I am just old enough that I managed to catch a few AFL games at the old suburban grounds before they stopped hosting league games.
Many of us remember fondly places like Windy Hill, the Western Oval, Arden Street or Princes Park. My own favourite footy memory remains a game at Victoria Park in 1993, where a young North Melbourne side on the verge of a dominant era flogged the Pies by 83 points.
Twenty years of the league’s ground rationalisation policy means this is now a bygone era.
There are now just two places to watch footy in Melbourne – the MCG and at the Dockland (now on its third corporate-branded name, Etihad Stadium). These are fully seated, modern facilities which sit right next to major railway stations.
They are family-friendly, safe, comfortable and can usually accommodate all the people who want to turn up and see a game. While sometimes we all can get nostalgic for the suburban grounds of old, it is hard to argue that this policy hasn’t been a splendid success.
But now we hear reports that the AFL is considering resurrecting the idea of the old suburban ground. Of course, the league prefers the name “boutique” – in real estate parlance a byword for “small” – to describe this new venue in Melbourne seating 20,000 spectators.
Melbourne of course doesn’t need another AFL stadium. The MCG and Docklands can comfortably accommodate the existing Melbourne-based clubs. This is based on the scheduling of league matches since 2005, when the last suburban ground in Princes Park hosted its final game.
This proposal is certainly not created out of concern for the viewing public. Indeed, 26,000 people showed up to the North Melbourne versus Fremantle game in Round 22 last year – more than would fit in the proposed boutique stadium, which is supposed to host such games.
Sure, the stadium’s ticketing policy leaves the general admission plebs to sit up on Level 3 while TV viewers are confronted with rows of empty seats on Level 1, but the atmosphere at these game is still pretty good. You certainly don’t sit there watching the game thinking that it would be a more enjoyable experience if only the stadium were a little smaller…
Instead, the drive for a new stadium is apparently being driven by commercial considerations. The AFL, after 13 seasons of footy there, has apparently realised that the clubs – not just the weaker Melbourne-based clubs, but even heavyweights like Carlton – are getting a raw deal at Docklands.
I can’t blame the stadium’s owners, a consortia of five superannuation funds, for driving a hard bargain. It’s our retirement savings they are playing with, and our super has been going backwards in recent times enough as it is.
The owners have until March 2025 to extract maximum value out of the asset before their contract with the AFL obliges to transfer ownership of it to the AFL for the princely sum of $1.
The clubs have to play games there owing to the AFL’s contract with the venue and a lack of alternatives. It is not hard to see why the weaker Melbourne-based clubs have lacked any bargaining power in striking deals with the stadium.
If the AFL wants to buy the stadium early, as it has indicated, there would have to be a pretty hefty price tag. The seller would be looking to be paid out the full value of its rights to the profit generated by the stadium until its scheduled handover to the AFL.
The talk by the AFL of developing a “boutique” venue is most likely commercial bluff to see if the asking price for Docklands can be driven down, under the threat of playing the less commercially lucrative games there.
As negotiating tactics go I suspect that this is a pretty transparently poor one, and the owners of Docklands are not going to fall for it. The number being thrown around for the construction of a new stadium is in the order of $150 million.
At best any new stadium would not be ready until the 2015 season, giving the AFL a decade before it ends up owning Docklands anyway and no longer has a need for a third stadium. Even if the AFL could convince the state or federal government to contribute to a new stadium, somehow I don’t think the numbers are going to stack up.
The AFL would be much better off saving its money and better funding the clubs, particularly those which are struggling under the current stadium deal and who suffer further financial disadvantage due to the league’s lopsided scheduling of matches.
That Punt Road Oval is being thrown up as possible site should be enough to make it clear that talk of a “boutique” stadium is a massive boondoggle. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of Melbourne knows it makes no sense to build a new stadium right next to Australia’s largest, in a location wedged right up against one of Melbourne’s busiest roads.
That’s why Richmond stopped playing games there in 1964 and moved to its bigger, better neighbour, the MCG. The other alternative, Princes Park, was decommissioned as an AFL venue in 2005 for good reason – crumbling grandstands and poor access to public transport being among them.
If the AFL really thinks it has money burning a hole in its pocket, it could throw $15 million to a cricket ground at Junction Oval. This would free up the MCG for footy in March, enable the real footy season to start earlier, and allow the AFL to ditch its unloved pre-season competition.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
youd think so, but then distance and transport are also used by geelong people as excuses as to why they dont turn up in Melbourne for night matches.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Id like to see this as well, I think its a common sense solution. Not only does cricket get the boutique stadium it sorely needs for domestic cricket, the AFL would have the use of the small stadium it needs for some clashes.
John
Guest
I think a 'boutique stadium' might be the way to go. Think about it. Would you prefer West. bulldogs v GWS in front of 18,000 people at Etihad or in front of 14,000 at Princes Park? It would only be suitable for 10-12 games a year but to me that justifies the price tag. Metricon Stadium and Manuka Oval are both terrible for public transport but they manage fine so Princes Park (or some other option) may not be such a bad idea. That being said, if the owners of Etihad have a contract, they shouldn't be ripped off because some clubs (and the AFL) have decided they don't like it.
kevin
Guest
jets and giants share
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
Which century are you living in Franko? Or is this just a p*** take?
