(L-R) Josh Fraser of Collingwood, Joel Selwood of Geelong, Travis Cloke of Collingwood, Harry Taylor of Carlton, Joel Corey of Geelong, Shannon Cox of Collingwood, Gary Ablett of Geeong & Martin Clarke of Collingwood in action during the AFL Round 03 match between the Geelong Cats and the Collingwood Magpies at the MCG. Slattery Images
The Melbourne Cricket Ground, the paddock that grew. It’s iconic of both Melbourne and Australia, from hosting the US Army in WWII, to setting baseball and rugby attendance records at various times.
The Ground famously hosted the first Olympics in the Southern Hemisphere.
It’s main bread and butter though is Australian Football and cricket.
But, who owns it? How does it operate?
Some recent comments, from people such as Ben Buckley, Cockerill and Lynch, have indicated that there’s still some degree of ignorance out there.
So …
The MCG is built on crown land. It belongs to the Victorian people (government).
Under the terms of the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act – 1933 – the government appointed MCG Trust is responsible for the management of the venue.
The MCG Trust has contracted the MCC to manage the MCG and the existing contract runs to 2042.
Under the terms, the MCC has the exclusive rights to manage the MCG.
The MCC is a private club, incorporated under the Melbourne Cricket Club Act of 1974, and boasts the biggest membership (by far) of any sporting club in Australia.
The club was founded in 1838 when the population of the Port Phillip District was around 2000.
Why is all this important?
Simply, that any government funds towards the stadium go to the MCC. Not the AFL. The AFL is a tenant. The AFL and the MCC have often had drawn out disputes and negotiations around their contract.
Recently, the AFL managed to negotiate an extra return for it’s matches (given that the AFL has well exceeded it’s attendance target at the ground). The MCC trade off was to seek to extend the MCC-AFL contract by another 5 years to 2037.
Why such long terms? The simple reason is economics.
The current ground configuration is made up of the $142 million Great Southern Stand, and the $434 million Northern/Olympic/Ponsford Stands. So where did the money come from?
Well, only $77 million from any level of Government (State). And that’s a story in itself. The rest is MCC funds and debt.
They carry well over $300 million in debt. And the only reason they can ‘afford’ to carry that debt is the more than 2.5 million attendees each year for AFL at the ‘G.
It is effectively the house that the AFL paid for, but the MCC built and the Victorian Government owns.
And that leads to the story about the VFL, some land at Waverley and successive state governments.
But that’s for another day.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (159)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (88)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (84)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (75)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (75)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Andrew Krakouer given four weeks leave from Collingwood
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (32)
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (32)
- AFL Tigers need to step up, says Cotchin
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (106)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (2)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (36)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
Tifosi said | December 4th 2009 @ 5:32am | Report comment
I think Pippinu already talked about this. We get it, the AFL made the MCG what it is today.
No need to bring it up Again and Again and Again………………..
Beast-A-Tron said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:08am | Report comment
From a risk management point of view, why would the MCC open their hands for a short-term cash bonus for supporting the World Cup, whilst at the same time shutting out the AFL (for 8-12 weeks?), their long-term bread winner? This is basic liquidity management: matching long term liabilities with long term assets. The WC may bring in loads of money, but once its gone… its gone! The extended contracts (until 2042) reflect the financial planning required.
You would think the MCC would be hopeful to have its cake and eat it too: host the WC final AND have AFL season games being played business as usual.
For the WC to come to the MCG, some sort of compromise needs to be made. I can’t see pure compensation as being sufficient (from MCC perspective), why would they give a leg up to soccer (to the detriment of the AFL; long term asset) which historically hasn’t been a contributor of funds and won’t likely change in the future? I’m curious to know, does the FFA expect the government to strike down commercial contracts?
So many unresolved questions.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Beast
All valid questions that are yet to be answered – one way or the other – some big compensation will be flying around paid by someone (most probably the taxpayer).
Jaredsbro said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
Well the relatively simple answer is that the MCG should not be fixed into a ‘marriage’ with the AFL unless these oppotunities for a FIFA WC are not really worthy of the effort. And because a FIFA WC is more than worth the effort, the MCG not being the stronghold of the AFL exactly (as MC says) should be entitled to host an event of such importance as the ground is at least legally part of the Victorian Governments assets, so unless the Vic Govt makes Soccer illegal in its jurisdiction they don’t have any rights on the grounds of protecting a long-faithful partner for the sake of a very profitable one night (or maybe month) stand…aren’t the birds and bees a fun topic
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Good to set the record straight.
