Suburban Grounds

[Bombermania]

Nice to see practice matches and VFL sides using the old suburban grounds but for the H&A season they are no longer suitable.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

The Eddie solution will never ever happen. The cost and disruption to put 8 train lines underground would be astronomical.

They need to do something to Richmond station, but agree that his idea would be an extreme one.

 

[Bombermania]

Suburban Grounds WERE the atmosphere growing up for me, it can never be repeated as most of them are now not up to standard in the modern era, but if you want to know where the atmosphere went then take a day off and cruise around Melbourne. Visit Vic Park, Princes Park, Arden Street, Windy Hill, the Junction Oval, pop on over to the old Brunswick street oval and walk across the ground, stop and look at the old grandstand. You will find the atmosphere there still circulating playing to an empty crowd.
They replaced it all with concrete jungles, not even the G has the same atmosphere as pre 1990. Etihad is soulless. I'm lucky to have been to most suburban grounds, there was simply nothing like it.
IMO, every effort should be made to bring back Princes Park as a venue.

There is something about walking around the old grounds and thinking of some of the great names and matches that have been played on those grounds, and to stand in the middle or in the goal square and look up at the main stands and picture in your mind the sound of the fans going off.

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

The problem with the PP solution is accessibility. There is no easy if at all ANY possible solution to fix that

 

[Jim Prideaux]

The problem with the PP solution is accessibility. There is no easy if at all ANY possible solution to fix that

Agree, you'd need serious help from the state government just to get the ball rolling.

 

[The 747]

They need to do something to Richmond station, but agree that his idea would be an extreme one.

I don't go through there often, what's the issue with Richmond station?

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

The problem with the PP solution is accessibility. There is no easy if at all ANY possible solution to fix that

The new Parkville station on the metro tunnel will help a little. But it's still 2km from the ground.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I don't go through there often, what's the issue with Richmond station?

Very run down, poor access and facilities, cramped. It struggles with the volumes of passengers it's expected to deal with. They've been discussing upgrades for a while now, not sure where they're at with it.

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

I don't go through there often, what's the issue with Richmond station?

It's enormous and is elevated above Punt Rd.

To get it underground would costs Billions and require A LOT of underpinning to keep it from collapsing, as there is no chance you could shut down Richmond Station for any extended period of time like it would take to rebuild it underground

 

[Jim Prideaux]

It's enormous and is elevated above Punt Rd.

To get it underground would costs Billions and require A LOT of underpinning to keep it from collapsing, as there is no chance you could shut down Richmond Station for any extended period of time like it would take to rebuild it underground

I think he meant why would you consider changing it. It would cost a significant amount, but at some stage something significant will need to be done to it - what that will entail I have no idea.

 

[JackFlash]

The problem with the PP solution is accessibility. There is no easy if at all ANY possible solution to fix that

Accessibility? 15 mins walk to Royal Park station, by 2026 there will be the new Parkville station, again 15 mins walk to and from Princes park. Tram less than 5 mins. It's also one of the busiest Tram routes in Melbourne that takes you directly to Melbourne central or Flinders Street station. Bus 504 Moonee Ponds to Clifton Hill and Bus 505 Moonee Ponds to Melbourne Uni drops you right at the gate.
I never had a problem going to Princes park, just the score at the end of the game, Cats rarely won there.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

I reckon a third stadium in Melbourne is a no-brainer.

MCG - 100,000 capacity
Docklands - 55,000 (possible upgrade to 60 - 65,000)
Third stadium - 30 -35,000

Now, let's look at average attendences to games played in Melbourne by interstate teams against all other teams:

Adelaide - MCG: 29,931 / Docklands: 28,981
Brisbane - MCG: 33,170 / Docklands: 29,877
Fremantle - MCG: 26,312 / Docklands: 24,182
Gold Coast - MCG: 24,990 / Docklands: 23,381
GWS - MCG: 26,538 / Docklands: 19,224
Port Adelaide - MCG: 25,433 / Docklands: 25,386
Sydney - MCG: 27,382 / Docklands: 34,437
West Coast - MCG: 29,074 / Docklands: 29,932

Every single interstate team averages less than 35,000 per game playing in Melbourne. Obviously there are discrepancies over the years when interstate teams are in contention. Most people would like to go and watch the Swans over the last few years, but maybe not so much Brisbane or the Gold Coast. Brisbane on the other hand would have been drawing much bigger crowds during their three-peat years.

Overall though, it presents a compelling argument for the merits of a smaller stadium in Melbourne to cater for lower drawing interstate teams. One could also argue that lower drawing all Melbourne teams could be scheduled to play there. St. Kilda vs Melbourne for example. And assuming the ground in question is Princes Park, then Carlton could play home games there against North Melbourne, Melbourne and St. Kilda, home games at Docklands against Hawthorn and Geelong, and home games at the MCG against Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon.

If the Gold Coast stadium only cost ~$140 million to knock down and rebuild, how much more would it cost to get Princes Park up to scratch?

