A-League teams have a stadium crisis
Roar Rookie
By Football Person, 6 Dec 2009 Football Person is a Roar Rookie
Although calling it a crisis may be out there, there is little doubt that some grounds pose a problem for A-League teams. It may not and should not be a top priority for the FFA, but finding true homes for our teams must be somewhere on the to-do list.
There are several advantages that good football stadia gives a team, and ultimately a league. The first is the atmosphere created by a packed stadium of passionate fans.
This was highlighted by the recent matches at Etihad Stadium, including the Gold Coast match and Adelaide clash earlier this year.
The next point is viewer pleasure. I myself wonder what it would be like if the behind the goal seats at Suncorp could move in, closer to the pitch. There may also be a connection with Adelaide’s promising crowds and Hindmarsh’s configuration.
Lastly, the effect it has on the home team. We see this all over the world but not necessarily in Australia; home teams dominating. It must give the players a huge boost to walk out into all the sights and sounds of a true football arena. Although, there must also be a negative affect on players walking into an empty rugby league stadium to play football. There is little doubt in my mind that this is the reason behind the Suncorp curse.
Here are my views on the teams and there stadiums:
- Adelaide United – Excellent ground, perfect for them and capacity can be increased if need be.
- Brisbane Roar – Need to experiment with Ballymore or an upgraded Perry Park, or if possible a nice new ground.
- Central Coast Mariners – I quite like it, the only thing going against Blue Tongue is that the seats spell Bears.
- Gold Coast United – I don’t like it, not even with more people there, sorry Robina – just doesn’t look good to me.
- Melbourne Victory – Docklands (Etihad) is terrible, but Melbourne will soon have their very own piece of Europe.
- Newcastle United Jets – Energy Australia looks all right at night, but still too big and terrible colour scheme.
- North Queensland Fury – don’t like the stadium in general, but I do like the hills.
- Perth Glory – Personally, I love ME Bank Stadium, even if the behind goal stands are well back.
- Sydney FC – The only good thing about the SFS is the seat colours.
- Wellington Phoenix – I quite like Westpac, but there own fans may not agree.
So there are my opinions, and I am interested in reading yours.
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
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Is the ACL the FFA’s Achilles heel? (70)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- A-League needs to entertain more consistently (61)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (11)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Fabio Capello quits as England manager after Terry fallout (4)
- Kewell confident Victory can make charge
- FIFA decision a blow to Olyroos
- Why Manchester United are never really beaten (12)
- Die Lowen a chance for a Bundesliga rise? (2)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (11)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Why Manchester United are never really beaten (12)
- Die Lowen a chance for a Bundesliga rise? (2)
- Hey, Victory! Give them kids a go (9)
- The problem with Melbourne Victory’s ‘hole’ season (25)
- Time for a Sydney FC clean out (24)
M1tch said | December 6th 2009 @ 5:57am | Report comment
SFS and Skilled are 2 of the best grounds in the world, have no idea how you cant like them. Skilled especially, it looks bad at moment because GCU cant get more than 5000 people at their games.
Westpac is like ANZ, as its not a ground where league or soccer should be played, they need a rectangular ground.
Chris said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
I’m not sure why all of New Zealand’s main grounds (Eden Park, Jade Stadium, Westpac) are in Oval configuration when Rugby is a religion there. Why on earth is Wellington an Oval when they don’t even play cricket there more than once a year? (The present Cricket Test in Wellington is being played at the Basin Reserve).
tifosi said | December 6th 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
This is where the world cup bid comes in.
The legacy from a world cup must be Soccer Specific Stadiums.
One of the reasons Major League Soccer is still in existence is because clubs no longer play in NFL stadia and many use use their own venues, which they hire out for other events also.
New York red bulls latest stadium is the pinnacle of them currently in the US.
http://www.earthcam.com/clients/redbullarena/
Here in Australia no club in any code could afford to build their own stadium.
But If Australia were to get a world cup, the training venues required must be soccer specific.
I would like all clubs to play at a stadium like this
http://www.fussballtempel.net/afc/QAT/Al_Sadd.html
Its the stadium Qatar used to play Australia. Seats 15,000. Perfect for the smaller clubs.