Redb
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
MC
Good article – you’ve touched on some finer details that I wasn’t 100% sure on myself.
It’s important that these sorts of facts are presented because so much misinformation is floating around (both wittingly and unwittingly), and it’s good that the Roar exists to expose such misinformation.
Tom said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Fair enough.
My view would be that the MCG exists mostly to serve Melbourne’s biggest sporting events. In the past, thats included cricket, soccer, Olympics, Commonwealth Games and of course the AFL.
Certainly the AFL’s ongoing financial contribution is the single biggest reason that the MCG can be maintained at its current size, and redevelopments can be made to improve its condition.
But given the diversity of events that have been held there I would think its more accurate to say that its the house paid for by the sporting fans of Victoria.
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Tom -
yes and no – - and you touch on the very issue where all this has to go – - and that’s the view of the venue held by successive state govt’s and their desire to retain the MCG in it’s capacity/reputation and the desperate need to retain the AFL (VFL in back to 84/85 especially) as the major tenant and the venue for the Grand Final ( and thus providing the major value proposition for MCC membership).
re “But given the diversity of events that have been held there I would think its more accurate to say that its the house paid for by the sporting fans of Victoria.”
One soccer game every couple of years, 60-80,000….doesn’t stack up compared to annual AFL crowds of b/w 2.5 and 3 million. Even Boxing Day test match, at best with England out here, once every 4 years – they can do 250,000 or so…..a summer of cricket…..??
C’wealth games once…..things like that make only so great a contribution – - IF however, if the C’wealth games redevelopment had been paid more from the public purse – then your sentiment would be in greater part = true,
but, $77 mill out of a project cost of $434 million is chicken feed. Note that the Fed Govt was offering $90 million but with unprecedented strings attached over the industrial relations issues at the time. The Vic State govt said thanks but no thanks, and put up $77 million.
It’s astounding that that’s all that was forthcoming for the ‘G at the time…and a couple of years later the state govt is willing to provide anything from $270-320 million for the new Swan St stadium. 4 times the amount and no other contributors.
Part of this, is the conspiracy to tie the AFL to the MCG. No one is happier that the AFL and MCC have a 30 year contract than the State Govt.
Note the Vic Govt has committed $30 million to a new ‘refurbishment’ of the Great Southern Stand…..again though, that’s a stand that the Vic Govt has had stuff all to do with and it’s perhaps long overdue that they put something into their own asset!!!!
Anyway – I’ll go into that a bit later…..or in a follow up article.
Anthony said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Don’t forget that Waverley was built so the VFL could control its own schedule & provide ammenties for its clubs & supporters. Then John Cain threatened to pass legislation to force the Grand Final to be played at the MCG. So MCC members continue to have the best seats in the house & can turn up on Grand Final day – whilst competing club members go into a raffle!
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
exactly.
I want to run a stand alone article that shows this timeline and illustrates to the ignorant masses why the AFL vs MCG vs MCC vs State Govt is a less than happy marriage,
especially whilst John Cain is on the MCG trust.(he is still isnt’ he?)
Ziggy the God said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
The MCG is a glorified Cow Paddock.
Who can forget going there to watch World Cup qualifiers, where when a ball was passed along the turf, it bobbled up along the way. Where else does that happen at a major Stadium worth its salt?
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Z of G : it’s since been ‘flattened’ out,
in 2004 for the 2006 C’wealth games – they did major works to remove the old camber of the ground.
Along with the centre wicket area of cricket pitches being removed (and practice wicket area on the flank), with drop in pitches and indoor practice areas etc etc,
You’d find now that the surface is among the best in the world.
But true – for a while there, it really was just a glorified cow paddock – - looking at some footage of games back in the 80s especially, as it’s usage was increasing with night and day matches plus reserves – - it was getting severely chopped up.
Kurt said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Ziggy is quite correct. The MCG is a terrible stadium not worthy of hosting soccer matches and as such should be removed from any Australian WC bid immediately.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Yes – thank you for Ziggy for that point of clarification, and I support Kurt’s proposal.
