The ultimate World Cup stadium solution
Roar Guru By NUFCMVFC, 11 Dec 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Etihad Stadium, football, MCG, Melbourne, stadiums, Swan Street stadium, world cup bid
121 Have your say
Everyone has seen the articles coming out at the moment regarding the use of the MCG, and more particularly, Docklands Stadium as World Cup venues and the impact it will have on the AFL season.
So there is no need for me to recount this tale in this article.
On the one hand, the claim of the MCG being out of action for 16 weeks from AFL circles was cynical creativity at its best. On the other, there is some merit in allowing the AFL the use of Docklands to enable their season to continue to help ensure minimal disruption and greater harmony.
This brings our attention to why Docklands has had to be mooted in the first place.
Originally the new Swan Street Stadium was mooted as the second venue, but despite being “future proofed” with foundations to allow for 40,000-plus, the unique construction of the roof meant a price tag in the region of an estimated $150 million was required to upgrade it. This is not far off the $130 million that was required for the temporary MCG adjustment into rectangular configuration.
Melbourne loves its sport, it is the sporting capital of the country. Therefore, the Victorian and Melburnian public would not stand for losing World Cup games interstate or to other venues during the biggest sporting event on the planet.
Especially when you consider Melbourne’s pulic transport system and centrality of the CBD is better suited to a World Cup tournament (cue the pictures of Australians celebrating during the 2006 world cup all being of fans at Federation Square).
The Melbourne public will want to host the final. This stoush by sections of the Melbourne establishment, including figures like Barrassi holding a deflated football on the front cover of a major newspaper, undermines that.
The solution therefore, is in the fact that Swan Street is a Government funded stadium (unlike privately owned Docklands who don’t want World Cup games due to lack of profitability).
The State Government should be pressured by the Victorian sporting fraternity (AFL and football/soccer fans and personalities alike) to foot the bill of Swan Street redevelopment.
This can be justified as firstly it was their lack of foresight in allowing an expensively prohibitive roof in the first place, more importantly it is very much in the public (more World Cup games) and state interest (local unity for an iconic hosting of the Final). Federal Government money can be used in part but also towards any modifications to the MCG (for about 8 weeks of course).
There is a strong case that the money is in the public interest. Both the AFL community and the football community win. The AFL community can continue to have their competition played out of Etihad and can continue to have the season play during any World Cup (Baseball was allowed to continue during USA 1994, apparently).
The football fraternity wins because its rectangular stadium gets modified to the point where it is no longer a boutique stadium, but big enough for A-League blockbusters and Socceroos games. Docklands will no longer need to be used which will make local football fans very happy given their intense dislike for the venue.
Also, to use Eddie McGuire’s term, “AFL won’t be giving a free kick to their biggest rival”.
Rugby league and rugby union would be smart in supporting this as well. For the disruption of one season, they get a generational-long adjustment to a major piece of infrastructure suitable to their sport.
This will allow both State of Origin and Union internationals to be played out of a large enough rectangular world-class stadium without having to go through a stadium set to be owned by the AFL (Docklands).
Not to mention the more World Cup games that it will allow to be played in Melbourne, meaning more hosting and training venues built.
This in turn means development of rectangular facilities which can be used by their teams (Wallabies, NSW and QLD) as well as visiting football teams (Socceroos and overseas opponents during World Cup Qualifiers and Asian Cup Qualifiers amongst others like women’s and youth teams).
This way, the infrastructure built won’t become either “white elephants” or only temporary.
Everyone gains from this solution in some way.
All forces, including the fan bases as well as the sporting organisations, should unite and pressure the Victorian Government to spend what would normally be an unjustifiable amount of money on upgrading Swan Street, while ensuring unity behind a bid for the biggest sporting event on the planet.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, Etihad Stadium, football, MCG, Melbourne, stadiums, Swan Street stadium, world cup bid
December 11th 2009 @ 9:05am
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
The main hold up on Docklands vs Swan St bubbledome is the 25 year moratorium on a ‘competiting’ stadium being a new development vs an upgraded existing stadium.
This is an agreement b/w Docklands Stadium and STate Govt.
There is an understanding of a requirement for compensation.
Question then for the FFA to figure,
balance out attempting to force the AFL to vacate BOTH MCG and Docklands and work out the compensation bill there
vs attempting to get the State Govt to work out with Docklands, a suitable arrangement that – given that this moratorium was constructed back in the days of the NSL whilst the A-League was eon’s away and Frank Lowy was just a colourful shopping centre builder……….you’ve gotta think that the agreement was designed on protecting the AFL gravy train that Docklkands’ business model is built around.
