The next Melbourne stadium

[JohnZ]

If there is one thing I have learnt from my travels to stadiums all over the world, it is that building multiple large stadiums in the one precinct is a logistical nightmare. It means you can never have events at both sites at the same time, as moving 120,000 to 160,000 persons through the same area at the same time causes all sorts of issues.

Imagine 100,000 leaving the MCG and 60,000 arriving at the proposed Swan Street / Gosch's Paddock Stadium at the same time, the majority of which would be using Richmond station as driving in the area would be impossible.

Massive non-issue.

The beauty of the olympic park area is its walking proximity to multiple trian lines, as well as the CBD. 100k + 60k would be the absolute worst case for back to back sat/sun games. Reality is, if one game finishes at 4pm and the next starts at 4pm, then most people will have cleared 15min before first bounce, and before the first game's crowds come back.

 

[Freshwater]

The second stadium must be on the side of town that Docklands is now, not near the MCG. Melbourne’s massive now and getting to the East side of town is a pain for all those like myself who is rural and from the west. Marvel is extremely accessible for Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo line commuters. The AFL wants to push into western Sydney but to neglect its heartland area’s would be insanity.

 

[JPetro83]

Lets hope its a case of 3rd time lucky when they get the design and location correct.
VFL Park: built in the wrong area of Melbourne and ground surface way too big.. not sure why they didn't just copy the exact ground dimensions of the MCG.. they later on brought the boundary line in but then that looked ridiculous.

Docklands: Location was/is fine but design is a dogs breakfast, built facing the wrong way isn't it? the sun is an issue, the surface in the early days was terrible and probably next time have the stadium capacity around the 65-70k mark. the stadium is kinda hidden away now amongst the tall buildings.

You would think by 2040 a new stadium will be needed to replace Docklands. As for now Melbourne needs a boutique stadium30-35k to host the smaller vic clubs vs interstate clubs (as longs as the interstate sides still get a fair run of games on the MCG every year. there are no shortage of suburban grounds to upgrade. Victoria park, Junction oval, Princes Park, Punt Road and the Whitten Oval are all doable

 

[Roogal]

Lets hope its a case of 3rd time lucky when they get the design and location correct.
VFL Park: built in the wrong area of Melbourne and ground surface way too big.. not sure why they didn't just copy the exact ground dimensions of the MCG.. they later on brought the boundary line in but then that looked ridiculous.

Docklands: Location was/is fine but design is a dogs breakfast, built facing the wrong way isn't it? the sun is an issue, the surface in the early days was terrible and probably next time have the stadium capacity around the 65-70k mark. the stadium is kinda hidden away now amongst the tall buildings.

You would think by 2040 a new stadium will be needed to replace Docklands. As for now Melbourne needs a boutique stadium30-35k to host the smaller vic clubs vs interstate clubs (as longs as the interstate sides still get a fair run of games on the MCG every year. there are no shortage of suburban grounds to upgrade. Victoria park, Junction oval, Princes Park, Punt Road and the Whitten Oval are all doable

I don't have a problem with replacing Docklands if and when it becomes unfit for purpose. But the taxpayer ought not be footing the bill completely for the replacement of an AFL owned asset. The AFL should pay its fair share. That said, the AFL won't be advocating any time soon to replace Docklands because they still believe that it's one of the best facilities of its type in the country. It is certainly the best positioned stadium in Australia, sitting on the edge of the busiest railway station in Victoria where it is accessible to anybody who can catch a train or Vline bus into Melbourne. I reckon that it will likely get a major mid-life make over at some point in the future but I can't see it being demolished any time this side of the next 30-40 years.

 

[Freshwater]

I don't have a problem with replacing Docklands if and when it becomes unfit for purpose. But the taxpayer ought not be footing the bill completely for the replacement of an AFL owned asset. The AFL should pay its fair share. That said, the AFL won't be advocating any time soon to replace Docklands because they still believe that it's one of the best facilities of its type in the country. It is certainly the best positioned stadium in Australia, sitting on the edge of the busiest railway station in Victoria where it is accessible to anybody who can catch a train or Vline bus into Melbourne. I reckon that it will likely get a major mid-life make over at some point in the future but I can't see it being demolished any time this side of the next 30-40 years.

