AAMI Park needs to be upgraded to 40,000

This is a great debate. I agree with the author that there should be a 40,000-50,000 rectangular stadium in Melbourne but also agree with some of the posters regarding the prohibitive cost of the upgrade. So here's my solution. Make next years season of The Block a project for upgrading AAMI park. Sure you might get some weird designs but as long as we get to 40,000 seats who cares?

jamesb - I make no apology for being put off by your opening paragraph when you've immediately displayed a lack of understanding of the nuances of the topic. That aside - re Adelaide oval. Back in 2009 or so - it was revealed that - re the initial cost of $450 mill at that time - that $200 mill of that had already been allocated towards a PT link to the West Lakes (Football Park) AAMI Stadium - and another $100 mill had already been allocated towards an upgrade to that venue. Part of the deal was that that $300 mill was redirected to the Adelaide oval project. Part of the trade off therefore being that the SANFL owns AAMI Stadium, it get's downgraded to a 15,000 venue and the SANFL loses revenue from that. The AFL I guess probablydidn't like the SANFL generating too much of their own money off AFL matches. Who knows. In the end the AFL (Demetriou) apparently brokered the deal to bring the SACA and SANFL to agreement. But - we still see that despite pretty well 50K each week that Port Power aren't walking away with a bag of cash so the stadium deal (under drawn out negotiation) is not all peaches and cream. Sometimes the cost is up front. Sometimes it's in cash. Othertimes it's less obvious just who has paid a price and how that will hit home.

It's so simple rail seating at North and South ends. City and Victory fans will love it, it will be safer and it will increase capacity ~8,000 if not more. If the ruggerz want to utilize the increased capacity of the seating they can sell an extra 8k+ seats... if not, they can have a comfortable backside just as easily. They're also a hell of a lot safer for those that stand anyway. I wish SFS had them, and Parra for the away derbies in Sydney :(

AR "If AAMI Park could be upgraded to 40k, for the cost of about $50m, I’d be all for it. But it can’t." That I agree with you. And it should've been the case. But the roof design doesn't allow it due to its complexities. That is the crux of the matter as I alluded to in my article. I think too many on here were concentrating on the expensive cost of upgrade, rather then WHY is it expensive to upgrade. Like I said earlier, someone stuffed up along the way.

Bondy: unable to discuss an issue without his "us vs the AFL" hat on. But I'll try again... After the AFL chipped in $10M and the RAS $7M, the NSW Govt chipped in $42M to upgrade Showgrounds Stadium. As I said above, if the upgrade to AAMI Park could be done for $42m, or even $50M, I'd be ok with it.

AR But its completely fine with the NSW Government waisting shirtloads of money for GWS ..

jamesb If AAMI Park could be upgraded to 40k, for the cost of about $50m, I'd be all for it. But it can't.

What I find interesting in this thread is AFL fans telling me there isn't a demand to upgrade AP. It would be a waste of money, Etihad is down the road for major events etc etc. I firmly believe there is a demand for an upgraded AP as I've said countless times before. Let's compare with GWS. There was bugger all demand for a second AFL team in Sydney. But they received government funding for Blacktown and the Showgrounds, yet they play 3 or 4 games annually in Canberra. Go figure. As for AP, when you build a beautiful roof design, don't you want to show it off to the world? If major events were held at AP, such as high profile football friendlies, Socceroos, rugby tests etc that would give it exposure internationally, and give positive exposure for the city of Melbourne. Why did they build the bubble roof in the first place with just 30,000 and no major events staged there. To show it off domestically! Really.

Think it's pointless arguing AR. Their arguments basically boil down to, we want a bigger rectangular stadium in Melbourne and it's unfair that we have to play big events at the MCG or Etihad. Any valid economic arguments are just going to be seen as anti-football(soccer). No mention that the largest stadium in Sydney, which hosts all their major events like state of origin, NRL grand finals, bledisloe cups isn't a purpose built rectangular stadium, but an olympic stadium that can host every sport. If the article had of said that AAMI stadium should have been built bigger in the first place, then that is a different story (even though for games not involving Victory, 20,000 is more than big enough), but it is a complete waste upgrading the stadium.

Bondy Yep. The roof - incredibly complex, architecturally award-winning, and beautiful - essentially makes the intended upgrade...at least highly questionable, in terms of cost-benefit. There were other factors, such as the agreement not to have a competing 40k+ stadium in Melb for x no. of years, but that's essentially it. The roof is a stunning example of form over function. Now, is that venom...or just reason?

