The controversial surface has quickly become a public affairs disaster for the league, which for the most part, has had its head in the sand on the issue.
The AFL takes full ownership of the venue in 2025, but why not bring that date forward?
Its time to utilise the ‘war chest’ of funds the AFL has at its disposal.
Stadium management has assured the AFL that a number of measures have been put in place this week to ensure the farce from last Friday night doesn’t occur again.
But this is just a band-aid fix for a much bigger problem.
If not tonight, then surely in the very near future the same issue will rear its ugly head.
The AFL is paying the ultimate price for rushing into the venue in the first place and in my mind it will never be able to recover until the surface has an entire year without any foot traffic.
That’s not going to happen with the current commercial arrangements and responsibility to corporate stakeholders, the irony of course is the venue is failing to look after its largest client.
If Etihad was given a year off, we could play more games at the MCG, or in Tasmania, or why not even pump some money into Princes Park to get the ground up to scratch for AFL games?
At the Peter Mac Cup breakfast this week everything was on the menu and club heavyweights from both Carlton and Collingwood were pulling no punches when it came to a variety of issues.
It seems the AFL is hungry to cap interchange rotations, but the coaches simply aren’t coming to the party.
Making matters worse, not for the first time this week, the AFL was accused of selective hearing.
‘I have a strong opinion and it’s a waste of time’ Mick Malthouse said.
The league though says it canvasses feedback from all the clubs on possible rule changes, as well as reviewing all medical data and evidence available.
But this all happens post season, which ultimately might not help Ben Cousins cause.
Richmond Coach Damien Hardwick admitted a cap on rotations would significantly influence the clubs decision on whether Cousins is given another contract.
How can the Tigers make a decision when they don’t know if the rule is going to change?
Its also interesting that the only coach not to object to capping interchange rotations has been Geelong’s Mark Thompson, this coming from the most successful coach of the past three years.
The Etihad surface meanwhile is a completely different playing field, as it seems now everyone agrees something needs to be done.
Its time for the AFL to take full ownership of the venue so they can take full responsibility for what happens on the ground.
Whether or not they would though is of course another story altogether.
Either way from the minute the first ball is bounced tonight the entire football world will be eagerly watching, and to say the AFL will be feeling slightly anxious is a serious understatement.
Unfortunately though, tonight’s match is as much about the surface as it is the football.
Footy Legend
Roar Rookie
This is a good idea, buying out Etihad Stadium, preventing use of it for a year and then getting the government to help pay to bring Princes Park up to 30-35,000 stadium with lights which would be extremely useful in the future. You could then make it the home ground for teams like North and the Bulldogs who draw fairly low crowds, especially against the non-Victorian teams.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
BomberFan - You're partly correct. Plans for AAMI stadium were originally for a 20,000-seat stadium to host Rugby, League and Football. However, MVFC said it was not willing to accept this low capacity stadium, which delayed construction of the venue and, after negotiation between MVFC and the State Government of Victoria, the capacity was eventually increased to just over 30,000. Storm and other potential tenants were happy with a 20k venue. Source: http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=279
Baz35
Guest
Bledisloe should be at the G....
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
BigAl, FieldTurf, as used in Seattle, avoids most of the problems of traditional Astroturf (which I agree should not ever have football of any sort played on it).
BigAl
Guest
Unfortunately there are quite a few disadvantages - carpet burn is one - also the fact thatthere is no give at all in it would create havoc for knees & ankles with all the twisting , turning and leaping in Aussie rules. It is more amenable to US football with most of the action just involving hard straight running, but even there the 'gloss' has gone off artificial turf somewhat and there is a retun to natural turf with added new hi-tech. such as 'roll in roll out' , and artificial lighting to stimulate growth etc - all of which I think has been mentioned here before.
BomberFan
Guest
Wasn't the original capacity of AAMI Park initially 21,000 before they realised it was too small? The government should have bit the bullet, built a 40,000+ seat stadium for soccer and rugby and be done with it. I like Eddie McGuire's suggestion; bulldose it and start again somewhere else. I like Etihad stadium for footy, it gives you a great view wherever you may be sitting, but the surface issues will never be rectified.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Michael C The 2010/11 A-League season is about to start and there are 45 Football matches scheduled for AAMI Park over the 6 month period (there were 46 AFL matches played at Docklands in 2009). As I said, Football fans don't want to go to Docklands Stadium and the players don't want to play there. All we need to do is convince the administrators not to schedule any Football matches there.