You’d think.
SO – for a Frank Lowy, get people OTHER than the AFL compromising, and open the way for, as Grocon suggest – an easy upgrade to 40 odd thousand of Swan St – and Soccer walks away with it’s own tangible legacy.
What’s more important – - a roof over Homebush, or a dedicated 43K rectangle stadium in Melbourne??
December 11th 2009 @ 9:28am
Ziggy the God said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
As a Sydneysider, a reconfigured Homebush including roof.
December 11th 2009 @ 2:45pm
Nelson said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Michael C, the agreement regarding the competing stadium expires next year, if i recall correctly. Just checked wiki and it note the agreement runs til the end of 2009.
December 11th 2009 @ 9:38am
Punter said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I got this information personally from Ben Buckley, well at least it was addressed to me personally & many other world cup bid fans.
‘I wanted to write to let you know that our bid for the 2018-2022 FIFA World Cup is well and truly on track.
Recent media comments which suggest otherwise come off the back of a very successful week in Cape Town last week in which we had many valuable opportunities to promote the bid to the FIFA Executive Committee who have provided us with great feedback. We also launched a new book and film narrated by Nicole Kidman, which were very well received.
While it is not constructive to go into detail about the media comments from other sporting codes, I would just note that much of the commentary is inaccurate particularly around consulting with the other sports, briefing them on the options, and informing them of the work being undertaken by our infrastructure consortium. None of the options involve “shutting down” the season of another code or having a venue unavailable for the entire season.
We are fortunate to have the backing of all governments for our bid (which was reaffirmed by the Council of Australian Governments on Monday), we are on track with the timelines we need to meet, and we’ve received very encouraging feedback on our bid from around the world. Our next timeline is tomorrow (11 December) when we must submit a formal ‘Bidding Agreement’ . This is an undertaking that we will submit a technically compliant bid proposal in May 2010. The Bidding Agreement is not the formal bid proposal.
We will continue to work with all governments and all sporting codes to make sure we can put the best possible bid forward on behalf of Australia. Ultimately, all sports will benefit from a successful bid as many of our sporting facilities suit more than one sport.
Your support for the bid is appreciated. I would encourage you to invite your family and friends to join the bid at http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au so we can show FIFA and others the level of strong and passionate support for the world game in Australia.
Cheers’
Ben Buckley
December 11th 2009 @ 10:58am
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Notice how he puts things :
“None of the options involve “shutting down” the season of another code or having a venue unavailable for the entire season.”
ah, because, they only had an option that included 16 weeks out of action for the MCG…..that’s not the ‘entire’ season. Because,
It effectively is, but, technically isn’t. (although, mind you – it’s then got to be de-rectangularised afterward!!!)
The FFA doesn’t specifically have to say it – however,
worst case scenarios such as FIFA not permitting exemptions and we need the detail on training venues and we need the details on a lot of other things……worst case scenarios make it really so very hard for the other codes that it may just be too hard.
The FFA can’t be the judge of that. So, of course the FFA haven’t come in and said ‘you will shut down your season’,
the FFA must take responsiblity to ensure that that’s not even a considered option. Otherwise, the FFA fail. So, Buckley’s given you a nice little ‘nothing’ statement above, but, no explained how Demetriou believed that the AFL could have Etihad and now suddenly the FFA are claiming it.
The encouraging feedback from around the world is great……but, it’s the domestic side of things that’s important presently in trying to get a ‘bid book’ together by May. It might be time that Frank, Ben etc spend a bit more time worrying about the ‘cons’ for a while rather than getting too caught up in what they see as the ‘pros’.
One thing we haven’t heard at all – is that the FFA envisage the HAL running short in the season before, and starting late in the season after – - so as to allow the NRL to reschedule matches. Well, I haven’t seen/heard it. Have you seen anything like that offered up??
December 11th 2009 @ 11:11am
AndyRoo said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
i did think it was strange that none of the options had the AFL finishing in October which seemed the most logical to me.
December 11th 2009 @ 12:44pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Yep – until the public is given some evidence of the FFA, HAL and game of soccer taking a bit of a hit,…..then..it’s all a bit lopsided.
The Lops have it!!!!
December 11th 2009 @ 10:41am
keeper11 said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
While can’t say if thats a solution its ceretainly makes sense…
a 40000 seater multi-purpose rectangular stadium in self-professed sporting capital MEL..
