Melbourne needs a third footy stadium

People we cant forget what the afl done by closing waverley park.This was perfect 3rd stadium right in the middle of the south east.afl owned it..Cheap stadium to run.capacity of 77 000, hawthorn and st kilda were reaping huge benefits there and is an absoloute disaster that they were forced outt.Sure it needed some updating and perhaps a train line ,But lets not forget monash freeway and east link run straight throught it,Only 22 kilometres from city.Was a huge uproar when they abandoned it but now everyone seems to have forgotten what was ours and should still be there.Wake up people

Koops and Nathan I hear you about the stadiums in Perth, we are spolit on the East Coast for grounds in Melb, Sydney and SEQ. Perth GOV need to pull a finger out and realise that a 2 stadium policy (like Brisbane) is what Perth needs, a 65,000 Oval ground for footy which Cricket can use over summer and a rectangular stadium to seat about 35,000 for rugby/soccer/possibly league rather than the current arrangement with 3 run down stadiums.

No no I think FIFA's more arrogant than cash-strapped ;) in that it's obvious FIFA doesn't really care to intervene in their games fortunes in these mineral-heavy but relatively population-light parts of the world. Therefore I believe the govt should. But of course there are higher priorities to spend the money which unfortunatley this site isn't devoted to. I guess it's just my perception...not a Melburnian one of course, that RU and RL particularly have a very fragile niche down in Victoria and this for mine runs the risk of putting govt spending on Australian Football facilities as potentially setting one against the other. And if that were to happen, we know who will win! Soccer's not really so bad off down there...tho you hear much of the contrarian viewpoint on this site.

is it Geelong owning it? or the City of Greater Geelong who provide GeelongFC with a very nice deal. I'm pretty sure the City of GG own it. So, when GeelongFC and the AFL pump multi million amounts into it - they increase the value of the public asset and a trade off is their revenue generation capacity is improved and everyone is happy. The comparison to the MCG and Docklands sadly sees high overheads because of a lack of Govt investment. The MCC carries huge debt burdens. The AFL is contracted there for 45 years, pays an annual multi million dollar 'fee' plus the MCC charges a premium and effectively the AFL provides the revenue for the MCC to service the debt. The asset belongs to the people and the State Govt's look good because I think a lot of the public actually believe the MCG to be a publicly funded asset. Alas, even in the 1956 Olympic Games era, the venue was mostly MCC funded. And since the '80s as the ground has transformed more into a Football Ground than a cricket ground, it's mostly footy funded. Docklands of course, is expensive because private investors need to get a return over the 25 years before the AFL assume lock, stock ownership. Again, there's profits/interest to be considered. And the AFL provides the revenue. That's why it's so expensive. Geelong is an example of how good it can be. MCG and Docklands how bad. And the sooner 2025 comes for the AFL the better - they can then bargain down the MCG and the GOvt might be forced to help pay out MCC debt (won't be much by then). Of course, this discussion dates back to the State Govt screwing the then VFL over plans to extend VFL park and move the VFL finals out there. That would've killed the MCG/MCC. And that's why we still have the madness today of cricket club members getting priority premium access to the AFL Grand Final each year.......lunacy. But, that's self interested Govt for you!!!

funding for TIO Stadium (Darwin), Traeger Park (alice Springs), Cazalys Stadium (Cairns), manuka (Canberra) has already been allocated and completed in most part. 10 million each has already been spent for Carrara and the Sydney Showgrounds. These were part of the 104 million dollar infrastructure allocation in 2007. The AFL has recently committed to some funding for the Adelaide Oval upgrade although this wasnt specified, and that means the new WA oval would likely come in for funding as well. This may well be what is driving the AFLs request for the return of the WA/SA licenses from the state bodies. None of these stadiums are in Melbourne, and none of them alleviate the problems that clubs have in getting people excited about seeing non victorian clubs play in Melbourne.

Its not the Can. Its the Will. Sigh. Bloody Carpenter couldn't have lasted one more year?

