That move is accessibility, nothing to do with the experience.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Relocation within Melbourne?
- Thread starter Bunk Moreland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That move is accessibility, nothing to do with the experience.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,882
- 13,726
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Accessibility enhances the experience.
Moving closer to city means closer to pubs, restaurants, Public Transport options ect.
What % of fans want pubs &/or restaurants .... the experience is marketing spin.
thegreig
Club Legend
Accessibility is first and foremost definitely, but to say game day experience had nothing to do with it is quite a big call. The AFL themselves even mention the game experience being a factor
Yes the AFL do lots of things & the experience for the h&a season generally is spin, thats why market gimmickry more usually in Melbourne ...
I'd argue that the Giants would get bigger crowds if their ground was in Parramatta CBD next to Bankwest Stadium. The issue with your attempt at sarcasm is that Greater Sydney has two CBDs, and GWS were specifically designed to appeal to an area containing the second CBD.
Your exact words were "Teams like St Kilda, North and Melbourne aren’t going to draw good crowds against interstate opposition at the G or Docklands". I gave you an example of precisely this happening, and you've decided to shift the goalposts. What their present crowds are isn't the most relevant thing anyway. The key question is, are their crowds going to be bigger somewhere else in Melbourne? And if so, where? It has to be somewhere easily reachable for their whole fanbase, and the problem is that there are very few places in the east of Melbourne that are well connected to every other part of the east. At least until the Suburban Rail Loop is built. Then some options might open up. But even that can only do so much on its own, there needs to be more.
And now there is no stadium and still no public transport. Who is going to make the necessary investment? There hasn't been a new railway line in the east in that whole time IIRC, and there won't be until the SRL is built. On top of that, traffic has become a lot worse.
That's an issue of renegotiating the stadium deal, not the fact they're playing centrally. Again, it'll cost a lot of money to build a new ground with no certainty that crowds will be larger in the suburbs. Who is going to make that investment?
So what? Are they willing to spend that cash on professional sports teams? I raised the idea some time back of Melbourne moving their training base to Glen Iris or somewhere else close to their fanbase, and I was told that open spaces are hard to come by and local governments would rather save them for community facilities. How is it different with a stadium that will cost much more?
Not all sport. Only sport in marginal electorates which are already a fair distance from existing examples of the same sport. If you can identify a specific marginal electorate in Melbourne where people have stated they'd rather have local professional sport rather than faster buses or more schools, I'd be very interested to hear where it is.
Except we're not, we had suburban stadiums until the 90s. You even gave an example of one above. They didn't work for a reason, the transport infrastructure simply isn't there.
Of course they would. But, that's a big if. My experiences of suburban people is that they're more keen for public transport funding or schools than they are for stadiums near them, but I'm open to being corrected if I'm wrong.
Now all of that being said, there is one place in Melbourne that I think could be a good option for suburban relocation: sending the Bulldogs back to Western Oval. The problem is, that area isn't marginal politically, it's an incredibly solid area for Labor at every level of government. There's no government incentive to spend there.
Last edited:
Its not sarcasm.
In this scenario the club would be aiming specifically at the south east of Melbourne.
- Sep 27, 2014
- 34,227
- 28,859
- AFL Club
- Essendon
MLS is definitely better than the A-League. 32-year-old hasbeens instead of 37-year-old hasbeens.
- Thread starter
- #85
Yep, using actual data (median over three years) is certainly “shifting the goalposts” as opposed to pulling a single game out of my rectum.
Thank you for telling me what my exact words were, I hadn’t realised. You’re really good at this “conversation” thing.
There's no need to be nasty and yet you're choosing to act that way, fascinating. I wasn't aware that a game played at the MCG was in my rectum, but I guess we learn something every day.
Why are people in that area going to be interested? Because its local, nah !
- Thread starter
- #88
If this situation pushes a club like St Kilda even further into debt, I can’t imagine any options are off the table.
Say they could get 15k into a redeveloped Frankston Park etc, initially for a few games a year. You’d have to look at it financially.
Say they could get 15k into a redeveloped Frankston Park etc, initially for a few games a year. You’d have to look at it financially.
Can they pay the interest in Oct, in Nov?
