Suburban Grounds

[Garlic muncher]

NSW and QLD are the only states with sides that play in their named areas.

Fremantle don't play in Fremantle, and neither do Port Adelaide.

Sydney still has more AFL stadiums than Melbourne.

 

[joop]

I'm all for the nostalgia, but in it's present state I cannot see a regular season game being played at Ikon - it is just no where near up to scratch.

I think you'd find they would redevelop the grounds.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I think you'd find they would redevelop the grounds.

I agree, but the cost would mean starting from scratch would be just as easy. Also, 30,000 would be the minimum size, which brings transport issues. I'd love it to work, I just can't see how.

 

[Blue1980]

I agree, but the cost would mean starting from scratch would be just as easy. Also, 30,000 would be the minimum size, which brings transport issues. I'd love it to work, I just can't see how.

Where there is a will there's a way. It's obvious you would need to spend money to do up these grounds for them to be able to be regular AFL venues again.

In their current state, could probably have one game a year at say a whitten oval or ikon park against an interstate side, make it reduced prices or something, make it a real occasion.

 

[Hawthorn United]

It's too late or too hard to go back to teams having true home grounds now.

It's cost the Melbourne teams the ability to deliver decent match day experience for the fans that attend vs those that watch it on tv. The fact that majority of games are not sellouts, means the demand is less than the supply so it's pretty easy to go to a game whenever you feel like it.

Living in your teams area doesn't mean anything anymore as you have to travel into the CBD anyway to watch them play. It's no longer your team, it's the cities.

 

[parano1a]

Living in your teams area doesn't mean anything anymore as you have to travel into the CBD anyway to watch them play. It's no longer your team, it's the cities.

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.

Punt Rd Oval to MCG 0.3km
Victoria Park to MCG 2.7km
Glenferrie Oval to MCG 4.5km

Arden St to Etihad 2.3km
Princes Park to Etihad 4.3km
Whitten Oval to Etihad 5.8km
Windy Hill to Etihad 8.2km
Moorabbin to Etihad 18.3km

 

[FootyJunkie]

Who's the home team in the Fremantle West Coast game?

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...

 

[FootyJunkie]

i'm surprised Collingwood haven't been arrogant enough to re-brand themselves as the "Melbourne Magpies" yet

 

[FootyJunkie]

Sydney still has more AFL stadiums than Melbourne.

well, ANZ is gone, so not quite true anymore... both have 2

 

[boncer34]

Why does Melbourne need a 3rd stadium or return to suburban stadia? Are sides currently unable to play because both stadiums are full?

 

[footyfan1978]

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

The Saints are not from Moorabin in terms of origin. They are from St.Kilda so Docklands is actually a lot closer to their suburb than you listed. Just get on the light rail in St.Kilda and does not take long to get their home ground now at Docklands.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I think you'd find they would redevelop the grounds.

Who'd pay to redevelop these grounds? Not the AFL or the clubs and definitely not the rose-tinted glasses supporters who have a fit over general admission tickets not allowing them to sit in the best seats at Docklands Stadium.

 

[Colonial]

well, ANZ is gone, so not quite true anymore... both have 2

Not yet it isnt.

Hopefully this doesnt effect the surrounds upgrades (pubs clubs cafes etc)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[FootyJunkie]

Not yet it isnt.

Hopefully this doesnt effect the surrounds upgrades (pubs clubs cafes etc)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

ANZ is no longer an AFL ground, it's going rectangle

 

[Colonial]

ANZ is no longer an AFL ground, it's going rectangle

It will be yes, but it still can (and probably will in the event of another all Sydney derby [emoji20]) be used until end of 2018.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[FootyJunkie]

It will be yes, but it still can (and probably will in the event of another all Sydney derby [emoji20]) be used until end of 2018.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

so a Sydney-derby final will still be played at ANZ until 2018?
do you have a source?