Re..Etihad stadium….interesting the owners came out today with a belated ‘we support ‘ WC games at our ground…
Shows out the pathetic fear and loathing campaign and half-truths by AD for all its worth…
and …shows if the AFL acts as a bully now and threatens even though it is still ONLY a tenant of Etihad…
(yes ..it is the major tenant )
Imagine how it will behave once it has full ownership..
basically Football and i guess any other perceived ‘rival’ code of the AFL is not welcome and has no future in Etihad from then…
December 11th 2009 @ 10:52am
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
The less Football has to deal with money grubbing Collins and Etihad Stadium the better.
December 11th 2009 @ 10:52am
Redb said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
The funny thing is Ian Collins head of Etihad (former Carlton man and not to be trusted) is so out of touch with the requirements of the WC, He beleives it can all be worked out. All you have to do is play AFL games mid week and WC games on the weekend.
Collins and Demetriou dont see eye to eye, sauce for the goose. How do you have a dig? came out and say Ethiad is available.
He didn’t say exclusively to the World cup either.
Redb
December 11th 2009 @ 11:03am
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Etihad is, as he says, a venue for hire. However, as he says – it for the codes to sort it out, because,…he didn’t specifically say…but, it’s because the AFL has first crack during the season of around February to end first week of AFL finals (after which all finals in Melb go to the MCG).
So, Etihad is available…..should the AFL allow it,
should FIFA be happy to play along side the AFL??
and should Etihad as a business not lose, and the AFL is liable for a large chunk of their cash flow during AFL season – so, if the revenue poor return FIFA matches are played…..it’s only on the say so of the AFL and the AFL will need to be suitably compensated.
December 11th 2009 @ 11:07am
Mr said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Docklands, and by proxy Etihad, will be immortalised globally if it were to be a World Cup venue.
December 11th 2009 @ 11:10am
Redb said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I doubt it.
if know you Melbourne the sporting precinct that encapsulates the MCG and Swan St Stadium through to Fed Square will be the hot spot.
your just stirring anyway.
December 11th 2009 @ 11:29am
Mr said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
The 2bn people watching on TV won’t be walking around Melbourne. Think Allianz Arena, or Giants Stadium, or the Stade De France. These stadiums will never be forgotten because of the World Cup matches they have hosted.
December 11th 2009 @ 11:35am
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
What will be immortalised will be the new venue at Swan Street – Its already becoming a mini version of a great arena like the Allianz. Its just needs some steroids for the WC
December 11th 2009 @ 12:34pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Melbourne is already immortalised as an Olympic city, F1 city, Tennis Grand Slam city etc etc…….who cares if a few people overseas develop an appreciation of Docklands stadium……what’re they going to do, subscribe from Europe to send annual donations to the Ian Collins xmas party fund???
What was the name of that stadium in Giseltieseltuffledorf again?
People remember the sponsor,……..in 3 years time, people would remember the ‘Etihad’ name well ahead of “Victoria Harbour Stadium”. That’s why FIFA makes so much money on it.
December 11th 2009 @ 2:49pm
Nelson said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
FIFA require a ground to be available for their excusive use for 2 months – starting 1 month prior to the tournament. It’s bad enough that Melbourne Victory have to play on a pitch that’s torn up by AFL, there is no chance of FIFA allowing AFL to run on it’s match pitches.
December 11th 2009 @ 11:11am
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
The AFL will have Etihad to themselves in 2025. The only problem being that by then the venue will probably need a refit by then. The AFL will be inheriting a old tired venue. What Collo and the AFL would not mind then is a bit of money to upgrade the stadium. Oh, bugger that means no AFL in Melbourne for 8 weeks if that happens and they don’t expand the rectangle stadium. It’s a classic Catch – 22.
Didn’t someone say something about making beds and lying in them – Collo and Demetriou what lovely bedmates.
They deserve each other
Don’t go to Etihad, FFA. Get the Govt to expand the reactangle and leave the two lovebirds in their nest.
December 11th 2009 @ 12:49pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
One thing not to forget here –
back in October this was reported:
“The FFA is keen on a redeveloped 55,000-seat Adelaide Oval.
But the road block is tension between the venue’s tenants, the South Australian National Football League (SANFL) and the South Australian Cricket Association (SACA). ”
Now, Andy Demetriou has delievered this for the FFA/WC bid – - – (and potentially toe cutting the SANFL along the way),……the FFA needs to show something going back the other way……whether this ‘E-Gate’ option has any legs is another question ……presumably, the temporary nature of the expansion to 44K must avoid the Docklands competing stadium moratorium………but, it really does make you wonder what sort of ‘compensation’ criteria is promised to Docklands?? (might it be 2018 would be too expensive but 2022 might be possible?? – for a Bubbledome upgrade?).