JOHNNY GASTEV
Team Captain
Purely on the economics of the game in the longer term (5-10 years) it’s obvious Melbourne won’t be able to support 9 teams plus 1 in Geelong. I can understand 4-5 but anymore is starting to stretch it. My choices would be:
North merge with Gold Coast (Northern Kangaroos)
Western Bulldogs merge with GWS (Western Sydney Bulldogs)
St Kilda off to Tasmania (Tassie Saints)
Melbourne long term maybe Canberra. As the Coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the AFL has been heavily propping up too many clubs (both in Melbourne and northern states). 16 clubs improves the standards, more supporters for the remaining Melbourne clubs and better balance nationally. Awaiting for the criticism
North merge with Gold Coast (Northern Kangaroos)
Western Bulldogs merge with GWS (Western Sydney Bulldogs)
St Kilda off to Tasmania (Tassie Saints)
Melbourne long term maybe Canberra. As the Coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the AFL has been heavily propping up too many clubs (both in Melbourne and northern states). 16 clubs improves the standards, more supporters for the remaining Melbourne clubs and better balance nationally. Awaiting for the criticism
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,965
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
Purely on the economics of the game in the longer term (5-10 years) it’s obvious Melbourne won’t be able to support 9 teams plus 1 in Geelong. I can understand 4-5 but anymore is starting to stretch it. My choices would be:
North merge with Gold Coast (Northern Kangaroos)
Western Bulldogs merge with GWS (Western Sydney Bulldogs)
St Kilda off to Tasmania (Tassie Saints)
Melbourne long term maybe Canberra. As the Coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the AFL has been heavily propping up too many clubs (both in Melbourne and northern states). 16 clubs improves the standards, more supporters for the remaining Melbourne clubs and better balance nationally. Awaiting for the criticism
It's a big jump in logic to go from Melbourne not being able to support 10 teams (which itself is debateable), to Melbourne only having 4 to 5 teams.
The latter being completely wrong.
- Thread starter
- #92
It’s an interesting discussion and I think one that is very relevant to this overall topic.
I think Vic can support 10 clubs - it has a population of 6.4 million and is growing faster than most other parts of the country. There’s 150 - 200k people being added per year.
But is our current model taking advantage of that? I don’t think it is.
Because make no mistake, we currently have these ten clubs:
Geelong, Melbourne Bombers, Melbourne Blues, Melbourne Bulldogs, Melbourne Demons, Melbourne Hawks, Melbourne Kangaroos, Melbourne Magpies, Melbourne Saints and Melbourne Tigers.
Is that set up best to deal with and engage the population? I dont think it is at all.
We have 9 CBD based clubs, this was set up in the 80s and 90s when Melbourne was a very different place, there is now an enormous population that is extremely spread out.
I think there are riches there for a club that is prepared to have a long-term crack.
That set up is a hangover from the 1930s, its true of the SA & WA local comps too. By the 80s the geographic spread in all cities had changed.
John Elliott, Dick Seddon & others recognised the weakness in the early 80s. Perhaps The Wookie can post a link to his web page, for anyone dismissive of those discussions/the time frame.
We will never have a fair national comp with so many teams in Melbourne.
Surely we wont miss this opportunity to rebuild a model reflecting 2030 not 1930.
Purely on the economics of the game in the longer term (5-10 years) it’s obvious Melbourne won’t be able to support 9 teams plus 1 in Geelong. I can understand 4-5 but anymore is starting to stretch it. My choices would be:
North merge with Gold Coast (Northern Kangaroos)
Western Bulldogs merge with GWS (Western Sydney Bulldogs)
St Kilda off to Tasmania (Tassie Saints)
Melbourne long term maybe Canberra. As the Coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the AFL has been heavily propping up too many clubs (both in Melbourne and northern states). 16 clubs improves the standards, more supporters for the remaining Melbourne clubs and better balance nationally. Awaiting for the criticism
The Bulldogs suprisingly are one of only six clubs that are still financially solvent (and just one of four in Victoria)
Western Bulldogs among the six clubs to go it alone
In a remarkable turn of events, the Western Bulldogs will be one of at least six AFL clubs who draw on their own funds to survive, outside of player payments, during the game’s financial crisis.
That said, Adelaide and the Western Bulldogs can only carry losses until August with only West Coast, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Richmond in a position to carry 12-18 months of losses.
If the Bulldogs can survive without assistance long enough they have a massive opportunity to spread west and north / westward
- Thread starter
- #95
The Bulldogs suprisingly are one of only six clubs that are still financially solvent (and just one of four in Victoria)
Western Bulldogs among the six clubs to go it alone
In a remarkable turn of events, the Western Bulldogs will be one of at least six AFL clubs who draw on their own funds to survive, outside of player payments, during the game’s financial crisis.www.theage.com.au
That said, Adelaide and the Western Bulldogs can only carry losses until August with only West Coast, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Richmond in a position to carry 12-18 months of losses.
If the Bulldogs can survive without assistance long enough they have a massive opportunity to spread west and north / westward
They’re the only club which has truly started it with Ballarat.
Let’s be clear... if you want to proclaim to represent a region, you have to play there. Anything else (like any of the Melbourne clubs still representing any particular part of Melbourne) is bullshit.
Is there any evidence this thinking has any substance ..... feel good only?
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,965
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
This can be realised when clubs like Hawthorn finally vacate their pokies holdings out West.
- Jun 6, 2012
- 9,893
- 17,461
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Rampage
Because no player wants to travel out to the shithole outer suburbs?
- Thread starter
- #99
Lol. Some of the biggest sporting clubs in Australia and the world are in complete shitholes.
The poor darlings will adjust.
- Nov 20, 2018
- 1,375
- 1,528
- AFL Club
- Carlton
In Europe that's true away from the centre of the city.
