# AUSTRALIA - Stadium and Arena Development News



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

The "superdome" looks really ugly.


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

Landos said:


> We know you're not a fan of the Athens venues. You don't have to belabor the issue with constant repetition. Don't reinforce my image of you as a rigid personality, ok?
> 
> Sydney was a fine Olympics. It's a shame that you and many other Australians can't admit as much about the Athens games. But as I said, that would take a maturity of character that many Aussies, apparently, lack. Your self-image must be founded on putting others down to build yourselves up. Pity, really.
> 
> Dwell in your pool of bile down-under. The rest of the world will move on.


LOL I love the Athens roof I just didn't love the stadium itself - I loved your multi-purpose hall unique and looks great from outside. I also liked much of the Athens landscaping - I guess for me seeing too much of Olympic Park had desensitised me to it. We were using some of the venues for raves 5 years before the olympics began and it got a bit boring for me seeing the same place all the time.

Don't get me wrong Greece did do an awesome job if not a little hairy towards the end with venue completion - I just think Sydney was overral better, more organised and slightly more spectacular to me. 

Oh and yes I love causing trouble and argueing even if it's over nothing.


----------



## Landos (Jul 5, 2004)

*All I know is....*

you come to these forums and all you read from the Aussies is almost CONSTANT criticism if the Athens Games. Do you read constant comments from Greeks putting down the Sydney Games and venues? No way. I think that in itself says a great deal about the maturity and self-assurance of both nations.

As I said, the world if moving on. You can climb on board with the rest of us or dwell in your self-loathing. Your choice.


----------



## Mephisto (Nov 8, 2002)

hngcm said:


> The "superdome" looks really ugly.


I disagree.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Landos said:


> you come to these forums and all you read from the Aussies is almost CONSTANT criticism if the Athens Games. Do you read constant comments from Greeks putting down the Sydney Games and venues? No way. I think that in itself says a great deal about the maturity and self-assurance of both nations.
> 
> As I said, the world if moving on. You can climb on board with the rest of us or dwell in your self-loathing. Your choice.


But you're probably only reading what you want to read. Criticism will catch your attention more easily than praise. That's just human nature.

http://skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=302
If you haven't been to this forum yet then you are in no place to make a comment about Australians.

Besides, Athens is over, time for Beijing now.


----------



## jclornton (Aug 9, 2004)

*Sydney Facilities*

I was privileged enough to attend both the Athens and Sydney Olympic Games and when people try to compare they often comment that Athens had more symbolic importance and stuff like that and that there venues were better than Sydney. Sydney's Venue sreceive as inspected by international urban planners, architects and civil engineers, 8.6/10, where as Athens only received 7.7/10. Sydeny's organization was superb and this does not simply go on Athens venue delays. The layout of the 2000 olympic park which was amazing and is an example to other host cities wanting to host the games. There venues were immaculate and have def. not grown old. They are modern stadiums and literally saved the face of the Olympic Games after the disgusting Olympic Stadium of Atlanta. I could go on but the Superdome, right through to the Aquatic centre were of excellent standard and outdo Athens but we should not compare but admit that Sydney was better for many reasons in terms of infrastructure and this is why they were the "best Olympic Games ever".


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

I repeated the post below.


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

invincible said:


> Besides, Athens is over, time for Beijing now.


Oh yea, lol. Sydney has been over for 4 years but you Australians never stopped talking about it.

Greeks have every right to talk about their Olympics they were hailed a an 'unforgettable dream games", and "one of the greatest of all time" by the IOC, and shut up all the critics big time. So much that atleast in the U.S., and Canada scores of news agencies are admiting they were wrong about the Athens games, and that they were great. :banana:


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Stop clumping 20,000,000 Australians together as one single entity.

I said it only so that I could try to put an end to this endless bickering by people saying that Athens is crap.


----------



## Landos (Jul 5, 2004)

> Oh yea, lol. Sydney has been over for 4 years but you Australians never stopped talking about it.


LOL. They'll probably be arguing that the Kuala Lumpur Olympics in 2020 are NOT as good as the Sydney Games were. 

In reality, the Sydney games were great. The Barcelona games were great. The Athens Games have been great as well and they brought the Olympic games "back to ground", which was sorely needed in this age of rampant commercialism. If I could pick one single thing, it would be the shotput contest in ancient Olympia! That was just awesome!

As for Atlanta, it was a friggin disaster and I'm an American! The rampant commercialism and amateurish organization really soured many fans of the games.

As to who's games were THE greatest, thats entirely subjective. Each brought their own embellishment to the Olympic Spirit. But I have to confess that the 90% negative commentary from Australian posters about the Athens Games and venues has really soured my image of them as fair-players. It's really quite petty and mean-spirited. The funny thing is, some of the greatest folks I've met are Australians when we were both on vacation in Athens, Greece. When I went there last, 3 years ago, I met a nice Australian family from Melbourne. The father worked for Holden, which is a division of GM who I work for. We did some bus tours together and had a great time. Maybe we're just getting the spoil sports in this forum, who knows?


----------



## Fabian (Sep 11, 2002)

Here is a description of facilities at Darling Harbour.

Darling Harbour
Darling Harbour located in the heart of the city centre, hosted six sports within the precient. Sydneysiders also flocked to Darling Harbour to take advantage of the daily entertainment and activities including screens broadcasting events. The venues for the sports at Darling Harbour are listed below

Aerial of Darling Harbour










Sydney Convention Centre
Sports: Weightlifting










Sydney Exhibition Centre
Sports: Judo, Boxing, Wrestling, Taekwondoo










Sydney Entertainment Centre
Sports: Volleyball


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

*AAMI Stadium - Adelaide*

*AAMI Stadium*

Nothing Special Here......Just a nice shot of my hometowns largest stadium









Capacity: 51,300
Sports played: Australian Rules Football (AFL)
Home teams: Adelaide FC, Port Adelaide FC (both AFL)
Other: The pic you see above was with the old aluminium benches. These have sice been replaced with individual bucket seats. The ground also still plays host to some of the South Australian state league games (SANFL), mostly for finals.


----------



## sakor1 (Aug 5, 2004)

A couple of things you should add:

*Capacity:* 51,300
*Sports played:* Australian Rules Football (AFL)
*Home teams:* Adelaide FC, Port Adelaide FC (both AFL)
*Other:* The pic you see above was with the old aluminium benches. These have sice been replaced with individual bucket seats. The ground also still plays host to some of the South Australian state league games (SANFL), mostly for finals.

Stu


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Added your info to main post....thanks


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Here are two pictures. One's Telstra Stadium and the other one is the superdome


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Theres always been something that plays with my eye when i see Telstra Stadium. to me theres something not quite right and i cant put my finger on it. It looks somewhat, generic. btw, whats the Four Round things at each corners? an after thought?


----------



## Macca-GC (May 20, 2004)

they're ramps to get up to the higher levels of the stadium. Suncorp Stadium has the same type of thing, but with stairs. i.e. in the corners to get to the top.

One thing I've always wondered is what are those things in the plaza outside the stadium???


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

Those are actually solar towers. Generate solar energy so it can light up the whole Stadium. We have around 26 of em.


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

here are some more


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

oh here we go again comparing athens to sydney, and th return of Landos again uurrgh, anyhow,im sure ive given my opinions before in the infamous athens vs sydney forum or well one of the many..


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

lol^^Maybe we should get Calatrava to put a roof on all of them. 

Apparently his success rate with non Architecturally compelling stadia is legendary :cheers:


----------



## linostar1982 (Dec 27, 2004)

lol it premises a good taste in architecture to get Calatrava,something that australians never had!


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

VFL Park had too many flaws but would have been something if they ever got the thing finished. I am in two minds about the place to be honest. I was pretty upset at the time the league dumped it but they really didn't have too much of a choice and the deal they got as a parachute out was very impressive to say the least.

#They could not make it bigger than 75,000 because the state government refused the league(VFL) planning permission on countless occasions in order to protect their buddies at the MCC/Melbourne Cricket Ground. I remember the VFL President at the 1983 GF saying that the 1984 GF would be staged out at Waverley at the presentation ceremony of the cup and everyone 'booed'. John Cain, the then premier and also an MCC person personally stomped on the VFL and its plans. So essentially the VFL(AFL now) has to deal with the MCC who have been the bone in the throat of the league since day one(1896). The whole point of building its own ground was to build a football owned and run ground.

#The flaws were no public transport, which just about every government from the 1950's onwards promised they would build and it never happened read above why. Melbourne and 'old school ties' is a very strong force and still is today. If you want to get something done, like building your own casino in an underpriveleged area get someone like Walker, Fox, or Pratt in your corner and it is practically a given.
#Playing field was too large, you were 20 metres from the boundary line if you were sitting in the front seat. Then you had the 20 odd metre camber of the oval to look over. The other side of the ground only above the knees was visible.
#They built the place in a rain belt. It was a mud heap for the first 20 years. I remember they used to refer to it as the cow paddock. It was a disgrace until the mid 80's. Great after that mind you.
#The car park was larger than a lot of cities in Europe so you can imagine how long it took to actually escape. You were looking at about 2 hours when 70,000 plus rocked up. They got 92,000 to a game in the late 70's. People were still just getting home when the 80's arrived.
#They didn't build the stands steep enough, but in all fairness it was designed to hold 150,000 to accomadate every single VFL member of every club a ticket to the grand final, plus the blow ins. Now you get the MCC members first, then the blow ins, and then if there is anything left some seats for the actual real followers of the sport.

The reasons it was dumped was a lot to do with the above, but you can also throw in 
the fact the interstate clubs didn't need it or play matches there but still had to pay for it as being members of the league.
The AFL got its own chunk of the Melbourne CBD for 'free' and could sell VFL Park off, pay off all its debts and be stinking rich for ever after. This is pretty good considering that in 1986 it couldn't throw the tv rights away and was skint.

All very sad for people who live out east but that business. :cheers:


----------



## Perth4life3 (Nov 14, 2004)

the concept sounds awesome, the only real footy purpouse built stadiums is AAMI and Subiaco oh and Optus Oval but thats not in AFL anymore.


----------



## Landos (Jul 5, 2004)

> Maybe we should get Calatrava to put a roof on all of them.


Wouldn't help. Not even Calatrava can make a silk purse out of a sows ear. :bash:


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

> None of them are architecturally compelling. I suppose they're adequate to while away an afternoon guzzling Foster's and watching Australian Rules Football.


Landos, do you know why Australia exorts so much Fosters? Becuase no one who lives here is stupid enough to drink that shit. Hell, if it came to a taste test, us Aussies would pick cats piss over Fosters any day. And we're not about to drink cats piss so what does that tell you about Fosters?



> the only real footy purpouse built stadiums is AAMI and Subiaco oh and Optus Oval but thats not in AFL anymore


AAMI was built in 1974 as the home of Australian football in South Australia. Subiaco is has been the home of Western Australia's football since 1908. I would say the only other purpose built grounds in use in the AFL these days are Skilled Stadium in Geelong and Aurora Stadium in Launceston. The rest are multi purpose And even Subiaco is to a point also as its being used as a Rugby international & Super 14 venue now.


----------



## Perth4life3 (Nov 14, 2004)

but its purpose built for AFL , eg. ground shape and size, i forgot about skilled.


----------



## Perth4life3 (Nov 14, 2004)

and wat aussie drinks fosters at a footy game, they dont even sell it.


----------



## vertigosufferer (Aug 20, 2005)

Could these stadiums be adapted to play football though? MCC is quite circular.


----------



## Perth4life3 (Nov 14, 2004)

yer, they played soccer at subi once, for the perth glory Grand final in the NSL a few years ago, crowd was about 43,000


----------



## Mephisto (Nov 8, 2002)

*Gold Coast Stadium (AUS)*

Here are some renders of the 25,000 seater stadium which will be built for the new NRL Rugby League club Gold Coast Titans.
It will start construction mid next year and be ready for the start of the 2008 NRL season.


----------



## sakor1 (Aug 5, 2004)

Nice stadium! It is looking like Melbourne will be getting a new 25'000 seater of similar design for the Melbourne Storm League and Melbourne Victory football clubs too, also to be complete by 2008.

But c'mon, Gold Coast Titans? The team would be soooo much cooler to be called Gold Coast Buccaneers or something similar.

Stu


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

looks good


----------



## Trances (May 19, 2003)

another one for melbourne ?!?


----------



## Perth4life3 (Nov 14, 2004)

anyone got pics of Carrera? ive got no idea what it looks like and there playing a few games there next year in the afl.


----------



## highburysouljah (Sep 29, 2005)

Titans dont wear armour :bash:


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Hmm, why would another Gold Coast sporting franchise work now? 

A list of the failed teams:
1. Brisbane Bears, relocated to Brisbane and merged with Fitzroy.
2. Gold Coast Giants league
3. Gold Coast Seagulls league
4. Gold Coast Chargers league
5. Gold Coast Rollers basketball
6. Gold Coast Dolphins baseball

p.s. nice stadium although you would hope the Gold Coast Council wouldn't waste a penny of rate payers money on it. News Ltd/NRL/Titans should pay for the place.

p.p.s. Carrara basically looks like a county 'showground' and that is actually being polite.


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

it's a good stadium


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

I like it. Is this for a new 'franchise' or is there an existing team looking for promotion?


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

I think this is the future for Australia, the more stadia of this size / spec the more chance there is of one day being able to bid for a football world cup.

Melbourne has enough stadia (2), so does Sydney (2) Brissie is OK (1), Perth can get some up to scratch (1)

Then you have 

Adelaide (1)
Gold Coast (1)
Central Coast (Newcastle) (1)
Canberra (1)
Townsville (1)

That is 11 stadia and they are mostly rectangular stadia (save Melbourne and Perth and Adelaide)

I reckon Aus should bid along with England and use it as a dry run, for a successful bid after that! Although being a good as you lot are at bidding for competitions I reckon you could give England a fright!


----------



## Tancred (Dec 18, 2003)

gorgu said:


> I think this is the future for Australia, the more stadia of this size / spec the more chance there is of one day being able to bid for a football world cup.
> 
> Melbourne has enough stadia (2), so does Sydney (2) Brissie is OK (1), Perth can get some up to scratch (1)
> 
> ...



Wow, this idea comes up a lot. To host the world cup you need 8 40k stadiums, and only one city can have two stadiums. If FIFA relax that law a little Sydney & Melbourne are fine. Brisbane is also great (Suncorp holds 52k). That gets us to 5 venues.

Then it gets a lot harder. 
There is no room to expand the gosford venue to 42k, nor the demand. Hindmarsh (In Adelaide) holds 18K, and again there is not the room (Nor the demand) to expand the ground. 
I really doubt the demand to expand the Gold Coast stadium to 40k.

Canberra's stadium holds 25k, and could be expanded, while in Perth MES is currently an 18k venue, and might have the room to expand (I have not been there yet). In Newcastle the ground holds 26k, and there is the room to expand. That just gets us to 8. 

If you compare our grounds to the German 2006 bid, at this time they just don't stack up. Then there is the issue of moving several 100 thousand people around Australia. At this stage we should just focus on bidding for the Asia Cup.


----------



## The_Hoops (Jan 26, 2006)

But what a location Australia would be!! The problem with an England bid is that apart from London, their cities are miserable and depressing! The idea of a holiday in Manchester is laughable!! You would be better off with a weekend in Beirut!

But Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne etc......you can count me in!


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

The_Hoops said:


> But what a location Australia would be!! The problem with an England bid is that apart from London, their cities are miserable and depressing! The idea of a holiday in Manchester is laughable!! You would be better off with a weekend in Beirut!
> 
> But Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne etc......you can count me in!


A well thought out and constructive post there.

You are being a bit harsh there mate, whilst Manchester doesn’t have the natural beauty of the great barrier reef on its door step, you have the Yorkshire dales and the lake district near by, Manchester’s music, dance pub and club culture is fantastic and the SALFORD area is really up and coming.

Oh and if it is your type of thing Manchester is the gay capital of Europe!

You are also forgetting that the WC in the UK (and England in particular) would be a festival of football like no other, England hosted the Euro championships in 96 and are generally considered to be the bench mark with which other competitions should be compared!

Anyhow Canberra, Newcastle and Surfers are not exactly places of beauty either are they?


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

Anyway with the introduction of this stadium I think Australia are heading in the right direction to bid for the WC soon! How about this for controversy, how’s about a joint bid with your cousines across the Tasman, could be vaiable if they can build a decent stadium in Auckland and Christchurch, oh and remove the advertising from their stadia


----------



## The_Hoops (Jan 26, 2006)

gorgu said:


> A well thought out and constructive post there.
> 
> You are being a bit harsh there mate, whilst Manchester doesn’t have the natural beauty of the great barrier reef on its door step, you have the Yorkshire dales and the lake district near by, Manchester’s music, dance pub and club culture is fantastic and the SALFORD area is really up and coming.
> 
> ...


I'm just saying that I would much rather travel to Australia for a trip than England. 2 weeks holidaying in the land of Chavs just ain't my cup of tea!

It's probably because I live in an idustrial chav/ned based city that I can't wait to go on holiday to chav free countries!


"THE CLOSING CEREMONY -

Entertainment will include formation rave dancing by members of the Salford Health in the Community anti-drug campaigners, synchronized rock throwing and music by the Stockport Community Choir"

http://www.lotsofjokes.com/cat_275.htm

http://www.scarrott.org.uk/funny/mancholy.htm


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

Oh well agree to disagree then, cos living in Sydney a trip to Manchester is more attractive to me than visiting Canberra!


----------



## Tancred (Dec 18, 2003)

gorgu said:


> Anyway with the introduction of this stadium I think Australia are heading in the right direction to bid for the WC soon! How about this for controversy, how’s about a joint bid with your cousines across the Tasman, could be vaiable if they can build a decent stadium in Auckland and Christchurch, oh and remove the advertising from their stadia


FIFA have already said they will not accept a joint Australia - NZ bid. We are now in different confederations.


----------



## Ellatur (Apr 7, 2004)

nice, but i think it can still be better for a city like gc..


----------



## Macca-GC (May 20, 2004)

No, come on you guys, this stadium is a really good thing. It has a much better location. Right near Robina Train Station, which of course links into the Brisbane train network, the line which is to be extended to Reedy Creek by 2008 and to Elanora and Tugun by 2011 and possibly down to Gold Coast Airport and the Tweed. Also, it's not in the middle of nowhere like Carrara is. For those of you who wouldn't know, Carrara stadium is in the middle of the Carrara-Merrimac floodplain and the only things near it were caravan parks. There weren't any public transport links to Carrara either. The new Gold Coast Stadium will be at Robina, a major growth centre for the Gold Coast.

Ok, next the stadium is being built by the Queensland Government and the land has been provided by the Gold Coast City Council (Robina Land Corporation gave them a good price). 

Also, yes, many of the Gold Coast's sporting teams have collapsed. The Brisbane Bears didn't. They moved their home ground. But with the Giants and the Seagulls, they were both located down at Tweed Heads where once again, they were out of the way and the Chargers were a victim of the SuperLeague War. They were one of the richest and most successful(not in the games, but off-field) teams in the league. Also, none of those teams had anywhere near the support from either the public or the business community that the Titans do. The titans will be successful


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants (Oct 4, 2005)

The_Hoops said:


> I'm just saying that I would much rather travel to Australia for a trip than England. 2 weeks holidaying in the land of Chavs just ain't my cup of tea!
> 
> It's probably because I live in an idustrial chav/ned based city that I can't wait to go on holiday to chav free countries!
> 
> ...





well,they do have their equivalent of chavs on Oz,believe me.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

What is a "chav"? Is it a way of describing the kind of people you get in the classic tv series "Shameless"? 

That is fantastic stuff. Neighbours wishes it had half the stuff that goes on in that show.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

The_Hoops said:


> But what a location Australia would be!! The problem with an England bid is that apart from London, their cities are miserable and depressing! The idea of a holiday in Manchester is laughable!! You would be better off with a weekend in Beirut!
> 
> But Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne etc......you can count me in!


Well you can't blame cities North of London for their weather thats a natural occurence, although it does seem to rain a lot up north and in London were in a drought :eek2:


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants (Oct 4, 2005)

BobDaBuilder said:


> What is a "chav"? Is it a way of describing the kind of people you get in the classic tv series "Shameless"?
> 
> That is fantastic stuff. Neighbours wishes it had half the stuff that goes on in that show.


yep,classic chav's in Shameless.Vicky Pollard(little britain) is another good example,as is Catherine Tate's "am i bovvered" character


----------



## Macca-GC (May 20, 2004)

^Vicky Pollard rocks!!! I love Little Britain!


----------



## Dean (Sep 11, 2002)

*New World Class Olympic Park Football Stadium, Melbourne (20,000+)*











Today’s announcement of a new $190 million rectangular stadium for Melbourne was warmly received by one of the proposed major tenants of the facility, Melbourne Victory.

Stadium plans announced by the Premier Steve Bracks today reveal a state-of-the-art design with the capacity to accommodate 20,000 spectators purpose-built for rectangular sports including football, rugby league and rugby union.

Having achieved sellout crowds in its opening season in the new Hyundai A-League, Melbourne Victory can look forward to greater capacity and better supporter facilities when the new stadium opens in 2008.

Club Chairman, Geoff Lord, described the stadium as world class and befitting a professional club such as Melbourne Victory.

“As a club we have embarked on a long term strategy for excellence,” Lord said. “To have a stadium with such an iconic design mirrors what we are trying to achieve as a club. We want to build an iconic club for Melbourne, and to play in this magnificent stadium will be marvelous for us.”

Melbourne Victory Football Operations Manager, Gary Cole, was delighted with the plans for the new Olympic Park Stadium.

“I think this stadium is fantastic for Melbourne,” Cole said. “We’ve never had a modern, purpose-built football stadium before. I played for Heidelberg, Victoria and the Socceroos at the old Olympic Park and with a full house it was fantastic; but 20,000 fans in a modern stadium built for football with the sound of the crowd reverberating will be exciting for players and fans alike. I couldn’t think of a more perfect place for Melbourne Victory to call home.”

Interim Melbourne Victory CEO, John Harris, saw the stadium as a symbol of how far the club and the Hyundai A-League have come in such a short time.

“This stadium, our new home, heralds the renaissance of football in Melbourne,” Harris said. “The success of Melbourne Victory and the Hyundai A-League would have been a compelling aspect in the ultimate scope and design of Melbourne’s new stadium.”

Coach Ernie Merrick indicated that the stadium would play a major role in attracting quality overseas players to Melbourne, as well as providing inspiration to local players.

“Football really has come of age. Interest in the sport is enormous, which is reflected in the Australia versus Greece game being sold out in less than two hours,” Merrick said.

“With the State Government committed to building a world class stadium, the future for our game is very bright. We’ll certainly be using the stadium as a tool for attracting high quality international players, and I’m sure the stadium will also serve as a focal point for football for local youngsters in the same way as the MCG does for cricket.”






































i believe it will be designed for capicity to be added at a later date, when required, to 25,000 seats, which i think is a good size.


Cheers

Dean - Melbourne


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

looks like London's Olympic Stadium..


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

I'm not totally convinced on the design as yet but I'm glad this project is finally under way. At last soccer and the rugby codes will have a quality dedicated stadium for their needs. Until now it's also been the missing link in this world class sports precinct which includes the MCG, Rod Laver Arena, Vodaphone Arena and Olympic Park.

More facts and figures


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants (Oct 4, 2005)

NavyBlue said:


> I'm not totally convinced on the design as yet but I'm glad this project is finally under way. At last soccer and the rugby codes will have a quality dedicated stadium for their needs. Until now it's also been the missing link in this world class sports precinct which includes the MCG, Rod Laver Arena, Vodaphone Arena and Olympic Park.
> 
> More facts and figures


Navyblue,can you tell we what the differnace is between the Rod Laver arena and the Vodaphone arena?Aret theyboth part of the Australian Open Tennis.
And what purpose does the Telstra dome serve,surely the MCG can do most things that the dome can?


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

Looks like crap, it will spoil Melbourne, it has such cool stadiums now if they build this one it will be like a wart in Melbourne an ugly thing that no one wants. Make it look better.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Design is great but those light towers....god...ugly as hell.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Man you hit the JACKPOT! Thats the home of the mighty Blues up on Royal Parade in North Carlton. The club is the equivalent of AC Milan, Manchester United and the New York Yankees all rolled into one. It is a great old ground, better than most cricket grounds in England. The only cricket ground better was Lord's I thought and Princes Park actually has a capacity of 36,000 compared to Lord's 28,000. 

- It is where the 1945, "Bloodbath - Grand Final" was staged between Carlton and South Melbourne before 65,000 people.

- More legendary matches in the VFL/AFL over the years than I can possibly remember. The 1986 Hawks/Cats game where most of the players ended up before the Supreme court for brawling including current Lions coach, "Lethal" Leigh Matthews.

- Great Britain played the Australians in a rugby league test back in the late 1980s there.

- AC Milan played Australia there in the early 1990s as well.

- In the late 1980's "Aida" that opera of the pharoahs, with elephants and lions was held up there on the biggest stage for opera of all time.

- Jeff Fenech fought Azumah Nelson for a world title there in the early 1990s before 40,000 people in a record boxing attendance in Oz.

It was a sad day last year when they played the final game. Carlton v. Melbourne with the great John "Big Nick" Nicholls holding the ball aloft to the crowd for the final time.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Melbourne has a lot more than 2 horse racing tracks btw.

The ones I "know of" within Melbourne itself are Flemington, 100k capacity, Caulfield, 50k cap., Moonee Valley, 50k cap(trots and gallops). Sandown, 50k(at least) and also used for motor racing, Werribee, 15-20k, Cranbourne ??? and a few others that I cannot think of. They are the famous ones. 

If you are going for a day, I would recommend Flemington and Caulfield as very good facilities with the hottest "tottie" in the grandstands. The "Whips and Spurs" young member days are particularly good. 

Victoria has 64 country tracks plus more for "picnic racing".

Golf is far better in Victoria however. Even Tiger Woods said he would base his golf course designs on those in and around Melbourne.


----------



## Adamonline (Sep 12, 2002)

BaronVonChickenpants said:


> Navyblue,can you tell we what the differnace is between the Rod Laver arena and the Vodaphone arena?Aret theyboth part of the Australian Open Tennis.
> And what purpose does the Telstra dome serve,surely the MCG can do most things that the dome can?


Each venue fills specific functions well. 

*Rod Laver Arena 14,800* - Primarily used for Tennis, Gymnastics and Basketball.
*Vodafone Arena 10,400* - Primarily used as a Velodrome, Netball, Basketball and to a lesser extent Tennis No2 Court.
*Telstra Dome 56,000* - Melbourne's number 2 stadium is used primarily for Australian Rules football, Rugby, concerts, and occasionally for cricket.
*The MCG 100,000* - Everything and anything when ever you need a big arena, and a venue that holds more than 56,000. 

Telstra Dome replaced a much larger (Now demolished) stadium that used to be in the suburbs. It has filled a particular requirement in that many Aussie Rules home games outgrew the old suburban grounds in terms of crowd sizes but you could only play on the MCG so much during one week. Average crowd attendances in the Dome are likely to be between 35-50,000, and 56,000 capacity was what was believed would allow the Dome to be run economically back when it was built in 2000. 

On the other hand the MCG earns it's money and place in Melbourne at least once or twice a week during the footy season when crowds way exceed Telstra Domes capacity. Certainly the one day cricket games throughout summer the Melbourne crowds average 70-80,000 and international soccer games are normally big crowd pullers as well.

I think that the new venue will provide a better seating configuration for Rugby league Games and for local soccer competition. A 20-25,000 seater is more economical for Rugby League and Soccer. Also it adds another string to Melbourne's bow as Melbourne doesn't have a large field hockey stadium. The best it has is the 6000 seat State Hockey Centre. 

Melbourne needs a venue of this capacity because the way that Telstra Dome is configured and operates, you need to have a crowd of 30,000 in there in order to break even with costs. The MCG is also a similar story and plus the ground is too vast to watch Rugby or Soccer games on. The play tends to dissappear into it's vastness. As Dean says, the venue won't go unused nor will it become a white elephant, Melbourne is a big city and accommodates all sporting interests and tastes.

Cheers :cheers:


----------



## Adamonline (Sep 12, 2002)

Durbsboi said:


> Okay apart from this new stadium looking shit, does melbourne need another stadium? dont get me wrong, I love stadiums, the more the better I feel.
> 
> whats this stadium used for?


The old Princess Park is little more than a cluster of Grandstands of various vintages ranging from the 1920's to the late 90's. 

Princess Park was used during 1942-1946 to play all AFL Grand Final Games as the MCG was annexed during those years as the world's biggest Army and Airforce barracks. In the 1945 AFL Grand Final Princess Park held 66,000 people (A ground attendance record). 

It was almost demolished in 1952 when the State Government of Victoria were going to build the 1956 Olympic Games Stadium on the site. Works commenced but were stopped two months into preliminary earthworks with a change of Government. The new Labor Government led by John Cain (Senior) decreed that building a new stadium was a waste of money when the Melbourne already had the MCG. The MCG had been previously not considered because there were powerful forces in the Melbourne establishment who believed that the MCG should only be used for Cricket and Football. The AFL and the Melbourne Cricket Club had a very uncomfortable relationship in those days but the AFL paid the bills. The Cain government told the Melbourne Cricket Club that they would recieve no funding for future development from the State Government unless they allowed for redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground for the staging of the Olympic Games. Since then the MCG has been totally rebuilt and hosted many other events other than cricket and football. And the rest as they say ... is history.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Durbsboi said:


> Back to the stadium now..................................
> Its still looks like shit


What makes it look shit?
Someones jealous....


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

looks like a cross of the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Stadiums to me


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

but good


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Here's a cool short video...looks better than most of the pics.

A virtual flyover the stadium


----------



## jim_ozora (Feb 28, 2005)

nice vid, love the design ! looks kinda like...Alianz Arena doesnt it? can wait to be in there cheering on Victory when we cane Sydneys ass again !!


----------



## Drunkill (Jul 31, 2004)

Ahh if only Princess park was still used for AFL matches, i attended the final match, too bad about the outcome. Damn you John Elliot, ruining the club for a few years.

I like this stadium, it will be good for the local soccer fans who support Melb Victory. It will be good, seeming groundworks will start in a month or so.

And about the hockey, this will be grass, you can't play feild hockey on this type of grass, you may as wlel add an extra stand onto the state hockey centre, thats quite a good facility played on it once.

If only it were made to expand to 30k not 25k.



> At the heart of the design is the Bioframe, a lightweight steel design based on the inherent structural efficiencies of the dome. This uses 50% less steel than a typical cantilever roof structure. This structure is then skinned in a triangular panelised façade that can be made up with a combination of glass, metal and louvers, as well as potential for *photovoltaic cells*. Together, the Bioframe and the skin form a highly sculptural, non industrial object. A new image for a stadium that moves away from industrial aesthetic to sculptural design.


 Solar panel roof anyone?


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

^^^^^^^^^

Damn Ian Collins more like it. He has been running the club for 5 years and done nothing but go further into the shit. He has dragged the club away from Princes Park when all the members were against it to further line the pockets of shareholders of Telstra Dome, his ruddy employers.

Collo was there during the Elliot dynasty too, so his hands are covered in blood as well.

It is a joke, a number of board members are now trying to toss Collo out on his arse.


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

[Gioяgos] said:


> What makes it look shit?
> Someones jealous....


Yes, I'm jealous of that


----------



## victory (Mar 4, 2006)

> Man you hit the JACKPOT! Thats the home of the mighty Blues up on Royal Parade in North Carlton. The club is the equivalent of AC Milan, Manchester United and the New York Yankees all rolled into one.


No, Carlton are a corrupt, almost bankrupt team consistantly on the bottom rungs of the ladder. I dont get it Carlton cheat by a whopping amount yet they still manage to finish last, some real skill required for that feat of hopelessness. 

Essendon Bombers FC are the Manchester United of Australia, with the history, recent success, fan base, money, marquee players, and under the salary cap-ness to prove it. In fact essendonFC and MU have a partnership for marketing and professional development, we truly are the MUFC of Down Under.

If anybody else comes close it would be Collingwood, but lets both reject them shall we 

See the Bombers fly UP! UP!



Oh, and the new staium looks ugle, overpriced, and does not have enough room for expansion. Once again a horrible design choice by the Bracks government to go with Fed Square and Spencer Street station.


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

Dean said:


> everyone now knows you hate it. you seem to be the only one.





victory said:


> Oh, and the new staium looks ugle, overpriced, and does not have enough room for expansion. Once again a horrible design choice by the Bracks government to go with Fed Square and Spencer Street station.


you see I am not the only one!


----------



## victory (Mar 4, 2006)

another thing i dont like about it is the clear roof. Considering the A-League is during the Australian summer, Victory fans need shade from the unforgiving sun, yet the build the bloody roof clear?

It will be good to have a decent rectangle stadium in the city, lord knows the storm and the victory deserve it, but they could not have picked a worse design.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

^^^^^^^^^^

They play at night and it can snow in Melbourne during the summer. Then again it could be 45 too. It is a wacky world we live in down here.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Durbsboi said:


> Yes, I'm jealous of that


dont worry he hates most projects that arent in durban..


----------



## Durbsboi (Dec 2, 2005)

Mo Rush said:


> dont worry he hates most projects that arent in durban..


Hey, I didnt say that, I like.........Mm.......let me think..........

just kidding, i dig all projects, its the design that get me edgy.


----------



## dunwyn (Mar 15, 2006)

Man, this thread just cracks me up LOL.  Having sat as a Victory member watching Sydney FC getting thrashed 5-0 I paused at the time enjoying the atmosphere in the stadium. Olympic Park has poor facilities, seating, and athletics track but that day 18206 people created a magical presence which was worth every cent (dollar!). I hope the new stadium will imprint an similar atmosphere on my psyche. Is there technology that could change the amount of light coming through the roof, ie opaque to transparent? This technology could be used at Docklands and the MCG. *Let the grass grow!*


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

I'm sure the technology is out there (think glasses that become darker in the sun) but it'd probably be really expensive.

And people in Australia will complain no matter what or how much the government spends money on.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

There is an office I work in which uses natural light rather than artificial light. It is pumped through optic fibre cables(essentially glass fibres) to special bulbs which have natural light. It is a Swedish company that makes them, but it got me thinking that it has all kinds of great practical uses on a far larger scale. Namely fixing the problems at Telstra Dome. The only problem is, how far can these fibres take natural light and re-transmit them and will that natural light be strong enough to help grass grow? In theory I cannot see why not.

Whatever happens I am sure the local hydroponics operations are already onto it. Using power 24 hours a day off the mains is the way most "cultivators" in the weed game get busted. With this technology no-body knows what you are growing because natural light is free!


----------



## victory (Mar 4, 2006)

The other problem with optical fibres is that you cannot bend them at large angles or else the light refracts out of the cable.


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

*GABBA, BRISBANE*


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)




----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)




----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)




----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

THOSE PICTURES WERE TAKEN IN JANUARY IN A MATCH BETWEEN QLD AND VICTORIA


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

WHICH SAW A RECORD PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN MIKE HUSSEY AND CAMERON WHITE


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Stop shouting!


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

^^
Is it hurting your ears? Lol


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

i think brisbane bid for the olympic games a many years ago...do u guys know any of the plans that were proposed back then?


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

i don't know much about an olympic games bid but they hosted the commonwealth games in 1982


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Brisbane bid unsuccessfully for the 1992 Olympics, which of course went to Barcelona.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

I love the Gabba it reminds me of a mini MCG


----------



## victory (Mar 4, 2006)

Sorry, but the Gabba is a hole.

If you're going to have a small cricket ground, make it like the SCG or Adelaide, and if you're going to have a symetrical concrete bowl, make it huge, tall, and so intimidating that the fear is it's character (like the MCG), and dont have one of the world ugliest seating patterns.

The Gabba has the worst of it all.


----------



## samba_man (Dec 26, 2004)

Yeah, great one!


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Every time I see this place it reminds me of the "cookie cutter" baseball stadiums in the US, especially before the hole was filled in a few years back.

Apart from the vomit coloured seating pattern, I like it and the capacity seems about right for Brisbane.


@Rexfan2 . . . you need to supply some pics of a Lions home game.


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

i don't have any of a lions home game


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

victory said:


> Sorry, but the Gabba is a hole.
> 
> If you're going to have a small cricket ground, make it like the SCG or Adelaide, and if you're going to have a symetrical concrete bowl, make it huge, tall, and so intimidating that the fear is it's character (like the MCG), and dont have one of the world ugliest seating patterns.
> 
> The Gabba has the worst of it all.


What a load of crap. Besides, there wouldn't be enough room for the Gabba to be too much bigger, the grandstands already overhang Stanley St.


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

that's correct


----------



## victory (Mar 4, 2006)

Eureka! said:


> Recent success!!!????
> 
> :rofl: :laugh: :crazy2: :weirdo: :crazy: :hahaha: :wtf: :lol: :nuts:
> 
> They came 2nd last this year and the past 2 or so years they have come in the bottom 3!!! Success??? hahaha. Yes Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood have loads of great history and Carlton and Essendon have each won 16 grandfinals but recent sucess. Essendon is also having financial problems (I think??? or maybe not...) and Carlton beat Essendon the first time they played this year and drew the second.



Essendon is not having financial problems.

And by recent success i mean last 10 years, not last 10 months. 

Which includes 2 x 1-point premlim finals losses, 1 grand final win, 1 grand final loss, 2 minor-premierships including perhaps one of the most dominant seasons ever seen in any league with a salary cap.

And with a salary cap every team will go up and down in thier on-field success, in a 5 year span (almost) any team could go from being top one year, to getting the spoon, to go back to winning the minor premiership.


----------



## Eureka! (Jun 7, 2006)

10 years isn't that recent... and I wasn't talking about the last ten months, rather the last 3 years.

And carlton won the pre season cup last year then got the spoon...lol


----------



## Plogs (Jun 3, 2006)

victory said:


> No, Carlton are a corrupt, almost bankrupt team consistantly on the bottom rungs of the ladder. I dont get it Carlton cheat by a whopping amount yet they still manage to finish last, some real skill required for that feat of hopelessness.
> 
> Essendon Bombers FC are the Manchester United of Australia, with the history, recent success, fan base, money, marquee players, and under the salary cap-ness to prove it. In fact essendonFC and MU have a partnership for marketing and professional development, we truly are the MUFC of Down Under.
> 
> ...


Comes close ? COLLINGWOOD are the Australian Man U. Richest sporting club in the land with a massive supporter base, biggest membership in Melbourne, corporate sponsorship in the millions with sponsors lining up to be a part of the action, highest attendence of the league (& Australia), biggest TV attendences, a high profile president (CEO of the highest rating TV station in the land), state of the art training facilities which are the envy of all other clubs & a rich, proud history. This is the club that polarises people, you even love them or hate them & when one of their players fart, it's front page news.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Anyways, back to the talk about the stadium.............


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

30k should be fine, although it'd be nice if it was expandable to 40k


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

victory said:


> Which includes 2 x 1-point premlim finals losses, 1 grand final win, 1 grand final loss, 2 minor-premierships


Translation - have won 1 trophy that matters in last ten seasons.

When I arrived in Oz (1999/2000), Essendon were very Man Utd like - winning a lot, very arrogant about it, and generally disliked by everyone other than there own supporters (most of whom had only appeared when the team started winning).

And for the record... Collingwood = Newcastle United. Massive support - mostly mongrels - and haven't won anything for years. They even wear the same colours.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Essendon the Man U of Oz. Your joking aren't you?

That would imply every second person around the country follows the Bombers which simply is false. What I have found is that Carlton or Collingwood would be jockeying for that title and that is changing due to the introduction and success of the interstate clubs.

Essendon sells a lot of memberships due to them being extremely successful for decades. If times go bad for them again like the 1970s, we will soon find out the true followers.


----------



## ||-GOB-|| (Nov 6, 2006)

No Australian domestic football team (this includes all four football codes) can compare to Man U. Trying to find an 'aussie equivalent' is just stupid.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

We don't have a population of 50 million plus and a football system which favours one particular clubs dominance over all others which naturally will attract a lot of followers.

In Oz, people would abandon watching a league where there is little or no hope of success.


----------



## Eureka! (Jun 7, 2006)

Plogs said:


> a high profile president (CEO of the highest rating TV station in the land).


channel nine is actually like the lowest rating channel in the land.

anyways back to the stadium.

I haven't heard anything for ages about it and I think since the crowds have been to high it's going to be redesigned with more seats, possibly dumped or gat given a whole new design.


----------



## Morjo (Sep 10, 2006)

Eureka! said:


> channel nine is actually like the lowest rating channel in the land.


What the hell where did you pull that crap from?


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Australia deserves Channel Nine and what they dish up to us because we continue to watch their shite.


----------



## Eureka! (Jun 7, 2006)

Morjo said:


> What the hell where did you pull that crap from?


Weel not quite but ever since Eddie Maguire became president the ratings have been falling steadily, in Melbourne anyway. All the top rating shows for the year were on channel ten and seven.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

BobDaBuilder said:


> We don't have a population of 50 million plus and a football system which favours one particular clubs dominance over all others which naturally will attract a lot of followers.
> 
> In Oz, people would abandon watching a league where there is little or no hope of success.


Fickle, aren't they... "My team can't win the title so I'm not going to watch anymore." 95% of football fans in the world would have to walk away if that was the case elsewhere.


----------



## Plogs (Jun 3, 2006)

Eureka! said:


> channel nine is actually like the lowest rating channel in the land.
> 
> 
> Firstly, i am no Nine fan. I have not got the yearly ratings at hand but the above statement could not be any further from the truth.


----------



## Dasher39 (Nov 24, 2005)

All of Melbourne Victory's holding out has paid dividends...



> *Bracks hopes 50,000-seat lure will net Victory*
> _Peter Ker
> March 5, 2007_
> 
> ...


A very exciting development!!


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

^^ This is brilliant news. :banana: 

31,500 seats with a possible extra 3,000 standing room behind one end which increases the capacity to around 34,000.

The best part is the foundations that can allow it to be expanded up to 50,000 seats which is great news for a possible future WC bid. It would allow this stadium and the MCG to be used for the tournament while leaving the Telstra Dome free for AFL to run uninterrupted.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

It will be interesting to see how the removable seating for rugby league games work. 

I still say no to any games being played at MCG if we get the WC though. But hey, that's another matter.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Brilliant "handball" by Bracks. Just like Connex Metro, water, electricity, roads, schools, police corruption etc..etc..etc..

Just a compromise deal which probably will never be expanded to 50k, just like the VFL Park was not.

However gotta say on the whole thing is, Telstra Dome should be sued by the government for not delivering their promise of a 50k rectangular configuration stadia.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Wezza said:


> It will be interesting to see how the removable seating for rugby league games work.
> 
> I still say no to any games being played at MCG if we get the WC though. But hey, that's another matter.


I thought they were saying that the capacity would be 28500, but 3000 extra seats would be added if Victory signed up. Not removable seats, just a case of paying a bit more to build a bit bigger stadium IF the football club signs up.

It baffles me that Bracks' logic all along has been that we don't need another 40-50k seater because we have TelstraDome, but now they announce that the foundations will be capable of taking 50k... So Stevie, do we need two 50k stadiums or not?


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Funny that the number of stadiums used for this tournament is higher than the number of countries participating :nuts: Can Rugby League really fill a 50,000 stadium in Australia (considering it's such a small sport in the rest of the world, except northern England and PNG perhaps)?


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

Joop20 said:


> Can Rugby League really fill a 50,000 stadium in Australia (considering it's such a small sport in the rest of the world, except northern England and PNG perhaps)?


what a daft comment.......go away and do some reading about rugby league in australia hno:


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

spud said:


> what a daft comment.......go away and do some reading about rugby league in australia hno:


Didnt mean to offend anyone, I'm just surprised that apperantly Rugby League is so popular in Australia while it's such a small sport in the rest of the world (compared to Rugby Union for example)!


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> That's down to all the ringers who have moved there for work.


Load of crap and utterly baseless. WA has dominated the Victoria and South Australian for decades in league and union. As someone who's been involved with both I can proudly say that there has always been a strong home grown presense in the representative teams.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Joop20 said:


> Funny that the number of stadiums used for this tournament is higher than the number of countries participating :nuts: Can Rugby League really fill a 50,000 stadium in Australia (considering it's such a small sport in the rest of the world, except northern England and PNG perhaps)?


Brisbane Broncos regularly pull crowds of 50,000 during the NRL season. Test rugby league is generally less popular than club or state of origin matches. Though test matches have seen a bit of a resurgence over the past few years, particularly in Brisbane & to some extent, Melbourne as well.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Rugby League is one of the big two in Australia during the autumn & winter months along with Australian Rules Football. In fact, the 2007 NRL season attracted some 3,024,040 fans through the gates over 192 games at an average of 15,750 per game. The NRL finals attracted 307,954 fans over 9 games at an average of 34,217 per game with the Grand Final attracting 81,392 to Telstra Stadium (97% capacity).

That season average may not seem much but when the average capacity of each venue used is 28,135 (Including the 83,500 seat Telstra Stadium, 52,500 seat Suncorp Stadium & 45,500 seat Sydney Football Stadium), then its not bad really.

During 2007, the highest NRL crowd was the above mentioned Grand Final. The highest home & away crowd was 50,416 at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium to see the Brisbane Bronco s v North Queensland. The 3 game State of Origin attracted 181,891 fans (2 games at Suncorp, 1 at Telstra Stadium) while the mid-season ANZAC Test at Suncorp attracted 35,241 fans.

Don't doubt it people. The 2008 RLWC Final at Suncorp Stadium should attract a capacity crowd.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Just out of interest, here are the top 5 NRL average attendances for 2007:
1. Brisbane Broncos - 34,008
2. Gold Coast Titans - 22,775
3. North Queensland Cowboys - 19,747
4. Wests Tigers - 17,098
5. Canterbury Bulldogs - 16,488


----------



## SkyLerm (Nov 26, 2005)

Brisbane Suncorp :drool: I'll always be in love with it.


----------



## bumdingo (Jan 25, 2007)

It's great the finals are being held in Australia, not so far for you to go home when we knock you out of the quarter finals like in the Rugby Union World Cup


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

bumdingo said:


> It's great the finals are being held in Australia, not so far for you to go home when we knock you out of the quarter finals like in the Rugby Union World Cup


You're a funny little man aren't you? Always with something very insightful to say.....


----------



## bumdingo (Jan 25, 2007)

Wezza said:


> You're a funny little man aren't you? Always with something very insightful to say.....


What are New Zealanders doing to cut carbon emissions? Dropping the Australians off on the way home


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

wrong rugby code mate....


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

bumdingo said:


> What are New Zealanders doing to cut carbon emissions? Dropping the Australians off on the way home


You should really try to find out what you're talking about before making a comment.


----------



## Cheesie-the-Pirate (Oct 12, 2007)

NavyBlue said:


> ...but why are they using the SCG?
> a . . . it's under construction with limited capacity
> b . . . it's the wrong shape for league
> c . . . SFS is right next door, literally


They're not using the SCG is the answer. The press release referred to the "SCG precinct", but the two major Sydney fixtures (Opening Ceremony & Australia vs. New Zealand, Semi Final 2) will be held at the Sydney Football Stadium.

I'm a bit baffled at the choice of CUA Stadium, Penrith. I don't see what it offers to the tournament. Otherwise though I think they've got a nifty little tournament organised!


----------



## Perth4life (Mar 30, 2003)

since when was there a RLWC? 
bit dissapointing they arn't even going to have one game in Perth or Adelaide, shows how NRL is hardly a national game.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Perth4life said:


> since when was there a RLWC?
> bit dissapointing they arn't even going to have one game in Perth or Adelaide, shows how NRL is hardly a national game.


If they're not going to draw much of a crowd in Perth, no point playing any games there really! Especially if Australia aren't featured in any of them.


----------



## Cheesie-the-Pirate (Oct 12, 2007)

Perth4life said:


> since when was there a RLWC?


Since 1954. Much older than the RUWC. 

Last one was 2000 in Great Britain, the generally accepted failure of which led the hiatus the concept has been on. Then centenary of the game in Australia and the success of recent tri-nation tournaments has led to the RLWC's revival. Another tournament is expected in Britain/Europe in 2013.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

I'm not usually one for negative posts - but I can't get excited about a world cup in any sport where pretty much any nation that plays the game gets to go to the finals... I think the real beauty and attraction of the 'soccer' world cup is that only 32 of over 200 nations qualify, and there are always at least a couple of 'top' nations that fail to make the cut which makes it special just to be there.

Rugby world cups, cricket world cups, etc... Does anyone really care? Is it not demonstrated how interested the world truly is in these competitions that they should chose to host games in stadia with capacity as low as 10000 seats (and not expect to sell those out either!)


----------



## bumdingo (Jan 25, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> I'm not usually one for negative posts - but I can't get excited about a world cup in any sport where pretty much any nation that plays the game gets to go to the finals... I think the real beauty and attraction of the 'soccer' world cup is that only 32 of over 200 nations qualify, and there are always at least a couple of 'top' nations that fail to make the cut which makes it special just to be there.
> 
> Rugby world cups, cricket world cups, etc... Does anyone really care? Is it not demonstrated how interested the world truly is in these competitions that they should chose to host games in stadia with capacity as low as 10000 seats (and not expect to sell those out either!)


Great idea, get rid of all those sports in the Olympics to where only a handful of people turn up. Get rid of the events which are dominated by a couple of countries. Alternately get rid of Benjuk


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Benjuk said:


> I'm not usually one for negative posts - but I can't get excited about a world cup in any sport where pretty much any nation that plays the game gets to go to the finals... I think the real beauty and attraction of the 'soccer' world cup is that only 32 of over 200 nations qualify, and there are always at least a couple of 'top' nations that fail to make the cut which makes it special just to be there.
> 
> Rugby world cups, cricket world cups, etc... Does anyone really care? Is it not demonstrated how interested the world truly is in these competitions that they should chose to host games in stadia with capacity as low as 10000 seats (and not expect to sell those out either!)


Rugby World Cup is one of the biggest sporting events on the planet!! I'd say the 4th biggest? Cricket would be up there as well. Fair enough, there may not be 32 teams, but it is still a big deal to competing countries.


bumdingo said:


> Alternately get rid of Benjuk


How about we get rid of you? You have nothing useful to offer.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Anyone know what the latest position is with Bob Jane Stadium? Last I heard they were trying to get Athletics Australia to re-locate there and give the place a face-lift.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

A r c h i said:


>


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Hindmarsh Stadium is a brilliant small stadium, of that there is no doubt. However, I do have to agree with invincible in that there is unfortunately no room for the stadium to expand. Its ultimate capacity is probably no more than 25,000 at most, and that's probably stretching it a bit. 20,000 is more likely but right now there is no real need for it to be expanded, leaving it at its 16,500 capacity.

I will say this though. invincible is wrong with his "Adelaide has no suitable place to play rugby" statement. International rugby (league & union) at Hindmarsh is correct, but Hindmarsh's field is large enough (only just) to field both so NRL games and Super 14 isn't out of the question. Other than that, Adelaide Oval has also proven suitable with its current capacity of 33,000 and its future expansion to 40,000. Although I will admit, its like watching a game with an athletics track between the fans & the pitch.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

I wonder if that model is correctly to scale? There seems to be a long way from the stands to the pitch. More than i was expecting actually.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

I think it is, that way it can accommodate rugby. Like Parc des Princes currently.



Benjuk said:


> Anyone know what the latest position is with Bob Jane Stadium? Last I heard they were trying to get Athletics Australia to re-locate there and give the place a face-lift.


I think that fell through as AA, understandably, wanted to stay at their spiritual home Olympic Park. Bob Jane is a real mess though.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

whats up with the lighting structures..haven't they heard of adding lights to the edge of the roof..would even have a better effect at night.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Light towers are infinitely cooler than roof mounted lights.  They're different, if you haven't realised, Melbourne loves to do its architecture totally different to other cities around the world.

It will help match the adjacent floodlights of the Olympic Park Stadium next door and the MCG's 80 metre tall towers down the road too.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Gotta love the design of this stadium, though I wonder how they will be able to expand it from 30k to 50k in the future?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Bobby3 said:


> I think it is, that way it can accommodate rugby. Like Parc des Princes currently.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that fell through as AA, understandably, wanted to stay at their spiritual home Olympic Park. Bob Jane is a real mess though.


I realise it's to accomodate rugby union & rugby league, though i still though the pitch would be a tad smaller than that. There looks to be more than ample room for union & league pitches. We'll see i guess!!

Just on the lighting towers, i thought i read it somewhere that the roof wasn't high enough to have roof mounted lighting that would be effective enough? I'm not sure? I don't like the lighting towers either, oh well, what can you do?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Joop20 said:


> Gotta love the design of this stadium, though I wonder how they will be able to expand it from 30k to 50k in the future?


well im not sure if its an original. cox designed something very similar for their proposal for durbans world cup stadium...


----------



## Chairman (Jun 1, 2006)

I'm so frustrated that we keep building stadums with long distances on the end for some reason it's because of Rugby but look at grounds in England they have both Rugby and Football and as said Hindmarsh has hosted NRL games so its obviously fine. I dream of the day we build a rectangular stadium with snugly fitting ends.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

^^
Most of the grounds in England are too small for league to be played on IMO. The in goal areas are far too small, it can be unsafe for the players when chasing a kick down etc. 

But like i said earlier, i did think the seats would be a little closer to the pitch than what that model shows. We'll have to wait & see the real thing to be able to pass a proper judgement though.


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

Chairman said:


> I'm so frustrated that we keep building stadums with long distances on the end for some reason it's because of Rugby but look at grounds in England they have both Rugby and Football and as said Hindmarsh has hosted NRL games so its obviously fine. I dream of the day we build a rectangular stadium with snugly fitting ends.


when its going to be used for rugby/league decent goal areas are needed

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pq_U21SgiO8


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

The last of 4 cranes almost erected...










Thanks to wowsim for this flickr find.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hopkinsii/2277077980/


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> whats up with the lighting structures..haven't they heard of adding lights to the edge of the roof..would even have a better effect at night.


Although not really apt in this case - I used to travel to a lot of away games when I lived in England, until the post-Taylor-report rush of new stadiums it used to be so easy to simply drive into a town and look for the floodlight towers, then drive toward them to get to the match. Once the towers went, I had to learn how to read a map!!

I really like the towers on this little stadium, but on that model they almost appear to be facing the wrong way.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Bobby3 said:


> I think that fell through as AA, understandably, wanted to stay at their spiritual home Olympic Park. Bob Jane is a real mess though.


Tragically dumpy. Pity - fantastic setting for a little football ground. Amazing skyline as you approach from the south. Great position from the air as well, with the lake and the parkland around it. Would be great if someone could spend a fraction of what's being spent on the MRS to tidy it up with a couple of simple stands, and accept the reality that the old pavillion is going to fall over one day and may as well just be pulled down... Could be an ideal home for a second Melbourne franchise in the A-League (not South Melbourne).


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

NavyBlue said:


> The last of 4 cranes almost erected...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Will this be the world's finest sports precinct when complete? MCG, Rod Laver Arena, Vodaphone Arena, Olympic Park (tarted up for athletics Australia), the Lexus Center and the MRS all within 5 minutes walk of each other.


----------



## bing222 (Nov 4, 2007)

There is a webcam looking at the construction of the stadium the like is http://www.mopt.com.au/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-178/


----------



## timmy- brissy (Aug 28, 2007)

Really nice stadium and don't Gold Coast have a new stadium?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

^^
Yep, it's a 27,000 seater, only 1 tier.


----------



## timmy- brissy (Aug 28, 2007)

Has anyone been the Gold coast stadium? If so what's it like?


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

According to wikipedia, Skilled Park was opened in Feb 2008. A few photos of the stadium after its inauguration from Flickr. Congratulations to Australian friends. It's very pretty :cheers:


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

*AUSTRALIA - 2008 Rugby League World Cup Venues*

In October, the 13th Rugby League World Cup will take place in Australia. Here's a run-down of the 12 venues:



















SunCorp Stadium, Brisbane, QLD (52,500)




















Skilled Park, Gold Coast, QLD (25,000)











Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville, QLD (25,000)











Credit Union Australia (CUA) Stadium, Penrith, NSW (21,000)











Parramatta Stadium, Parramatta, NSW (20,000)




















Browne Park, Rockhampton, QLD (8,000)




















Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney, NSW (45,500)




















Telstra Dome, Melbourne, VIC (56,347)




















EnergyAustralia Stadium, Newcastle, NSW (26,126)











Canberra Stadium, Canberra, ACT (25,011)











WIN Stadium, Wollongong, NSW (20,000)











Bluetongue Stadium, Gosford, NSW (20,119)


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

anz isn't being used?


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

nope


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

You missed out the Sydney Cricket Ground.


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

why not?


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

ANZ isn't being used because in recent times Sydney crowds for test rugby league have been smaller than they have been & ANZ is simply too big. Crowds are small enough for games to move back to the Sydney Football Stadium and/or Sydney Cricket Ground. Or other stadiums around Oz. Strange though, the Kangaroo's have never played a test in Canberra & Canberra has a beautiful 25,000 seat rectangle stadium.

Having 30,000 people turn up to a RL Test in an 83,500 seat stadium doesn't look good for the code, or the promoters etc and its not all that inspiring for the players either. Having 30,000 turn up and making the stadium mostly full is a better commercial choice and gets the players fired up and that usually means better football.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

Holden V8, I have to agree. Much as I would love to see a full ANZ, the simple truth is that international rugby doesn't sell as well in Australia as, say the State of Origin series. Maybe that's a commentary on the superiority of the 'Roos or maybe it hints at the insularity of the average Aussie fan. I'm not really able to say. 

It's becoming quite an old-fashioned notion to hold the view that any international sport is inherently 'better' than its domestic equivalent. By the same token, sadly, it's also difficult to make the case that even an Ashes series exhibits a higher standard of play than the Origin series - or even the NRL.

BTW, I didn't see the SCG on the WC website. Are you sure it's a venue? Isn't it next door to Aussie Stadium?


----------



## rockin'.baltimorean (Jul 5, 2008)

sydney's retractable roof stadium looks really nice!!! it's great!!!kay:


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

Which one? in Melbourne?


----------



## bing222 (Nov 4, 2007)

The final will be at Suncorp Stadium and the Sydney Cricket Ground is not being used


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

rockin'.baltimorean said:


> sydney's retractable roof stadium looks really nice!!! it's great!!!kay:


That's in Melbourne... I'm looking out of my office at it right now (half of it anyway, some b'stard built a new apartment block between here and there and blocked half the view!).


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

I thought that the SCG was being used as its the 100th year of rugby league here in Australia. Ok, I stand corrected *shrugs*

And don't get me wrong, international league in Australia does have a good following, its just that for some reason in recent years (since the mid 90's) crowds for tests in Sydney have been rather poor compared to Brisbane, thus Brisbane was awarded the final.

I understand that the final was originally to have been in Sydney but the poor turnout to the 2006 Tri-Nations Final at the was the last straw for organisers. With this years World Cup coinciding with the 100 year anniversary of league here, it was felt that Brisbane people had voted enough with bums on seats to be awarded the biggest game ahead of Sydney. The people of Sydney only have themselves to blame there. Regardless of how much Australia has dominated international league since the mid-late 1970's, they should still be supporting the Kangaroos. Long gone are the days when 60-70,000 regularly turned up to the Sydney Cricket Ground to see Australia play Great Britain, New Zealand or France in a test. More's the pity really.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

HoldenV8 said:


> Regardless of how much Australia has dominated international league since the mid-late 1970's, they should still be supporting the Kangaroos. Long gone are the days when 60-70,000 regularly turned up to the Sydney Cricket Ground to see Australia play Great Britain, New Zealand or France in a test. More's the pity really.


I quite agree. As I said, sadly the Origin and even the NRL appear to be a greater draw. Maybe an England win in November would shake the NSW fans out of their test-level lethargy. 

Like you say, it shouldn't make a difference to the support they give, but apparently, it does.

If only I felt anything other than an Australia win was faintly possible...hno:


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

HoldenV8 said:


> Regardless of how much Australia has dominated international league since the mid-late 1970's, they should still be supporting the Kangaroos. Long gone are the days when 60-70,000 regularly turned up to the Sydney Cricket Ground to see Australia play Great Britain, New Zealand or France in a test. More's the pity really.


It's kind of hard to sell tickets for a game when the only question beforehand is 'how many'

I can't think of another international team sport where one county has dominated so comprehensively for so long.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Which is more popular worldwide, Rugby League WC or Rugby WC? And Wikipedia says that Rugby World Cup is the premier international rugby union competition, but why is the word Union missing in Rugby WC? Maybe people think rugby union is more representative of rugby football than rugby league?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Rugby World Cup (i.e. the rugby union competition) by a massive distance.

Rugby football is so-called because its origin is traced to Rugby School in England - the first governing body was called the Rugby Football Union as it was literally a union of rugby-playing clubs. In the 1890s a number of these clubs became unhappy with the total ban on paying players, so resigned from the RFU and formed their own Northern Union, which was later renamed the Rugby Football League. Although both groups still played the "rugby" kind of football, to save confusion the newspapers in English-speaking countries started referring to "Rugby Union football" and "Rugby League football", after the governing bodies, and the convention stuck. However, outside the UK and Australasia rugby union was and still is the dominant code, and since it's administered by organisations such as "Fédération Française de Rugby", "USA Rugby", "Deutscher Rugby-Verband" and controlled by the "International Rugby Board", the "rugby union" nomenclature isn't universally recognised.

Rugby is used to mean rugby union specifically far more often than it is to mean rugby league (usually only in the North of England - in Australia rugby league fans will refer to it as "football" or "league" and rugby union as "rugby").