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
and given that the MCG fails the FIFA “Football Stadiums Technical Recommendations and REquirements” document guidelines with respect to the “Maximal distance” (of spectators from the furthest corner of the soccer pitch),…..well, obviously, it’s not suitable,
Chapter 1, section 1.7 on multi purpose stadiums takes a shot at ‘Olympic’ style stadia that have a running track around the field, and shows an overlay of the ‘Optimal distance’ ring (90 metres from the centre of the pitch) and the Maximal distance ring (190 metres from the furthest corner post).
The Olympic Stadium in Munich for example fails the maximal test at each end, and re the optimal test, only a small number of seats along the sides fit the criteria. The comparison to the Giuseppe Meazza shows almost 100% of seats inside the maximal line and over 50% of seats inside the optimal line.
So – - clearly, given the Munich stadium was not used in Germany 2006, likewise, the MCG ought not be used were Australia to win the right to host. Allow Homebush to host the finals………actually, the suggestion recently was that, to share everything around, the MCG might host the opening ceremony/match, and the finals be shared around Bris, Syd and Perth/Adelaide??? So, could it be possible that the MCG only get’s used very early days, and then the AFL gets it back and the FIFA WC almost vacates Melbourne!!!
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
That would be a win win for all Australians.
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
The seat outside that distance ar what’s called “dead seats” and they dont count towards Capacity.
Robbos said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Ziggy, let’s not forget the MCG has been graced by world class football players, like Zindane & Messi. The ground has been touched by greatness, cowpaddock or not.
KB said | December 4th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Robbos and Ziggy,
what the “G” needs is a genuine rectangle reconfigurating component built in … That’s quite possible if we win the 2018 WC; then and only then, it would be a jewel as Redb claims, otherwise it remains a second rate stadium compared to what you see around the world…
Beast-A-Tron said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
What is your basis of comparison and through what criteria have you determined the MCG to be “second rate”?
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
ahh the ignorant.
Brett McKay said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Not quite sure how many cow paddocks seat 100K spectators though…
And MC, this is good artcile to clarify everything, but does it really matter who owns it and who doesn’t??
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Brett –
it does – very much so – but, that will come in a follow up article looking at the greater relationship around the old VFL, the MCC/MCG, and state govts over the MCG and VFL park.
It’s actually quite interesting, and significant as it delves into murky areas of govt intervention and legislation…….all things that MAY come into play if push comes to shove over FIFA WC in Australia (if it were to happen).
That’s the context.
btw – it does matter who owns it when a Michael Cockerill goes off saying the AFL recieved $77 mill from the fed govt for the MCG…….he was so wrong (on both counts)…….and for those more aware of the history……it’s a sick, sick joke to equate a pittance of public funding into the MCG with being effectively into the AFL. There’s hardly a hand in glove relationship.
ON this bit, I’ll provide a little more insight to the less than rosey relationship of footy with the cricket administration of the venue.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Brett
I guess the main objective of an article like this is to provide a truer perspective to claims made by Cockerill, who categorised the $77 million the Vic Govt made to a half bilion dollar upgrade of the MCG as a Federal grant to AFL!!
So to this day, people have this idea that Government pours stacks of money directly into the coffers of the AFL, when the reverse is actually true.
Brett McKay said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
MC, Pip, I’ve got no real problem with clarifying claims made by journos who should know better, that’s one of the things The Roar does well. My point was really that we know the MCC owns the G, and we know the AFL brings in the lion’s share of revenue to help pay for it. Anyway, I guess different people take different levels of interest in these topics, I really didn’t mean to come accross as a wet blanket.
I get to the MCG once every couple of years, and see it on telly all the time. What I do know is there’s not too many stadiums, certainly none I’ve been to, that top it….
Beast-A-Tron said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
It matters Brett because there are private interests in the MCG and we live in Australia not in the USSR! I wouldn’t be surprised if Rudd intervened – he’s a fan of government interference and collectivist solutions. Hopefully this charlatan is turfed out of office before he can do any more damage to the country.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
But he’s an AFL fan – I saw him clapping out of synch with the Lions club song!!!
Art Sapphire said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Beastatronic – You must be to the Right of Pinochet if you think comrade Rudd is a such a threat to our lovely market economy. Last time I checked I did not notice any gulags in this country to lock up the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Rudd is looking for the next ‘look at moi’ issue.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Comrade Rudd thinks that filtering the Internet is a good idea! There is no way you can get around this piss poor piece of policy, this attack on Liberty; who the f@#% does the Government think it is telling me what I can and cannot view in the privacy of my own home?!
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Be very interesting if he tried.