Only a world cup would bring it to reality though.
Kurt said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
But how can stadia like this be developed as part of the WC bid if they’re not going to be big enough to host actual games? In addition to massive stadium upgrades the taxpayer is also supposed to provide soccer with a series of 15K capacity training grounds?
This article does really sum up the unrealistic attitude soccer supporters have in relation infrastructure in this country. Sydney has a good quality 40K ground but apparently only the seats are satisfactory. A purpose built stadium on the gold coast doesn’t ‘look good’. Docklands is too big, some of the other stadia have the wrong coloured seats, Townsville only has a nice backdrop, and poor Lang Park, one of the world’s great rectangular stadiums, isn’t good enough either apparently.
tifosi said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
FIFA are pretty adamant that any country that gets a world cup must leave a legacy for soccer.
The main stadiums cant be soccer specific ones as they would be white elephants, leaving the training venues as the obvious candidates for leaving a legacy.
And yes, taxpayers will foot the bill, why do you think the FFA want a world cup so badly? They wont be paying for them.
Is it unreasonable for such a request? Absolutely. Australia cant afford it.
Pippinu said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Building training venues that can eventually become 16,000 to 18,000 capacity grounds is not too bad an objective – expecially if you have a kitty of $3 billion to play around with!!
Pippinu said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:10am | Report comment
The article touches on a clearly observable pattern over the first 5 seasons: five or six of the clubs have pathetic home ground records.
But here is a contradiction: Adelaide, with just about the perfect ground, often filled 80 to 90% of capacity which generates a fantastic atmosphere – has just about the worst home record of all this season.
Ryan Steele said | December 7th 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
On top of this, Hindmarsh Stadium doesn’t actually have the ability to upgrade, contrary to somehow-popular belief.
It has been said, in the past, that if Hindmarsh could reach or near capacity on a regular basis throughout a season or two, the State Government (who lease the stadium) would “consider” an upgrade – which would be similar to the Sydney 2000 Olympics, where the corners were filled to reach a 20-22,000-ish capacity.
Would be an improvement in some ways, sure, but it wouldn’t make the stadium any better. Great place to watch football, in terms of seating arrangements, but the facilities just aren’t there.
AndyRoo said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
The world cup stadiums have to be 45k so there wont be a legacy for Football their.
I don’t think this is somthing football can hope for a fairy godmother to provide. It’s got to be a combination of either negotiating a good deal as the summer tenant for a Rugby League ground.
Their are different solutions to different problems.
One of the big ones is just get more people.
Bne roar could try and get a good deal on ballymore in the short term. Perry park which would be a great place for a 10k stadium owned by football and controlling all the revenue but I think the State Government has other plans for it.
Plan C is they could loosen the seating requirements and bring in the $10 sit wherever you want plan bar the best seats which are for memebers. coupled with a rebirth of operations under Ange next year and then a little bit of FTA exposure a year after that 25k too 30k for cheap as chips a summer code…. it’s not unrealistic in Brisbane and i think it’s where they were heading until major derailments off the pitch.
Would mean winning some games at home.
Alex said | December 6th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Without Melbourne playing at home the average crowds barely touch 9000 at best. Are you mad? Maybe we could slap up a few stand at the local stadia.
marinator 4LYF said | December 6th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
bluetongue stadium at gosford is an awesome ground, its just so cosy and your close to the action and they have pizza tht delivers to your seat!! also the seaview behind the goal is just the cherry on top, i believe the mariners have done so well because of their good stadium and the location of it, its so easy to get to their games even for me and i now live in western sydney but the travel to a mariners home game is basically the same as going to a sydney fc game
Chris said | December 6th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
“Energy Australia looks all right at night, but still too big and terrible colour scheme.”
Funny how it isn’t “too big” for the Knights. It’s a great colour scheme – Red and Blue (the colours of the real Newcastle team (the one which people actually turn up to watch).
macavity said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Yeah, what the?
our sporting colours are blue and red. Even Con’s Jets use them (albeit as minor colours to that baby spew hue he is so fond of…).