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

The birth of rugby league is attributed to the ban on paying players by the governing body of rugby union :lol: That's funny. Your explanations are always awesome, CharlieP kay:


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Are those seats in Telstra Dome drawn out? The AFL playing surface is much bigger than that and it looks as if some seats are pulled in front of others.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> Rugby World Cup (i.e. the rugby union competition) by a massive distance.
> 
> Rugby football is so-called because its origin is traced to Rugby School in England - the first governing body was called the Rugby Football Union as it was literally a union of rugby-playing clubs. In the 1890s a number of these clubs became unhappy with the total ban on paying players, so resigned from the RFU and formed their own Northern Union, which was later renamed the Rugby Football League. Although both groups still played the "rugby" kind of football, to save confusion the newspapers in English-speaking countries started referring to "Rugby Union football" and "Rugby League football", after the governing bodies, and the convention stuck. However, outside the UK and Australasia rugby union was and still is the dominant code, and since it's administered by organisations such as "Fédération Française de Rugby", "USA Rugby", "Deutscher Rugby-Verband" and controlled by the "International Rugby Board", the "rugby union" nomenclature isn't universally recognised.
> 
> Rugby is used to mean rugby union specifically far more often than it is to mean rugby league (usually only in the North of England - in Australia rugby league fans will refer to it as "football" or "league" and rugby union as "rugby").


I've always disliked the arrogance with which Union refers to itself as 'Rugby' as if it owns the term exclusively. I know that League was essentially a break-away (following the agreement at the George Hotel in Huddersfield i 1895), based on the "broken time" payments to the early professionals. Consequently, you can argue that historically speaking, the sense of 'ownership' remains with the 15-a-side code but it still doesn't sit well with me - but then I am from staunch league territory here.

CharlieP, as a Wakefieldian, I suspect your allegieance to Union is often at odds with the local predominantly League culture. Do you often make your way to Belle Vue? 

Carrera, a full explanation of the code, the rules and its development can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league


----------



## trmather (Feb 7, 2008)

It must be said, Rugby League is a much, much, much better watch than Rugby Union.

And that has nothing to do with where I'm from, because I'm not especially fond of Saints or Rugby itself.


----------



## kichigai (May 9, 2005)

krudmonk said:


> Are those seats in Telstra Dome drawn out? The AFL playing surface is much bigger than that and it looks as if some seats are pulled in front of others.


Telstra Dome has retractable seating although it is rarely used due to cost and the damage it can cause the surface.


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

rugby league started when rugby players couldn't get paid to play or compensated for their injuries. rugby remained amateur until 1992 (or thereabouts)


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Rugby League is only played in a few remote places on earth. Queensland/New South Wales in Australia and Yorkshire/Lancashire in England. That's about it.

Apparently Stalin was a fan of League

Rugby Union is probably second only to football in its widespread appeal. And even football hasn't had WC winners from 3 continents yet. The concentration of power in the traditional countries (England/Wales/Scotland/France/Ireland/Australia/SouthAfrica/NewZealand) amounts to almost complete domination both financially and politically within the sport.

Apparently Hitler was a fan of Union.

Sometimes, when league vs union rows starts up, the ferocity of each codes supporters defy belief.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Carrerra said:


> The birth of rugby league is attributed to the ban on paying players by the governing body of rugby union


Well, that's a pretty basic answer - there's far more to it than I could ever explain, but here's a taster:

Although traditional games of "football" have been played in English villages on "holy days" since the Middle Ages, it was generally banned the rest of the year, so the game (in its many different forms) only really took off in the country's public (i.e. private!) schools and was spread to universities and then clubs by public school Old Boys (there are still plenty of rugby clubs with "Old" at the start of the name). Working men in the Industrial North also enthusiastically took up the game, but in the 19th Century the working week was Monday to Saturday with only Sunday off, so players had to forgo a day's wages. Northern clubs asked the RFU for permission to compensate their players for this lost pay, but were denied by the Union, which, being founded by ex-public school "gentlemen", wanted to keep the game fully amateur. The resulting split was therefore very much along class lines, and for years there has been a perceived class gap between the two codes, even though rugby union has always had a huge working-class following in areas such as South Wales, the West Country and New Zealand.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

EADGBE said:


> I've always disliked the arrogance with which Union refers to itself as 'Rugby' as if it owns the term exclusively.


Well, Rugby Football is football that originated at Rugby School (although in truth the code was an amalgam of handling games in existence around the country), and it seems a bit unfair that the use of that name should be proscribed due to the actions of a rebel group.

To use an analogy, softball was originally called "indoor baseball", but it was never sanctioned by the baseball authorities and grew into a separate sport. Had it kept the "baseball" tag, would followers of the original game be considered arrogant for referring to it as "Baseball" not "Indoor Baseball"...?

If the pioneers of rugby league had changed the name when they changed the rules - we wouldn't have had years of conflict and acrimony. "Do you like rugby?" "Not really - I prefer to watch huddersfield". 

What I think is worse is soccer fans ignorant of history who insist that their game is the only "true" version of football, and no others should be entitled to use that name.


----------



## bing222 (Nov 4, 2007)

Great photos guys


----------



## Dasher39 (Nov 24, 2005)

Updated pics from the new Melbourne Rectangular Stadium which is due for completion in just over 12 months.


----------



## fidalgo (Mar 10, 2007)

NavyBlue said:


> Skilled Park - Gold Coast, Australia is nearing completion...


very nice, I like it. How many seats?


----------



## Dasher39 (Nov 24, 2005)

fidalgo said:


> very nice, I like it. How many seats?


27,500


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

skytrax said:


> australias have nice stadiums. hope one day the world cup to be there


Long way off. We have a handfull of really fantastic stadia, a couple of nice new mid-sized venues, but not enough population to justify the construction of major stadiums in enough locations to attract the world cup (hope I'm wrong though).


----------



## Dasher39 (Nov 24, 2005)

Benjuk said:


> Long way off. We have a handfull of really fantastic stadia, a couple of nice new mid-sized venues, but not enough population to justify the construction of major stadiums in enough locations to attract the world cup (hope I'm wrong though).


I don't think we're as bad off as you think, especially if FIFA were to allow two cities to have two stadiums rather than just one.

We have already:

ANZ Stadium - Sydney (Cap: 83,000)
SFS - Sydney (Cap: 45,000)
MCG - Melbourne (Cap: 100,000)
Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane (Cap: 52,000)

Stadiums to be upgraded for WC:

"Swan Street" - Melbourne (upgraded to ~45k)
Skilled Park - Gold Coast (upgraded to 40k)
EnergyAustralia Stadium - Newcastle (upgraded to 40k)

That gives us 7 stadiums with only relatively small upgrade works required. There is still talk of a 60,000 seat stadium in Perth, although the new Premier seems intent on killing that.

Adelaide seems to be the biggest problem as, despite their Premier's promise on the weekend that they will have a stadium should we win the bid, they keep saying they will not build a new stadium. An uprgade on AAMI or Adelaide Oval would not suffice.

Adelaide and Perth seem to be the problem areas at the moment. Upgrades can also be made on Canberra Stadium and Dairy Farmers Stadium to get them up to the 40k minimum as well.

No doubt our limited population means upgrading 5-6 stadiums to 40k is tough as you'd have to question how many times they'd get filled post-WC, but I have no doubt we could do it with only building two new stadiums, both of which are desperately needed anyway.

For me a bigger problem is finding 32 quality training locations for all the teams.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Australian guys, I wonder how long A-league season overlaps rugby season in a year. 2 to 3 months or so? Most of A-league stadiums are shared with rugby and other hand-using footballs, aren't they?


----------



## Dasher39 (Nov 24, 2005)

Carrerra said:


> Australian guys, I wonder how long A-league season overlaps rugby season in a year. 2 to 3 months or so? Most of A-league stadiums are shared with rugby and other hand-using footballs, aren't they?


At the moment it's about a month and a half.

But after this season the league will expand to 10 teams and go from 21 games to 27, so there may be a longer overlap with both the NRL and AFL seasons.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Dasher39 said:


> At the moment it's about a month and a half.
> 
> But after this season the league will expand to 10 teams and go from 21 games to 27, so there may be a longer overlap with both the NRL and AFL seasons.


Does that mean that they share A-League stadiums with two rugby leagues?


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Dasher39 said:


> I don't think we're as bad off as you think, especially if FIFA were to allow two cities to have two stadiums rather than just one.
> 
> We have already:
> 
> ...


Belgium and The Netherlands took another step towards their bid for the World Cup 2018 last week (still the first and only candidates to have officially announced their bid), apparently the stadium requirements have changed (again), the minimum capacity for stadiums for finals and semis is now 66,000, 44,000 for the other matches. Besides that I believe FIFA still wants a minimum of 10 stadiums, and only one city with two. With ANZ and MCG you already have stadiums with the capacity for semis and final. A second stadium is possible either in Melbourne or Sydney. Telstra Dome is bigger, but SFS is better suited for football (and still large enough with 45,000 seats). It wouldn't be bad to have a few pure football (soccer) grounds when organizing the world cup, although it is pretty obvious I support my own country in the bidding process


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Carrerra said:


> Does that mean that they share A-League stadiums with two rugby leagues?


NQFC will ground share with NQ Cowboys rugby league. Gold Coast United will share with Titans rugby league club. Other clubs that share grounds with RL clubs are, Queensland, Newcastle & Sydney. Melbourne currently share their stadium with a couple of Australian Rules teams. But they will be moving into their new stadium late next year, it will be shared with Melbourne Storm RL club.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Dasher39 said:


> I don't think we're as bad off as you think, especially if FIFA were to allow two cities to have two stadiums rather than just one.


Thing is, FIFA have no need to bend the rules for us - they certainly won't be short of alternative bidders.

Agree with your list of venues - but as you say, it's a big ask to justify extensions to stadiums on the Gold Coast, in Canberra, Townsville, Melbourne (remember that the chief justification for tax payers funding the MRS was that Melbourne didn't have any 20-30k venues), as well as a new rectangular venue in Adelaide, and an effective multi-purpose venue in Perth.



Dasher39 said:


> For me a bigger problem is finding 32 quality training locations for all the teams.


See below, I think the 32 quality training locations will be a push-over actually. Training facilities can be used by any code, any age group, either sex, there's so many would benefit from them that it wouldn't be a huge stuggle to get government funding. And in all likelihood 32 of them would still cost less than a couple of new stadiums.



Carrerra said:


> Australian guys, I wonder how long A-league season overlaps rugby season in a year. 2 to 3 months or so? Most of A-league stadiums are shared with rugby and other hand-using footballs, aren't they?


Negotiations have already begun between the football authorities here and the rugby and AFL authorities. The theory is this - the rugby and AFL teams switch fixtures to non World Cup venues, thus freeing them up for the world cup (for example, in Melbourne the AFL would play it's games at Telstra Dome and out of town in Geelong, as well as arranging as many inter-state games as possible in Adelaide, Hobart, Canberra, etc., thus freeing up the MCG for the world cup) - in return the rugby/AFL clubs would get access to the various top-of-the-line training facilities that would be built around Australia for the various visiting nations.

Meanwhile... A little gem for those interested in the new Rectangular Stadium...

http://www.a-league.com.au/site/_content/video/00000877-broadbandsource.wmv


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Read an article in Saturday's Age about the new AFL stadium at Homebush. In the article it mentioned the SCG Trust will also rebuild the Bradman stand before the next Ashes series, or they want to cannot remember exactly what it said. Interesting in any case.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Nope not embarrassed in the slightest and I can forgive you because you are ignorant, because I've been to RSA and I know what the truth is. I hope they do a good job hosting the event because I love the place to bits, but tourists may well meet some less than friendly locals. I was robbed at knifepoint after a match involving Australia at the cricket world cup in Durban and in fact every person I know who has been to SA has been touched by serious crime. I work with a bunch of expats from SA who left because it just got so ridiculous and they fear for their lives on a daily basis.

Loved what the cop told me down at the police station. He said, why didn't you put up a better fight. A bit hard when you have no weapons and you have a guy in front of you holding a knife at your throat and another guy behind you with a knife in your back. I wouldn't have had time to pull a gun, even if I had one.

If you go to the world cup there, beware. It is not like Oz or Europe. Use taxis and don't walk down the streets. I was ignorant and paid the price. Luckily I wasn't stabbed.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

BobDaBuilder said:


> Nope not embarrassed in the slightest and I can forgive you because you are ignorant, because I've been to RSA and I know what the truth is. I hope they do a good job hosting the event because I love the place to bits, but tourists may well meet some less than friendly locals. I was robbed at knifepoint after a match involving Australia at the cricket world cup in Durban and in fact every person I know who has been to SA has been touched by serious crime. I work with a bunch of expats from SA who left because it just got so ridiculous and they fear for their lives on a daily basis.
> 
> Loved what the cop told me down at the police station. He said, why didn't you put up a better fight. A bit hard when you have no weapons and you have a guy in front of you holding a knife at your throat and another guy behind you with a knife in your back. I wouldn't have had time to pull a gun, even if I had one.
> 
> If you go to the world cup there, beware. It is not like Oz or Europe. Use taxis and don't walk down the streets. I was ignorant and paid the price. Luckily I wasn't stabbed.


I'm ignorant? A South African living in South Africa?

First you suggest we have a shortage of stadia, as a reason FIFA "reduce the number of stadia to accommodate us". Now its onto crime because your last argument failed.

Why can't spectators use our new BRT system? or new and upgraded train stations or the planned Gautrain subway from the airport? The World Cup has provided a transport revolution in South Africa so that we can begin to develop a decent transport system.

I am available to discuss each and every aspect of South Africa 2010 in detail along with the obvious weaknesses and challenges and there are threads available in the stadium section and South Africa section for that.
Many though simply want to make snide remarks as if that gives them any credibility.

You're wanting to turn this into RSA vs AUS. I am going to stick to the topic.
We're hosting the world cup in 2010 whether you like it or not, and your back up is Townsville Dairy Farmer stadium. Best of luck with the bid.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Is there an awesome stadium completed in 2008 in your country?

*Nominate it for SSC Stadium of the year 2008*


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Awesome no, but i'll nominate anyway.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

what about gold coast stadium?


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)




----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

SANFL promises AAMI Stadium upgrade will go ahead



> THE redevelopment of AAMI Stadium will go ahead despite the deferment of the $100 million promised by the State Government.
> 
> The overall redevelopment will:
> 
> ...



Photo gallery and vid can be found here...


.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Wow, $100 million goes pretty far. What's the planned capacity again?


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Go SAFL! Respktah.

Hope Fed Gov will chip in at Perth.
Judging from Rudds lova afair with soccah and drive to spend money, maybe it will.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Excellent stuff. Now all we need is a new football stadium in Adelaide and the city will be sorted.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> what about gold coast stadium?


Nice but hardly "awesome'. Wait a year or two for the Bubble Dome, then Aussie will have a contender in the Under 40k catagory.


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Thanks to TooFar, AAMI stadium proposal...


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Very nice pics NavyBlue, but highly doubtful.


----------



## bing222 (Nov 4, 2007)

Nice photos


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=120494

$75m facelift planned for city stadium
24th January 2009, 6:00 WST

*The capacity of Members Equity Stadium will increase from 18,000 to 25,000 if the State Government accepts a $75 million redevelopment proposal for Perth’s only major rectangular arena. *

The Town of Vincent last night unveiled plans for a three-tier grandstand on the eastern side of the ground to meet the needs of Super 14 rugby team the Western Force.

The Force will play at Subiaco Oval for the last time this year before moving to Members Equity Stadium, even though it is too small for the expected crowds and does not have the corporate, media and support facilities necessary for Super 14 rugby.

RugbyWA officials are desperate to have Members Equity Stadium upgraded to secure the future of the Force in Perth, particularly with the Victorian Government forging ahead with a $275 million rectangular stadium in Melbourne and likely to pursue aggressively a Super 14 franchise. The Force would like building to start in 2011 or 2012.

*The redevelopment is centred on a new 7500-seat grandstand which can be configured to include up to 35 corporate boxes vital to the viability of a professional sports franchise.*

*The State Opposition is pushing the Federal Government to help fund a new $1.1 billion Subiaco stadium in a bid to stimulate the economy when a predicted downturn hits WA in two years.*

Shadow sport and recreation minister Ken Travers appealed to the Rudd Government to consider funding for the 60,000-seat stadium, which has been left in limbo by a State Government review of projects. The Federal Government previously ruled out a contribution.

Sport and Recreation Minister Terry Waldron yesterday supported Mr Travers’ bid for Federal funding.

DAVE HUGHES and AMANDA BANKS


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Good news. Hope this goes ahead. cheers docker


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/sta...onths-claims-mayor-20090127-7qvn.html?page=-1

Stadium upgrade could be done in 18 months, claims mayor
* Tim Clarke
* January 28, 2009 - 7:58AM


The state government will consider plans to upgrade Members Equity Stadium. Photo: Town of Vincent

Despite a global financial crisis, a player mutiny and another stadium in Perth demanding a billion dollars of government funds, Mayor of Vincent Nick Catania has boldly predicted the Western Force could have a new home, seating 25,000, within 18 months.

Force fans sent a massive message to the state's sporting and political leaders last Friday, with around 18,000 packing Members Equity Stadium for a trial game against the Crusaders, despite most of the side's international stars sitting the game out.

The timing of the sellout was perfect for the club, who had used the fixture to lobby the state government on plans to increase capacity from 18,000 to 25,000 - if Colin Barnett's administration accepts a $75 million redevelopment proposal.

And unveiling plans for a three-tier grandstand on the eastern side of the ground, Catania told gathered dignitaries, including state and federal MPs, that if the money was there, his council would deliver the upgrade in a year and a half - if the state government came to the party.

*"Anyone who has dealt with it will know when we say we will deliver we do, and we intend to deliver 25,144 seats with the help of the state government," Catania said.*

"With the proper management of funds we can ensure no burden is placed on government, we can create about 200 jobs on site and about 1,000 jobs off site, and that helps in tough economic times.

"We can help, sport, help the community and help the economy by creating immediate jobs.

"And you may not believe that (we can finish it in 18 months) but we built the original in about 11 months and had it open in 15. We will deliver."

Such is Force fan dissatisfaction with Subiaco Oval, RugbyWA's board has already committed to move to Members Equity next season, despite it being too small for expected crowds, and not having corporate or media facilities needed for Super 14.

The Force believe they need a revamped rectangular stadium to secure their place in the WA sporting landscape - and the Super 14 competition - with the Victorian Government forging ahead with a $275 million project ahead of an expected aggressive bid for a Super 14 franchise.

"This is something the fans and the supporters are demanding, and is needed to ensure the future growth and development of rugby in this state," RugbyWA chairman Geoff Stooke said.

"We strongly believe Perth needs and serves a quality rectangular stadium for rugby union, soccer and rugby league.

"And it should be remembered that Melbourne has the MCG, Telstra Dome and they are currently spending $275m on a rectangular stadium adjacent to the MCG - for a Storm rugby league team which averages crowds of less than 10,000 and no representative rugby union team.

"They are suffering like every other state and commonwealth in regards funding … but the Victorian government has decided to spend, and hopefully our government sees it the same way."

Sports minister Terry Waldron said he would be speaking to premier Barnett and treasurer Troy Buswell about the proposals this week - but would need much more detail before a decision is made.

"We recognise there is a need for a new stadium … but with the current world conditions the government is considering all infrastructure over $20 million," Waldron said.

"We will look at the proposal put forward, and it will be considered along with the other infrastructure projects.

"If government were going to consider to Member's Equity Stadium, we will still be looking for quite a lot more detail than what we were given the other day.

"We have got no details of costings, and if government was to spend money there we have got make sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed. But we are not going to turn a blind eye."

*Waldron said a decision on the Subiaco development would have to be made by the time the May budget came down - and a delay of that project could mean the plans for the former Perth Oval could still be considered.*

"Everyone is assuming (the Subiaco Oval redevelopment) is not going ahead - that decision has not been made yet," Waldron told radio 6PR.

"If that stadium was delayed, I have been keen to look at what could happen at Members Equity Stadium because I am very cogniscent of the needs of rugby and soccer.

"With the possibility of it being delayed you may look at what else you could do in the meantime."


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

The AAMI proposal is a beauty.


----------



## paul_enterprises (Jan 29, 2009)

It is true that Australian stadiums to put it simply are shit, and would need a serious upgrade if we are to host the world cup. This is the biggest sporting event in the world. Even bigger then the olympics. So i cant see why if Australia can host the olympics twice, and build new stadiums and infrastructure for it. Then surely for the Football World Cup they would do the same, considering its of greater benefit to the economy. 
The fifa rule of only 1 city being able to have 2 stadiums cant be true otherwise England wouldnt be making a bid. When does anything thats held in England ever held outside London. They would have to use atleast 3 stadiums all located in the Greater London Area, if not 4. 
I see Australias World Cup bid like this

Australias world cup bid:

Sydney
Population: 4,500,000
Stadiums - ANZ Stadium = 83,500
Sydney Football Stadium = 45,500	

Melbourne
Population: 3,500,000
Stadiums - Melbourne Cricket Ground = 100,000
Melbournes New Rectangular Stadium = 45,000+ upgrade

Brisbane
Population: 1,800,000
Stadiums - Suncorp Stadium = 52,500

Perth 
Population: 1,500,000
Stadiums - New Perth Stadium = 60,000

Adelaide
Population: 1,200,000
Stadiums - New Adelaide Stadium = 55,000

Gold Coast
Population: 500,000
Stadiums - Skilled Stadium = 45,000+ upgrade

Newcastle
Population: 500,000
Stadiums - Energy Australia Stadium = 45,000+ upgrade

Canberra
Population: 400,000
Stadiums - Canberra Stadium = 45,000+ upgrade

All these cities have populations enough to support revenues over 45,000
*Newcastle, have a nrl team and a a-league team.
*Gold Coast, the fastest growing market in Australia have a team in the super 14, a-league and nrl.
*Perth - A multi-purpose stadium or retangular stadium is long over due, with a team in both the a-league and super 14.
*Adelaide - With the success of there a-league side and the rugby 7s tournment, they deserve a rectangular stadium. This will also help push for adelaide to host Wallabies home games. 
*Canberra - the countries capital has to be included in the bid. although the smallest of all the cities population, they have a team in the super 14 and nrl. And with the new stadium and the introduction of football fixtures in canberra it will help a push for a a-league team. 

Australia has an excellent reputation of putting on huge international events, olympics, world youth day, commonwealth games and rugby world cup. 




I was thinking maybe a joint bid with New Zealand would be good because it would add another city with a population over 1 million being auckland and another decent size city wellington(which has a team in the a-league).
but this really opens up further the problem Australia will have with hosting the world cup, and that is distance. The distance between host cities is just to large. Imagine the cost the event will have on international guests and teams. Having to play in Melbourne one day then playing in Perth the next. Teams will have to fly around alot which is something i know they wont want to do, but there fans will also have to. And unlike the rich teams the fans pockets dont go so deep. 
This will of course effect international turnout which is a problem australia has whenever we host an event. The 2000 Sydney olympics was down on international guests compared to the alanta 1996 olympics. the 2008 world youth day was well down on international guests compared to the last and was also down on the actual estimated number they thought they would get. down by about 100 odd thousand i think. Thats alot. lol
Not only to mention the other problems the ffa face in bidding for the world cup the fact its being played in the southern hemisphere for the 2 world cups prior and the crappy time zone for tv auidences. 

i would absolutely love for the world cup to come to Australia and i truly hope im wrong but its really just a pipe dream.


----------



## paul_enterprises (Jan 29, 2009)

oh and i forgot to add the "back up" stadiumds

Sydney Cricket Ground = 43,500 (Sydney)
Telstra Dome = 55,000 (Melbourne)
The 'GABBA' = 47,500 (Brisbane)
AAMI Stadium = 52,000 (Adelaide)
Skilled Park = 30,000 (Geelong)

but yet again a problem faced. These are all oval pitched stadiums and would most likely be used by the afl teams during the world cup


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

paul_enterprises said:


> The fifa rule of only 1 city being able to have 2 stadiums cant be true otherwise England wouldnt be making a bid. When does anything thats held in England ever held outside London. They would have to use atleast 3 stadiums all located in the Greater London Area, if not 4.


well done


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Telstra Dome has retractable stands on the ground level which aren't used very often because the seats in the corners are lost.



docker said:


> http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/sta...onths-claims-mayor-20090127-7qvn.html?page=-1
> 
> Stadium upgrade could be done in 18 months, claims mayor
> * Tim Clarke
> ...


But also a club with the highest average crowd in the A-League.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

paul_enterprises said:


> The fifa rule of only 1 city being able to have 2 stadiums cant be true otherwise England wouldnt be making a bid. When does anything thats held in England ever held outside London. They would have to use atleast 3 stadiums all located in the Greater London Area, if not 4.


All I have to this is wow seriously uninformed.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

invincible said:


> Telstra Dome has retractable stands on the ground level which aren't used very often because the seats in the corners are lost.
> 
> 
> 
> But also a club with the highest average crowd in the A-League.


Haha, yea. Nice of them to leave out the Victory. I guess reality doesn't apply when someone wants to prove a point.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

paul_enterprises said:


> The fifa rule of only 1 city being able to have 2 stadiums cant be true otherwise England wouldnt be making a bid. When does anything thats held in England ever held outside London. They would have to use atleast 3 stadiums all located in the Greater London Area, if not 4.


How old are you? Take a look at FIFA's rules before you start brabling again. And take a look at the stadiums in England while you're at it.


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=4&ContentID=122306

Australia bids for 2018 World Cup: Lowy
1st February 2009, 10:30 WST

Football Federation Australia (FFA) Chairman Frank Lowy says Australia have formally lodged their bid to host the 2018 or 2022 FIFA World Cup.

Initial expressions of interest to FIFA, the world governing body for the sport, are required from bidding nations by Monday.

"We have submitted Australia's expression of interest in hosting either the 2018 or 2022 FIFA World Cup tournaments," Lowy said in a statement on Sunday.

"This marks the beginning of a long and important journey, not just for football but for Australia, until we know the outcome in December next year.

"As a nation, sport has provided some of our most compelling and defining national memories.

"We believe this is a passion and commitment that can be shared with the world, and it would form part of a living and lasting legacy to the world from Australia, Mr Lowy said.

"The bid will also help the world understand that Australia is a 'can do' country, where important, major events can happen with a minimum of fuss and a minimum of worry.

"This has always been a very important attribute, but will become increasingly more so in this century."

Lowy said he was confident of success despite the strong field of candidates from around the world.

"We know we have the capacity, experience and expertise to deliver a successful FIFA World Cup," he said.

Lowy said the next milestone in the journey to host the FIFA World Cup will occur in mid-March when further bid documentation is required.

Socceroos captain Lucas Neill is also confident the bid will succeed.

"I met Frank Lowy just after Christmas and he was very, very, very excited about the opportunity to try and bid for it," Neill told AAP on Saturday.

"Knowing him being similar to myself and a lot of the (Socceroos) players, he's a winner, and he doesn't like losing, so no doubt he'll throw everything he can at it.

"Obviously were going up against some fantastic nations with a lot of footballing history but why can't we win it?

"We're a great country everyone wants to go there, everyone wants to live there, we've got the facilities, we've got the friendly people so there's so many more pros than there are cons."

AAP


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

The Melbourne Park precinct where the Australian Open (and various other events) are hosted are to be refurbished. Nothing too major but it's a very welcome upgrade nevertheless.



mattie! said:


> A facelift for Rod Laver Arena and a new roof for Margaret Court Arena are among revamped tennis facilities the State Government hopes will keep the Australian Open in Melbourne for the next 20 years.
> 
> Premier John Brumby this afternoon announced a $5 million investment towards planning the redevelopment of Melbourne Park, the home of Australia's tennis grand slam event.
> 
> ...





melburn21 said:


> a couple of stills from the video. (thats why the quality is so poor!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=124539

WACA upgrade stalled by crisis
13th February 2009, 6:00 WST









The redevelopment of the WACA Ground would be delayed by the global financial crisis but would still go ahead, chairman David Williams said yesterday.

Mr Williams said the WACA and development partner Ascot Capital remained committed to the $550 million redevelopment, which includes the construction of a 10,000-seat northern grandstand.

Unlike shelved plans to upgrade Subiaco Oval, no taxpayer dollars have been committed to the WACA redevelopment, which will be fully funded by commercial development on land surrounding the ground. The plan includes construction of six residential and commercial towers, four of which could be up to 20 storeys.

But Mr Williams said most of the project, including the eight-storey grandstand, would now have to wait until the credit squeeze had ended and the economy improved to a point where “we and Ascot consider it prudent to go to the market”.

“Ascot has already spent $11 million to $12 million, including a $9 million payment to the WACA, so they’re committed to the project,” he said. “We still have people working on it on a daily basis, including an architect and other planning people.”

Instead of shelving plans, Mr Williams said the financial crisis and the continuing demand for office space in the city could lead to a rethinking of the project’s staging.

He said development of a 10-storey commercial tower and eight-storey residential block next to Queens Gardens might be brought forward.

The original plan was to build residential towers on the practice wicket area first but Mr Williams said Ascot Capital was now “in active talks” with potential commercial tenants.

“If we were able to attract a government department or a significant private sector tenant, we could get under way this year on the west wing project,” he said.

DANIEL HATCH


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

That is where they should have built the major stadium in Perth. Instead they are stuck with that shitheap Subiaco.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

By the looks of that 'bid' for the World Cup. The Australia World Cup would be the 'Austerity' World Cup. I doubt we would get it.


----------



## Ari Gold (Nov 13, 2006)

BobDaBuilder said:


> That is where they should have built the major stadium in Perth. Instead they are stuck with that shitheap Subiaco.


Heard of congested traffic??


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

*MCG*



Dasher39 said:


> I don't think we're as bad off as you think, especially if FIFA were to allow two cities to have two stadiums rather than just one.
> 
> We have already:
> 
> ...


Unfortunately the MCG doesn't come anywhere near the optimal viewing distance of 90 metres from the centre of the pitch stated in the 2007 FIFA design handbook. Only half of the ground level is within this distance and none of the higher level tiers. I would estimate that this means that 75% of the seats are outside the optimal viewing distance. The seats in the Northern Stand appear to be just within the maximum viewing distance of 190 metres from the far corner of the pitch but half of the seats in the tiers of the Great Southern Stand are outside this maximum distance. The closest side seats are approximately 40 metres from the pitch which is nearly 30 metres further than they are allowed to be. Although I have enjoyed the experience of being there twice with 90,000+ crowd (2000 Olympics, Aus v Italy and 2006 Aus v Greece) ) the viewing distances are completely unacceptable and I would be horrified if the FFA put it forward as a venue for a World Cup Finals match and I am sure that FIFA would reject it.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Benjuk said:


> MCG at 100k seats is one of the finest stadiums in the world. It's not ideal for football, but the fact that they had to REMOVE* seats to put a running track in for the Commonwealth Games a few years back clearly indicates that watching football here is no worse than watching football at a venue with a running track. For example - I've watched football at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin, and I've watched it at the MCG, and the MCG afforded a better viewing experience (and a far better level of comfort)
> 
> First time I went to the MCG I was in the third tier of seating and I was pleasantly surprised as to how close I was to the action.
> 
> *The seats are all back in now.


75% of the seats at the MCG are further away from the centre of the pitch than FIFA's optimal 90 m guideline and half the seats in the Great Southern Stand are further away than the maximum of 190 m from the far corner of the pitch.

This document is available on the web. football_stadiums_technical_recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Benjuk said:


> True, but it's not just the size, it's the all round quality of the venue and it's facilities, it's location, it's history, etc. My point is simply that Australia's bid won't fail because of the 'G. It'll fail because we have nowhere to put the 7-10th venues.


The G will not be included in Australia's bid because it doesn't meet FIFA's requirements for maximum viewing distance.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

They are guidelines, not requirements.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Australia has the Asian Cup 2015, noone else has bid for the event.

We might get the World Cup the same way. England may well pull out because their country is skint.


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

BobDaBuilder said:


> Australia has the Asian Cup 2015, noone else has bid for the event.
> 
> We might get the World Cup the same way. England may well pull out because their country is skint.


How many workers just been laid off at pacific brands?


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

gorgu said:


> How many workers just been laid off at pacific brands?


how many mtro schemes been cancelled in Sydney because the NSW government can't afford it?


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

gorgu said:


> how many mtro schemes been cancelled in Sydney because the NSW government can't afford it?


How are suncorp doing?


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

> Australia has the Asian Cup 2015, noone else has bid for the event.
> 
> We might get the World Cup the same way. England may well pull out because their country is skint.


lol
Somehow I wouldnt bet on it. 

But getting the Asian cup increases chances that little bit again for getting the world cup.
The Asian cup itself is a pretty big deal. I dont want to start a code war on this thread, but it would be bigger than the League world cup, and maybe slightly smaller in size than the Rugby Union world cup??? nothing to be sneezed at.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

ntguy said:


> The G will not be included in Australia's bid because it doesn't meet FIFA's requirements for maximum viewing distance.


I wouldn't be so sure - I've watched games from the back of the stands at the 'G, and I've watched games from the middle of the stands at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin, and I certainly felt closer to the action at the G. The distance, measured with a tape might be greater but the rake of the seats, etc., makes a huge difference.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

gorgu said:


> How are suncorp doing?


Aussie business and banking have been quite well insulated from the world-wide economic chaos so far - we're basically on a financial delay of about 5-6 months from the rest of the world. I don't think many down here fully realise how bad it's going to get.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Hey, with the crisis going on, Australia's Big 4 banks have all shot up into the world's top 20, overtaking a lot of much bigger names.


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

*Addelaide Oval Redevelopment*

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25112579-5006301,00.html

Oval grandstand work set to begin
DANIEL WILLS LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPORTER
February 26, 2009 10:00pm

REDEVELOPMENT of Adelaide Oval's western grandstand is set to begin within weeks following approval to use neighbouring land as a construction site.

The Adelaide City Council was expected to approve the use of Adelaide Oval 2 on Monday, but claims community objections had been omitted from official reports delayed the decision to a special meeting tonight.

Final consent for the revamp is required from the State Government's Development Assessment Commission, which was expected to pass the plans in a closed meeting.

*The council's approval comes just in time for the South Australian Cricket Association, which plans to break ground on March 10.*

Adelaide City Council first gave approval for the revamp in October 2007 but was forced to hurriedly reconsider when SACA lodged new plans in December last year.

Councillor Michael Henningsen said the council had gone out of its way to ensure construction began on time.

"This entire affair speaks of that we're on a very tight deadline, and a deadline imposed by SACA," he told tonight's meeting.

"To be quite frank, we've got a revolver to our head almost, in terms of the timelines to start this project to have them finished in time for these sporting events at the Adelaide Oval."

In a submission to a council committee, SACA Chief Executive Michael Deare said the redevelopment was essential if the Oval was to attract top-flight sport.

"Redevelopment of the western grandstands at Adelaide Oval will significantly enhance the venue for the purposes of maintaining Adelaide's status as a city which can competently support the hosting of major summer and winter sports," he wrote.

The submission includes plans to host a Wallabies international rugby union match and two NRL games featuring the Canterbury Bulldogs in 2011.

*The redevelopment will change the playing field from its current semi-rectangular shape to an oval, and the new grandstand will boost the stadium's capacity to 37,000.*

Heritage elements of the current stands, including red brick arches and the George Giffen Stand facade, will be maintained.

SACA officials expect the project to be completed around November 2010, in time for the homes Ashes series.

*The redevelopment is expected to cost $95 million, with the state and federal governments each contributing $25 million and SACA supplying the remainder with borrowings from Westpac Bank.*



Cruise from ozscrapers in August said:


> http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24100537-5006301,00.html
> 
> SACA has approved a new design proposal for the redevelopment of the western grandstands at Adelaide Oval.
> 
> ...


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

The economic downturn is having minimal effect so far.

They sacked a bunch of people at one joint and are signing up people at another.

It's all swings and round-abouts.

If you are so worried about holding a job, join the army and get yourself sent to Afghanistan. Loads of work there to do.

Australia could build a bigger army and use that to occupy New Zealand and various Pacific Islands that could provide loads of work and also improve the lot of those pissant failed states in the South Seas.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

BobDaBuilder said:


> The economic downturn is having minimal effect so far.
> 
> They sacked a bunch of people at one joint and are signing up people at another.
> 
> ...


Bob, you and me could take a couple of Pacific Islands, we don't need an army to do that!


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Australia should 'absorb' a lot of those islands. We would actually be doing them a favour.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

more ovals! fantastic!


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Mo Rush said:


> more ovals! fantastic!


They're usually required for cricket...


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> more ovals! fantastic!


Not more - just better. Existing structure being improved.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Interesting .........

"Fifa has made it clear that each city in the bid can have up to three stadiums and, while Wembley Stadium will inevitably be the centrepiece and host the final, Twickenham and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium are both impressing the team behind England's bid."

From today's London Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/20/football-2018-world-cup-twickenham


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

BobDaBuilder said:


> Interesting .........
> 
> "Fifa has made it clear that each city in the bid can have up to three stadiums and, while Wembley Stadium will inevitably be the centrepiece and host the final, Twickenham and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium are both impressing the team behind England's bid."
> 
> ...


Up to 3 stadiums per city in the BID, but for the actual finals tournament FIFA will select the venues that offer them the best opportunities. Thus we can name Docklands, MCG and the Rectangular Stadium for Melbourne - but FIFA will only pick the one (or perhaps two) they like best.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Benjuk said:


> Up to 3 stadiums per city in the BID, but for the actual finals tournament FIFA will select the venues that offer them the best opportunities. Thus we can name Docklands, MCG and the Rectangular Stadium for Melbourne - but FIFA will only pick the one (or perhaps two) they like best.


emphasis on best opportunities.

If 75% of spectators have sight lines that fail to meet even the minimum sight line requirements by FIFA, then either upgrade the venue or expect it to be reconsidered.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> emphasis on best opportunities.
> 
> If 75% of spectators have sight lines that fail to meet even the minimum sight line requirements by FIFA, then either upgrade the venue or expect it to be reconsidered.


Question - there's been talk of the MCG being 'too big', that many seats are further from the pitch than would be acceptable. Do you think that FIFA would accept the venue on the grounds that 60k seats would still be close enough? Then sell the other 40k seats as 'restricted viewing'?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Benjuk said:


> Question - there's been talk of the MCG being 'too big', that many seats are further from the pitch than would be acceptable. Do you think that FIFA would accept the venue on the grounds that 60k seats would still be close enough? Then sell the other 40k seats as 'restricted viewing'?


Each LOC has its own FIFA venue compliance manager tasked with ensuring venues presented meet FIFA requirements in terms of space inside and outside the venue, as well as sightlines, the playing field and so forth.

It will then be a decision between FIFA and the LOC venue compliance manager about the upgrades needed and whether this is suitable.

FIFA is not concerned if the venue was built in 1922 and has an ancient design e.g. Loftus Versfeld. The concern is space inside the venue, spectator circulation and VIP areas etc. Its about whether or not the sqm/space is available for each area required by FIFA to host world cup matches e.g. a FIFA mascot room.

MCG is a fantastic venue, but where does one draw the line?
Its not my decision. It will be interesting to see what the Australian bid team decide.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

In my opinion, the only seats that are really far (from a spectator's experience) are the ones on the top half of the top tiers.

The Great Southern Stand will be more than 30 years old by 2022. That is pretty close to the average life of a stand, seeing that the MCG gets redeveloped roughly every 20 years. The MCG has a good habit of having major sections rebuilt for major events. None of it is or ever was an architectural marvel so there are no qualms about pulling it down every few decades.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

invincible said:


> In my opinion, the only seats that are really far (from a spectator's experience) are the ones on the top half of the top tiers.
> 
> The Great Southern Stand will be more than 30 years old by 2022. That is pretty close to the average life of a stand, seeing that the MCG gets redeveloped roughly every 20 years. The MCG has a good habit of having major sections rebuilt for major events. None of it is or ever was an architectural marvel so there are no qualms about pulling it down every few decades.


Yeah, but whatever they build to replace the Southern will still be the same distance from the pitch due to the demands of Aussie Rules and cricket.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Im guessing the FFA would bid Etihad Stadium, MCG and the rectangular ground for Melbourne. If MCG doesnt cut it then I guess Etihad would be used, and possibly the rectangular ground after a capacity upgrade. If that happens, Melbourne would miss out on any big matches (no 60,000 plus stadium).



Thanks to kichigai on the ozscrapers sub forum.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25124833-5006301,00.html
"Football Federation Australia chief executive Ben Buckley said yesterday time was running out for the Government to either build a new stadium or substantially upgrade Adelaide Oval to provide an inner-city venue capable of hosting matches during the world's biggest sporting event..."

I dont think there are any real plans for a new Adelaide ground, and the Adelaide Oval upgrade certainly isnt sufficient...


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

woozoo said:


> Im guessing the FFA would bid Etihad Stadium, MCG and the rectangular ground for Melbourne. If MCG doesnt cut it then I guess Etihad would be used, and possibly the rectangular ground after a capacity upgrade. If that happens, Melbourne would miss out on any big matches (no 60,000 plus stadium).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have an election on March 10 2010, It would be political suicide for the government to not commit to a FIFA approved stadium.

I know Labor won't be getting getting my vote if they dont commit to something soon.

I'm personally waiting for what the June budget will provide.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Video of the new Giffen stand at Adelaide Oval


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

lolololololololololololol


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Cruise said:


> Get a load of this then


buahahahahahahahaha


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

NavyBlue said:


> Some renders of the new SCG stand that will replace the existing Bradman, Noble and Messenger stands. Capacity will be capped to 48k due to a previous contractual agreement between the state government and ANZ stadium. Should be completed in time for the 2010/11 'ashes' tour.


I assumed the Bill O'Reilly Stand would be the next to be developed - it's a bit "cramped" compared to the others given the proximity of the old Sydney Showground, and I was hoping that once it relocated to Homebush there'd be room for a bigger stand. I actually really like the current Bradman/Noble stand with its symmetry and position with regard to the wicket.

The "previous contractual agreement" stinks too but I guess that's politics.


----------



## kichigai (May 9, 2005)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25467377-5006301,00.html

AAMI Stadium, Adelaide Oval rejected for World Cup bid
MICHELANGELO RUCCI, CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER

May 12, 2009 12:00pm

EXCLUSIVE: Neither AAMI Stadium nor Adelaide Oval will be part of Australia's bid for the 2018 or 2022 soccer World Cups.

Football Federation Australia has rejected both venues and asked the State Government to build a 40,000-seat arena, which will revert to 25,000 seats after the World Cup.

FFA chief Ben Buckley delivered this verdict to the SANFL, SACA and government in lengthy meetings in Adelaide yesterday.

He also rejected redeveloping soccer's 16,000-seat Hindmarsh Stadium.

Buckley delivered two options for where the new rectangular stadium should be built – one on the university sports field on the northern banks of River Torrens; the other on the soccer fields behind Adelaide High School.

He estimated the cost of the World Cup arena at $250 million.

Minister for Sports and Recreation Michael Wright rejected Buckley's submission, which will be reaffirmed in writing this week.

"We've made it clear that this government is not in the business of building a new stadium," Mr Wright told AdelaideNow today.

"The Government considers AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval as fine options."

Buckley rejected AAMI Stadium, arguing the distance from the seats to the pitch was too great. He also took issue with the West Lakes arena not being close enough to Adelaide's CBD.

The redeveloped Adelaide Oval, which will have 36,000 seats when current works are completed next year, was considered "not big enough" for a World Cup venue.

The FFA also rejected AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval because the venues would not become the home of soccer in SA after the World Cup.

State Opposition leader Martin Hamilton-Smith today described the FFA verdict on Adelaide's existing stadia as "an embarrassment to SA".

"We have been saying since early last year that a new stadium is needed," Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

Mr Hamilton-Smith maintained his $900 million plan for a 50,000-seat stadium on Adelaide's western fringe would "fit the bill for FIFA requirements" for a World Cup bid.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Would be funny if they accept the MCG but reject AAMI and Adelaide.

The FFA can't dictate location of a stadium.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Cruise said:


> lolololololololololololol


God i hope this team fails. That is the most pathetic looking thing i have ever seen. :nuts:



kichigai said:


> http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25467377-5006301,00.html
> 
> AAMI Stadium, Adelaide Oval rejected for World Cup bid
> MICHELANGELO RUCCI, CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
> ...


Great news.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Would be funny if they accept the MCG but reject AAMI and Adelaide.
> 
> The FFA can't dictate location of a stadium.


They dictate what is part of the bid.

And why would it be funny? MCG is a 100,000 seat stadium with world class facilities, 20 mins walk from CBD, between two tram lines and with one one platform train station, and another multi platform station within 5 mins walk.

AAMI is an aging 55K capacity stadium with no rail transport connection.


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Wezza said:


> God i hope this team fails. That is the most pathetic looking thing i have ever seen. :nuts:


You want the team to fail because you don't like their mascot or is it due to the rugby league fan in you? :lol:



Mo Rush said:


> Would be funny if they accept the MCG but reject AAMI and Adelaide.
> 
> The FFA can't dictate location of a stadium.


Politics. The FFA will accept the MCG due to it's sheer size but they want Adelaide left with a football legacy after the potential tournament. Unlike Melbourne who are currently constructing the expandable MRS, that city has no quality rectangular stadium. Hindmarsh has reached it's limit at 16k.

Can't say many would blame them...


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

NavyBlue said:


> You want the team to fail because you don't like their mascot or is it due to the rugby league fan in you? :lol:


Not only the mascot, i just think the Queensland government could be better off spending the money that they're pouring into Carrara on infrastructure + my dislike for all things southern hand-egg. :lol: :cheers:


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Wezza said:


> Not only the mascot, i just think the Queensland government could be better off spending the money that they're pouring into Carrara on infrastructure + my dislike for all things southern hand-egg. :lol: :cheers:


As opposed to northern hand-egg?

You must be from twgf. hno:


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

NavyBlue said:


> As opposed to northern hand-egg?
> 
> You must be from twgf. hno:


Yep, it's not hard to spot me. As i use the same username...


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

kichigai said:


> http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25467377-5006301,00.html
> 
> AAMI Stadium, Adelaide Oval rejected for World Cup bid
> MICHELANGELO RUCCI, CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
> ...


I knew this was the case, but reading this at such a close date to bidding is concerning for me.

Cruise whens the next SA state election? How are the liberals looking?


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

The next election here in SA is due sometime around March 2010. The Libs are pretty shaky right now due to their leader this week publicly admitting to the use of forged documents in Parliament about 2 weeks ago.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Thanks Holden kay:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*MCG*

Quick glance at the MCG. Wording may be confusing.










*MCG Playing field: Yellow indicates the portion of the playing field within the optimal distance i.e. seats lost due to field size*










*MCG First Tier: Red indicates the portion of the first tier outside the 90m optimal distance i.e. non-red portion indicates seats within the optimal distance.*









*
MCG Upper Tier:Red portion indicates the seats in seats in the upper tier which are outside the 190m maximal distance*









*
Conclusion:*

1. Approximately *44%* of MCG seats are *within the 90m optimal distance * i.e. Due to the playing field size, 56% of the space, closest to the field, within the optimal distance are lost.

2. Approximately 36% of the actual MCG First Tier seats fall within the optimal distance of 90m

3. Only *8%* of all seats *fall outside of the maximal distance* of 190m i.e. 8,000 of the 100,000 seats


----------



## adelaidedeano91 (Oct 24, 2008)

woozoo said:


> Cruise whens the next SA state election? How are the liberals looking?


March 10, 2010 is the precise date pencilled in at the moment, my first election  Although that date appears to be a Wednesday...I think it will probably come down to a battle between who wants a new stadium, and who wants a new hospital, as they seem to be the two big ticket items at the moment...


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

No probs woozoo.

adelaidedeano91, you're forgetting Mike Rann's bikie laws also. That will have a huge impact on Labour continuing in state government or not. But I digress, this is a stadiums thread after all, not a South Australian state election thread.

The MCG may not be the ideal place for a soccer game, but when it comes down to it, is it really any worse than watching a match with an athletics track between the stands and the pitch? It hasn't bothered FIFA in the past World Cups, after all, 3 of the past 5 finals have been at stadiums that also double as athletics stadiums (Olimpico in Rome, Nissan Stadium in Yokohama & Olympiastadion in Berlin). Fact is that the MCG seats 100,000 people comfortably and holds some 16,500 more than Australia's next biggest stadium. More bums on seats, more money to be made. And a final where 100,000+ people are in attendance always looks better for soccer than one with 83,500 people. FIFA know that don't they.....


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

woozoo said:


> I knew this was the case, but reading this at such a close date to bidding is concerning for me.
> 
> Cruise whens the next SA state election? How are the liberals looking?


20/03/2010

SA has fixed term elections


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> *MCG*
> 
> Quick glance at the MCG. Wording may be confusing.
> 
> ...


Interesting fact, AAMI has more seats inside the desired viewing zone than the MCG. (based on percantage of capacity)

The FFA are playing politics, nothing else. _IF_ Australia is to hold the World Cup Adelaide will be included, I have little doubt


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

^^ Thanks for SA election info peeps.

As for AAMI vs MCG, AAMI is a smaller ground so naturally has less seats far away from the playing field than the MCG (more seats within desired viewing zone percentage wise).

If Adelaide doesnt have a worthy stadium, then there wont be any games held there. FFA doesnt even hold socceroos games at AAMI, FIFA wont allow WC games to be held there. Hindmarsh is too small and not well located. Adleaide oval is too small and oval. 
Adelaide needs a new stadium if it wants to host games.
If Adelaide does not host games, I doubt Australia will host the WC.


Oh and, THANKS MoRush!! Ive wanted to know those figures for years.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Does anybody have any photos of the current Bradman and Noble Stands? Google Images isn't much help.


----------



## aus16 (May 25, 2009)

you have to be kidding me the S.C.G. members and ladies stands are of the best in cricket and I am glad that they have been kept as it gives the ground character which was taken away from the M.C.G. considering the actual stadium in itself is only 25 years old


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let's do the Noble and Bradman's for starters. The SCG should challenge that rule on allowing Homebush to be bigger. The SCG should be made grand enough to befit a great city.


----------



## aus16 (May 25, 2009)

I agree with you on that one because I recently bought the book "Grassy Pitches and Glory Years" and the reason for building the "New Members Pavilion" as it was originaly to be know as was to provide an extra 2000 seats at minimal cost


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> Does anybody have any photos of the current Bradman and Noble Stands? Google Images isn't much help.


Does this help? They're from Flickr.



















The SCG in 1883


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25562218-5006301,00.html

THE high-flying but financially troubled Western Bulldogs say they have been offered Adelaide Oval as an alternative home ground.

The Dogs hierarchy yesterday said they had been approached with a proposal to move up to two home games to Adelaide - with the AFL saying there is nothing legally to stop it happening in the 2010 season.

The audacious bid is set to test the fragile new alliance between cricket and football in South Australia.

Western Bulldogs chief executive Campbell Rose said the club was seriously considering the Adelaide Oval offer and a decision could be made within two months.

"The club has previously been approached by Adelaide Oval and the club is presently reviewing all our options in relation to selling our home games interstate," Mr Rose said yesterday. SA Cricket Association officials yesterday confirmed that SACA was in ongoing discussions with several clubs about playing home games at the Adelaide Oval. "We are talking to several clubs across several codes," communications manager Rebekah Rosser said. "And we're really excited and encouraged by the recent interest shown."

AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said there were no legal hurdles standing in the way of the Western Bulldogs playing a home game at the ground.

Up to two Western Bulldogs home games could be played at Adelaide Oval from 2010 after its current deal for "away" home games in Canberra and Darwin expires at the end of this season. The most attractive option would be to host Adelaide clubs, most likely Port Adelaide, which would be expected to draw only a small crowd in Melbourne.

The Melbourne-based club has said it would be forced to sell home games interstate next year and has considered locations such as Tasmania, Canberra and Darwin. Club president David Smorgon last week said he was open to offers from across Australia.

The Bulldogs are the second club to publicly flag an interest in Adelaide Oval, after North Melbourne voiced some interest in March.

"It is regrettable that our club continually needs to look at these options, however in light of the current unequal and unfair stadium arrangements, we have no other option," Mr Rose said


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

NavyBlue said:


>


Please, please let this happen! That looks sweet.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

^^ Looks good. Seems like its a goer if Australia wins the right to host the world cup.
Good to see athletics, oval and rectangular stadiums being taken care of.

SCG members stands should stay as they are IMO.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)




----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

city_thing said:


> Does this help? They're from Flickr.


Thanks.

Maybe not as architecturally stunning as I remember, but certainly much nicer than the O'Reilly and Messenger Stands.

What I do like about it is how (as far as I can tell) it's neatly aligned with the wicket - if the replacement isn't centred on the strip it won't have the same effect.


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

Cruise said:


> I wish Melbourne kept VFL Park to be honest, i remember going there with my old man when i was 11 years old to see Port Adelaide play Hawthorn (we drove there from Adelaide). Back then just going to the footy was exciting rain, hail or shine. sitting there eating a hotdog and watching the power win must of been one of the best football memories i have. too bad i cant go there now.
> 
> Nowadays we seem to be to worried about how state of art the stadium is and how going to the footy should be like going to the theatre. Sorry, that shit does not sit right with me.


It would have worked if they had put in the transport links first.


----------



## Mr.Bennish (Mar 22, 2007)

NavyBlue said:


>


That would be terrific!!!!:banana:


----------



## boyfromoz (Jun 3, 2009)

Mr.Bennish said:


> That would be terrific!!!!:banana:


Great image of the SCG in 1883. Was that the year the poms actually one something?:banana:

Australian real estate


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25632716-5006301,00.html

Adelaide Oval rebirth for soccer World Cup bid

SOUTH Australia is joining Australia's bid to host soccer's World Cup.

A redeveloped Adelaide Oval where demolition this week brought down the old western and members' stands is now favoured to host World Cup games, if Australia wins the bid.

South Australia is determined to join other states in hosting matches in the 2018 or 2022 World Cup tournaments.

Either the picturesque Adelaide Oval would be further upgraded to seat an extra 10,000 or more spectators believed to be the State Government's preferred option or the city could get a new 45,000-seat purpose-built rectangular venue.

Both options would receive some level of Federal Government funding. Football Federation Australia would prefer a rectangular stadium that would leave a legacy for the sport after the cup, but it would accept an expanded Adelaide Oval as an alternative.

Federation chief executive Ben Buckley said: ``We've got a very open dialogue with the State Government and I'm sure we'll get the best solution in the long run.

``South Australia's got a proud sports history and a proud soccer history and we will work very closely with the State Government to ensure they are part of the bid.''

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today launches Australia's bid with a television commercial that features Adelaide.

Premier Mike Rann has been invited to the VIP launch in Canberra, but a spokeswoman said yesterday he would not attend.

"We wish Australia every success in its World Cup soccer bid," Mr Rann said. "All of Australia's political leaders will give this bid their enthusiastic support.

"If FIFA announces that Australia has been given the right to stage a future World Cup, then it will give everyone plenty of time to ensure we have the appropriate facilities across the nation."

Despite the gloomy economic times, the FFA estimates the Cup will be an economic bonanza for the nation, generating $3.9 billion in ticket sales, accommodation and meals alone.

The FFA said it expected the 60-plus game tournament would draw up to 4.7 million spectators.

The tournament and infrastructure projects would create the equivalent of 74,000 fulltime jobs, and lead to an overall increase in GDP of $5.3 billion.

Mr Buckley said although the FFA's "bid book" had to be lodged by May 2010, venues would have to be finalised by state governments by the end of this year.

Mr Buckley would not be drawn on how the new and upgraded facilities would be funded.

"That is being worked through at the moment," he said.

"Clearly, building and refurbishing stadia is expensive. First and foremost we need to lock in what our venue plan is and then identify what the costs are."

The sticking point for SA is still the venue.

Soccer world governing body FIFA stipulates a minimum capacity of 40,000 for World Cup venues but AAMI Stadium has been ruled out because of its shallow "seat pitch" and transport issues.

The FFA has commissioned plans for a series of boutique 25,000 seat stadiums that, with temporary seating for the Cup, lifts capacity to 45,000.

Stadiums - costing about $250 million each - would be built around the country off the same plan.

The temporary seating would be dismantled after the Cup tournament and given to schools and community sporting organisations.

The cost-saving plan is a cornerstone of Australia's bid.

Mr Buckley yesterday confirmed the FFA's preferred option is for Australia to have 12 World Cup venues, with no more than two venues in each city.

At present only the MCG and Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, ANZ Stadium and the Sydney Football Stadium and Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane, are up to standard.

Perth already has plans to build a multi-purpose city stadium that will have a capacity of 60,000 when it opens in 2014.

The key selling points for Australia's bid are:

PROXIMITY to Asia, as well as our membership of the Asian confederation. More soccer fans live in Asia than any other region.

AUSTRALIA'S track record of hosting major events, including the Olympics and World Youth Day.

BIPARTISAN support across all state and federal governments.

PERCEPTION of Australia internationally as a safe and welcoming destination.

The fact that Australia, as an island, can control who comes to watch the tournament and limit the "hooligan" element - as opposed to continental Europe - is also seen as a plus.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Excellent, the reds need a bigger stadium, something like the bubbledome would be ideal. Perth would be helped with something better too.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Upgrading Adelaide oval seems to be the most common sense thing to do really. seeing as it would be used by aussie rules/cricket/soccer.

It would need a drop in pitch though


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Cruise said:


> Upgrading Adelaide oval seems to be the most common sense thing to do really. seeing as it would be used by aussie rules/cricket/soccer.
> 
> It would need a drop in pitch though


For the reds though I doubt Adelaide oval is ideal, especially as the stands are so far away and cricket is played over the summer on it alongside football. Adelaide united NEED an upgrade to Hindmarsh or a new boutique stadium.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Thats why i was saying the oval needs a drop in pitch


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Dont think Adelaide UTD need a bigger ground. Their average attendance is well under capacity at Hindmarsh.

Dont think Adelaide oval should be used either. TBH I would find it embarrassing showcasing this as one of our stadiums. Great for cricket, loads of history, wrong shape for soccer.









Really Adelaide needs a new stadium to host WC games. Its a bit of a waste coz Hindmarsh is adequate for A League and other non WC needs, but to get the WC a new stadium is necessary. Luckily any financial outlay would be covered by economic benefit created by the WC. At least the new stadium would be an improvement on Hindmarsh so would leave a legacy.


----------



## Hace (Jun 11, 2009)

I watched the Storm V Rabbitohs on the weekend. That ground they played in (MES???) looked great to my eyes.

How often is that ground used?


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

^^ Tropical North Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef. Two of Oz's premier tourist destinations.

The entire region has a mass of visitor accommodation, so accomodation and sustaining the visitor numbers should be fine. The demand for the stadium is there. The North Queensland Cowboys have been averaging around 20,000 in recent years, and dairy farmers stadium could do with a revamp and roof (A league plays over the wet season).

80,000 may be a little high for Perth, but 70,000 would be ok, and 60,000 is minimum. Subiaco currently has a 43K capacity, with the West Coast Eagles averaging over 40,000 per game and having around 44,000 members. A quality multi purpose stadium with movable tiers is the way to go for Perth. A second rectangular ground would be nice, but wouldnt really be needed if the MPS goes ahead, and certainly isnt realistic.

I dont think Hobart will get to host games.No AFL team, no A league team, no demand for *any* stadium. Remember the stadiums will be finalized by the end of this year. By 2022 Tasmania will probably have teams in both those comps, but that will be too late.

Geelong is in the same boat. No A league team in the works so no need for a rectangular stadium. Skilled stadium would be a joke for soccer.

Sydney Football Stadium will almost certainly be used. Its a great venue. The one stadium per city rule will need to be waived though, or the FFA would have to convince FIFA that Homebush is not the same city as Moore park or Sydney (some kind of public compromise would not be difficult i think).

Melbourne * 2
Sydney * 2
Newcastle
Canberra
Perth
Adelaide
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Townsville

1 Athletics stadium (movable tier), 1 oval, 1 oval with movable tiers, 8 rectangular, 11 total.

All stadium upgrades have either been announced or are pretty certain to happen, apart from the Perth and the South Australian grounds. So those are still the sticking points.

The upcoming council of Australian government meetings will be interesting. Apparently Rudd will be lobbying Rann and Barnett for them to commit to some stadiums. It certainly seems both sides of federal government are FULLY behind this, and with Lowy pushing it like crazy, infrastructure wise Australia might just get there.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

gho said:


> For Townsville, Hobart 45k stadium is ridiculous. Townsville has a pop of 162k and hobart has a pop of 210k even with the population increases over the decade none of them are going to warrant a stadium that is about 1/4th there population. Hobart has no chance of getting a rectangular stadium because the only sport they are interested in is Aussie Rules, so if they do get a stadium of 45k it will be Oval.


Townsville's NRL crowd averages are amongst the best in the league, also the new A-League side will take to the field this season. A new stadium here in Townsville would get plenty of use, make it 45k for the WC & then remove 15k afterwards to have a permanent 30k.


----------



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

You have to be joking that Sydney would hold the final.....you are hey ? Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world. Anyone, anywhere try and show me otherwise.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

redbaron_012 said:


> You have to be joking that Sydney would hold the final.....you are hey ? Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world. Anyone, anywhere try and show me otherwise.


Sponsors and FIFA and the LOC select the venue for the final.
IMO Sydney is the favourite.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Both Townsville, Gold Coast and Newcastle can resily be upgraded to 40k+. Townsville has little stands (in the sense that it doesn't have giant rooves which will have to be dismantled) and large areas where seating could be placed, so a redevelopment would be easy and cheap. Ditto for GC which already has a league club which pulls good crowds plus a new a-league team. Like Townsville it's faitly amendible. Newcastle is another stadium like this, with spaces at the ends to fit more stands, the stadium can easily be pushed to 40k, especially as it has some upgrades which have made it to 33k. Townsville would have fantastic weather during that period and is a very nice place, barrier reef. Gold Coast is a tourist destination. Newcastle may be not an oil painting but neither is Leipzig.