December 11th 2009 @ 1:09pm
Chuq said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
The AFL/SANFL/SACA is getting govt money to build an oval stadium of which neither the FFA or AUFC will be a stakeholder or key tenant. Oh how generous.
The reason the FFA was “keen on a re-developed 55,000 seat Adelaide Oval” was because the SA Government were so backwards that it was the ONLY possible option of a venue in Adelaide (until a change of government comes about). The FFA were hardly going to publicly say “we’d prefer a new 45k rectangular venue which can be downsized to 30k after the WC and will be the home of Adelaide United, but we’ll take any old piece of shit with enough seats because we know FIFA will strike it off the list*, and it will be your own state governments incompetence” were they?
(*Bid requires 12 venues to be listed, but FIFA selects the 10 best venues)
To consider the AFL to be “giving the FFA a helping hand” in this regard is ridiculous – it’s the other way around.
December 11th 2009 @ 1:29pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
a change of govt want make a 43K plus rectangular venue any more economically viable in SA, true enough you speak of a subsequent downsize to 30K, however
but as a matter of spending priority, for large expense either of state funds, or for the state to access fed funds and thus save themselves some money – the priority for a real BIG spend is on either the reworking of AAMi or now the Adelaide Oval job – - which the AFL doesn’t have a stake in either, nor the SANFL,……..so, get over the bit about the FFA/AUFC – - it becomes a brilliant inner city venue of high quality that gives AUFC a pretty damn good option for growth at anyrate, as perhaps hosting a GF or hosting MVFC they might be able to nudge 30,000?? Adelaide will never have looked so good – and all year ’round too.
December 11th 2009 @ 1:23pm
Mr said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Michael, the FFA have been less than luke-warm on this option from the start. The SA Opposition plans for the multi-purpose city stadium is far superior and better value for money. What ever happens, Adelaide Oval won’t get up as a WC venue. That’s a pipe dream if there ever has been one.
December 11th 2009 @ 1:32pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
really, and yet the FFA was quoted by the press as pushing for the 55,000 Ade Oval rework??
Some ducks and drakes in there perhaps,
btw – with so few large cities, can you imagine a FIFA WC in a country as small as Australia (smaller than the state of CAlifornia) not using Adelaide…..shall we not use Perth either because the travel requirements are too great, and we’re already ignoring Tasmania……and yet people are claiming this to be all about Australia!!??!? Seems a Lowy/Sydney centric job. Fair enough – that’s the soccer strength of the country.
December 11th 2009 @ 1:41pm
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Michael – This is why the FFA need a guarantee from the Vic Govt that they will expand the Rectangle. I personally doubt that we will get the nod for 2018 and if we win the 2022 bid they can start work on expanding the stadium in 2020. Sorted.
December 11th 2009 @ 2:00pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
see my comment below to KB –
a novel idea should we be talking more like the 2022 bid – - Vic Govt buys out Docklands, hands it to the AFL a couple of years early thus avoiding the DOcklands private management holders compensation claim when the Bubbledome is expanded with Federal funds to 43K or 51K or whatever Frank Lowy’s descendants ask for.
*** remember, Docklands has a ‘protection’ of the 25 years private management timeframe from a competing stadium > 40K. Expires 2025.
December 11th 2009 @ 12:13pm
The Bear said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
I can practically hear the gnashing of teeth in the docklands district. Hoteliers and Restaruanteers slowly piercing AFL voodoo dollies with each passing day.
December 11th 2009 @ 12:46pm
Midfielder said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Not sure if this is correct so free free to correct anything I may say wrong… But RU have no issues, RL has a SoO issue which in the grand scheme of things can be worked out with 12 years notice..
The MCG issue is now dead… It is wanted for between 6 & 8 weeks, everyone seems happy with that… at worst althorugh not confirmed and may not apply is a 4 week layoff in host cities which in practical terms means close the AFL & NRL for 4 weeks… largely agreed to by both codes.
There are up to 14 stadium options of which two will miss out …. I agree with the AFL the Dome has always been theirs…
It simply comes down to how much the people of Melbourne want a second ground… If they want it bad they will extend the new Swan Street stadium if not Melbourne supplies the MCG only … the rest is up to the city planners… The compo for the four weeks layoff is an impressive new lot of stadiums… SA & WA where existing grounds are in need of updates anyway arguably get the best deal, RL use Homebush the most a massive improvenment.. plus other upgrades…
December 11th 2009 @ 1:01pm
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Excellent summation Mid – It makes absolute logistical and economic sense to have 2 venues in Sydney and Melbourne.
These 2 cities can cater and cope with the massive numbers of tourists who will be arriving for the tournament.