AR So technically it was really designed to never go any further , to remove the roof and then add seating would cost more than it costs to build a new stadium, f me ..

jamesb The stadium construction cost was about $270M. The govt also spent about $30m in the surrounding parkland, road, rail and other public infrastructure around the precinct to service the stadium, bringing it closer to $300m. It's been widely reported that whilst AAMI Park was built with foundations to be increased to 40-50k, dismantling the complex roof design, increasing the seating, and reconfiguring and installing a new roof would cost approx. $300m - about the same as building a whole new stadium. Whilst it would be ideal to have a dedicated 50k rectangular stadium, the cost simply does not meet the current need, especially when there is a 56k stadium 5 mins away that ably hosts soccer, rugby and league games. If the Victory, MCFC, Storm and Rebels get to a point (maybe in 10 or so years) when they are bursting out of AAMI Park's capacity, then, maybe, the Govt would look at an upgrade. Bt there simply isn't a rational business case to do it now...a mere 5 years after AAMI Park opened.

AR Completely disagree with you 100%. There is a need for AAMI Park to be upgraded whether its 40,000 or 50,000.There is enough major events that require a need for an upgrade. Cost was $267.5 million, not $300 million BTW. If your going to correct me on other matters, then don't exaggerate on the costing of AAMI Park. Also where did you get the figure from that the cost of the upgrade is $300 million? The stadium was built with foundations to allow for future expansion to 50,000. The cost of the upgrade wouldve been cheaper if they didn't build that complex bio-frame roof. Someone stuffed up along the way.

Bondy: "AR. Back to spread your venom for another day ." Oh brother, a tad dramatic wouldnt you say Bondy? Do you have a response or a cogent argument to the substance of what I wrote...or is the sum total of your contribution: "AFL are trying to control us" and "we don't want to play on cricket ovals."

AR Back to spread your venom for another day . What you dont understand is other sports dont want to play on cricket pitches destroying the sporting spectacle for all . And we think of the future and the future isn't playing rectangular sports on a cricket field . AFL people trying to dominate every other sport and to tell them what to do, as usual .

jamesb: "AFL fans don’t get it Bondy. AFL’s contribution was $5 million towards AO.The AO development did cost around the $550 to $600 million mark." With respect, I think jamesb is entirely missing the point. The argument of "what AO got, AAMI Park should get", is a totally irrelevant one. The discussion is about public money being *justified*, servicing a public *need*, and, hopefully, providing some return on the investment. Adelaide Oval fills up 45,000 seats every single wknd through winter. It was *the* stadium infrastructure spend by the SA Govt and (so far) it is showing immense return on the spend. What jamesb is arguing, is that AAMI Park should increase its capacity by a mere 9,000 seats (to 40k), at the cost of $300m, paid for solely by the Vic Govt. This, just 5 years after it spent $300M building the stadium in the first place! And only very occasionally, by any of the 5 tenants, would it actually require that extra capacity. In anyone's language, oval or rectangular, AFL or rugby, Melb or Syd - that would be a colossal waste of public money. *Especially* when there is already a 56k stadium down the road which currently hosts a variety of rectangular sports. There's no maths to provide a case for it.

Bondy here is the thing, I initially thought I titled the article," AAMI Park needs to be upgraded to 50,000". But I went conservative and went 40,000, simply because I thought some Roarers would be saying, "50,000 is too big" and you would end up having some inane debating. I'll concede, a couple of events could drift to the MCG, such as Liverpool, but majority would be at AAMI Park. My main point is rectangular codes don't have a future at Etihad. People need to think long term. FFA, NRL, and ARU need to work together to upgrade AAMI Park and make it happen.

jamesb I should've mentioned the stadia upgrade would also facilitate the Rugby codes as per usual which I didn't mention earlier . Possibly also with a melbourne derby (A League) in twenty years time if AMMI park remains the way it is there could be more people missing out on attending than actually being at the game ..

AFL fans don't get it Bondy. RB, as you say, AFL's contribution was $5 million towards AO.The AO development did cost around the $550 to $600 million mark. Interesting....

AFL contribution to AO was $5 million more than FFA contributed to AAMI Park. But I have no problem at all with the government funding AAMI Park. It helped get a super rugby team, and Melbourne needed a rectangular stadium that size. You seem to be missing the point. I'm not against a 40,000 seat stadium in Melbourne, but increasing the size of AAMI by 10,000 is a complete waste of money. Size is perfectly fine for rebels, storm and city, and most of victory's games. OK I get that you'd rather watch a Melbourne derby game in a rectangular stadium instead of Etihad, but the government would be irresponsible in increasing the size of AAMI or building another bigger rectangular stadium. For an event like the Liverpool game, you'd still need to use the MCG, or do we now need a 100,000 seat rectangular stadium?