Art Sapphire said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Mind you redb, if Tony Abbott came to power he would reintroduce the Spanish Inquisition – Australian style.
1) The Earth is flat.
2) The Sun rotates around the Earth
3) Global warming is not real – it is just the big man being flatulent.
Pips going to vote for him
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
…and the Pope is infallible!!
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Everyone knows the Sun rotates around the MCG. Sheesh!
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
the old Sun News Pictorial rotated around the MCG,
Art Sapphire said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Can’t wait for the next instalment Michael -
“Swan Street Stadium – the House the Victory, Heart, Storm, and the Union team paid for”
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Art – ah, yes – but that remains to be seen. Btw – who is carrying the debt burden???
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Art
I don’t have a problem that the Vic government is building a modern stadium that four national clubs will use (although I still can’t believe that someone stuffed up the planning for it).
But MC’s regular contributions at least remind us that it’s a huge amount of money the taxpayer is spending, and how little the government has actually put into a major stadium like the MCG – I think it’s good for people to be reminded of that.
Also – the Vict governemnt contirbution to Swan st makes the Sydney showground proposal look miniscule in comparison.
KB said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Art,
you’re lucky they will never ever pay for that “White Elephant” being currently built up on the Gold Coast for that Grooky Ghost team GC17 … as a result the Bligh Gov is broke; the taxpayers footing the bill and she has been voted as the worst Qld premier in Qld for the past 20yrs… Her lies of a Com Games was a furphy as it’s bound for Auckland NZ… Maybe she could negotiate with the Dream World org to have it included as one of their attractions by extending the ghost train down to Carrara to see the Ghost team play ooohhhhooo aaarrr ooohhoo… scary stuff hey
In the meantime the Skilled Rectangle stadium is nearly paid off with football all year round like the bubble will be … Football all year round at the Bubble in Melbourne that is…
~~~~~~~
KB
Art Sapphire said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
KB – all that taxpayers money to redevelop a stadium for a single team that will play 11-12 games a year. All I can say is that they better get a few cricket matches happening during the summer. Also, I believe, that Carrara will be used as the WC venue. If we win the bid the AFL will be gifted a 40-45k stadium. When commonsense says that they should be redeveloping Skilled Stadium for the WC. But, you won’t hear me go on like a broken record complaining about it
Anyway, Victory will visiting the Gold Coast again at the end of January.
Might even turn up myself to see Skilled Stadium and add to the atmosphere. Looks like a nice ground.
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
I do believe Skilled Stadium isn’t capable of being expanded……foundations and all – - – commensense may not get a look in.
Alas, again – those pesky non-soccer oriented stadium folk building a regional Rugby venue rather than a ‘global’ soccer venue and not having any foresight for the potential benefits of a competing sport…………..sheesh!!!
Art Sapphire said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Michael – if we win the WC bid, I would not care less where we play the games. Sure it would be great if we did host them. But, unlike Mr Demetriou, I am not going to lose any sleep about whether we win the bid or not
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
well – it IS the job of messers Demetriou and Gallop to look out for their businesses,………the ‘shareholders’ in Gallop’s case and the ‘stakeholders’ in both cases would expect no less.
KB said | December 4th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
I think it will only be six games or so at the new Carrara, as I did read some time back that they will also be playing some of their home matches at the Gabba… That makes it an even poorer decision by Anna … now doubt she will pay big time at the polls…
As far as World Cup Football is concerned in Qld it will be Nth Qld and Brisbane … North Qld will get the new 45k stadium for 2018 for the Cowboys and the Fury… The Cowboys would go fairly close to filling it for home games against the Broncos… ROAR and FURY will benefit as well having a first class stadium to play out of for the derby…
In the mean time the CRSL ladies Auxiliary are doing a lamington drive to help out poor old Anna’s boo boo… How many can we put MC down for Art … any idea…?
~~~~~~~
KB
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
suck it up KB. The redeveloped Carrerra will bring many tourists to the Gold Coast, namely cold Victorians in June, July and August.
Big picture gotta see the big picture.
The bubble is a nice addition to our sporting precinct but make no mistake the MCG is the jewel in the crown and left to the real football in this part of the world.
Redb
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Perhaps the AFL has not been a great enough bread winner if a non for profit trust needs to carry debt of 300m and the State Government needed to chip in 77m or am I missing something…had the trust been paying dividends shouldn’t their have been a fair bit of money in the kitty?
