Manuka Oval unsatisactory for major AFL games

The difference is that rectangular field sports are dominant here, the Brumbies and Raiders combined. A new venue ghas to vater to those sports, and a possible A-League or A2-League team in the future above the 4-10 days (when a Test is held here) an oval field is neded. Manuka does the job that is needed of it for now, and with a minor facelift the job likely to be required for quite a few years yet. It does need better spectator facilities; toilets, food outlets, etc are poor; and covering the currently uncovered seats would be good. As for the hill, Bellerive, Mararra, Carrara are all decent small crowd grounds with grass areas; Adelaide Oval holds 50k and maintained some grass at the scoreboard end. Its not a problem. Yes, climate is different, toughen up. Docklands was built specifically for Australian Football, which simply means that other sports can fit on it because of the size of fields needed at AFL level. (It does have retractable seating at ground level too, which helps a little for viewing of Association Football and the rugbys.) Yes, Manuka is not suited to a 50k crowd. GWS v Bulldogs might be a "big game" in terms of ladder positions and premiership prospects. It wouldn't, however, draw a big crowd whether in Sydney or Canberra.

I think Manuka is perfect for what it is used for; couple AFL and cricket games a year. The ground is no worst than Subicao in Perth. I like the idea of 1 Friday night game of AFL played in a Regional centre. Last year a record crowd attended in Hobart. Maybe Darwin next year? Will be a bit chilli tonight but I'm sure the locals will get out and support the game and occasion. If you never try different things in your sporting code, you will never learn.

"In reality it is the AFL who subsidizes the stadiums and not the other way around." In reality it's the ACT Government who subsidises every single AFL game in Canberra. If GWS want the government to spend money on a stadium just for them they can give back the millions they've sucked from taxpayers already. GWS will abandon Canberra if they ever get a real following in Sydney, no point building for growth.

Easy, $500k per AFL game is far sillier.

See above post of mine for reasons why governments should and do contribute money towards stadiums. So you don't actually support a club, you don't like the AFL, you don't think it should be played in good stadiums and you seem to be profoundly negative about the sport in general? Why are you still here? Isn't it obvious everyone has seen right through you now? You're either desperately lonely or a rabble rouser. You've got no interest in actually discussing football, you just want to argue with people.

+1000

Which is the more laughable: a few (actually, three) AFL games a year? Or a silly Toy Tram to scratch the backs of the local parasitic Greens?

"You are still using the word subsidize in the wrong manner. Subsidizing is what the AFL does in order to get new stadiums built. The AFL gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the government in order to get new stadiums constructed. The stadiums are owned by the government and are subsidized by the AFL." Stadiums are built for the benefit of the AFL. They derive virtually all the benefits from oval shaped stadiums. Without governments spending billions across Australia on new stadiums, the AFL would be forced to spend billions across Australia on these stadiums. Governments make nothing from these stadiums. They lose money. If there was money to be made from stadiums, private organisations would be building them left right and centre across Australia. Instead, governments fund these stadiums. Why? Because they bleed money.

Nor hand over $54,000,000 to soccer for bribing FIFA? May be nice Mr Lowy can hand it back to us out of his billions?

That's alright, we're just fine without you here

I'd argue a stadium is required by society - it's all very easy to argue AFL is a giant economic parasite but sport & entertainment has been an intricable part of human society for a very long time now - the Romans whacked the Colosseum up back in 400BC or whenever it was and they certainly weren't squeamish when it came to the events budget there. People want to go see events. They want to go and see sport, they want to be entertained by Adele, they want to go and see a show. Government spends money on hundreds if not thousands of niche projects every year that only appeal to certain people - opera, music, bike paths, libraries, national parks, motor racing, horse racing - to cherry pick football and stadiums out of that as the lone example of wastefulness is an argument borne out of personal prejudice and not supported by history or collective experience. Millions of people go to stadiums every year. They contribute a ton to the local economy and in the long run will continue to provide return on investment for decades. You're advancing some facile argument about limiting government expenditure - libertarian sloganeering basically - when really what your argument is about is the under-utilisation of these stadiums - the requirements of sport re: playing conditions tend to prohibit their use in between games. One of the most important technological advances in the stadium industry yet to be discovered, is how to construct an artificial playing surface that looks and feels close enough to grass to substitute for it. All of a sudden your stadium becomes usable a lot more often. But advancing that sort of argument would require you to actually know and think about what you are discussing, as opposed to mindlessly parroting what someone else has told you think about it.

Canberra wants and needs a better rectangular stadium to support league, union and potentially a shared A league side. I don't want an oval stadium for 3 games and the PMs XI.

This.

TBF Brisvegas is a sh|thole in comparison.

You are still using the word subsidize in the wrong manner. Subsidizing is what the AFL does in order to get new stadiums built. The AFL gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the government in order to get new stadiums constructed. The stadiums are owned by the government and are subsidized by the AFL.

"They lose money on hospitals, roads, schools, electricity distribution networks, sewerage lines as well" Those are services that are required by society. Why are governments getting involved in spending billions to subsidise the entertainment industry -- which is what professional sports essentially are a part of. Stadiums Queensland makes money because they didn't have to construct the stadium. They just manage it.

They lose money on hospitals, roads, schools, electricity distribution networks, sewerage lines as well I think the balance is pretty good atm. The large investment to get stadiums up in all states is pretty much over now - and general opinion now is that football needs to work towards leveraging private investment if they want further large scale upgrades. No arguments that as purse strings tighten football should moderate expectations regarding large scale stadium investment. And I think you'll find the Gabba, which is about 30 years old, is worth quite a lot. Particularly the land upon which it sits. Equally so with Etihad. You should read some financial reports. Stadiums Queensland turned a tidy profit in 2015/16 for the government.

How much is a 30 year old stadium worth? Governments lose money on stadiums.

Canberra is too small a city for AFL. It is possibly big enough for union and NRL as they generally have much smaller gates that seems to keep those sports going. Mind you there are constant rumours circling about the Brumbies rugby team struggling to survive. Giants need to concentrate on Sydney region. Canberra is on a map, but it does not mean you need to plant a flag pole on it. Too small and not economically viable.

Wasn't there some plans announced a while back to upgrade the oval to a 20k capacity and rebuild the stands on the broadcast side. Surely a staged of upgrade of Manuka is more appropriate. Will be interesting to see how it goes on Friday night.