With those, Brisbane and Sydney x2, there's your 6 staduims already, only 3-4 more needed which can be sourced from Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide and or Canberra.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Sponsors and FIFA and the LOC select the venue for the final.
> IMO Sydney is the favourite.


By a fair distance IMO.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

redbaron_012 said:


> You have to be joking that Sydney would hold the final.....you are hey ? Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world. Anyone, anywhere try and show me otherwise.


err London...


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> err London...


Melbourne is sporting capital of Australia, but maybe not world. We have the AFL grand final, melbourne cup, Australian open, f1, boxing day test, London has wimbledon, fa cup final, lords test match. But certainly Melbourne would be one of the biggest cities in terms of sports. The city is obsessed with sport. Literally.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

redbaron_012 said:


> You have to be joking that Sydney would hold the final.....you are hey ? Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world. Anyone, anywhere try and show me otherwise.


London?

Annual events:

FA Cup Final
Premiership Final
Challenge Cup Final
Wimbledon
Epsom Derby
London Marathon
Boat Race
Varsity Match
England rugby internationals
England soccer internationals
London Grand Prix
London Triathlon
Red Bull Air Race

Occasional events:

Heineken Cup final
UEFA Champions League final
Olympics (first city to host three times)
Rugby World Cup final
Rugby League World Cup final (twice)
NFL games
Cricket World Cup final (five times)
ICC Champions Trophy final
World Twenty20 final
Commonwealth Games


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

I think Melbourne is in the top five sporting cities though. New York has about 9 major sporting teams in 4 sports, London has what you described, Melbourne has what I described so they're both fantastic sports cities. Fwiw England will be credited with it's sporting and footballing passion with the 2012 olympics and (IMO) the 2014 world cup so England (And Scotland and Wales through their stadiums too?) is being paid due respect.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> So you're saying pull the cricket pitch out every 2 weeks or so? Having football at Adelaide Oval is a definite no no, playing surface is too big.


I was actually referring to when AFL and the Cricket seasons overlap


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

OK, first post on this forum. This is how i think an Australian bid would look:

* Melbourne*

MCG (according to austadiums) is considering a revamp of the Great Sounthern Stand's interiour. Aus won't get the cup untill atleast 2022 , so you would think that this revamp would come in time for the world cup should we get it. ($100m)

Melb Rectangular Stadium: They designed it in a way so it can be revamped to 50,000 without too much hastle. ($100m)

*West Sydney*

Homebush: Could stay the same as it is, or they could put the ends back on that were used during the olymipics. ($0-100m)

*Sydney*

SFS: No change ($0)

* Brisbane *

Suncorp

*Gold Coast*

Skilled Park, the new rectangular stadium on the Gold Coast was designed in a way that it CAN NOT be further upgraded from the present 27,000. This means, for the Gold Coast, they will either have to build a new rectangular stadium or go with Carrara stadium. At the moment, works are under way for the 28,000 seat oval (due to be completed late 2010). This stadium was designed in a way that it can be redeveloped to fit a Commonwealth Games bid (50,000-60,000ish). I see carrara getting this redevelopment and getting the capacity cut back afterwards (unless the gold coast afl team are getting good crowds). 

*Adelaide*

Make Adelaide Oval into a 60,000 seat multi purpose stadium. After the current redevelopment is completed, it will be around 40,000 seats. A grand stand replacing the don bradman stand, chapell stands and maybe the grass hill will suffice. (200-300m)

*Perth*

Subiaco last year was a whisker away from becoming a 70,000 seat stadium (with the capacity to be able to be expanded to 80,000), but this plan was put on the back shelf by the new government untill funds were found. Surely if the world cup was won the state goverment would go ahead with this. (1000m)

*Canberra*
New $250,000,000 complex plan reveiled lately turning bruce stadium into an AFL venue and building a new 40,000 rectangular venue next door.

*Newcastle*

EnergyAustralia Stadium: No change (I predict it will be 40,000 by this time, world cup or not) $0

*Hobart*

Hobart: I see one of the Victorian AFL teams moving down there in the next 10 years, and they need a stadium. A 40,000 multi purpose seater will be shared well with an a-leauge team. 500m

*Geelong*

Geelong: Skilled Stadium will be near enough 40,000 by this time, but it is an oval and thus don't see it getting any games. 50m


Theres 12 stadiums, all meeting requirments.

The cost: 2,115,000,000-2,315,000,000
That's alot of money, although i see all of the stadiums being used afterwards to capacity. Also, alot of this sum comes from stadium upgrades which would have gone ahead, reguardless of the world cup (Subiaco, MCG, Geelong, Melbourne rectangular). Taking out these costs, we are left with a very, very, very rough total of 865,000,000-1,065,000,000. Is this cost justified by the world cup? I say yes.

*** signifies a white elephant post world cup.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Here is how the draw can be played stadium/flight time wise: (i just grabbed the top 32 teams using fifas ranking system)
There are 48 group stage matches
8 group of 16 matches
4 quarter finals
2 semi finals
1 3rd position play off
1 final
*
Geelong *GO16, 4 Group matches (5 Matches)
*Gold Coast *GO16, 4 Group Matches (5 Matches)
*Hobart *GO16, 4 Group Matches (5 Matches)
*Perth *Semi Final, GO16, 4 Group Matches (6 Matches)
*Adelaide* Quarter Final, 5 Group Matches (6 Matches)
*Canberra *Quarter Final, 4 Group Matches (5 Matches
*MCG *Final, Quarter Final, 4 Group Matches (6 Matches)
*Melb Rec Stadium *GO16, 4 Group Matches (5 Matches)
*Homebush *Third place, Quarter Final, 4 Group Matches (6 Matches)
*SFS *GO16, 4 Group Matches (5 Matches)
*Newcastle *GO16, 4 Group Matches (5 Matches)
*Brisbane* Semi Final, GO16, 4 Group Matches (6 Matches)

In Germany, 5 stadiums Held 6 Matches while 7 Stadiums held 5 matches. 

*State by State*

*NSW *16 Matches
*VIC *16 Matches
*QLD *10 Matches
*WA* 6 Matches
*SA *6 Matches
*ACT *5 Matches
*TAS *5 Matches

*GROUP A
*1. Homebush- Australia v Argentina
2. Newcastle- Japan V Scotland
3. SFS- Scotland V Argentina
4. Brisbane- Australia V Japan
5. Gold Coast- Argentina V Japan
6. MCG- Australia V Scotland

Flight Time (6hrs total)
Australia - 3hrs
Argentina- 1hr
Japan- 1hr
Scotland- 1hr

*GROUP B
*7. Perth- Spain V Greece
8. MRS - Bulgaria V Croatia
9. Adelaide- Spain V Bulgaria
10. SFS- Greece V Croatia
11. Geelong- Spain V Croatia
12. MCG - Greece V Bulgaria

Flight Time (Total - 13hrs)
Spain- 4hrs
Greece- 5hrs
Croatia- 2hrs
Bulgaria- 2hrs

*GROUP C
*13. Hobart- Netherlands V Urguay
14. Geelong- France V Denmark
15. Adelaide- Netherlands V France
16. Canberra- Urguay V Denmark
17. Melbourne Rec. Stadium- Urguay V Denmark
18. Perth- Netherlands V France

Flight Time (total- 15hrs)
Netherlands - 4hrs
France- 4hrs
Urguay- 4hrs
Denmark- 3hrs

*GROUP D
*
19. Homebush- Portugal V Ukraine
20. MRS - Israel V Turkey
21. Adelaide - Turkey V Ukraine
22. SFS - Portugal V Israel
23. Perth - Turkey V Portugal
24. Canberra - Ukraine V Israel

Flight time: (Total: 13hrs)
Portugal: 4hrs
Ukraine: 2 hrs
Israel: 1 hr
Turkey: 4hrs

*GROUP E
*
25. Newcastle - Germany V Northern Ireland
26. Hobart - Paraguay V Mexico
27. Gold Coast - Mexico V Northern Ireland
28. Canberra - Paraguay V Germany
29. Brisbane - Germany V Mexico
30. Geelong - Paraguay V Northen Ireland

Flight time: (Total: 10hrs)
Germany: 1hr
Nrth Ireland: 3hrs
Paraguay: 3hrs
Mexico: 3hrs

*GROUP F
*31. Brisbane - Italy V USA
32. MRS - Serbia V Romania
33. Gold Coast - USA V Serbia
34. Adelaide - Italy V Romania
35. Perth - USA V Romania
36. Homebush - Italy V Serbia

Flight Time: (Total - 13hrs)
Italy: 2hrs
USA: 4hrs
Serbia: 3hrs
Romania: 4hrs

*GROUP G
*37. Homebush - Brazil V Russia
38. Hobart - Czech V Nigeria
39. MCG - Brazil V Czech
40. SFS - Russia V Nigeria
41. Perth - Czech V Russia
42. Brisbane - Brazil V Nigeria

Flight time: (Total - 15hrs)
Brazil: 3hrs
Russia: 4hrs
Czech: 5hrs
Nigeria: 3hrs

*GROUP H
*
43. Canberra - England V Switzerland
44. Hobart - Cameroon V Sweden
45. Gold Coast - England V Cameroon
46. Newcastle - Switzerland V Sweden
47. MCG - England V Sweden
48. Geelong - Switzerland V Cameroon

Flight Time: (Total - 12hrs)

England: 3 hrs
Switzerland: 1hr
Cameroon: 5hrs
Sweden: 3hrs


*GROUP OF 16*
49. Brisbane
50. Gold Coast
51. Hobart
52. Perth
53. Melbourne Rectangular Stadium
54. Geelong
55. Newcastle
56. SFS

*QUARTER FINALS
*57. Canberra
58. Adelaide
59. MCG 
60. Homebush

*For the group of 16 round, i tried to group like states together (eg. Geelong, MRS; Newcastle, SFS) so when it comes to the quarter final both winning teams have equal flighing time. I also tried to put the stadium for the quarter final near the two stadiums used in the group of 16 (eg. Geelong, MRS -> MCG).

*SEMI FINALS
*
61. Perth
62. Brisbane

*3RD PLACE PLAYOFF
*
63. Homebush

*FINAL
*
64. MCG


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Blimey, you've figured out who is going to qualify as well! One thing I will say is that I hope Adelaide oval keeps it's heritage, remember folks it is an oval and a cricket one at that. I love stadium redevelopments but making Adelaide oval a steel structure like the gabba or mcg wont nor should not happen. For instance I can imagine SA people being a bit peeved knocking down Bradman and Chappel stands (Chappel stands are pretty new btw) when those three famous people which the stands are named after (Trevor ignored ) are gods in Adelaide. The rest sounds good. :cheers: Although as a Geelong person I can't see a football team playing here nor can I see a Melbourne club moving to Hobart. Your idea for Hobart would be more of a white elephant than GC which is packed most league matches.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Turning Adelaide Oval into a multipurpose venue would be a bit like turning Lords into a multipurpose venue.

Although Adelaide Oval could be used for Australian Rules Football and Cricket. So i guess that would kind of make it multipurpose!:lol:


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Cruise said:


> *Turning Adelaide Oval into a multipurpose venue would be a bit like turning Lords into a multipurpose venue.*
> 
> Although Adelaide Oval could be used for Australian Rules Football and Cricket. So i guess that would kind of make it multipurpose!:lol:


Pretty much. It has a history, Subiaco I don't care about but Adelaide oval matters.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> Blimey, you've figured out who is going to qualify as well! One thing I will say is that I hope Adelaide oval keeps it's heritage, remember folks it is an oval and a cricket one at that. I love stadium redevelopments but making Adelaide oval a steel structure like the gabba or mcg wont nor should not happen. For instance I can imagine SA people being a bit peeved knocking down Bradman and Chappel stands (Chappel stands are pretty new btw) when those three famous people which the stands are named after (Trevor ignored ) are gods in Adelaide. The rest sounds good. :cheers: Although as a Geelong person I can't see a football team playing here nor can I see a Melbourne club moving to Hobart. Your idea for Hobart would be more of a white elephant than GC which is packed most league matches.


Read my unfortunate edit about Gold Coast.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> Read my unfortunate edit about Gold Coast.


Are you sure? It looks quite easy to dismantle and then develop into a larger stadium. I'd love to know more but IMO if we were to get the world cup skilled park would bend over backwards to ensure their stadium was included. Ditto the government, GC would be a fantastic city to host foreigners.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

@magic_johnson

Melbourne is definitely not going to get the final if we are permitted to use 2 stadiums. Especially not if Geelong (which is very close to Melbourne as compared to other regional cities is included).

Though ideally Melbourne should get the final, we'll stick to the equally as important first match between Australia and whoever.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

The stadiums for the bid will be decided by the end of this year, so i *highly* doubt Geelong or Hobart will be in the bid proposal. 
Skilled stadium wont be put forward as it is beyond hopeless as a soccer venue. Geelong wont be getting an A league team any time soon, so needs no rectangular stadium. 
Hobart has no teams for any stadium to be built, so is out too.

Maybe, if Australia wins the bid, down the line these cities will be added as host venues (if thats even allowed), though if the bid has been approved then I doubt more stadiums would be built or host cities changed unless its totally necessary.

Id rather we not host the WC than Adelaide oval be redeveloped. Its a cricket ground, and a nice one at that and should be maintained as is. Either way, a total redevelopment into a multipurpose stadium has not been proposed, hence is not on the cards. What has been proposed is an upgrade to just over 40,000 without movable tiers, which will mean the venue is still shit for soccer. If the SA government decide on Adelaide oval, chances of Australia hosting are drastically reduced. 

Dont know about Gold Coast. What prevents a capacity upgrade at skilled park?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

woozoo said:


> The stadiums for the bid will be decided by the end of this year, so i *highly* doubt Geelong or Hobart will be in the bid proposal.
> Skilled stadium wont be put forward as it is beyond hopeless as a soccer venue. Geelong wont be getting an A league team any time soon, so needs no rectangular stadium.
> Hobart has no teams for any stadium to be built, so is out too.
> 
> Maybe, if Australia wins the bid, down the line these cities will be added as host venues (if thats even allowed), though if the bid has been approved then I doubt more stadiums would be built or host cities changed unless its totally necessary.


So, it won't be put forward now, but may in the future? What will change? I'm a little lost at this point...


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> So, it won't be put forward now, but may in the future? What will change? I'm a little lost at this point...


He's saying that Geelong and Hobart have no chance of getting a world cup match (and they don't, I live in Geelong and I can tell you skilled stadium isn't and wont be looked at as a world cup venue, if Australia has to scrape that low we wont get it, kudos for the recognition though). It's more likely that Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Gold Coast and Townsville will be used. That's nine cities with 10 stadiums, clearly enough.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> He's saying that Geelong and Hobart have no chance of getting a world cup match (and they don't, I live in Geelong and I can tell you skilled stadium isn't and wont be looked at as a world cup venue, if Australia has to scrape that low we wont get it, kudos for the recognition though). It's more likely that Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Gold Coast and Townsville will be used. That's nine cities with 10 stadiums, clearly enough.


I also live in Geelong, and _was_ scraping the barrel with that. But he went on to say that later on maybe Geelong or Hobart will be considered. That was where he lost me.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

magic_johnson said:


> Here is how the draw can be played stadium/flight time wise: (i just grabbed the top 32 teams using fifas ranking system)
> There are 48 group stage matches
> 8 group of 16 matches
> 4 quarter finals
> ...



Perth and Brisbane over Sydney for a semi-final.
not gonna happen.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

1. In the scenario above, why not use ANZ Stadium for Sydney? Are we saying World Cup games wouldn't draw a crowd of 83,000?

2. If (as is being argued) an Aussie bid is running out of viable venues by the time you get to Geelong and Hobart, there is the (to many unthinkable) alternative of a joint bid with New Zealand. There's already at least 3 bigger/better venues in Aukland, Wellington and Christchurch than suggested - removing the 'white elephant' risk. A joint bid might be the only way to get a winning bid Down Under.

That should set the passions raging....


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

EADGBE said:


> 1. In the scenario above, why not use ANZ Stadium for Sydney? Are we saying World Cup games wouldn't draw a crowd of 83,000?


Because you are only allowed one stadium per city with the exception of one city. I made the exception Melbourne, on the basis that SFS gets used as Sydney and ANZ stadium (homebush) as West Sydney (the stadium is a good 30 minute train ride from the city).


> 2. If (as is being argued) an Aussie bid is running out of viable venues by the time you get to Geelong and Hobart, there is the (to many unthinkable) alternative of a joint bid with New Zealand. There's already at least 3 bigger/better venues in Aukland, Wellington and Christchurch than suggested - removing the 'white elephant' risk. A joint bid might be the only way to get a winning bid Down Under.
> 
> That should set the passions raging....


It's a 8 hour flight from Perth to anywhere in New Zealand. It is simply too far away, when some people are saying Australia is too big as it is.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

Fair point, but I think it is rather unfair to level size as a criticism of Australia - it's not like anything can be done about it. Besides, it's not that much bigger than the US, who also spread their venues from coast to coast. I apprecate NZ is much further from Australia's east coast than most people assume, but a quick look on a map tells me that Sydney is closer to any part of NZ than is it to Perth.

If the ideal World Cup is a question of the best venues, then politics aside, a bid should involve NZ. If it's a question of minimising air miles for the green lobby then we're back to Geelong and Hobart.

If it turns out that Australia alone is deemed 'too big' then I think we have reached a very sad milestone in sport. We are then saying that major tournaments are then the preserve of certain types of county. I'm not naive enought to know that's already true in the case of finance and infrastructure, but in theory at least, that can be changed if a country's wealth changes. Large countries can do nothing about being large and should not be penalised for being so.

The logical conclusion of this is that we end up with a single dedicated island where all tournaments are played, as in the film 'Animalympics' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animalympics). Back in 1980, this seemed a rather romantic notion and even today it promises a certain efficiency. What I think is lost is the chance to use the unique culture(s) of the current host(s) to make each tournament vastly different from the last.

NZ is never going to host a WC finals alone and if Australia is struggling to meet the criteria too, then I for one would love to see a joint bid succeeding.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

EADGBE said:


> Fair point, but I think it is rather unfair to level size as a criticism of Australia - it's not like anything can be done about it. Besides, it's not that much bigger than the US, who also spread their venues from coast to coast. I apprecate NZ is much further from Australia's east coast than most people assume, but a quick look on a map tells me that Sydney is closer to any part of NZ than is it to Perth.
> 
> If the ideal World Cup is a question of the best venues, then politics aside, a bid should involve NZ. If it's a question of minimising air miles for the green lobby then we're back to Geelong and Hobart.
> 
> ...


It is 4 hours minimum from NZ to the East Coast of Australia
What is wrong with a 40,000 (later downgraded) stadium in Hobart? 
Looking at what Brazil are doing stadium wise for 2014, we would still be spending much less then them.


----------



## aaronaugi1 (Apr 23, 2008)

Some of this dicussion is so pointless. The bid cities and their venues seem really straight forward really.

Sydney (F), Melbourne (2), Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Newcastle, Canberra, Gold Coast are all locked in as far as i'm concerned. 

Townsville, Tasmania, Wollongong and possibly Gosford are in the mix. Darwin no. Geelong no. 

Sydney is likley to get the final for reasons discussed by Mo Ruch and others. Melbourne, IMO will get the two venues; mainly becuase it is likley the Melbourne Football Stadium will need or will benefit from an upgrade at that time. I doubt Sydney FC or Rugby League will require an SFS upgrade by 2018, 2022 or 2026.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

magic_johnson said:


> ehh?


I was just reposting that last post


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

aaronaugi1 said:


> Some of this dicussion is so pointless. The bid cities and their venues seem really straight forward really.
> 
> Sydney (F), Melbourne (2), Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Newcastle, Canberra, Gold Coast are all locked in as far as i'm concerned.
> 
> ...


Two questions.
What ground do you think they will play at in gosford or the gold coast? 
When you say Sydney, are you discluding SFS or not?


----------



## flavze (May 13, 2009)

EADGBE said:


> 1. In the scenario above, why not use ANZ Stadium for Sydney? Are we saying World Cup games wouldn't draw a crowd of 83,000?
> 
> 2. If (as is being argued) an Aussie bid is running out of viable venues by the time you get to Geelong and Hobart, there is the (to many unthinkable) alternative of a joint bid with New Zealand. There's already at least 3 bigger/better venues in Aukland, Wellington and Christchurch than suggested - removing the 'white elephant' risk. A joint bid might be the only way to get a winning bid Down Under.
> 
> That should set the passions raging....


i don't think most aussie football fans would mind that much if a WC was shared with NZ but with NZ being in a differant confederation it won't happen.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> Two questions.
> What ground do you think they will play at in gosford or the gold coast?
> When you say Sydney, are you discluding SFS or not?


I doubt they'd pick Gosford. Other than your idea that skilled park can't be redeveloped (considering the mcg could, I find this idea silly, but that's just me) I see Gold Coast as perfect. And Sydney is generally picked as only one because of the FIFA rule that only one city can have two stadiums, with Melbourne using two, it seems obvious that if FIFA uses the rule, ANZ stadium will be included and SFS wont (it should be anyway, it's a terrible stadium, no shade or cover unlike the new Melbourne stadium).


----------



## piles (Oct 31, 2007)

magic_johnson said:


> It is 4 hours minimum from NZ to the East Coast of Australia


 Sydney to Auckland is about 2 1/2 - 3 hours. If the pools are organised right, distances shouldn't matter. We are also joint hosting the 2015 Cricket World Cup.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

magic_johnson said:


> Two questions.
> What ground do you think they will play at in gosford or the gold coast?
> When you say Sydney, are you discluding SFS or not?


I don't know where your comment comes from that Skilled Park can't be redeveloped, and I've never seen proof for it. Any stadium can be expanded, in the worst case you can just rebuild one tier to increase capacity...


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

Aside from anything else, how crap would it look if a World Cup has been planned, using a 45,500 capacity stadium when there is one almost twice that size in the same city? It would say something about how unambitious the organisers were.

I know NSW is rugby (league) country and 'soccer' is still maybe the 3rd sport now, but Australia does pride itself on being sport-mad and you only have to look at the success of the Sydney Olympics to be sure that almost any WC game would sel 83,000 tickets in Sydney. 

Factor in also that of the three group games the Socceroos would play, one would be at the 'G', one maybe at Brisbane or Perth but the other would _have_ to be at ANZ and that would easily sell out.

BTW, I agree that a joint NZ bid may be made trickier by the fact that Australia are now in 'Asia'(!) but without such an intitative, Oceania is never going to get close to hosting. Maybe half a bid is they best they can hope for. I was looking at the three NZ venues on wikipedia and with the IRB WC going to NZ in 2011, there's expansion at Christchurch to 43,000 and at Aukland to maybe 60,000. That's got to be better than some of the more peripheral Australian venues.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

My 12 venue - without the projected fixtures (capacities approx, so don't be pedantic!):

Final Venue: MCG........................Melbourne..........100,000
3/4th Venue: Eden Park.................Auckland.............60,000*

Semi-Finals: ANZ Stadium..............Sydney..............83,000 & MCG

Other venues: new Perth Stadium......Perth..................60,000* 
Docklands Stadium......Melbourne............56,000
SunCorp Stadium........Brisbane...............52,000
Football Park..............Adelaide..............51,000
AMI Stadium..............Christchurch.........43,000*
Westpac Stadium.......Wellington.............34,500
EnergyAustralia Stad...Newcastle............30,000*
Dairy Farmers Stad.....Townsville.............30,000*
Canberra Stadium.......Canberra..............30.000*

* signifies grounds where expansion would be required. I believe 30,000 is FIFA's minimum for a WC venue.

State by State

NZ 3 venues
NSW 2 venues
VIC 2 vatches
QLD 2 vatches
WA 1 venue
SA 1 venue
ACT 1 venue

Total capacity ~ 629,000 in 12 venues. Average ~ 52,417

Germany 2006:
Total capacity ~ 634,812 in 12 venues. Average ~ 52,901


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Which is why Sydney's olympic stadium (ANZ stadium) and the mcg will both be used in any Australian world cup, they're too large to be ignored. I mean heck, there isn't a stadium used in the 2006 world cup which is larger than olympic stadium, standing included! You can't turn down a stadium of that size.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

EADGBE said:


> My 12 venue - without the projected fixtures (capacities approx, so don't be pedantic!):
> 
> Final Venue: MCG........................Melbourne..........100,000
> 3/4th Venue: Eden Park.................Auckland.............60,000*
> ...


1. MCG for SF and F not going to happen
2. Auckland as a venue not going to happen
3. Wellington as a venue not going to happen.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

It's actually 40k minimun. Telstra dome probably wont host matches, we're thinking of redeveloping the new bubbledome to make it 40k+ for the worldcup, it is afterall not that far off it so it wont be much of a relic, plus it's a football specific stadium which would probably please FIFA more.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

EADGBE said:


> My 12 venue - without the projected fixtures (capacities approx, so don't be pedantic!):
> 
> * signifies grounds where expansion would be required. I believe 30,000 is FIFA's minimum for a WC venue.
> 
> minimum capacity for World Cup is 40k, sou you would have to enlarge capacities.


----------



## EADGBE (Feb 28, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> 1. MCG for SF and F not going to happen
> 2. Auckland as a venue not going to happen
> 3. Wellington as a venue not going to happen.


Uh, okay....(!)

Care to give a reason or even an opinion for each or do you only plan on dispensing wise statements?

BTW, I stand corrected on the 40k minimum. I suspect it would make expansion at places like Canberra harder to justify though...


----------



## flavze (May 13, 2009)

EADGBE said:


> Uh, okay....(!)
> 
> Care to give a reason or even an opinion for each or do you only plan on dispensing wise statements?
> 
> BTW, I stand corrected on the 40k minimum. I suspect it would make expansion at places like Canberra harder to justify though...


Auckland and wellington are in NZ not australia and it isn't and won't be a joint bid so ya might as well forget that idea.

The stadium issue for a WC in Aus is really a non-issue, at a min AUS will have 8 years to rebuild old stadia or build new ones.
Take a look at Brazil and South Africa, pretty much all the stadia used will be new or rebuilt ones that weren't planned till AFTER they won the right o host the WC.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

flavze said:


> Auckland and wellington are in NZ not australia and it isn't and won't be a joint bid so ya might as well forget that idea.
> 
> The stadium issue for a WC in Aus is really a non-issue, at a min AUS will have 8 years to rebuild old stadia or build new ones.
> Take a look at Brazil and South Africa, *pretty much all the stadia used will be new or rebuilt ones that weren't planned till AFTER they won the right o host the WC.*


South Africa bid with 7 existing venues, 2 of these were replaced with new venues. Overall 5 existing and 5 new.

Eden Park, firstly is in NZ so as you say no chance of it being included.
Secondly, absolutely no space around Eden Park which is a requirement, so even then impossible for it be a match venue.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> So, it won't be put forward now, but may in the future? What will change? I'm a little lost at this point...


Richo basically explained what i meant. Geelong and Hobart will not be part of the bid. However, the WC we have a chance of hosting is 12 years after the bid is put forward. Thats a lot of time for things to change, and possibly some venues to change.

If Australia is awarded the bid, im sure the Tasmanian government will jump on the WC bandwagon and want to host some games. If, lets say Townsville or somewhere else falls through, then Tasmania could maybe pick up that spot. An off chance, but anything could happen. I dont hold much hope for Geelong though.

The Australian bid is not a joint bid with NZ, so there will be no NZ cities hosting games. The FFA made the decision at a very early stage when FIFA was fully against joint bids (still is kinda). NZ is a bit too far away - Perth is different because its actually part of Australia. If it was to co host you would have the extra hassle of fans, players and officials having to get another Visa to NZ and passing through customs etc. The NZ stadiums are pretty poor, so the only thing it would add to the bid is that it is in Oceania, which doesnt really mean much and Australia is already pushing its "Asia Pacific" location.
Holding an NZ citizenship, I would love NZ to host as well, but it just isnt practical.

The 40K Canberra stadium has already been announced and will be built if Australia wins the bid. Overall the plan looks pretty good, with Bruce stadium converted to oval for footy, an ethletics stadium and the rectangular ground all in the same sports precinct.


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> Melbourne is sporting capital of Australia, but maybe not world. We have the AFL grand final, melbourne cup, Australian open, f1, boxing day test, London has wimbledon, fa cup final, lords test match. But certainly Melbourne would be one of the biggest cities in terms of sports. The city is obsessed with sport. Literally.


hmm thats why melbourne only managed 20,000 at etihad stadium in the australia v italy rugby test on saturday. even canberra got more than that the week before


----------



## Ducko (Oct 5, 2008)

Pimpmaster said:


> hmm thats why melbourne only managed 20,000 at etihad stadium in the australia v italy rugby test on saturday. even canberra got more than that the week before


Melbourne is the self-proclaimed capital of everything in Australia. Maybe it's a hangover from the days when it was care-taker capital of Australia (1901-1927). Whatever it is, it does become a bit tedious after a while.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Pimpmaster said:


> hmm thats why melbourne only managed 20,000 at etihad stadium in the australia v italy rugby test on saturday. even canberra got more than that the week before


I don't mean to get into an argument but Italy being a giant of world rugby and all. Forget how Melbourne got 70k to a pretty much friendly days before. I mean no other Australian place holds as much events, has such facilities. What other city has a major tennis, afl, golf, grand prix event every year? The only city which has such events is Sydney yet their crowds for events are pitiful.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Richo83 said:


> I don't mean to get into an argument but Italy being a giant of world rugby and all. Forget how Melbourne got 70k to a pretty much friendly days before. I mean no other Australian place holds as much events, has such facilities. What other city has a major tennis, *afl*, golf, grand prix event every year? The only city which has such events is Sydney yet their crowds for events are pitiful.


You can scratch the bolded one off your list. :lol:


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Wezza said:


> You can scratch the bolded one off your list. :lol:


Funny, but why? The afl grand final is the biggest annual event in the Australian sporting calendar, it is the most watched, most attended (what other single event guarantees 100k at the game and millions watching?) the only thing that comes close in that regard is the Melbourne cup, which apparently stops a nation, which is in... you guessed it, Melbourne. I love association football (or soccer) yet that doesn't come close to matching the overall passion of the afl grand final. On the day it dominates ratings in at least four states (WA, SA, Vic, Tas) plus probably other states and territories (Qld, NSW, NT, ACT) so yes, it does count.


----------



## flavze (May 13, 2009)

hey i'm from Adelaide and hate Victorians as much as the next aussie but i admit nobody in Aus does sport like Melbourne.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Joop20 said:


> I don't know where your comment comes from that Skilled Park can't be redeveloped, and I've never seen proof for it. Any stadium can be expanded, in the worst case you can just rebuild one tier to increase capacity...


When i say can't be redeveloped, i mean the only way to redevelop is to knock down and rebuild (ie, foundations might not be strong enough to hold more etc).


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

EADGBE said:


> Aside from anything else, how crap would it look if a World Cup has been planned, using a 45,500 capacity stadium when there is one almost twice that size in the same city? It would say something about how unambitious the organisers were.
> 
> I know NSW is rugby (league) country and 'soccer' is still maybe the 3rd sport now, but Australia does pride itself on being sport-mad and you only have to look at the success of the Sydney Olympics to be sure that almost any WC game would sel 83,000 tickets in Sydney.
> 
> ...


Who _ever_ said anything about not using ANZ stadium?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

EADGBE said:


> Uh, okay....(!)
> 
> Care to give a reason or even an opinion for each or do you only plan on dispensing wise statements?
> 
> BTW, I stand corrected on the 40k minimum. I suspect it would make expansion at places like Canberra harder to justify though...


Well, we've already bidded by ourselves and Those three cities being in New Zealand have a bit to do with not being able to host matches.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> Funny, but why? The afl grand final is the biggest annual event in the Australian sporting calendar, it is the most watched, most attended (what other single event guarantees 100k at the game and millions watching?) the only thing that comes close in that regard is the Melbourne cup, which apparently stops a nation, which is in... you guessed it, Melbourne. I love association football (or soccer) yet that doesn't come close to matching the overall passion of the afl grand final. On the day it dominates ratings in at least four states (WA, SA, Vic, Tas) plus probably other states and territories (Qld, NSW, NT, ACT) so yes, it does count.


You said "what other city hosts afl yearly?"
It should read "afl grand final" or something like that, because i'm fair sure Geelong, Launceston, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and the Gold Coast host AFL yearly also... :lol:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

While MCG and Homebush have no issues with space around the venue, a venue like Eden Park (assuming NZ somehow co-host) would not gain FIFA approval due to its location.

This diagram provides a rough indication of the space required around the venue.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Richo83 said:


> Funny, but why? The afl grand final is the biggest annual event in the Australian sporting calendar, it is the most watched, most attended (what other single event guarantees 100k at the game and millions watching?) the only thing that comes close in that regard is the Melbourne cup, which apparently stops a nation, which is in... you guessed it, Melbourne. I love association football (or soccer) yet that doesn't come close to matching the overall passion of the afl grand final. On the day it dominates ratings in at least four states (WA, SA, Vic, Tas) plus probably other states and territories (Qld, NSW, NT, ACT) so yes, it does count.


AFL hardly rates a mention north of the Victorian border.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> You said "what other city hosts afl yearly?"
> It should read "afl grand final" or something like that, because i'm fair sure Geelong, Launceston, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and the Gold Coast host AFL yearly also... :lol:


I said major, and people understood what I said.

Wezza, no offense but I didn't realise NSW and Queenslanders were the deciders of what's big or not. If we based the importance of events on Sydney's care for it hardly any sport would be important. They don't even turn up to their main sport league! And no Queensland city can boast of such an array of sporting events, even it's capital Brisbane doesn't host the grand final because their stadium is too small. 

As for NZ, well if FIFA don't like Portugal/Spain, they surely wont like Australia/NZ.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Richo83 said:


> I said major, and people understood what I said.
> 
> Wezza, no offense but I didn't realise NSW and Queenslanders were the deciders of what's big or not. If we based the importance of events on Sydney's care for it hardly any sport would be important. They don't even turn up to their main sport league! And no Queensland city can boast of such an array of sporting events, even it's capital Brisbane doesn't host the grand final because their stadium is too small.
> 
> As for NZ, well if FIFA don't like Portugal/Spain, they surely wont like Australia/NZ.


What i'm saying is the AFL grand final maybe big down your way, but it's hardly big news in NSW & QLD. Just telling you how it is mate, putting it into perspective.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Wezza said:


> What i'm saying is the AFL grand final maybe big down your way, but it's hardly big news in NSW & QLD. Just telling you how it is mate, putting it into perspective.


Wasn't so small when the lions and swans were winning flags. To pretend the afl is a small code in Australia is rubbish, it's in some ways equal in size with league and soccer combined. And this is coming from a mad soccer fan.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

^^
That's really the only time when it rates much of a mention, when a local team is involved. All i'm saying is it's not as big of an event all around Australia as what some people from Victoria think. The NRL Grand Final is a far bigger deal to NSW & QLD than the AFL Grand Final is.

P.S. Apologies to everyone for taking this O/T. :lol:


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> Funny, but why? The afl grand final is the biggest annual event in the Australian sporting calendar, it is the most watched, most attended (what other single event guarantees 100k at the game and millions watching?) the only thing that comes close in that regard is the Melbourne cup, which apparently stops a nation, which is in... you guessed it, Melbourne. I love association football (or soccer) yet that doesn't come close to matching the overall passion of the afl grand final. On the day it dominates ratings in at least four states (WA, SA, Vic, Tas) plus probably other states and territories (Qld, NSW, NT, ACT) so yes, it does count.


how many actually watched the afl grand final 08? State of origin 09 game 1 got like 3.7million viewers


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

I think it was more like 2.7 million peak, 2.3 million average. This is a record for SOO.
http://mumbrella.com.au/state-of-or...er-creates-more-controversy-than-viewers-6196

The 08 AFL grand final had ratings of 2,583,000. That figure is down on previous years: 2005 (3.39m), 2006 (3.15m), 2003 (2.96m), 2004 (2.80m), certainly due to both teams being Victorian.

Both SOO and the AFL grand final are big events on the national sporting calender. Of course NRL grand final is big too. The AFL grand final is bigger though. Its the biggest single annual australian domestic competition event (shit thats a lot of determiners lol) in terms of tv ratings and attendance.

I would also add the moto GP and superbikes at Philip Island to the list of events which makes Melbourne the sporting capital of the universe.
If you dont know yet, Melbourne is also the capital of culture, fine art, food, gardens, nightlife, livability... *rolls eyes*


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

woozoo said:


> I would also add the moto GP and superbikes at Philip Island to the list of events which makes Melbourne the sporting capital of the universe.
> If you dont know yet, Melbourne is also the capital of culture, fine art, food, gardens, nightlife, livability... *rolls eyes*











:lol: Shut up woozoo!


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Pimpmaster said:


> how many actually watched the afl grand final 08? State of origin 09 game 1 got like 3.7million viewers


Woozoo's averages show 3.075mil average over the past four years, which is an incredibly good average considering it's played during the day, whereas the SOO is during the night. If the afl grand final was at night time, it could probably draw 4mil viewers.

Anyway, this is off topic.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

NRL is dying, it will soon become a little league for union players to keep their match fitness up in.

End of story


----------



## Citystyle (Jan 6, 2005)

Wezza said:


> AFL hardly rates a mention north of the Victorian border.


Not for long. 
*

Consortium led by AFL chief Mike Fitzpatrick buys control of ANZ Stadium*

A CONSORTIUM led by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick has bought control of the ANZ Stadium in Sydney, The Australian Online can reveal.

ANZ will announce the sale of its infrastructure arm, which counts the stadium among almost $1 billion of funds under management, tomorrow.
The deal is believed to be worth more than $30 million.

Mr Fitzpatrick, who founded Hastings Funds Management before selling a controlling stake to Westpac, will take a 50 per cent interest in ANZ Infrastructure Services.


John Clarke, the ANZIS managing director who already owns 20 per cent of the business, will increase his stake to 40 per cent. Prominent corporate advisor Les Fallick will own 10 per cent.

ANZ currently owns 80 per cent of ANZIS, which is an adviser and investment manager across several sectors such as energy, infrastructure and utilities.

Its Energy Infrastructure Trust manages more than $750 million of energy assets, including power generation, wind farms, gas pipelines and gas production.

The Diversified Infrastructure Trust has about $220 million in funds under management, including Stadium Australia, owner of Sydney's ANZ Stadium.

Mr Fitzpatrick, who led Carlton to two premierships in the 1980s and now chairs the AFL, will be chairman of ANZIS after the buyout, with Mr Clarke remaining as managing director.

Mr Fitzpatrick is also a Rio Tinto director.

He has agreed to absent himself from discussions at ANZIS or the AFL on any issues relating to ANZ Stadium, which regularly hosts AFL matches.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-36418,00.html

Looks like the Australian Football League will go ahead with the West Sydney side based out of ANZ stadium. Give it a few years and you will see allot more interest out of the two rugby states in Aussie rules, Sydneysiders have never had any intrest in what the rest of Australia does so i second team will satisfy them.

It will end up being like Westcoast v Fremantle.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Cruise said:


> NRL is dying, it will soon become a little league for union players to keep their match fitness up in.
> 
> End of story


:crazy:
Yeah because rugby union has a professional domestic competition. Remember Mazda Championship? What a huge success that was....

End of story.



Citystyle said:


> Not for long.
> *
> 
> Consortium led by AFL chief Mike Fitzpatrick buys control of ANZ Stadium*
> ...


:lol:
It's laughable if you think that's going to make AFL very popular north of the Victorian border. An AFL team in western Sydney will be a disaster, Gold Coast won't be any better.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> :lol:
> It's laughable if you think that's going to make AFL very popular north of the Victorian border. An AFL team in western Sydney will be a disaster, Gold Coast won't be any better.


Um, Smell the fear?


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

Concerns for Sydney Swans as numbers suggest popularity is dropping
By Tim Morrissey
June 18, 2009 Fears the AFL could be faced with a "catastrophic" situation of two struggling teams in Sydney in 2012 took a turn towards reality with figures reconfirming the Swans' popularity is sliding.

At the same time the NRL showed they are ready for the biggest battle of the codes in Sydney's sporting history after rugby league enjoyed a significant jump in crowds, memberships and television ratings compared with the same period last year. 

The NRL's steady rise continues despite the massive publicity generated by the Cronulla group sex scandal and sexual assault charges laid against Manly's Brett Stewart earlier this year - the league even claims an increase in the number of women interested in rugby league. 

NRL crowds are up five per cent, the game's weekly television ratings are up 14.2 per cent in Sydney and total club memberships have grown 27 per cent - while the Swans are heading in the opposite direction. 

Swans memberships are down nine per cent, attendances are down nine per cent while free-to-air and pay TV audiences are down 16 per cent and nine per cent respectively, reinforcing serious concerns voiced last week by Swans coach Paul Roos. 

The trend in Sydney goes against that of the entire AFL competition. 

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou, however, argues that decreased crowd and television figures in Sydney are not an indication that the league's plan to create a new club there should be reconsidered. 

The AFL plans to create a new club in western Sydney to enter the competition in 2012. Demetriou is still convinced it is the right time to push ahead with the plan. 

"We're not deluding ourselves that it's going to be easy," Demetriou said. 

"It's one of the greatest challenges that has ever faced the AFL. But we think it's the right time, it's a great opportunity, we think it's going to be of benefit to Sydney Swans." 

Demetriou said they could not afford to have two teams in the city if they were not performing on and off the field, so the league was helping the Swans as much as they could. 

"What we can't have are two teams in that market that are not successful," he said. "So we're working pretty closely with Swans. 

"We're working closely on areas of membership, revenue generation. 

"I think with the football side, they are a very highly skilled, professional football club. We've got great faith that they'll make, as they've always done, good decisions around recruiting, trading and the like. 

"We're pretty confident we can get and maintain Sydney as a strong football club."


http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25653663-23211,00.html


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

Richo83 said:


> It's actually 40k minimun. Telstra dome probably wont host matches, we're thinking of redeveloping the new bubbledome to make it 40k+ for the worldcup, it is afterall not that far off it so it wont be much of a relic, plus it's a football specific stadium which would probably please FIFA more.


I agree, I could see only the new Football Stadium in Olympic Park and the nearby MCG as being the only Melb venues. 

Telstra Dome can sit idle and be used for any other events (such as potential AFL clashes). 

I'd put my money on Opening match at Sydney Olympic Stadium and final at MCG.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Pimpmaster said:


> The NRL's steady rise continues despite the massive publicity generated by the Cronulla group sex scandal and sexual assault charges laid against Manly's Brett Stewart earlier this year - the league even claims an increase in the number of women interested in rugby league.


 How can they even put a claim like this in an article. 


> NRL crowds are up five per cent, the game's weekly television ratings are up 14.2 per cent in Sydney and total club memberships have grown 27 per cent - while the Swans are heading in the opposite direction.


May have something to do with the fact that they have played more games in sydney this year...



> Swans memberships are down nine per cent, attendances are down nine per cent while free-to-air and pay TV audiences are down 16 per cent and nine per cent respectively, reinforcing serious concerns voiced last week by Swans coach Paul Roos.


Who would have known it, crowd numbers drop when a team starts to lose hno:


It's a joke of an article. Swans are still averaging 30,000+ in the crowd. SCG crowds are actually up, it is just the ANZ crowds that are down (although still averaging 35,000). NRL teams in Sydney could not even dream about getting those kinds of crowds to a premiliminary final, let alone regular season matches.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Australian rules and rugby league are both like country music - they both have a few pockets where they're huge, and the people that follow them think they're the best thing since sliced bread, but in the world as a whole they pale into insignificance.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

CharlieP said:


> Australian rules and rugby league are both like country music - they both have a few pockets where they're huge, and the people that follow them think they're the best thing since sliced bread, but in the world as a whole they pale into insignificance.


Can you all stop discussing this completely off topic AFL vs NRL crap, it's so tiring...


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Joop20 said:


> Can you all stop discussing this completely off topic AFL vs NRL crap, it's so tiring...


I feel partially responsible for this..... Sorry guys! :lol:

I just felt i had to tell AFL lovers that their game isn't as big as they think it is. Football is king anyway!

Let's get back on the topic, i won't say anymore O/T.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Yeah its not as if we get any soccer talk taking over other stadium threads.....

Back to topic. The western side of Adelaide Oval has been demolished (apart from the back section) in preparation for the re-develoment. Don't have any pics yet but when I do I'll post them.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> I feel partially responsible for this..... Sorry guys! :lol:
> 
> I just felt i had to tell AFL lovers that their game isn't as big as they think it is. Football is king anyway!
> 
> Let's get back on the topic, i won't say anymore O/T.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
Look at the average attendace figures list, 

AFL is 4th in the world for highest average attendance figures, Yes thats right, in the WORLD.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Cruise said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
> Look at the average attendace figures list,
> 
> AFL is 4th in the world for highest average attendance figures, Yes thats right, in the WORLD.


I think thats because a lot of teams groundshare such a huge stadium (MCG).


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Cruise said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
> Look at the average attendace figures list,
> 
> AFL is 4th in the world for highest average attendance figures, Yes thats right, in the WORLD.


How many countries is it professionally played in again? s_n_igger s_n_igger :lol:

Lets move on shall we?


----------



## Ducko (Oct 5, 2008)

Cruise said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
> Look at the average attendace figures list,
> 
> AFL is 4th in the world for highest average attendance figures, Yes thats right, in the WORLD.


And watch those averages go down when a 2nd Sydney team enters the competition:lol:


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Some Skilled Stadium (Geelong) talk:

Here is what it is going to look like:
























Here is what it looked like last month:








Looks like they are up to the indoor/corpo section of the second level.


----------



## bing222 (Nov 4, 2007)

This is a picture of the old western stand at the Adelaide oval 

Photo by an ATM:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3374/photo0062a.jpg

Looking great


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

bing222 said:


> This is a picture of the old western stand at the Adelaide oval
> 
> Photo by an ATM:
> 
> ...


Will look very weird watching cricket this summer on tv


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Ducko said:


> And watch those averages go down when a 2nd Sydney team enters the competition:lol:


Sadly, you're correct.

Sydney in general bring down averages of every sport. The Swans seem to be the exception to the rule for now but could all change given a few poor seasons.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

www.austadiums.com

Adelaide Oval rebirth for soccer World Cup bid

South Australia is joining Australia's bid to host soccer's World Cup.

A redeveloped Adelaide Oval where demolition this week brought down the old western and members' stands is now favoured to host World Cup games, if Australia wins the bid.

South Australia is determined to join other states in hosting matches in the 2018 or 2022 World Cup tournaments.

Either the picturesque Adelaide Oval would be further upgraded to seat an extra 10,000 or more spectators believed to be the State Government's preferred option or the city could get a new 45,000-seat purpose-built rectangular venue.

Both options would receive some level of Federal Government funding. Football Federation Australia would prefer a rectangular stadium that would leave a legacy for the sport after the cup, but it would accept an expanded Adelaide Oval as an alternative.

Federation chief executive Ben Buckley said: ``We've got a very open dialogue with the State Government and I'm sure we'll get the best solution in the long run.

``South Australia's got a proud sports history and a proud soccer history and we will work very closely with the State Government to ensure they are part of the bid.''

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today launches Australia's bid with a television commercial that features Adelaide.

Premier Mike Rann has been invited to the VIP launch in Canberra, but a spokeswoman said yesterday he would not attend.

"We wish Australia every success in its World Cup soccer bid," Mr Rann said. "All of Australia's political leaders will give this bid their enthusiastic support.

"If FIFA announces that Australia has been given the right to stage a future World Cup, then it will give everyone plenty of time to ensure we have the appropriate facilities across the nation."

Despite the gloomy economic times, the FFA estimates the Cup will be an economic bonanza for the nation, generating $3.9 billion in ticket sales, accommodation and meals alone.

The FFA said it expected the 60-plus game tournament would draw up to 4.7 million spectators.

The tournament and infrastructure projects would create the equivalent of 74,000 fulltime jobs, and lead to an overall increase in GDP of $5.3 billion.

Mr Buckley said although the FFA's "bid book" had to be lodged by May 2010, venues would have to be finalised by state governments by the end of this year.

Mr Buckley would not be drawn on how the new and upgraded facilities would be funded.

"That is being worked through at the moment," he said.

"Clearly, building and refurbishing stadia is expensive. First and foremost we need to lock in what our venue plan is and then identify what the costs are."

The sticking point for SA is still the venue.

Soccer world governing body FIFA stipulates a minimum capacity of 40,000 for World Cup venues but AAMI Stadium has been ruled out because of its shallow "seat pitch" and transport issues.

The FFA has commissioned plans for a series of boutique 25,000 seat stadiums that, with temporary seating for the Cup, lifts capacity to 45,000.

Stadiums - costing about $250 million each - would be built around the country off the same plan.

The temporary seating would be dismantled after the Cup tournament and given to schools and community sporting organisations.

The cost-saving plan is a cornerstone of Australia's bid.

Mr Buckley yesterday confirmed the FFA's preferred option is for Australia to have 12 World Cup venues, with no more than two venues in each city.

At present only the MCG and Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, ANZ Stadium and the Sydney Football Stadium and Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane, are up to standard.

Perth already has plans to build a multi-purpose city stadium that will have a capacity of 60,000 when it opens in 2014.

The key selling points for Australia's bid are:

PROXIMITY to Asia, as well as our membership of the Asian confederation. More soccer fans live in Asia than any other region.

AUSTRALIA'S track record of hosting major events, including the Olympics and World Youth Day.

BIPARTISAN support across all state and federal governments.

PERCEPTION of Australia internationally as a safe and welcoming destination.

The fact that Australia, as an island, can control who comes to watch the tournament and limit the "hooligan" element - as opposed to continental Europe - is also seen as a plus.


----------



## Maroon Grown (Dec 22, 2004)

magic_johnson said:


> Some Skilled Stadium (Geelong) talk:
> 
> Here is what it is going to look like:
> 
> ...


sorry but the "Cats" would have to be the gayest ever mascot of a football team. reow! hahahahaha


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

That striped wall kind of reminds me of the new Espanyol Barcelona stadium.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> How many countries is it professionally played in again? s_n_igger s_n_igger :lol:
> 
> Lets move on shall we?


well then we should not include the NFL in those stats too, (gridiron not played professionally in every country)
And the the IPL (Cricket not played professionally in every country)

in fact, why don't we save time by pretending no other sport expect soccer exists?

Just like in your little dream world?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Cruise said:


> well then we should not include the NFL in those stats too, (gridiron not played professionally in every country)
> And the the IPL (Cricket not played professionally in every country)
> 
> in fact, why don't we save time by pretending no other sport expect soccer exists?
> ...


Where did i say that it shouldn't be included because it's not played professionally in every country? I'm just giving you a little reality check that no one bar a couple of states in Australia really gives a toss.

I don't pretend no other sport exists, that's usually what AFL fans do. In fact i like most sport bar a few silly, pointless ones. You're very precious of your little AFL game aren't you? :lol:


----------



## Ragarms (Sep 11, 2008)

Oh, please! NOT the Adelaide Oval for the World Cup.

Adelaide has easily the two worst potential venues in Football Park (AAMI Stadium) and Adelaide Oval.

If Adelaide cannot commit to building a whole new purpose built World Cup venue they should just flat out miss out.

Seriously.

hno:


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Ragarms said:


> Oh, please! NOT the Adelaide Oval for the World Cup.
> 
> Adelaide has easily the two worst potential venues in Football Park (AAMI Stadium) and Adelaide Oval.
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

We need to get a grip... IF Australia gets hosting rights for the world cup, brand new 40-50k rectangular stadia will be built in at least 6 cities. Adelaide included.

My reasoning is simple - if we don't guarentee that we're going to do that, FIFA won't go anywhere near the bid.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> Where did i say that it shouldn't be included because it's not played professionally in every country? I'm just giving you a little reality check that no one bar a couple of states in Australia really gives a toss.
> 
> I don't pretend no other sport exists, that's usually what AFL fans do. In fact i like most sport bar a few silly, pointless ones. You're very precious of your little AFL game aren't you? :lol:


the reason i am being "precious" is that people like you are ignorant to the fact the AFL competition is on the move north of the Murray wether you want to accept it or not.

So wezza all i can is:
SMELL THE FEAR!


----------



## Langers (Jun 29, 2009)

Ragarms said:


> Oh, please! NOT the Adelaide Oval for the World Cup.
> 
> Adelaide has easily the two worst potential venues in Football Park (AAMI Stadium) and Adelaide Oval.
> 
> ...


What's wrong with the Adelaide Oval? Absolutely superb venue, and will be even better once the current upgrades are completed.


----------



## Ragarms (Sep 11, 2008)

Langers said:


> What's wrong with the Adelaide Oval? Absolutely superb venue for cricket, and will still be useless for any other sport once the current upgrades are completed.


^^
I took the liberty of correcting your post.



Look at the dimensions of the ground, and look at the stadium infrastructure already in place (that will not be demolished if this goes ahead) - and compare it and any renderings you may be able to find of AO in its optimal configuration against any other football field considered suitable for any previous WC.

It is just a massive fail on all counts.

When you get to the WC you don't pick a venue based on its pleasant cricket atmosphere and white picket fence - you want plenty of people in a state of the art Colosseum creating palpable electricity.

Anyone here from anywhere in the world, take a look at this:










Now use your imagination, squint a little if you have to, and then ask yourself how in the world this facility could ever be refurbished to a point that would host a world cup football match?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Ragarms said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good thing the world cup wont be held in australia five years ago


----------



## Ragarms (Sep 11, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> Good thing the world cup wont be held in australia five years ago


Not without a time machine it won't.

:lol:


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Cruise said:


> the reason i am being "precious" is that people like you are ignorant to the fact the AFL competition is on the move north of the Murray wether you want to accept it or not.
> 
> So wezza all i can is:
> SMELL THE FEAR!


Bwahahahaha :lol: You're alright Cruise, maybe a tad delusional though.



Ragarms said:


> Not without a time machine it won't.
> 
> :lol:


:lol:


----------



## Langers (Jun 29, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> Good thing the world cup wont be held in australia five years ago


Yep, very old picture. Light towers, Chappell stands ect...


----------



## darkhorse09 (Jul 16, 2009)

flavze said:


> i don't think most aussie football fans would mind that much if a WC was shared with NZ but with NZ being in a differant confederation it won't happen.


I agree. and to be honest NZ doesnt have the modern stadia to compete or comply to FIFA's regulation. New Zealand is cheap when it comes to building stadiums. The only decent one there is Wellington's Westpac Stadium which is nearing on 10years old. Australia will always have top facilities. That's a fact. I'm a kiwi and I'm being realistic. 

I hope Australia's bid for the World cup is successful. You guys have hosted the olympics, rugby world cup, and the list goes on. 

PS: I really don't think New Zealands co-host for the cricket world cup should go ahead. because we lack the facilities. Eden park is not a cricket ground and its dimensions really arent acceptable to play international cricket.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 6, 2008)

Melbourne Rectangular Stadium Construction Update Pics by Limeyellow


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

^^The last picture shows the first panels of glass going on (at the top).


----------



## Langers (Jun 29, 2009)

I haven't made my mind up on that stadium just yet...

Looks very unique, but does it fit in with the rest of Melbourne's sporting venues? I'm sure once it's completed I'll feel a little more positive towards it.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> Bwahahahaha :lol: You're alright Cruise, maybe a tad delusional though.


No more delusional than people that believe the A-league will take over the world


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Langers said:


> I haven't made my mind up on that stadium just yet...
> 
> Looks very unique, but does it fit in with the rest of Melbourne's sporting venues? I'm sure once it's completed I'll feel a little more positive towards it.


What do you mean "fit in"???


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Cruise said:


> No more delusional than people that believe the A-league will take over the world


When did i say that? :lol: Anyways, whatever, believe what you want mate. Lets try & get back on topic.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Cruise said:


> No more delusional than people that believe the A-league will take over the world


Hahah, footyfreak, that's funny.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Look i like the A league.

but if anyone actually thinks soccer will become the dominate football code in this country they must be off their tree.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Cruise said:


> Look i like the A league.
> 
> but if anyone actually thinks soccer will become the dominate football code in this country they must be off their tree.


Footyfreak


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

magic_johnson said:


> Footyfreak


uh huh


----------



## Langers (Jun 29, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> What do you mean "fit in"???


It's unlike any other sporting venue within the city, very unique and bold.


----------



## Ragarms (Sep 11, 2008)

Langers said:


> Yep, very old picture. Light towers, Chappell stands ect...


Okay, maybe that was unfair, but still...










In order to get this thing WC ready they may as well build an entirely new stadium.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Langers said:


> It's unlike any other sporting venue within the city, very unique and bold.


Well the roof frame is made of white tubular steel, which is the same as Hisense arena and Rod Laver arena, so I think it will fit in pretty well.



















Regarding Adelaide oval, WTF is Mike Rann thinking??? Does he live in a box? How can someone in such a position be so ignorant as to think that such a venue would be acceptable for a World Cup? Either that or he doesnt want to Adelaide to host games - again, I cant understand how you would want to miss out on the exposure and economic bonanza. It really isnt _that_ hard to agree to building a new rectangular stadium *if, and only if* Australia wins the rights to host. It would so much better than fucking up Adelaide oval and ending up with another jack of all trades, master of none stadium.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

I agree, if we're going to bid for the WC using stadiums like Adelaide Oval in the bid, then we don't deserve it.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Simply build a football stadium with the capacity the city needs and use temporary seating to meet world cup capacity requirements. Its not rocket science


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

There are two options on the table for Adelaide, the first being what you proposed, preferred by the FFA (and I think the federal government), and the second being a redevelopment of Adelaide oval, preferred by the state government. The state government has the final say. Not rocket science at all, which makes me think the South Australian leader is a moron.

The issue was to be raised at the recent COAG meeting (a meeting of all state and federal leaders), and will be pushed again by Rudd at the next meeting. I havent heard any new developments about which option is more likely to go ahead.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

woozoo said:


> There are two options on the table for Adelaide, the first being what you proposed, preferred by the FFA (and I think the federal government), and the second being a redevelopment of Adelaide oval, preferred by the state government. The state government has the final say. Not rocket science at all, which makes me think the South Australian leader is a moron.
> 
> The issue was to be raised at the recent COAG meeting (a meeting of all state and federal leaders), and will be pushed again by Rudd at the next meeting. I havent heard any new developments about which option is more likely to go ahead.


The state government has the final say?

If FIFA want a new stadium, FIFA will get a new stadium and its the city government who will sign the host city and stadium use agreement NOT the state government.

No doubt, as in RSA this will piss off the state government.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> The state government has the final say?
> 
> If FIFA want a new stadium, FIFA will get a new stadium and its the city government who will sign the host city and stadium use agreement NOT the state government.
> 
> No doubt, as in RSA this will piss off the state government.


Not sure it works like that here, in Queensland the state government owns & operates all of the major sporting venues.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> The state government has the final say?
> 
> If FIFA want a new stadium, FIFA will get a new stadium and its the city government who will sign the host city and stadium use agreement NOT the state government.
> 
> No doubt, as in RSA this will piss off the state government.


Not quite.

1) If Australia win the rights to host, then it will be based on the "bid book", handed in to FIFA by the FFA in May 2010, which will stipulate what stadiums are to be used for the WC. The FFA decides which stadiums are part of the bid. If the new rectangular stadium is confirmed, it will be part of the bid. If not, then it will be an upgraded Adelaide oval. I cant see Australia winning the bid if Adelaide oval is one of the proposed stadiums. If Australia doesnt win the bid, then FIFA has no say in what stadiums are to be used.

2) City government? Dont think so. The state governments control basically all of this kind of stuff in Australia. City councils have **** all to do apart from washing streets and collecting rubbish.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Wezza said:


> Not sure it works like that here, in Queensland the state government owns & operates all of the major sporting venues.


that doesn't matter. FIFA owns and operates the venues during the world cup and its the host city's responsibility to sign the guarantees and ensure that nobody farts in the wrong area, nobody sits here, nobody smokes there.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

woozoo said:


> Not quite.
> 
> 1) If Australia win the rights to host, then it will be based on the "bid book", handed in to FIFA by the FFA in May 2010, which will stipulate what stadiums are to be used for the WC. The FFA decides which stadiums are part of the bid. If the new rectangular stadium is confirmed, it will be part of the bid. If not, then it will be an upgraded Adelaide oval. I cant see Australia winning the bid if Adelaide oval is one of the proposed stadiums. If Australia doesnt win the bid, then FIFA has no say in what stadiums are to be used.
> 
> 2) City government? Dont think so. The state governments control basically all of this kind of stuff in Australia. City councils have **** all to do apart from washing streets and collecting rubbish.


1) Without sounding rude, but thats very naive. The bid book is not related to the venues and cities chosen as host cities. That is a FIFA and sponsors decision, of course guided by the 2018 LOC.

2) FIFA works through the national government and signs host *CITY* related agreements with CITIES. I doubt FIFA would be restructuring the way it works to suit Australia, they certainly made no exceptions for RSA with all its complicated city/province relations.

In Cape Town our province/state was run by the ANC, the city that just came into power in 2006 was the DA, and there were major clashes, and throughout, FIFA maintained its stance that it deals with cities, who are supported by the province/state structure.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Adelaide should build something similiar to the new Melbourne Rectangluar stadium across the road from the Adelaide Oval. a 30,000 seat stadium that could be expanded temporarily/permanently to 50,000. With a redevloped Adelaide Oval that could host AFL Games, A redevloped Memorial drive tennis centre and this new stadium i have dreamt up would make a brilliant sporting precinct in the city.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> that doesn't matter. FIFA owns and operates the venues during the world cup and its the host city's responsibility to sign the guarantees and ensure that nobody farts in the wrong area, nobody sits here, nobody smokes there.


FIFA don't pay for the stadia to be built though. If they did, we wouldn't be having this problem!


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Mo rush, if the SA government do not build a stadium in Adelaide, It will be left out of the Bid book.

