The Melbourne Rectangular Stadium (MRS) was built to host sports that require rectangular playing areas: football, rugby union and rugby league.
In 2006, the Victorian Government announced it would build a new state-of-the-art rectangular stadium with a capacity of 20,000, within Melbourne’s Olympic Park District.
However, for the stadium to be viable, the Victorian Government needed Melbourne’s only A-League club at that time, Melbourne Victory Football Club (Melbourne Victory) to sign as a tenant.
Melbourne Victory refused to be involved with the new stadium unless its capacity was significantly increased and, as a result, the Victorian Government increased the proposed stadium’s capacity to 30,050 seats.
Construction of AAMI Park was completed in 2010 with the total cost reportedly $267.5 million.
The AAMI Insurance company bought the naming rights for the stadium and it is now often referred to as AAMI Park.
Since its opening, AAMI Park has consistently been a winner – both on and off the park. A-League players consistently rate the playing surface as the best or second best in the competition and for A-League fans. AAMI Park is, by far, the best venue to watch football in Victoria.
However, the 30k capacity of AAMI Park prevents the venue from hosting significant sporting events. Even though the stadium’s foundations were specifically designed to allow new stands to be built to increase capacity, the stadium’s roof design will add significant additional costs to expansion.
Additionally, current attendances for sport in Melbourne suggest it would be difficult to create a positive business case for a rectangular stadium with 50k capacity in Melbourne.
It’s likely such a stadium would be filled just four to six times per year. The rest of the time, it would be filled to 60-70 per cent capacity for Melbourne Victory home games and 20-30 per cent capacity when Melbourne City, Melbourne Storm and Melbourne Rebels play there.
So expanding AAMI Park, or building a new 50k capacity stadium, is not justified.
There is, however, a way to increase the capacity of existing stadiums relatively cheaply, while maintain a lower capacity for teams that can’t draw big crowds. To do this requires converting existing seats to ‘Rail Seating’, sometimes referred to as ‘Safe Standing’.
Rail Seating is presently being deployed in sections of major football stadiums across Europe, including the stadiums of Bayer Leverkusen, Borussia Dortmund, VfB Stuttgart, Werder Bremen and VfL Wolfsburg in Germany, RSC Anderlecht in Belgium, PSV Eindhoven in Holland and Celtic in Scotland.
AAMI Park currently has 30,050 seats with approximate allocations:
A) North andamp; South goal: 11.6k
B) Level 3 (East andamp; West): 10k
C) Level 1 (East andamp; West): 6.9k
D) Dining/Corporate Boxes: 1.6k
I don’t propose converting all AAMI Park’s seats to rail sating – just converting the seats in the areas behind each goal, and on Level 3. So a total, 21.6k seats would be converted from traditional seating to Rail Seating.
Once the Rail Seats are installed, those areas can be configured to allow Safe Standing.
In Germany, authorities allow two people to stand in spots allocated to one Rail Seat. In other countries they allow 1.5-1.8 people to stand per seat.
If Australia adopted the German standard, the conversions I recommended will increase the capacity of AAMI Park to 50,000 (8.5k traditional seats, 41.5k standing)
From what is reported the cost of such conversion will be less than $10 million (the cost varies depending on the existing infrastructure). This is obviously much cheaper than undertaking major construction to expand AAMI Park with new stands, or build a new stadium.
Besides the cheaper cost, rail seating provides capacity flexibility.
When Melbourne City, Melbourne Storm or Melbourne Rebels play home games, the stadium would be configured to 30k all-seating capacity.
When Melbourne Victory is playing, the club has the flexibility to configure the back rows on Level 3 for safe Standing and sell the front rows on Level 3 at premium reserved seat prices.
Safe standing will not only allow clubs to increase revenue from ticket sales and catering, but will significantly increase the vibrant atmosphere at A-League matches.