I reckon the roof will become permanent and will be translucent. Those 4 big pillars holding up the retractable roof won’t be needed and it will be very similar then to Perth stadium. The translucent roof will make daytime games in there so much more better visually and appealing. The grass will grow naturally. It won’t be as cold looking or feeling.
The accessibility is its number one asset now and into the future for everyone from metro to rural who is north or west of Melbourne.

 

[errant bounce]

I don't have a problem with replacing Docklands if and when it becomes unfit for purpose. But the taxpayer ought not be footing the bill completely for the replacement of an AFL owned asset. The AFL should pay its fair share. That said, the AFL won't be advocating any time soon to replace Docklands because they still believe that it's one of the best facilities of its type in the country. It is certainly the best positioned stadium in Australia, sitting on the edge of the busiest railway station in Victoria where it is accessible to anybody who can catch a train or Vline bus into Melbourne. I reckon that it will likely get a major mid-life make over at some point in the future but I can't see it being demolished any time this side of the next 30-40 years.

There has been a lot of negative attention on Southern Cross lately, especially in regard to its air quality (something becoming far more prominent in legislation; NABERS have a lot of influence on new builds and retrofits) and even anecdotally, people love talking about the diesel smell it has (I've never really noticed it. most train stations in Melbourne are pretty shit, for different reasons).

Genuinely get the feeling it'll end up a major point of discussion. the fact it's the V-Line hub and there are so many housing issues, I can see it become a real drama. people don't like getting off there because the tram links are so poor. in my experience, it also seems where the majority of dramas seem to happen. maybe it's nearby King Street or just confirmation bias, but maybe it's the massively long platforms and multi-level design that makes it harder to police.

No idea what it looks like in 50 years but I wonder if they almost downsize it and make it more of a regional / bus hub and have the metro train lines run a bit more like Flagstaff where it's only really served for peak hour.

They have tried with the bottom end of the city but it's just one of those things that'll never work. it's mostly a haven for rich Asian kids and transitional residents. all the food options are shit franchises so there's no need for people who don't live there to venture there. it just seems greyer and a bit spookier than the rest of Melbourne too.

The AFL obviously recognise this and have enough feedback from people in government and council as well as private sectors to see where the money's going. I didn't live in Melbourne for five years and returned and Richmond was pretty bewildered by just how many massive medium densities were popping up. those places will end up far more desirable than Docklands. people want to live in inner city suburbs more than the city itself. it's a connotation / association thing. Richmond will end up what Docklands was supposed to.

If the AFL abandons it and it goes to office space, it could be very interesting to see what happens with all those empty buildings. Australia has never been very good at rejuvenating dead former spaces, though.

 

[RedV3x]

But the taxpayer ought not be footing the bill completely for the replacement of an AFL owned asset.

You do realise that Docklands was built for the rectanguiar sports NOT AFL.

The AFL should pay its fair share.

The AFL bought the Docklands stadium and put it to good use.
Australian Rules Football has a history of making good with stadiums.
Australian Rules Football has financed their own major stadiums in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne
and lesser stadiums around the country.
It's cricket that has been living off of the coat tails of Australian Rules Football and government money.
It's cricket that hasn't come to the party in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and elsewhere.

If AFL is not paying it's fair share then how many sports are paying any share what-so-ever ?

 

[RedV3x]

The AFL wants to push into western Sydney but to neglect its heartland area’s would be insanity.

Anything else you want to link "AFL wants to push into western Sydney" with, because that is "insanity"..

 

[HBFlanker]

The second stadium must be on the side of town that Docklands is now, not near the MCG. Melbourne’s massive now and getting to the East side of town is a pain for all those like myself who is rural and from the west. Marvel is extremely accessible for Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo line commuters. The AFL wants to push into western Sydney but to neglect its heartland area’s would be insanity.

Thats a good point, and one that i think will end up being a key factor.

West of Melbourne is the biggest growth area in Australia.

Id be looking at the land behind the royal childrens hospital

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If there is one thing I have learnt from my travels to stadiums all over the world, it is that building multiple large stadiums in the one precinct is a logistical nightmare. It means you can never have events at both sites at the same time, as moving 120,000 to 160,000 persons through the same area at the same time causes all sorts of issues.

Imagine 100,000 leaving the MCG and 60,000 arriving at the proposed Swan Street / Gosch's Paddock Stadium at the same time, the majority of which would be using Richmond station as driving in the area would be impossible.

It already happens on ANZAC Day. 100k at the G and 25k - 30k at AAMI Park for the Storm game. It’s fine, and that’s with Richmond Station being the ridiculously outdated disaster that it is now. It would get a major rebuild.