Hindmarsh would be used as a training venue though.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Wezza said:


> FIFA don't pay for the stadia to be built though. If they did, we wouldn't be having this problem!


It doesn't matter who pays for the venue.

For the 30 days of the WC, FIFA owns and operates it, basically like an exhibition space given to FIFA in a "clean" state.

Although the funding might come from the city, state, government, private, etc etc. the city has the responsibility for providing the venue to FIFA in a state that FIFA wants it and bears the risks associated with the event.

FIFA are likely to dictate their preference for new builds after the bid is won in locations/sites they "prefer", within reason of course.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Cruise said:


> Mo rush, if the SA government do not build a stadium in Adelaide, It will be left out of the Bid book.
> 
> Hindmarsh would be used as a training venue though.


Which doesn't impact on the final venue chosen.

If FIFA hints they want a new stadium in Adelaide by 2022 is Australia wins, they are likely to get it.

The bid book is a "what we can do, technical document" not "what we will actually do". They may propose the Oval but closer to 2022 might build something entirely new as governments change and political figures change and as FIFA "hints".

The actual choice of venues, host cities, training venues etc is a post bid decision which in many cases is not related entirely to the bid. Your big cities and big existing venues will definitely feature but the bid file does not decide the final venue list and final choice of host cities.

Australia is lucky in that its top tier cities i.e. Sydney or Melbourne have the venues in place at the capacities that will make FIFA happy.
Your tier two cities e.g. Perth, Adelaide etc, if they are deemed important enough will get hints from FIFA about new venues.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> 1) Without sounding rude, but thats very naive. The bid book is not related to the venues and cities chosen as host cities. That is a FIFA and sponsors decision, of course guided by the 2018 LOC.
> 
> 2) FIFA works through the national government and signs host *CITY* related agreements with CITIES. I doubt FIFA would be restructuring the way it works to suit Australia, they certainly made no exceptions for RSA with all its complicated city/province relations.
> 
> In Cape Town our province/state was run by the ANC, the city that just came into power in 2006 was the DA, and there were major clashes, and throughout, FIFA maintained its stance that it deals with cities, who are supported by the province/state structure.


I don't think were on the same page here. How can FIFA dictate what stadiums are to be used for the wc in Australia when Australia hasn't won the bid?

How can FIFA decide that a new rectangular stadium is to be used, when it does not exist and there is no financial backing for it to be built?

The city council of Adelaide is responsible for an area home to under 25,000 people. It has very little power. It is not even guaranteed a new stadium would be built within it's local goverment area. I don't know, maybe your right, but it wud REALLY surprise me.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

woozoo said:


> I don't think were on the same page here. How can FIFA dictate what stadiums are to be used for the wc in Australia when Australia hasn't won the bid?
> 
> How can FIFA decide that a new rectangular stadium is to be used, when it does not exist and there is no financial backing for it to be built?
> 
> The city council of Adelaide is responsible for an area home to under 25,000 people. It has very little power. It is not even guaranteed a new stadium would be built within it's local goverment area. I don't know, maybe your right, but it wud REALLY surprise me.


1) When/if Australia win the bid, the 2018 LOC will present FIFA with venues and FIFA and sponsors will decide from those venues and other sites not presented which venues and cities should be chosen.

2) See Green Point stadium

3) Well of course it depends on the situation. By city I mean the metropolitan area. So which ever authority runs the city in which the stadium is in deals with FIFA so it would be the City of Melbourne's mayor, the City of Sydney's mayor etc. NOT the Victoria state etc.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

^^ What I was getting at, is that I dont think Australia would win the bid if Adelaide Oval is in the bid book, therefore, as I have mentioned earlier, the issue of FIFA deciding on another Adelaide venue instead, somewhere down the line would not exist.
I understand that the actual world cup will not exactly resemble what is proposed in the bid book, but what I have been talking about is what will be part of the bid.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I don't think the bid depends on venues put forward by Adelaide or even Perth.
It depends on votes, lobbying, lobbying and some more lobbying. I have no doubts that the bid will be technically sound.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Mo Rush said:


> 1) When/if Australia win the bid, the 2018 LOC will present FIFA with venues and FIFA and sponsors will decide from those venues and other sites not presented which venues and cities should be chosen.
> 
> 2) See Green Point stadium
> 
> 3) Well of course it depends on the situation. By city I mean the metropolitan area. So which ever authority runs the city in which the stadium is in deals with FIFA so it would be the City of Melbourne's mayor, the City of Sydney's mayor etc. NOT the Victoria state etc.


Apart from Brisbane, city mayors hold no power at all. They tend to delegate all important stuff to the state government and we're not kidding when we say that all the city councils do is sweep the streets and collect garbage. You go to the council if you wanted to set up a news stand or put some restaurant tables on the street, but if you wanted to build a tower, you'd go to the state government. City councils are simply not in the position to do these negotiations, which is why sporting precincts tend to have their own administration for these matters. Mayors are normally just the public "face" of the city and aren't really much more than a spokesperson.

For an example, the City of Melbourne controls 36 km^2 out of more than 8000 km^2 in Greater Melbourne. It's extremely similar to the situation in London, where the City of London is only a tiny pocket of land but in Australia there is no equivalent to the Greater London Authority.

Indeed, up until very recently, the Melbourne Docklands did not fall under the jurisdiction of any city council. The state governments really do everything here and I cannot for a moment believe that FIFA would throw away common sense and negotiate with what would clearly be the incorrect authority. No authority "runs" a city, cities here are just a collection of up to 40 separate municipalities. Planning on a city level occurs at the state government, which is why they are in the best position to do all the talks.

Heard of a place called Auburn? That was where the 2000 Olympics were held. It's part of Greater Sydney but the Olympic precinct at Homebush Bay had nothing to do with the actual City of Sydney.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

invincible said:


> Apart from Brisbane, city mayors hold no power at all. They tend to delegate all important stuff to the state government and we're not kidding when we say that all the city councils do is sweep the streets and collect garbage. You go to the council if you wanted to set up a news stand or put some restaurant tables on the street, but if you wanted to build a tower, you'd go to the state government. City councils are simply not in the position to do these negotiations, which is why sporting precincts tend to have their own administration for these matters. Mayors are normally just the public "face" of the city and aren't really much more than a spokesperson.
> 
> For an example, the City of Melbourne controls 36 km^2 out of more than 8000 km^2 in Greater Melbourne. It's extremely similar to the situation in London, where the City of London is only a tiny pocket of land but in Australia there is no equivalent to the Greater London Authority.
> 
> ...


I should have rather said the authority that runs the metropolitan area.
Whats in between the city and province in oz?


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> 3) Well of course it depends on the situation. By city I mean the metropolitan area. So which ever authority runs the city in which the stadium is in deals with FIFA so it would be the City of Melbourne's mayor, the City of Sydney's mayor etc. NOT the Victoria state etc.


invincible is right, mayors in this country have next to no power and the Victorian state government runs everything in this state down to the events and co-ordination of said events in Melbourne. Mayors, especially in Victoria, are figureheads, nothing else. No council or mayor has as much control or influence to decide Melbourne's actions, it is left to the highest power in the state, our premier. Your question who runs the centre of major cities and metropolitan areas? The state government, which decides the planning, structure, construction, constitution and actions of the centre of Melbourne. It was the state government which in accordance with rugby, soccer and football clubs started the building of the rectangular stadium and it would be the same with any future world cup projects. When the ICC deals with Australia in terms of the cricket world cup, they wont be talking to councils, but state governments.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> I should have rather said the authority that runs the metropolitan area.
> Whats in between the city and province in oz?


There is no Metro authority between city councils and State Government in Australia. As a previous poster mentioned only Brisbane's City council has any decent power. Queensland have fewer but far larger councils and as such dictate that they need more power. I think Brisbane metro is divided into 3 councils, Brisbane (by far the largest in the nation with over 1 000 000), Logan and Ipswich?
Gold Coast city council governs over 500 000. Queenslands just a little different from the other states with Government such as they don't have a legislative council (State Senate) as all other do.

After Queensland you may find a couple councils in the other states that may have up to 200 000 people but they don't have anywhere the power of the Qld ones.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Richo83 said:


> invincible is right, mayors in this country have next to no power and the Victorian state government runs everything in this state down to the events and co-ordination of said events in Melbourne. Mayors, especially in Victoria, are figureheads, nothing else. No council or mayor has as much control or influence to decide Melbourne's actions, it is left to the highest power in the state, our premier. Your question who runs the centre of major cities and metropolitan areas? The state government, which decides the planning, structure, construction, constitution and actions of the centre of Melbourne. It was the state government which in accordance with rugby, soccer and football clubs started the building of the rectangular stadium and it would be the same with any future world cup projects. When the ICC deals with Australia in terms of the cricket world cup, they wont be talking to councils, but state governments.


Should be interesting which authority will be claiming to be the "host city"


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> I don't think the bid depends on venues put forward by Adelaide or even Perth.
> It depends on votes, lobbying, lobbying and some more lobbying. I have no doubts that the bid will be technically sound.


Thats already begun. Some pictures of our prime minister visiting Blatter in Switzerland couple of weeks ago. The other dude is Frank Lowy, president of the FFA.







Sheezus the whole political side of FIFA is so slimy. Good thing we have Ruddo


Would have been funny to see these guys try to kick a ball. Lowy is 78!


----------



## aus16 (May 25, 2009)

i think Lowy might have a better foot on him then KRudd


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

^^ Hes Czech, so hes probably a decent kick

In fact the lobbying would have been well under way at the FIFA world congress held in Sydney in May last year.

















Lowy, Rudd, Bin Hammam (AFC president)


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Should be interesting which authority will be claiming to be the "host city"


The state govs. Look at history, I think the Sydney olympics was mainly handled by the NSW state government and I know the melbourne commonwealth games was mainly run by the Victorian state government. Melbourne city's mayor is a figurehead which is why no-one really cares about mayoral and council elections in Melbourne and Australia in general.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Richo83 said:


> The state govs. Look at history, I think the Sydney olympics was mainly handled by the NSW state government and I know the melbourne commonwealth games was mainly run by the Victorian state government. Melbourne city's mayor is a figurehead which is why no-one really cares about mayoral and council elections in Melbourne and Australia in general.


Would make sense since they control the money and would need to sign the onerous guarantees e.g. no farting in this area, no foul language in this area, no billboards, no advertizing, no advertizing on clothes, no markets, no smoking, no fires, no looking in the wrong direction...


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Reporter Michelangelo Rucci had an article in yesterday's (23/07/09) Advertiser (Adelaide's main newspaper). It was about the State of Australian rules football in SA, It also mentioned that the SANFL, AFL, SACA and the SA Government will be having a meeting next monday (27/07/09) in regards to a shared Adelaide Oval for Football and Cricket. He also mentioned SA Treasurer Kevin Foley may offer more funding than the $100 million promised to upgrade Football Park for an Adelaide Oval upgrade as a carrot to persuade the SANFL to come to the party.

I take the last point with a grain of salt though.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

invincible said:


> Apart from Brisbane, city mayors hold no power at all. They tend to delegate all important stuff to the state government and we're not kidding when we say that all the city councils do is sweep the streets and collect garbage.


Nearly all city council's now have their garbage collection done by private firms. LGA's are almost redundant


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25831480-5006301,00.html

THE South Australian Cricket Association has revealed a $350 million plan to upgrade Adelaide Oval.

The move is designed to secure AFL matches from 2014 and World Cup soccer fixtures.

The SACA, the South Australian National Football League and the Australian Football League will pursue talks next month aimed at consolidating Adelaide Oval as a mutually beneficial, multipurpose venue. SACA chief executive Mike Deare told The Advertiser a redeveloped Bradman Stand with 16,000 seats was the key to increasing capacity to the 45,000-seat figure required to host AFL and international sporting events.

"There has been a meeting of minds between the SANFL, AFL and SACA that we should jointly explore what might be in the best interests of us all by future development of Adelaide Oval," Mr Deare said.

AFL chief executive and "brilliant facilitator" Andrew Demetriou had kick-started the process 12 months ago, he said. "The preliminary estimates say that we are probably talking in the vicinity of $350 million to $400 million to take the stadium up to 45,000 capacity."

"The SACA, SANFL and AFL have the capacity, I believe, to deliver that sort of venue for the benefit of SA."

There is distinct desire emanating from influential quarters to fast-track the establishment of a world class, city-based stadium.

Mr Demetriou and Football Federation Australia counterpart Ben Buckley will be in Adelaide this week for talks with the State Government.

FFA must decide on host cities and venues by October and wants to cement "a truly national bid" for the 2018 or 2022 FIFA World Cup.

FFA spokeswoman Bonita Mersiades said: "SACA has briefed senior FFA representatives on their plans for Adelaide Oval, and we have provided preliminary feedback on the technical requirements to ensure a venue is FIFA World Cup-compliant. FFA is hoping to meet with the SA Government again next week."

Crucially needed government support would be about $700 million less than that needed to build a new, $1 billion stadium proposed by the Liberal Opposition.

Treasurer Kevin Foley has already raised the possibility of switching $100 million for a proposed refurbishment of unpopular AAMI Stadium to Adelaide Oval with Federal Sports Minister Kate Ellis responsible for securing extra investment in Canberra.

Mr Deare said: "From our perspective we would like to see it (Bradman Stand redevelopment) finished by 2014. The World Cup cricket is in 2015 and if World Cup soccer is in 2018, FIFA will want to see really solid evidence of this venue being developed.

"It is no secret the State (Government) has a preference for Adelaide Oval as a major venue and the FFA said this is the venue it wants World Cup soccer played at in Adelaide."

If Adelaide Oval becomes a FIFA World Cup venue, the focus will intensify on staging Crows and Power games at the ground.

The SANFL would be able to make a lucrative full or partial sale of AAMI Stadium, with the proceeds securing its future and likely senior partner status at Adelaide Oval. On May 11, SACA president Ian McLachlan revealed in The Advertiser that SACA would cede control of Adelaide Oval and share the venue with the SANFL – a move scuttled by Sir Don Bradman 40 years ago.

Mr Deare acknowledged there were hurdles to jump before the SANFL and the SACA again cohabit, along with Crows and Power games played at Adelaide Oval.

The SANFL's public stance is to maintain football's headquarters at AAMI Stadium.

Yet the risk of no reconciliation could have dire repercussions.

"Working with two venues for a city of Adelaide's size doesn't work," said Mr Deare, whose organisation received $50 million in state and federal funding to upgrade the stadium's western grandstand. "The Commonwealth and the State have indicated they are ready to help, provided we come back to them with the right sort of business plan."

It was a model, insisted Mr Deare, where the "whole of SA wins". "The SANFL gets this monkey off its back about the problem of the venue being too far away and attendance issues," he said, glossing over Port Adelaide's desperation to jag a bonanza stadium deal in town. "The city gets a venue which could host major World Cup cricket and soccer and the Commonwealth Games."

Ultimately, SACA and SANFL constituents must approve any union at Adelaide Oval.

"We need to have a complete business plan, agreed between the SACA and SANFL – with the AFL's input and support – and then we can go to our members," Mr Deare said.

Because Adelaide Oval is situated in the parklands, it cannot attract major project status. This means any development must first be considered by Adelaide City Council.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

^^
So, they upgrade the bradman stand to 16,000 and it costs 350 million dollars???
Must be a fancy stand...


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

From bigfooty:


that_dood said:


> Just watching Ten news and as well as announcing a new stadium at Perth Oval to be commenced within a year in the same mould of Skilled Park on the Gold Coast for the Glory and the Force, the FFA have announced plans to build a World Cup stadium at the old East Perth Power Plant site if we win the World Cup. Work would commence around 2016.





that_dood said:


> No, from how I understand it it will be built by the FFA, not the State Government so it will be rectangle for the World Cup.
> 
> The WAFC are still trying to get funding for a Subi upgrade atm but that will just be for AFL.


Sounds weird to me, what would Perth do with two rectangular stadiums, and why doesn't one of them involve a (desperatly needed) new afl stadium?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

magic_johnson said:


> From bigfooty:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds weird to me, what would Perth do with two rectangular stadiums, and *why doesn't one of them involve a (desperatly needed) new afl stadium?*


Because the FFA aren't in the business of building stadiums for the AFL! :lol: Makes alot of sense to me.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Wezza said:


> Because the FFA aren't in the business of building stadiums for the AFL! :lol: Makes alot of sense to me.


Why would the FFA throw money toward two soccer stadiums then?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

magic_johnson said:


> Why would the FFA throw money toward two soccer stadiums then?


They're not. If Members Equity gets an upgrade, it won't be out of the FFA's pocket. I highly doubt the FFA will be building this other stadium completely out of it's own pocket either TBH.


----------



## Langers (Jun 29, 2009)

If Adelaide Oval has the capacity and facilities to host AFL games, which is should, where does that leave AAMI Stadium? I think it should just be scraped full stop because the Adelaide Oval is a superb place to watch footy and it's location just tops it off. However with the SANFL putting all this money into upgrading AAMI it makes things more complicated.

AFL at Adelaide Oval= major success.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25835286-2682,00.html


> SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S football and cricket truce to end the four-decade absence of elite football from Adelaide Oval appears shattered.
> 
> Leading SA football officials - in particular from the SANFL and Adelaide Football Club - yesterday condemned the SA Cricket Association for breaching confidentiality agreements in its AFL-sponsored talks by revealing new plans for Adelaide Oval.
> 
> ...


http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25835286-2682,00.html


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

magic_johnson said:


> From bigfooty:
> 
> Sounds weird to me, what would Perth do with two rectangular stadiums, and why doesn't one of them involve a (desperatly needed) new afl stadium?


lol, you're the same magic johnson on big footy (FTR i'm not footy freak)


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Didn't you realise?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Langers said:


> If Adelaide Oval has the capacity and facilities to host AFL games, which is should, where does that leave AAMI Stadium? I think it should just be scraped full stop because the Adelaide Oval is a superb place to watch footy and it's location just tops it off. However with the SANFL putting all this money into upgrading AAMI it makes things more complicated.
> 
> AFL at Adelaide Oval= major success.


They will withdraw the money from aami if the sanfl and afl aprove to move games to adelaide oval. That 350mil redevelopment is only possible if they remove the money from aami.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Cruise said:


> lol, you're the same magic johnson on big footy (FTR i'm not footy freak)


Sure am :banana:


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Cruise = hooligan87


----------



## mossimoh (Feb 20, 2009)

woozoo said:


> I don't think were on the same page here. How can FIFA dictate what stadiums are to be used for the wc in Australia when Australia hasn't won the bid?
> 
> How can FIFA decide that a new rectangular stadium is to be used, when it does not exist and there is no financial backing for it to be built?
> 
> The city council of Adelaide is responsible for an area home to under 25,000 people. It has very little power. It is not even guaranteed a new stadium would be built within it's local goverment area. I don't know, maybe your right, but it wud REALLY surprise me.


From what ive read and heard FIFA host biddding nations (it awards the WC to a nation not city) must have the cities spread geographically over the entire bidding nation, therefore having all the games on the east coast would not satisfy the bid requirements. So Perth and Adelaide would have to be part of the bid and have plans in place to upgrade or build stadiums. I dont know much about Adelaide but perth has substandard stadiums.
Only 1 city is permitted to use 2 stadiums, which I would figure Melbourne (MCG and one of their other gems).


----------



## mossimoh (Feb 20, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> From bigfooty:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds weird to me, what would Perth do with two rectangular stadiums, and why doesn't one of them involve a (desperatly needed) new afl stadium?


East Perth power station would be a great site for any stadium, but i thought the govt was against that...i know theyre going to put in alot of money into the ME Stadium, which would be shared by the glory and force, but it was only looking at 27 000 capacity. As for a decent sized stadium , they will have to either upgrade Subiaco Oval or build a brand new one. I didnt see the news segment mentioned but if they used the old pwer station site it would be a great start!


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

mossimoh said:


> From what ive read and heard FIFA host biddding nations (it awards the WC to a nation not city) must have the cities spread geographically over the entire bidding nation, therefore having all the games on the east coast would not satisfy the bid requirements. So Perth and Adelaide would have to be part of the bid and have plans in place to upgrade or build stadiums. I dont know much about Adelaide but perth has substandard stadiums.
> Only 1 city is permitted to use 2 stadiums, which I would figure Melbourne (MCG and one of their other gems).


I think Sydney would use two stadiums -- Stadium Australia and Sydney Football Stadium -- as the MCG's pitch is far too large for association football without retractable seating like Etihad Stadium has.

Perth, much like Victoria, is AFL territory, which means rectangular stadiums aren't of high priority. Their largest, Members Equity Stadium, would need to be expanded by more than 10,000 seats to be a suitable World Cup venue.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/blow-to-aussie-world-cup-bid-210107



> Australia's bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup has taken a huge blow after FIFA President Sepp Blatter revealed the 2018 World Cup will be hosted by either Europe or North America, unless Executive Committee members have a huge change of heart.
> 
> Blatter told United States Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati this week that FIFA Executive Committee members are torn between Europe and North America for 2018 *- a position that may knock Australia out of contention for both tournaments.
> 
> ...


http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/blow-to-aussie-world-cup-bid-210107


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

^^ Not really suprising. Only revelation that comes out of that is that if both England and the US host the two comps, then it would be us 2018 and England 2022.


KingmanIII said:


> I think Sydney would use two stadiums -- Stadium Australia and Sydney Football Stadium -- as the MCG's pitch is far too large for association football without retractable seating like Etihad Stadium has.
> 
> Perth, much like Victoria, is AFL territory, which means rectangular stadiums aren't of high priority. Their largest, Members Equity Stadium, would need to be expanded by more than 10,000 seats to be a suitable World Cup venue.


But, you could techincally devide Sydney into two cities, but you can't with Melbourne. You excluded melbournes bubble dome in the plans.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

woozoo said:


> The MCG has always existed, and has always had the biggest capacity of all stadiums in Melbourne,


Didn't VFL park have a larger capacity at one time?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

magic_johnson said:


> Perth _will_ have a soccer stadium.
> What if Tasmania was multi purpose? Would that swing your vote?


What does multi-purpose mean? An oval ground with a football pitch marked out in the middle? Because that's the best that you would get out of Tasmania & probably the same for Adelaide/Perth as well.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Cruise said:


> Didn't VFL park have a larger capacity at one time?


Only when part of the MCG was being redeveloped. It's the only reason why Waverley Park has hosted a grand final.

Of course, it would be a totally different story if Waverley Park had been built to its original 150,000 planned capacity.


----------



## Alliedp (Aug 3, 2009)

Regarding the local governments that insist that an "oval-upgrade" would be sufficient for a WC bid: Do they not understand the folly of that thinking or do they just not care about hosting a World Cup and just as soon have the issue go away?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Wezza said:


> What does multi-purpose mean? An oval ground with a football pitch marked out in the middle? Because that's the best that you would get out of Tasmania & probably the same for Adelaide/Perth as well.


An oval ground with retractable seating like Etihad and Stadium Australia.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

KingmanIII said:


> An oval ground with retractable seating like Etihad and Stadium Australia.


Which is never used because the AFL have a sad about the seating ruining the pitch.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Wezza said:


> Which is never used because the AFL have a sad about the seating ruining the pitch.


surly it could be used for 4 weeks?!?
and ANZ stadium`s get used.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> surly it could be used for 4 weeks?!?
> and ANZ stadium`s get used.


doesn't matter etihad would not be used. melbournes two venues would be MCG and MRS.

on a completely different topic has anyone heard any news since january of the melbourne park redevelopment?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

mvictory said:


> doesn't matter etihad would not be used. melbournes two venues would be MCG and MRS.


We weren't discussing that, we were talking about whether retractable seats were good in general. 


> on a completely different topic has anyone heard any news since january of the melbourne park redevelopment?


Yeah, only last page, the page before that, the page before that, 5 threads down on the under discussion board, 2 threads down on the vic board. Apart from that, not much.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Retractable seats are okay, not ideal though. The fact of the matter is, i can't see stadiums built in Adelaide, Perth or Tasmania in a rectangular form or an oval with retractable seating. The AFL is in bed with all of these governments, they'll get their oval stadiums with fixed seating which they'll then try & say that they're "multi-purpose" because a football pitch can be marked out in the middle of them.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Wezza said:


> Which is never used because the AFL have a sad about the seating ruining the pitch.


The retractable seating isn't used because Melbourne Victory chooses not to pay the extra cost of reconfiguring the seating. It also reduces the capacity of the stadium a bit. The retractable seats have only been used for rugby, which are not regular events at the stadium. The turf issues have largely been sorted, and initially AFL clubs were complaining about the quality of the playing surface all round - the stadium's roof ruins the grass more.


















From http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402290


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

They have to take up strips of turf where the tracks are underneath to move the seats out do they not?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Wezza said:


> They have to take up strips of turf where the tracks are underneath to move the seats out do they not?


I think they're on wheels. I dunno whether they'd have problems rolling across grass.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Interesting, even though having been to docklands stadium probably 40-50 times, i`ve never seen the retractable seating in use, in real life or picture. What do they do with all the flat bit behind the seats? That would be great standing room...


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

The problems with the pitch at Etihad are caused by having a rectangular roof over an oval pitch. The moving roof, for obvious reasons, is as small as they could get away with, so even when fully open the amount of natural light able to reach the pitch is seriously limited.

IIRC they use UV lamps, or similar, on a trailer, rolled around the pitch in order to get 'sunlight' to the grass.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Wezza said:


> MCG is really not suitable at all for the WC but if it has to be there then okay. But Adelaide Oval, Subiaco & a Tasmanian Oval are not acceptable. If grounds like that are going to be in the bid, i'd rather we not get the WC. (*We won't get it anyway with 3 or 4 cricket/AFL grounds in our bid*.)


Agreed.

But if they are multi-purpose rather than oval we'd at least have a fighting chance.

MCG is very suitable. Sightlines may be poor for the front few and back few rows, but the rest of the crowd would be perfectly happy - and that 'rest of the crowd' would still be more spectators than there were at any game in Germany (for example). Forgetting sight lines and shape for a second, it's extremely important to look at the other facilities and the location of the stadium - it's an extremely good stadium for supporters, and a tremendous location in terms of public transport links, proximity to other attractions and hotels, etc.


----------



## Alliedp (Aug 3, 2009)

Everyone seems very apologetic about the football/soccer shortcomings of MCG. There seems to be a lot of "oh, well, there will be some prime seats down near the pitch that may not be so good...but, you know, no big deal."

Yes. Big deal. If not to you then certainly to FIFA. They don't screw around and they have very demanding requirements/requests regarding WC stadia. These are people who don't really care about the history of MCG or the fact that is a beloved facility. They care whether it would be a good venue for a World Cup game...and it is not. Many of what should be very good seats would be almost unusable and many of the seats that have a view of the pitch are VERY far away by almost any standard. 

If MCG is going to be a central part of the Oz WC bid (and certainly if it is championed as a venue for the final game...ugh) then we should probably expect disappointment. If there are several other ovals involved (especially if they are not Etihad-type adjustable stands) then embarassment is the only realistic expectation. Countries spend a great deal to create stadiums to fit the needs of a World Cup. They don't offer up Cricket Grounds and expect FIFA to get excited.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I suspect FIFA will be more keen to host matches at Etihad due to the retractable roof option. Sydney can be host to two venues.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Alliedp said:


> Everyone seems very apologetic about the football/soccer shortcomings of MCG. There seems to be a lot of "oh, well, there will be some prime seats down near the pitch that may not be so good...but, you know, no big deal."
> 
> Yes. Big deal. If not to you then certainly to FIFA. They don't screw around and they have very demanding requirements/requests regarding WC stadia. These are people who don't really care about the history of MCG or the fact that is a beloved facility. They care whether it would be a good venue for a World Cup game...and it is not. Many of what should be very good seats would be almost unusable and many of the seats that have a view of the pitch are VERY far away by almost any standard.
> 
> If MCG is going to be a central part of the Oz WC bid (and certainly if it is championed as a venue for the final game...ugh) then we should probably expect disappointment. If there are several other ovals involved (especially if they are not Etihad-type adjustable stands) then embarassment is the only realistic expectation. Countries spend a great deal to create stadiums to fit the needs of a World Cup. They don't offer up Cricket Grounds and expect FIFA to get excited.


so, 100,000 get to see a game and 10,000 of those people have poor views. Would you really rather we used a 45,000 seater where everyone got a good view? gees, more people get to go.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> Which is never used because the AFL have a sad about the seating ruining the pitch.


The AFL pays the bills at Docklands


----------



## andrewM (Dec 19, 2003)

The Western Force's experience with Subi - which has longer wings than the MCG and thus arguably is more suited (lol) to hosting sports requiring rectangular fields, has shown what a crap spectator experience it is for fans of rugby and soccer. Here's a shot I took during this year's S14 season that shows like dog's nuts how far a spectator is from the action at Subi and probably gives a fair indication of what it is like at the MCG - I've only watched rugby and soccer at the MCG on television but I can't imagine it would be any better than at Subi.

I've drawn the boundary in red


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Heres some photos from the G



















Top tier with zoom




Top tier without zoom



Bottom ten rows of bottom tier are woeful. You couldnt morally sell those seats. The whole bottom tier is pretty poor. The top of the top tier is very, very far away. I would say that about a third of the seats at the MCG are poor. And there are no seats which I would say are great or close to the action.

Does this mean its gonna destroy our bid? No. I have never been to an Olympic stadium, but comparing sight line distances on section plans shows that the MCG is not much worse than athletics stadiums in most areas, and better in some. People were complaining about the UEFA champions league final being held in Rome at the Olympic stadium, but after the game everyone said the atmosphere was good.

They are not great for soccer, but that doesnt mean they cant be used. It would be nice to have 12 Wembleys, but lets be realistic. Japan Korea had many more athletics stadiums for their WC, and they went on a massive building spree. Even Germany had three or four.

Problem is the MCGs low rake of the bottom tier (why do we build stadiums with such low rake in Australia?!?!). Overall I dont think its quite as good as some top quality athletics grounds. Still, I dont it would be too much of a negative for our bid.


----------



## No1_Saint (Jul 1, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> I think they're on wheels. I dunno whether they'd have problems rolling across grass.


It leaves ruined patches of turf where the posts go in to support the extended seating. It looks terrible and is really unstable under foot.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> I suspect FIFA will be more keen to host matches at Etihad due to the retractable roof option. Sydney can be host to two venues.


Etihad will not even get a look in as we will have a dedicated rectangle stadium of the same capacity by then and the MCG will be used.

Sydney will not get the two venues because it has Sydney Football Stadium in Sydney and ANZ stadium in Homebush which will be used.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

mvictory said:


> Etihad will not even get a look in as we will have a dedicated rectangle stadium of the same capacity by then and the MCG will be used.
> 
> Sydney will not get the two venues because it has Sydney Football Stadium in Sydney and ANZ stadium in Homebush which will be used.


Well I think FIFA are more likely to give Sydney two venues.

In addition a retractable roof venue might also be preferred to an outdoor venue even if seats are slightly further away.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

woozoo said:


> Problem is the MCGs low rake of the bottom tier (why do we build stadiums with such low rake in Australia?!?!). Overall I dont think its quite as good as some top quality athletics grounds. Still, I dont it would be too much of a negative for our bid.


It's like that because every time the MCG gets redeveloped, the slope of the bottom tier is built to be consistent with the older stands. What we have now is therefore equivalent to what we had in the 1920s and most likely even earlier.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Will the government be willing to pay for another MCG redevelopment?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Will the government be willing to pay for another MCG redevelopment?


There will likely be another redevelopment within the next 5-10 years, but it will likely involve either remodeling or replacing the Southern Stand, not building retractable seating or anything of that sort.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

I did read about 6 months ago there were calls for a southern stand redevelopment.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Cripes, your Aussie football fields are big. Are these stadiums unsuitable for soccer due to the stands being too far away?


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

isaidso said:


> Cripes, your Aussie football fields are big. Are these stadiums unsuitable for soccer due to the stands being too far away?


They're suitable, though not ideal. There's no proper fixture of an Aussie Football field other than say Etihad Stadium, which was fixed at 170 m × 140 m.
Other oval stadiums in the country have either wider or narrower fields.

Simply speaking, yes you can have world class soccer and FIFA qualifiers at stadiums like the MCG even though it's oval shaped and if you don't mind the slightly poor views from the 3rd level stands.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> Well I think FIFA are more likely to give Sydney two venues.
> 
> In addition a retractable roof venue might also be preferred to an outdoor venue even if seats are slightly further away.


What I meant is *Both* Melbourne and sydney will have two venues because ANZ stadium can be counted as West Sydney or Homebush therefor enabeling both Melbourne and Sydney to have two venues without breaking FIFA regulations.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

invincible said:


> It's like that because every time the MCG gets redeveloped, the slope of the bottom tier is built to be consistent with the older stands. What we have now is therefore equivalent to what we had in the 1920s and most likely even earlier.


The old MCC stand had quite a slope to it, if my memory serves me correctly. I like the low rake, brings more atmosphere IMO


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

invincible said:


> It's like that because every time the MCG gets redeveloped, the slope of the bottom tier is built to be consistent with the older stands. What we have now is therefore equivalent to what we had in the 1920s and most likely even earlier.


I figured that for the MCG, but AAMI was built in the early 70s and also has a low rake. I dont know when subi was redeveloped and how much, but I would have thought they would have increased steepness.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Will the government be willing to pay for another MCG redevelopment?


There are plans in the future for a redevelopment of the great southern stand. It will probably happen within the next 25 years or so. The government may fund a portion of it but most probably the AFL will foot most of the bill, as they use the stadium most regularly.

What will most probably happen is the great southern stand will be replaced with a new stand to mirror the most recent stand. I think that means a slight increase in capacity, same field dimensions, and a couple of degrees increase in the rake of the bottom tier. Not any better for soccer, so I doubt the FFA would push for it to happen before the world cup.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> The old MCC stand had quite a slope to it, if my memory serves me correctly. I like the low rake, *brings more atmosphere IMO*


How?

Pitty you cant see shit from the bottom tier.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

woozoo said:


> I figured that for the MCG, but AAMI was built in the early 70s and also has a low rake. I dont know when subi was redeveloped and how much, but I would have thought they would have increased steepness.




Football Park was built to the same design as Waverly Park


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

isaidso said:


> Cripes, your Aussie football fields are big. Are these stadiums unsuitable for soccer due to the stands being too far away?


Australian football was delveloped to be played on cricket fields. That might help explain the size of the fields modern Aussie rules is played on


----------



## Fyturis (Aug 30, 2008)

What about a Redevelopment of QSAC (ANZ STADIUM) in Brisbane's southern suburbs?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Cruise said:


> Australian football was delveloped to be played on cricket fields. That might help explain the size of the fields modern Aussie rules is played on


I see. Thanks for the information.



Lord David said:


> They're suitable, though not ideal. There's no proper fixture of an Aussie Football field other than say Etihad Stadium, which was fixed at 170 m × 140 m.
> Other oval stadiums in the country have either wider or narrower fields.
> 
> Simply speaking, yes you can have world class soccer and FIFA qualifiers at stadiums like the MCG even though it's oval shaped and if you don't mind the slightly poor views from the 3rd level stands.


So, Aussie Football fields may vary in size? Is there much call for soccer games at Australian stadiums like MCG? I was under the impression that soccer wasn't very popular in Australia; much like is the case here in Canada. Well, it's becoming more far more popular than it used to be.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

woozoo said:


> How?
> 
> Pitty you cant see shit from the bottom tier.


People closer together. For cricket and footy, it's fine. 



isaidso said:


> I see. Thanks for the information.
> 
> Is there much call for soccer games at Australian stadiums like MCG? I was under the impression that soccer wasn't very popular in Australia; much like is the case here in Canada. Well, it's becoming more far more popular than it used to be.


MCG might host the odd international friendly, but nothing else soccer wise.
Likewise with ANZ stadium in Sydney.

Australia has a 10 team competion, which is a 30 round competition with home grounds at dairy farmers stadium (26,000), skilled park (27,000), suncorp stadium (50,000), SFS (45,000), EnergyAustralia Stadium (28,000) Bluetounge stadium (25,000), Telstra dome (55,000), Westpac Stadium (36,000), Hindmarh stadium (18,000) and Members Equidy Stadium (20,000). (stadium sizes rough). Average crowd for last season was 12,000, with Melbourne having the biggest average crowds with 24,000.


----------



## Emanuelutu (Aug 8, 2009)

I just loved the Stadium, i think it looks crap now, drove past it a few weeks back and it didnt impress, but it was really awesome at the time.

I was surprised at how much was still there at the park and being used, I dont think anything has gone has it?


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

isaidso said:


> So, Aussie Football fields may vary in size? Is there much call for soccer games at Australian stadiums like MCG? I was under the impression that soccer wasn't very popular in Australia; much like is the case here in Canada. Well, it's becoming more far more popular than it used to be.


Soccer is popular on a local level in Australia, thanks to the A-leauge, At stadiums like Docklands (etihad) it is played all the time but never has the seats reconfigured due to the cost. But the MCG rarely sees a game Because the capacity is not needed.
But in other cites like Adelaide. Despite Football park (AAMI) being Adelaide's premier venue it has never seen a soccer game (cap. 51515). Due to logistical and political reasons. Soccer Games are played at Hindmarsh Stadium (17500).


----------



## sky limit (Jul 5, 2007)

Sorry I cant say much on this but I know there's design work being done on a operable roof for Suncorp - :banana:


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> MCG might host the odd international friendly, but nothing else soccer wise.
> Likewise with ANZ stadium in Sydney.


We host more than that! We host FIFA WC qualifiers, and international friendlies and have hosted the Olympic competition too.

But naturally, we don't host our A-League team, Melbourne Victory.


----------



## Ironmanfood (Apr 23, 2008)

mvictory said:


> Etihad will not even get a look in as we will have a dedicated rectangle stadium of the same capacity by then and the MCG will be used.
> 
> Sydney will not get the two venues because it has Sydney Football Stadium in Sydney and ANZ stadium in Homebush which will be used.


No, the MRS has a capacity of 31,500. Docklands is 55,000.
FIFA minimum is 40,000.

The MRS will be a fantastic home for the Storm and the Victory with an appropriate capacity. It won't be re-configured to a FIFA minimum capacity a mere couple of years after it has been built. Not when there are already 2 other bigger stadiums in the same city.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Ironmanfood said:


> No, the MRS has a capacity of 31,500. Docklands is 55,000.
> FIFA minimum is 40,000.
> 
> The MRS will be a fantastic home for the Storm and the Victory with an appropriate capacity. It won't be re-configured to a FIFA minimum capacity a mere couple of years after it has been built. Not when there are already 2 other bigger stadiums in the same city.


Their was an article a couple of months ago saying that they would upgrade it to 50,000 if we won the world cup. anyway by that time I would guess Melbourne Victory would have enough support to justify an upgrade without the Cup. 

Most countries when they win the world cup build bllions of dollars worth of large Football stadiums. Australia is quite lucky in respect that we already have many of the bigger venues built or planned. upgrading MRS would not be a problem.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Ironmanfood said:


> No, the MRS has a capacity of 31,500. Docklands is 55,000.
> FIFA minimum is 40,000.
> 
> The MRS will be a fantastic home for the Storm and the Victory with an appropriate capacity. It won't be re-configured to a FIFA minimum capacity a mere couple of years after it has been built. Not when there are already 2 other bigger stadiums in the same city.


Back a few pages i posted an article from austadiums stating that an upgrade to 50,000 would take place if a world cup bid was won. The ablility to upgrade to 50,000 if needed was also the candy that got Melbourne Victory to sign the dotted line.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Lord David said:


> They're suitable, though not ideal. There's no proper fixture of an Aussie Football field other than say Etihad Stadium, which was fixed at 170 m × 140 m.
> Other oval stadiums in the country have either wider or narrower fields.
> 
> Simply speaking, yes you can have world class soccer and FIFA qualifiers at stadiums like the MCG even though it's oval shaped and if you don't mind the slightly poor views from the 3rd level stands.


At the MCG you get poor viewing from the lower bowl because the rake is too low. The front edge of the middle tiers is at the FIFA optimum distance of 90m so viewing from there is less than optimal. From the top tier all seats are sub optimal and 10-15,000 seats exceed FIFA's recommended 190m distance from the far corner of the pitch. When you add this to the fact that the infield is 20,200 sq m instead of FIFAs 10,600 sq m you get a venue for football that is on the lower rung of high capacity international football stadiums. If put forward as Australia's Final Venue it will be the worst stadium ever put forward for that game.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Lord David said:


> We host more than that! We host FIFA WC qualifiers, and international friendlies and have hosted the Olympic competition too.
> 
> But naturally, we don't host our A-League team, Melbourne Victory.


The MCG has only ever hosted 6 A International games involving Australia.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

woozoo said:


> How?
> 
> Pitty you cant see shit from the bottom tier.


I agree. I made the mistake of getting a bottom bowl, top price ticket for the game against Japan only to find 20% of the field was blocked by the team benches that although they were made of polyglass looked liked solid stainless steel under the floodlights. The front 10 rows of seats were classified as restricted viewing but I was 24 rows back and still had restricted viewing. The week before I had almost identical seats at ANZ Stadium for the Bahrain game and the view was perfect. I reckon I was at least 25 m closer to the play, had a better view because of the steeper rake and had people around me who were there to watch the football not go and get a beer every 10 minutes.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Alliedp said:


> Everyone seems very apologetic about the football/soccer shortcomings of MCG. There seems to be a lot of "oh, well, there will be some prime seats down near the pitch that may not be so good...but, you know, no big deal."
> 
> Yes. Big deal. If not to you then certainly to FIFA. They don't screw around and they have very demanding requirements/requests regarding WC stadia. These are people who don't really care about the history of MCG or the fact that is a beloved facility. They care whether it would be a good venue for a World Cup game...and it is not. Many of what should be very good seats would be almost unusable and many of the seats that have a view of the pitch are VERY far away by almost any standard.
> 
> If MCG is going to be a central part of the Oz WC bid (and certainly if it is championed as a venue for the final game...ugh) then we should probably expect disappointment. If there are several other ovals involved (especially if they are not Etihad-type adjustable stands) then embarassment is the only realistic expectation. Countries spend a great deal to create stadiums to fit the needs of a World Cup. They don't offer up Cricket Grounds and expect FIFA to get excited.


Well said. As a football fan I am embarrassed by the thought we will be offering ovals like Carrara, MCG, Adelaide and, if the WA Government have their way, Subiaco. None of them come within a bulls roar of meeting FIFA's requirements. I can't see that we would get past the first cut of countries if we put forward 4 out of 12 large format oval stadiums. FIFA doesn't say in their 2007 design manual that these types of grounds should not be used for football for nothing. FIFA does compromise with regard to stadiums with athletics tracks, somewhat reluctantly, but all of these have significantly smaller infields and therefore shorter viewing distances than our cricket and AFL grounds.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

ntguy said:


> I agree. I made the mistake of getting a bottom bowl, top price ticket for the game against Japan only to find 20% of the field was blocked by the team benches that although they were made of polyglass looked liked solid stainless steel under the floodlights. The front 10 rows of seats were classified as restricted viewing but I was 24 rows back and still had restricted viewing. The week before I had almost identical seats at ANZ Stadium for the Bahrain game and the view was perfect. I reckon I was at least 25 m closer to the play, had a better view because of the steeper rake and had people around me who were there to watch the football not go and get a beer every 10 minutes.


I had bottom tier tickets, but I only paid 39 bucks.
The money I saved I spent on buying a beer every 10 minutes.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

isaidso said:


> Cripes, your Aussie football fields are big. Are these stadiums unsuitable for soccer due to the stands being too far away?


They are not at all suitable for a good experience of watching football but try telling that to the natives who think that watching football from so far away and with such poor atmosphere is fine.

The dimensions of the MCG are such that you can fit the whole of Emirates Stadium down inside the roof line. ie a 60,000 seat stadium can fit where the MCG has 20,000 seats. That is 3 times the number of point sound sources spread 60% less apart results in a sound intensity 7.5 times that of the MCG.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

woozoo said:


> I had bottom tier tickets, but I only paid 39 bucks.
> The money I saved I spent on buying a beer every 10 minutes.


How many beers did you get for the $83 you saved.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ntguy said:


> At the MCG you get poor viewing from the lower bowl because the rake is too low. The front edge of the middle tiers is at the FIFA optimum distance of 90m so viewing from there is less than optimal. From the top tier all seats are sub optimal and 10-15,000 seats exceed FIFA's recommended 190m distance from the far corner of the pitch. When you add this to the fact that the infield is 20,200 sq m instead of FIFAs 10,600 sq m you get a venue for football that is on the lower rung of high capacity international football stadiums. If put forward as Australia's Final Venue it will be the worst stadium ever put forward for that game.


I created a diagram somewhere.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> I created a diagram somewhere.


Yes you did but it was based on a model that had the incorrect dimensions of the infield at the MCG and painted a significantly better picture than is actually the case.

Your diagram is on the GamesBids.com Forums.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

ntguy said:


> How many beers did you get for the $83 you saved.


Reakon that'd get around two, three tops?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

ntguy said:


> They are not at all suitable for a good experience of watching football but try telling that to the natives who think that watching football from so far away and with such poor atmosphere is fine.


That's what I suspected. Soccer fans here seem almost as picky as Europeans when it comes to sight lines, etc. Football fans, not so much.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ntguy said:


> Yes you did but it was based on a model that had the incorrect dimensions of the infield at the MCG and painted a significantly better picture than is actually the case.
> 
> Your diagram is on the GamesBids.com Forums.


so a new diagram then.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> Wasn't so small when the lions and swans were winning flags. To pretend the afl is a small code in Australia is rubbish, it's in some ways equal in size with league and soccer combined. And this is coming from a mad soccer fan.


You seem not to understand that 55% of Australia's population is in NSW and QLD and in both of those states AFL is a long 4th in code popularity and football is second in both. Just to put the picture clearly there are more registered footballers in NSW than there are registered AFL footballers in Victoria.

There are 1.2M Australians who participate in football but only 750K who participate in AFL.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> so a new diagram then.


I will see if I can find the one I did but it is only as accurate as Google Earth.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Cruise said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
> Look at the average attendace figures list,
> 
> AFL is 4th in the world for highest average attendance figures, Yes thats right, in the WORLD.


Pity its only played in 1 country eh.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Cruise said:


> Look i like the A league.
> 
> but if anyone actually thinks soccer will become the dominate football code in this country they must be off their tree.


If you take a look at sports history you won't find many instances of a "new code taking over an entrenched code which is why the AFL will never take over in NSW or QLD and football will never take over in any state in Australia. The FFA are realists, their aim is to be no 2 in every state and they are well on the way.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

mvictory said:


> The G is fine for Football the only area which has impeded views is the bottom 4 or 5 rows because they are on the same level as the pitch and a long way away and you can have the players box, coach, etc.. sitting in your view. FIFA would not pass on a stadium the size of the G and if it was needed I am shore the government would give the money to dig the pitch lower to bring the stands closer to the pitch and alto boost capacity


If only changing a stadium was so easy. What would happen to C values if the pitch was lowered? They are already at the lower end of acceptable. Sight lines aren't the only thing that needs to be considered. Viewing distances at the MCG are excessive.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> so, 100,000 get to see a game and 10,000 of those people have poor views. Would you really rather we used a 45,000 seater where everyone got a good view? gees, more people get to go.


I think you need to open your eyes to see what a good football stadium is. Wembley has 90,000 great seats, Camp Nou 106,000, the MCG has 20,000 in the rain, 15,000 too far away and the other 60,000 in the middle are at viewing distances greater than FIFA says are optimal. It has seating plinths that are too narrow in the whole of the lower bowl and the nearest seat on the halfway line is 40.5 m from the side of the pitch instead of the 8.5 m that FIFA allows. It is the likes of Wembley that we are competing against and should be comparing the MCG to not poor football stadiums like Etihad.










As you can see the front row at the MCG is the same distance from the centre of the pitch as the back row of the middle bowl at Wembley.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> so a new diagram then.


The pink area designates the area within 90 m of the centre of the pitch.

The yellow area designates the area greater than 190 m from the furthest area of the pitch.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

ntguy said:


> How many beers did you get for the $83 you saved.


You paid $122 to sit 30 meters behind the bench box??? Thats daylight robbery.

90/10=9. About right (not quite). Only mid strength ale available at the soccer though.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

ntguy said:


> If you take a look at sports history you won't find many instances of a "new code taking over an entrenched code which is why the AFL will never take over in NSW or QLD and football will never take over in any state in Australia. The FFA are realists, their aim is to be no 2 in every state and they are well on the way.


Interestingly, I read that the most popular code in WA at the end of the 1800s was Rugby League, but that was obviously overtaken by aussie rules around the turn of last century.

Its a lot harder for a code to take over these days, with so much media exposre dedicated to one sport in any particular region. Look at parts of the UK and France which are strongly League or union surrounded by an ocean of football nuts.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ntguy said:


> The pink area designates the area within 90 m of the centre of the pitch.
> 
> The yellow area designates the area greater than 190 m from the furthest area of the pitch.


What are the field dimensions of the MCG?


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

174 * 149 meters


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

With correct field dimensions:

*MCG*

- 25% of top tier outside of maximum viewing distance *RED*









- 23% of first tier within the optimal viewing distance *RED*








- 67% of seats possible within the optimal viewing distance lost due to field dimensions *GREEN*


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

woozoo said:


> Interestingly, I read that the most popular code in WA at the end of the 1800s was Rugby League, but that was obviously overtaken by aussie rules around the turn of last century.
> 
> Its a lot harder for a code to take over these days, with so much media exposre dedicated to one sport in any particular region. Look at parts of the UK and France which are strongly League or union surrounded by an ocean of football nuts.


The game in WA was Rugby Union not League. There are a number of reasons given for the change. One of them is that the wealthy used to send their sons to Adelaide for schooling and they came back wanting to play the game they had learnt in Adelaide. Another is that soldiers going to and from the Boer War played the game and it caught on. I am not sure we will ever know but it is one of the rare cases that an entrenched game has been tossed out.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> With correct field dimensions:
> 
> *MCG*
> 
> ...


Thanks for those Mo. I am sure the MCG will stay in our bid but it is not the positive that some say it is. I suppose where it is a positive is that Australia can argue that it has 2 large stadia. The MCG is great for cricket and AFL but not good for real football.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

That viewing distance analysis is interesting. What is is based on? Was it mentioned in a previous post?


----------



## bing222 (Nov 4, 2007)

I don't think that the MCG will host the Final if we get the nod. ANZ stadium might get it because the seats are closer to the playing field


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^^ But we do have the advantage of capacity and closeness to the CBD. That must be taken into consideration as well, aside from the often mentioned and known sporting culture of Melbourne, I guess it's FFA's decision on who should be the opener match and final.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

isaidso said:


> That viewing distance analysis is interesting. What is is based on? Was it mentioned in a previous post?


Based on the inner optimal distance and outer maximum viewing distance recommendations for football venues.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

ntguy said:


> The game in WA was Rugby Union not League. There are a number of reasons given for the change. One of them is that the wealthy used to send their sons to Adelaide for schooling and they came back wanting to play the game they had learnt in Adelaide. Another is that soldiers going to and from the Boer War played the game and it caught on. I am not sure we will ever know but it is one of the rare cases that an entrenched game has been tossed out.


I read it was rugby league, but im not gonna argue.

Football was the dominant sport in Afghanistan, but that has now been taken over by cricket - obviously Pakistans influence is very strong. Im sure there are examples, but I agree they are rare.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Lord David said:


> ^^^ But we do have the advantage of capacity and closeness to the CBD. That must be taken into consideration as well, aside from the often mentioned and known sporting culture of Melbourne, I guess it's FFA's decision on who should be the opener match and final.


The MCG has a capacity for football of 95,000 and I understand the 5,000 capacity standing areas can be changed to seating so It will have a capacity of 100,000 seats. ANZ Stadium has 83,500 seats and with can be upgraded to 87,000 seats by installing a top tier at the southern end like is at the northern end. If they were to rectangularize ANZ it would push capacity to 93-95,000 but that would cost a couple of hundred million dollars.

I suppose the question that needs to be asked is, are the Victorian Government/MCG/MCC/AFL prepared to reconstruct the whole of the bottom bowl and include retractable stands that allow the ground to morph into a rectangular stadium. To do so would reduce capacity by a few thousand for its normal uses but would certainly make the ground favourite to be our Final candidate. It would be relatively easy to include this design change in any replacement of the Great Southern Stand and it might only cost an extra $50M but I don't know whether it is even possible in the Northern Stand.

I am not sure that being close to the CBD is much of an advantage. It is handy to be able to walk back to your hotel but it certainly wouldn't be a deciding factor.

Melbourne does turn out for its sport and that is great but when it comes to the World Cup Final the venue will be full with mainly international spectators so again that isn't a deciding issue.

FFA don't decide which stadiums will be used or where the final will be played, that is FIFA's call in conjunction with its sponsors and and the LOC. In one way that is good. I can imagine the outcry from Victorians, who think their ground is better than sliced bread, if the MCG is bypassed but the outcry from Sydney where half the footballers are would be just as great. It might be quite convenient for the FFA to be able to blame FIFA.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

woozoo said:


> I read it was rugby league, but im not gonna argue.
> 
> Football was the dominant sport in Afghanistan, but that has now been taken over by cricket - obviously Pakistans influence is very strong. Im sure there are examples, but I agree they are rare.


League wasn't even in Australia when Aussie Rules took over in WA. It didn't arrive here until 1908.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

isaidso said:


> That viewing distance analysis is interesting. What is is based on? Was it mentioned in a previous post?


As Mo said + you can see the diagram and text in the FIFA Football Stadiums Technical Recommendations and Requirements Version 4 document.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/documents/index.html


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ Thanks.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

ntguy said:


> League wasn't even in Australia when Aussie Rules took over in WA. It didn't arrive here until 1908.


Shud have checked my wiki :shifty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football_in_Western_Australia#Early_Beginnings


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

ntguy said:


> League wasn't even in Australia when Aussie Rules took over in WA. It didn't arrive here until 1908.


Rugby was still basically one game at the time. What "arrived" was not rugby league but rather news of the split, no?


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Rugby league is a joke.

Union is real rugby.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Cruise said:


> Rugby league is a joke.
> 
> Union is real rugby.


League = faster-paced, fewer stoppages, fitter forwards, more emphasis on scoring tries than penalty kicks, and generally cleaner play thanks to lack of contested scrums.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

agree that its a joke


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

If rugby league is a joke, what the hell is sevens?


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

krudmonk said:


> If rugby league is a joke, what the hell is sevens?


Sevens is the rugby equivalent of twenty20 cricket.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Rugby was still basically one game at the time. What "arrived" was not rugby league but rather news of the split, no?


No! A fully fledged professional Rugby League competition started in Sydney in 1908.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> League = faster-paced, fewer stoppages, fitter forwards, more emphasis on scoring tries than penalty kicks, and generally cleaner play thanks to lack of contested scrums.


League was a much better game when scrums were a contest and half backs were penalised for even looking like putting the ball in the second row. Back in those days you had props and hookers and second rowers and a lock forward now they just have forwards. Scrums are a joke in League.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyOAtcWYmt4

has anyone seen this video yet?


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

^^ Here's the video you just posted, but embedded (it's easier to watch)






And some other videos about Melbourne's new rectangular stadium, I wasn't sure whether these has been posted in here...


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

It's interesting how in the latest melbourne rectangle stadium video olympic park stadium is there but it is gone for the olympic park masterplan video. I really hope it does not get demolished. Athletics should be kept in the olympic park precinct and collingwood should move back to victoria park.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

I wish they'd hurry up & get a name for that stadium. I hate how it's being called Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. :lol:


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

Wezza said:


> I wish they'd hurry up & get a name for that stadium. I hate how it's being called Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. :lol:


Don't worry, It will soon become the <enter name of airline/insurance/beverage/telecommunications company name here> Stadium


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Wezza said:


> I wish they'd hurry up & get a name for that stadium. I hate how it's being called Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. :lol:


Why change it? It is quite unique. I think there is a need to keep in front of the general Melbourne sporting public that good football games the world round are played on rectangular pitches.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

coz its a bitch to type out and a mouthful to say.

Once its built everyone will know about it, love it and know its rectangular. No need to have its shape in the title.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Cruise said:


> Don't worry, It will soon become the <enter name of airline/insurance/beverage/telecommunications company name here> Stadium


Yeah i guess so.



ntguy said:


> Why change it? It is quite unique. I think there is a need to keep in front of the general Melbourne sporting public that good football games the world round are played on rectangular pitches.


See below.


woozoo said:


> coz its a bitch to type out and a mouthful to say.
> 
> Once its built everyone will know about it, love it and know its rectangular. No need to have its shape in the title.


This.


----------



## Langers (Jun 29, 2009)

mvictory said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyOAtcWYmt4
> 
> has anyone seen this video yet?


Looks terrific. Much needed re-vamp.

I just wonder about the current outside courts near Hisense, what is to become of those? In that video they're not there but there are 8 or so courts near the tennis academy, will they be in use for the AO? I always wondered what they could do with that space but if they playing courts for the AO, that's an awful long walk from one side to the other. 

I love the new city entrance, badly needed. Looks very spacious but I'm not sure how because there's not a whole lot of room? 

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

woozoo said:


> coz its a bitch to type out and a mouthful to say.
> 
> Once its built everyone will know about it, love it and know its rectangular. No need to have its shape in the title.


I like the name Melbourne Rectangular Stadium.

The MCG should be renamed Melbourne Oval Stadium to match


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Cruise said:


> I like the name Melbourne Rectangular Stadium.
> 
> The MCG should be renamed Melbourne Oval Stadium to match


Actually it is an ellipse.


----------



## kyme161 (Apr 13, 2009)

should be simply swan st stadium


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

kyme161 said:


> should be simply swan st stadium


I noticed the video has it named Olympic Park. I understand this was the name of the area decades before the 56 Olympics. If they demolish the old venue next door then this name would be appropriate.

I hope they don't call it Swan St Stadium because to me that is the sort of name you give a railway station.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

ntguy said:


> I noticed the video has it named Olympic Park. I understand this was the name of the area decades before the 56 Olympics. If they demolish the old venue next door then this name would be appropriate.
> 
> I hope they don't call it Swan St Stadium because to me that is the sort of name you give a railway station.


No it wouldn't. Just because it sits on the site and "replaces" the old stadium doesn't necessarily qualify or justify it inheriting the name Olympic Park Stadium.

If it were being built for the Olympics, then maybe, but otherwise, it need's a different name.


----------



## Ironmanfood (Apr 23, 2008)

I think the name 'Rectangular Stadium' is fantastic. It's organic and quirky in that a name like that could only come about in the southern states of Australia - where having a stadium that is rectangular is 'different' and therefore worthy of mentioning it's non-oval shape.

I still call Docklands, Homebush, Lang Park, Lancaster Park etc by their non-commercial names. Rectangular has already stuck with me.


----------



## Ironmanfood (Apr 23, 2008)

magic_johnson said:


> Back a few pages i posted an article from austadiums stating that an upgrade to 50,000 would take place if a world cup bid was won. The ablility to upgrade to 50,000 if needed was also the candy that got Melbourne Victory to sign the dotted line.



I've also read those article, I just don't believe it will ever happen. People make compromises and promises to get different organisations on board. But take them with a grain of salt.

Despite being techincally possible because of future-proofed design. They won't pull off that intricate (and expensive) roof to add an extra 10 or 20,000 seats for a world cup bid - when there is already an enclosed roofed stadium in the same city with a 50,000 seat capacity - and another stadium with a 100,000 capacity.

the MRS will only get expanded if the demand for Victory tickets justifies the expansion, and the expense of this would be paid for by increased patronage. This won't happen before 2018.

A 50,000 seat MRS would be hopelessly unsuitable for the Storm and a possible S15 rugby team.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Lord David said:


> No it wouldn't. Just because it sits on the site and "replaces" the old stadium doesn't necessarily qualify or justify it inheriting the name Olympic Park Stadium.
> 
> If it were being built for the Olympics, then maybe, but otherwise, it need's a different name.


I read that the site it stands on was called Olympic Park as early as 1922.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Ironmanfood said:


> I've also read those article, I just don't believe it will ever happen. People make compromises and promises to get different organisations on board. But take them with a grain of salt.
> 
> Despite being techincally possible because of future-proofed design. They won't pull off that intricate (and expensive) roof to add an extra 10 or 20,000 seats for a world cup bid - when there is already an enclosed roofed stadium in the same city with a 50,000 seat capacity - and another stadium with a 100,000 capacity.
> 
> ...


Docklands is a dog of a stadium for watching football. It is almost as bad as the MCG. Viewing distances are way above a purpose built football stadium and the infield area is about 8,000 sq m bigger than FIFA's recommended 10,600 sq m.. Look at Emirates Stadium and you will see how bad it is when compared to a "World Class" football venue. If Melbourne is to have 2 venues in the bid (and that is not certain) then at least one of them has to be a football sized stadium not an AFL sized ground.

Oh, and by the way the MCG only has a capacity of 95,000 for football. FIFA don't allow standing at their games.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

ntguy said:


> Docklands is a dog of a stadium for watching football. It is almost as bad as the MCG. Viewing distances are way above a purpose built football stadium and the infield area is about 8,000 sq m bigger than FIFA's recommended 10,600 sq m.. Look at Emirates Stadium and you will see how bad it is when compared to a "World Class" football venue. If Melbourne is to have 2 venues in the bid (and that is not certain) then at least one of them has to be a football sized stadium not an AFL sized ground.


Docklands has retractable seating, remember?


----------



## craxzyd (Apr 17, 2008)

ntguy said:


> Oh, and by the way the MCG only has a capacity of 95,000 for football. FIFA don't allow standing at their games.


So no standing in corprate boxes?


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

craxzyd said:


> So no standing in corprate boxes?