Lucky we didn’t use our civic colours (brown and green).
No 2 sports ground in Newcastle is being redeveloped into a 5,000 capacity rectangular ground. Sounds a perfect size for the Parklea Jets…. wonder if it is too late to get baby spew coloured seats?
Chris said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Macavity – with respect, your idea for the Jets to play at the number two ground is just silly. If their crowds keep trending the way they are a 5,000 capacity stadium will be far to big for the Jets.
Michael C said | December 7th 2009 @ 5:22am | Report comment
a league averaging sub 10K loses credibility in the stadium debate,
however, we all know that soccer domestically is only ANYTHING because of it’s global lineage, and hosting the FIFA WC to get a whole bunch of locally unwarranted venues is the only light you can see,…..
….I might suggest, instead of stadium welfare,
how about encourage messers Lowy and Palmer et al to put some money in of their own accord, because, if these venues are such a great idea, then, where are the private investors???
(I’m not anti soccer – - just anti Palmer and Lowy always expecting their private play thing to be bailed out by the public purse).
Tifosi said | December 7th 2009 @ 5:41am | Report comment
Michael C you will love this then :
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/afl-fuming-over-soccer-world-cup-demands/story-e6frf7jo-1225807505412
The FFA have just realised now Oval fields arent good enough. Even you knew that!!!
This world cup bid is getting more deluded by the minute.
Michael C said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
and yet, how many of the World Cup finals in the past 20 years have been held at venues with a running track around them??
but, yes – the FFA, if they are to fit within the optimal and maximal guide lines of FIFA, the MCG is no good.
at any rate – the media reporting today:
The AFL is believed to be willing to start the 2018 or 2022 footy season early, and move some games to other venues, but will not accept FIFA’s instruction to close down competition throughout the World Cup action.
Frustrated AFL chief Andrew Demetriou at the weekend spoke out about being kept in the dark over the World Cup bid.
“The AFL is still waiting for the FFA to tell us what would be required of our competition,” he said.
“We have seen the FFA quoted in a number of different media reports on what may occur, but it’s extremely disappointing we have still had no direct information.
“The AFL has a history of working with major events to accommodate them around our match fixturing, such as the recent (2006) Commonwealth Games and the 2000 Olympics.
Making the FFA and their ‘no worries’ look a little bit like amateur hour here.
Redb said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Tifosi,
This bid is starting to look like an oval peg that does not fit into a rectangular hole.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/world-cup-threat-for-afl-20091207-kdhh.html
In what is sure to fire up the hard liners of both sides, the news comes that apparently the MCG ground (bowl) has to be lowered.
No point beating around the bush now.
Redb
AndyRoo said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Ok it’s time the HAL takes a little bit of a hit too help out the World Cup bid. Where there is an oval ground not being used by cricket HAL clubs have to move and play their (Subiaco and Aami Stadium) and the grounds have to put up rope fencing so that the fans can sit on the grass.
We then try and claim that is how Australians expect to be able to watch football which is why we are building so many oval stadiums and the MCG is perfect for that purpose just the way it is.
Sepp my good mate Australians just wouldn’t stand for having to sit on a plastic seat so close to the action!
Michael C said | December 7th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Public opinion is starting to sway on this topic now,
and I do wonder,
listening to Barnably Joyce on the weekend, what he described around the Govts ETS was pretty welll a ‘no worries/sign on and trust us’ view such that it would be impossible to sign on.
I couldn’t help but think that that’s the same status of the FIFA WC bid by the FFA……the best chance for K.Rudd and Lowy is that the current landscape of state Labour Govt’s makes such a blinkered ‘sign on in good faith’ possible,
otherwise, I really wonder where this would all be.
btw – - we’ll be moving closer and closer to Govt having to legislate the AFL off the MCG – or, huge compensation that if the GOvt isn’t willing to pay, the AFL will seek from the MCC (with whom they have the contract until 2037 – - – and for the MCC, it’s NOT in their interest to back in the FIFA WC – - they won’t stand to benefit – nearly enough – from it, and they can’t afford to lose the AFL).