You stagger the events - day and twilight, twilight and night, day and night - so the bulk of either crowd isn’t coming and going at the same time.

The Storm do a ticket deal for people who want to hang around after the footy for their game. You could do the same with the footy and have double headers. Interstate teams would often be playing at the smaller stadium, so the offer of another game at the G is a nice add-on for travelling fans.

Docklands continues to be a mess. 25 years and they can’t make the surface work. It’s been an epic failure of design.

Almost certain it’ll be Gosch’s Paddock - it’s really the only place the makes sense.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

No way they get rid of that parkland. It's a cool concept. Just won't happen.

The perfect spot was where Eddie proposed a few years ago. Knocking down John Cain Arena.

Eddie’s “plan” was a complete joke and totally self-serving. The John Cain position makes no sense in any way but one. It’s the furthest location from the two train stations.

It’s also the most hideously expensive. Sink the train lines and Olympic Boulevard underground. Bulldoze a perfectly functional JCA for no reason and relocate it.

There’s one reason he proposed it and that’s because he wanted to lock in the Collingwood precinct. Home and training ground, MCG for the big games, and the new stadium in between for games against interstate sides. All in a neat little row. That’s what the John Cain location gives Collingwood. In fact, I’m sure his plans would include underground access to both from the Collingwood training facilities for use on match day.

As with everything Eddie does, it’s all about Collingwood.

 

[Mr north man]

With Sandown Racecourse dead in the water and talk of maybe having a 3rd ground at either near E gate bridge or in the North of Melbourne could Bob Jane Thunder dome could that be the spot? But the way the Victorian State is it would have to be privately funded

 

[craffles]

Why the **** are people suggesting MCC members should have reserved seats at a new venue that is not the MCG?

AFL members sure, but MCC? **** right off. They bent the AFL over in there long term agreement for the MCG. No favours for them.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The second stadium must be on the side of town that Docklands is now, not near the MCG. Melbourne’s massive now and getting to the East side of town is a pain for all those like myself who is rural and from the west. Marvel is extremely accessible for Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo line commuters. The AFL wants to push into western Sydney but to neglect its heartland area’s would be insanity.

Getting to the docklands, northern, or western suburbs is a nightmare for anyone in the east.

Should build a boutique stadium in Pakenham, given Gippsland is the next frontier for the urban sprawl

 

[peetoo]

If stadiums have a lifespan surely rod laver arena gets replaced before docklands? 12 years older

 

[Walshawk]

Who would build such a stadium? And why? VIC Government and AFL to compete against their existing stadiums?

No one. This thread is a theoretical discussion. A bit like, who would win a fight between Superman and Hulk.

 

[errant bounce]

After going to the Australian Open and seeing them continue to flog more tickets and make it a few hundred square metres of bottlenecks, the best thing they can do is cover the train lines (would cause huge disruptions to properly sink it you'd think; two years of half the city's rail lines being unable to get into the city would be too hard to do).

Put in parkland from the MCG to the tennis centre. gives you room to make more and more comfortable and larger outer courts. you need 3-4 KIA Arenas now. enables far more entries/exits because right now it's the biggest 'don't ask don't tell' safety issue since Subiaco Oval.

Continue to cover the rail lines with parkland all the way to AAMI Park and the inevitable Gosch's Paddock stadium, with a major Richmond stadium that has gates at:

• Gosch's Paddock, Swan Street
• Gosch's Paddock, Punt Road
• Yarra Park between Punt Road Oval and the MCG
• AAMI Park/tennis centre
• Stewart Street

The more Richmond-focused gates would be easy, there's heaps of shit unused or constantly turned over businesses there. even that pub at the very end of Swan Street is ugly as **** and I love retaining ugly old buildings and pubs.

It would mostly be underground or I guess on-ground but fitting into the filled-in parkland so you'd have entries essentially coming out the ground, which is a great look and retains green spaces and doesn't just stink up the streetscape.

You could basically operate it like a King's Cross/St Pancras where it's basically a mega station but most people routinely just use the same 1-2 entrances.

I'd build a 60,000 seat stadium that is a bit more 'organic' feeling than the MCG. and I'd go with this concept for the G;

The new 'The Park' stadium to sit into its environment and have grass banks all the way up the concourses, so it doesn't make the whole area look like concrete. something like the adidas Arena in Paris.