The Vic Government will become a joke if we only had one venue for the WC compared to the minimum of 3 that will be in NSW and the 2 to 3 that will be in Qld.
December 11th 2009 @ 1:49pm
Chris said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Two to three in Queensland?
I count Suncorp and…
Isn’t that one venue? Or are you seriously suggesting resurrecting the old ANZ Stadium (now known as QSAC)?
December 11th 2009 @ 1:15pm
Midfielder said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Art
NSW is quite happy to supply 5 grounds and with the ACT meaning 6 grounds, Qld 3 & maybe 4, WA 1, SA 1, thats 12 grounds and Vic is not included…
Melbourne will want at least 1 maybe 2 maybe 3 who knows … but if it is the MCG only then so be it…
December 11th 2009 @ 1:25pm
Mr said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
That’s the way I’m reading it also. Hopefully all the matches in Melbourne sell out the G.
December 11th 2009 @ 1:30pm
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Mid – I know what NSW are quite happy to do. But as a Victorian, and I am very much not alone here, I will be absolutely ropable if we only end up with the one venue. This is why heads are going to be knocked together to get this issue sorted.
December 11th 2009 @ 1:43pm
KB said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
The Bubble Stadium will have a refurbishment to take it up to 50k—definitely on the cards now, with Rugby, NRL, Melb Vic and Hearts, internationals and so on… By 2018 the whole Victorian football landscape will demand it…
December 11th 2009 @ 1:57pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
KB – the main limitation is the greater than 40,000 restriction re DOcklands agreement with Spring st (Vic Govt). If a competing stadium of such size is built prior to 2025 – then compensation would be due – not sur how much.
HOwever, if we’re talking the 2022 WC, then, you’re not talking many years compensation and for what?? one or two games of soccer a year?? Will Storm have out grown a 30K venue by then??
heck, the State Govt could perhaps buy out the last year or two of the stadium (Docklands)……expand the bubbledome, and hand Docklands to the AFL a couple of years early!!! That’d be an interesting win-win.
Otherwise, surely the FFA, State Govt and Docklands could agree that the FFA would still schedule x number of ‘big’ games (if they still exist in the HAL by then) at Docklands so no loss of business……..thus allowing the expansion to go ahead.
Just needs for the FFA to get a few other people together to work out a solution rather than relying on the AFL for everything!!!
December 11th 2009 @ 2:15pm
The Bear said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Oh yeah …relying on the AFL to be continually scare mongering and making Australian’s look like a disorganised rabble that couldn’t organise a bucks in a brothel. Yeah, lucky us.
December 11th 2009 @ 2:19pm
KB said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
OK then 40k it will be … I can live with that—still fits within FIFA’s requirements (only just)
December 11th 2009 @ 2:51pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
nah, gotta be 40K plus about 3,000 VIP slots,
likewise, semi’s are 60K plus VIPs etc etc.
December 11th 2009 @ 3:50pm
KB said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
40k is fine as stated … that includes “the 3k pacifically minded VIPs” seated on top of the roof…
December 11th 2009 @ 3:36pm
Midfielder said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
MC
I am quite relaxed about Melbourne only using the MCG … as has been said nuremous times it is OK..There seems to be an assumption Melbourne wants more than one ground but if that is not the case fine…
So as plain and simple as I can … it’s OK .. one more time … it’s OK if Melbourne only provide the MCG for between 6 & 8 weeks …
I hope you speak for all of the city and state not only yourself… but if only the MCG … then thanks for the MCG it all helps…
December 11th 2009 @ 3:55pm
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
Mid – you might be relaxed but there are countless Melburnians that are not. As I have said before if we only end up with one venue its going to get quite ugly here.
December 11th 2009 @ 4:18pm
KB said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Art,
I thought the cost of lifting the bubble roof has now been resolved? All it takes is four men using their angle grinders on the four corner pillar posts then jacking it up to build the 50k extension underneath, it’s a sinch…
We have a bunch of savvy home Queensland renovators up here… They are on there way down now as we speak… Oikee and I saw them leave this morning…
What’s the problem down there now, Pippi and MC mouthing off again…? I can’t see that there is anything to fear from these wuusy guys…
We in Queensland have been lifting old Queenslanders off the ground and successfully building new structures underneath for donks… And anyone who gets in the road gets a smack in the gob… Doesn’t need to get ugly at all…
December 11th 2009 @ 2:11pm
Brian said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Could Michael C or someone else please explain how or why the State govt apparently put not a cent into Etihad, its a privately owned and built stadium yet agreed to a 25 year moritorium on building another stadium.
So the state govt gets no say or profits yet can’t build another stadium? was that Kennet or Bracks?