 

[Colonial]

so a Sydney-derby final will still be played at ANZ until 2018?
do you have a source?

Not being knocked down till end of next year id heard.

As such can still hold finals there. You think the AFL wont after last years "success"

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Bokonon_]

Very droll. It's an interesting problem. Most Melbourne clubs would average over 25,000 at a guess (someone will correct me), which makes the concept of surburban/ boutique stadiums obsolete before they're even built.

I've said elsewhere our home hames are very traditional with a reserves warm up game in our local stadium.
Bottom line is I've got a strong "someone else's problem" field around this ropic.

 

[Bokonon_]

so a Sydney-derby final will still be played at ANZ until 2018?
do you have a source?

Beleive me the redevelopment hasn't started. I would see it. It's planned for 2018

 

[Richo83]

i'm surprised Collingwood haven't been arrogant enough to re-brand themselves as the "Melbourne Magpies" yet

Firstly, I doubt the AFL would let them as it would eat into Melbourne's brand. Secondly, why would Collingwood undermine its own brand as Collingwood and the magpies? Collingwood is smart enough (arrogant perhaps?) to know that it doesn't need to rebrand itself in order to be as large as it is.

 

[Richo83]

The AFL have made a few dumb decisions and smart decisions over the years. Ground rationalisation was a smart one. Constantly updating nine Melbourne stadiums would have cost a lot of money and the AFL knew Waverley was finished. It needed two premier stadiums, preferably in the city so they'd be easy to access and the AFL would have fixturing flexibility.

Now, the AFL can just ship out low drawing matches to other parts of the country, like Tasmania and Ballarat, which make more sense for the AFL than rebuilding Princess Park and Punt Rd. Why rebuild these stadiums when you can expand the reach of the game and ensure clubs get good return by playing low drawing matches in smaller grounds?

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Brisbane and maybe the Gold Coast start playing matches at places like Cairns more often.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Where there is a will there's a way. It's obvious you would need to spend money to do up these grounds for them to be able to be regular AFL venues again.

In their current state, could probably have one game a year at say a whitten oval or ikon park against an interstate side, make it reduced prices or something, make it a real occasion.

In its current state it would still need a couple of hundred thousand thrown at it just to get it ready for one small regular season game during the day (lights aren't good enough) against an interstate side. Even then, you still couldn't charge full price, I just can't see it happening.

 

[Richo83]

The other thing you have to remember is if the AFL is going to spend millions, most likely hundreds of millions on these stadiums, they'll want to own them and control fixturing for them. So these grounds wont be true team grounds in the sense that one team plays at them, the AFL will mostly use them as fixturing tools to ensure crowds are bigger or teams make a profit or whatever aim the AFL has for fixturing.

I can imagine maybe the AFL investing money into building stadiums for the smaller clubs, but there's no point returning clubs like Collingwood and Essendon to their suburban grounds, they've outgrown them, wanted to move elsewhere and generally make a tidy profit. Plus they keep the MCG and the Docklands operators happy. Sure, the AFL now own Docklands, but why would they want to take away one of the stadium's most profitable tenants? Same goes for Richmond and Hawthorn and the MCG. Not sure about the finances of Carlton.

So you're left with Footscray, North, Melbourne and St Kilda. Melbourne have been an MCG tenant since the beginning, so you're left with upgrading three suburban grounds? Don't really see the point.

People also seem to think that the ground rationalisation happened in recent decades. Melbourne have always played at the MCG, Richmond since the 60s, Hawthorn moved to Waverley in the 70s, St Kilda moved there in the 90s I think? And even though Waverley was St Kilda and Hawthorn's home ground, the AFL used to shunt other teams there all the time. Collingwood moved to the MCG more than 20 years ago.

 

[Grrr]

As long as the beer price is still $2 a can like last I went to Princess Park, count me in.

 

[The Swert]

What happened to the E-Gate proposal?

Building a new boutique stadium there would probably cheaper than refurbishing Princes Park.