If the AFL and Cricket combined plus other events is not enough to maintain a 90k stadium through a trust…..well ouch?
Not having a go (since my preferred sport can only support 10k stadiums) but if the MCG isn’t viable then how much of a problem child will Homebush be in 15 years when it starts to date.
For northerners that haven’t done the tour what about the pre history, who paid for it to be built initially?
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
AndyRoo
your point about Homebush is spot on – this is what people miss about stadium developments – but I’m unclear what the rest of your post was about, afterall, we’re talking about a 100,000 capacity stadium – there aren’t all that many of them in the world.
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
This article is about AFL paying for the Stadium….but it doesn’t seem to be enough by itself or their wouldn’t be a debt.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
AndyRoo
I sitll don’t get what you’re saying.
You want a modern 100,000 capacity stadium built without any debt whatsoever – are you for real??
Sure, if the government pays for it all – notionally there’s no debt (excpet in the largely invisible budget deficit of the feds and all state government).
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Wouldn’t their be money in the Kitty from 50 years of AFL football at the ground?
I thought that kind of debt was upgrades rather than building from scratch i.e. keeping it relevant.
Why the need for Government money at all?
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
It remains a government owned asset, and they have put bugger all money into it over a 170 year period – and was used for the Olympics and Commonwealth games, i.e. not only has aussie rules subsidised cricket for 150 years, it has subsidised the Olympics and Commonwealth games.
So your preferred model is that Government pay out the full billion dollars?
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
No
I am just disputing that the AFL pays for it.
It pays an amount but clearly that amount is not enough as everyone seems to be losing money from it.
Clearly even 3m people a year isn’t enough to justify a 90k stadium. …. which makes me thing Stadiums are not really a good long term investment.
The AFL isn’t subsidising anyone because the AFL’s tennancy isn’t enough by itself to keep the ground Profitable.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
A 30 year tenancy agreement suggests that the AFL does pay for it.
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I thought the Inititial 30 year deal in 1988 was the VFL taking advantage of the MCC not being able to afford the repairs.
I admit I don’t have the deal in front of me but considering the bargaining power of the VFL at the time (they had Waverly and $$$) I doubt it would have been a bad deal for the VFL.
I guess if the Vic Government hadn’t of played spoiler on Waverly park then we would really see if the AFL’s tennancy alone is enough for an 80k plus stadium to be viable.
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Great Southern STand was not an upgrade – it was a total knock down and a new stand from scratch.
In late 80s/early 90s dollars – about $142 million – - all funded by the MCC including borrowings.
It’s big business, but, effectively half a billion dollars of MCC funded rebuild over the last 20 years to 100% knockdown and rebuild the stadium……not many organisations have that sort of spare change just sitting around……..perhaps if they’d banked every cent since 50 years ago with compound interest…..??
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
who said the MCG isn’t viable??
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
No one MC
I was just asking questions too see if the AFL went it alone what the MCG would look like. Find out if Is 2.5m people a year enough for an 100k stadium for it to be a long term proposition without the need for Government top ups. Is the threat of the AFL building their own 100k stadium real? Is it a mutually beneficial agreement or would taking the Fifa cash have real reprucussions for the MCC?
If 2.5m is enough then it gives Homebush a target for viability. It’s become an interesting test case because world wide their is now a big push for more spectator comfort and English Football Clubs are likely to feel the pinch as they take all the debt on too themselves. Then you scal it and is it worth it for GCU say to build a 10 to 15 k stadium
In Perth their is some talk they would be better off staring from Scratch than upgrading Subuaco.
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
“I was just asking questions too see if the AFL went it alone what the MCG would look like. ”
And that gets back to the old VFL, and 200 acres of land out at Waverley and the plans for a 166,000 capacity venue that never was permitted to get beyond 75,000.
Because, the VFL DID go it alone and the State Govts from John Cain (who is still on the MCG Trust committee) onwards – conspired to thwart the VFL.
Do you want me to go into greater detail on this thread, or, do a stand alone article for tomorrow??
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Well I think your article would be sports related whereas the juicy part of the story, the one I would like to hear is the more political stuff. How can the interests of a few MCC members be more powerful than the extra 66k or such fans that would have been able too see the game at Waverley?
No wonder Christopher Skase left
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
actually – it’s the juice stuff that is the most interesting – - so, it’s ‘sports’ related only so far and it should satisfy your good self.