I still think the AFL is being extremely abusive by refusing to give up both stadiums. In 2000 they moved their season for the SYDNEY Olympics so why not move for a bigger show. If the AFL refuse to budge I hope the other states pick up any potential slack in the unlikely event we get the WC.
e.g Final in revamped Sydney, semis in revamped Brisbane & Perth, opening game can be in Sydney (J’burg having both in 2010). Melbourne can have some games at rectangular Etihad and the MCG can miss out altogether. They can shut down their whole museum if they miss out on WC games
December 11th 2009 @ 2:41pm
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Brian – certainly – apologies the length:
The main state govt input was the land, so, I did stress the ‘construction’.
You need to go back to the Kennet years in the mid 90s. Victoria was pretty broke and Jeff was selling/consolidating just about any thing not nailed down (see QLD circa 2009!!!) – - – trains, water utilities, power utilities, rural shires….
He desperately wanted the ‘Docklands/Victoria Harbour’ precinct ‘urban renewal’ project to kick off to get a lot of new construction and investment etc.
The original plan was a rectangular stadium (Jeff also wanted to bid for the soccer world cup!!!). Alas – no go. NO investors.
They then worked at getting the AFL involved – because, as was said at the time – “And the fact is in this city you can’t build a stadium unless the AFL is there because it’s the only one with the horsepower to deliver the dollars.” (Jeff Browne, 1997).
He also indicated that getting investors to spend $435 million based on the ‘uncertain future popularity’ of Australian footy was a great challenge anyway……given the AFL would only negotiate on the privision that it eventually own it.
You need to recall that the AFL (old VFL) fully owned VFL park at Waverley – all the land, the stadium etc.
Deal done that AFL trade out (sell off) VFL park – - well, most of the land and decommission the stadium (now is the Hawthorn training facility). Noting the AFL faced about $30 mill bill at the time for maintenance. That $30 mill instead was invested in Docklands stadium.
The successful ‘bidder’ – the Docklands Stadium Consortium then had 25 years from 2000 to recoup it’s investment. The initial consortium was led by Baulderstone Hornibrook and included KPMG, Merrill Lynch, Channel7, News Ltd and Westpac.
You can understand why the bidders sought a ‘protection’ agreement against an opposition stadium……at that time, 1997ish, the old NSL was hardly on the radar. Perhaps they envisaged something pinching the odd Rugby match or concert or more concerned not to lose out on AFL……who knows what they foresaw or what level of compensation would be required.
The AFL initially committed to 30 games a year – at that point being tied to 45 per year at the MCG until 2032 to fund the Great Southern Grandstand (just recently pushed out to 2037).
At the time, with 30 games a year commitment, it was stated that another 8 ‘entertainment’ major events were required each year to meet financial expectations.
As it eventuated, the AFL shut down Carltons ground that back in ’97 was committed with 16 matches annually.
Now, Docklands has around 46 matches and 1.8 million AFL attendees, plus major events, plus MVFC, the odd NRL fixture, the odd Wallabies or Socceroos fixture and big concerts etc etc.
This is the other aspect people from around Australia may not realise – the MCG and Docklands are two of the worlds busiest and most economically sound major stadiums (especially that are, effectively privately funded……reminder that the MCG current G’stands full rebuild since 1990 cost $576 million with only $77 mill from state govt).
Not bad really : $435 million reported for Docklands and $576 million for the MCG, over a $1 billion in investment in these two venues……and only $77 million from state pockets.
As we know the major revenue stream is AFL football.
That’s why the relationship b/w these venues, their management and the AFL is a tad bit different to what people around the country might be used to.
The pretty unique combination that includes a competition averaging not much below 40,000 a H&A game with ground rationalisation that sees 9 Melb teams plus Geel makes 9.5, sharing these venues. In the US for example, how many home games do the San Fran’ 49′rs play at their stadium?
Wembley stadium quotes on it’s website around 1.5 million rugby/soccer fans attend each year……so….they do less business than Docklands and about half of what the MCG does for AFL.
btw – yeah, the AFL started early in 2000 for the Olympics and accessed the MCG late in 2006 for the C’wealth games. The AFL has relented in the past with Docklands when they double booked with HAL MVFC finals matches, and even AC/DC concerts. The AFL is actually generally pretty damn accomodating.
However, the notion of a mid season break of such magnitude is unprecedented…..but, again, the AFL have put some of their conditions forward to work around it.
In 2000, season started March 8 (normally end of March) and GF Sept 2 (normally last Sat in Sept),
in 2006, the season actually start as normal, end of March, however, the MCG was not available until the Anzac Day weekend when they got 91,234 people in the gates.