They only permit tickets for seating to be sold at their games. I have no idea about corporate boxes. However it all works it reduces the capacity of the MCG to 95,000 at the moment.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> Docklands has retractable seating, remember?


Looks good in the pics. The moveable stands certainly reduce the viewing distances to seats in the lower bowl but make no difference to other seats which are at least 10m further from the play than at a stadium like Emirates. I can't see the AFL agreeing to having both Docklands and the MCG unavailable for 2 months in the middle of their season tho. FIFA require that grounds not be used for 4 weeks before the tournament.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ I'd expect by 2018 and most definitely by 2022 that the AFL would at least have another football ground (in Melbourne of course) or even two available for the football season. Expect one new AFL ground or a redeveloped one readily available alongside Docklands Stadium for AFL matches.

Only thing that needs to be sorted out if the AFL/NRL matches are held in conjunction with the WC is timing. Matches should ideally not clash, but since it's the WC, you can easily see matches held during the week.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Lord David said:


> ^^ I'd expect by 2018 and most definitely by 2022 that the AFL would at least have another football ground (in Melbourne of course) or even two available for the football season. Expect one new AFL ground or a redeveloped one readily available alongside Docklands Stadium for AFL matches.
> 
> Only thing that needs to be sorted out if the AFL/NRL matches are held in conjunction with the WC is timing. Matches should ideally not clash, but since it's the WC, you can easily see matches held during the week.


I did see a press release about a third AFL stadium some months ago.

I was wondering whether he AFL could market mid week games as a "sports experience" for international tourists.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ And I assume the same for NRL? might work, during the days of no WC matches, but what about the regular fans? Do you expect them to take a sickie just to watch matches during a weekday? Or stay up at night at an evening match? Hmmm...


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Lord David said:


> ^^ I'd expect by 2018 and most definitely by 2022 that the AFL would at least have another football ground (in Melbourne of course) or even two available for the football season. Expect one new AFL ground or a redeveloped one readily available alongside Docklands Stadium for AFL matches.
> 
> Only thing that needs to be sorted out if the AFL/NRL matches are held in conjunction with the WC is timing. Matches should ideally not clash, but since it's the WC, you can easily see matches held during the week.


I doubt very much that there will be another AFL stadium in Melbourne.
The AFL is not expanding within Melbourne in terms of teams, but rather vice versa, and you can expect at least two of the smaller teams either relocating to other centers like Tasmania or simply disappearing from the AFL within the next couple of decades. How many $5000 per head "save the club dinners" can teams like Melbourne Deamons have and how long can the AFL keep teams like North Melbourne afloat? When there are opportunities to expand the league in other regions then those clubs will be relocated eventually.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

woozoo said:


> I doubt very much that there will be another AFL stadium in Melbourne.
> The AFL is not expanding within Melbourne in terms of teams, but rather vice versa, and you can expect at least two of the smaller teams either relocating to other centers like Tasmania or simply disappearing from the AFL within the next couple of decades. How many $5000 per head "save the club dinners" can teams like Melbourne Deamons have and how long can the AFL keep teams like North Melbourne afloat? When there are opportunities to expand the league in other regions then those clubs will be relocated eventually.


Sending a team to Tassie won't save the AFL a cent. They will have to prop it up too because we can't afford the $40M a year to run a team. Whether the AFL will be able to continue to prop up some of the Melbourne clubs will depend on the next TV Broadcast Rights bidding. While they have $135M a year to give to the clubs I reckon they will survive. Kerry Packer isn't around any more to produce an inflated final bid so the AFL might find itself having to tighten the screws. I think their desperate attempt to get Gold Coast and Western Sydney up and running quickly is more about shoring up the value of the Broadcast Rights than it is about expanding the game. They are after a bit of the 55% of Australian advertising pie that is the NSW/Qld advertising market.

Another AFL stadium in Melbourne is about breaking the hold that the MCG and Etihad have over spectator revenue and will occur if they continue to rip off 70% of gate takings.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

woozoo said:


> I doubt very much that there will be another AFL stadium in Melbourne.
> The AFL is not expanding within Melbourne in terms of teams, but rather vice versa, and you can expect at least two of the smaller teams either relocating to other centers like Tasmania or simply disappearing from the AFL within the next couple of decades. How many $5000 per head "save the club dinners" can teams like Melbourne Deamons have and how long can the AFL keep teams like North Melbourne afloat? When there are opportunities to expand the league in other regions then those clubs will be relocated eventually.


It's got nothing to do with new teams. It's more to do with the fact that teams are losing money when they play at Docklands Stadium. Another stadium in the city would help teams in getting money from matches I guess.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Firstly, Princess park already exists, which has about 35K capacity, is in Carlton ie close to the city and transport, and is in by far the best condition of the old suburban grounds. It was used for AFL games as recently as 4 years ago. If the AFL were serious about using another ground they would use that rather than _buy_ new land close to the city and build a new stadium from scratch.

When a formerly Melbourne based AFL/VFL team is moved to another part of the country, one of two things happen to former supporters.
1) they continue supporting the team, attending Melbourne games, despite the fact it is now located in another state - note the massive support which remains to this day for the Swans in Melbourne. 
2) They switch their support to another AFL team, Melbourne based or not.
Either way support for the AFL stays constant in Melbourne.

The existing franchise then gathers support in the new center it is located in. Its a win win situation for the AFL, keeping Melbourne supporters relatively happy, whicle building support around the country. Obviously such a proposal wouldnt work for a team like Collingwood, but for teams which are on the brink or financial collapse, or arent financially viable no more, fans are more understanding.

9 teams is too many in Melbourne. Its just not viable for the AFL to keep propping up the weaker teams for eternity. More importantly, there is no point. If two or three teams went then all that would happen is average attendance would increase. The AFL would rather prop up a team in Western Sydney and Gold Coast, for the purpose ntguy mentioned, rather than propping up a melbourne team which does little to add to the value of TV deals or expansion of the code in the northern states.
Eventually, the weaker melbourne teams will either relocate or disappear.

I dont know whether Tasmania will get a team I was just using it as an example of an interstate region. The fact they dont have an adequate stadium is a major problem.

There wont be a new stadium. Its just the AFL talking tough to get better treatment from Etihad.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Lord David said:


> It's got nothing to do with new teams. It's more to do with the fact that teams are losing money when they play at Docklands Stadium. Another stadium in the city would help teams in getting money from matches I guess.


Docklands will be owned by the AFL by then though.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> Docklands will be owned by the AFL by then though.


I am not sure that will be a positive for them. The stadium will still have the same operating costs to recoup and they will have to be setting side funds for replacement so it won't be a financial windfall. That is, unless they run it into the ground like some stadium owning football administrators in other parts of the country who then expect Governments to bail them out.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Lord David said:


> It's got nothing to do with new teams. It's more to do with the fact that teams are losing money when they play at Docklands Stadium. Another stadium in the city would help teams in getting money from matches I guess.


Is it only Etihad that is the "problem". I understood that the MCG was also bleeding the clubs dry or is the MCG too sacred a cow in Melbourne to criticize?


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

ntguy said:


> unless they run it into the ground like some stadium owning football administrators in other parts of the country who then expect Governments to bail them out.


*cough* SANFL *cough*


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Cruise said:


> *cough* SANFL *cough*


*cough* WAFL *cough*


----------



## kichigai (May 9, 2005)

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,26023542-2862,00.html

MCG's Great Southern Stand to be overhauled

John Ferguson

September 04, 2009 12:00am

THE MCG's Great Southern Stand will be overhauled to make it easier for fans to attend games and more enjoyable when they get inside.

Premier John Brumby detailed plans to upgrade key parts of the ground as part of a new deal for the MCG.

Mr Brumby said a scoping study would be conducted into revitalising entry points, improve ticketing and upgrade food and beverage areas.

The study also would investigate replacing and upgrading seating and refurbishing function and dining rooms.

The Government has committed $30 million to the project.

Mr Brumby said: "The MCG is the spiritual home of football and this new arrangement, brokered by our Government, will help secure the future for Victorian AFL clubs."


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

^^ This is the news I've been waiting to hear! :cheers:


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

i hope they make the roof the same as the Northern stand


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ Well if they do replace the roof, what better opportunity than to expand seating, but then again, 30 million seems a little too low to do such things. If it did happen, capacity would surely be 100,000 proper, perhaps even more.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Lord David said:


> ^^ Well if they do replace the roof, what better opportunity than to expand seating, but then again, 30 million seems a little too low to do such things. If it did happen, capacity would surely be 100,000 proper, perhaps even more.


30 million seems way to cheap for that. It'll probably just be a spruce up & maybe they might change the roof supports on the Great Southern Stand to resemble something like the new one? It would be nice to see the 2 stands matched, it looks a bit odd at the moment IMO. Especially with those scoreboards in between them.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ntguy said:


> *cough* WAFL *cough*


take your cough medicine.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

What are peoples thoughts on the Herald Sun article today (its on Fox Sports website) that the Victorian Government are not going to spend any money on upgrading the MRS to 50,000 capacity for the World Cup?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26052362-23215,00.html


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Lord David said:


> ^^ Well if they do replace the roof, what better opportunity than to expand seating, but then again, 30 million seems a little too low to do such things. If it did happen, capacity would surely be 100,000 proper, perhaps even more.


Well, last years GF got 100,012, so it already is more :banana:


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

magic_johnson said:


> Well, last years GF got 100,012, so it already is more :banana:


Its only 95,000 seats but I understand they want to convert the standing room spaces to make it 100,000 seats.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ Exactly, I was referring All Seater Capacity, which is required for WC and International Football matches anyways. 

If they want some standing room, then simply expand to allow, or remove such seating for non FIFA footbal events.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Not a development but a little bit of fun on my behalf. Since the Adelaide Oval development has potentially opened itself up for futher redesign since the demolision of the George Giffen Stand (which was intended to remain during the current development but proved unsafe), I thought I'd slap together a scematic from an older design i was once working on. This plan would retain the Old arched brick wall of the western stand and the north hill including scoreboard but totally rebuild everything else. It is all to scale.
I estimate the capacity to be about 55 000 seats with extra standing room on the banks.

*I used the South Australian State Colours of Red, Royal Blue and Yellow to illustrate different seating.








In Australian Football / Cricket mode the northern end is kept open to preserve the popular grass banks, view of the Moreton Bay figtrees and the Cathedral in North Adelaide. The Yellow Seating represents temporary and retactable seating. The Royal Blue seating is Boxes and Suites.









In Soccer / Rugby mode the ground tier has been moved 15m forward with a hydraulic concourse filling the gap between ithe back of the tier and the stucture proper (same as Stade de France) the yellow seating surounding the ground tier is temporary seating on the hydraulic concourse. In this pic a temporary northern stand is inplace squaring off the northern goal end, only necessary for major events like the FIFA WC.

A rough section and plans of the movable ground tier I did a few months ago before the designs resurection.


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

Lord David said:


> ^^ Exactly, I was referring All Seater Capacity, which is required for WC and International Football matches anyways.
> 
> If they want some standing room, then simply expand to allow, or remove such seating for non FIFA footbal events.


But even with such major changes, doubt whether FIFA will ever consider these no Football venues for WC.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ Well if it meets FIFA requirements even if oval, then why not? FIFA has to and will understand our disadvantages, and if they want it in Australia, they will be willing to overlook these things for our likeliest lone hosting of the WC.

As for Adelaide Oval, that's a neat fun proposal Walbanger, but if Adelaide did have such money to spend, they'd build a new stadium with retractable seating as opposed to using the Adelaide Oval.

Of course this isn't going to happen, just upgrade to 45,000+ and that will do. By the looks of things, with the demolition George Giffen stand, maybe a similar stand to the Sir Donald Bradman stand on the opposite side, a new say, 2 or 3 tier Western stand, and upgrading the Chappell Stands with a 2nd tier could work. Overall seating upgrade with added temporary seats at the hill or not using the hill at all, could make capacity easily 45,000+ maybe even 50,000.

That said, given our disadvantages, my idea for WC stadiums would be:

Existing
MCG (Melbourne) - Existing (No seating upgrades) 95,000 Oval
Olympic Stadium (Sydney) - Existing (No seating upgrades) 83,500
Lang Park (Brisbane) - Existing (If possible, upgraded to 60,000) 52,500
Sydney Football Stadium (Sydney) - Existing (No seating upgrades) 45,500

Upgrades
Perth Oval (Perth - Rectangular, mind you wink.gif ) - Upgraded Seating (45,000)
Adelaide Oval (Adelaide) - Upgraded Seating (45,000-50,000) Oval
Willows Sports Complex (Townsville) - Upgraded Seating (45,000)
Newcastle International Sports Centre (Newcastle) - Upgraded Seating (45,000)
Carrara Stadium (Gold Coast) - Upgraded Seating (45,000) Oval
Wollongong Showground (Wollongong) - Upgraded Seating (45,000)

New Stadiums
Canberra - 45,000
Hobart (potential) - 45,000

So, simply put we got 12 stadiums here, with only 3 oval, though this is unideal and you'd want the MCG to be the only one oval, that's just the way it has to be I suppose. 

That seems like a sound bid, guess we'll have to see if FFA has something better to propose.


----------



## Pimpmaster (Mar 10, 2009)

^^ wouldnt you have etihad stadium in there to?


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Pimpmaster said:


> ^^ wouldnt you have etihad stadium in there to?


No of course not, not that it couldn't host in rectangular mode, it can. But I suppose the AFL would want to use that stadium along with a possible "3rd" Melbourne AFL stadium and even using Geelong's Skilled Stadium as a means to make up for the lack of use of the MCG, which is sure to be chosen regardless.

This allows for Sydney to use Sydney Football Stadium as a 2nd venue for that city.


----------



## spicrema (Sep 28, 2009)

*Thanks*

I'm very interested! I would love to find out more.
me too, I need more detailed info


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Did you all see the article that quoted the General Secretary of FIFA saying that the only stadium that met FIFA requirements in the European bidding countries was Wembley?

If Emirates Stadium isn't up to it as is we don't have a compliant stadium anywhere at all.

By the way Lord David, FIFA won't accept what we put forward if it isn't compliant in most if not every respect.


----------



## ntguy (Feb 25, 2009)

Lord David said:


> ^^ Well if it meets FIFA requirements even if oval, then why not? FIFA has to and will understand our disadvantages, and if they want it in Australia, they will be willing to overlook these things for our likeliest lone hosting of the WC.
> 
> As for Adelaide Oval, that's a neat fun proposal Walbanger, but if Adelaide did have such money to spend, they'd build a new stadium with retractable seating as opposed to using the Adelaide Oval.
> 
> ...


From my reading of the FIFA Stadium Requirements document we will need upgrades at the MCG, Stadium Australia, SFS and Suncorp totaling in the hundreds of $M.

Nothing at Dairy Farmer's Stadium or WIN Stadium is up to scratch so new stadiums would be required there as well as Canberra.

The way that the development of Perth Oval is planned means that it can't be upgraded so a new stadium would be required in Perth also.

The Tasmanian Government has indicated that it won't be supplying a stadium for the bid so you can take Hobart off your list.

I also don't believe that FIFA will accept any oval that is wider than that required to fit an athletics track. The MCG might get through because of its history and its size


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

A news artical from the Gold Coast Football Clubs website.

http://goldcoastfc.com.au/news-and-media/news/premier-gives-the-gold-coast-a-preview-of-new-stadium/


> Premier gives the Gold Coast a preview of new stadium
> Premier Anna Bligh has released the first images of what the completed Gold Coast Stadium will look like – giving the Gold Coast an exclusive sneak peak of what the $126 million project has to offer.
> 
> Work on the impressive 25,000 capacity stadium, which will be home to the Gold Coast AFL team, will begin as early as next month.
> ...


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

^Hope we win our bid for the Commonwealth games, and upgrade our deteriorating sporting venues. GC Stadium looks good though!


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> ^Hope we win our bid for the Commonwealth games, and upgrade our deteriorating sporting venues. GC Stadium looks good though!


I hope thats not the venue for the Gold Coast Comm Games bid!


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Lol.  Shhh.

Anna Bligh has promised to spend $1billion AUD on fixing of the sporting venues. To my understanding, yes it is the venue which will be the center of the games.


----------



## Cruise (Apr 17, 2007)

looking at the renders, It could easily be expanded to 40,000+ capacity, Enough for the Commonwealth Games


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Cruise said:


> looking at the renders, It could easily be expanded to 40,000+ capacity, Enough for the Commonwealth Games


Yea for sure. I just think that the Gold Coast won't pull such crowds week in, week out (in fact, I know it for sure) after the games. So a 40,000+ stadium will end up with no atmosphere should it be half or 3/4 empty.


----------



## Citystyle (Jan 6, 2005)

Good sized ground. Would be very easy to get above 30-35K when they GCFC needs it, given the players they already have and will have by the end of 2010 it should not take them long to get into the finals.


----------



## No1_Saint (Jul 1, 2009)

Not a bad looking stadium. The new AFL team should be able to build a decent following to home games with facilities like that. 

Awesome.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Lol.  Shhh.
> 
> Anna Bligh has promised to spend $1billion AUD on fixing of the sporting venues. To my understanding, yes it is the venue which will be the center of the games.


hmmmm...Go Auckland..!


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

ExSydney said:


> hmmmm...Go Auckland..!












Apparently Nigeria is favorite to win so far. I hope Australia boycotts the games should that be the case. Wouldn't want to jeopardise their "safety"!


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Wonder if they will finally pay the guy who built those floodlights?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Walbanger said:


> Not a development but a little bit of fun on my behalf. Since the Adelaide Oval development has potentially opened itself up for futher redesign since the demolision of the George Giffen Stand (which was intended to remain during the current development but proved unsafe), I thought I'd slap together a scematic from an older design i was once working on. This plan would retain the Old arched brick wall of the western stand and the north hill including scoreboard but totally rebuild everything else. It is all to scale.
> I estimate the capacity to be about 55 000 seats with extra standing room on the banks.
> 
> *I used the South Australian State Colours of Red, Royal Blue and Yellow to illustrate different seating.
> ...


Impressive drawings!


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^ thankyou, I'm currently trying to teach myself how to 3D model it using CAD, don't have 3d max and I'm embarrassed to say I just don't understand sketchup.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Walbanger said:


> ^ thankyou, I'm currently trying to teach myself how to 3D model it using CAD, don't have 3d max and I'm embarrassed to say I just don't understand sketchup.


If I can use sketchup then almost anybody else can!


----------



## AUboy (Nov 3, 2003)

Etihad was in rectangle mode last night. Apparently the turf issues have been sorted, and we will see them out more often.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

AUboy said:


> Etihad was in rectangle mode last night. Apparently the turf issues have been sorted, and we will see them out more often.


Thats good news. By more often do you think we could see this for A league matches?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Gold Coast Stadium's redevelopment started yesterday :banana:

Geelong's Skilled Stadium's redevelopment of the Ross Drew stand is taking place nicely. First match there next year is round four (late April). 

I was pleasently suprised by Etihad (Telstra Dome) in rectangle mode. Looked much closer then i thought it would go. World cup quality?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

Skilled Stadium's premiership stand (ready by May next year, the stand in the far right of pic).


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Render of the Carrara Stadium (Under Construction) in Athletics mode for Commonwealth Games bid.








Though its a small image, it appears to me as it if there is a temporary ground tier linking with the second tier on the wings to narrow the field from the 144m it would be in Cricket/AFL mode to something more suitable to Athletics and Soccer (this will be the Gold Coast stadium in a successfull 2018/2022 FIFA WC bid). It also appears as if the ends are retracted to fit the Athletics track which is longer than the 171m the stadium will be for Cricket/AFL. Not to bad, much better than I thought, though still a shame they won't expand Skilled Park for a WC bid.

Just compare the pic above with this one to understand clearly what I mean.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Walbanger said:


> Render of the Carrara Stadium (Under Construction) in Athletics mode for Commonwealth Games bid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I fail to see 20,000 extra seats there in athletics/football mode. It would need to be at least 45,000 for the World Cup bid.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> I fail to see 20,000 extra seats there in athletics/football mode. It would need to be at least 45,000 for the World Cup bid.


Neither do I, not too sure what they are getting at unless the temp looking seating in the AFL pic is pushing the capacity over 40 000 and that only the permanent stands provide the 25 000 seats. Still it doesn't look like the temporary seating would boost capacity by 20 000.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

In further stadium news to hand out of Melbourne.

The old Lakeside Oval, home of South Melbourne Football Club until 1981, which then became a soccer stadium, namely Bob Jane stadium, is to become home of Athletics Victoria.

They will put a running track around the ground. Build a new grandstand on the eastern wing, which is currently a mound.

Olympic Park, the current home will be made into a football oval for Collingwood Football Club.


----------



## kennerado (Oct 2, 2009)

Its a shame that Olympic Park will be butchered like that, why cant the pies use Vic Park for their training ground? West Richmond Magpies more like it these days.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

kennerado said:


> Its a shame that Olympic Park will be butchered like that, why cant the pies use Vic Park for their training ground? West Richmond Magpies more like it these days.


I hate it how so many AFL clubs now have no connection to their traditional home ground or even region. Vic park is not beyond repair and they could easily get it back in shape for not to much. It would be great if all the clubs still trained at there home grounds and at least played pre season games there.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26430075-5006301,00.html#vote-now-form
The latest plans for the Adelaide Oval seem to be going through. The South Australian Government supported by the South Australian Cricket Association (SACA) who own the ground, the South Australian National Football League (SANFL) and the AFL have presented this new plan of an expanded 50 000seat redevelopment of the historic Adelaide oval which has already begun building a new Western Stand which retains the heritage listed redbrick arched facade. The new plan involves demolishing the 20 year old Bradman Stand on the southern end and and the eastern grandstands. They will be replaced by 2 much larger stands. The iconic north Hill (grassed banks) will be retain with the heritage listed old score board and views of the Moreton Bay figs in the Park lands and of the cathedral in North Adelaide.
This plan will create and open horse shoe stadium which will retain the aesthetic qualities of a cricket gorund with numerous grandstands.
This ground will be used in a successful Australian FIFA WC bid. I imagine a temorary stand at the northern end could be erected to square off the oval and boost capacity to 55/60 000.
The plan reminds me of my own Ideas for the ground which I posted pics of a page or so back, I really like it but I'm not to sure if FIFA will as it is an Oval with no movable seating.
This development will see AFL football being play at the Adelaide Oval for the first time (The second tier league SANFL do play the odd game at the ground) and will become the home of the AFL's Port Adelaide Power. It is still not clear if the bigger Adelaide club the Adelaide Crows will leave the 51 000 seat AAMI Stadium in the northern suburbs were they have their own state of the art facilities and HQ. I'm not sure what the future is for the dated AAMI Stadium but as far as I have read, it may very well be retained.

The State Liberal party (in opposition) wanted a new 55000 seat Multipurpose stadium (moveable seating) to be built on the north west of the CBD.
The expanded redevelopment

















































Historical pics

















What it looked like before start of redevelopment.

























Redevelopment work

























Original development plan









http://player.video.news.com.au/adelaidenow/?BOahgnOZuLCk7MtyEZwvlw3olb8j76fA

I'm a little annoyed that my City and State still can't or won't work out the much needed stadium issues. Hell Western Australia started debating this issue 2 years before South Australia and nothing will be finished for at least another 6 years, it pisses me off to no end.


----------



## gho (Oct 9, 2007)

Great news. I can see a boost in attendance figures for Port games because of this. When is completion expected?


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^ I think they said 3 years. So end of 2012?
Could open for the 2013 AFL season. Andrew Demetriou (AFL CEO for our foreign friends) stated that he'd like to see a season opener at the Adelaide Oval, most likely a Southern Showdown (Adelaide Crows vs Port Adelaide Power).


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

I think the capacity is about right, maybe 55 000 would have worked. Though I'm not sure if they mean 50 000 seats or 50 000 capacity, hopfully it's the former and this doesn't consider the Hill which would be standing room and a location for tempory stands if required, so real capacity could be up say 56 000. The Gov, SANFL and SACA would have considered demand vs availability in determining the sized of the stadium as well as the slow groth of Adelaide which will only have something like 1.6 million people by 2050 to Perth's projected 4 million by the same date, who's Stadium WA plan would seat 60 000 with easy easy expansion to 70 000.
A 50 000 seat Adelaide Oval should see a consistantly packed house if the Crows move there and much higher returns because of growing demand. Port may see a rebound in attendance due to better fan facilites but we will have to wait and see. I imagine the AFL clubs would look to a similar Stadium deal as the Western Australian clubs, were they'd pay rent for the ground but kept all advertising, food and corporate revenue as oppossed to there current arrangment with there liesince holders the SANFL where they pay no rent for AAMI Stadium but get little return in game day takings.

I'm very interested to know how FIFA complient this plan is and what kind of temporary remodeling like squaring off the open end with a temporary stand would be requried to satisfy FIFA or maybe nothing can.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Wow. Totally love the new plan for Adelaide Oval - fully blown redevelopment instead of the original patch work plan was the only way to go - this will seriously help with the World Cup bid - now all we need is for WA and Canberra to get sorted and we've got a serious venue plan.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Don't know if I necessarily agree in trashing the Oval.

But it leaves Perth without a decent stadium. Funny how they have all this mineral wealth. Only goes into private pockets I guess.


----------



## Citystyle (Jan 6, 2005)

This Adelaide Oval redevelopment is really all about giving AFL a decent location to attract bigger crowds and improve profits, it will support cricket in South Australia and providing better facilities for both Football and Cricket sides in SA and it's also a seriously good location. 

Bob, our state government is a Liberal Government. Far less trigger happy with state funds and pretty much totally against spending money that it does not have.

Stadium WA will happen it's a matter of the State Government pushing for greater AFL and Federal Government input (for the World Cup). 

I for one wish we the AFL, WAFC, WAFL and WACA could come to some agreement to move all football operations to the WACA or alternativily move all there opperations to one super facility too Burswood. I dislike having our major sports stadium in the centre of an yuppie suburb.


----------



## Langers (Jun 29, 2009)

AO redevelopment is huge, huge news for the people in Adelaide! This is massive. 

It needed to happen, about time all parties are in agreeance (possibly not a word but it's late so care factor low) so the wheels can finally get in motion. This is awesome!


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Don't like the looks of the design though, can't they make one big horseshoe shaped stand with a continuous roof, instead of three seperate stands with three different roof designs? Something looking more like the Gabba? And does someone have the field dimensions of this stadium?


----------



## TooFar (Apr 6, 2004)

Joop20 said:


> Don't like the looks of the design though, can't they make one big horseshoe shaped stand with a continuous roof, instead of three seperate stands with three different roof designs? Something looking more like the Gabba? And does someone have the field dimensions of this stadium?


The Gabba is one of the most generic, boring looking stadiums going around. Why does a stadium had to be uniform?


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

TooFar said:


> The Gabba is one of the most generic, boring looking stadiums going around. Why does a stadium had to be uniform?


Not so much uniform, but why do you have to have the gaps between the stands!


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

As a born and bred Croweater, I can say that it will be sad to see the Adelaide Oval get redeveloped in a way that it looks nothing like what has made it such a loved icon here in Adelaide. But in saying that I think this is a good thing to happen. Not only will it finally give Adelaide a world class sports facility right on the city centres doorstep but it will also mean an upgrading of the parking situation not only around the oval but in the city also. It should see our sadly out of date public transport system get a major overhaul.

Yes I will miss the old Adelaide Oval, but I honestly can't see this as a bad thing.

$450m to build it. $150m of that will make it FIFA compliant.

Since the announcement about this, the people of Adelaide have gone nuts.
_Oh, wait, most of Adelaide was already nuts_

So far my reading of public reaction here is about roughly 60% of people are for the re-development.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

^^

They can't they'd just get so much more revenue if it is included, tbh.
But if it was included I reckon MCG would go through another expansion... maybe.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

It doesn't need an expansion, it needs a rectangularisation... lol


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Yes I think it should be reconfigured for this event. And for best vantage grass lowered abit. maybe?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Possibly, the rake on the bottom tier is still a problem though.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Yeah I know...

Maybe, we lower the ground abit then we can pull seating in then for AFL latter on change it back...?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I'd love to see the MCG get used for a final, but I some how don't think it would ever happen. I'd also love to see the wing-grandstands put back on ANZ Stadium!










:drool:


----------



## mattwinter (Apr 14, 2009)

Wezza said:


> Possibly, the rake on the bottom tier is still a problem though.


This is what I'd do - http://mattwintersfootballblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/20182022-world-cup-bid-mcg.html

The rake is a problem though - it would be much better if they dropped the surface down 15m and increased the rake. I'm pretty sure the lower tier at the 'G goes back quite a bit under the 2nd tier, so it could be brought forward a bit fairly easily.

I can't see the final not being played in the biggest stadium.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

^^

Maybe even a bigger drop?


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

mattwinter said:


> So these stadiums may be included in the 'bid book':
> 
> SA:
> - New Adelaide Oval
> ...


The MCG has to be used, even if it weren't for finals, a 10 week break should be sufficient or even more then enough as you need that month prior to the WC to ensure pristine grass and such. You can't seriously expect the FFA to propose using AAMI Park with mere upgrades to 45,000 or 50,000. That'll require the removal of the roof and making the lower tier as it would be as a clean rectangular. Don't expect a new stadium either. MCG it has to be.

The Government of Victoria owns the MCG. They'll step in and override any concerns coming from the AFL. They will most definitely put the stadium forward in our WC bid.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

mattwinter said:


> This is what I'd do - http://mattwintersfootballblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/20182022-world-cup-bid-mcg.html
> 
> The rake is a problem though - it would be much better if they dropped the surface down 15m and increased the rake. I'm pretty sure the lower tier at the 'G goes back quite a bit under the 2nd tier, so it could be brought forward a bit fairly easily.
> 
> I can't see the final not being played in the biggest stadium.


I'd scrap the retractable idea, considering the cost of building the stands (there was no intention of any retractable seating or rectangular in mind), plus the nagging from the AFL and Cricket side on regards to the fact that the whole lower tiers would be out of business for much of a year's football season etc. Then you have the fact that it's first and foremost a cricket ground, it needs to stay oval.

I prefer the closer seating idea, considering that the AFL don't have an explicit rule regarding oval sizes and that it's more then enough for a cricket pitch size, I'd lower the ground and move additional seating within, increasing capacity to 100,000+ proper. I'd expect the AFL to be more inclined with the idea considering that it means larger crowds for the all important Grand Final and such.
I'd keep the Great Southern Stand as is, but with new seats to match the colours of those on the Northern Stand and with a roof to match the northern one, or at least painted white.

Perhaps an overall all seated capacity of 120,000? Assuming 10,000 seats are added on a lower level and the Great Southern Stand being expanded by 10,000 seats?


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

^^

It's been confirmed MCG is in the bid. 

most likely to host the final I've heard.


----------



## mattwinter (Apr 14, 2009)

Lord David said:


> I'd scrap the retractable idea, considering the cost of building the stands (there was no intention of any retractable seating or rectangular in mind), plus the nagging from the AFL and Cricket side on regards to the fact that the whole lower tiers would be out of business for much of a year's football season etc. Then you have the fact that it's first and foremost a cricket ground, it needs to stay oval.
> 
> I prefer the closer seating idea, considering that the AFL don't have an explicit rule regarding oval sizes and that it's more then enough for a cricket pitch size, I'd lower the ground and move additional seating within, increasing capacity to 100,000+ proper. I'd expect the AFL to be more inclined with the idea considering that it means larger crowds for the all important Grand Final and such.
> I'd keep the Great Southern Stand as is, but with new seats to match the colours of those on the Northern Stand and with a roof to match the northern one, or at least painted white.
> ...


So basically just rennovate the Great Southern stand to match the new stand? Makes sense.

I'm thinking they could easily drop the pitch, redo the lower tiers with a steeper angle and move them forward an extra 15m at the sides and 5-10m at the ends (maybe have the seats at the end a meter or so above the pitch, as the first few rows at the ends of the grounds would be the worst seats in the stadium.

Here's an interesting cross section (MCG v ANZ v SCG):









You can see that the stands at the top of the MCG are a long way away as well - this is why the very best option would still be to redo the Southern stand and make the whole stadium a bit smaller.

Also - they might need to redo the roof for the WC? Currently it doesn't look like the bottom tier is under cover.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Well if the MCG is expanded to 120,000 proper. Then you can rule out 90,000 Sydney Olympic Stadium.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

little off-topic

What stadiums would be used for 2015 Asian Cup' I cant find it anywhere hno:


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Solopop said:


> ^^
> 
> It's been confirmed MCG is in the bid.
> 
> most likely to host the final I've heard.


You heard?

Victoria will be lucky to hold group games after the way the FFA have been screwed...

NSW will be building a brand new 45,000 seat stadium in Blacktown
NSW will be building a basically brand new 45,000 seat stadium in Newcastle
NSW will upgrade and refurnish the SFS to 50,000
NSW will upgrade and refurnish ANZ stadium to 90,000

Victoria will......tell the FFA to f***K off out of Etihad
Victoria will......upgrade Skilled Stadium to make it a better AFL Stadium
Victoria will......let the FFA use the MCG only if the AFL can be compensated.

Isnt it obvious where the Final will be played?


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Lord David said:


> Well if the MCG is expanded to 120,000 proper. Then you can rule out 90,000 Sydney Olympic Stadium.


It wont happen..There is no way the ground will be lowered or no way there will be rectangle seating at the MCG..Where is the benefit to AFL???
for that to happen the MCG will be out of commission for over a year.There is now way the AFL will allow it.
Forget it
Forget it.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Livno80101 said:


> little off-topic
> 
> What stadiums would be used for 2015 Asian Cup' I cant find it anywhere hno:


http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/call-for-government-to-back-2015-cup-bid-20100506-ugvf.html

"...........The list currently includes Melbourne's new rectangular stadium AAMI Park, as well as Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, Sydney's ANZ Stadium, Sydney Football Stadium, Parramatta Stadium and Canberra Stadium. It also includes Etihad Stadium, which the AFL has ruled out for use in a World Cup bid.............."

In other words

ANZ Stadium,Sydney -83,500
Etihad Stadium,Melbourne-53,000
Suncorp Stadium,Brisbane-52,500
SFS,Sydney-45,000
AAMI Park,Melbourne-31,000
Skilled Park,Gold Coast-27,000
Canberra Stadium,Canberra-25,000
Parramatta Stadium,Sydney-20,000


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

ExSydney said:


> It wont happen..There is no way the ground will be lowered or no way there will be rectangle seating at the MCG..Where is the benefit to AFL???
> for that to happen the MCG will be out of commission for over a year.There is now way the AFL will allow it.
> Forget it
> Forget it.


Well for starters the field size is more than AFL minimum requirements, just retain the oval shape (it has to it's a proper cricket oval) add additional seating on pitch level (by lowering of course) and an extended Great Southern Stand.

The ground level works will be done well in advance, perhaps with "build-able" stands placed on a lower pitch directly after one of the AFL seasons during October, November and December. Then you'll have the removal of the GST's roof and expansion of the upper tier during the next AFL season.

The MCG does not need to be out of commission for a year, just build the lower level stands off site, lower it as stated above, and place new stands there-in. The expansion is easily done whilst an AFL season is all.

The AFL will more than happily agree to this if it's funded by both State and Government funds, and it means much more capacity for a growing AFL game.


----------



## mattwinter (Apr 14, 2009)

ExSydney said:


> You heard?
> 
> Victoria will be lucky to hold group games after the way the FFA have been screwed...
> 
> ...


FIFA doesn't care about Sydney v Melbourne Bull%@#$

The biggest stadium will host the final - Which is likely to be the MCG.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

mattwinter said:


> FIFA doesn't care about Sydney v Melbourne Bull%@#$
> 
> The biggest stadium will host the final - Which is likely to be the MCG.


A noob comment. Yes, FIFA cares not about Melbourne vs Sydney, but the MCG is an oval shaped stadium, not just one that could have an athletics track inside, but one to meet the needs of Aussie Rules and Cricket (which btw is reasonably larger than the minimum of both field sizes). It's whether the FFA proposes to add seating to the MCG and move fans closer to the action (as well as add capacity) or have the renovated Sydney Olympic Stadium at 90,000.

Because, of course, a mere 5,000 odd seats isn't much now is it? But if the MCG were to go 120,000 proper, then 30,000 seats is a more considerable amount to lose, just because you want a proper rectangular stadium to host the final.


----------



## mattwinter (Apr 14, 2009)

Lord David said:


> A noob comment. Yes, FIFA cares not about Melbourne vs Sydney, but the MCG is an oval shaped stadium, not just one that could have an athletics track inside, but one to meet the needs of Aussie Rules and Cricket (which btw is reasonably larger than the minimum of both field sizes). It's whether the FFA proposes to add seating to the MCG and move fans closer to the action (as well as add capacity) or have the renovated Sydney Olympic Stadium at 90,000.
> 
> Because, of course, a mere 5,000 odd seats isn't much now is it? But if the MCG were to go 120,000 proper, then 30,000 seats is a more considerable amount to lose, just because you want a proper rectangular stadium to host the final.


In 2006 Munich was a much better stadium that the Olympiastadion in Berlin, but Berlin had an extra 5-10000 seats and was so given the final.

FIFA won't say "this stadium is not good enough for the final" without also saying "this stadium isn't good enough for any World Cup games"


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Its a mix of capacity and the city's status.

FIFA want the Sydney Bridge aerials before the Final.

You've got those Indoor Halls adjacent to the stadium for the IBC/MPC.

You have a huge site for commercial affiliates,sponsors, compounds, parking.

Its already linked by transport and has handled much higher capacities.

There are a few hotels on site, with FIFA's sponsors probably being based in fancy hotels in the CBD.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

mattwinter said:


> In 2006 Munich was a much better stadium that the Olympiastadion in Berlin, but Berlin had an extra 5-10000 seats and was so given the final.
> 
> FIFA won't say "this stadium is not good enough for the final" without also saying "this stadium isn't good enough for any World Cup games"


Berlin had a stadium filled with history, a united Germany now and the fact that Berlin is the capital of Germany.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> Its a mix of capacity and the city's status.
> 
> FIFA want the Sydney Bridge aerials before the Final.
> 
> ...


Let's see what does Melbourne have?

The MCG, right next to the CBD as opposed to the West of the city (like Sydney's Olympic Stadium).

The Melbourne Exhibition Centre as well as both old and new convention centres can be used as the IBC/MPC

The FIFA team can easily stay at hotels that are near and overlook the MCG.

There's the huge grass area around the MCG to serve for fan sites, commerical stuff, parking etc

The MCG is also easily accessed by existing rail links.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

The final will not be held in a cricket ground, end of.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Wezza said:


> The final will not be held in a cricket ground, end of.


As opposed to holding it in an athletics stadium like they have so many times before? With currently 16,512 extra seats over Australia's next biggest stadium don't be surprised if the MCG gets the final, provided Australia wins the bid for either 2018 or 2022. Also don't be surprised if the MCG doesn't get any significant upgrades to its seating to make it better for a rectangular pitch. The Melbourne Cricket Club, AFL & Victorian Government have already spent $576m making the ground what it is today for its primary users (AFL & cricket) and to make it more fan friendly for soccer just for 1 tournament would require millions more to be spent. Something I don't believe will be done, regardless of how much money that 1 tournament might bring in.

People might not like the idea but the fact is that the MCG has a capacity 100,012. Even an upgraded Stadium Australia would only have 90,000 and despite the MCG being round and SA being rectangular, extra bums in seats and the extra revenue that comes with that will most likely win out.

Of course, it wouldn't surprise me either if the MCG didn't host the final should Oz win a bid.

That's my belief and I'm sticking to it.

On other Aussie stadium subjects, the new AAMI Park (Melbourne Rectangular Stadium) opened last Friday night for the ANZAC Rugby League Test between Australia & New Zealand and apart from a few teething problems, all seemed to go well. A near capacity crowd of 29,442 braved Melbourne's fickle weather and other than the wet, the only complaint I've heard so far was the fact that some people felt it was a bit cramped. The legacy of having 30,050 seats in a stadium originally designed to hold 20,000 I guess.

Work on the Adelaide Oval is also moving along well. Drove past it last week (yep, I live in Adelaide) and the new western stands are starting to take shape (I'll provide some photo's on Thursday). The upper tiers are roughly halfway completed and don't look too bad. I love AO and was a bit hesitant to see it changed like it will be but the new design is slowly growing on me. I think it will look pretty damn good when finished.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

HoldenV8 said:


> As opposed to holding it in an athletics stadium like they have so many times before? With currently 16,512 extra seats over Australia's next biggest stadium don't be surprised if the MCG gets the final, provided Australia wins the bid for either 2018 or 2022. Also don't be surprised if the MCG doesn't get any significant upgrades to its seating to make it better for a rectangular pitch. The Melbourne Cricket Club, AFL & Victorian Government have already spent $576m making the ground what it is today for its primary users (AFL & cricket) and to make it more fan friendly for soccer just for 1 tournament would require millions more to be spent. Something I don't believe will be done, regardless of how much money that 1 tournament might bring in.
> 
> People might not like the idea but the fact is that the MCG has a capacity 100,012. Even an upgraded Stadium Australia would only have 90,000 and despite the MCG being round and SA being rectangular, extra bums in seats and the extra revenue that comes with that will most likely win out.
> 
> ...


Firstly,the MCG capacity is not 100,012.Its seating capacity is 95,000 plus standing room,and as is common knowledge,standing room is not allowed com WC time.
Based on what we know,(and that may change ) the MCG is 95,000 and the proposal for ANZ is 90,000.
Secondly,revenue between the 2 venues will not make one difference at all.
IF the MCG held the final,the tradeoff will mean the opening in Sydney.If Sydney hosted the Final,the opening will be in Melbourne.As ticket pricing for the Opening Ceremony/Match and the WC Final will most likely be the same,it makes absolutely no difference in gate revenue as the combined audience will be the same..The MCG could be 130,000,but still it would make no difference to the bottom line.
Homebush Bay (as MoRush explained) in a far more attractive option for FIFA.Exclusion zones in this area is huge,as proven from Sydney 2000.Exhibition space is massive at Homebush Bay.Exhibition buidlings,show pavillions etc is right next door to the stadium.Transport is proven to handle over 750,000 people into and out of Homebush Bay every day.There are over 500 rooms in 3 hotels directly next door to ANZ Stadium.Perfect for teams and officials on game day.One last thing,FIFA officials /sponsors that do not stay in Homebush Bay,will stay in the CBD.They will be then transported by chartered Jetcets/Ferries from the city directly to Homebush Bay.They will be wined and dined as they take their Harbour cruise directly to Sydney Olympic Park.IOC officials in Sydney 2000 were handled this way,and all knows,FIFA and all their cronies love this shit.

Im not 100% sure who makes the decision of the final,but I can assure you that the FFA will not do Melbourne or Victoria any favours.As I stated before,there are no financial incentives to hold it in Melbourne,no matter what the capacity.The only way it would benefit financially if Melbourne held the Final and the Opening ,and I dont think any one will think that could happen.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

disregard-


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

ExSydney said:


> Firstly,the MCG capacity is not 100,012.Its seating capacity is 95,000 plus standing room,and as is common knowledge,standing room is not allowed com WC time.
> Based on what we know,(and that may change ) the MCG is 95,000 and the proposal for ANZ is 90,000.
> Secondly,revenue between the 2 venues will not make one difference at all.
> IF the MCG held the final,the tradeoff will mean the opening in Sydney.If Sydney hosted the Final,the opening will be in Melbourne.As ticket pricing for the Opening Ceremony/Match and the WC Final will most likely be the same,it makes absolutely no difference in gate revenue as the combined audience will be the same..The MCG could be 130,000,but still it would make no difference to the bottom line.
> ...


Very detailed reasoning there.

I agree with most of it I must say. FFA are based in Sydney and have pushed that city hard, by having a FIFA Congress event I think it was and also the WC 2010 Fan Zone. Lets face it also, Sydney has more global appeal, like it or not, over any other city in this country. The NSW govt is also pushing harder, maybe due to fact they know they have a the inside running and are well placed to get what they want.

An upgrade of the MCG would be too costly, even though I would love to see the Great Southern Stand rebuild to mirror the new stands completed for the 2006 Comm Games. Some Etihad Stadium style movable seating would work well.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Nobody is suggesting Melbourne does not have an indoor hall for the MPC/IBC, but the Sydney Homebush site has lots of pros.

And as mentioned
the FIFA congress, FFA etc.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> Nobody is suggesting Melbourne does not have an indoor hall for the MPC/IBC, but the Sydney Homebush site has lots of pros.
> 
> And as mentioned
> the FIFA congress, FFA etc.


Oh? And what, having the Exhibition Centre both the new and old convention centre (which has a 5,000 seat auditorium), as well as the land surrounding the MCG, and all the indoor venues (Margret Court Arena (soon), Rod Laver and Hisense Arena), that could be used for various purposes, isn't enough?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

HoldenV8 said:


> As opposed to holding it in an athletics stadium like they have so many times before? With currently 16,512 extra seats over Australia's next biggest stadium don't be surprised if the MCG gets the final, provided Australia wins the bid for either 2018 or 2022. Also don't be surprised if the MCG doesn't get any significant upgrades to its seating to make it better for a rectangular pitch. The Melbourne Cricket Club, AFL & Victorian Government have already spent $576m making the ground what it is today for its primary users (AFL & cricket) and to make it more fan friendly for soccer just for 1 tournament would require millions more to be spent. Something I don't believe will be done, regardless of how much money that 1 tournament might bring in.
> 
> People might not like the idea but the fact is that the MCG has a capacity 100,012. Even an upgraded Stadium Australia would only have 90,000 and despite the MCG being round and SA being rectangular, extra bums in seats and the extra revenue that comes with that will most likely win out.
> 
> ...


An athletics stadium while not ideal, is far better than a cricket ground with a massive pitch. Come on mate, seriously.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

From a security perspective - the MCG is a nightmare compared to Stadium Australia. Homebush has the isolation required (due to its location away from the city centre compared to the MCG, it is easier to control the direction that crowds can flow at Homebush). However, even if you called Stadium Australia "rectangular" which it isn't exactly, that doesn't give it the right to host the final over the MCG. It also has shocking sightlines from the upper tiers and the end stands which wont go down well with an international audience.

As for the argument over where the IBC will go, most international networks would prefer Sydney due to its more internationally known backdrops. As an example, when USA hosted the World Cup in 1994, the IBC was in the relatively unpicturesque Dallas. Most international broadcasters made arrangements in other cities even before the opening game. Les Murray has said that SBS had very small budgets at the time and got a hotel room in San Francisco. They set up on the balcony with the Golden Gate Bridge as a backdrop.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

^^
ANZ stadium will be reconfigured for the World Cup, the ends will be brought in closer.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

I just wish they'd remove the proposal for the new Sydney stadium and propose a stadium for Wollongong or some other city interstate, like a down-sizable stadium for Hobart, Tasmania.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Lord David said:


> Oh? And what, having the Exhibition Centre both the new and old convention centre (which has a 5,000 seat auditorium), as well as the land surrounding the MCG, and all the indoor venues (Margret Court Arena (soon), Rod Laver and Hisense Arena), that could be used for various purposes, isn't enough?


I see what you are saying, but it was not exactly the point he made. I see this bid being based in Sydney, with 3 venues in the Sydney basin, and a 4th if you count Newcastle also. That will be the epicentre of the bid and the WC if it does come this way.

The ultimate deal to try and appease the NSW/VIC rivalry will likely be the WC Draw to be in Melbourne and the first match at the MCG. From then, Sydney will have the IBC and the Final, along with a brand new stadium. I see that, if the bid is won, the Blacktown stadium will be cancelled though and 1 other stadium will also be culled somewhere else, as mentioned before, to take it to 10 stadiums. There is no need for 12 venues. Blacktown is only there to sell the 'legacy' argument. 

It is a pity Etihad Stadium isnt part of the plans, but compromise was important to appease the other codes. Having a roofed stadium, in a Melbourne winter would have been great to see. By that stage, huge docklands works will have been made, so its a pity it will not be showcased.

Significant investments in improved stadia at Newcastle, Geelong, Canberra and Townsville, along with nearly rebuilt grounds in Adelaide and Perth will be made, all with tenants locked in afterwards. No white elephants, but also limited Football legacy. There will be no iconic new stadiums like in South Africa, but with that comes less worries afterwards as to the viability of what is left.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ I'd expect the WC draw to be in the Gold Coast to be honest, at one of the ritzy Casino Hotels, or at Canberra, all pomp and circumstance like in the Parliament's Great Hall. 1,000 peeps can be seated theater style there, is that enough?


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Lord David said:


> ^^ I'd expect the WC draw to be in the Gold Coast to be honest, at one of the ritzy Casino Hotels, or at Canberra, all pomp and circumstance like in the Parliament's Great Hall. 1,000 peeps can be seated theater style there, is that enough?


I only see it being in Melbourne or Sydney. There are more larger event spaces and it helps to try and appease the 2 largest partners in the bid , NSW and VIC. So will be interesting to see how it all transpires if it is won.

The Cape Town draw was in a fairly sizeable venue.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> It is a pity Etihad Stadium isnt part of the plans, but compromise was important to appease the other codes. Having a roofed stadium, in a Melbourne winter would have been great to see. By that stage, huge docklands works will have been made, so its a pity it will not be showcased.


If FIFA want Etihad, which absolutely makes sense in winter, FIFA will get Etihad. Full stop.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> The Cape Town draw was in a fairly sizeable venue.


*Post 50 high res images of the Cape Town Final Draw and Convention Centre here* 

Final Draw....how about that big opera house...in Sydney...seating capacity?

FIFA would love it.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

That's where I'd have it, the SOH. It's really either the SOH or the Melbourne Convention Centre?


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> If FIFA want Etihad, which absolutely makes sense in winter, FIFA will get Etihad. Full stop.


FIFA Won't get Etihad, sure it has a retractable roof, but who cares? It's not a finalized proposed venue, the AFL won't allow it an we already got the MCG as well as the fact that Sydney will propose 3 stadiums most likely.

Ok, so maybe you'd propose to swap the MCG in favor for Etihad, ok that's fine, the AFL will surely accept that, but that would most definitely rule out the final, let alone first match for Melbourne. Ya can't have both. Since when was a roof on stadiums an absolute requirement for cold weather bids?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lord David said:


> FIFA Won't get Etihad, sure it has a retractable roof, but who cares? It's not a finalized proposed venue, the AFL won't allow it an we already got the MCG as well as the fact that Sydney will propose 3 stadiums most likely.
> 
> Ok, so maybe you'd propose to swap the MCG in favor for Etihad, ok that's fine, the AFL will surely accept that, but that would most definitely rule out the final, let alone first match for Melbourne. Ya can't have both. Since when was a roof on stadiums an absolute requirement for cold weather bids?


I repeat.

If FIFA want Etihad, FIFA will get Etihad. Full stop.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

They may want, but they won't get it. And we're not swapping the MCG for it. Our bid currently has 1 roofed stadium proposal, what's the big deal of adding just another 1 in the bid? Any Australian city could be affected by rain and other similar weather during the winter period, yet your not proposing them to have roofs on their stadiums?

Weather concerns is just a risk one will have to take.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

So if I understand it correctly, they still think there is a chance of the AFL running during the World Cup in a host city?


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> So if I understand it correctly, they still think there is a chance of the AFL running during the World Cup in a host city?


Perhaps, but even if there is a stop. At most Etihad and other AFL venues will probably be out of action for 4 weeks. Even then there's nothing to say that matches could be held at alternate venues in cities that are not part of the bid, such as Darwin, Launceston or even having matches at regional cities in Melbourne's state, Victoria.

Having 4 weeks out, mind you is far more favorable than having 10 weeks out.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Mo Rush said:


> I repeat.
> 
> If FIFA want Etihad, FIFA will get Etihad. Full stop.


Last I heard the World Cup, FIFA are not a dictatorship, despite what most people think. 

Yes Australia may want to host, but not at any cost. For someone who doesn't follow AFL you can't imagine the passion and following it has. Fans here will not accept playing second fiddle to Soccer.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Calvin W said:


> Last I heard the World Cup, FIFA are not a dictatorship, despite what most people think.
> 
> Yes Australia may want to host, but not at any cost. For someone who doesn't follow AFL you can't imagine the passion and following it has. Fans here will not accept playing second fiddle to Soccer.


With all due respect to the AFL. For somebody who has seen the host city agreements and stadium use agreements FIFA makes a host city sign, the guarantees required nationally, and the ability of FIFA alongside sponsors to dictate the venues to be used or built....

I will repeat.

*If* FIFA wants Etihad, FIFA *will* get Etihad.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

*THEY WILL NOT GET ETIHAD!*

It's not included in the bid, it's to be used by the AFL, even if it takes a 4 week break at max. FIFA should, and will be sympathetic to other types of football or else it would create poor relations (if there aren't any already), with said codes. If FIFA didn't want the AFL, NRL or ARU involved or keep any stadiums for use during the WC, FIFA would have said so right from the beginning.

A compromise between the codes has been successfully made, an Oz bid has overcome the greatest hurdle, the last thing we want is tarnished relations just because FIFA wants Etihad (whether it would be with the MCG is uncertain, but could be possible) and it's just that sort of thinking from FIFA that would get the AFL guys very angry (even if nothing is finalized).

So no, FIFA will not get Etihad, the mere mentioning of the idea from FIFA is enough to strain relations between the FFA and AFL. The compromise is made which is enough. It's up to FIFA to decide who they want to host 2022. Then it's up to Australia and the FFA to select it's venues, not FIFA.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^um, it actually is up to FIFA, not the FFA and Australia (that is if we win the bid and sign on the dotted line).

As for Etihad Stadium, well yes it wasn't in the bid book as far as we know. FIFA does have a huge amount of control if the bidding nation accepts the conditions of winning the bid. I don't know the contract arrangements of the AFL and no doubt they have done their homework. All I can say is if Australia wins the bid for 2022 and FIFA want a 22 year old Melbourne Stadium in the mix then things could get a little messy, dare I say enough to see FIFA strip Australia of the WC and move it to the USA (all hypothetical). God knows I can see the Victorians ruining it for all of us


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I don't mind repeating it. I'm not repeating it for my own health. Only from the point of view of somebody who has copies of these FIFA contracts. Cape Town's new stadium and site was decided by FIFA and Coca-Cola.

*If *FIFA wants Etihad, FIFA *will *get Etihad. 

Incorrect. Its for FIFA and sponsors, alongside the LOC, not the FFA, to decide the final list of venues.


----------



## aus16 (May 25, 2009)

i believe the problem that the afl has/had with the world cup bid was the fact that if FIFA used etihad then it would be out of action for 8 weeks for signage and ground works etc rather than the 4 weeks the afl has now accepted as per FIFA's rule over other sports leagues during the world cup.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

aus16 said:


> i believe the problem that the afl has/had with the world cup bid was the fact that if FIFA used etihad then it would be out of action for 8 weeks for signage and ground works etc rather than the 4 weeks the afl has now accepted as per FIFA's rule over other sports leagues during the world cup.


FIFA needs *exclusive use* of the stadium from, assuming its in 2010, 24 May to about one week after the end of 11 July.

Before that, based on the state of the pitch, matches are allowed.

If the MCG is not used, the AFL would simply use the MCG from about 8 May if the stadium pitch is not looking too great.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> ^um, it actually is up to FIFA, not the FFA and Australia (that is if we win the bid and sign on the dotted line).
> 
> As for Etihad Stadium, well yes it wasn't in the bid book as far as we know. FIFA does have a huge amount of control if the bidding nation accepts the conditions of winning the bid. I don't know the contract arrangements of the AFL and no doubt they have done their homework. All I can say is if Australia wins the bid for 2022 and FIFA want a 22 year old Melbourne Stadium in the mix then things could get a little messy, dare I say enough to see FIFA strip Australia of the WC and move it to the USA (all hypothetical). God knows I can see the Victorians ruining it for all of us


What, because we refuse to give up Etihad? We're already giving up 2 stadiums in our state. FIFA should not sway us, I expect them to choose from the stadiums we're proposing, so there's no point of choosing Etihad if we're not even proposing it. Swapping it with the MCG will work but that would mean death for a Melbourne final or opening match.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

FIFA don't necessarily choose the venues based on what you "propose".

Without being rude, I'm not sure you understand yet. Its FIFA's world cup. FIFA will get what FIFA wants. If they want Etihad and the MCG they will get Etihad and the MCG.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.


----------



## AUboy (Nov 3, 2003)

I can reveal that the bid for Aus does include a 'rectangular MCG'. With a max distance between the pitch and the seating at 5m. That's all I know. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> FIFA don't necessarily choose the venues based on what you "propose".
> 
> Without being rude, I'm not sure you understand yet. Its FIFA's world cup. FIFA will get what FIFA wants. If they want Etihad and the MCG they will get Etihad and the MCG.
> 
> I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.


You can't because your not clear at all, it's our World Cup, whatever country is hosting it, it's theirs, FIFA is just the governing body, one doesn't claim that the Sydney 2000 Olympics was the IOC's now do you? It was our Olympics.

They will not get a stadium that's not even being put on the table.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lord David said:


> You can't because your not clear at all, it's our World Cup, whatever country is hosting it, it's theirs, FIFA is just the governing body, one doesn't claim that the Sydney 2000 Olympics was the IOC's now do you? It was our Olympics.
> 
> They will not get a stadium that's not even being put on the table.


*Incorrect.*
Its not your world Cup. Its *FIFA's *World Cup not Australia's World Cup but 2022 FIFA World Cup *in Australia.*

Australia is just an exhibition centre/hall FIFA rents to host FIFA's World Cup.

Thought I'd just let you know in advance.

FIFA will get what FIFA wants. South Africa, Germany and Brazil will know this.

Australia, if successful, will learn this too, in time.

Don't be so naive.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

The AFL doesn't have to give up both the MCG and Etihad stadium if they don't want to. We're lucky enough for them to say they'll give up the MCG, but there's no way in hell they will give up both. FIFA can't take it away from them, but they could take the WC from Australia... that's all.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Walbanger said:


> ^um, it actually is up to FIFA, not the FFA and Australia (that is if we win the bid and sign on the dotted line).
> 
> As for Etihad Stadium, well yes it wasn't in the bid book as far as we know. FIFA does have a huge amount of control if the bidding nation accepts the conditions of winning the bid. I don't know the contract arrangements of the AFL and no doubt they have done their homework. All I can say is if Australia wins the bid for 2022 and FIFA want a 22 year old Melbourne Stadium in the mix then things could get a little messy, dare I say enough to see FIFA strip Australia of the WC and move it to the USA (all hypothetical). God knows I can see the Victorians ruining it for all of us


That last comment is childish as can be. How will Victoria ruin the bid, when they have had to overcome the strongest sporting opposition already to get this far. The hard work has been done and a compromise reached. Theres likely more issues with WA, getting a stadium rebuilt with a government that did not want to spend the money on a new stadium, so is that also a risk of ruining it for everyone?

Really, stop the childish and unjustified remarks, because like it or not, Vic and NSW control this bid's success. Without it, the bid will not be in. Theres way too much anti-Victorian feeling in all forums.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

AUboy said:


> I can reveal that the bid for Aus does include a 'rectangular MCG'. With a max distance between the pitch and the seating at 5m. That's all I know. Make of that what you will.


That makes no sense at all, as that would mean huge works would be needed and that the venue is listed at 95,000 capacity for the bid? With a rectangular option, unless a moveable seating option (ie. Etihad Stadium) is built into the stadium, I can not see how the seating capcity would not be well over 100,000 (110-120,000). Maybe a revamped MCG is on the cards.

Just can not see how that will work. It sounds great though and will do a lot to dispell the rants about the MCG's suitability for Football.


----------



## AUboy (Nov 3, 2003)

This is specualtive, but it has always been the MCGs intention of putting in retractable seating. I have a feeling, as the old stand will be due for a reno anyway by '18 or '22, that they would install this. Otherwise, I'm not sure how they'd do it. There was talk of them putting temp seating in from the second tier all the way down to form a rectangular field of play. I think there may have been a render in here or something.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> FIFA don't necessarily choose the venues based on what you "propose".
> 
> Without being rude, I'm not sure you understand yet. Its FIFA's world cup. FIFA will get what FIFA wants. If they want Etihad and the MCG they will get Etihad and the MCG.
> 
> I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.


I can see what yo mean, especially after all the requirements that FIFA wanted in SA, particularly a new stadium in both Durban and Cape Town. The plans earlier were to use existing stadiums but SA's hands were tied and new stadiums were built instead. Although they look great, their viability is questionable after the WC, but FIFA do not care about that, as they did not pay for them.

In many ways though, you will not see Etihad being a suitable venue for a WC as it is too closely integrated into the surrounding area and would need major changes for security purposes. If FIFA wanted another venue in Melbourne, they would likely try and force the govt/FFA to come up with a plan for a new stadium here.

It all depends on the T & C's in the contact


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

AUboy said:


> This is specualtive, but it has always been the MCGs intention of putting in retractable seating. I have a feeling, as the old stand will be due for a reno anyway by '18 or '22, that they would install this. Otherwise, I'm not sure how they'd do it. There was talk of them putting temp seating in from the second tier all the way down to form a rectangular field of play. I think there may have been a render in here or something.


That could work, but apparently the agreement with the AFL is that the MCG can only be out of action for up to 10 weeks. To build any temporary structures of that size would take too long.

A revamped Southern Stand with rectangular seating (movable) and changes to the new stand would needed to mirror the changes on the other side would be needed. Hard to see how it would work. If the bid is won, thats when the real challenges come into their own and progress is made.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> So if I understand it correctly, they still think there is a chance of the AFL running during the World Cup in a host city?


Yes. The AFL here holds way too much power for its own good, controls the media and a lot of the corporate sponsorship spending. They do not care about the good of the country as a whole, just controlling everything they can. You would need to live here to see just how they operate.

If they are told to stop, all hell would break loose, as it would go against the bid agreement reached. Its understandable that if an agreement is reached that its a contract and to break it would not be a good move.