What i find amazing is the ability of the Roman Empire to bulild a stadium in AD 70, that fitted in 70,000 people, and they named it the Coloseum, yet 1, 940 years later, the WA Government cannot do it.

could be worse, Im in Neverland (Adelaide)

Oz Geelong own skilled stadium, they are not paying rent to anyone and all the money that the stadium generates the club retains. Pretty sure that Geelong is the only club in the AFL that own their home ground.

Totally agreed. But i can say sadly, i dont believe this will happen for a while. The AFL is more worried about the new teams at moment and developing them. This may never happen, with the afl trying the prop up a 2nd and maybe even 3rd tier competitions, this means less teams in melbourne and more teams across australia and the pacific eventually. Also the AFL is most liking going to develop Cazaly's Stadium and Manuka Oval, and Patersons Stadium, and possibly, TIO Stadium and AAMI stadium. May not need a 3rd major stadium in Melbourne

the impression I got on that was the proposal was a 'threat' to leverage better deals at Etihad and the 'G. The AFL seemingly weren't overly interested, and when the FFA mentioned it during their WC bid, it seemed as though it was a dead horse already.

alas Mark, economy of scale doesn't always work that way. The 2 most expensive stadia to play at for AFL clubs are the MCG and Docklands. Geelong can make more money at Skilled with 24,000 than they can at the 'G with 55,000. North have hosted the Swans at Etihad and lost $1000 (not much, but) compared to Geelong clearing $600,000 at Skilled for a 24,000 crowd. Where's the equity?? The main options outside of Princes Park have been the Showgrounds or the 'E-Gate' one that the FFA made resurface during their flawed WC bid. The main thing is, in 15 years, the AFL takes over Etihad, lock, stock etc.

Does anyone know what happened with the AFL looking into building a stadium of 25-30K size at E-Gate? It seemed at the time to be a pretty good location, well serviced by public transport and also close to the city.

Coming from SA, it's great to see another state having a stadium debate that, to quote Blur, "goes round and round and round". We're not alone!

I walked right into that one :)

Why should it be that "the whole point of sport being subsidised by governments is to protect minority interests". Why shouldn't the people of Victoria whose taxes pay the subsidies and the overwhelming majority of whom support Australian Football get some of their own money spent on the sport they follow the most. On your reasoning Tiddleywinks should be first in line for government funding followed closely by gumboot throwing. And how can you possibly call soccer and rugby union minority sports when we are constantly being told they are world wide juggernauts. Is FIFA so short of cash that it couldn't afford to contribute a single cent towards the cost of AAMI Park?

Collingwood has first dibs on that bit of land.

Switch of governments spannered it royally. No one wants to see it built in a safe electorate and the WAFC loves their cushy low-rent 99 year lease! Too many vested interests again in the great land of Wait Awhile.

I don't agree with all that you have written. Point 1. Right now the AFL does not own any of the venues in Australia. That is true, but it will not be true in 14 years. The stadium currently knows as Etihad stadium is going to become owned by the AFL on 2025. And even if it wasn't, the AFL does not have the resources to build it's very own stadium in the city, any suggestion that it could do so is quite delusionary. The fact that the AFL will soon own Etihad essentially ruins your second point as well, as they would be more generous to their tenants than the current owners. Point 3 is fair enough. There aren't any AFL stadiums outside the CBD area in Melbourne. In any direction. But I think that isn't a huge deal, to be honest, as both these stadiums are very easy to get to by public transport. Point 4. I do agree with this to an extent. But ultimately I think that abandoning Windy Hill, Princess park, Waverly etc has been instrumental in the growth of the game in Melbourne. You can get twice as many fans in for a Saints v Bombers game at Etihad than what would have fitted into either traditional home ground. I don't think the concept of rivalry in the AFL is related to a traditional home ground anyway. But the other relevant factor is that it is apparent that it seems that the AFL are keen on cutting down the number of low-drawing AFL games in Melbourne. In another year or two, it looks as if the Kangaroos' lower drawing games are going to be split between Bendigo and Tasmania, with their big matches against local Melbourne-based teams played at Etihad. With the lowest of the lower-drawing games to be played in Bendigo or Tasmania, I can't see any real need for a new 25,000 seat stadium in Melbourne at all.

I believe that's where Collingwood train. The last thing you would want to do is give them an enclosed brand new stadium to train at.