In my fantasy, you'd be able to still build E-Gate and make it one of those 'designed to be cheap, not made cheap' stadiums. have it very industrial and that gets in the western sun. maybe something like the Baltimore Oriole's ballpark or the Portland Timbers' soccer ground.

There are 99 home games played by Melbourne teams.

You'd end up with something like:
45 games at the MCG
35 games at The Park
19 games at The Railyards

Railyards would be near an upgraded North Melbourne station, Doggies and North play 8 games a year there, Essendon play one (marketed as a 'community' game v GWS or Suns), two games split with Carlton and Richmond or Melbourne.

In summer, focus on The Railyards being a concert venue that fits in 40,000. most stadium acts play Marvel now, so it'd be similar numbers.

 

[DidakDelight]

Yeah, Docklands is starting to creak a bit — 25 years old this year and already halfway through its expected life. The facelift helped, but it’s still basically an enclosed bunker with a fixed roof. Glare, no airflow, no natural light. Functional, but soulless.

But rather than rushing to knock it down and build another mega-stadium, the AFL seems to be leaning into something else — a more boutique, heritage-based approach. Gather Round proved the appetite for it. Even Hands Oval in Bunbury felt like an event. The NT games too. There’s something in the water — a generational thirst for more personality, less polish. Gen Z audiences aren’t just turning up for tradition — they want meaningful novelty.

You can see that reflected in what’s being floated. There’s an internal push at Carlton to host a heritage carnival-style match at Princes Park — not locked in, but being seriously worked through. The idea would involve marquees and activations across the surrounding parkland (think Flemington Nursery, but navy). It’s not just about who’s in the stands anymore — it’s about creating a full precinct experience. For some, the appeal isn’t even in getting through the gates — it’s in being part of the buzz around it. Watching from a pub next door, surrounded by fans, can feel just as real.

St Kilda’s looking at doing the same at Moorabbin, with feasibility studies showing a comfortable 25,000 retrofitted capacity. Whitten Oval’s redevelopment is quietly lining up similar ambitions. And Victoria Park — complicated, yes — is no longer off the table. The idea of one-off heritage fixtures keeps coming up, and not just from fans.


It’s not about replacing Docklands. It’s about adding contrast to the fixture. These sorts of matches provide texture and theatre. Maybe the future isn’t a single new super-stadium, but spreading the magic — selectively — to places that already mean something.


It’s not always about cramming the biggest crowd in. It’s about creating a moment — one game, one club, one ground — and letting the ripple effect carry out across the pubs, the parks, the people.

 

[peetoo]

Yeah, Docklands is starting to creak a bit — 25 years old this year and already halfway through its expected life. The facelift helped, but it’s still basically an enclosed bunker with a fixed roof. Glare, no airflow, no natural light. Functional, but soulless.

But rather than rushing to knock it down and build another mega-stadium, the AFL seems to be leaning into something else — a more boutique, heritage-based approach. Gather Round proved the appetite for it. Even Hands Oval in Bunbury felt like an event. The NT games too. There’s something in the water — a generational thirst for more personality, less polish. Gen Z audiences aren’t just turning up for tradition — they want meaningful novelty.

You can see that reflected in what’s being floated. There’s an internal push at Carlton to host a heritage carnival-style match at Princes Park — not locked in, but being seriously worked through. The idea would involve marquees and activations across the surrounding parkland (think Flemington Nursery, but navy). It’s not just about who’s in the stands anymore — it’s about creating a full precinct experience. For some, the appeal isn’t even in getting through the gates — it’s in being part of the buzz around it. Watching from a pub next door, surrounded by fans, can feel just as real.

St Kilda’s looking at doing the same at Moorabbin, with feasibility studies showing a comfortable 25,000 retrofitted capacity. Whitten Oval’s redevelopment is quietly lining up similar ambitions. And Victoria Park — complicated, yes — is no longer off the table. The idea of one-off heritage fixtures keeps coming up, and not just from fans.


It’s not about replacing Docklands. It’s about adding contrast to the fixture. These sorts of matches provide texture and theatre. Maybe the future isn’t a single new super-stadium, but spreading the magic — selectively — to places that already mean something.


It’s not always about cramming the biggest crowd in. It’s about creating a moment — one game, one club, one ground — and letting the ripple effect carry out across the pubs, the parks, the people.