December 11th 2009 @ 3:17pm
Nelson said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Michael, the moratorium is on new stadia of over 30k seats, not 40k, and it expires at the end of this year.
December 11th 2009 @ 3:58pm
KB said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Gee that’s great news—so the Bubble can be increased to 50k if warranted…?
December 11th 2009 @ 4:39pm
Nelson said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
various articles claim 40k or 50k, so i’m not sure where the truth lies. though the first reference seems to have more credibility, although there isn’t a direct quote.
eg:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/super-stadium/story-e6frf7kx-1111115459237
Executive project manager Steve Richardson said it would be possible in the future to alter the stadium to hold 50,000 fans.
“It will be up there with any soccer stadium in the world,” he said.
and: http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/soccer/grounds-for-concern/2009/09/16/1252780357089.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Melbourne’s new Swan Street stadium has been ruled out of the running because of a design bungle. Built with a capacity of 32,000, the stadium was supposedly future-proofed so that the foundations could support an increase to 40,000 and make the facility FIFA-compliant.
December 11th 2009 @ 4:03pm
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Can you confirm this Nelson?
December 11th 2009 @ 4:35pm
Nelson said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
it’s on wiki (which i don’t trust 100%, see below for example) and i recall it being mentioned in articles regarding the size of the stadium before construction started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Rectangular_Stadium
As an aside, Docklands also becomes AFL property in 2020, according to wiki, which makes Ian Collins’ comments about being happy to host WC games somewhat strange.
http://www.etihadstadium.com.au/history
“the AFL entered into agreement to buy the future ownership of the stadium for $30 million at the expiry of a 25 year lease period.”
The stadium opened in 2000 (and cost $450million to build), so it should be AFL property from 2025…?
December 11th 2009 @ 6:24pm
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
You are right Nelson, which is the reason why the new rectangle stadium could not be opened until 2010.
I found this from the Age from January 2005
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/Docklands-deal-a-hitch-for-Olympic-Park/2005/01/29/1106850161779.html?from=moreStories
Docklands deal a hitch for Olympic Park
A protective agreement between Telstra Dome and the Victorian Government could jeopardise the proposed $80 million redevelopment of Olympic Park.
Rugby league and soccer are heavily lobbying the Bracks Government in Victoria to upgrade Olympic Park’s dilapidated facilities. The government is said to be keen to meet the demands for a rectangular stadium but a clause in its contract with Telstra Dome could jeopardise the works.
Telstra Dome was built with private money and those who backed the project were keen to ensure their investment was protected.
The Sunday Age understands the clause states that no ground with a capacity in excess of 20,000 can be built in Melbourne within 10 years of the opening of Telstra Dome, which was opened in 2000.
Telstra Dome chief executive Ian Collins confirmed the existence of a clause relating to the building of other grounds but did not go into detail.
Storm chief executive Brian Waldron said a 20,000-seat stadium would be a minimum requirement of any redevelopment and that he hoped the clause would not complicate plans to improve Olympic Park.
“We’ve had very fruitful discussions with the State Government,” Waldron said. “We’re committed to playing here and staying here. With the (A-League club) Melbourne Victory, there will be 25 to 30 games a year so the new stadium should be a no-brainer.
“A 20,000-seat stadium would be a minimum. We’re aware of the Telstra Dome clause but are hopeful that it won’t interfere with our plans.”
The Storm and the Victory are also pushing Olympic Park as a venue for concerts and other events, which could cause concerns for Telstra Dome’s management as it would put it in direct competition.
The failure of the Victorian Rugby Union to secure the Super 14 franchise has put the future of Olympic Park in doubt.
Victorian Sports Minister Justin Madden had pledged to build a $100 million stadium (of which about $65 million would be government money) if the VRU was successful. Waldron said about $80 million would be needed for a remodelled ground.
Madden’s spokesman said the government hoped to make a decision on the venue by March.
James MacSmith and Matthew Hall
The Age
December 12th 2009 @ 10:58am
Michael C said | December 12th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Nelson -
yeah, I’m confused a bit on this issue – - well informed people are certain in their minds it’s 25 years, I thought the moratorium was a 10 year period.
AFL assumes ownership after 25 years, that’s 2025, it opened in 2000.
All in all, it just seems astounding that it’s been completely discounted and that the FFA have sailed a course of greatest obstruction by aiming directly at the AFL and Etihad.
It’s very interesting. I rang SEN on Thursday arvo and queried this and Francis Leach was certain that it was 40,000 for 25 years.
So, he may be expecting a call back no Monday now!!!!