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Hopefully the empty concrete block feeling at Etihad will occur less as the Victorian teams continue to develop the supporter bases (slowly) and as the ongoing migration patterns increase the resident Melbourne supporter bases of interstate clubs. Sydney, Brisbane and West Coast actually have fairly substantial supporter bases in Melb and clubs like Fremantle and Adelaide are developing them.
Australian Rules
Guest
If the AFL had maintained the suburban grounds by pumping millions into them, the clubs (and possibly the league) might be in the same position as the NRL. A city which has 9 teams does *not* need 9 separate stadiums.
Epiquin
Guest
Totally agree. They have the same problem in the NRL. Fans complain that the smaller suburban grounds like leichardt oval and belmore have way more atmosphere than Allianz or ANZ stadium, but then won't go to games at these grounds because their facilities aren't up to scratch. You cant have it both ways.
Strummer Jones
Guest
I've said it before but I absolutely hate Docklands. Its this soulless, sterile, concrete thing devoid of any character or appeal. I'd vote for any games being moved outta there to a suburban ground. As for other grounds, Football Park is the same but thankfully they are moving to the Adelaide Oval next year. The SCG is probably the best ground to view football because its small (though being extended by 5m next year) which is great and the SCG members bar, where you can still view the game, actually feels like you're in a pub. The MCG has lost some of its appeal of course, though is still the best place to watch a blockbuster.
Adam
Guest
biggest problem if they built a new stadium or spend 100million in re doing visy park up to seat 25k or even 30k, they will be having to expand it once again. the Game is growing and a 3rd smaller stadium will be considered to small then no one will want to play there. a 3rd stadium is needed due to the fact there are 9 clubs in Melbourne & the MCG is over used. people seem to forget that Docklands is a multipurpose venue that has international and domestic rugby & Soccer games played there, so it isn't only relent on AFl being played there.
The Big Fish
Guest
Agree that Geelong is under utilised. But if a boutique stadium is seriously considered I would consider upgrading Ballarat and like the hawks in tassie have thr bulldaogs become a truely western bulldogs. Ballarat and bendigo combined are close to geelongs population.
Phelpsy
Guest
Perfectly good stadium 45 min down the road at Geelong . Would be quicker to get to on a Friday night for people in the west too???
Australian Rules
Guest
"The current arragement has all the character and soul of an U12′s Netball carnival." There'll always be people who nostaligically whinge that suburban stadiums were more authentic "back in my day" (of course, that's the experience they relate to). But those people fail to acknowledge all of the great things which flowed from the grounds were rationalised - such as increases in crowds, memberships, standards of play, club stablisation and bigger "event" games. Even after just 2 rounds, anyone who attended Carl v Rich, Geel v Haw or Coll v Carl could never describe the match as having no "character and soul". It is actually *because* the crowd is 50:50 that gives it such electric atmosphere. Ditto for ANZAC Day.
Franko
Guest
Indeed they are spread out. But 9 teams for 2 stadiums is a sanitised joke. Teams are loosing their souls, and a lot has to do with these McStadiums. Even Arsenals Etihad is set in the residential neighbourhood of Highbury, despite Arsenals huge global reach, on match day it feels more community orientated. I would love to see Collingwood play Freo at Vic Park, Essendon play GWS at Windy Hill and so on, but it will never happen now. Clubs would be able to generate their own revenue and have a real home ground advantage. The current arragement has all the character and soul of an U12's Netball carnival.
Macca
Guest
It all depends on how much it would cost to get the ground up to scratch, Princes Park was a great ground to watch the footy and wouldn't take much to get it up, but the alternate option of Punt Rd, while having better public transport access would take significant dolalrs to get it up and running. Also the use of the Freo North corwd figures is a bit misleading, 2 teams battling for the final spots in the 8 brought an unusually large crowd.
Australian Rules
Guest
I'd like to see the AFL contribute $10M toward the redevelopment of Junction Oval. It's a win/win for both sports.
Australian Rules
Guest
"It’s not a module (model?) followed anywhere else in the world" Sydney followed the model. "think NFL, EPL etc. imagine them sharing a handful of stadiums – laughable." First, no city in America has 9 NRL teams to accommodate. But that being so, in America's biggest city, the NY Giants and the NY Mets *share* MetLife Stadium to play all their home games. As for not being a module (model?) followed anywhere else in the world
David Lazzaro
Roar Pro
I agree that going down the path of a new boutique stadium seems an expensive measure for the AFL to take, but the facts are that some clubs are losing significant amounts of money playing poorly attended games at Etihaad. For some clubs, this issue is the biggest problem they face in their attempts to be financially secure. These clubs can't wait until 2025 for a resolution, and the AFL has a vested interest in maintaining the viability of all 18 clubs. Hence, all of the options, including a new stadium, need to be seriously considered.
Brendon
Guest
most teams in those competitions are in different cities
Franko
Guest
Clubs sold their community identities and the ability to be in charge of their own desitny when they moved to these McStadiums. I year for the days of the Western Oval and Victoria park. Sadly, this will never happen again. It's not a module followed anywhere else in the world, think NFL, EPL etc. imagine them sharing a handful of stadiums - laughable.