Brett McKay
Guest
this certainly reads like a beef, yeah, "[the Vic Govt] instead spent $267.5 million on the stadium that the Bledisloe and WC bid aren’t using………" No qualms about your AAMI Park justifications, though i will say that in a month it will have two more tenants, and another one again come next Feb. Even Docklands built up its tenants lists over time...
JamesP
Guest
I don't understand why they wont lay down the artificial turf. Its been going on in the States for years. Its Green, looks good, can be made as soft (and therefore as safe) as you like, and surely is more cost effective from a maintenance point of view. I think as Jeff Kennett has alluded to, it will happen eventually. Notwithstanding the fact that its fake of course, are there any disadvantages?
Michael C
Guest
Did I say I have a beef re the Bledisloe being played at Etihad?? I do though have a beef with the justification for AAMI park - - - it was supposed to cater to 3 codes and be world cup capable and to ensure the AFL wouldn't be kicked out. ANd thus far - - - AAMI park looks to be failing and thus far, and granted Storm have a peculiar set of issues this year - - but, thus far, AAMI park isn't really paying its way. Now - if the notion is why not the AFL buy out Docklands as per this article - - I'd suggest that the State Govt would do a heck of a lot more for the economy by freeing up Docklands for the AFL (and other codes that drop by to no longer have to pander to a corporate owner). And in doing so, it'd be a kind of recognition that the State Govt's over about 30 years have repeatedly screwed over the VFL and AFL re VFL park, MCG and Docklands/AAMI park.
Brett McKay
Guest
MC, I have to ask this of you. Forgetting the WC bid, what is your beef with the Bledisloe being played at Etihad rather than AAMI Park, really?? Surely, if tomorrow night's crowd is even just ten people more than the AP capacity, then that decision is justified??
Michael C
Guest
That's nice...... so - are you offended or not in the end?? you seem to wish to think that the AFL would say 'No',......and if they didn't, then, you'd say 'no' anyway!!!
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Michael C - If/when the AFL owns Etihad, I reckon most Football fans would tell Andy - very respectfully, of course (!!) - "thanks, but 'no thanks'". I'd much rather watch our Game played in front of fewer spectators at a packed AAMI Park, with its perfectly manicured rectangular pitch, than the "glorified carpark" at Docklands. Thankfully, we only go there 5 times this season and, with still 2+ weeks until MVFC's first Home Game, 70% of the maximum member reserved seats at AAMI Park have been purchased.
Michael C
Roar Guru
you might be surprised that the AFL if in full charge, would still probably allow big soccer and union and league matches. It's the double booking of soccer at AFL's expense that they didn't like. The AFL would probably LOVE to be landlord to the other codes at various times. The PR in that would be pure gold.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
If there is one issue where all football codes agree is that Docklands Stadium is the worst pitch in Australia. So, as an MVFC member, I would love the AFL to step in and take full equity ownership of Docklands Stadium. As sure as night follows day, Andy would say "NO" to MVFC matches being played at (t)his Stadium, ... a fantastic WIN-WIN outcome!
Michael C
Roar Guru
If anyone should buy out the stadium it should be the state govt who would then hand it over early to the AFL,.....oh, that's right, they instead spent $267.5 million on the stadium that the Bledisloe and WC bid aren't using......... ......oh well. Victoria, it's a kind of state of madness.
Redb
Roar Guru
Interesting article. I would have thought the AFL like any other stadium owner will still need to keep it utilised for other sports and entertainment to keep the asset economicially viable. Sure the AFL would have said no to the ACDC concert, but Etihad's issues aren't going to go away just by reducing traffic and spending more money on turf maintenance, which in itself demands the venue be utilised to the max to pay for turf upkeep. Bottom line: They need to fix the roof or find a suitable artificial surface. The AFL should not prematurely buy Etihad, let the current owners come up with a solution or risk less games at the venue.