+ AFC cup) and ovals are not going to cut it for FIFA accredited stadiums so money will be thin there, it will need to come primarily from other sources.
Maybe a future Australian T20 cricket league could help with the costs, a branch of the IPL comes to Melbourne and we can rip them off
? Cricket Victoria needs a new home (Moorabbin was touted as the possible ground) and they could help out with some of the costs? Ultimately I think we will need a few hundred "millennium games" to build up capital, but the whole idea seems like huge long shot. I think the AFL wants two Victorian clubs to fail, and this future environment is perfect for that to happen.
Stiggitupem
Debutant
When does the AFL take over Telstra Dome - is it 2020? At least from that point on, it becomes a "clean" stadium, and AFL (or clubs) take a much bigger portion of profit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't TD sold a couple of years ago, and the AFL passed on the opportunity to purchase early ownership? May be a decision they are regretting now....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't TD sold a couple of years ago, and the AFL passed on the opportunity to purchase early ownership? May be a decision they are regretting now....
I think it is 2025.
We don't need a new stadium, the Dome is fine, we just need to stop getting r*ped when we play there.
The previous administration at North doesn't even have a contract to play there.
The previous administration at North doesn't even have a contract to play there.
Why did those clubs tenanted to play at docklands agree to play there in the first place? All clubs carried on when the ground first opened about how it would save them financially, it was the best stadium in the world etc. Me thinks it has as much to do with club mismanagement than anything else. If I was a Bulldogs or North supporter I would be asking my club, if the deal is so bad at Docklands, why did they move there in the first place?
Why did Essendon get a better deal than ANY other team who is scheduled to play at Docklands. More members. Better management of a club. Simple.
It is a fact that the MCG is a better ground for breaking even with revenue than Docklands will ever be. Every club knows that.
Clubs are very clever at blaming everything or everyone else when they mismanagement funds or have no idea on business skills.
Dumb clubs again trying to bring the league to its knees without getting off there backsides and getting more members to join. Realise that if you 'aint gonna get more members to join your club, then cut your losses and move interstate or fold. Simple really. What next you want AFL clubs to share laundry expenses to save on washing detergent?
Why did Essendon get a better deal than ANY other team who is scheduled to play at Docklands. More members. Better management of a club. Simple.
It is a fact that the MCG is a better ground for breaking even with revenue than Docklands will ever be. Every club knows that.
Clubs are very clever at blaming everything or everyone else when they mismanagement funds or have no idea on business skills.
Dumb clubs again trying to bring the league to its knees without getting off there backsides and getting more members to join. Realise that if you 'aint gonna get more members to join your club, then cut your losses and move interstate or fold. Simple really. What next you want AFL clubs to share laundry expenses to save on washing detergent?
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
The AFL get the stadium back at 31 Dec 2025, 25 years after they paid $30mil to buy into the stadium.
In January 2006 the Seven Network bought out all the other "shareholders" in Docklands after they acquired the rights and obligations of all existing Financiers together with an associated interest rate swap. Total consideration paid was $115.3 million.
They then sold the stadium lock stock and barrel on 21 June 2006 to a James Fielding Funds Management for $330mil. This is an infrastructure fund/ super fund. A good place to stick a BOOT project, ie build, own, operate then transfer project.
Seven and James Fielding secure agreement on Telstra Dome
Where was the AFL going to get $330mil from and why would they bother? They would have had to borrow the money. Their main business isn't to run a stadium, which would have been laden with debt. That's the reason why the stadium couldn't make money early on. The super fund has taken away a large part of the debt component and replaced it with equity.
The stadium cost $430mil to build, was sold 6 years later for $330mil and in between time it is estimated the owners lost close to $200mil of pre tax operating losses in 6 years up to June 2006.
Why would the AFL want to take on all this risk when they are going to get the stadium in 2025 for $1.
Problem is the AFL and the powers that be at the time built TD to be fully ticketed - they thought they could eventually wean melbourne fans off walk ups - they wanted each and every fan to pay 2-3 times as much for the same thing - the footy
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.
Just fix up one of the existing grounds preferably in inner city (Carl ,Dog, Coll) and play games against interstate clubs there.
Deal with it?
We've got 3 stadiums now that accomadate for all shapes and sizes.
The only criticism I've got is the positioning of the outer at the MCG. The game yesterday (and to a lesser extend the Coll-Fremantle game) looked empty yet there were 40-45000 people in attendance...not a good look for TV.