Art Sapphire said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Michael here is a suggestion for the piece.
“Example of Megalomania – VFL planned to build a 166k ground”
We should be thankful it never got built.
Nothing more depressing than sitting in a big empty stadium.
Demons fans know what I am talking about
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Hey, I go for North Melbourne – - – worst thing possible is a ‘home’ elimination final vs an interstate team…….no one has had time to save up holidays/money to make the trek and can’t really justify it for a first round final……come the prelim, it’s a bit different…..but, it hardly feels like a final with 24,000 (-ish) out at Waverley or at Docklands as we’ve had hosting the Eagles in ’93 and Port in 2005 I think it was.
Luke W said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
The house that AFL paid for, and the house FIFA will use for its 2018 WC final. Beautiful.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
As long as someone can come up with a very, very big compensation package!!
Although, it’s unlikely anything in Australia will be used for the 2018 WC.
Kurt said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Only somewhat related, but I was watching the NFL game at Thanksgiving and it was at the newish Detroit stadium. They did a piece on the old stadium built back in 1976 which at the time was I believe the biggest indoor arena in the world. It sold recently for just over $500,000. That’s right, an intact stadium with land for about the price of a modest single-fronted terrace in inner-western Melbourne, or a bed sit in Sydney! Now that says as much about the industrial wasteland that the Detroit area has become as it does about stadium depreciation, but it does shed an interesting light on the deal the AFL has in taking ownership of Docklands in 20 years or so. By that time the stadium will be about 30 years old (I think) and pretty much in need of complete rebuilding.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Kurt
good point – and as KB keeps saying, the AFL will have the option of taking ownership – and it’s obvious why it’s just an option – it might be so depreciated by that time that it might be cheaper for them to completely walk away from it, and let someone else demolish it.
but if it still possesses some value and a useful life – the AFL takes it over for nothing (having basically paid for it via its fixtures there over a 25 year period)
KB said | December 4th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
yes and the taker of the option contract ie the AFL paying the sum of $30m to the DA is not redeemable … it’s lost … I think you may find that Mirvac will claim the site and put up a new high rise redevelopment … Nice one Kurt…
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Entirely possible.
That’s one of the reasons a few of us AFL types are still dubious about how good a deal it was to sign in the first place…..but, then, the economic rationalists at the time probably envisaged 3 less Melb based clubs too!!
AndyRoo said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
That must be why their only paying $1
BigAl said | December 4th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
The AFL would never, never walk away from the Docklands Stadium !
– to paraphrase something that was once said about Melbourne . . . it’s a nice place for a stadium…
Sure it may need re-furbishment, but that is always going to be the case – Docklands is one of the gems in the crown of Melbourne’s claim to be the sporting capital…
BTW, I see Natan Rees has paid the price for double crossing the insidious A-F-L on that Showgrounds stadium finance deal.f
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
hopefully true – -
the stadium was hugely coveted by the Kennett Govt (initially as a rectangle venue – but, just not economic if not 100% govt funded) to stimulate the whole Docklands precicnt. And it worked.
Will that purpose have expired by 2025? Will it make way for “Southern Star Mark XVII”??
Seriously though – - it’d be perhaps the desire of the AFL for Australia to host the FIFA WC and get the Feds/State govt to fund a $125 million facelift of Docklands stadium in a few years time………seriously though – it is a good venue, but, the MCG has a food court with a KFC.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
I often say to my wife that when we retire – we should buy one of those apartments in walking distance of Doglands.
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Except that Etihad is mostly concrete with steel beams,etc. The roof might need an overhaul.
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
AFL to take over in 2025 (15 years away)
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
for the princely option take up cost of $30, thus, the direct investment $30,000,030.
But, what would be the indirect cost?
i.e. if the AFL had stuck with Waverley, but………that’s just hypothetical, and the cash from the land sale has continued to ‘give and give’.
I hope the AFL has purchased some land out near Rockbank or Drouin!!
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
There’s a big parcel of land in between Highpoint West and Maribyrnong High school, lots of local sport was played on it, and there used to be a practice trotting track round one of the grounds – in fact, I was assistant CEO of the triple F, (Footscray Football Foundation), our local street footy league in which 8 local kids participated, and we staged most of our games there (Mitchell St vs Rowe St was always a keenly contested affair, and even attracted the interest of a passing dog once)
I always imagined that it would be a wonderful spot for a footy stadium.