The AFL isn’t sure about Eddie McGuire’s proposed radical re-design of Melbourne’s elite sporting venues but it does want new funding directed into Victorian stadiums.
The Collingwood president has flagged the possibility of demolishing Etihad Stadium and building a $1 billion new AFL venue in the shadow of the MCG to take over the mantle of Melbourne’s second stadium.
McGuire went so far as to brief Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews on the revamp, with AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan revealing he’d also discussed the idea with the outspoken Magpies club boss.
Speaking on Wednesday, McLachlan declined to detail whether he thought a new stadium was needed or if any funding from the AFL’s billion-dollar broadcast rights deal could be shepherded into capital works.
Instead, he lauded McGuire’s contribution as the start of a conversation that he believes should end in renewed funding for AFL venues.
“The great thing that’s happened today is that investment in stadia has been put on the table,” he said.
“The NSW government has announced nearly $2 billion of money going into their stadiums.
“We’ve seen the success of Adelaide Oval. A new Perth Stadium is coming on.
“Quite rightly this discussion is about stadia in this town.”
The future of the 54,000-capacity Etihad Stadium – which the AFL will own by 2025 at the latest – is at the heart of the debate.
McLachlan conceded it needed improvement but believed it to be a “fabulous asset”.
“It’s a hell of a stadium,” he said.
“It’s like any major asset in any major city. You need to continue to invest to be best in class.
“The stadium now is 15 years old and it continues to be invested in on a yearly basis.
“But when you’re competing with Adelaide Oval and the new Perth Stadium coming along in 2018, it’ll be 20 years old.”
Andrews said McGuire’s proposal was warranted continued discussion.
“I’m always for talking about ideas, debating and discussing ideas,” Andrews told reporters on Wednesday.
“We are a great sporting city but we can never … sit around doing nothing.”
But former premier and Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett said the necessary relocation of Australian Open venue Hisense Arena rendered the the proposed new stadium “dead”.
Western Bulldogs chairman Peter Gordon attacked the idea of putting two stadia in the one precinct.
“The western region of Melbourne is the fastest growing population base in Australia, and will be for the next 30 years,” he told radio station SEN.
“I still prefer the Docklands as a venue.”
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
The state contributed 90 million when the federal govermnent wouldnt, and the MCC went into debt for the rest, most of the payments for which are covered by the AFL who pays more than 5 million a year towards it. Government contributed towards the southern stand upgrade for another 30 million.
Xavier Smith
Roar Rookie
Eddie's ideas always seem to involve taking over a site (in this case, Hisense Arena) and shifting whatever else there is somewhere else. An easier solution would be to build on the old Olympic Park site, which the Magpies conveniently took over. Shifting away from Docklands would just enshrine the AFL's poor decision making by shifting from a prime location. Waverley is now the demographic heart of Melbourne (as predicted by city and league planners in the 1950s and 60s), with huge growth in the south-east. Docklands is much more convenient for the rapidly expanding west, and spreads out entertainment events across the city. Remember Docklands was chosen to relieve the congestion around the Melbourne and Yarra Parks.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Huh? The bulk of that cost was covered by private debt - paid off by playing AFL games at the MCG. Government covered barely 15% of the total cost.
anon
Guest
McGuire and McLachlan. You wouldn't think Scottish you would think they are more from Caulfield way. Someone should audit these guys. See where these kickbacks are coming from. Probably a wild goose chase though. They probably keep it locked away in the Cayman Islands like our ex investment banker PM. I can understand petitioning for stadium funding from the government, but it's not required since it's privately owned and will be handed over to the AFL for nothing in 2025 with it stipulated in the contract that it be in good condition and has all the modern amenities. Neither do they need a new stadium (in a worse location) with virtually the same capacity. The Docklands Stadium easily has another 20-25 years of useful life. Furthermore the AFL gets it for free in 9 years. The Docklands Stadium isn't cutting edge, but neither is the MCG. Neither will any boutique stadium. Frankly I don't think punters give a toss about state of the art as long as it is comfortable, has good sight lines and is well located -- all characteristics the Docklands Stadium has. No, this is about Eddie and Gillon's mates getting their grubby mitts on that prime land at mates rates and in the process increasing the value of all the land and failed apartment buildings in the surrounding area .
paulie bro
Guest
Aren't you forgetting the MCG redevelopment for the Comm Games that the AFL and every other tenant at the MCG has benefitted from since? Melbourne has two oval stadiums and a boutique rectangular stadium. Geelong has an oval stadium. I don't think there's a need for anything else in southern Victoria. Perhaps consider some stadia for Ballarat and Bendigo.
HarryHP
Guest
Which is why this wont get up. Bulldogs CEO Gordon said yesterday (and I dare say the Roos and Saints will agree), the problem is not Etihad per se - its the crippling financial cost of playing there. This will greatly improve when the AFL takes ownership. In the meantime, the government or the current owners can spend a bit to make sure it stays fresh and up to date. As for the MCG, the tenant clubs that play there get a much better deal than Etihad - even Melbourne, which has the smallest supporter base of any of the MCG tenants, has a very sweet deal which was inked towards the end of 2009 which saw them make $100,000 for each home game played at the G. As for the rectangular stadium - you are correct and the 4 tenant clubs playing there certainly have nothing to complain about - and they haven't been.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
I have to say, the idea of putting a brand new stadium right next door to an existing state-of-the-art stadium seems very odd. If the VIC government is going to fund this then it is an amazing opportunity set up elsewhere in the city.
Gyfox
Guest
Imagine if the Vic governments over the years had put money into new stadiums as the Qld, WA & SA governments have - & as NSW is going to. Hardly anything given by them for AFL grounds - except Geelong. The only stadium the Vic government has built is the rectangular stadium for soccer & the rugbies - the latter drawing pathetic crowds by AFL standards. I guess it goes back to the control of football grounds by the cricket clubs, who bled the VFL clubs dry.