Move the Outer to the GSS wing and put the AFL members in the Olympic Stand out of broadcasting vision. If nothing else it'll make the crowds look 'prettier' for television
We've got 3 stadiums now that accomadate for all shapes and sizes.
The only criticism I've got is the positioning of the outer at the MCG. The game yesterday (and to a lesser extend the Coll-Fremantle game) looked empty yet there were 40-45000 people in attendance...not a good look for TV.
Move the Outer to the GSS wing and put the AFL members in the Olympic Stand out of broadcasting vision. If nothing else it'll make the crowds look 'prettier' for television
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
FWIW, the main reason why Melb clubs struggle to get good stadium deals is the lack of reserve seating taken up by members of the clubs. A club could have 35000 ticket members but only 10000 reserve seat holders....thats unheard of for the non Vic clubs.
In simple terms, supporters need to purchase more reserve seating and in turn increase the clubs bargaining power with the main stadiums, or the individual clubs need to be innovative and work around the inequalities.
As an aside, I find it interesting that the BE point at the MCG is only 20-25000 compared to the Dome - 30-35000 for most clubs. The clubs struggling with stadium deals the most are mostly the 'lesser' TD tenants - ie. North, Bulldogs, St Kilda etc. who all had the opportunity to arrange tenancy with the cheaper and more viable MCG before they choose the 'brash' new Docklands in 2000.
In simple terms, supporters need to purchase more reserve seating and in turn increase the clubs bargaining power with the main stadiums, or the individual clubs need to be innovative and work around the inequalities.
As an aside, I find it interesting that the BE point at the MCG is only 20-25000 compared to the Dome - 30-35000 for most clubs. The clubs struggling with stadium deals the most are mostly the 'lesser' TD tenants - ie. North, Bulldogs, St Kilda etc. who all had the opportunity to arrange tenancy with the cheaper and more viable MCG before they choose the 'brash' new Docklands in 2000.
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?
ChrisFooty
Premiership Player
I think it's great the NRL still has suburbian grounds. Much smaller competition compared to the AFL, but that aspect is great.
ah, the ignorance of the franchise follower. The AFL is a suburban comp you nitwit.
The Melbourne suburban names used in the league are brand names now. Collingwood have nothing to do with the suburb of Collingwood anymore yet one can not imagine the club being called anything else.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 23,922
- 32,573
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
No, the AFL is a national comp, the VFL was the suburban comp with the suburban grounds. I will copy this straight out of my textbook that I have right here:
"The situation in Australia may serve as another example. Historically, the most popular domestic competition, the Australian Football League (national governing body for the sport of Australian Rules football) was organised along the lines of most European soccer competitions. AFL clubs owned or leased their own football stadia and most home matches were played there. The Australian Rules competition was predominantly played in the heartland of the code, the city of Melbourne, and in 'the old days' was a competition between different suburbs.
About 15 years ago a seachange occurred in Australian football. For the code to remain financially healthy and competitive against 'new' booming sports such as basketball and soccer, the competition's operating systems needed dramatic rationalisation. League administrators, the AFL Commission, turned the League into a national competition, in the process setting up teams from different states, some of which were new teams and some teams relocated from Melbourne.
A facility rationalisation strategy was adopted by the League as one of the drivers of success for the national competition. Clubs had to move from their small, outdated and often unsafe suburban stadia to the few AFL-designated playing facilities throughout the country. In Melbourne in particular this led to multiple teams adopting either the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) or Waverley Park, recently replaced by the state-of-the-art Telstra Dome, as their home ground.
Both the MCG (currently being redeveloped) and the Telstra Dome offer a range of facilities, from 'purchase at the gate' access to long-term corporate box leases. The moral of the story? The market in a domestic football competition such as the AFL is not able to sustain a wide range of low-capacity yet high-quality outfitted (corporate hospitality) stadia. Rather, costs need to be shared by a number of professional clubs playing at the same venue, in the process cross-subsidising the maintenance of high-quality entertainment opportunities at a limited number of venues.
(Here it also needs to be stated that the playing surface required for Australian rules football is about twice as big as a soccer pitch, leading to bigger and wider venues. Larger crowds are therefore needed to create a good atmosphere, hence, consumption of football needs to be artificially concentrated by limiting the number of consumption outlets.)"
p. 7, Westerbeek, Smith, Turner, Emery, Green & van Leeuwen. Managing Sport Facilities and Major Events, 2005, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW
Similar threads