And yet, biggest demographic growth is east and south east melbourne

 

[craffles]

Yeah, Docklands is starting to creak a bit — 25 years old this year and already halfway through its expected life. The facelift helped, but it’s still basically an enclosed bunker with a fixed roof. Glare, no airflow, no natural light. Functional, but soulless.

But rather than rushing to knock it down and build another mega-stadium, the AFL seems to be leaning into something else — a more boutique, heritage-based approach. Gather Round proved the appetite for it. Even Hands Oval in Bunbury felt like an event. The NT games too. There’s something in the water — a generational thirst for more personality, less polish. Gen Z audiences aren’t just turning up for tradition — they want meaningful novelty.

You can see that reflected in what’s being floated. There’s an internal push at Carlton to host a heritage carnival-style match at Princes Park — not locked in, but being seriously worked through. The idea would involve marquees and activations across the surrounding parkland (think Flemington Nursery, but navy). It’s not just about who’s in the stands anymore — it’s about creating a full precinct experience. For some, the appeal isn’t even in getting through the gates — it’s in being part of the buzz around it. Watching from a pub next door, surrounded by fans, can feel just as real.

St Kilda’s looking at doing the same at Moorabbin, with feasibility studies showing a comfortable 25,000 retrofitted capacity. Whitten Oval’s redevelopment is quietly lining up similar ambitions. And Victoria Park — complicated, yes — is no longer off the table. The idea of one-off heritage fixtures keeps coming up, and not just from fans.


It’s not about replacing Docklands. It’s about adding contrast to the fixture. These sorts of matches provide texture and theatre. Maybe the future isn’t a single new super-stadium, but spreading the magic — selectively — to places that already mean something.


It’s not always about cramming the biggest crowd in. It’s about creating a moment — one game, one club, one ground — and letting the ripple effect carry out across the pubs, the parks, the people.

They will absolutely not move away from a model that maximises crowd numbers and $ revenue .

 

[DidakDelight]

They will absolutely not move away from a model that maximises crowd numbers and $ revenue .

You’re 100% on the money (no pun intended)
They absolutely won’t abandon a revenue-maximising model — and they don’t have to.

It isn’t about replacing big stadiums or giving up blockbuster crowd numbers. It’s about adding contrast within the fixture — a couple of carefully selected games each year that offer something different. That difference is exactly what gives them scarcity value.


Picture this: a retrofitted 20,000-capacity boutique venue like Moorabbin Victoria Park, Princes Park or even Port Melbourne (which North Melbourne has quietly looked at boosting). Add a $175 average ticket price — not for every week, just once a year — Heritage round match, with corporate marquees, a Flemington-style “Nursery” zone across the parkland, premium merch drops, sponsor tie-ins, food precincts. You’re looking at $4–5 million in revenue off a single game — and that’s before you count the broadcast uplift from a storyline that practically writes itself.

And this isn’t pie-in-the-sky. The AFL is watching Spring Racing closely — where general admission to a major day can be $90–$100 just to be near it. People pay that without even a seat. It’s about the ambience, the FOMO, the “I was there” factor.

The WA experiment at Hands Oval showed the appetite is national — not just Victorian. Fans want flavour. They want personality. They want venues that say something. Younger fans chase content and moments. Older ones chase memory and meaning. And the AFL? They chase high-margin, high-impact programming that doesn’t require building another billion-dollar venue.

So maybe the real question isn’t will they do it — it’s:

• How many of these fixtures will they trial before it becomes locked in policy?
• Which club will be brave enough to go first and set the benchmark?
• And how many people will be left stuck outside, vowing not to miss it next year?

 

[peetoo]

They will absolutely not move away from a model that maximises crowd numbers and $ revenue .


You’re 100% on the money (no pun intended)
They absolutely won’t abandon a revenue-maximising model — and they don’t have to.

It isn’t about replacing big stadiums or giving up blockbuster crowd numbers. It’s about adding contrast within the fixture — a couple of carefully selected games each year that offer something different. That difference is exactly what gives them scarcity value.


Picture this: a retrofitted 20,000-capacity boutique venue like Moorabbin Victoria Park, Princes Park or even Port Melbourne (which North Melbourne has quietly looked at boosting). Add a $175 average ticket price — not for every week, just once a year — Heritage round match, with corporate marquees, a Flemington-style “Nursery” zone across the parkland, premium merch drops, sponsor tie-ins, food precincts. You’re looking at $4–5 million in revenue off a single game — and that’s before you count the broadcast uplift from a storyline that practically writes itself.