December 12th 2009 @ 11:01am
Michael C said | December 12th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
btw – back in May this year, Tim Pallas, the state govt minister for major events was stressing that the stadium could be expanded to 50,000 in the case of a World Cup bid,
that’s why it was so surprising that a bid came along and this was not to be the case,…..and one just sat there wondering what they heck about $300 million of tax payer funds had just been spent on,
a white pigmy hippo (i.e. not quite a white elephant!!!).
December 12th 2009 @ 11:10am
Michael C said | December 12th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
with exhaustive work with…..for….KB, we found that the whilst the AFL paid $30 million up front for the right to retain an option to take full ownership at the end of the 25 period, that KB wanted to know what the option exercising fee was……and we found finally that that was $30 flat, so, a total direct spend of $30,000,030.
I’ll go back to the threads I posted the data and links on and we perhaps ought do a stand alone article on the venue.
December 11th 2009 @ 3:54pm
KB said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Tell him about the falsified “Option Contract”….
December 11th 2009 @ 2:49pm
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
I have got the answer for you Brian – its called Corporate Welfare.
The owners wanted to maximise their returns and they did this is by suffocating competition through the help of the state. Kennett was in power when the deal was done and they were only too happy to bend over for their corporate mates.
Labour is just as bad at bending over as well, so don’t take that I am being biased
December 11th 2009 @ 7:53pm
matty1974 said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
As far as I’m aware one Melbourne journalist has said it will cost $150M to upgrade bubble dome. Truth is none of us really know exactly what the deal is. If the roof was not an issue, surely it would still cost at least $50-$80M to put in another 10,000 plus seats. So, I think that there is an economic term for this, it really will only cost an additional $70-100M to upgrade. This addtional cost would surely be covered by the economic impact of a couple of hundred thousand football fans and tourists setting up camp in Melbourne for a month?
December 11th 2009 @ 9:28pm
Midfielder said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
Brendan Schwab from the PFA has come out fighting too … he is well respected within the professional associations around the world … funny how it all could be backfiring…
From 442…
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/118591,fifa-will-embrace-oz-challenge.aspx?r=rss
‘FIFA Will Embrace Oz Challenge’
Jon Ritson
Dec 11 2009 13:37
EXCLUSIVE: FIFA’S World Cup decision-makers are well aware of Australia’s fiercely competitive sporting market and are more likely to embrace the World Cup challenge than be driven away by current code disputes, according to the PFA.
Both the AFL and the NRL have voiced loud concerns this week over the potential impact a World Cup would have on their respective codes.
This has led to fears that such squabbling could seriously damage Australia’s chances of earning either the 2018 or 2022 tournaments.
However PFA CEO Brendan Schwab is confident that FIFA will see Australia as too big an opportunity to ignore and that powerful ‘positives’ will holder greater sway than rival codes’ concerns.
“Australia is part of Asia and this country hosting the World Cup would allow FIFA and the game to make a massive footprint in this part of the world,” Schwab told au.fourfourtwo.com today.
“I think FIFA understand how important it is to have the World Cup in Asia and how big the potential market is.
“Football has the ability to bring people together like no other sport can. I think a World Cup for Australia would provide a wonderful sporting legacy.
“I think they are wrong to think that FIFA would be pushed away by the challenge, I think they would be emboldened by it. I don’t think it will drive a wedge.
“What they will look at is a Prime Minister backing this bid, letters of support from levels of government, football fans and of course proof of the financial commitment that backs up that support.
“FIFA’s executive committee understands just how competitive a sporting market this is and a World Cup would be a tremendous opportunity to further drive football forward.
“I travel around the world and people are well aware of the sporting set up here. They liken it to the United States of America.”
Schwab said a World Cup on these shores would be important in the near future and for Australians in the decades that would follow.
“We have a chance to host an event that would leave all the foreign visitors to enjoy the tournament and then head home saying to themselves that Australia is a football nation,” he said.
“We are also left with the infrastructure from the event which Australians will benefit from.”
The PFA boss reiterated that FIFA’s drive to spread the world game far and wide was a powerful factor in making a final decision on hosting rights
Schwab added: “FIFA is driven by its desire for the development of the game. These people are football missionaries.
“Asia is a market that has huge potential and Australia is a big part of that market. I firmly believe Australia will be a greater nation for hosting the World Cup.”
December 11th 2009 @ 9:54pm
Mr said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
The voice of common sense.
December 11th 2009 @ 9:31pm
Matt said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
I imagine the Rugby World Cup final would have topped it. We werent just qualifying then. Just a gues thoiugh as I didn’t watch either. I have to agree with Alex though. The Welsh at Millenium is like nothing we have in this country.