Could they stop for 4 weeks. Yes. Will they. No.

No government has the right to stop them, especially when they have the access rights to those venues to be used, including Subiaco and the MCG, along with their refusal to let Etihad be used. Any move to change that will become very messy. So FIFA would be best advised to follow what is agreed in the bid and all will be fine.


----------



## AUboy (Nov 3, 2003)

Melb_aviator said:


> That could work, but apparently the agreement with the AFL is that the MCG can only be out of action for up to 10 weeks. To build any temporary structures of that size would take too long.
> 
> A revamped Southern Stand with rectangular seating (movable) and changes to the new stand would needed to mirror the changes on the other side would be needed. Hard to see how it would work. If the bid is won, thats when the real challenges come into their own and progress is made.


This is a process that would take over a year to complete. Much like the new stand. Progressivly done to minimise disruption. Then if we get the WC, not much really needs to be changed in the lead up.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Melb_aviator said:


> That could work, but apparently the agreement with the AFL is that the MCG can only be out of action for up to 10 weeks. To build any temporary structures of that size would take too long.
> 
> A revamped Southern Stand with rectangular seating (movable) and changes to the new stand would needed to mirror the changes on the other side would be needed. Hard to see how it would work. If the bid is won, thats when the real challenges come into their own and progress is made.


I don't like the idea of a retractable stand, just renovate and move in new spectator seating at ground level and keep the oval shape, which will be considerably less in length and width, but still within AFL and Cricket minimum sizes. It's first and foremost a cricket oval, keep the iconic shape, whilst bringing fans closer for Soccer, and bringing more capacity for Aussie Rules.

You could easily get 120,000 odd spectators should you choose to build within and expand the Great Southern Stand outwards.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

AUboy said:


> This is a process that would take over a year to complete. Much like the new stand. Progressivly done to minimise disruption. Then if we get the WC, not much really needs to be changed in the lead up.


I can easily see an expanded Great Southern Stand outwards expansion (and new roof) done during the AFL season. As for ground level expansion, stands could potentially be partially constructed offsite, and placed therein after the AFL season, with perhaps works done during some of a cricket season too (which would warrant all Melbourne based cricket matches for that season to be played elsewhere, such as Etihad).

All could easily be done in a year or year and a half with the MCG still being operational for sports.

A new lower tier will probably have spectators coming in from ground level, whilst the ramps and stairs to ground level will be remodeled.


----------



## dysan1 (Dec 12, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> Yes. The AFL here holds way too much power for its own good, controls the media and a lot of the corporate sponsorship spending. They do not care about the good of the country as a whole, just controlling everything they can. You would need to live here to see just how they operate.
> 
> If they are told to stop, all hell would break loose, as it would go against the bid agreement reached. Its understandable that if an agreement is reached that its a contract and to break it would not be a good move.
> 
> ...



Try and tell Fifa that and there is no chance you will get the World Cup. They want all other sport to stop so that the focus is on the World Cup.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> I can see what yo mean, especially after all the requirements that FIFA wanted in SA, particularly a new stadium in both Durban and Cape Town. The plans earlier were to use existing stadiums but SA's hands were tied and new stadiums were built instead. Although they look great, their viability is questionable after the WC, but FIFA do not care about that, as they did not pay for them.
> 
> In many ways though, you will not see Etihad being a suitable venue for a WC as it is too closely integrated into the surrounding area and would need major changes for security purposes. If FIFA wanted another venue in Melbourne, they would likely try and force the govt/FFA to come up with a plan for a new stadium here.
> 
> It all depends on the T & C's in the contact


Etihad has a retractable roof, which makes it instantly ideal for a World Cup in winter. FIFA are certainly not blind to that. It also takes the pressure off HBS and broadcasters and just hosting 5-8 matches in general.

Docklands Park and a few open sites around the stadium would be fine for the additional space/tents etc. that FIFA required.

Perhaps temporarily using the harbour esplanade.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> Etihad has a retractable roof, which makes it instantly ideal for a World Cup in winter. FIFA are certainly not blind to that. It also takes the pressure off HBS and broadcasters and just hosting 5-8 matches in general.
> 
> Docklands Park and a few open sites around the stadium would be fine for the additional space/tents etc. that FIFA required.
> 
> Perhaps temporarily using the harbour esplanade.


It might be ideal as it has a roof, but it is not part of the bid and will not be part of the WC if it comes to Australia.

The AFL dont just roll over and give up, as they have shown and as annoying as it is. They hold the rights contract as I have said before and as such, it is not FIFA's to use. 

As I said earlier, you may not know how the dynamics of sport work here, so its hard to judge just how difficult any changes to this bid will be, if they effect other codes. Thats why this peace deal was reached in the first place. Melbourne has the MCG and Geelong in the bid. If any other stadium in Melbourne is to be used, it will be and upgraded AAMI Park, with the help of federal $.

This is Sydney's WC bid in all reality, but spreads some outside to other cities. It will be firmly centred in many ways there so they rest of the country will just deal with the fact we will get small pieces of it, but the spotlight will centre mainly on Sydney. Just the way it always is.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Mo rush makes some good points and ultimately illustrates one of the major problems for a world cup in Australia, which is: Australia has not enough stadiums to go around for both a world cup and a domestic afl competition at the same time. The fact that there's already squabbling over etihad illustrates this point. AFL need one of the mcg or etihad, FIFA and the FFA probably need both, or at least need both unused for too long for the AFL's liking. In reality, this will probably mean FIFA will go to some other country without this issue. Sad but true folks!


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Richo83 said:


> Mo rush makes some good points and ultimately illustrates one of the major problems for a world cup in Australia, which is: Australia has not enough stadiums to go around for both a world cup and a domestic afl competition at the same time. The fact that there's already squabbling over etihad illustrates this point. AFL need one of the mcg or etihad, FIFA and the FFA probably need both, or at least need both unused for too long for the AFL's liking. In reality, this will probably mean FIFA will go to some other country without this issue. Sad but true folks!


FIFA and FFA in all reality do not need both the MCG and Etihad as Sydney already has 2 (possibly 3 if Blacktown goes ahead) stadiums in the bid. There usually is not 2 stadiums in 2 cities. There is no need for a new stadium to be built in Melbourne in place of Etihad as Geelong was substituted in as Victoria's 2nd venue. It is a pity that cities like Ballarat or Bendigo are not bigger so that they could get a legacy out of this too.

As much as Mo Rush makes some valid points about FIFA and its ways, which I am aware of, a bid is a bid,and this one included binding contractual arrangements, appeasing all codes and getting the required amount of stadiums in it. Where is the confusion with that?


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> Mo rush makes some good points and ultimately illustrates one of the major problems for a world cup in Australia, which is: Australia has not enough stadiums to go around for both a world cup and a domestic afl competition at the same time. The fact that there's already squabbling over etihad illustrates this point. AFL need one of the mcg or etihad, FIFA and the FFA probably need both, or at least need both unused for too long for the AFL's liking. In reality, this will probably mean FIFA will go to some other country without this issue. Sad but true folks!


Not necessarily, the agreement with the codes has been made, it's up to the codes to sort out how it would go about a 2022 season. Mind you a lot can happen by then, why the AFL could easily have a 3rd Melbourne based stadium up and running, or a resurrected old one. Alternatively, hopping interstate to Launceston could be an option. Likewise, one can expect more interstate games during the period WC stadiums are unavailable in cities like Darwin and Canberra. The main problem I can see for the AFL would be Perth, could both Perth teams and both Adelaide teams play out of Adelaide's AAMI Stadium? I'd probably think that Perth would need a stadium during the WC, perhaps a temporary one using the compensation money from the FFA and Government.

As for NRL, they can easily play at the smaller grounds (for Sydney based teams) as well as use the Sydney venue not selected for the WC and like the AFL, more games at regional cities. Melbourne Storm has no problems with AAMI Park, Queensland teams could play at the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre in Brisbane and at Skilled Park in the Gold Coast.

It's not an issue for FIFA, but for the codes, they will work around the handicap and host more games elsewhere, at most they could expect a 4 week break, during the WC, but still be able to play during the other 6 weeks.
Personally, I'd like to see the codes being played during the WC, a chance for foreigners to get an experience of local football that's not round.

Oh, and they're not squabbling over Etihad, that issue is done and dusted, FIFA won't be getting Etihad.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lord David said:


> Oh, and they're not squabbling over Etihad, that issue is done and dusted, FIFA won't be getting Etihad.


For the 5th time I think.

If FIFA *want* Etihad, FIFA *will* get Etihad.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> As much as Mo Rush makes some valid points about FIFA and its ways, which I am aware of, a bid is a bid,and this one included binding contractual arrangements, appeasing all codes and getting the required amount of stadiums in it. Where is the confusion with that?


The stadium use and host city agreements for 2010 were only signed in 2006. Enough time for FIFA to get Etihad, IF they want it.

Its a simple case of sign the document or no host city status.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> It might be ideal as it has a roof, but it is not part of the bid and will not be part of the WC if it comes to Australia.
> 
> The AFL dont just roll over and give up, as they have shown and as annoying as it is. They hold the rights contract as I have said before and as such, it is not FIFA's to use.
> 
> is.


What parts of the bid is part of the bid and stays part of the bid.
Its not exactly the host city venues or stadia when Australia hosts.

The AFL might not roll over, but the alternative would be to take on FIFA and come second best.

*IF *FIFA want Etihad, FIFA will get Etihad. Will FIFA want it? Its possible they would want a retractable roof during winter. If they don't want it, then they will not ask for it.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

But FIFA doesn't want a stadium that isn't being proposed. Even if FIFA did, we'd be politely saying no, it's unavailable. Alternatively, Melbourne already has the MCG, swapping it for a mere roofed Etihad would spell death on any opener or finals hopes. Having both is out of the question as Sydney will be the one getting 2 venues.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Melb_aviator said:


> FIFA and FFA in all reality do not need both


That's not mo rush's point, mo's point is that if FIFA feel that Etihad is in the best stadiums of Australia (and it is, considering it's 50k+ and has a roof) and they demand it, either FFA give them it (and take away pretty much every Victorian stadium from the AFL) or they don't, and FIFA takes its business elsewhere. And anyway, Etihad is better than any second stadium of Sydney, for starters, it has a roof, secondly, it's bigger. Until Sydney builds another 55k+ fully roofed stadium (heh) the FIFA should require of two stadiums from Melbourne, not one.

What other country wouldn't be willing to give one of their best stadiums to the world cup? Not many. 

@ Lord David, a third stadium in Melbourne can't, as of yet, be relied upon, currently it's a pipe dream. And mo is right, if FIFA gaze over Australia's newest 40k+ stadium with all it's bells and whistles (modern corporate facilities, near to transport links and accommodation, next to the city, fully retractable roof) and say yes please, are we comfortable enough to say, "erm, well, there's this regional code that not only wants to run during the world cup but use that stadium you want, so sorry"? They'd probably ask how fair dinkum we are about running the world cup. The biggest event in sport and we're not willing to give up a stadium for a domestic yearly competition, that's how it's going to look.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

And what? the MCG doesn't have these things? Ok so no retractable roof and non convertible, big deal. And what bells and whistles? Your looking at a 23 year old stadium in Etihad by 2022. 

We've done our bit to get 6 stadiums out of the AFL, Melbourne won't be getting 2 stadiums and that's a given.

The FFA have respected the AFL and is getting the better end of the bargain so to speak, FIFA should respect such things, in acknowledgment that there's other parties and sporting codes to please. They should if they want a WC in Australia.

Alternatively we could be very sneaky about it and not mention Etihad altogether, and when FIFA does their inspection of Melbourne and say "is that a stadium of WC capacity" we'll just go, "What? That's not a stadium!"  No one would be the wiser! 

Everyone keeps talking about capacity, yeesh. The minimum is 40,000 (or 44,000 depending on what you think is correct) for a reason. No point having a 50,000 plus stadium with a retractable roof for that Ghana vs North Korea game that'll just sell an odd 10,000 or so spectator seats. It's not like we're China that would probably make "fan clubs" in a futile effort to have much matches with high attendance just to break records and to show less empty stadiums on TV.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Richo83 said:


> That's not mo rush's point, mo's point is that if FIFA feel that Etihad is in the best stadiums of Australia (and it is, considering it's 50k+ and has a roof) and they demand it, either FFA give them it (and take away pretty much every Victorian stadium from the AFL) or they don't, and FIFA takes its business elsewhere.
> 
> look.


of FIFA go to the government who signs all the guarantees and makes them take it.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lord David said:


> But FIFA doesn't want a stadium that isn't being proposed. Even if FIFA did, we'd be politely saying no, it's unavailable. Alternatively, Melbourne already has the MCG, swapping it for a mere roofed Etihad would spell death on any opener or finals hopes. Having both is out of the question as Sydney will be the one getting 2 venues.


How do you know what FIFA wants? We will only know once Australia wins and only when the host cities are decided and only when the stadium and host city agreements are signed.

"Not mention Etihad"....FIFA has a highly reputable stadium technical team...and after all the rain Cape Town matches will experience in 2010, Etihad will stand out like a sore thumb.

For the 2nd time, FIFA do not select stadia from the ones presented.
Cape Town presented 3 stadia to FIFA, 1 of them in the bid book.

The bid book is there to show technical strength, hence the inclusion of Newlands, Kings Park, in South Africa's bid book.

The final set of host cities and venues will be decided by FIFA.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> How do you know what FIFA wants? We will only know once Australia wins and only when the host cities are decided and only when the stadium and host city agreements are signed.
> 
> "Not mention Etihad"....FIFA has a highly reputable stadium technical team...and after all the rain Cape Town matches will experience in 2010, Etihad will stand out like a sore thumb.
> 
> ...


Just shows how stupid the whole bidding process is to be honest if what you present, with all its costings and other agreements with other codes, are just ripped up and they do their own thing. Stupid notion.

What you put on the table as your bid is what is agreed on afterall.

I understand what you are saying though Mo. Don't get me wrong about that, it is just the point that its a very different sporting landscape here than South Africa and things will need to be done a lot more carefully by all parties in Australia's case if the bid is won. Certain organisations do not just roll over and do as they are told by others and massive amounts of payments will need to be made if seasons are cancelled or if use agreements are overridden. Thats the point I am making. So yes, FIFA might indeed want Etihad. Opening a can of worms will just be the outcome.

That my friend is my final point of the topic. Full stop.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ That Etihad comment was a joke! Besides, we'll just cover the stadium part and call it Etihad Headquarters Australia. Or something like that. 

FIFA won't be getting Etihad if it's unavailable, end of story. FIFA will be selecting stadiums from the ones we propose. So what if South Africa has more stadiums of varying sorts or has the money to build some? 

The final set of host cities and venues will indeed by decided by FIFA based on what we propose. There will not be any Etihad, the agreement has been made with the AFL, the last thing we want is to alienate them come WC time when we say "ooh, FIFA wants Etihad, could we have that too?" Having both Etihad and MCG is a no chance because it's rightfully Sydney that'll get 2 stadiums (why they're proposing 3 stadiums) and if the whole inclusion of stadiums in a bid because of technical strength were to come in play, then Melbourne would have proposed AAMI Park in a 50,000 seater upgraded capacity.

FIFA doesn't need Etihad, nor does an Australian WC to be honest, we can do fine with the stadiums we have proposed.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> of FIFA go to the government who signs all the guarantees and makes them take it.


Not if the Government don't wholly own the stadium, which I do believe they do not, they own the MCG. Had the MCG been ruled out, then yes, they could take it off the AFL's hands if forced to.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Guh?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lord David said:


> ^^
> FIFA won't be getting Etihad if it's unavailable, end of story. FIFA will be selecting stadiums from the ones we propose. So what if South Africa has more stadiums of varying sorts or has the money to build s.


Lots to learn. All in good time though, when Australia win.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> What you put on the table as your bid is what is agreed on afterall.


The bid process like the IOC process is to WIN, to illustrate technical strength and "know-how".


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Lord David said:


> And what? the MCG doesn't have these things? Ok so no retractable roof and non convertible, big deal. And what bells and whistles? Your looking at a 23 year old stadium in Etihad by 2022.


Retractable roofs are nothing to sneeze at, especially given the world cup would be in our winter and Melbourne has variable weather. As for 23 years, that's not that old. In 12 years time, etihad is still going to be one of our best stadiums for major sports events. And etihad isn't getting any further from the cbd. Having two stadiums walking distance from the cbd is an impressive thing.



Lord David said:


> They should if they want a WC in Australia.


But do they? As mo rush says, FIFA merely look at the nations as hosting areas, not to mention areas of the expansion of the code. Push comes to shove, I doubt FIFA care that much that they can't have it in Australia if they can't have their showpiece event the way they want it. I mean it's not like Australia is a huge untapped market, at 21mil, we're chicken feed.



Lord David said:


> Alternatively we could be very sneaky about it and not mention Etihad altogether, and when FIFA does their inspection of Melbourne and say "is that a stadium of WC capacity" we'll just go, "What? That's not a stadium!"  No one would be the wiser!


Heh! But while quite funny, and in some ways I hope FIFA doesn't demand etihad for an Australian world cup and AFL's sake, I'm sure they'll look at this oval shaped building, which is clearly a stadium (oval shaped, tickets boxes, adorned with sporting info) and ask, que? I mean I'm not sure lying to FIFA to their face would go down well, especially in protecting another domestic sport which aims to play throughout or close to the world cup.



Lord David said:


> Everyone keeps talking about capacity, yeesh. The minimum is 40,000 (or 44,000 depending on what you think is correct) for a reason. No point having a 50,000 plus stadium with a retractable roof for that Ghana vs North Korea game that'll just sell an odd 10,000 or so spectator seats.


It's not about that, it's about having the largest stadiums possible for their biggest event (fair as well) with retractable roof. I mean yes NK V Ghana, but what about say Italy V Mexico? You'd want the biggest stadium possible.

Another thing you've got to remember is that without etihad, we'd probably choose sfs, but given it rains alot in Sydney during winter, sfs is 13k smaller and sfs doesn't really have a roof, etihad looks even better.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Richo83 said:


> ...
> Another thing you've got to remember is that without etihad, we'd probably choose sfs, but given it rains alot in Sydney during winter, sfs is 13k smaller and sfs doesn't really have a roof, etihad looks even better.



On average, it rains quite a few more days in Melbourne in winter than Sydney.


----------



## Matthew Lowry (Dec 23, 2009)

*Which city in Australia will get the next olympics.*

Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth or Sydney.


----------



## Matthew Lowry (Dec 23, 2009)

Brisbane 2028.
Brisbane and srounds have hosted the 1982 and soon 2018 Commonwelath games. The 1988 world fair and the 2001 good will games.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

well of course you would say Brisbane
 :lol:


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Brisbane isn't hosting 2018 Commonwealth Games, GC is bidding for it.

Melbourne, it'd be the most profitable out of all of them. And is the Worlds Sporting Capital.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Melbourne. I wouldn't be surprised if Brisbane puts their hands up for 2024 or 2028 (forget Hobart 2020), and Melbourne steps in and puts forward a very strong case for the AOC. Then the AOC votes between Brisbane or Melbourne to who gets to bid first, and goes with it. Should a bid fail, the other city would bid for the next one.

That being said, Melbourne is currently in the lead and more capable of hosting than Brisbane.

Forget Sydney, Perth is a remote chance, if one could fit an athletics track in their new proposed stadium, or if they build a new one.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Probably Melbourne; if not that, Brisbane.

Perth is waaaaay too isolated.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

although Brisbane will probably put their name into the hat first, I suspect that a Melbourne bid, say 2028, will acheive much greater success



Matthew Lowry said:


> Brisbane 2028.
> Brisbane and srounds have hosted the 1982 and soon 2018 Commonwelath games. The 1988 world fair and the 2001 good will games.


hmm, how about an olympics, a commonwealth games, a world swimming championship, an annual grand slam tennis tournament, a grand prix, a horse race, 9 afl teams, 2 a-league teams, a rugby league team, a rugby union team, a netball team and a basketball team
slightly more than a goodwill games, eh?

and matthew, didn't you say you were taking an 8 month break from SSC, if so that's the quickest 8 months of my life


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> Perth is waaaaay too isolated


Why does that matter?

Anyway Perth is growing at a similar rate to Brisbane but doesn't have the extra regional population outside the metro area like Brisbane to entertain a bid in the next 30 years. I imagine the earliest Perth could entertain the idea of bidding would be mid century. Though one could argue a case for Perth to host before Brisbane considering Perth can justify the building and legacy of a 70 000+ stadium which can fit an Athletics track over Brisbane (Perth prefering Australian Football while Brisbane prefers Rugby League). We also have better weather .


----------



## swifty78 (Nov 10, 2002)

I vote Matthews bedroom cos the IOC told him that.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

swifty78 said:


> I vote Matthews bedroom cos the IOC told him that.


damn, why isn't that an option on the poll :lol:


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

There would be no legacy to a Melbourne Olympics - Melbourne already has sports infrastructure up the yin-yang. Brisbane will badly need world class sports infrastructure and the IOC loves a legacy.

Besides, the AOC have already been very vocal in their support for Brisbane and Brisbane only.


----------



## fox1 (Apr 27, 2003)

Matthew Lowry said:


> Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth or Sydney.


my guess is Melbourne 2056.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

As an outsider I'd love to see Melbourne host. But as has been pointed out, the legacy argument isn't as strong as for other cities. It's a wonderfully safe bet for the IOC if it is put forward though.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

A big issue for Melbourne is the weather.Modern Olympics have to be held between June-Sep.Gone are the days when Olympics were held in November(Melb 1956).
The AOC have expressed concern before about a Melbourne Olympics in September.It is just way too cold and way too wet. 
I have no doubt the next city on the bidding list for the AOC is Brisbane.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

^

I hate to dissapoint but at that time Brisbane is also unbearable as it's quite humid.

On legacy that is a downfall but if there was to be some unsuccesful olympics then there'd be a safe bet Melbourne would work.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Melbourne or Brisbane.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Solopop said:


> ^
> 
> I hate to dissapoint but at that time Brisbane is also unbearable as it's quite humid.
> 
> On legacy that is a downfall but if there was to be some unsuccesful olympics then there'd be a safe bet Melbourne would work.


You have obviously never been to Brisbane in August or September.
Its certainly not humid in Brisbane at that time of year.It will be ideal.Around 25 degrees C ,low humidity and low rainfall.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

swifty78 said:


> I vote Matthews bedroom cos the IOC told him that.





TheoG said:


> damn, why isn't that an option on the poll :lol:


Matthew doesn't have a bedroom, he lives in the couch downstairs.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

ExSydney said:


> You have obviously never been to Brisbane in August or September.
> Its certainly not humid in Brisbane at that time of year.It will be ideal.Around 25 degrees C ,low humidity and low rainfall.


Acctualy I have and it's always so sticky and humid.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Brisbane isn't unbearably humid in August/September. It's December/January which is the killer...


----------



## swifty78 (Nov 10, 2002)

I take it Solopop is very anti Brisbane lol


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

Lord David said:


> Matthew doesn't have a bedroom, he lives in the couch downstairs.


Not sure, I think he sleeps hanging upside down on tree branches like bats


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

TheoG said:


> Not sure, I think he sleeps hanging upside down on tree branches like bats


Why not GEELONG for Summer Games ?:lol::lol::lol:

What a stupid thread?


----------



## Matthew Lowry (Dec 23, 2009)

The Olympic must be in February or June to mid October
2028 Brisbane
2056 Melbourne

1952 Olympics in Helsinki, Finland was the coldest summer olympics and
1994 Lillehammer was the coldest winter olympics.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

The fact is that most of the Southern Hemisphere is always on the backfoot when it comes to global events like these. The events are based on Northern Hemisphere time frames and only very limited amounts of cities in the South can think about hosting events in their preferred times.

The WC in SA and an Australian bid are perfect examples of this, as they are in winter and are not the preferred time of the year that these countries would like to hold an event. They are forced to though and need to do their best, in often less desirable weather than they would like.

BNE is our best bet for an July-Aug timeframe games though.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

I voted Perth just because I had a great experience last time I was there. Dont think they have a chance to get it. In the end its probably going to be Melbourne, but I think Brisbane could definitely host it. Lets change it up a bit.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Melb_aviator said:


> The fact is that most of the Southern Hemisphere is always on the backfoot when it comes to global events like these. The events are based on Northern Hemisphere time frames and only very limited amounts of cities in the South can think about hosting events in their preferred times.
> 
> The WC in SA and an Australian bid are perfect examples of this, as they are in winter and are not the preferred time of the year that these countries would like to hold an event. They are forced to though and need to do their best, in often less desirable weather than they would like.
> 
> BNE is our best bet for an July-Aug timeframe games though.


That's the thing, Brisbane could host the olympics in the middle of our winter and still have comparable temperatures to what some parts of N.A or Europe are experiencing . If our athletes have to adjust to their summer when IRS our winter, they should do the same


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Sydney 2000 was held at the latest time possible for an Olympic Games(15th Sep-1st Oct)

An Olympic Games in Melbourne at this time would be a weather nightmare!
Last year on these same days it rained 10 out of the 16 days,hardly got over 20deg,3 days under 15deg and was lucky to get much more than 4 hours of sunshine a day.

It would be a disaster.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> That's the thing, Brisbane could host the olympics in the middle of our winter and still have comparable temperatures to what some parts of N.A or Europe are experiencing . If our athletes have to adjust to their summer when IRS our winter, they should do the same


True..
A Brisbane Olympics in August will be warmer and drier Olympics than London 2012 in August!


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

I vote Melbourne


----------



## nyc55david (Jun 24, 2010)

*HOBART - Design Competition (Various) - 2020 OLYMPICS*

Guys not sure if this is allowed, please delete if it isn't.

The Hobart 2020 Olympic Bid is running a design competition for proposed stadiums and arenas, see the media release below and for more information and how to enter please click here




> For immediate release Monday 21st June 2010
> 
> *HOBART 2020 OLYMPIC BID ANNOUNCES NATIONWIDE DESIGN COMPETITON *
> 
> ...


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

sorry dude, but Tassie is way too small to host an Olympics

its debatable whether or not you are big enough to sustain an AFL side, how could you justify the infrastructure an olympics needs?


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

T74 said:


> sorry dude, but Tassie is way too small to host an Olympics
> 
> its debatable whether or not you are big enough to sustain an AFL side, how could you justify the infrastructure an olympics needs?


I can honestly see this working. In a weird sort of way I think that Tassie could pull it off. The main stadium could be downsized/reconfigured for AFL after the games and most other venues could be as well.

Imagine sailing of the southern coast? The marathon, along the coastline. Cycling, etc.

Plus Melbourne could host some events.

Go Tasmania!


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Calvin W said:


> I can honestly see this working. In a weird sort of way I think that Tassie could pull it off. The main stadium could be downsized/reconfigured for AFL after the games and most other venues could be as well.
> 
> Imagine sailing of the southern coast? The marathon, along the coastline. Cycling, etc.
> 
> ...


Hobart only has about only 220,000 - the entire state 500,000

even downsized, they would be left with multiple sporting and exhibition stadia well beyond their organic needs.

add to this I doubt the Tas Govt would have the capacity to fund it

Finally you have anciliary resources. Things like hotels would not be geared to handle the volumes needed for an Olympics.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tassie, and enjoy going down there. But an Olympics would be too big for them


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Hobart hosting the Olympics is as big of a left field idea as Qatar hosting the WC on its own. It just will not happen. Unless somehow Global warming happens and a huge increase in population to around 2 million, no chance at all.


----------



## jacoboy7 (Feb 8, 2009)

Sorry, don't mean to criticise, but I dont see this happening in the slightest.

And I doubt it ever will...I don't think Hobart can grow its population to a sustainable level for the Olympics tbh.

But defiantly the Commonwealth Games


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Melb_aviator said:


> Hobart hosting the Olympics is as big of a left field idea as Qatar hosting the WC on its own. It just will not happen. Unless somehow Global warming happens and a huge increase in population to around 2 million, no chance at all.


How dare you say that about Qatar! 

Whats wrong with 6-8 40,000 + stadia in one city!

You are anti Arab!


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> How dare you say that about Qatar!
> 
> Whats wrong with 6-8 40,000 + stadia in one city!
> 
> You are anti Arab!


I know .. I must be ... Theres no way I can be speaking with any kind of common sense if I say that 

I love the Arab world .. Just do not see how Qatar can host such a big event alone. Hobart should look at a Commonwealth games at most and even thats too far at present.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

I hope you all realise that the Hobart bid is literally a joke. It's not serious, it's just for fun. It's just 2 radio jocks trying to see how far they can make this thing go. There is no official bid because the AOC isn't bidding. National Olympic Committees bid for the Games, not cities.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Sportsfan said:


> I hope you all realise that the Hobart bid is literally a joke. It's not serious, it's just for fun. It's just 2 radio jocks trying to see how far they can make this thing go. There is no official bid because the AOC isn't bidding. National Olympic Committees bid for the Games, not cities.


according to the news reports, it started as a joke but now they reckon it could happen

you are right on the last point though, and the AOC has flagged Brisbane off memory as our likely next candidate whenever we can be bothered rebidding


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Sportsfan said:


> I hope you all realise that the Hobart bid is literally a joke. It's not serious, it's just for fun. It's just 2 radio jocks trying to see how far they can make this thing go. There is no official bid because the AOC isn't bidding. National Olympic Committees bid for the Games, not cities.


Cities bid for games, it's the national olympic committee that puts forward the city's proposal. They choose if the city bid is to go ahead or not, they then work with the city to put forward an IOC compliant bid.


----------



## Sonrise (Oct 20, 2009)

T74 said:


> Hobart only has about only 220,000 - the entire state 500,000
> 
> even downsized, they would be left with multiple sporting and exhibition stadia well beyond their *organic* needs.
> 
> ...


"organic needs" Seriously? You could've just said needs. hno:


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Sonrise said:


> "organic needs" Seriously? You could've just said needs. hno:


I mean the normal demands assuming no population increase beyond what is happening at the moment (which is not great)

at the moment its unlikely Hobart will become a tourist mecca, it is not attracting a high immigrant pop, and there is minimum relocation from the mainland. As such, unless something dramatic happens on the mainland, their pop is unlikely rise much beyond current growth levels


----------



## Sonrise (Oct 20, 2009)

T74 said:


> I mean the normal demands assuming no population increase beyond what is happening at the moment (which is not great)
> 
> *at the moment its unlikely Hobart will become a tourist mecca, *it is not attracting a high immigrant pop, and there is minimum relocation from the mainland. As such, unless something dramatic happens on the mainland, their pop is unlikely rise much beyond current growth levels


I've always wondered why Hobart and Tasmania in general hasn't been "pushed" more as a tourist destination; it seems like a natural choice.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Sonrise said:


> I've always wondered why Hobart and Tasmania in general hasn't been "pushed" more as a tourist destination; it seems like a natural choice.


I actually like it, but you really only want to go there in summer - pretty chilly and unappealing in winter, and lacks the ski fields of New Zealand


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Lord David said:


> Cities bid for games, it's the national olympic committee that puts forward the city's proposal. They choose if the city bid is to go ahead or not, they then work with the city to put forward an IOC compliant bid.


It is still up to the NOC if it puts the city forward or not. If the NOC does not agree, it doesn't matter how badly a city wants to host the Games.

Once again, no offence to Hobart, but there is no way there will ever be an official bid. The AOC will never agree.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Sportsfan said:


> It is still up to the NOC if it puts the city forward or not. If the NOC does not agree, it doesn't matter how badly a city wants to host the Games.
> 
> Once again, no offence to Hobart, but there is no way there will ever be an official bid. The AOC will never agree.


Be willing to bet that if Hobart puts the only application in, the AOC would back it.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Calvin W said:


> Be willing to bet that if Hobart puts the only application in, the AOC would back it.


Not necessarily - Australia likes to think it goes in as one of the favourites when we bid for a Games

unless the city is likely to have a good chance of winning, I dare say the AOC will back no-one


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Calvin W said:


> Be willing to bet that if Hobart puts the only application in, the AOC would back it.


It just isn't a viable bid. Let it go. The AOC knowS that the IOC will never go for it.

IT'S NOT A SERIOUS BID - IT HAS NO GOVERNMENT BACKING AT LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL - HOBART WILL NEVER HAVE THE NUMBER OF HOTEL ROOMS REQUIRED OF A HOST CITY (BED AND BREAKFASTS DON'T COUNT AND EVEN THEN) - AND ITS NOT A SERIOUS BID - IT'S A RADIO STUNT!


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

Calvin W said:


> Be willing to bet that if Hobart puts the only application in, the AOC would back it.


No they woulden't. 

The AOC has already canned the idea of an Australian bid (Melbourne or Brisbane) for 2020 - Australia will not follow the same path as Spain with Madrid. 

Besides, the AOC has already endorsed the Australia 2022 World Cup bid. 

The earliest I can see us bidding is 2024 or 2028, and it will be Melbourne or Brisbane.

I can't believe we are even debating this.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

_X_ said:


> Its not a good enough excuse though considering GWS hasn't played a game in their own city yet and if they want to try and build support for AFL in surely the least AFL friendly part of the country then they can't afford to play home games in another city


GWS are targeting that part of NSW in addition to western Sydney are their catchment of supporters

could be a smart move - southern NSW has always had decent support for the AFL, and the Kangas stuffed up their work there

in any case, a new stadium is the best option for the rubgy/league teams, and it is the cities best hope of eventually attracting a new a-league team eventually

a redevelopment would have been far from ideal IMO


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

T74 said:


> GWS are targeting that part of NSW in addition to western Sydney are their catchment of supporters
> 
> could be a smart move - southern NSW has always had decent support for the AFL, and the Kangas stuffed up their work there
> 
> ...


But you can hardly expect Governments to fund 3 stadiums (Showgrounds,Blacktown and Canberra)in 2 cities for a team and a market that doesn't even exist at the moment.
Surely a GWS team would need a large FULL membership base in Sydney and consistently good crowds of PAYING customers first before they demand a different Territory Government spend millions and millions for what might amount to 2 games a year.
It makes absolutely no sense


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

_X_ said:


> But you can hardly expect Governments to fund 3 stadiums (Showgrounds,Blacktown and Canberra)in 2 cities for a team and a market that doesn't even exist at the moment.
> Surely a GWS team would need a large FULL membership base in Sydney and consistently good crowds of PAYING customers first before they demand a different Territory Government spend millions and millions for what might amount to 2 games a year.
> It makes absolutely no sense


just read up on this - Blacktown is now just the training facility.

I know this is different to NRL (where many teams are still based where they play), but its pretty typical in AFL for the team to be based at a smaller ground with little to no stadium. This way the teams can train 6 days a week without causing any issues to the playing surface (JFYI teams are only allowed to train on the MCG or Etihad once in a blue moon).

Looking at the website (http://www.blacktownolympicpark.com.au/) it seems Blacktown is now only going to have a 10k capacity, with only 1500 being seated. This is way below what is needed for an AFL H&A season match day venue.

As for Canberra, their govt has been pushing for more AFL footy in that town, so if thats what they want, and they can take advantage of the NRL/WC upgrade cheaply, all luck to them. For what its worth, once its done I'd be expecting a Melbourne team to also be playing there once or twice a year against GWS/Sydney too (similar to the arrangement in Darwin).


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

www.act4gws.com.au


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

And how does a commitment of $30,000 possibly equate to millions more taxpayers dollars going on what will at best be 4 games per year against the high flyers-Gold Coast,Fremantle,Port Adelaide and North Melbourne every year?
I can understand 1 stadium,I can't understand 3-not for a team thats never played


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

_X_ said:


> And how does a commitment of $30,000 possibly equate to millions more taxpayers dollars going on what will at best be 4 games per year against the high flyers-Gold Coast,Fremantle,Port Adelaide and North Melbourne every year?
> I can understand 1 stadium,I can't understand 3-not for a team thats never played


its not three - once again Blacktown is a training facility and its already there

it has a stadium with a massive 1500 seats - my nannas backyard has more, so stop saying its three - the expansion of blacktown is not happening with the showgrounds now going ahead


----------



## LiamO (Jul 29, 2010)

Read a few of the posts in this thread.

IF Australia does recieve the rights to host the FIFA WC. I think SFS should be upgraded to 55k. And just general upgrades to corporate facilities etc;

Suncorp (difficult I know) should be upgraded, major redevelopment. It will be 19 years old since the upgrade, and by this time bidding will commence for Suncorp to host the NRL Grand Final. So a capacity of around 60-70k (for 70k temp seating could be option).

As for the final, in my opinion. I think ANZ Stadium should get it. None of this MCG stuff. ANZ should be converted to a rectangular field full time. It's exactly what is needed. As AFL now have their own little boutique ground. No point having it as an Oval anymore IMO. As AFL will not take over. ANZ with the roof, and say a capacity of 90k will please FIFA as you could charge a hell of a lot more $$$ for tickets then you could at the MCG. It's also Sydney.

For Melbourne to be classified as the Sporting Capital of the world is ridiculous. Sure you have some top quality stadiums. AAMI Park could have been done for 200 Million without a fancy roof. Now it's not even able to be used for a FIFA WC. Ethiad will probably not be accessible during this period. Which leaves the MCG, which I have watched Football and Rugby at the stadium, and it is dreadful absolutely dreadful to watch any sport apart from AFL and Cricket. I don't want to bait you Melbourne folk, but Melbourne has 2 regular successful sports. Cricket and AFL. Soccer is halfway there. Sydney have a successful Football team, more to come within the area, lots of successful NRL teams, and a Rugby team which hosts huge International matches, as well as an AFL team another one on the way. Of course I somehow hope Suncorp gets the final  but I know that's just not going to happen. Sadly the joke of a RL WC (can I say World?) Final is all we get.

Fingers crossed Australia gets the bid.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Branding Melbourne as Sporting Capital of the world simply because of our stadiums is only partly true. We regularly host major sporting events such as the Australian Tennis Open, Formula One, Boxing Day Cricket Test, Moto GP, just to name a few.

We have the National Sports Museum which is in the MCG itself.

We've got an excellent exhibition and convention complex adjacent to the CBD and near the MCG so all your broadcasting infrastructure is there without the need for temporary structures outside the MCG.

The only downfall of the MCG is that it's oval and there can be no work around (i.e. ground base seating to not only increase capacity but make it less oval (like what the Austrians did for Euro 2008 with Ernst Happel stadium in Vienna)), that could be done within the time frame the MCG is available for WC operations.

Simply put, it's either FIFA's choice, FFA's choice, or could go down to some sort of public vote, exhibition game between a Melbourne and Sydney side (winning team getting the final, losing team getting the opening game), or even a lame flip of the coin. 

Now we may not get the final, but we ARE the sporting capital of the world, at the very least Australia, numerous publications, organisations and websites back this claim.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Read a few of the posts in this thread.
> 
> IF Australia does recieve the rights to host the FIFA WC. I think SFS should be upgraded to 55k. And just general upgrades to corporate facilities etc;
> 
> ...


that post is just one long bait - and a pretty lame effort at that


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Can anyone explain to me why the afl have proceeded to give gws two stadiums to use instead of one? Surely the old baseball ground was good enough, why build this smaller ground? Especially as gws is also going to play big games (like against say the top four and Sydney) out of anz I heard.

So three stadiums for a new club. Not ideal. Surely they could've just pooled resources into one stadium. Does anyone know why vlad did this? 

Could've had tassie but oooh no have to do stupid sydney.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Richo83 said:


> Can anyone explain to me why the afl have proceeded to give gws two stadiums to use instead of one? Surely the old baseball ground was good enough, why build this smaller ground? Especially as gws is also going to play big games (like against say the top four and Sydney) out of anz I heard.
> 
> So three stadiums for a new club. Not ideal. Surely they could've just pooled resources into one stadium. Does anyone know why vlad did this?
> 
> Could've had tassie but oooh no have to do stupid sydney.


blacktown is just a training facility (only 1500 seats), showgrounds is where they will play their games

also the wonderful people of NSW are footing the bulk of the bill, don't ask me how the AFL convinced the govt, but they did

also you cannot train on an undersized ground - doesn't allow you to practice your zones and other set play arrangements (my club is currently on a small ground, and its caused us massive issues)

also Tassie will be getting a team, they are just waiting for the Kangas to accept the inevitable when they hit the wall yet again


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

LiamO said:


> As for the final, in my opinion. I think ANZ Stadium should get it. None of this MCG stuff. ANZ should be converted to a rectangular field full time. It's exactly what is needed. As AFL now have their own little boutique ground. No point having it as an Oval anymore IMO. As AFL will not take over. ANZ with the roof, and say a capacity of 90k will please FIFA as you could charge a hell of a lot more $$$ for tickets then you could at the MCG. It's also Sydney.
> 
> For Melbourne to be classified as the Sporting Capital of the world is ridiculous. Sure you have some top quality stadiums. AAMI Park could have been done for 200 Million without a fancy roof. Now it's not even able to be used for a FIFA WC. Ethiad will probably not be accessible during this period. Which leaves the MCG, which I have watched Football and Rugby at the stadium, and it is dreadful absolutely dreadful to watch any sport apart from AFL and Cricket. I don't want to bait you Melbourne folk, but Melbourne has 2 regular successful sports. Cricket and AFL. Soccer is halfway there. Sydney have a successful Football team, more to come within the area, lots of successful NRL teams, and a Rugby team which hosts huge International matches, as well as an AFL team another one on the way. Of course I somehow hope Suncorp gets the final  but I know that's just not going to happen. Sadly the joke of a RL WC (can I say World?) Final is all we get.
> 
> Fingers crossed Australia gets the bid.



Theres a lot of baiting going on in here indeed.

Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world, with awards to prove it. Trying to claim anoything else is false.

AFL own this city, which is an issue, but there are still sides in all football codes including the HAL (Victory and Heart), NRL (Storm) S15 (Rebels).

Football (soccer) is a huge success in Melbourne, with the biggest attendences for 4 or the 5 HAL seasons (season 1 was the exception), with a 2nd team included this year to make it the only city with 2 teams in the competition (West Syd gets a team in 2011)

If you want to bait people, know the facts, otherwise do not bother.

As for who will get the final of a WC here, it will likely be Sydney. The FFA is based there and backed by people from that city, it has the largest rectangular stadium in the country, which is greatly underused at this point, along with the fact that it is currently the biggest city in the country. If Sydney does not get it, then we will know that the city was really on the decline.

Sydney is a great looking city around the water, but as a sporting city it is a distant second in this country. Its charms lie in other places, namely the beaches and big harbourside mansions


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Some people just aren't quite informed.
Blacktown
Sydney Showgrounds
ANZ Stadium
Canberra
Just how are they getting away with it-A team that has never played,has no supporters,based in an area where there is no support,and their best player(when they do play) has never played AFL


> A CONTROVERSIAL $45 million redevelopment of the Sydney Showground at Homebush to house a second Sydney AFL team has been approved by the state government, despite the former premier Nathan Rees declaring it a waste of taxpayers' money.
> The project was lobbied for by the disgraced former state development minister, Ian Macdonald, who quit Parliament yesterday and his close colleague, the former chief executive of ANZ Stadium, Ken Edwards.
> 
> The redevelopment of the showground has been opposed by the NRL because the government has already spent $27 million developing a training ground for the Greater Western Sydney team at Blacktown, which some say is now likely to be abandoned.


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=663038&page=67


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

_X_ said:


> Some people just aren't quite informed.
> Blacktown
> Sydney Showgrounds
> ANZ Stadium
> ...


what part of BLACKTOWN IS A TRAINING FACILITY do you not understand?

As for Canberra, it is subject to the WC bid and is part of Canberra's plan to attract MORE AFL teams to the city. it is not just about GWS


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

T74 said:


> what part of BLACKTOWN IS A TRAINING FACILITY do you not understand?
> 
> As for Canberra, it is subject to the WC bid and is part of Canberra's plan to attract MORE AFL teams to the city. it is not just about GWS


What part of $27 million already spent at Blacktown don't you understand??


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

_X_ said:


> What part of $27 million already spent at Blacktown don't you understand??


yes, and what part of it is used by BOTH cricket and GWS, with both of them contributing to the funding don't you understand?


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

T74 said:


> yes, and what part of it is used by BOTH cricket and GWS, with both of them contributing to the funding don't you understand?


Bloke-I totally understand it all.
I don't like the amount of resources that the AFL and its clubs(on the back of previous Government grants mind) commit to lobbying FULLSTOP .
The AFL went to Blacktown under false pretences
As a training ground for an AFL club ,that doesn't exist and no following and a cricket competition that doesn't exist-wouldn't anyone think that was excessive. 
A 1500 capacity might still be enough for that team on game day anyway:lol:


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

_X_ said:


> Bloke-I totally understand it all.
> I don't like the amount of resources that the AFL and its clubs(on the back of previous Government grants mind) commit to lobbying FULLSTOP .
> The AFL went to Blacktown under false pretences
> As a training ground for an AFL club ,that doesn't exist and no following and a cricket competition that doesn't exist-wouldn't anyone think that was excessive.
> A 1500 capacity might still be enough for that team on game day anyway:lol:


Cricket NSW doesn't exist?!?

also GWS does exist - they officially got their license yesterday, and start grabbing the 17 year old kids for their team from the coming off-season


----------



## aaronaugi1 (Apr 23, 2008)

T74 said:


> also Tassie will be getting a team, they are just waiting for the Kangas to accept the inevitable when they hit the wall yet again



Same could be said for Carlton a decade a go, St Kilda and Hawthorn. 

The strong draft system and reallocation of funds by the AFL will mean teams will have low points and this (despite not falling completely through the floor) is a low point for the Kangaroo's. 

I'd say the AFL would be more interested in a new Tasmanian team, in tandem with a third WA team than a relocated Kangaroos.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Lord David said:


> Branding Melbourne as Sporting Capital of the world simply because of our stadiums is only partly true. We regularly host major sporting events such as the Australian Tennis Open, Formula One, Boxing Day Cricket Test, Moto GP, just to name a few.
> 
> We have the National Sports Museum which is in the MCG itself.
> 
> ...


Other cities can make similar claims.

London has Wembley Stadium, hosting the FA Cup Final and other soccer finals and internationals, and Challenge Cup Final, and several Premier League clubs with a huge profile round the world. Twickenham Stadium hosts Six Nations matches and other internationals, plus the Middlesex and IRB Sevens, English finals and other games.

The London Marathon and London Triathlon are probably both the most high-profile events of their kind in the world, Lord's is regarded as "The Home of Cricket", and The Oval also hosts internationals of every form of the game. Royal Ascot and the Epsom Derby are held on the fringes of London, and of course who could forget The Championships at Wimbledon? Or the Olympics, in 1908, 1948 and 2012?


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

woozoo said:


> Also Sydney is really Australias premier city, and home to Lowry who is responsible for the bid.


well you just had to tell the world didn't you :bash: the FFA has spent millions trying to cover that fact up


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

As someone from Victoria ,heavily involved in football-the final will definitely be in Sydney-as it should.
Victoria hardly deserves a match,but we will get 6 or 7,while NSW get 23 plus
Thanks AD and JB,you did your best to deprive us


----------



## vic92 (Aug 1, 2010)

This doesnt have much relevence to anything i guess.. but the MCG is the only stadium in the world to have its annual number of visitors equal to the city's population.. also has the highest attendence for cricket, soccer and AFL.. and is well known throughtout the world as a premier sporting facility.. i dont see the problem with it ><


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Can't really say Sydney is the grassroots of Aussie soccer.

Melbourne 22 000 average a seasone Sydney 12 000.

Melbourne 2nd team next season...


----------



## Will737 (Jun 12, 2010)

Why don't we deserve a match?


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

^

Because the State Goverment aren't willing to invest in the MCG.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

state govt don't need to invest in the MCG, the MCC has enough funding to do the refurbishment of the Southern Stand by themselves

the Northern and Olympic stands were only just completed, so not sure what you want the govt to do


----------



## Will737 (Jun 12, 2010)

The Punt rd end is pretty awful. It's an absolute shithole compared to the Olympic stand.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Avatar said:


> Wut ... more like lord w_____ker


Oooh, well I don't see YOU adding any constructive criticism into the conversation.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Will737 said:


> The Punt rd end is pretty awful. It's an absolute shithole compared to the Olympic stand.


MCC already planning a refurb of the Southern Stand, timing and details just being worked out


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

T74 said:


> MCC already planning a refurb of the Southern Stand, timing and details just being worked out


They might as well demolish it and start it again. Wasting $30-60 mil on it, still leaving the ground liking very lop sided, akes little sense in the longer term.

There is a chance here to rebuilt, for under $400 mil, with provisions for movable seating for the WC bid and really make it look like a complete stdium.

If we are not going to built a new rectangular stadium, we migght as well do up something that can be an asset for our bid.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> What opening ceremony?
> 
> Its not an Olympic Games, its a small opening before the first match, so you don't really need a large field.
> 
> What you need for a WC opening is perhaps aerial views of the Opera House as you approach the stadium.


Sure its not as massive as the Olympics opening ceremony, but its still a reasonably large event and I think an oval field lends itself well to staging it.

Homebush is 14K from the opera house. There arent going to be any passovers of the Opera house and SHB through to the stadium as it is just too far. 
The MCG is less than 1Km from the CBD grid, and half a Km from the river, which allows for flyovers and shots like this:
























By 2022, and with the world cup in mind, the railway lines which currently uglify the area could well be covered up and developed into prime commercial/residential/public/park land.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

T74 said:


> well you just had to tell the world didn't you :bash: the FFA has spent millions trying to cover that fact up


The more I read about all the shady deals going on behind the scenes, the more I understands the FFAs desire to keep as much as possible out of public knowledge. Its quite off putting in fact, and the grimyness turns me off the bid and the proposition of staging the event. But then I think of the massive party the WC would be and I forget about all that


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Melb_aviator said:


> They might as well demolish it and start it again. Wasting $30-60 mil on it, still leaving the ground liking very lop sided, akes little sense in the longer term.
> 
> There is a chance here to rebuilt, for under $400 mil, with provisions for movable seating for the WC bid and really make it look like a complete stdium.
> 
> If we are not going to built a new rectangular stadium, we migght as well do up something that can be an asset for our bid.


soccer is hardly ever played at the MCG, and league/rugby will only be played at AAMI or Etihad. Why would you put in moveable seating there? It would only be used for the WC, and would be a complete and utter waste of money for the rest of its existence


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

vic92 said:


> This doesnt have much relevence to anything i guess.. but the MCG is the only stadium in the world to have its annual number of visitors equal to the city's population..


That's absolute tosh.

Old Trafford has an annual aggregate attendance over 2 million. Manchester has a population of 464,200.

RC Lens had an *average* attendance last season of 34,654. The city of Lens has a population of 36,257.

Lots of Major League Baseball attract over 2 million fans a year, in cities less than half that size.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

T74 said:


> soccer is hardly ever played at the MCG, and league/rugby will only be played at AAMI or Etihad. Why would you put in moveable seating there? It would only be used for the WC, and would be a complete and utter waste of money for the rest of its existence


As much as I would love a rectangular MCG for the WC, I gotta agree with this.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Solopop said:


> ^
> 
> Because the State Goverment aren't willing to invest in the MCG.



Because the State Government aren't prepared to leave any tangible legacy for the sport that is providing the windfall.
If Brumby had of been stronger then many of the problems from the past 4 months would never have happened,instead he decided to be a puppet and wouldn't even support the Asian Cup


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> That's absolute tosh.
> 
> Old Trafford has an annual aggregate attendance over 2 million. Manchester has a population of 464,200.
> 
> ...


Manchester is like 2 and a bit hours from London... Drive that far here and you won't even come across across another town let alone city.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

woozoo said:


> Sure its not as massive as the Olympics opening ceremony, but its still a reasonably large event and I think an oval field lends itself well to staging it.
> 
> Homebush is 14K from the opera house. There arent going to be any passovers of the Opera house and SHB through to the stadium as it is just too far.
> The MCG is less than 1Km from the CBD grid, and half a Km from the river, which allows for flyovers and shots like this:
> ...


There were flyovers before the Sydney 2000 opening with a cruise ship, the bridge, the harbour, the opera house. I don't see how this would be an issue in 2022.

You don't need an oval field but why not.

No prob giving the opening to Melbourne, but an oval field is not a good enough reason.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> That's absolute tosh.
> 
> Old Trafford has an annual aggregate attendance over 2 million. Manchester has a population of 464,200.
> 
> ...



Apples/apples:lol:
Greater Manchester is 2,240,230
Central Melbourne would only be a few hundred thousand


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

vic92 said:


> This doesnt have much relevence to anything i guess.. but the MCG is the only stadium in the world to have its annual number of visitors equal to the city's population


You could probably find 500 stadiums that do that. Start in Geelong.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Dean said:


> LOL. really? Honestly you are so full of yourself it's ridiculous.
> 
> with you it's always sydney sydney sydney yet you live in melbourne... lol at the irony.
> 
> If the place has all this history and it's the grassroots of the game why has the Melbourne victory consistently had double the crowds of sydney. where are all these people in sydney supporting the game???


Victory getting 21,000 supporters to Sydney FC's 13,000 doesnt give Melbourne automatic rights to "grassroots" support.

Grassroots of the game come from the heart of the game,the history,the general support and playing of the game.That grassroots support is by far the largest in Sydney and NSW.

First Offical Game of Association Football-NSW
First Club-NSW
First Football Association-NSW

Registered Footballers-
NSW-240,000
Vic-70,000

There is nearly 4x as many registered footballers in NSW than in Vic.That is grassroots support for the game of Football.

As for irony,go and check your posts again when you lived in Sydney..As for me..I love living here so whats your problem?..Maybe its the fact I dont fall down the line of hating Sydney and falling for this worlds greatest sports capital and most livable crap that gets bleated out so often here and in the local media.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

ExSydney said:


> Victory getting 21,000 supporters to Sydney FC's 13,000 doesnt give Melbourne automatic rights to "grassroots" support.
> 
> Grassroots of the game come from the heart of the game,the history,the general support and playing of the game.That grassroots support is by far the largest in Sydney and NSW.
> 
> ...


I agree that grassroots support is igger in Sydney and NSW in geberal, but there is a need to translate that to the highest level, in terms of crowd support. There has been a large disconnect there in many Sydney sporting events, with large player numbers but lower overall attendance at matches.

The whole sporting capital thing is overdone, but with Melbourne winning the World award for that 3 years in a row, I guess they can actually say it


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Melbourne Victory have certainly done a better job promoting their team to the whole of Melbourne than Sydney FC has to Sydney.I get the feeling that Sydney FC have become much like the Swans in attracting mainly the Eastern Suburbs fan base,while neglecting the western suburbs.It will be interesting to see how they work with the Rovers.


----------



## hangman (Oct 21, 2009)

Melb_aviator said:


> There has been a large disconnect there in many Sydney sporting events, with large player numbers but lower overall attendance at matches.


Probably not a coincidence, especially with soccer. On game day alot of people prefer to watch their friends/family play at the local grounds. The western sydney team might change that though, soccers pretty big out there.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

woozoo said:


> By 2022, and with the world cup in mind, the railway lines which currently uglify the area could well be covered up and developed into prime commercial/residential/public/park land.


You mean rip the lines out? If you're saying this I find this hard to believe since the vic gov is slow to move on transport as it is and that line services the eastern half of the city.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

No ripping up of the trainlines, just sink them or build over them.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

T74 said:


> soccer is hardly ever played at the MCG, and league/rugby will only be played at AAMI or Etihad. Why would you put in moveable seating there? It would only be used for the WC, and would be a complete and utter waste of money for the rest of its existence


You might see it that way, but if it means the MCG can be used to WC in a way that best suits the event, then it should be looked at. 

The MCG is used for some other big football (soccer) matches also, so it will get used. It could also be used to bring in the grounds size for T20 cricket matches too. That last idea is just something that came to mind, but there are uses for it afterwards. 

If Melbourne wants to hold onto its matle as sporting capital, it will need to think of ways of keeping up with the competition. The amount of venues we have is actually quite small, with heavy usage on the turf, which only makes them risky from an operational POV.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Richo83 said:


> You mean rip the lines out? If you're saying this I find this hard to believe since the vic gov is slow to move on transport as it is and that line services the eastern half of the city.


already a govt plan to eventually develop the area by getting developers to build over the trainlines

off the agenda for the short term though due to demand (don't want to flood the market so soon after Docklands and other redevelopments)


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Walbanger said:


> No ripping up of the trainlines, just sink them or build over them.


The plan is to build over them, like the decking used over Fed Square. Grocon put forward a plan to deck them for the Commonwealth Games Village, but it was not chosen. It was seen as too risky, considering timeframes and any possible overruns.

I must say that the decking would be a huge lift for Melbourne, with a great enterance road for fans to walk from the city to the venues, using a open pedestrian mall, with apartments and hospitality venues included. Maybe even some attractions, like a giant Melbourne Cup and maybe even an AFL one too. Just a couple of ideas that keep with the sporting theme


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Melb_aviator said:


> You might see it that way, but if it means the MCG can be used to WC in a way that best suits the event, then it should be looked at.
> 
> The MCG is used for some other big football (soccer) matches also, so it will get used. It could also be used to bring in the grounds size for T20 cricket matches too. That last idea is just something that came to mind, but there are uses for it afterwards.
> 
> If Melbourne wants to hold onto its matle as sporting capital, it will need to think of ways of keeping up with the competition. The amount of venues we have is actually quite small, with heavy usage on the turf, which only makes them risky from an operational POV.


so we spend hundreds of millions for a stand to move for three or four games only?

outside the WC, the only time football will be at the G is for the odd WC qualifier, and thats because AAMI and Etihad are much better options given likely attendances.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

T74 said:


> so we spend hundreds of millions for a stand to move for three or four games only?
> 
> outside the WC, the only time football will be at the G is for the odd WC qualifier, and thats because AAMI and Etihad are much better options given likely attendances.


My point was that the stand is having $30-50 mil of upgrades anyway, for what will be cosmetic upgrades. 

If they want to truely make the stadium look less awkward than it does now, and if they are unwilling to build a new stadium, then it should be looked at. Thats all I said.

Many seem to underestimate the pure scale and spectacle that the WC is. Settling for 2nd best is not good enough.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Melb_aviator said:


> My point was that the stand is having $30-50 mil of upgrades anyway, for what will be cosmetic upgrades.
> 
> If they want to truely make the stadium look less awkward than it does now, and if they are unwilling to build a new stadium, then it should be looked at. Thats all I said.
> 
> Many seem to underestimate the pure scale and spectacle that the WC is. Settling for 2nd best is not good enough.


yes, but you have to pay for it at the end of the day, and spending hundreds of millions on a stand that will move 2-3 times at the WC, and once every four years after that is nuts.

look at Etihad - much of its cost was due to the moveable stand, yet the thing never gets used because of the high turf cost (from what gets destroyed when it is moved)

having great stadium is one thing, but they have to be practical and useful

we already have one white elephant in ANZ (which I agree should have been converted to a rectangular format - even AFL doesn't want to play there more than they have to now under their contract), lets not add to it


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

T74 said:


> yes, but you have to pay for it at the end of the day, and spending hundreds of millions on a stand that will move 2-3 times at the WC, and once every four years after that is nuts.
> 
> look at Etihad - much of its cost was due to the moveable stand, yet the thing never gets used because of the high turf cost (from what gets destroyed when it is moved)
> 
> ...


ANZ is too large for 90% of events there anyway. 60-70K would be max seating there for a viable stadium there.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Melb_aviator said:


> ANZ is too large for 90% of events there anyway. 60-70K would be max seating there for a viable stadium there.


its a joke. NSW people bag the AFL for it, but they only play 3 games a year there, and its because of the contract they have. reckon once the contract is over, only political pressure from the NSW Govt will stop them leaving completely to focus only on the SCG and Showgrounds

not sure how it is for NRL games, but it's pretty average watching AFL there compared to the SCG


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

T74 said:


> its a joke. NSW people bag the AFL for it, but they only play 3 games a year there, and its because of the contract they have. reckon once the contract is over, only political pressure from the NSW Govt will stop them leaving completely to focus only on the SCG and Showgrounds
> 
> not sure how it is for NRL games, but it's pretty average watching AFL there compared to the SCG


They won't scrap it completely though. Only 3 years ago the Swans were getting 60,000-> 70,000 there. It should be used less, but the large ground is very viable when the swans and or GWS (perhaps) are flying.


----------



## magic_johnson (Jun 20, 2009)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/08/02/244295_gold-coast-afl.html
Carrara

Looks very nice, particularly standing room :banana: 

Something missing in most new venues nowadays...


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

magic_johnson said:


> They won't scrap it completely though. Only 3 years ago the Swans were getting 60,000-> 70,000 there. It should be used less, but the large ground is very viable when the swans and or GWS (perhaps) are flying.


I know, but I reckon the Swans would be earning more with 46k at the SCG than 60k at ANZ


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Can it fit an athletics track for 2018 when Gold Coast hosts the commies?


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Mo Rush said:


> Can it fit an athletics track for 2018 when Gold Coast hosts the commies?


damn, are the cubans invading?!?!? :lol:


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> Can it fit an athletics track for 2018 when Gold Coast hosts the commies?


Sure, it will fit; and the stadium expanded to 50-60,000.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

T74 said:


> damn, are the cubans invading?!?!? :lol:


^^
Hilarious.

Of course, they would have designed it with a track in mind.


----------



## Cornholio (Mar 2, 2003)

Adelaide Oval update
This is stage one in a proposed multi stage development to transform the ground into a 55,000 seat stadium capable of hosting AFL games closer to the CBD (downtown) than the current AAMI Stadium out in the burbs.
Stage one is due for completion in November of this year in time for Crickets Ashes tour this Summer. 

First photo from 2 Fridays ago...06August2010, the rest from last night...20August2010


















































Notes: No seating installed yet, but surely only a matter of days now.[does anyone know what colour they'll be and if there will be a silly pattern on the seating like the Chappell Stands?]