Killer_Tomatoes said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
The author has completely ignored the most important reason to have club owned grounds, and proper football home grounds. The main reason is simply because the A-League clubs in their current state do not get anywhere close to good enough stadium deals. Overall, our attendances may not be great, but, a recent article i read (can’t remember where sorry) listed all the respectable leagues in world football that we have a higher average attendance than, and included were some big and historical leagues like the Belgian Jupiler League, CSL (consider their population) and Argentinian second division. You could argue that Melbourne Victory keeps these clubs respectable, but the same can be said for clubs like Anderlecht in Belgium and in Scotland, Switzerland, Poland, etc., where a few big clubs keep the overall league average respectable, when there bottom end is actually lower than ours, with clubs like Hamilton averaging barely over 3,000. What keeps these clubs in better financial positions than many A-League clubs with similarly modest attendances is the same reason that despite pulling regular crowds of 25k+ for 3 years, MVFC still struggles to raise the money for Carlos Hernandez, very bad stadium deals, if the clubs were to own their stadiums then tis woudl not be a problem, but, like with the Foxtel deal signed by the FFA, long and often unfavourable deals were signed because we needed something as a starting point and due to football’s previous failings sold ourselves short. It’s unrealistic to assume that Australian football clubs will own their own stadiums, we’re not Arsenal’s and can’t afford that and stadiums can’t be built on the cheap anymore, but it’s not unreasonable to think that we could do a little bit better in our next stadium deal negotiations, considering most of these stadiums would go totally unused during summer if it were not for the A-League. For all the talk of New Football and it’s business savvy administrators, there has been very little sign of this expertise on stadium deals.
Michael C said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
and for that very reason, going ‘unused’ during summer – is why MVFC got such a GOOD stadium deal at Docklands,
because, any AFL club there averaging 22,000 would be losing $100,000 a week.
‘Good’ deals in this case are relative!!!
However, if we’d asked 3 years ago – would not folk at the FFA have assumed that by now that MVFC would almost be averaing 30K, and Roar and SFC would be around 20K. THat hasn’t happened. What has is probably near enough to their worst case attendance modelling which would leave stadium deals all looking pretty sick.
Killer_Tomatoes said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
If the FFA believed that the post WC06 peak would remain and continue to rise they’re again showing a lack of their supposed business nouse when all evidence in other new leagues in similar markets (MLS in America, J-League in Japan, etc.) shows that round the 5th year attendances start to settle at a low trough and that most clubs are unlikely to be profitable for between 10-15 years (same goes for league as a whole). Surely these supposedly top of the line sports admins could have done a little research? As for expecting Brisbane to have an average of 20k, well, their attendances were quite respectable until again the FFA stepped in and raised prices close to 100% in some sections of the ground and decided to give the club its first couple of home kick off times during local league fixtures so actual players of football in Brisbane could not attend – marketting genius.
Spanner said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
MC, If the AFL teams lose $100K a week at 22000 people what is the break even as I would guess that Dogs, Roos would average not much more than 30,000 at etihad. In bad years when the teams are no chance less.
Michael C said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
correct – it’s around the 30,000 mark.
The silly thing around stadium deals etc, the example of North Melb hosting the Swans with 28K at Docklands last year I think, and we lost $1000. Doesn’t seem much,…..losing a grand.
But, by comparison, Geelong can draw about 24,000 down at Kardinia Park, and clear $600,000.
Everything is relative!!!
For the Melb based AFL clubs like North and the Doggies, if they can hold out until 2025 when the AFL assumes full ownership – - then, they should be okay, so long as the roof is still functioning!!
AndyRoo said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
I first heard of the idea of team owned stadiums for the HAL earlier this year and originally scoffed. “If theya re losing money now how could they afford that”. But then all the revenues from stadium operations (the food & Drink, Poorage rights, signage, 100% of the gate) and the fact we are talking about small stadiums and not 30k jobs that require a huge upkeep. It’s actually a pretty decent idea. A team like GCU could be doing quite well if they owned a 10k stadium.