Nemesis
Roar Guru
asanchez, you've raised interesting points. Your anecdotal comment about people not coming to AAMI Park for fear of being turned away sounds odd. The only AAMI Park matches I've attended in recent years are the December Melbourne Derbies, and I've been able to buy 5-10 tickets in the week leading up to the Derby. I understand people don't want to queue up on matchday. Those people should know they can buy & print their ticket 5 minutes before they leave for the match. It's not rocket science. It's basic e-commerce and it's never been easier. If they don't have a printer they can have the ticket sent to their smartphone. IF they don't have a smartphone, then I give up. They deserve to stand for hours in a queue. At the Derbies I've attended the amenities cope perfectly - in fact I find AAMI Park and Rod Laver Arena to be the most convenient for accessing conveniences! But you may be right the amenities may not have the capacity to cope with significant increase to the crowd. Having said that, building new toilet blocks would be a lot cheaper than building a new 50k stadium, or building new stands. Your final comment about Rugby & League baffles me. Why is there this confusion about "one or the the other"? The whole idea of Rail Seating is that it provides flexibility. If Rugby & League don't want the Rail Seats configured for their matches, the Seats are unlocked and they function as normal seats. This already happens. When Celtic hosts UCL matches this year, the sections of Celtic Park that have Rail Seating will be unlocked so that the whole stadium is seating only.
AGO74
Guest
I don't think it's a big issue for league fans. I go to a number of Cronulla games at shark park and there are a sizeable portion of fans who stand and watch all around the ground. There are a number of grounds in the NRL where this type of arrangement is in place. The NRL is trying to do away with these grounds but for fans of teams with grounds where a good portion of fans stand, their fans are dead against it. As for nemesis' plan - subject to safety etc - id suggest doing one end only as safe standing only and then see if there is appetite for more.
marron
Guest
Rugby and League could still have their seats. I know I'm preaching to the converted in a sense but... they could still have them! They'd be the cheap seats anyway, directly behind the goals. I'm not sure the opponents within those organisations could actually articulate what would be the issue. The over-policing - there would be no need. If anything it would be far easier to police - instead of having to push past people and climb over seats, there would be much easier access into those areas for security and police. Fans in those areas currently might have seat numbers - but I can guarantee you that nobody sits in them. So identification would be just the same.
Happy Hooker
Guest
Ha ha! Good one Tone
asanchez
Roar Guru
Nemesis, interesting article. I've spoken about this topic almost to death on this site, but I don't think your idea stacks up, and I'll tell you why. The stadium amenities (toilets/concourses/walkways/food and drink outlets) are bursting at the seems with a crowd any larger than 26k-27k, even with an extra 10k and it just wouldn't cope. I think there is a business case for an upgraded AAMI, it was built with foundations provisioned for a 50k stadium, and it's current capacity is already stifling Victory's growth as a club and as a business. I go to every home game, and I know and speak to many fellow members and fans, and I can tell you first hand that many people don't turn up on match days if they're not members, in fear of being turned away and sent back home, or just unwilling to wait 1-2 hours in line to get tickets without any guarantees. This is due mainly due to the small capacity of the stadium, and it's quite ironic that the one club which the ground was built for, has now already outgrown its small capacity. Victory initially asked for over 35k seats, and that was knocked back by the Vic government, because of its contracts in place at the time with Etihad stadium, which stipulated that there couldn't be any other stadium built in Melbourne over 30k-35k, as it would potentially take business and profits away from the docklands venue. The roof is a very contentious point, I'm not sure why someone would build a 30k stadium in the so called 'Sports capital of the world' to then put a designer roof on it, which cost $150m?? For me, there's huge question marks over that decision... It's almost as if the roof was plonked onto the stadium to block or delay any future redevelopment, when clearly the foundations were laid for exactly that to happen down the track. It's as if nobody could foresee that Victory would outgrow this ground in a short space of time, when the club had 16,000 paid up season ticket holders by the end of Season 2. Rail seats for me are a good idea, but we need to realise that football shares this ground with Rugby and League, so I don't think those plans or ideas would ever pass. And could you imagine the ridiculous over policing at the ground, if those seats were ever put in place... Upgrade the stadium I say, long term it's the only option.
marron
Guest
So at the new place glen, when it gets built, if there's anything there'll be safe standing in the central bays at the rbb end only. Pretty sure at spotless you'll be more on the sidelines. The pitch is not going to be bang in the middle but has been placed closer to the rbb; I think from memory those equivalent GA tickets have been shifted around to the sides a bit. Good thing about the place is that it's easy just to walk around the concourse anyway.