The final roof support (North end) has been lifted and the covering has commenced on the second 'bubble'


----------



## Cornholio (Mar 2, 2003)

Stage one for those who don't know is supposed to look like this artists render:


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

more pictures from today30Aug2010, including the view from behind the stand to see the result of keeping the brick arches:



































































By my reckoning, they've got about 9 weeks until the SACA and CA want to run one of the Pommy tour games here as a trial run before the test in early December...In only 10 calendar days, they've covered bubble number2, so the bubble should be done. watching other stand construction, I'm aware that seating is very simple and quick to install, its the fit-out of the interior that will be smelling of fresh paint on game day methinks. If you look closely in one of the pics taken from behind the stand, you will see the framework for an interior escalator. I guess we'll just have to pray for good weather between now and November/December eh?


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

What's going to happen with amy's hole?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Really classy. Love those upper tier supports.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> What's going to happen with amy's hole?


Well if the major redevelopement goes ahead at the Adelaide Oval. AAMI Stadium will be scaled back to around 10 / 20 000 and remain the headquaters and training ground of the Adelaide Crows, SANFL and will host the odd SANFL game. The remaining land will be either sold off or developed and leased out as a high density commercial and residential as an additional revenue stream for South Australian Football along with what they get out of the Crows and Port.


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Really classy. Love those upper tier supports.


Kinda looks like a baseball stadium with a mixture of brick, steel and glass, alot to like.

Kudos to Adelaide for doing this, if you are right wallbanger then this is a step in the right direction given that aami is hard to access, is a bad stadium and Adelaide oval will be returned to it's glory days of footy, not to mention SA cricket getting a boost. And it looks awesome, they've only started and it already looks good! Next job, subi.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems this stadium will have three separate distinct stands, I wonder if they'll cordon off stands for port games? It's tough to do this in the current setup given aami is just one continuous stand but here it might be more feasible.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

*Stadium Flyover
*









*Corporate Hospitality facilities fly-through*


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

*GOLD COAST - Gold Coast Stadium (25,000)*

_I searched for a Gold Coast Stadium thread and there was none. I apologise in advance if there is and my search couldn't bring it up._



*Gold Coast Stadium*















> The Gold Coast Stadium Redevelopment - Carrara will deliver a new 25,000 capacity oval stadium and provide the region with a home for the GCFC AFL team.
> 
> The venue will have the facilities needed to attract other sporting, entertainment and cultural events to the region such as cricket and athletics.
> 
> ...





*About the Gold Coast Stadium*


Home ground for the Gold Coast FC AFL team
Capable of hosting cricket, entertainment and cultural events
Field of Play 171 x 144m
25,000 capacity
2,000 corporate seats with a range of corporate facilities, including: Chairman’s lounge, Field Club, Club Lounge, Corporate suites, BBQ Decks
Large HD Video board
Merchandising outlets and catering facilities
Media, player and officials facilities

*Construction to involve an estimated*


1,400 tonnes of structural steel
7,000 cubic metres of concrete
500 tonnes of reinforcement
5,600 metres of precast concrete seating plats
9,600 square metres of fabric roof
92,000 square metres of plaza works
600 m (10,000 square metres) of external roadworks

*A large amount of materials from the old site is being recycled including* 


More than 2,680m³ of concrete
350 tonnes of scrap steel
250 kilograms of copper
13 tonnes of aluminium
5.65 tonnes of plastic





> HALF of the $5 million funding promised to lure a new drawcard event here will instead be spent on a solar roof for the redeveloped Gold Coast Stadium at Carrara.
> 
> Premier Anna Bligh yesterday announced an extra $11.9 million would go towards a permanent undercover southern stand at the stadium with a one-off funding boost of $2.5 million from the State Government's annual commitment to a motor racing event.
> 
> ...


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Looks good! Thanks for the info.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

What do they mean by "the stadium is a feature of the Gold Coast 2018 bid" ?


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Mo Rush said:


> What do they mean by "the stadium is a feature of the Gold Coast 2018 bid" ?


its a part of their CWG bid


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I guessed that but a "feature" as in opening ceremony? athletics? rugby?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Athletics, Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremonth. iirc.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Any renders yet in athletics mode?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

This is an older render before the Gov't announced funding for the Southern End to be under cover. Though it's still the most likely configuration for a CWG or World Cup.










Sort of similar to Rustenburg


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> I guessed that but a "feature" as in opening ceremony? athletics? rugby?


Athletics and Ceremonies most likely in say a 40,000-44,000 WC seating. Rugby can be played at the existing 27,000 seater Skilled Park at Robina. Then the Gold Coast stadium would be downsized post events, for AFL legacy of say 27.000.


----------



## Weebie (May 29, 2006)

The Western Australian State Government will next week annouce that the new 60-70k Stadium will be built out at Burswood.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Weebie said:


> The Western Australian State Government will next week annouce that the new 60-70k Stadium will be built out at Burswood.


:banana:


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Weebie said:


> The Western Australian State Government will next week annouce that the new 60-70k Stadium will be built out at Burswood.


I'll believe it when I see it, as has been discussed on the Western Australia page. It will most likely be comment in the area of, "If Australia wins the bid for 2022 then we will build something along the lines of the Taskforce Report at Burswood. If Australia doesn't win then Colin Barnett will get his ill thoughout bandaid rebuild of the dud Subicao Oval site".

So this doesn't commit the State Governemnt to anything til December which will be the end of the 2 years in which Colin Barnett had publicly declared to not seriously discuss the matter. So that is 2 years wasted and god knows how many more years where the Eagles and Dockers have their memberships capped and single tickets being a serious challenge to get.

I don't understand why they want to move to Burswood when they all know it will cost $300 million more than the other 2 suggested sites. If it is true then James Packer must have come on board with his own favours by the State in return. Have to wonder what they are because West Australians will never allow Poker Machines in this State.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Walbanger said:


> I'll believe it when I see it, as has been discussed on the Western Australia page. It will most likely be comment in the area of, "If Australia wins the bid for 2022 then we will build something along the lines of the Taskforce Report at Burswood. If Australia doesn't win then Colin Barnett will get his ill thoughout bandaid rebuild of the dud Subicao Oval site".
> 
> So this doesn't commit the State Governemnt to anything til December which will be the end of the 2 years in which Colin Barnett had publicly declared to not seriously discuss the matter. So that is 2 years wasted and god knows how many more years where the Eagles and Dockers have their memberships capped and single tickets being a serious challenge to get.
> 
> I don't understand why they want to move to Burswood when they all know it will cost $300 million more than the other 2 suggested sites. If it is true then James Packer must have come on board with his own favours by the State in return. Have to wonder what they are because West Australians will never allow Poker Machines in this State.


I truely hope Burswood gets this stadium. Hell no to Subi. It has had it's day in the sun. Close Belmont race track and pot the stadium there. Close to the freeway, train and the city! Plus plenty of room to grow!


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

A major milestone in the development of Perth’s new rectangular stadium has been achieved with the Town of Vincent accepting the State Government’s offer for a lease agreement for Perth Oval (nib Stadium).

The Minister said the redevelopment of Perth Oval was an opportunity for the State Government and the Town of Vincent to build on their strong relationship to realise the vision for a modern rectangular stadium that would meet the needs of a number of sporting codes and enhance the entertainment options for the people of WA.

The end vision for this facility is a 25,000 seat stadium based on the Skilled Park, Gold Coast model; detailed design and planning work is currently under way with building scheduled to commence in 2012.

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx?ItemId=133971&


----------



## singhinderjit95 (Mar 24, 2010)

wow total crustal
love it
go oz


----------



## kichigai (May 9, 2005)

Pics of Carrara Stadium redevelopment care of Beastjim



beastjim said:


> Easily ready for the May start date, even with the xmas slow down.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA3Mzo-mTwE


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

^^ Aerial shot...


MomentKiller said:


> Photo taken today by a friend.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Brisbane floods with the river yet to peak. Suncorp stadium has flooded and had a fire.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/suncorp-stadium-on-fire/story-e6freuy9-1225986138040

























As far as I understand, the Gabba (Brisbane Cricket Ground) is on dry topography. While Ballymore (home of Queensland Rugby Union) is in a precarious position next to a creek. Apparently the Queensland Reds (Super Rugby Franchise) are sand bagging as part of their pre season training. In fact I would be suprised if All of South East Queensland's AFL, NRL and S15 clubs and players are involved with the community work at this current time.

Pat Rafter Arena where a lead up tournament for the Australian Open just finished on the weekend.


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

Walbanger said:


>


Now this stadium use for the swimming competitions :lol:


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)




----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

^^
Thank God Wally's safe!


----------



## Weebie (May 29, 2006)

Does anyone have the picturres of people kayaking in Suncorp?


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Sportsfan said:


> ^^
> Thank God Wally's safe!


Think a flood can stop Wally Lewis?


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Major medical problems couldn't stop King Wally so I don't think floods will hehehe


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

AAF chief urges Melbourne to bid for 2019 World Championships
# AP
# February 09, 2011 3:21PM

MELBOURNE has been encouraged to bid for the 2019 world athletics championships by the sport's most powerful figure, IAAF president Lamine Diack.

Diack was in Melbourne today to inspect Victoria's new home of track and field at Albert Park.

"2019 is open and I was saying to Rob (Australian Athletics president Rob Fildes) and I said, 'Why not say we want the world championships in 2019 and work on that, starting now','' Diack said.

"You deserve to have a world championships in this country.''

The new venue has international standard facilities and could host a world championships if temporary seating was brought in to double the seating capacity to at least 20,000.

Australia hasn't hosted an athletics events of any magnitude since the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006, and the IAAF Grand Prix final in Melbourne in 2001.

Brisbane failed in a bid to host the 2011 world championships, which will be held in Daegu, South Korea later this year.

The 2013 and 2015 world championships will be held in Moscow and Beijing respectively, with London wanting the 2017 titles.

With the events held alternatively within Europe and outside, Diack said Australia should aim for 2019, with the hosting rights to be decided in 2013.

Fildes said Sydney and Brisbane were also capable of hosting the event, but warned it was an expensive exercise with the event requiring considerable infrastructure such as an athletes' village.

"It's a large commitment from a city and a state government,'' he said.

"Brisbane's cost were going to around $400 million which Premier Beattie had agreed to when were presented in Mombassa three years ago.

"It's a matter of an Australia city taking up the mantle and really wanting to pursue it under our enthusiastic guidelines.

"The world championships is something we'd love to do but we'd have to have a strong and committed city and state to want to do that.''

Meanwhile Fildes will fly to Kathmandu in Nepal next week to present a case for Australia becoming a competing member of the Asian Athletics Association.

Australia would retain its membership of Oceania, but its athletes could compete in the Asian titles.

"Our desire to compete at the Asian athletics championships is from a competition perspective only and the benefits that will provide are reward enough,'' Fildes said.

"The next competition is in Kobe, Japan only six weeks before the world championships later this year and we would obviously love to be involved.''

He said AA was also pushing for an Australian venue to be added to the 14 countries around the world that host Diamond League athletics events.


(Source: Herald Sun)
----------------

Since when does a World Championships only need 20K capacity? What is he smoking? Most World Champs have 50K plus minimum, and the new Bob Jane Stadium (or whatever it will be called when redeveloped) will never be able to be expanded to that size. It would need a track set up the MCG, or a new venue, plus theres the issues around timing of the event.

The World Champs generally happen around July/August (Northern Summer), when we have some of our coldest conditions. That is hardly ideal for the event, and I am not sure that there would be much room in the calender to move the event to another month, especially one earlier in the year.

Brisbane is likely the best option for a July/August event, weather wise, and it has a sizable athletics stadium there now, which is hardly ever used. Another attempt (after their 2011 bid) for 2019 might be a good idea for them.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Agree, Melbourne should pass


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

The Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games bid video.






There's a short glimpse on how they plan to upgrade the stadium to 40,000 capacity. Very different to the World Cup proposal. 

By the looks of it, it will involve lowering the field, presumably by digging into the stadium's pitch (therefore shortening the dimensions) and adding additional temporary seating to the lower tier. 

The athletics track is not a problem as much like Manchester 2002, the open space will allow for the length of the track. existing seating will be removed as well as the video screen, whilst a Sydney 2000 style temporary grandstand should seat say 10,000-15,000 people. One could assume the capacity lost on the existing open side stand, would be covered with the extension of the lower tier's seating, as well as a slight extension of the main stand.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

^^ now that's just rubbing our faces in it


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Rubbing our faces in what? How?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

But seriously, what would happen to the Suns?

Would the stadium still be retrofittable?


----------



## swifty78 (Nov 10, 2002)

Id so love to see Qatar get stripped of it if bribary allegations are properly proven


----------



## aus16 (May 25, 2009)

I think blatter may want a recount, because if he can prove Qatar bribery, that would mean his presidential challenger; bin Hammam would have had knowledge of this and could be grounds for ExCo suspension, guaranteeing Blatter a 4th term as president.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

aus16 said:


> I think blatter may want a recount, because if he can prove Qatar bribery, that would mean his presidential challenger; bin Hammam would have had knowledge of this and could be grounds for ExCo suspension, guaranteeing Blatter a 4th term as president.


All good points. Works in very well for him politically if something untoward is found with the Qatari bid.

As for another bidding process, I am sure that Australia will have a few more headaches to deal with, given that some of the deals with stakeholders in this country would likely have been voided by losing the initial bid, and re-negotiations would start again. 

If I was the FFA, I would do what England has done, and walk away from any further bids until substantial changes are made. Let the USA have 2022, if Qatar is stripped of it, and then have a go for a future one if things are dramatically changed in the FIFA system.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

I'd be pleased if runners up USA got 2022.


----------



## Dyl070_DH (Apr 2, 2011)

yea USA deserves it the WC 2022 Qatar should never allowed again on a world cup. the US is a hundred million times better than Qatar

countries like qatar doesn't deserve to participate in big international sports events just look at what they are doing with there athletic teams.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

NavyBlue said:


> A completed Metricon Stadium that will open this weekend and host it's first game next week, a sell-out against league leaders Geelong.


It looks rather good for a somewhat cheap stadium


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

NavyBlue said:


> A completed Metricon Stadium that will open this weekend and host it's first game next week, a sell-out against league leaders Geelong.


so is there any chance this stadium sees any first-class domestic or international cricket?


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^ Yep, it will certainly be used for Cricket. In regards to Test matches then I'm really not sure how Queensland Cricket would feel about games on the Gold Coast rather than the Gabba. Cairns has hosted an Australian international before but I don't remember if it was a test or a one dayer. A test match against a big opponent like RSA, England or India will always be at the Gabba.


----------



## ANANDPAZARE (Mar 19, 2010)

Walbanger said:


> ^^ Yep, it will certainly be used for Cricket. In regards to Test matches then I'm really not sure how Queensland Cricket would feel about games on the Gold Coast rather than the Gabba. Cairns has hosted an Australian international before but I don't remember if it was a test or a one dayer. A test match against a big opponent like RSA, England or India will always be at the Gabba.


Cairns has hosted two test matches and two one day internationalshttp://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/ground/56362.html


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

As much as i'd like to see Qatar stripped of it's 2022 hosting rights, i'm skeptical it will happen. Everybody knows FIFA are corrupt to the core but they always try to make they are all above board, having a re-vote would be admitting defeat. Not something they would know too much about.

Hypothetically speaking if the opportunity came up to bid for it again though, i'd like to see an improved bid stadia wise. It didn't really matter so much that we had cricket/afl stadiums in our original bid due to the fact the vote was rigged no matter how good our bid was. But if there was a take two, the technical side of things would need to be improved to have any chance. In all honesty, i'd be quite happy for them to give it straight to the yanks if we couldn't prepare a top notch bid.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Well said Wezza. Does anyone seriously think that the internal inquiry FIFA is currently holding will show that two of their members voted for Qatar because they were paid to? Come on, I mean, they have allegations against two but what about the rest of them? Proof against two members for bribery opens the door for the others to be investigated and I have a feeling once the door is opened it will be hard for them to close it. So do you think they'll allow that? In the words of the late great Gorilla Monsoon....."Highly unlikely".

If those two FIFA Executive Committee members are found guilty and there is a re-vote I'll be very surprised.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

I think Melbourne 2024 could work, just check out this venue plan.








http://www.4shared.com/document/Xn_vPtrX/Melbourne2024_2.html


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

double post deleted


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

HoldenV8 said:


> Well said Wezza. Does anyone seriously think that the internal inquiry FIFA is currently holding will show that two of their members voted for Qatar because they were paid to? Come on, I mean, they have allegations against two but what about the rest of them? Proof against two members for bribery opens the door for the others to be investigated and I have a feeling once the door is opened it will be hard for them to close it. So do you think they'll allow that? In the words of the late great Gorilla Monsoon....."Highly unlikely".
> 
> If those two FIFA Executive Committee members are found guilty and there is a re-vote I'll be very surprised.



There just will NOT be a re-count It's just the usual 4 yearly cycle of Blatter posturing for the masses before his re-election to chief snout-in-trough at FIFA is rubber stamped


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

vanbasten88 said:


> There just will NOT be a re-count It's just the usual 4 yearly cycle of Blatter posturing for the masses before his re-election to chief snout-in-trough at FIFA is rubber stamped


Nail on the head right there.


----------



## PrevaricationComplex (Jun 7, 2010)

vanbasten88 said:


> There just will NOT be a re-count It's just the usual 4 yearly cycle of Blatter posturing for the masses before his re-election to chief snout-in-trough at FIFA is rubber stamped


There may not be a recount, however this time round some momentum has built up and there may be some, albeit watered down ramifications.

i was listening to world football-phone-in a while ago [Its actually quite good, think it's a world service thing so you guys should be able to get it too] and the American dude described USSF head sunil gullatti as a very conservative guy who wouldn't want to piss of jack warner off. and today on the radio i heard a story about a us legal firm building a case on jack warner and bin hammam's shenanigans in concacaf. i don't expect this to be an FA type **** up but nor do i expect blatter to be in the firing line, for lack of evidence i guessopcorn:.

watch this space. Qatar 2022 is just one step too fucking far for the media to let it go, and i hope fans too.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

More revelations guys....

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1377723&page=3


----------



## PrevaricationComplex (Jun 7, 2010)

The shit has officially hit the fan. No need to post the link, just open a window and through osmosis you can pick up the good news.:cheers1:

Lets see your rectangular statia boys [and girls], it's too soon to say you may need them but fail to prepare etc etc...


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

No chance mate  enjoying the revelations though

Some local updates on the weekend though.

Metricon Stadium hosted it's first AFL game on the weekend to a crowd of 21k










At exactly the same time, the game at the boutique stadium at TIO Stadium in Darwin nearly got called off because two of the four light towers failed to fire










Sadly for my Tigers, they got the lights working, and we got our ass handed to us


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

PrevaricationComplex said:


> The shit has officially hit the fan. No need to post the link, just open a window and through *osmosis* you can pick up the good news.:cheers1:
> 
> Lets see your rectangular statia boys [and girls], it's too soon to say you may need them but fail to prepare etc etc...


lol

As for Rectangular Stadia, I'm not sure if anyone has posted recent pics of Ausgrid Stadium in Newcastle. It's still undergoing rebuilding to 33 000 seats. Currently can hold up to 35 000 because of grass banks on the ends. It was part of the failed Australian bid for 2022 but still can be expanded to over 40 000 by adding the second tiers all around.




























As for the failed 2022 bid. Only 2 stadiums featured in the bid books are not likely to be built in the next decade. Canberra Stadium and the Western Sydney Stadium (which most likely wouldn't have made the cut anyway). I'm not sure what the status is in regards to the much needed overhaul of Townsville's Dairy Farmers Stadium but I doubt anything will happen in the the next decade, cetainly nothing like the modest impression from the bid book.


----------



## chotu32 (Mar 28, 2010)

And like most boards nowadays, the administrators have got their priorities wrong with all this T20 rubbish being put ahead of test cricket. These days, youngsters don't want to learn proper technique, they only want to smash the ball out of the park.
A suggestion would be to put a minimum age limit for players to participate in the Big Bash, like we did here in India for the IPL. Junior players can't participate, and if they do, they don't get big bucks(something like $40,000 salary cap). And we also don't allow any T20 tournaments for U-19's, U-17's etc. Only One Day and Test Cricket for youngsters.


----------



## flavze (May 13, 2009)

chotu32 said:


> And like most boards nowadays, the administrators have got their priorities wrong with all this T20 rubbish being put ahead of test cricket. These days, youngsters don't want to learn proper technique, they only want to smash the ball out of the park.
> A suggestion would be to put a minimum age limit for players to participate in the Big Bash, like we did here in India for the IPL. Junior players can't participate, and if they do, they don't get big bucks(something like $40,000 salary cap). And we also don't allow any T20 tournaments for U-19's, U-17's etc. Only One Day and Test Cricket for youngsters.


cricket needs money, crowds rock up to T20 and TV loves it, it brings in the money to allow cricket to compete dollarwise with other pro-sports. Wether ya like it or not T20 is the future of professional cricket.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

T74 said:


> Disagree mate.
> 
> Way too many ODI now, far too much T20 rubbish which isn't even real cricket.
> 
> ...





chotu32 said:


> And like most boards nowadays, the administrators have got their priorities wrong with all this T20 rubbish being put ahead of test cricket. These days, youngsters don't want to learn proper technique, they only want to smash the ball out of the park.
> A suggestion would be to put a minimum age limit for players to participate in the Big Bash, like we did here in India for the IPL. Junior players can't participate, and if they do, they don't get big bucks(something like $40,000 salary cap). And we also don't allow any T20 tournaments for U-19's, U-17's etc. Only One Day and Test Cricket for youngsters.


Didn't people say essentially the same thing back when the one-day game was introduced?

T20 is merely its logical progression, and soon enough the 50-over game, and not tests, will fade into obsolescence.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

flavze said:


> cricket needs money, crowds rock up to T20 and TV loves it, it brings in the money to allow cricket to compete dollarwise with other pro-sports. Wether ya like it or not T20 is the future of professional cricket.


Exactly.

Deep-down, all cricket fans -- even most casual followers -- RESPECT the test game for its requisite skill, finesse, endurance and mental toughness, but most of us can only stomach so much of it; it's simply an archaic code that hearkens back to the days when people had more time for cricket than they do now. Tests should be special occasions, like a Sunday dinner at Grandma's or a four-course meal at a Brazilian steakhouse; it will always have its rightful place at the pinnacle of the cricketing world, but at the same time so does a more condensed, results-driven form of the game.


----------



## flavze (May 13, 2009)

Test matches have become much more enjoyable since the introduction of the short versions of the game, very few draws nowdays due to the more aggresive nature the game is played in.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

flavze said:


> Test matches have become much more enjoyable since the introduction of the short versions of the game, very few draws nowdays due to the more aggresive nature the game is played in.


Disagree with this. A nail biting draw is great to watch. A three day slog fest not so.

The whole point of the five days is anything can happen, and wickets are valuable. When it's a three day shoot out, your wicket has no value.

Anyway, the punters are talking with their feet. Cricket outside the domestic internationals is rarely on free to air tv now. The old cricket stadiums are fighting to protect the access for cricket to them, because the demand and dollars for Australian Rules football is so high.

Tbh I watch more soccer in summer now than cricket, and its a growing trend.


----------



## flavze (May 13, 2009)

T74 said:


> Disagree with this. A nail biting draw is great to watch. A three day slog fest not so.
> 
> The whole point of the five days is anything can happen, and wickets are valuable. When it's a three day shoot out, your wicket has no value.
> 
> ...


tbh i can't remember the last 3 day test match i've watched. With pitches prepared for batsmen nowdays i would say there's less tests that don't go the full distance than back in the days of green or rock hard pitches. If batting styles hadn't changed we would hardly ever see a result now within 5 days. I prefer watching Test matches to 50 over or T20 but not when batsmen pad around for 200 runs in a days play.

i also watch more Soccer in summer than cricket, go you mighty Reds! In fact the last 10 or so times i have been to Adelaide oval is for Soccer and Rugby games rather than cricket. All my cricket is watched on TV now days.


----------



## chotu32 (Mar 28, 2010)

You didn't get me. You distorted my comment. I said that by introducing T20 to junior levels of cricket, players are not learning the required skill sets required for test cricket. I am not saying anything about whether T20 is the future or not the future.


----------



## chotu32 (Mar 28, 2010)

Also, ODI's require a lot more skill and temprament than T20's, and as long as ODI's as selling out in India(been decades since I've seen an empty seat for an ODI), they wouldn't do away with it. Broadcasters pay a lot more money for a 8 hour one day game than a 3 hour T20, because the overall viewership is higher for ODI's inspite of T20's having a higher concentration of viewers during that short amount of time.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

chotu32 said:


> Also, ODI's require a lot more skill and temprament than T20's, and as long as ODI's as selling out in India(been decades since I've seen an empty seat for an ODI), they wouldn't do away with it. Broadcasters pay a lot more money for a 8 hour one day game than a 3 hour T20, because the overall viewership is higher for ODI's inspite of T20's having a higher concentration of viewers during that short amount of time.


Schedule is the killer though. In Australia discussion is growing about the workload of cricketers, with the introduction of t20 and the ipl. Something has to give, and a growing view is it's the 50 over game.


----------



## gorgu (Mar 16, 2003)

chotu32 said:


> But WACA is soooo small. Also, why are crowds dwindling so much in Australia? Is cricket not a big sport anymore?


no their team is shit and therefore they don't follow it anymore


----------



## chotu32 (Mar 28, 2010)

T74 said:


> Schedule is the killer though. In Australia discussion is growing about the workload of cricketers, with the introduction of t20 and the ipl. Something has to give, and a growing view is it's the 50 over game.


In reality, amount of ODI's hasn't grown. They're still playing 50-60 a year, but the difference is the IPL. Now, the 50-60 are spread over 10 months wheras previously it used to be spread over 12. Workload has become a problem everywhere, but since ODI's are still the most lucrative financially (a 5 odi series will garner in more advertising revenue than a 5 t20 series), I don't see them doing away with it anytime soon. 

Personally, I'm a huge fan of T20 cricket, it's real great fun. However, the only downside for me is that the better team doesn't necessarily win, like in tests and odi's hno:..


----------



## chotu32 (Mar 28, 2010)

Also I found interesting, all the ODI's in the recent England-Lanka series were sold out. Of course, grounds in england are tiny compared to what we have here in India or even Australia, but then they're ticket prices are bloody expensive compared to our countries too.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

gorgu said:


> no their team is shit and therefore they don't follow it anymore


Crowds were down even back in the days of Warne, McGrath, and Waugh.

If it wasn't for the AFL effectively subsidizing the development and/or running of our major cricket venues, it would be interesting to see what condition they would be in today.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

To this this precinct is only going to get better... :banana:









http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanman66/5925005413/sizes/l/in/[email protected]/


----------



## The Gazmon (Mar 10, 2007)

Removed


----------



## The Gazmon (Mar 10, 2007)

Having been to a few (player and/or official) for a few of the A-League venues my favourite has always been Bluetongue. It's just a perfect size for the A-League and when it's full has a fantastic atmosphere. Suncorp personally is my overall favourite venue (without having been to AAMI yet) and it will be interesting to see the completed Ausgrid. That said, there is one issue that seems to be common across a lot of A-League venues and that is the state of the pitches, last time I was at Suncorp is was terrible and the SFS is pretty patchy at best.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

During the middle of the A-League season, the Suncorp pitch is great. It's only bad when the rugby league/union seasons are in full swing. It was voted best pitch in the league for the last 2 years running.


----------



## GanEden (Sep 23, 2008)

*Sydney Football Stadium bids for $60 million makeover*

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...million-makeover/story-e6freye0-1226123545599










Home of the Sydney Roosters www.roosters.com.au



> THIS is the dream sporting venue that has been designed to get Sydney's stay-away sporting fans back to the football.
> 
> A spectacular new $60 million roof over the Sydney Football Stadium that will ensure every fan sits in comfort and out of the rain.
> 
> ...


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

Mods please move this to the appropriate place. This is the second time this guy has abused posting procedure in the space of two days. Should be in here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=663038&highlight=sydney+football+stadium ... or if the SFS has its own thread, in there.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

That's a lot of money just for a roof. It would likely need more to enable a refurbishment for it to really be of a major benefit.


----------



## GanEden (Sep 23, 2008)

MS20 said:


> Mods please move this to the appropriate place. This is the second time this guy has abused posting procedure in the space of two days. Should be in here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=663038&highlight=sydney+football+stadium ... or if the SFS has its own thread, in there.


Piss off moaning idiot...trying to get browny points for being suxh a douche??


----------



## The Gazmon (Mar 10, 2007)

New plans for Townsville Stadium:



> A concept plan for Townsville's new inner-city $185 million sporting stadium has been revealed for the first time.
> The North Queensland Toyota Cowboys have launched a bold bid to construct a football stadium in the city heart to replace the dilapidated Dairy Farmers Stadium.
> 
> The concept plan identifies a 17.28ha parcel of land bounded by Saunders St, and currently owned by QR National, as the ideal site for a new international standard stadium.
> ...


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

GanEden said:


> Piss off moaning idiot...trying to get browny points for being suxh a douche??


Oh look, your thread got moved from the main page...yet again. Why? Because you're violating posting rules. Learn them sometime. 

Try again troll.


----------



## TOCC (Sep 25, 2003)

GanEden said:


> Piss off moaning idiot...trying to get browny points for being suxh a douche??


TROLL ALERT


----------



## GanEden (Sep 23, 2008)

MS20 said:


> Oh look, your thread got moved from the main page...yet again. Why? Because you're violating posting rules. Learn them sometime.
> 
> Try again troll.


Kettle calling pot.....you are TOCC are a pair of queens


----------



## GanEden (Sep 23, 2008)

The Gazmon said:


> New plans for Townsville Stadium:


Awesome ground for the COWBOYS.


----------



## TOCC (Sep 25, 2003)

^^ Actually thats just a fantasy proposal by the club based on the Skilled Stadium on the Gold Coast, the Cowboys actually have no money to build that stadium..


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

TOCC said:


> ^^ Actually thats just a fantasy proposal by the club based on the Skilled Stadium on the Gold Coast, the Cowboys actually have no money to build that stadium..


No sports clubs in Australia build their own stadiums, so money isn't the issue. Its all publically financed. Dairy Farmers stadium is decent, but this would be a welcome addition to the NRL.


----------



## DesignBuild Source (Jun 23, 2011)

*Metricon Stadium*





































Stadiums have defined the way we watch large sporting events for thousands of years. They are places of dreams, spectacular hubs of human emotion, aspiration and activity, and they have played host to some of the greatest feats of physical achievement ever witnessed...

Read the full article at http://designbuildsource.com.au/house-rising-suns-metricon-stadium


----------



## bing222 (Nov 4, 2007)

What a Great Metricon Stadium is. It looks amazing


----------



## roofromoz (May 20, 2007)

> *$186 million upgrade announced for SCG*
> Updated January 03, 2012 14:29:54
> 
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the Federal Government will contribute $50 million to the redevelopment of the Sydney Cricket Ground, with the money going towards rebuilding the Bradman, Noble and Messenger Stands.
> ...


ABC News


----------



## roofromoz (May 20, 2007)

*SYDNEY - Centrebet Stadium Penrith (22,500)*










Penrith Panthers

Premierships: 2
1991, 2003

Formerly known as Penrith Park, Penrith Football Stadium and Credit Union Australia Stadium Penrith. The first premiership match was played in April 1967, the Panthers first season in the then Sydney premiership, now National Rugby League (NRL).

The following photos were taken by me in June 2010 when it was still known as Credit Union Australia Penrith:









Eastern Grandstand, opened around 1990.









Western grandstand. This structure includes the original grandstand from the mid 1960s, as well as extensions from the late 1970s and 2006 (in the distant background).









Southern end - the building under the scoreboard has since been demolished and replaced by a larger structure with much improved amenities. 









Northern family hill.









Behind the western grandstand. From Austadiums









Aerial image from September 2011, showing the new structure at the southern end. To the left is a training field, to the south is Howell Oval, home to the Penrith cricket club, who play in the Sydney grade competition, which is the next level down from the national domestic competition (Sheffield Shield / Ryobi Cup). Photo from NearMap


----------



## JoeyJ (Jan 15, 2012)

I like that roof structure on the metricon stadium.

Looks Awesome!


----------



## macas (Dec 31, 2011)

KingmanIII said:


> Didn't people say essentially the same thing back when the one-day game was introduced?
> 
> T20 is merely its logical progression, and soon enough the 50-over game, and not tests, will fade into obsolescence.


I truely am sorry but from the way indian cricket is currently going with its disgraceful test match scores, australia shouldnt be looking to mimic india


----------



## macas (Dec 31, 2011)

MS20 said:


> Mods please move this to the appropriate place. This is the second time this guy has abused posting procedure in the space of two days. Should be in here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=663038&highlight=sydney+football+stadium ... or if the SFS has its own thread, in there.


what the f*ck was wrong with posting that, atleast it is about stadiums and not about how cricket australia is sucking **** at the moment, we know this move on.


----------



## roofromoz (May 20, 2007)

Why was the Centrebet Stadium Penrith thread removed from the completed stadiums sub-forum and moved into this thread as a post?!


----------



## master_klon (Jul 20, 2011)

roofromoz said:


> Why was the Centrebet Stadium Penrith thread removed from the completed stadiums sub-forum and moved into this thread as a post?!


The rule is that you can't make a thread specifically for a stadium under 30,000. Cheers


----------



## Nikola10 (Oct 3, 2011)

is it gonna ever get built


----------



## ramendu.ganguly (Oct 26, 2011)

Wow, Australian stadiums are soooo expensive, I wonder how they ever recover that money


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ Simple. Revenue from events held there and naming rights. All it is paying off a bit of debt.


----------



## Millsy29 (May 1, 2012)

DesignBuild Source said:


> *Metricon Stadium*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amazing stadium! Can't wait for the Commonwealth Games when they hopefully build the other end, looks a bit weird.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Build what end? It seats 25,000 at the moment. For the Commonwealth Games in 2018 they will build a temporary 10,000ish seater stand (similar to Sydney 2000) on the open end (existing seating at that end will be removed, as to allow for an athletics track to be comfortably fit in).










It looks like the ground will be lowered to permit additional rows of seating. I suppose the Gold Coast Suns will have to play their "home" games in Brisbane for the 2017-2018 season. Maybe the expansion (minus the ground level seating), will be permanent, offering something along the lines of 35,000 or so capacity. The capacity for the Commonwealth Games will be 40,000.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Demolition has commenced at Adelaide Oval. The Sir Donald Bradman stand and the newish Chappell stands are but rubble at the moment. 

What we are aiming for in Feb2014:








Sir Don stand is now completely gone - this pic is over a week old:








Chappell stands also gone:








The SMA wasted no time here. there is a tight deadline to have everything ready for AFL season 2014 and what the AFL wants in the southern states they seem quite capable of making happen. 
Photo credits to Demo on the excellent SensationalAdelaide website:
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3335&start=1860


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

How large is this ground going to.be if my cricket knowledge from tbe ashes last year its around 40k right .

I gotta say with these upgrades it perfectly fits larger new facilities while retaining the feel of a cricket ground with individual stands , much prefer this to the mcc


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Isnt the sydney cricket ground having an expansion.to around 60 k too your going to.have some even better ground soon


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> Isnt the sydney cricket ground having an expansion.to around 60 k too your going to.have some even better ground soon


,
A new Northern stand is in the pipeline I believe. Northern is the end adjacent to the Football Stadium. New capacity aimed for approx 48,000
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...e-grand-old-lady-of-sport-20120102-1pifd.html
New Adelaide Oval capacity is Approx 53,000


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

As above. 
The new stand at the SCG won't boost capacity much but provided 21st Centurty amenities.

The "New" Adelaide Oval will seat 50000 and the retained northern Hill will have standing room for 4500.

I think Adelaide will have the most aesthetically pleasing Stadium in the AFL when finished. God knows what design Perth will settle on but one thing is for sure it won't be about being sympathetic to the themes of a historical and culturally important precinct like Adelaide's.


----------



## alejo25 (Nov 17, 2006)

GanEden said:


> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...million-makeover/story-e6freye0-1226123545599
> 
> 
> 
> ...


^^:banana:


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

vanbasten88 said:


> Demolition has commenced at Adelaide Oval. The Sir Donald Bradman stand and the newish Chappell stands are but rubble at the moment.
> 
> What we are aiming for in Feb2014:


It looks a terrific new stadium, although I'm not keen on the open end.

It's just a shame they had to knock down such a beautiful old ground.


----------



## Millsy29 (May 1, 2012)

Lord David said:


> Build what end? It seats 25,000 at the moment. For the Commonwealth Games in 2018 they will build a temporary 10,000ish seater stand (similar to Sydney 2000) on the open end (existing seating at that end will be removed, as to allow for an athletics track to be comfortably fit in).
> 
> It looks like the ground will be lowered to permit additional rows of seating. I suppose the Gold Coast Suns will have to play their "home" games in Brisbane for the 2017-2018 season. Maybe the expansion (minus the ground level seating), will be permanent, offering something along the lines of 35,000 or so capacity. The capacity for the Commonwealth Games will be 40,000.


Yes, I know. No the other end will not be temporary as the Suns fanbase will have grown and there will be the need for another stand. It will be permanent.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Millsy29 said:


> Yes, I know. No the other end will not be temporary as the Suns fanbase will have grown and there will be the need for another stand. It will be permanent.


I wonder how the Sun fanbase will look once the subsidized/free tickets dry up.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> It looks a terrific new stadium, although I'm not keen on the open end.
> 
> It's just a shame they had to knock down such a beautiful old ground.


A perfect venue for any future Adelaide Commonwealth Games.


----------



## Millsy29 (May 1, 2012)

vanbasten88 said:


> I wonder how the Sun fanbase will look once the subsidized/free tickets dry up.


The Suns will be the Gold Coast's most successful sports team, on and off the field. The AFL are in it for the long haul.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Millsy29 said:


> The Suns will be the Gold Coast's most successful sports team, on and off the field. The AFL are in it for the long haul.


Almost spit my beer all over the screen reading this....

Not hard to be Gold Coasts most successful sports team......:cheers:


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Calvin W said:


> Almost spit my beer all over the screen reading this....
> 
> Not hard to be Gold Coasts most successful sports team......:cheers:


What's the death count on the Glitter strip these days? 
5 x RL teams and Titans in the poo at the moment.
GCU Soccer
???
??

You admire the childlike naivety of Victorians sometimes though. so damned sure their worldwide ignored bastard sport will one day conquer the globe 
So sure that its already the perfect sport that they change the rules every year


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Updates on the MCG Southern Stand redevelopment:




























The finished product:


----------



## Millsy29 (May 1, 2012)

New Perth Stadium announced today: http://m.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perths-new-footy-stadium-could-hold-80000-20120507-1y8ll.html


----------



## the Ludovico center (Jun 12, 2009)

Can any of you Aussies explain to me why there are two different looking plans for the upgrade of the Margaret Court arena? 

Which one of the following is gonna be actually built?


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

^^ The second one:

http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=497


----------



## Texas_giant (Jul 28, 2012)

flavze said:


> tbh i can't remember the last 3 day test match i've watched. With pitches prepared for batsmen nowdays i would say there's less tests that don't go the full distance than back in the days of green or rock hard pitches. If batting styles hadn't changed we would hardly ever see a result now within 5 days. I prefer watching Test matches to 50 over or T20 but not when batsmen pad around for 200 runs in a days play.
> 
> *i also watch more Soccer in summer than cricket*, go you mighty Reds! In fact the last 10 or so times i have been to Adelaide oval is for Soccer and Rugby games rather than cricket. All my cricket is watched on TV now days.


I think this trend will be reversed with the Big Bash. It got absolutely massive ratings last summer, and if it goes on free-to-air, it will knock soccer into oblivion

After all, cricket has a special place in the hearts and minds of australian people, and the Big Bash is going to make it massive again

Soccer ratings are no where close to what cricket normally gets, and the average big bash audience was far larger than even the biggest soccer audiences


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

Texas_giant said:


> I think this trend will be reversed with the Big Bash. It got absolutely massive ratings last summer, and if it goes on free-to-air, it will knock soccer into oblivion
> 
> After all, cricket has a special place in the hearts and minds of australian people, and the Big Bash is going to make it massive again
> 
> Soccer ratings are no where close to what cricket normally gets, and the average big bash audience was far larger than even the biggest soccer audiences


Cricket is by far the bigger sport in summer, and if the Big Bash can manage to maintain its success, it'll become even bigger.

I'm a member of the Perth Glory (A-League) and I'm planning on getting a Scorchers (BBL) membership this year because I went to a couple games last season and had a blast.


----------



## Texas_giant (Jul 28, 2012)

Luigi742 said:


> Cricket is by far the bigger sport in summer, and if the Big Bash can manage to maintain its success, it'll become even bigger.
> 
> I'm a member of the Perth Glory (A-League) and I'm planning on getting a Scorchers (BBL) membership this year because I went to a couple games last season and had a blast.


good luck with that, from what I heard several of the games for Perth sold out within minutes. I hope a team with a bigger stadium makes it to the knockouts this time, it will be jam packed 50,000+ crowd. 

Prepare yourself, cricket is about to crush soccer for good in Australia


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

Cricket has over a century of history as a mainstream sport. Football was marginalised until 2005. 

Yep, a league that plays 31 matches a season is going to send football to the dark ages, despite the fact that it arose out of oblivion less than 10 years ago. Also the same broadcaster that airs cricket and those ratings youre referring to is also about to give the A League a nice new payrise. Horrible times ahead for the world game in Australia.... the reality is that football is more popular today than its ever been in Australia. Spin it any way you desire, but anyone projecting doom in 2012 for football in Aus is out of touch with reality.


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

Texas_giant said:


> good luck with that, from what I heard several of the games for Perth sold out within minutes. I hope a team with a bigger stadium makes it to the knockouts this time, it will be jam packed 50,000+ crowd.
> 
> Prepare yourself, cricket is about to crush soccer for good in Australia


No way, the demographic is completely different, soccer appeals to the european people that live here, while cricket appeals to the more 'Australian' market. There is no reason why they can't coexist.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Luigi742 said:


> No way, the demographic is completely different, soccer appeals to the european people that live here, while cricket appeals to the more 'Australian' market. There is no reason why they can't coexist.


I'm sorry, I must have forgotten to present my Australian passport at the gate for the last Adelaide United game I attended (8 yr season ticket holder)


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

vanbasten88 said:


> I'm sorry, I must have forgotten to present my Australian passport at the gate for the last Adelaide United game I attended (8 yr season ticket holder)


I said soccer appeals to the european market, I didn't say us Australians don't watch it too, I've been a Perth Glory member for 3 years and I'm not exactly what you would call ethnic.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

I've noticed cricket really losing appeal over the last few decades....far fewer people talk about it in the office these days apart from when the ashes are on or something...


----------



## chotu32 (Mar 28, 2010)

Cricket in general was losing ground, but you have to admit the big bash was explosive. 
Check out the numbers it got - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/c...inner-for-pay-tv/story-fn67w6pa-1226225631358

And that was only opening games, it got massive ratings throughout the tournament. It may not crush soccer, but it will surely get far far far larger viewership especially once it goes free-to-air


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

fish.01 said:


> I've noticed cricket really losing appeal over the last few decades....far fewer people talk about it in the office these days apart from when the ashes are on or something...


That's my gut feel too though I'm not sure if its because I've fallen totally under the spell of the A-League in the last 8 years. Cricket just doesn't seem as important or talked about as much as it used to be in the days of the 12th man tapes etc. I think its because cricket is being played ALL the time now, it always seems to be cricket season and that means there is soo much that I struggle to remember anything meaningful(or overly memorable) occurring in recent Summers, it all just seems to run in to itself, too much of a good thing perhaps? I mean we have what 3 national teams now, the test team, ODI, T20, anything else? Sadly I'd struggle to even name the current Test Captain, some say 'the' most important job in Australia(yes above the PM!) BBL1 was big, but I think the recent restructure away from state teams lost a few fans, As a proud SA-lian, I'll go for the Redbacks or nobody. Lets see if cricket can sustain its big numbers. Soccer's A-League boomed in its first 3 seasons, dropped back a bit in season 4-6 once the new car smell wore off and only last season arrested its slide in crowd numbers( a bit like MLS really I guess). 
Its a touch early to be calling the BBL a runaway success that will 'crush' Soccer I think. Soccer has survived 40+ years of mismanagement and cronyism, now that they are better organized, I don't expect them to just fade away into nothingness.


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

Some pictures of the current renovation at nib Stadium. They're getting rid of the temporary seating at the Eastern and Southern sides and they are replacing them with some nice looking grand stands.

Old:
Eastern Stand










Southern Stand










Current:



















New:


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

Those new stands look excellent, would look really good with a similar stand opposite the main one. Renderings look real sharp.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Benn said:


> Those new stands look excellent, would look really good with a similar stand opposite the main one. Renderings look real sharp.


It said Glory on the old stands, but this is for Glory and the Force isn't it? final capacity?? 28k??
Looks great IMO


----------



## chotu32 (Mar 28, 2010)

Well soccer has a natural appeal amongst all humans beings. It's by far the top sport in almost every country in the world. (bar a few which are India, SL, Bang, Pak, NZ, Aus, Canada, and USA). 

both sports can coexist and thrive, which it actually looks like it will do. The BBL hogs all the attention from the A-league, but that's only for the short duration in which it runs. When the BBL not happening, naturally people will turn back to the A-league.


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

vanbasten88 said:


> It said Glory on the old stands, but this is for Glory and the Force isn't it? final capacity?? 28k??
> Looks great IMO


Capacity won't change from the current 22,000



Benn said:


> Those new stands look excellent, would look really good with a similar stand opposite the main one. Renderings look real sharp.


It definitely would but I don't see it happening, this stand serves its purpose well as a corporate stand. Plus we don't really need the capacity boost.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^The 2nd Stage is to replace the 1950's western stand with a Stand dominated with Suites and other corporate facilities. The end capacity will be around 27000, a great size for Soccer and the 2 Rugby Codes with any larger fixures going to the planned Burswood Stadium.


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

Walbanger said:


> ^^The 2nd Stage is to replace the 1950's western stand with a Stand dominated with Suites and other corporate facilities. The end capacity will be around 27000, a great size for Soccer and the 2 Rugby Codes with any larger fixures going to the planned Burswood Stadium.


Really? I thought the second stage was just to replace the first level of standing area on the north side with seats. That's awesome!


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Luigi742 said:


> Really? I thought the second stage was just to replace the first level of standing area on the north side with seats. That's awesome!


I hope they never get rid of the terracing of the Shed and the FOTS, it helps Glory fans create some of the best atmosphere in the A-League IMO. Should be more of it league wide. bloody 'ealf and safety with their mandatory seating requirements


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

vanbasten88 said:


> I hope they never get rid of the terracing of the Shed and the FOTS, it helps Glory fans create some of the best atmosphere in the A-League IMO. Should be more of it league wide. bloody 'ealf and safety with their mandatory seating requirements


The shed is staying standing room only but the FOTS is getting seats. Kinda sad really, being under 18 the FOTS is my hangout, I'll just stand on the seats anyway.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Luigi742 said:


> The shed is staying standing room only but the FOTS is getting seats. Kinda sad really, being under 18 the FOTS is my hangout, I'll just stand on the seats anyway.


Sad to see FOTS is going, there should be more standing areas in the league NOT less IMO.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

chotu32 said:


> Well soccer has a natural appeal amongst all humans beings. It's by far the top sport in almost every country in the world. (bar a few which are India, SL, Bang, Pak, NZ, Aus, Canada, and USA).
> 
> both sports can coexist and thrive, which it actually looks like it will do. The BBL hogs all the attention from the A-league, but that's only for the short duration in which it runs. When the BBL not happening, naturally people will turn back to the A-league.


And I'm not even sure if BBL does hog all people's attention....to be honest I don't even remember the BBL or know anything about it where, without attending anything, I remember hearing about the A-league all year. It sounds like BBL got some good crowds but not convinced it has penetrated that deeply yet to dunderheads like me...


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

Luigi742 said:


> Really? I thought the second stage was *just to replace the first level of standing area on the north side with seats*. That's awesome!


That's part of stage one. Stage two involves removing the shed and the old grandstand.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> The Canberra Liberals will not build a new rectangular stadium in the city centre and will instead upgrade the existing Canberra Stadium if they win the election, ACT Opposition leader Zed Seselja says.


http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...m-under-canberra-liberals-20121010-27cha.html


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Adelaide Oval progress


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Texas_giant said:


> good luck with that, from what I heard several of the games for Perth sold out within minutes. I hope a team with a bigger stadium makes it to the knockouts this time, it will be jam packed 50,000+ crowd.
> 
> Prepare yourself, cricket is about to crush soccer for good in Australia


lol


----------



## TOCC (Sep 25, 2003)

MS20 said:


> No sports clubs in Australia build their own stadiums, so money isn't the issue. Its all publically financed. Dairy Farmers stadium is decent, but this would be a welcome addition to the NRL.


Ok well the Government currently has not money for luxury expenses like stadiums either, the QLD Govt will be going for a bare bones Commonwealth Games bid as it is


----------



## TOCC (Sep 25, 2003)

ramendu.ganguly said:


> Wow, Australian stadiums are soooo expensive, I wonder how they ever recover that money


the larger stadiums all charge around $30ish minimum for the cheapest tickets


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

nib stadium looked great today. The southern stand is basically finished they just need to put seats in the other half of it. The eastern stand is starting to come up as well. I'm astonished at how fast they're getting it done.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Texas_giant said:


> good luck with that, from what I heard several of the games for Perth sold out within minutes. I hope a team with a bigger stadium makes it to the knockouts this time, it will be jam packed 50,000+ crowd.
> 
> Prepare yourself, *cricket is about to crush soccer for good in Australia*


And I laughed and I laughed all day.
Care to re-assess your opinion after the stellar start to the Summer the A-league has made thus far?
If Soccer was going to die out in Australia it would have happened when the incompetent SocAus were running the sport. Instead, it survived long enough to get some decent administrators on board to form the FFA and create the A-League.
Soccer is on the up my friend and has been for 10+ years now.

Since the Halcyon days of Steve Waugh's baggy greens starring McGrath Warne and Gilly...Cricket is suffering under the burden of just too many games, it no longer means anything. If you lose a ODI/T20 who cares they play again next night....the Indians(BCCI) insatiable desire for cricket on their televisions has lead Cricket Australia to over stuff the pudding. Cricket will never die out, but Soccer is now easily in front of Rugby in the football pecking order with a damned long way to go to get anywhere near the AFL/NRL who are 1 and 2(you can decide who is 1 and who is 2) depends on which side of the Murray you inhabit generally. :cheers:
Hope you enjoyed the Sydney Derby last weekend, world class atmosphere in the stadium, the game was as cagey as a European derby dogfight. Wanderers need to find a goal from anywhere to get the monkey off their back.:banana::banana:


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

vanbasten88 said:


> And I laughed and I laughed all day.
> Care to re-assess your opinion after the stellar start to the Summer the A-league has made thus far?
> If Soccer was going to die out in Australia it would have happened when the incompetent SocAus were running the sport. Instead, it survived long enough to get some decent administrators on board to form the FFA and create the A-League.
> Soccer is on the up my friend and has been for 10+ years now.
> ...


Mmm, wouldn't go that far. Rugby Union has a special niche in Australia and when the Wallabies actually have a decent team with likeable personalities again, we will see it. Consider League is far more popular than Union here but the Wallabies are a much much bigger brand than the Kangaroos. When they are on they are aguably Australia's favorite National Team.

Rugby and Soccer in this nation is apples and oranges as unlike Soccer, we know we have common access to watch the best in Union.

Your points on Cricket, I totally agree.

As for whose 1 and 2 out of League and Aussie Rules. Aussie Rules is clearly the biggest. More Revenue, Attendence, Sponsorship, Salaries, strength outside of heartlands, TV is about the same as there is less regional bases in VIC, WA, SA, Tas and NT.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

I don't want to get into a code war, but I notice you're from Perth which has a Super Rugby team and a hell of a lot of ex-pat Kiwis and Saffas. Over here n Adelaide, I reckon you could vox-pop. 1000 people in Rundle Mall and less than 30 would be able to tell you the difference between the Kangaroos and the Wallabies. 

Rugby has virtually zero presence here in S.A. and its only on Subscription TV. Soccer has many things Rugby doesn't like a vibrant national league.(the ARC lasted how many months?) launched at Rugby's high water mark in this country(hosting and almost winning the 2003RWC) I much prefer the 15 man game to the NRL, even if it is so complex even the commentators have to wait for the ref to explain himself before they offer an opinion. Rugby would be much better and gain more converts if it hadn't degenerated into a snore-fest of penalty goal after penalty goal...How many tries did the Wallabies score in the Rugby Championship? 
Rugby of course has the cash cow of the Bledisloe in Sydney(A$150+ per ticket) When the new media deal for FFA is announced it will even out the disparity between Rugby and Soccer in terms of income. I don't think that any major sport in Australia should be on the endangered list. League with its high concentration of Sydney teams and risk averse mindset in growing their game hands the AFL the #1 spot on a platter.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

vanbasten88 said:


> I don't want to get into a code war, but I notice you're from Perth which has a Super Rugby team and a hell of a lot of ex-pat Kiwis and Saffas. Over here n Adelaide, I reckon you could vox-pop. 1000 people in Rundle Mall and less than 30 would be able to tell you the difference between the Kangaroos and the Wallabies.
> 
> Rugby has virtually zero presence here in S.A. and its only on Subscription TV. Soccer has many things Rugby doesn't like a vibrant national league.(the ARC lasted how many months?) launched at Rugby's high water mark in this country(hosting and almost winning the 2003RWC) I much prefer the 15 man game to the NRL, even if it is so complex even the commentators have to wait for the ref to explain himself before they offer an opinion. Rugby would be much better and gain more converts if it hadn't degenerated into a snore-fest of penalty goal after penalty goal...How many tries did the Wallabies score in the Rugby Championship?
> Rugby of course has the cash cow of the Bledisloe in Sydney(A$150+ per ticket) When the new media deal for FFA is announced it will even out the disparity between Rugby and Soccer in terms of income. I don't think that any major sport in Australia should be on the endangered list. League with its high concentration of Sydney teams and risk averse mindset in growing their game hands the AFL the #1 spot on a platter.


One thing we have is an insanely bright future, and anyone that tells you otherwise is fearful of the game. Football landscape has changed dramatically since 2005. The amount of things achieved in just 7 years should tell you that the next 20 are going be far beyond what anyone could have envisioned. 

People who judge popularity of the game through A-League are a tad retarded unfortunately. The game is so fragmented in its support that its a miracle the A-League actually has support. 

If the United States is an indicator (and its a much tougher market than Australia to crack) we're in for a golden age of football in Australia. MLS struggled for the first 10 years of its existence, folding 2 teams, losing money by the bucketload, and general experiencing indifference by media and a large Eurosnob fanbase. In its 18th year, its about to crack 6,000,000 in attendance. While I don't see the Eurosnob fanbase getting any smaller in Australia (its only going to grow), I can see dual-support expanding as it has in the US. If football can succeed in the US, Australia won't be a problem. And we are about 10 years behind the US in our development. 

Ultimately young people are the future, and they are increasingly fans of football. I have no doubt we'll overtaken Union and eventually League. The game already dwarfs League and Union in South Australia and Victoria.


----------



## Timothy83 (Jan 20, 2012)

Why is it that there's a portion of Australians who are seemingly continuously obsessed with a) destroying Australian soccer and/or b) proclaiming its doom?

It's here to stay folks. By the way the Adelaide oval development is a fantastic idea.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

Timothy83 said:


> *Why is it that there's a portion of Australians who are seemingly continuously obsessed with a) destroying Australian soccer and/or b) proclaiming its doom?*
> 
> It's here to stay folks. By the way the Adelaide oval development is a fantastic idea.


Fear.


----------



## Timothy83 (Jan 20, 2012)

ramendu.ganguly said:


> Wow, Australian stadiums are soooo expensive,


No they're not. You should see the costs of building a stadium in the US or Europe.



ramendu.ganguly said:


> I wonder how they ever recover that money


By umm... hosting sporting events which are popular, and doing this frequently?


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> Fear.


Do you really think the average Aussie AFL or NRL fan fear Soccer?

There seasons don't even compete and there is a lot of cross over support.
Young kids often play both Soccer and a collision sport.
Aussie Rules and Rugby League are too engrained in the nations fabic to succumb to Soccer but like in Canada (healthy CFL and MLS) there is room for both Soccer and the local game.

Still, it's summer time and I'd rather watch the NBL then the A-League (except when playing Brisbane).


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

ramendu.ganguly said:


> Wow, Australian stadiums are soooo expensive, I wonder how they ever recover that money





Timothy83 said:


> No they're not. You should see the costs of building a stadium in the US or Europe.


It just comes down to what the statiums requirements are. 
Each capital city has/ is getting an iconic world class Stadium. These days they will cost over $500 million. Brisbanes Suncorp Stadium was over $300 million in 2003, Sydney's ANZ Stadium was over $600 million in 1999 etc

After that, secondary stadiums need not be built to the same standards just like a College Football Stadium is not built like an NFL Stadium.

Metricon Stadium on the Gold Coast cost something like $160 million because of a far simpler structure which uses the surrounding ground level as the concourse with most services independent from the tiers. It works really well within the Australian venacular of the Suburban Ground.


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> *Do you really think the average Aussie AFL or NRL fan fear Soccer?*
> 
> There seasons don't even compete and there is a lot of cross over support.
> Young kids often play both Soccer and a collision sport.
> ...


It depends upon how you phrase the question. News Limited makes a living whipping up xenophobic fear campaigns. For 30+ years now they have run a sneaky campaign of portraying Soccer as the sport for foreigners who refuse to assimilate and follow 'real' Aussie sports like footy and League. It taps into the fearful undercurrent of the Aussie psyche the fear of invasion that has existed since the false 'Russian invasions' of the 1800s. How do you think Pauline Hanson got elected? Obviously with over 1+ million people through the gate in each of the 7 seasons completed there are plenty of people born in Australia(like me) watching the game I have completely turned my back on the AFL..with all their damned rules changes if I tried to watch any more AFL footy, I'd feel like a foreigner in my own country 

By painting Soccer as this sport 'for immigrants & foreigners' they can switch between pumping up the Nationalistic fervour of Go Socceroos and the fearful the effniks are out to get us "OMG Soccer Riotzz" every time a few fans get drunk and do what cricket fans do every summer(get evicted for Drunk & disorderly.)


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^ Good points

I must admitt I was a little peeved when Soccer in Australia usurped the "Football" title as League generally brands itself as such and the AFL started branding Aussie Rules as AFL to not put offside Qld and NSW. Sneaky Bastards 

Soccer is a great recreational game but I'm pretty sure the sport has done more harm to itself in this country than News Ltd etc. The poor administration for decades, fighting state bodies, poor branding (Socceroos), ethnic based clubs in national league for decades which alienated a lot of Anglo-Australians and strengthened prejudice (MLS would never have worked if it was a league full of Chivas LA). Then outside Australia you have the corrupt to the core FIFA and maybe the biggest stumbling block in the actual game: Simulation / Diving. It goes completely against the Sporting ethics of Australia which is base on Amateur Corinthian / Victorian ideals. 
It seems everytime Soccer in Australia is looking the goods and building momentum it gets blindsided like the 2022 WC Bid, kicked in the knuts ie Italy vs Aus G16 2006 WC or shoots itself in the foot ala Besart Berisha's dive and subsequent behavior in last years GF with the Ref dating a Brisbane Roar employee.

I look forward to the day that Soccer and the A-League especially is strong, stable with 20 000+ crowds. One good strength is it isn't hindered by geography like League and Aussie Rules so if team numbers remain roughly where they are, somewhat dorment city/state rivalries can re-emerge where the NRL and AFL really are strickly club comps. Sydney and Melbourne derbies, Sydney vs Melbourne, Qld vs NSW, SA vs Vic, WA vs Everyone. Maybe a Captial rivalry between Wellington and (God forbid) a stable Canberra team.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> Do you really think the average Aussie AFL or NRL fan fear Soccer?


Am I supposed to dignify that with a response? If you left that rock you've been living under over the past few decades, you might see what a ridiculous question that is.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> .... *shoots itself in the foot* ala Besart Berisha's dive and subsequent behavior in last years GF with the Ref dating a Brisbane Roar employee.
> ...


vs



Walbanger said:


> Still, it's summer time and *I'd rather watch the NBL* then the A-League (*except when playing Brisbane*).


Hmmm :lol:


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^ I actually really like Basketball so by prefering the NBL over the A-League doesn't mean I don't have tacit support for it. I haven't been to a Perth Glory game in years but I always have a look to see how they are performing.

Naturally Perth people wanted some type of revenge against Brisbane for what was a disgracful end to League's maquee event. It still didn't look good for Soccer and the FFA agreed.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

MS20 said:


> Am I supposed to dignify that with a response? If you left that rock you've been living under over the past few decades, you might see what a ridiculous question that is.


It was serious and honest question. If you felt it was loaded they thats your problem. Your response leeds me to believe you live in a Soccer Bubble without truely appreciating the cultural significance of Rugby League and Aussie Rules in Australia. They really have nothing to fear from Soccer. It's not as if you can only be a fan of one.

I hear the "They fear Soccer" statement a lot from Soccer fans but when talking or watching Aussie Rules it is the last thing on our minds. Does MLB or the NFL fear Soccer?
Why should the NRL or AFL. The A-League would be considered an amazing success if they can get some FTA coverage and 20 000 crowd averages (which I'd love to see). At the same time the bigger AFL clubs are looking for 60 000+ season ticket holders. You can't catch up by going slower.