And this isn’t pie-in-the-sky. The AFL is watching Spring Racing closely — where general admission to a major day can be $90–$100 just to be near it. People pay that without even a seat. It’s about the ambience, the FOMO, the “I was there” factor.

The WA experiment at Hands Oval showed the appetite is national — not just Victorian. Fans want flavour. They want personality. They want venues that say something. Younger fans chase content and moments. Older ones chase memory and meaning. And the AFL? They chase high-margin, high-impact programming that doesn’t require building another billion-dollar venue.

So maybe the real question isn’t will they do it — it’s:

• How many of these fixtures will they trial before it becomes locked in policy?
• Which club will be brave enough to go first and set the benchmark?
• And how many people will be left stuck outside, vowing not to miss it next year?

AFLW and state women’s leagues provide for those points of difference

Just need to bed them down with some continuity. The games not the women. Oops

 

[DidakDelight]

AFLW and state women’s leagues provide for those points of difference

Just need to bed them down with some continuity. The games not the women. Oops

Absolutely — the AFLW and state leagues have already laid the groundwork. The vibe, the intimacy, the sense of community — it’s all there. And yes, continuity is the missing piece to truly embed these events into the culture long-term.


But let’s be real — the AFL’s not just observing anymore. They’re already moving. The success of AFLW at heritage venues has shown the model works. Now the next phase is scaling that into the men’s fixture — selectively, strategically, and with maximum impact. (($$$$$$))


We’re not talking weekly programming. We’re talking once-a-year, premium matches with full precinct activations, heritage storytelling, sponsor alignment, and serious commercial upside. The conversations are happening now — Port Melbourne, Princes Park, Victoria Park, Moorabbin. Clubs are exploring. Broadcasters are watching. Sponsors are already circling. Preseason or regular - the appetite’s there.


And if the AFL announced one of those games tomorrow — senior men’s match at a retro ground, $175 tickets (not every week — just one), limited-edition merch, live music, food trucks, nursery zone — it would sell out in hours. It’s not theory anymore. It’s a working draft of a new kind of event.


And here’s the kicker — this doesn’t just coexist with the AFLW model. It strengthens it. It validates it. Because what was once seen as niche is now the blueprint for scarcity-based, high-experience footy. The AFLW didn’t just inspire the shift — it proved it was viable.

 

[Teen Wolf]

If we're being "real": There are AFL games at Norwood, Bunbury and the NT because governments are paying lots of money for that to happen.

No government is paying a million bucks to move a game 10 mins up the road to a suburban VFL venue. And even if that did happen (though, I repeat: it never will), it's still not relevant to this thread.

 

[DidakDelight]

Correct — those interstate games exist because governments are paying. That’s how the AFL offsets risk while building narrative. It’s a funding model, not a philosophy.

But closer to home, the next stadium isn’t coming. The AFL has already stated it doesn’t want anything bigger than 30,000 — and feasibility work has shown even that size doesn’t stack up economically. Not in a city already anchored by the MCG and Marvel. That’s not speculation; it’s documented in planning briefs, and quietly acknowledged in AFL strategy circles. There’ll be no new boutique concrete bowl. Not now. Probably not for two decades.

And the AFL has seen the cycle — the sugar rush of a new stadium wears off fast. Then you’re left managing debt, battling scheduling clashes, and competing with your own venues. The smarter long-term move is experience layering: building scarcity, identity, and narrative into fixtures, not infrastructure.

Club AGMs have already hinted at this shift. AFL Commission briefings — selectively leaked through soft disclosures — have floated heritage match pilots. These aren’t wild fan dreams. They’re real options on the table: Victoria Park, Princes Park, Port Melbourne, Moorabbin. Not every week. But just enough to sell out, cut through, and generate revenue that big venues can’t replicate in vibe or story.

So no, no one’s asking for a million dollars to move a game ten minutes up the road. Because when the moment is built right, the crowd pays you.

Yes, there are always “mic-drop” posters here who treat every deviation from the existing model as fantasy. But while they’re busy declaring what will never happen, they’re missing what’s already starting to.

And that’s the important bit — this thread is about the future of AFL stadium infrastructure. And like it or not, the AFL’s strategy already reflects a post-stadium-build era. They don’t want a third mega-ground. They want flexibility. Texture. Storytelling. They want games that feel like events. And if you’re paying attention — in club disclosures, in fixture experimentation, in soft-leaked strategy briefings — you can see that future being written in plain sight.