 

[Colonial]

I reckon a third stadium in Melbourne is a no-brainer.

MCG - 100,000 capacity
Docklands - 55,000 (possible upgrade to 60 - 65,000)
Third stadium - 30 -35,000

Now, let's look at average attendences to games played in Melbourne by interstate teams against all other teams:

Adelaide - MCG: 29,931 / Docklands: 28,981
Brisbane - MCG: 33,170 / Docklands: 29,877
Fremantle - MCG: 26,312 / Docklands: 24,182
Gold Coast - MCG: 24,990 / Docklands: 23,381
GWS - MCG: 26,538 / Docklands: 19,224
Port Adelaide - MCG: 25,433 / Docklands: 25,386
Sydney - MCG: 27,382 / Docklands: 34,437
West Coast - MCG: 29,074 / Docklands: 29,932

Every single interstate team averages less than 35,000 per game playing in Melbourne. Obviously there are discrepancies over the years when interstate teams are in contention. Most people would like to go and watch the Swans over the last few years, but maybe not so much Brisbane or the Gold Coast. Brisbane on the other hand would have been drawing much bigger crowds during their three-peat years.

Overall though, it presents a compelling argument for the merits of a smaller stadium in Melbourne to cater for lower drawing interstate teams. One could also argue that lower drawing all Melbourne teams could be scheduled to play there. St. Kilda vs Melbourne for example. And assuming the ground in question is Princes Park, then Carlton could play home games there against North Melbourne, Melbourne and St. Kilda, home games at Docklands against Hawthorn and Geelong, and home games at the MCG against Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon.

If the Gold Coast stadium only cost ~$140 million to knock down and rebuild, how much more would it cost to get Princes Park up to scratch?

You already get to play the GF every year in your home city now you want interstate clubs not to play at the MCG at all?

Haha no.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Randy Campbell]

agree... Fremantle should be playing at Fremantle Oval, not with us

a Perth (West Coast) v Fremantle footy rivalry is so natural, but a bit laughable when Freo have to play their home games in Perth

i get the economics of it, but...

But Perth is not on the Coast and Fremantle is on the Coast to the West of Perth.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

You already get to play the GF every year in your home city now you want interstate clubs not to play at the MCG at all?

Haha no.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

No, not every game. Obviously when interstate teams are up and about they need to be scheduled at larger venues, also against higher drawing home times they need to be scheduled there. There should be more flexibility in the draw and allocation of venues.

 

[Colonial]

No, not every game. Obviously when interstate teams are up and about they need to be scheduled at larger venues, also against higher drawing home times they need to be scheduled there. There should be more flexibility in the draw and allocation of venues.

No.
We get the MCG once this year before finals time. I think thays pretty poor to begin with. Not going to agree with zero.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[PumpyChowdown]

No.
We get the MCG once this year before finals time. I think thays pretty poor to begin with. Not going to agree with zero.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Read the post immediately before yours.

 

[Colonial]

Read the post immediately before yours.

So only if victorians decide they want to watch?

Still disagree.

There needs to be a minimum a team gets to play at the G.

If we wont move the GF to highest qualifiers city/state then all teams should get a set amount of games there through the year.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[VitalDread]

if dogs played home games against Gold Coast, Freo and West Coast that would be amazing (if the afl didn't own Etihad)

 

[Silent Alarm]

People say 'oh, the punter wants drink holders and cushioned seats' which is true to an extent. But there's a weird flaw (in Victoria) to this way of thinking. Etihad is better than the MCG sans the history and the fact it gets less blockbusters – it's way more comfortable, easier to get to for people from the city, the south, the north, the country, there are toilets everywhere – but still Melbourne, Collingwood, Hawthorn fans get pissed home when their club is scheduled to play just one home game a season there.

In 2017 I don't think people really want a perfect venue like Etihad. I've long said that Optus Oval can be done on the cheap and its effect would be better than spending three times as much. I'd schedule the majority of matches in rounds 1-3 and 21-23, obviously there have to be games in the middle, but its effect would be more 'festival' than football. You could save a lot on outside amenities, concourses, and built up walls. I'd open up the far side (where the sun's prettier – make this ground perfect for Instagram, this is so important for marketing and where people go these days) where the old pavilion looking stand is. Just have contracted food trucks, craft beer stalls, and stuff like that.

Obviously, you have to work on the interiors but the Legends Stand is new enough it just needs to be cleaned up. Hurl all the flotsam out somewhere else, give the inside and outside a paint, chuck in some new toilets, and that's essentially the most of it. I think the older, swirl-shaped stand on the flank might have to either go and be replaced or be seriously re-done. I love the way it looks and to me it's classic Prinny Park but unfortunately it just looks terrible from outside and needs so much to be done.

 

[Determinant]

With the exception of St Kilda, all teams modern home grounds are reasonably close to their traditional home grounds. Most of the clubs are neighbouring inner city suburbs anyway.


Moorabbin to Etihad 18.3km

junction Oval would be less than 5k? still within the statistical group anyway, not an outlier