Glen
Guest
Ok sure. Didn't realise that. We don't have A-League here in Canberra. The last few games I went to were internationals and they were cheaper at the ends. I am a Wanderers member and our cheapest tickets used to be at what is generally considered to be the 'family end' of Parra stadium. No alcohol etc and opposite RBB. Not sure of the new setup this year. We are used to sitting at the ends due to those being cheaper for NRL.
Tony
Guest
Fuss knows very well that there is a cheaper & easier option...........you just get the Victory fans to rip out the seats before the game instead of after. Stadium repairs the seats & puts them back before the next game.
marron
Guest
Yep. I don't know about the Melbourne sides but the supporter section tickets - the end behind one goal - at western Sydney are a little bit more expensive too from memory. And for the sports where they don't have a need - seats down, cheap seats, no problem. A-league tickets are pretty good value imo too.
marcel
Guest
Cheers...that was the only photo I could find as well. I'd be happy enough to sit there...and I've definitely had the first row/second tier experience you speak of.
Nemesis
Roar Guru
Not true at all. There are more General Admission seats on the wings at A-League matches than behind the goals.
marron
Guest
A picture (no experience myself). http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/myths/obstructed-view They had a couple installed at parra. I didn't get to sit in one as it was locked up. but it was not hard to imagine - that looks about right. Not ideal necessarily. And parra are not keen. But. One bay behind the goal in the cheap seats which are never sold out at parra anyway - even their supporter section is off to one side from memory. And you can see the game - I'd say it's no more obstructed than the first row of a second tier of a stadium really.
marron
Guest
No marcel and I haven't heard anything (despite the suggestion that we might get a look in for some feedback). Fair point on independent egress.
marcel
Guest
Hi Marron...any idea when the public might see designs for Parra...there is some early works info on the council website ...but no details of an actual stadium design. Back on topic..Safe Standing has been a game changer for stadium design.. Even Allianz Munich had to construct additional exits when it was introduced after the world cup. Whilst existing stadia like Aami would comfortably support the additional weight of spectators, structurally....no one..would have every been able to envisage doubling the spectator capacity on the same "footprint". It would been the reasonable expectation of the architects that any expansion in capacity would have been delivered by an expansion in size ( allowing independent egress). The clever Germans have now changed the parameters completely.
Glen
Guest
Actually many families sit on the ends because those are usually the cheapest tickets. It is too expensive to sit on the side.
marcel
Guest
Have you sat in one yourself?...that was my question ... Sorry but you are wrong...in order to work as a balustrade for standing it has to be approx 250mm higher than the head heights in seated mode...which is uncomfortably close to eye level. German football fans may be willing to accept some limitations for the occaisonal midweek cup game in exchange for terracing...but it appears to be a tough sell to the other codes. Parramatta Eels are unconvinced and unsupportive of including them at the new stadium. Has anyone who has actual experience of this able to tell us what it's like?
marron
Guest
Of course marcel but structurally speaking, if say a rail seating section would allow for an extra 2-3000 patrons, and the stadium was already built to accomodate the egress of 35000, a new provision is an easier proposition than if the place can only provide a safe exit for the current capacity. In that case - as mt says - more work, structurally, is required to fix that. It kind of looks like the structure was future proofed to take the weight of extra stands, (roof aside) but not future proofed to allow extra people to exit safely. That's just dumb. I was lucky enough to be consulted as a fan for the parramatta design brief. This was actually one of the issues, as many people wanted the ability to expand later. They made it clear - to do that you need to take the future egress into account as well which has an impact on the initial capacity... in parras case where there are various reasons why an expansion is unlikely it's just not worth it. In This case though it might have been.
marcel
Guest
Sorry guys...but any expanded capacity would be done so with its own independent egress provision...and not piggy backed on the existing.. But hey , this is the Roar, so let's not let personal ignorance stand in the way of making sweeping judgements :)
melbourneterrace
Guest
Anyone involved with designing the stadium deserves a whack around the ears. Went out of their way to make sure it couldn't compete with Etihad.
marron
Guest
So they designed it to be able to expand structure wise, but not increase capacity due to narrow exits. And then put that roof on. I bet the architects won an award.