Opinion Why do Footy Based cities have to share grounds?

[Daniel Flynn]

I had this thought yesterday that for some reason QLD (which isn't a AFL state) has two grounds- one for each club and NSW Had three up until recently and and only severed ties with one of them because they didn't like the ground. But in the states where you would think they would have one for each club you have SA with one, WA with one and Vic which has ten clubs but only two fields.

Leave what you think below

 

[Andre]

Because stadiums cost a s**t load of money. Unless you are the NFL where TV rights and the like dwarf what's available here or MLB where the number of games a year can justify it, then it's not economical. Hell we have enough issues keeping Alberton from being a OH&S issue, let alone having an AFL standard stadium for 50k with only us based at.
Those various NSW ones were left over from the Olympics or multi-sport, calling them stand alone is a bit disingenuous. GWS can get away with their stadium for now with their small crowds, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them shift if/when they ever grow the supporter base.

Plus these days people don't want to travel to the suburbs for footy. They want to be able to easily turn it into a day where they can get something (decent) to eat pre or post game. Or if younger hit the pubs/clubs after, without a big drive. And no city council is going to have two or more stadiums for the same code, for two teams in the same CBD taking space.

I wouldn't classify QLD as two in the same area though. Gold Coast would be like having a team at Victor (if not further), playing in Adelaide.

 

[Daniel Flynn]

Because stadiums cost a s**t load of money. Unless you are the NFL where TV rights and the like dwarf what's available here or MLB where the number of games a year can justify it, then it's not economical. Hell we have enough issues keeping Alberton from being a OH&S issue, let alone having an AFL standard stadium for 50k with only us based at.
Those various NSW ones were left over from the Olympics or multi-sport, calling them stand alone is a bit disingenuous. GWS can get away with their stadium for now with their small crowds, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them shift if/when they ever grow the supporter base.

Plus these days people don't want to travel to the suburbs for footy. They want to be able to easily turn it into a day where they can get something (decent) to eat pre or post game. Or if younger hit the pubs/clubs after, without a big drive. And no city council is going to have two or more stadiums for the same code, for two teams in the same CBD taking space.

I wouldn't classify QLD as two in the same area though. Gold Coast would be like having a team at Victor (if not further), playing in Adelaide.

Plenty of good points but Melbourne only having 2 stadiums for 10 teams, shouldn't their be at least more?

 

[Andre]

Plenty of good points but Melbourne only having 2 stadiums for 10 teams, shouldn't their be at least more?

When you take into account Melbourne's games in the NT, Geelongs at Geelong, Hawks and North in Tassie, it'd be the equivalent of 2 stadiums for around 8.5 teams. Each can easily take 2 or 3 games a round over the Friday night, Saturday and Sunday, so no need for more. Stadium owners want a good return, even government ones and more games in less stadiums will bring in more then the same number in more stadiums, unless you can somehow charge near double the price for being able to offer the same experience. I don't know of many fans who'd put up with that.

 

[Daniel Flynn]

When you take into account Melbourne's games in the NT, Geelongs at Geelong, Hawks and North in Tassie, it'd be the equivalent of 2 stadiums for around 8.5 teams. Each can easily take 2 or 3 games a round over the Friday night, Saturday and Sunday, so no need for more. Stadium owners want a good return, even government ones and more games in less stadiums will bring in more then the same number in more stadiums, unless you can somehow charge near double the price for being able to offer the same experience. I don't know of many fans who'd put up with that.

When you take into account Melbourne's games in the NT, Geelongs at Geelong, Hawks and North in Tassie, it'd be the equivalent of 2 stadiums for around 8.5 teams. Each can easily take 2 or 3 games a round over the Friday night, Saturday and Sunday, so no need for more. Stadium owners want a good return, even government ones and more games in less stadiums will bring in more then the same number in more stadiums, unless you can somehow charge near double the price for being able to offer the same experience. I don't know of many fans who'd put up with that.

Yes true, true. But if they are going to keep playing up there do you think they should upgrade their stadium?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Yes true, true. But if they are going to keep playing up there do you think they should upgrade their stadium?

When you have a spare $250m let the NT government know you are ready to pay for the update.

Until about 2007 governments have stayed out of funding stadiums either new ones or major upgrades unless a major sporting event happened eg Olympics, Commonwealth Games Rugby World Cup etc. The rivers of gold from the mining boom opened up the feds to getting involved to buy votes, when there was no major international sporting event requiring an upgrade. The states also got involved and saw an advantage of sports tourism when they were running surpluses. But those days are over.