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

AFL and NRL aren't the ones with anything to fear, different seasons. Cricket deals with a different demographic entirely as well.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> ^^ I actually really like Basketball so by prefering the NBL over the A-League doesn't mean I don't have tacit support for it. I haven't been to a Perth Glory game in years but I always have a look to see how they are performing.
> 
> Naturally Perth people wanted some type of revenge against Brisbane for what was a disgracful end to League's maquee event. It still didn't look good for Soccer and the FFA agreed.


My point was that you mentioned that the only time you would put the A-League in front of NBL was if playing Brisbane...seems the controversy and revenge attracted you rather than drove you a away 

PS Has Perth stopped whinging yet ?


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

fish.01 said:


> My point was that you mentioned that the only time you would put the A-League in front of NBL was if playing Brisbane...seems the controversy and revenge attracted you rather than drove you a away
> 
> *PS Has Perth stopped whinging yet ? *


We will never forget


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Luigi742 said:


> We will never forget


So we've noticed, you're all very balanced. Been watching Berisha live this year btw as now a member...he really is a good player....reminds me a little of Beckham for some reason :lol:


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

I hadn't seen anything about this on here, but I came across it earlier:

This is the new East Stand at the NIB Stadium (Perth Oval):










This is what it replaced:










The new South Stand, this was built to allow a roof to be put over it in the near future:










Inside the new East Stand:










This is the Northern end of the ground or "The Shed" as it is known. The new seating will be installed in July and take up that lower half of the space, basically completing the all seating lower bowl section of the ground.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

does anybody -- *ANYBODY* -- have a recent update on the MCG Southern Stand refurb?

the official website hasn't been updated since *LAST MARCH*


----------



## NicoPerth92 (May 8, 2013)

in Perth there's several redevelopment works related to sporting and stadiums, the redevelopments at WACA (the gardens at WACA), Belmont racecourse, NIB stadium, the new super stadium and Perth Arena, 
all of which apart from Perth Arena will be in Perth's redeveloped eastern entrance which includes a new Waterbank precinct Australia's first six star hotel (500 room Crown hotel) the Crown Casino and a new Scitech will all be in this precinct which will be connected via a pedestrian footbridge, WACA and Belmont park will be home to unique lifestyle opportunities where residents will be able to live in the stadium precincts. lots of exciting happenings in Perth with sporting and stadiums. 

Australia's first six star hotel 










Waterbank precinct









the Gardens at WACA









Belmont racecourse 









Stadium WA









Perth Arena which is now home the Hyundai Hopman cup and the Perth Wildcats.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

*$20m upgrade for Parramatta Stadium​*_(Parts pasted from austadiums news) _ 
Parramatta Stadium’s capacity will be increased to 24,000 and its facilities upgraded following the announcement of $20 million Federal Government funding.

Work will include upgrading the eastern stand, including a new concourse and spectator facilities, new corporate hospitality suites and a 500-seat function room, improved player facilities in the western stand and an additional 3,300 seats on the northern and southern mounds

Longer-term plans for Parramatta Stadium are to potentially upgrade it to a 40,000-seat venue with state-of-the-art facilities. Both home tenants believe they’ll outgrow the current capacity in the coming years.
http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=520

I do not think this proposal from the government properly meets the demands/requirements that Parramatta Eels RLC or Western Sydney Wanderers FC were making. there was all this talk about a brand new stadium being built in western sydney to accomodate Rugby L, Rugby U and Soccer. The government 'apparently' have a stadium policy here where funds would no longer be given to redeveloping smaller suburban stadiums which usually house 1 sporting team, instead funds would be spent on building larger stadiums that can accomodate more teams. This will make it cheaper for the government(s) to maintain their sporting grounds and more profit made. 

Well Parramatta Stadium is a Suburban ground and the $20 million the government has promised is really no more than a fresh paint job. If this redevelopment goes ahead (which most likely will not as the goverment making the promise will likely suffer anialation in the polls in september), it is predicted to only meet demand for acouple of years. $20 million for afew extra suites and 3,300 extra seats. The longer term plan is to upgrade the ground to 40,000 seats, tell them there dreaming... it will require a rebuild to get a 40,000 seater.

If i had the descision on how to upgrade Parramatta Stadium with that money i would have proposed;
stage 1: fix concourse into an even lower bowel and prepare for later work
stage 2: rebuild the eastern stand as a 2 tier wrap around with the southern end and northern end, roof on eastern side side only.
when more funds..
stage 3. build western stand to match the rest, make complete wrap around and roof around. the overall cost could be quite cheap when keeping it a simple design. during construction i would have planned for the new 2nd tier on either side to be built a little further like 1 or 2 metres max than the original. this would be for any furture expansion say for world cup etc. 
stage 4: furture expansion would be from sinking the field afew metres and steeping the lower bowel to add several more thousand.

i got creative on Paintbrush and made my own illustration of what Parramatta stadium would look with a two tier wrap around. 








capacity would be around 35,000
and what Parramatta stadium would look with identical stands built at the ends. 








capacity would be around 25-27,000

Im dissapointed that nothing has been heard from the RL commision. seriously have those guys done anything of significant worth for the game. sporting clubs in australia pay large amounts to use goverment owned stadiums, the current stadium policy is all about making the government more money so theres no doubt the fees for using these larger stadiums will be significantly larger too. the government gave everyone a 'free kick' telling the different sporting bodies that suburban grunds will recieve less and less money in the future, so you would think that with some of the money from the tv deal, our commision would see the positives in paying or garenteeing payment for a percentage of stadium works in stadiums that they feel would be in the best interests of the NRL to be part owner of. Im not saying funding for every stadium the NRL uses but have a plan on stadium sharing for NRL teams.


----------



## stoutekont (Mar 26, 2013)

Perth Glory has a great new home!


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^ $90 million doesn't go that far anymore.









...but the redevelopment is only half way with over $100 million to be spent on a new Western Stand which isn't designed yet but will full of Corporate Boxes and Suits.









I hope to see a tier arrangment similar to TCU's Amon G. Carter Stadium.









I like the use of the salmon bricks dividing the ground and first tiers and think a similar aesthetic could be a good tribute to the 1957 F.D. Book Stand (same type of brick) that is heritage listed but will need demolishing with a new Western Stand. Even that set of Suits could retain the old stands name in respect to the East Perth Royals history at the 109 year old venue.

What I really like about Nib Stadium / Perth Oval is that once fully completed it will be a fantastic modern Stadium lacking in little but will still retain the strong Australian vernacular of the "Suburban Ground" with its open feel, viewing windows of the heritage listed Moreton Bay Fig Trees, City Skyline and 1920's Gates in a Green inner-suburb. Sterile it ain't.

I assume the standing area in the north end will remain as I think that is the will of the Perth Glory. Don't have a clue what the Western Force or West Coast Pirates think.


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

The plan is to put seats in the lower bowl of the northern end, keeping the shed standing. Hopefully when they do the west stand they will knock down the shed and put some more seats in the northern end.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

the western grandstand at newcastles ausgrid was recently completed and original plans for the stadiums upgrades had a final stage that consisted the northern and southern ends converted to full seating. The ends were to connect to the lower bowel of the eastern and western stand and create a full wrap around concourse/lower bowel.

It seems this stage had been shelved as there has been no news and i can not find any renders of the proposal.
Does anyone know the actual plans/designs/render for the northern n southern ends?

Will this final stage be completed before the Asian cup in 2015 because i read somewhere that part of the stadium conditions are full seater stadia.

In photos and on tv the grandstand lower bowels do not seem to match up. The western stand looks larger and a different elevation to the eastern 'andrew johns' stand as shown below, the ends of the eastern and western stands seem to have different heights and elevation.









If australia won the bid for the 2022 world cup this stadium was going to have temporary stands at the ends to increase capacity as the pic below shows.








I know that the second tiers of both ends were only planned if australia won the bid for 2022, but now that Newcastle has been selected as a venue for the Asian cup in 2015, will the government fill in the ends with seating. This stadium will be abit of an embarrassment if the ends are not fixed in time.


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

*Melbourne Park Redevelopment*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUY795ENns


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

NicoPerth92 said:


> Australia's first six star hotel


For what it's worth... I believe Palazzo Versace was the first and it opened almost 14 years ago...


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

And now Parramatta Stadium is set to be called Pirtek Stadium, can't find the link.


----------



## THDFCTY (Aug 12, 2013)

This year, I've gone around taking photo's of all of the old suburban VFL/AFL grounds. Here is what Waverly Park looks like today. I would love it if anybody has any detailed photos of areas like the concourses and exterior when it was still used as I wasn't old enough to visit when it was operational hno:.


----------



## THDFCTY (Aug 12, 2013)

Goals to the right of screen on TV










The outer










Scoreboard end goals



















The view from leftover seats


----------



## RFSK (Aug 13, 2012)

The Ideal Thing would be to use the football specific Aami Park. and if anything. Buy the stadium from the VIC.
But they will probably not do that right now, Because even with how deep pockets they got, they have a lot of money Invested, on various projects around the Globe.
They could go after Buying the naming rights for the stadium, but Aami Park, hold the rights till 2018. and they already have the naming rights for another Stadium, (Hence called Etihad Stadium) which might have a too big capacity at the moment for the club, and is perhaps not as Football friendly. Stands too far away for a football field.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

I don't see any reason for City's owners to buy AAMI Park. Rent is most likely not an issue, and this will be their 3rd club in terms of priority. Doesn't seem right to buy such an expensive stadium, especially as the $300-400m New York stadium won't be financed by private money exclusively.


----------



## RFSK (Aug 13, 2012)

I don't think that they will either... unless it would financially viable


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

RFSK said:


> I don't think that they will either... unless it would financially viable


Could they blow the money on AAMI Park? No reason why not. Why would they do such a thing though? They could also finance NYCFC's stadium tomorrow, but if they don't have to, there's no reason to. The bonus for them is that AAMI Park is already built. I imagine they would prefer paying whatever the rent is yearly to owning the stadium. I don't see what they get out of owning a 200-300m stadium in the A-League.


----------



## RFSK (Aug 13, 2012)

well for conversations sake, lets take MLS as an example. They almost demand that the owners own their stadium, or at least have a very feasible lease. so that the revenue share, is much bigger, they sit on, the parking money, naming rights, rent from other teams (3 teams excluding the Hearts & Storm) and other concerts & events that might present themselves. And that it would make it their Stadium, they would control everything about it. that they must put up against that cost of the stadium, and if the VIC wants to sell it, or Lease it for 100 Years.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Different in America though. Taxpayer funded stadiums are handed to owners for free basically. Fairly sure that doesnt happen in Australia.


----------



## RFSK (Aug 13, 2012)

The Stadium is already built, just depends on the price....


----------



## Birkish Delight (Aug 19, 2010)

In the US it is also common for the venue to own the team. ie Madison Square Garden owns the NY Nicks (NBA) and the NY Rangers (NHL). There are some very significant ownership differences between the UK, US and Australia with respect to venues.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

RFSK said:


> The Stadium is already built, just depends on the price....


You used MLS as an example. MLS stadiums get given to owners for little outlay on their part. AAMI park would cost hundreds of millions for ADUG. 

The fact that its built only reinforces the idea that it would be silly to buy it.


----------



## GrahamClayton (Jun 3, 2013)

Not on the same scale as some of the grounds mentioned in the thread, but my local rugby league team, the Windsor Wolves, have just finished construction of the new grandstand on the western side of their complex in South Windsor. I am not sure when the stand will be officially opened.

A photo during construction:










The finished stand:


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

mrErythroxylum said:


> *$20m upgrade for Parramatta Stadium​*_(Parts pasted from austadiums news) _
> Parramatta Stadium’s capacity will be increased to 24,000 and its facilities upgraded following the announcement of $20 million Federal Government funding.
> 
> Work will include upgrading the eastern stand, including a new concourse and spectator facilities, new corporate hospitality suites and a 500-seat function room, improved player facilities in the western stand and an additional 3,300 seats on the northern and southern mounds
> ...


haha The Eels and WSW have put foward a proposal the same as my full wrap around picture above. the cost $120 million. they should consider sinking the field and increasing the the gradient of the first tier....


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

More plans released about a propsed upgrade to Allianz Stadium (Sydney Football Stadium).

Here is the link: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...oty-fans-covered/story-fni0cx12-1226922080457

Here are the pics:


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Just came here to post that ^^ Looks class.

The article quotes 44,000 seats, I wonder if that is just a typo or the number is reduced with the renovation? It currently holds 45,500.



> A $250 million plan is being proposed to transform the out-of-date Allianz Stadium into a hi-tech, fully-roofed entertainment facility to help Sydney’s sports teams shore up their financial futures.
> 
> A new master plan for the 44,000-seat venue at Moore Park includes upgraded seating, quality food outlets and super-fast Wi-fi to dramatically improve fans’ match-day experience.
> 
> ...


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...oty-fans-covered/story-fni0cx12-1226922080457


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

That master plan has been around the news for years
I cannot see it happening while our country is broke.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

ExSydney said:


> That master plan has been around the news for years
> I cannot see it happening while our country is broke.


Sorry the country isn't broke. NSW may be but the country is far from it. WA is just starting a $1 billion dollar stadium, Adelaide just finished a $500 million renovation, so no the country isn't broke when it comes to stadiums. NSW just needs to front up and spend it's own money instead of going hand out to the feds.....


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

5portsF4n said:


> You used MLS as an example. MLS stadiums get given to owners for little outlay on their part. AAMI park would cost hundreds of millions for ADUG.
> 
> The fact that its built only reinforces the idea that it would be silly to buy it.


The newly built stadiums in the MLS seem to be a bit simpler in design than something like AAMI Park. Not that that's a bad thing.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2014)

hack404 said:


> The newly built stadiums in the MLS seem to be a bit simpler in design than something like AAMI Park. Not that that's a bad thing.


That's a fair assessment. With AAMI I suspect most of that is down to the extravagant roof. Interior looks on par with the newer MLS stadiums.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

5portsF4n said:


> That's a fair assessment. With AAMI I suspect most of that is down to the extravagant roof. Interior looks on par with the newer MLS stadiums.


Yeah, true. AAMI Park looks amazing from the outside and certainly is a statement piece, but inside it's a bit 'same, same'. Not that I don't like it, it's just not worth the cost. But, it's functional and a good side and you're close to the action - not a bad seat in the house.


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

5portsF4n said:


> That's a fair assessment. With AAMI I suspect most of that is down to the extravagant roof. Interior looks on par with the newer MLS stadiums.


Having a more simple stadium allows for expansion. You could almost build a new stadium with the money that is required to remodel the roof at AAMI Park.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Sydney Cricket Ground from Upwards on NSW forums



upwards said:


> SCG new stand almost finished and comparison to 1936.
> 
> The only original stands left are the Ladies and Members Pavilions.
> 
> From syd images fb.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

poguemahone said:


> God I hope so. Would love to see the Socceroos play more games in places like Perth and Adelaide.


I hope so too. I don't want to see a new state of the art venue being only useful for AFL and cricket.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Unfortunately,the Adelaide Oval was made even worse for Football and Rugby codes,thanks to the AFL.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Wezza said:


> Do we know if it will still have retractable stands as originally planned?





Wezza said:


> I hope so too. I don't want to see a new state of the art venue being only useful for AFL and cricket.


I doubt we will see anything like Stade de France, London Olympic Stadium or Etihad Stadium style movable ground tier as that feature of the original concepts and 2007 taskforce report seemed to have been dropped when Australia lost the 2022 WC bid and the Government post GFC was looking for cost cutting points. This stadium has been a very frustrating political football (mostly by the current Premier). 
Nothing has diffinitively ruled out such an option but it did not feature in the brief. 

The Brief opted for a piss weak method of a raised front row at 1.5m and in the event of Rugby or Soccer, having 8 retractable rows infront of it adding another 5000 seats. Not really any different from what happens at Wellingtons Cake Tin and Ōita Stadium in Japan. Briefs can be broken but I can't see it in this since the Government seems in love with the idea of field level corporate suites which whould make such a massive movable mechanism far more difficult I imagine. 

So Perth will most likely get something like this









Instead of this









Then again if renders for Australia's WC bid are to be believed then temporary retangulation could have been on the cards to get around the Oval issue.
A stadium may not have a movable tiers inbuilt but theres no reason for a short term solution for one off tournament's. Olympics do it for numerous sports like Field Hockey, Swimming, Beach Volleyball etc and the Americans addapt their football stadiums for College Basketball's final 4.











ExSydney said:


> Unfortunately,the Adelaide Oval was made even worse for Football and Rugby codes,thanks to the AFL.


Though 4m wider, the field is now 10m shorter, the reshaping into a proper oval make the pockets/corners much tighter. Then there's the whole $635 million being spent on the Stadium over the last 5 years. How can that possibly be worse for Football and Rugby?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

^^
Thanks for the info. I guess we'll have to wait & see what they come up with.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Walbanger said:


> Though 4m wider, the field is now 10m shorter, the reshaping into a proper oval make the pockets/corners much tighter. Then there's the whole $635 million being spent on the Stadium over the last 5 years. How can that possibly be worse for Football and Rugby?


Making the ground AFL friendly including widening the field,does not improve Football and Rugby viewing.
There were zero provisions made into the Adelaide Oval redevelopment to improve sightlines for the rectangular codes.

I hope Perth does not make this mistake.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^ Widened by 4m on the centre wing is piss all, especially when you consider the curve of the oval bringing everyone in tighter than the previous 'rounded - rectangle' it was before plus the superior rake of the new stands. Adelaide never set out to make this stadium attractive to rectangular codes (though it is FIFA compliant) because that town is more Aussie Rules crazy than Melbourne and the widening was done by the SACA on the western wing for Cricket, not Aussie Rules which has been played there continuously for over 140 years. By virtue of the redevelopement it IS still better and vast majority for fans closer for Rectangular codes than it was before.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Yeah Adelaide oval was notoriously short square of the wicket with long straight boundaries.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

If you read the bid report by FIFA following the 2022 fiasco, one of the main complaints against Australia was the rounded grounds (compare the current Maracanã to the MCG) and the legacy for football (rather than other codes).

I would love the FFA to try and work with the SA and WA Government's to get games in those states, I love having lots of games in Sydney but at the end of the day they are a NATIONAL side.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

The Real Gazmon said:


> If you read the bid report by FIFA following the 2022 fiasco, one of the main complaints against Australia was the rounded grounds (compare the current Maracanã to the MCG) and the legacy for football (rather than other codes).
> 
> I would love the FFA to try and work with the SA and WA Government's to get games in those states, I love having lots of games in Sydney but at the end of the day they are a NATIONAL side.


Until now there was no decent ground in Adelaide for the national team to play. Saying that they did play the 2010 WC farewell game there against NZ. 

I think we should be playing more games in places like Newcastle too, even Central Coast. That friendly against Costa Rica in Sydney for instance only got 20,000, that would have been brilliant played at Gosford. I still would have gone. 

Sydney is always going to win out with the bigger games though as our playing numbers are so much higher than the rest of the country.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

poguemahone said:


> Until now there was no decent ground in Adelaide for the national team to play. Saying that they did play the 2010 WC farewell game there against NZ.
> 
> I think we should be playing more games in places like Newcastle too, even Central Coast. That friendly against Costa Rica in Sydney for instance only got 20,000, that would have been brilliant played at Gosford. I still would have gone.
> 
> Sydney is always going to win out with the bigger games though as our playing numbers are so much higher than the rest of the country.


The NZ game was in Melbourne 

I think for fixtures against sides that are only going to draw 20k they need to move them to places like Gosford, or Hindmarsh or nib Stadium. I really wish they moved some fixtures to Gosford for the Asian Cup - especially some of the smaller games.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

The Real Gazmon said:


> The NZ game was in Melbourne
> 
> I think for fixtures against sides that are only going to draw 20k they need to move them to places like Gosford, or Hindmarsh or nib Stadium. I really wish they moved some fixtures to Gosford for the Asian Cup - especially some of the smaller games.


Apologies, I meant the 2011 game which Australia won 3 nil.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

poguemahone said:


> Apologies, I meant the 2011 game which Australia won 3 nil.


All good 

So, sounds like the Phoenix (I know it's NZ, but being in the A-League we'll add it here) have had plans for their boutique stadium in Lower Hutt knocked back - always was going to happen. I have a friend that works for the local council and it was purely just a vote getting thing.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Nothing official, but these have been found - possible new Perth Stadium designs?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

It is official http://www.perthstadium.com.au


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Hard to believe it'll seat "only" 60k.

Doesn't look that much smaller than the G.


----------



## RocStar (Nov 10, 2002)

The stadium is also designed for future expansion up to 80k. Construction will begin in December.


----------



## onejuicyone (Oct 26, 2010)

Nice looking venue!

Is cricket going to be played there?

Looks like Rugby and soccer fans will need binoculars to catch all the action which = crap atmosphere!

Would have great to see 4 giant big screens suspended right over the middle of the ground, it would help improve the viewing experience, especially for the fans of the rectangular field codes.


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

The dimensions of the playing field (fence to fence) are meant to be 169m x 138m. For comparison the Berlin Olympiastadion is 189m x 116m, the MCG is 173m x 148m


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

KingmanIII said:


> Hard to believe it'll seat "only" 60k.
> 
> Doesn't look that much smaller than the G.


If you get that impression from renders of the outside it could be because the Stadium will be build on grade because of the poor soil conditions and high water table so no ground tier sunk into the ground.

If you like I got the same impression from the internal renders, it did cross my mind that they could be indicative of the Stadium at 70 / 80 000 seats which it is design to easily expand to within the envelope. Also it will have a steeper ground their than the MCG which naturally pushes the following tiers up.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

What will most likely happen after 2018 in regards to the WACA and Test cricket, can people see it being retained for tests or will they more than likely move it to the 60k new stadium? 

With the WACA being one of the most intimidating pitches in World cricket for touring sides to play i think Cricket Australia should consider keeping the matches there its not like Australia don't have large facilities around the country. 2 over 40k, 1 over 50k and 1 100k stadium


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

The WACA Ground is privately owned by the WACA. They still intend to host Test Cricket and most OneDay and T20 fixtures. 
Most don't want to see the WACA Ground go but the WACA have failed numerous times to get upgrades underway. The West Australian government has no interest in assisting them either. The field and wicket is world famous but the spectator and player facilities are well behind so Perth will miss its first Test match since the 70's this Southern Summer, in favour of Hobart.

Effectively everything needs replacing, a new north and south stand built to todays expected standards. Then it's a matter of settling on a capacity bracket that will suit Perth's needs around 25 / 35 000. Will it be solely a cricket ground or be a backup for Aussie Rules and Rugby in case of unavailability of their purpose built Stadiums (ex. an Athletics World Championship or FIFA WC fixtures at Perth Stadium or a clash of Union, League and Soccer fixtures at the rectangular Nib Stadium).

I'd personally would like to see an 18000 seat Northern Stand and a 12000 seat Southern Stand built. The Field returned to a true Oval but keep the grass banks on the west and east ends. In the rare event that Perth's other two stadiums can't be used as in the above examples, temporary seating can be place on field's west and east end to square off the oval for Rugby and Soccer. If the ground had to be used for Aussie Rules for a few weeks while Perth stadium hosts an Internationally renowned tournament then spartan temporary stands like those used at a Canadian Grey Cup or Brisbane's QEII Stadium can be erected at the West and East ends both hold say 12000 to bring capacity to the mid 50 000's. I'd say it wouldn't look too different from the condemned Lancaster Park in Christchurch.


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

Harry1990 said:


> What will most likely happen after 2018 in regards to the WACA and Test cricket, can people see it being retained for tests or will they more than likely move it to the 60k new stadium?
> 
> With the WACA being one of the most intimidating pitches in World cricket for touring sides to play i think Cricket Australia should consider keeping the matches there its not like Australia don't have large facilities around the country. 2 over 40k, 1 over 50k and 1 100k stadium


If Perth keeps getting Tests, it would probably be at the WACA. Other formats are less clear.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Arlington Recreation Ground, home of NSW footballs 3rd tier side Dulwich Hill and 4th tier Stanmore has re-opened after a new 3G pitch was installed and facilities upgraded. $2.15 million was spent in the upgrade.

It also seems as if the old seating to the left of the grandstand has been removed. Previous capacity was about 5000, not sure what it is now.










The old seating, now removed.










This ground holds a special place for me, after I scored a brilliant own goal from half way :lol:


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Getting a lot more artificial pitches in Sydney now. So in the NSW State League it's now 6 (Blacktown, Sutherland, Manly, Sydney United, Arlington, APIA) I believe. Also, Sutherland are getting 4 more for their local comp too.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

The Real Gazmon said:


> Getting a lot more artificial pitches in Sydney now. So in the NSW State League it's now 6 (Blacktown, Sutherland, Manly, Sydney United, Arlington, APIA) I believe. Also, Sutherland are getting 4 more for their local comp too.


Also Sydney Uni, Hakoah Sydney City East (they share Hensley Athletic Field) and Northbridge have one too. 

Is Blacktown City's, Lily's football centre artificial? I had a feeling it is now as Hills have been using it this season too. Blacktown Football Park (Spartans) definitely is. 

UNSW have one too, but they stupidly made it too small so they aren't allowed to play on it, but their Female teams do. 

Fraser Park and Northern Tigers are both in the process of building artificial pitches. Fraser Park at their traditional home and Northern Tigers at a new facility in North Turramurra.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

poguemahone said:


> Also Sydney Uni, Hakoah Sydney City East (they share Hensley Athletic Field) and Northbridge have one too.
> 
> Is Blacktown City's, Lily's football centre artificial? I had a feeling it is now as Hills have been using it this season too. Blacktown Football Park (Spartans) definitely is.
> 
> ...


Wow, there are a few more than I thought.

Lily Homes (will always be Gabbie Stadium to me) does have one now, I haven't seen it myself though.

It makes sense here though. We get reasonably cold winters so the grass doesn't grow when they are being used in their peak and the summers can get so hot that the grasses can burn.

I've played and referee'd on most of the NSWPL fields and much prefer the artificial ones. However, when the Sutherland one first went in the smell of the rubber (reused rubber tyres are laid to give it bounce) was nauseating.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

So much better than the dust bowls some of those grounds were. The one at Northbridge is quite unique as it's also a cricket field. Part of the pitch comes away to reveal a cricket pitch underneath.


----------



## love-qatar (May 10, 2008)

which stadiums will host 2015 Asian cup?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

love-qatar said:


> which stadiums will host 2015 Asian cup?


Stadium Australia, Sydney. 84,000 capacity
Final Venue
Semi-final venue










Lang Park, Brisbane. 52,500 capacity










Hunter Stadium, Newcastle 33,000 capacity
Semi-final venue










Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. 30,050 capacity










Canberra Stadium. 25,011 capacity


----------



## love-qatar (May 10, 2008)

^^ tnx

I will be there and in 2 cities which will host according to your post but don't know if i will be able to attend any of the matches


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Possible 40,000 seat stadium in the works for Western Sydney Wanderers in new Airport development in Western Sydney. 50+ km from the Sydney CBD and 30+ km from their current home ground in the suburb of Parramatta. 


> A GIANT shopping centre, a 40,000-seat stadium for the Western Sydney Wanderers, a convention centre and a wilderness park.
> 
> Oh, and an airport.
> 
> After decades of political dithering and empty dreaming, we have the first mock-up concept plans — now open to a public vote — of what Badgerys Creek Airport could look like.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-conceptual-plan/story-fnpn0zn5-1227102920595


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

poguemahone said:


> Possible 40,000 seat stadium in the works for Western Sydney Wanderers in new Airport development in Western Sydney. 50+ km from the Sydney CBD and 30+ km from their current home ground in the suburb of Parramatta.
> 
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-conceptual-plan/story-fnpn0zn5-1227102920595


Never going to happen, it's just a tack on to get political support for their design.


----------



## Hegemonic (Apr 24, 2010)

Wanderers are so hot right now.

It makes me laugh how people include them in there bid when it suits with out even consulting with them.

Aparently, they are moving out to Penrith also if you ask the Panthers Group.

However, the official line from the club is they have teamed with the Eels and Parramatta Council to lobby for Pirtek Stadium upgrade.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Hegemonic said:


> However, the official line from the club is they have teamed with the Eels and Parramatta Council to lobby for Pirtek Stadium upgrade.


Which makes the most sense.

The 2 options now are:


Proceed with planned upgrade to 24,000
Knock-down rebuilt 32,000


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

The Real Gazmon said:


> Which makes the most sense.
> 
> The 2 options now are:
> 
> ...


24,000 would be good. As it stands they still only average just under 15,000, the only games which sell out are the Sydney Derbies and the champions league semi and final. Wasn't there talk about safe standing section behind the Northern goals where the RBB are? If so that could add an extra 1000 possibly.

Maybe you guys could give us more tickets for the derbies then :lol: Monday is gonna be a shitfight with 11,000 people trying to get 1000 tickets.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

poguemahone said:


> 24,000 would be good. As it stands they still only average just under 15,000, the only games which sell out are the Sydney Derbies and the champions league semi and final. Wasn't there talk about safe standing section behind the Northern goals where the RBB are? If so that could add an extra 1000 possibly.
> 
> Maybe you guys could give us more tickets for the derbies then :lol: Monday is gonna be a shitfight with 11,000 people trying to get 1000 tickets.


The average is skewed. All memberships are sold out and the low figures posted for some fixtures were sold out with a combination of boxes not being full, some members not turning up and ticket machines just not being used at all (people were let in just showing a ticket/pass a few times).

The safe standing idea with rail seats was scuttled by the Eels who also use the ground as they did wan't families to sit on the very industrial seats for their games.


----------



## Strait City (Feb 26, 2010)

*PARRAMATTA - Pirtek Stadium (25,500)*










Western Sydney Wanderers FC - Founded 2012

1 x A-League Premier's Plate:
2013

2 x A-League Grand Final Runners-up: 
2013, 2014

1 x AFC Champions League:
2014










Parramatta Eels - Founded 1947

4 x NRL Premierships:
1981, 1982, 1983, 1986

5 x Runners-up:
1976, 1977, 1984, 2001, 2009

5 x Minor premierships:
1977, 1982, 1986, 2001, 2005

29 September 2014, NSW Venues announces Pirtek Stadium to undergo $29m upgrade to increase the capacity from 21,500 to 25,500.
http://www.parramattasun.com.au/story/2590581/pirtek-stadium-29m-upgrade-on-the-way/

Construction to commence late 2014.


----------



## Strait City (Feb 26, 2010)

Artist impression by HASSEL









Artist impression by HASSEL


----------



## aus16 (May 25, 2009)

So this is happening?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

29 Million seems a lot just for adding 4000 seats, wifi, upgrading the seats, re-turfing and a couple of new screens.


----------



## Hegemonic (Apr 24, 2010)

Next year after the state election the state government will announce which western Sydney site will get a new stadium.

It makes good economic sense for this to be Parramatta seeing it's the most used site in the west hosting 2 teams in national competitions A League and NRL.

Both the Eels and Wanderers have the some of the highest memberships in their respective competitions.

This is the nice tight 40,000 roof covered stadium that the council is proposing for Parramatta.






If it goes any where else, I fear that it will be come a white elephant.

Why would you put it in Penrith for 10 games of NRL and crowds that have averaged 10,000 for years or Liverpool which currently doesn't even host a team in any competition.


----------



## Strait City (Feb 26, 2010)

The Real Gazmon said:


> Which makes the most sense.
> 
> The 2 options now are:
> 
> ...


There are three options:
3. Upgrade to 24,000 with 2nd tier above northern and southern terraces, then upgrade again with a 3rd tier on all four sides.

This is possible with a good design. For example the San Siro in Milan, has seen two tiers being added since the 1960's.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

^^ Have the foundations been laid to allow for that though?


----------



## Strait City (Feb 26, 2010)

poguemahone said:


> ^^ Have the foundations been laid to allow for that though?


It can be easily done. If there is room on the outside of the stadium, they can cantilever the the third tier over the second tier. It will act as an independent structure. See example below of San Siro.

Before: Two tiers only.









During construction: They built massive columns on the outside to support the third tier.









Now: Third constructed.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

That video is suggesting that Red Bull Arena would fit on that plot... no chance... not with the pools in their current position.


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

Hegemonic said:


> Next year after the state election the state government will announce which western Sydney site will get a new stadium.
> 
> It makes good economic sense for this to be Parramatta seeing it's the most used site in the west hosting 2 teams in national competitions A League and NRL.
> 
> ...


Would help the cause if the Wanderers and Eels were actually filling their current stadium on a regular basis.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^ Think there would be some plan to see Penrith and Wests become tenants of a 40 000 seat Parramatta Stadium?


----------



## Hegemonic (Apr 24, 2010)

hack404 said:


> Would help the cause if the Wanderers and Eels were actually filling their current stadium on a regular basis.


The Eels and Wanderers already have the highest memberships of all the national sporting codes in Sydney's west.

The figures below are from Sept 1, Wanderers have now caped out at 17,000 full memberships for this season. 

Both Eels and Wanderers are in a growth phase with regard to year on year crowd attendance.

But yeah, if there were sellouts week on week they would be guaranteed the new stadium I think.


----------



## hack404 (Nov 13, 2007)

According to the A-League website, WSW have 18,706 members. This is the combined figure of access (3+ games) and non-access (0-2 games) memberships.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Regarding the Olympic Stadium in Sydney.



> A $350 million redevelopment plan for a fully-roofed ANZ Stadium would enable sports fans to sit within five metres of the action, with new grandstands turning Sydney’s biggest venue into a true rectangular ground.
> 
> Under the ambitious plan revealed to The Daily Telegraph, the former Olympic stadium would also be surrounded by a dynamic entertainment zone filled with bars, cafes and restaurants.

























































More reading: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...126339600?nk=db4ced5c0b517fd7f21c5eac95f669c1


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

fantastic, and they're using the 'swinging' movable seating sections originally envisioned for the Perth Stadium. Still a bit peeved Perth is going the cheap option.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Walbanger said:


> fantastic, and they're using the 'swinging' movable seating sections originally envisioned for the Perth Stadium. Still a bit peeved Perth is going the cheap option.


I doubt it's going to be built though, these same stories seem to be recycled every 2 years.


----------



## Hegemonic (Apr 24, 2010)

I think it cost about 690 million to build in the first place, I remember seeing a double header of NRL when it first opened in it's 110,000 configuration.

It's a big ask for a stadium that's not even 20 years old I think.

Realistically, I know people complain about not being close to the action, but how many more people do they expect to attract to various events with the modular config.

I mean is there actually a real return on investment on this, would they attract more events and bigger crowds.

Is there real data that suggests that for example, the new config would attract a 20% increase in crowd attendances.

Or is a grand final or high profile event always going to get 80,000 and a normal club game just average 10 to 20K regardless of the configuration.

Even in the new configuration, I see the "nose bleed seats" will still be the nose bleed seats.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

poguemahone said:


> I doubt it's going to be built though, these same stories seem to be recycled every 2 years.


This.

Heard it over & over again. I'll believe it when it actually happens.


----------



## the Ludovico center (Jun 12, 2009)

the Ludovico center said:


> Can any of you Aussies explain to me why there are two different looking plans for the upgrade of the Margaret Court arena?
> 
> Which one of the following is gonna be actually built?


What a crappy thread. 

Shame of you football/rules/cricket obsessed Aussies (you're not updating us on this magnificent tennis temple, which just opened in November after a renovation involving the "fastest" retractable roof in the world


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

That's because Tennis is a crap sport ;-)


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

So has Melbourne United (Melbourne Tigers) moved to Margaret Court Arena?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

New Screens for Sydney Football Stadium. Absolutely ridiculous as the current ones are only 4-5 years old.












> Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust Chief Executive Jamie Barkley said: “This work is already well under way, the artist impressions will become reality in a matter of months.
> 
> “Installation of Allianz Stadium’s giant new superscreens will be completed by the beginning of March 2015.
> 
> ...


http://sydneycricketground.com.au/latest-news/new-superscreens-for-allianz-stadium/

Current Screen


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

edit


----------



## GrahamClayton (Jun 3, 2013)

It has been recently announced that Etihad Stadium will host a round of the 2015 FIM Speedway World Championship on Saturday, the 24th of October.

http://www.etihadstadium.com.au/whats-on/event/2015-fim-speedway-grand-prix-241015

It will be interesting to see how the stadium will be transformed from a football venue into a speedway track. Here is an artist's impression:


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

GrahamClayton said:


> It has been recently announced that Etihad Stadium will host a round of the 2015 FIM Speedway World Championship on Saturday, the 24th of October.
> 
> http://www.etihadstadium.com.au/whats-on/event/2015-fim-speedway-grand-prix-241015
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the stadium will be transformed from a football venue into a speedway track. Here is an artist's impression:


October 2015? That's going to be rubbish for the start of the A-League season:bash:


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

AAMI Park is 10000x better for Football anyway, the view at docklands is horrible. Wish they played every game at AAMI. Annoys me so much as a Sydney FC fan that nearly every time I watch us play Against Melbourne Victory down there it's at Docklands. Only seen us play at AAMI once and docklands about 10 times.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Forgot to post this a few weeks ago.

The new Grandstand at Bellerive Oval (or Blundstone Arena) was used for the first time on the 23rd of Dec for a T20 Cricket match. Stadium capacity is now over 20,000.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Also last weekend saw the first time an A-League match has been played at WIN Stadium in the City of Wollongong. Sydney FC played Newcastle and it ended 0-0. The match couldn't be played in Sydney due to the Asian cup starting in a couple of days. Crowd was 11,400.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Hopefully I'll be at Etihad for the SGP. Have loved speedway since I was a kid and still go when money permits.

And I doubt the Speedway Grand Prix of Australia will have much impact on the 2015-16 A-League season. With a 30,000 plus capacity AAMI Park is a more than adequate ground and as a rectangle stadium its much better suited to football, even if Etihad's movable seating is brought forward.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

A pic from preparations at the Asian Cup, this is for Melbourne Rectangular Stadium (AAMI Park):


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

From StadiumDB.com, initially sourced from smh.co.au:

*The Stadium Battle of Sydney to End Soon?*

The Stadium Australia and the Sydney Football Stadium are now competing for state funds for their respective upgrade projects, and the final battle may come soon. I think this article may indicate that only one of the stadium upgrade projects may be realized.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Just noticed while watching highlights for the NPLNSW that the Grandstand below has finally been demolished at Marconi Stadium. The stand hasn't been in use for about 15 years after being condemned due to unsafe foundations.

Where the stand used to be can be seen at 1:10 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEj...PIA-News+(APIA+Fanatics)&utm_content=FaceBook


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> *San Francisco 49ers' Levi's Stadium being looked at as model in Sydney stadium war*
> 
> *Jarryd Hayne's new home could be a blueprint for a new Sydney stadium.*
> 
> ...


www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-...el-in-sydney-stadium-war-20150429-1mvxbb.html


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Will never happen. 10 years from now the parties will still be squabbling over stadiums and nothing will have changed.

Rugby is big in Sydney but honestly they can't fill the stadiums they have now so no way will a new 65,000 seat stadium ever be full. Maybe for the grand final if lucky, but that's it.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Would be so stupid to make Allianz stadium bigger. It gets crowds of 40k at most 3 times a year. The 3 teams who play there full time (Sydney FC, NSW Waratahs and Sydney Roosters) average between 19k-14k.

If anything I'd like to see it rebuilt as a 35k-40k stadium with proper corporate facilities and a proper roof.

Just had a look at Levi's Stadium. That is the last stadium I would use as a blueprint….


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> SYDNEY’S Olympic arena ANZ Stadium will lose out under a confidential plan to spend up to $1.3 billion building new state-of-the-art sports stadiums at Moore Park and Parramatta.
> 
> With Sydney’s biggest stadium set to miss new funding, high-level negotiations are being finalised for ANZ’s operators to be paid $135 million over the next 15 years to hand over control to a new government-appointed super stadium trust.
> 
> ...


http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2221028


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

hno: Not the slightest bit happy about this. What the city really needs at Moore Park is a boutique stadium with 35,000 seats and a proper roof. People are put off going to the current stadium because it is too big, taking away from the atmosphere and doesn't protect from the elements. This stadium will be full maybe once every 3 years, unless all the main events move away from the olympic stadium, which would then render it obsolete. Hope it never goes ahead.


----------



## bicho84 (Oct 13, 2009)

$400 million only for 35k seated stadium? isn't it too expensive for such a medium size stadium?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

bicho84 said:


> $400 million only for 35k seated stadium? isn't it too expensive for such a medium size stadium?


I think it's more likely just an expansion and upgrade of the current 20k stadium.










EDIT: And by that I mean I highly doubt the stadium will get more than 100-150m


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I think the new plan to build new stadiums in Moore Park and Parramatta may endanger the ANZ Stadium. I have an idea, why not replace the Sydney Football Stadium with the new Moore Park Stadium and go ahead with the ANZ Stadium renovations, assuming that the New Parramatta Stadium gets dumped, because why does Parramatta need a 35,000-capacity stadium?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

> PLANS to build an $800 *million sports stadium at Moore Park, in Sydney’s east, have been torpedoed.
> 
> Widespread anger over the plan, revealed in The Daily Telegraph this week, has forced sport minister Stuart Ayres and the government’s stadium adviser, *former Liberal leader John Brogden, to amend a report due next week.
> 
> ...


https://sslcam.news.com.au/cam/auth...billion-strategy/story-fni0cx12-1227344436177


----------



## vanbasten88 (Sep 22, 2009)

The sfs(Allianz) and the SCG are terribly located for the vast majority of Sydney's residents. If the nsw govt ever build the tram down Anzac parade to Randwick/Maroubra, that would slightly improve the situation, but razing the lot and starting again isn't really an option. I find it amazing that ANZ Stadium is so desperate to retain its ability to be configured for Oval Sports. The Swans fans I talk to online hate the place and the Big Bash League would be better suited to the GWS Giants ground(Skoda/Showgrounds) IMO. Sydney would really use a 70,000-odd seat dedicated rectangular stadium at the Olympic stadium site. The sight lines would be designed for Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer. As long as ANZ continues trying to be all things to all people it will continue to be a so-so stadium.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

vanbasten88 said:


> The sfs(Allianz) and the SCG are terribly located for the vast majority of Sydney's residents. If the nsw govt ever build the tram down Anzac parade to Randwick/Maroubra, that would slightly improve the situation, but razing the lot and starting again isn't really an option. I find it amazing that ANZ Stadium is so desperate to retain its ability to be configured for Oval Sports. The Swans fans I talk to online hate the place and the Big Bash League would be better suited to the GWS Giants ground(Skoda/Showgrounds) IMO. Sydney would really use a 70,000-odd seat dedicated rectangular stadium at the Olympic stadium site. The sight lines would be designed for Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer. As long as ANZ continues trying to be all things to all people it will continue to be a so-so stadium.


The Tram line is currently under construction, they have started demolishing homes/apartments on the route to make way for it. And I love it's location as I live a 5 minute walk away in Paddington 

100% agree regarding ANZ being configured to a rectangular stadium. I think Swans have signed a new deal with the SCG so they won't be playing any games there for the next 5 years so that leaves only the BBL side, I see no reason why they can't play in the showground next door. ATM it's a stadium that serves every purpose and doesn't do a good job on any of them.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

poguemahone said:


> https://sslcam.news.com.au/cam/auth...billion-strategy/story-fni0cx12-1227344436177


I sincerely hope that this stupid idea has been torpedoed. A new 65000 seat $800 million stadium at Moore Park is madness - The Roosters barely see attendance over 15000 at regular season games at the 44000 seat Allianz Stadium as it is. 44000 is more than enough for the Waratahs and Sydney FC as well. If ANZ can't get even close to 85000 for major Wallabies and Socceroos games, then Sydney doesn't deserve to host games.
As for the Swans, just stick with the SCG and let ANZ be redeveloped into a permanent rectangular facility. The Giants do just fine at Spotless Stadium (25000 capacity) as well.

I don't see where a 65000 seat rectangular stadium at Moore Park fits into that equation.

Also, a $100 million Multi Sport/Concert venue for Taylor Swift and whoever else wants to turn up? Would it be indoors or outdoors? What sports are they intending to play there?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

^^ Story surfaced again yesterday



> THREE new Sydney sports arenas — including an $800 million, 55,000-seat venue to replace Moore Park’s Allianz stadium — would be built under the findings of a confidential government report.
> 
> A new $150 million indoor arena for tennis, basketball and netball is also recommended for construction near Sydney’s CBD, along with a $300 million, 30,000-seat venue at Parramatta to *replace Pirtek Stadium.
> 
> ...


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...llion-revolution/story-fni0cx12-1227488979456


----------



## ormey (Jul 15, 2007)

vanbasten88 said:


> October 2015? That's going to be rubbish for the start of the A-League season:bash:


cardiffs millenium stadium does the same


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

vanbasten88 said:


> Sydney would really use a 70,000-odd seat dedicated rectangular stadium at the Olympic stadium site. The sight lines would be designed for Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer.


Surely if they rebuilt the Olympic Stadium as a rectangular stadium for those three codes of football, it would be closer to 90,000 capacity?


----------



## Weebie (May 29, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> Surely if they rebuilt the Olympic Stadium as a rectangular stadium for those three codes of football, it would be closer to 90,000 capacity?


location location location


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

CharlieP said:


> Surely if they rebuilt the Olympic Stadium as a rectangular stadium for those three codes of football, it would be closer to 90,000 capacity?


The cost to rebuild entirely would be astronomical. The idea is to renovate the lower bowl only and change the rake to bring it closer to the pitch, whilst removing the ability to make it an oval (the AFL and cricket don't want to use ANZ/Olympic Stadium anymore, there is a smaller venue right next door build for both of them to use).

However, when changing the lower bowl they still have an issue of the upper tiers being A LONG way from the pitch, so it's not ideal. Capacity would probably be similar to where it is now I'd say, they would add field level boxes and some seats would be lost in the corners as they change things.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

The Real Gazmon said:


> The cost to rebuild entirely would be astronomical. The idea is to renovate the lower bowl only and change the rake to bring it closer to the pitch, whilst removing the ability to make it an oval (the AFL and cricket don't want to use ANZ/Olympic Stadium anymore, there is a smaller venue right next door build for both of them to use).
> 
> However, when changing the lower bowl they still have an issue of the upper tiers being A LONG way from the pitch, so it's not ideal. Capacity would probably be similar to where it is now I'd say, they would add field level boxes and some seats would be lost in the corners as they change things.


I reckon it will be closer to 90k. Remember only one of the ends has the second tier so if they build that on the other side, that along will add a good 4k and a change in the distance of the ends to bring them closer to the action with a new rake will add thousands of extra seats too.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

The Real Gazmon said:


> The cost to rebuild entirely would be astronomical. The idea is to renovate the lower bowl only and change the rake to bring it closer to the pitch, whilst removing the ability to make it an oval (the AFL and cricket don't want to use ANZ/Olympic Stadium anymore, there is a smaller venue right next door build for both of them to use).
> 
> However, when changing the lower bowl they still have an issue of the upper tiers being A LONG way from the pitch, so it's not ideal. Capacity would probably be similar to where it is now I'd say, they would add field level boxes and some seats would be lost in the corners as they change things.


Where have you heard about cricket and AFL not wanting to use this venue?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Calvin W said:


> Where have you heard about cricket and AFL not wanting to use this venue?


Swans will play at the SCG exclusively from 2017 for at least the next 30 years. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-24/swans-to-call-scg-home-from-2017/5913750

Doubt GWS will ever have the support to warrant playing at ANZ.

No idea about cricket, but there really is no need to play there. Sydney Thunder can play at the showground.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Sydney Thunder are playing at the Showground/Spotless Stadium. Cant't remember where I read/saw it, to be honest.

Personally, I'd demolish ANZ... rebuild a 35k in Parra and then upgrade Allianz to 60k.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

The Real Gazmon said:


> Sydney Thunder are playing at the Showground/Spotless Stadium. Cant't remember where I read/saw it, to be honest.
> 
> Personally, I'd demolish ANZ... rebuild a 35k in Parra and then upgrade Allianz to 60k.


60k at Allianz would be too small if you knocked down ANZ for major events (NRL finals, S.O.O, Socceroos, Rugby Tests etc), but also too big for the majority of matches. 

Ideal for me is to keep ANZ, refurb it to be completely rectangular with 80-90k seats. Either knock down Allianz for a smaller boutique stadium like AAMI Park in Melbourne, so 30-35k. Or just do a refurb to upgrade it. I'd renovate/upgrade Parramatta, but don't think it needs to be anymore than 25-30k. Realistically Parramatta would only get 35k once or twice a season when the big football club in Sydney (Sydney FC) are visiting


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Weebie said:


> location location location


That's completely separate to my point. All I'm saying is that if the designers had had a brief to convert the stadium into one for the rectangular codes of football only, they wouldn't have had as many factors restricting capacity (e.g. both ends a long way from the pitch, and a gap behind the lower tier sides when they're pushed forwards). I'd imagine that they'd have lowered the pitch to allow a lower tier with a decent viewing angle.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Pic from Twitter of Perth Stadium:


----------



## Hamzawi (May 20, 2015)

Any news whether Australia is planning to bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup?


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Hamzawi said:


> Any news whether Australia is planning to bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup?


No, and I doubt we will. 2030 would be more likely (still don't think it will happen though) as surely 2026 won't go to Asia after having 2018.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

poguemahone said:


> No, and I doubt we will. 2030 would be more likely (still don't think it will happen though) as surely 2026 won't go to Asia after having 2018.


You mean 2026 *can't* go to Asia after having 2022. Although who knows what's happening - I can't keep track of one scandal after another!


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2015)

CharlieP said:


> You mean 2026 *can't* go to Asia after having 2022. Although who knows what's happening - I can't keep track of one scandal after another!


No, he probably means what he said. 

Hes probably referring to the fact that asia getting 2 out of 3 consecutive cups isnt happening. 

I agree, with one proviso. If USA hosts 2026, i think china could be successful in 2030. Theyre the only country in asia that could send the wc back to asia in 2030. It wont be australia.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Yes I meant 2022 (not 18 haha) and I also meant it won't go to Asia 2 out 3 world cups. Even 2034, we probably won't bid too. Surely China will get their shit together then and go for it, and FIFA will be desperate to have a world cup there.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Just announced.



> NSW Premier Mike Baird and Minister for Sport Stuart Ayres today announced a massive investment in sport and major event infrastructure focused on Moore Park.
> 
> More than $1 billion will be invested in the stadia network over the next decade. $600 million has been set aside in Rebuilding NSW and the NSW Government will provide a further allocation of funding to complete the projects.
> 
> ...


http://www.sydneycricketground.com....elcomes-investment-in-new-stadia-for-sydney-/


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

So demolishing and rebuilding a new 30k Parramatta stadium 










Demolishing and rebuilding a new 50k-55k Sydney Football Stadium










Redevelopment of Stadium Australia


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Won't happen.
A: may get a renovation and small expansion.
B: Not much for at least next 10 + years
C: Talk, talk, talk, but I wouldn't bet on anything major.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Calvin W said:


> Won't happen.
> A: may get a renovation and small expansion.
> B: Not much for at least next 10 + years
> C: Talk, talk, talk, but I wouldn't bet on anything major.


Well the State Premier has just announced that it is happening, with $600m already being put aside for it. That's enough to rebuild Parramatta and probably Sydney Football Stadium ($200m-$250m for Parramatta and $400m for SFS) Melbourne's rectangular stadium (31k) was built for $268m, but of course has the fancy, expensive roof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Rectangular_Stadium

A: He mentions work will start as soon as possible and be expected to be completed by 2019.
B: Work wouldn't start until at least 2019, not while Parramatta is under construction. 
C: It won't be anything too major, will just be re-doing corporate areas and putting a roof on it and I wouldn't expect much until the other 2 stadiums are rebuilt as it will be getting extra use while they are out of action.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

poguemahone said:


> Well the State Premier has just announced that it is happening, with $600m already being put aside for it. That's enough to rebuild Parramatta and probably Sydney Football Stadium ($200m-$250m for Parramatta and $400m for SFS) Melbourne's rectangular stadium (31k) was built for $268m, but of course has the fancy, expensive roof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Rectangular_Stadium
> 
> A: He mentions work will start as soon as possible and be expected to be completed by 2019.
> B: Work wouldn't start until at least 2019, not while Parramatta is under construction.
> C: It won't be anything too major, will just be re-doing corporate areas and putting a roof on it and I wouldn't expect much until the other 2 stadiums are rebuilt as it will be getting extra use while they are out of action.


Want to bet? He has pledged $600 million of the funds where is the rest coming from? He talks about needing $1 billion more on top of it.

As for the the other bits he is talking of at least a decade away before starting....

In the statement he is talking $300 million for Parramatta,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/30000seat-parramatta-stadium-among-nsw-premiers-promised-upgrades-20150904-gjf2xx.html


----------



## globeman (Nov 25, 2013)

This would be a great stadium if they just opened the damn roof once in a while! (Etihad stadium, Melbourne)

North Melbourne vs Fremantle AFL Game - Kick to Kick by globetrekimages, on Flickr


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

^^ Of the 10 or so times i've been there it's only been closed on two occasions. They generally have it open unless it's raining. Not sure if it's different during the AFL season as i've only been to A-League games there.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

What a rectangular ANZ stadium could look like


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Interesting read regarding new Sydney Stadiums https://sportandrecreation.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Stadia_Strategy_Implementation_Report.pdf


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

> MUCH of historic tennis site White City would be bulldozed under a new $45.75 million plan for its redevelopment.
> 
> 
> The redevelopment application would remove the historic centre court and grandstand to make room for an indoor multi-sports centre, a function centre and a soccer pitch.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ports-facilities/story-fngr8h22-1227518918250

Currently










Proposed


----------



## hittentot (Aug 29, 2015)

Nice stadium.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

For those who are unaware of the governments stadia plans for Sydney this is one of the 5 redevelopments planned for the next 20 or so years. In order of start

1. New 35,000 rectangular stadium in parramatta (25km west of cbd) start 2016
**2. New 50-55,000 rectangular stadium in cbd (start around 2019)
3. New 10,000 indoor stadium next to above (start around 2019)
4. Refurb 83,000 into roofed rectangular 
5. Finish refurb of scg 
_** article below is about_

*PLANS FOR THE NEW ALLIANZ STADIUM REVEALED*

PLANS of the arena which will replace Allianz Stadium have been released and it’s all about improving the atmosphere and experience. 

The new stadium which has been labelled the National Football Stadium (NFS) will look to employ to modes – a club mode and a championship mode.

These modes will allow the stadium to shift in capacity with the club mode catering for a more intimate crowd of 30,000 and the championship mode catering for a bigger events and a crowd of 55,000.

The plans are only drawings in its early stages but the SCG Trust has requested the use of a LED curtain which will effectively block the upper tier of the stadium to create better atmosphere for smaller events such as regular season NRL fixtures.

“We’re looking at the future needs of NSW’s major sports and providing the best possible rectangular stadium for all three codes (rugby league, rugby union and football),” Trust Chief Executive Jamie Barkley said.

“I’m not aware of this being done anywhere else in the world because elsewhere they design stadiums for the expected demand of one club or one sport. But we think the two modes will allow us to deliver super match-day experiences for fans of football codes on different occasions.

“For the future needs of NSW this has to be a rectangular stadium and it has to be able to cope for different crowds and we think this will be the best in Australia.”

This is the first towards a major redevelopment of the Moore Park complex which will also see through the completion of the SCG masterplan.

NSW premier Mike Baird announced in September that more than $1 billion will be invested in the area over the next decade.




















http://rugbyleagueweek.com.au/allianz-plans-revealed/[


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Page has been removed now. Wonder if they jumped the gun in publishing it?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

mrErythroxylum said:


> “We’re looking at the future needs of NSW’s major sports and providing the best possible rectangular stadium for all three codes (rugby league, rugby union and *football*),” Trust Chief Executive Jamie Barkley said.


Does it annoy anybody else that some Australians have taken to calling association football "football" instead of soccer? It's confusing as hell in a country where four types of football are popular. hno:


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

Seems like you're the only one that's confused.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> Does it annoy anybody else that some Australians have taken to calling association football "football" instead of soccer? It's confusing as hell in a country where four types of football are popular. hno:


No, I think its great. Other footballs are often called by their proper name or league, union, aussie rules or footie so usually clear.


----------



## laxor (Feb 17, 2006)

Football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and AFL. Simples.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

laxor said:


> Football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and AFL. Simples.


Soccer, Union, League, Footy.

Simpler....


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

*Cough* Football Federation of Australia *cough* Not 'soccer' any more.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Funny enough, The A League doesn't mention soccer or football.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> Does it annoy anybody else that some Australians have taken to calling association football "football" instead of soccer? It's confusing as hell in a country where four types of football are popular. hno:


A little bit annoying that Aussie Rules and Rugby League dropped the ball on that one and that the media seems to be going a long with the FFA.

Association Football and the FFA can call themselves what they want but as something of a traditionalist with Sport, I feel that Rugby League and Aussie Rules had earned the right to be called "Football" in their geographical locations of primacy, with Soccer still very much down the pecking order.

Yet Rugby League and Aussie Rules refer to themselves with numerous names beyond "Football". Can't speak for League but in Aussie Rules, where it is the primary code it is referred to a Football. The AFL over the last 15 years have been branding the Sport as "AFL" in an effort to not antagonize the potential fans in the Rugby dominant states who has traditionally refered to the Sport as such or Victorian Football etc before that. The pushing of the "AFL" brand is also in relation to the AFL Commission becoming the governing body of the sport (with the demise of the Australian National Football Council in 1995) everywhere bar 2 other Australian Football strongholds of Western Australia and South Australia. Thus the "AFL" branding has also been a branding power play over the hold out states who despise the Victorian dominance and self interest of the code to the detriment of their leagues, history and contribution to the game. Regardless of interstate grudges and rivalry, the AFL's branding has pissed off most in its heartlands where it will always be Football. AFL sounds utterly stupid to many. It is a league, not a sport. A youth Soccer player IS NOT playing FIFA, A College Football player IS NOT playing NFL etc

With Rugby League and Aussie Rules being distracted with such branding exercises, Soccer picked up the dropped ball and ran with it while there backs were turned.

So Rugby League is called League or Footy in New South Wales and Queensland, League or Rugby League in the rest of the nation.
Australian Rules Football (official name) is called Football or Footy for short in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory. Referred to as "AFL" by the premier league and in New South Wales and Queensland.
Association Football is called Soccer by the majority. It is called Football by the FFA, many in the media, by its own fans (those that prefer it over League and Aussie Rules, plenty of cross code support in Australia) and some youth who are influenced by the recent change by the media over the last 10/15 years.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Yes one is Aussie Rules Football, another is Rugby League Football, another is Rugby Union Football, another is American Football, another is Canadian Football, another is Gaelic Football...just an unnecessary and inaccurate suffix really 

Whereas one sport from almost one end of the planet to the other is simply Football so it was inevitable in this era of globalisation once it was renamed by the FFA.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Perhaps I started a discussion with a jovial comment that should never have occurred...

Anyway. Back to stadium talk.

When is Perth meant to be finished?


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> Official name according to the FFA, not the public at large or any fantasy State decree.


Sure, but as we can all see, the A-League is pretty popular, we are hosting major football tournaments, plenty of closet European, Asian and African football fans, so many already call it football; and with the official name change this is just going to grow and grow. Look at the changes we have seen already. Something we all will have to get used to in time.

See headings on this national site for an example of things to come: http://www.theroar.com.au


On the stadium proposals...I also wonder how so much public money can be justified on replacing already decent stadiums in Sydney and Melbourne. It would seem we have higher transport and other priorities.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

So build a 60k seater to replace docklands, what to build more skyscrapers in that area instead... ? If a billion of public money is to be used lets gets some rail links like a train from the airport to the city and the high speed rail to other cities first, same for sfs, which none of its tenants fill anyway. Whether you like RL or Football, its a ludicrous notion. Refurbishment is one thing but it won't make money.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Now Richmond FC want a new stadium at Punt Rd... to me, makes more sense than the Eddiehad idea at Melbourne Park, but still... why not invest in a smaller 30k ground in the south-eastern suburbs or something?


----------



## jacobsian (Jan 19, 2003)

The Real Gazmon said:


> Now Richmond FC want a new stadium at Punt Rd... to me, makes more sense than the Eddiehad idea at Melbourne Park, but still... why not invest in a smaller 30k ground in the south-eastern suburbs or something?


The 3 clubs that absolutely need a boutique ground are St Kilda in the SE, North Melbourne in the inner NW, and Western Bulldogs in the inner W. A stadium in the SE would only be ideal for 1 of the 3.

Now, if you looked at it from just a geography perspective, a stadium in the East would be the most central location for suburbanites. But the 2 closest clubs being Richmond and Hawthorn, both MCG tenants, are among the largest in the competition.

If the AFL wants to persist with the central model and build around the CBD then for me it's either Princes Park or Western Oval.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

jacobsian said:


> If the AFL wants to persist with the central model and build around the CBD then for me it's either Princes Park or Western Oval.


When I was in Melbourne a few years ago I had a look at Princes Park, and It looked a terrific venue. I found it amazing they didn't play games there any more.

Wasn't the problem with the Etihad, beyond looking a bit dull (I never liked watching games in there with the roof shut - it made it dark and gloomy) that costs associated with the stadium meant that the smaller drawing sides didn't make any money?

If that's the case I'd have thought they'd have wanted a 30000 sized place, unless that would still have similar issues.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I also think Eddie McGuire's plan to replace the Docklands Stadium with a new one really close to the Melbourne Cricket Ground is a terrible idea, maybe an abysmal one. An April Fool's joke prior to April Fools Day this year?

If this went ahead, Melbourne would lose not one, but two multi-purpose sports venues. Plus, the Docklands Stadium has just started to be surrounded by highrise developments. I do not see any real reason why the Docklands Stadium should be demolished for anything. Personally, if a proposal like this as pitched to me, I would reject it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Just redevelop Princes Park to 45,000. Some say having a lone tram line is pitiful compared to the mass options at Docklands and the MCG, but it can work. Just move Royal Park railway station closer to the stadium (whilst removing the railway crossing in the process) and you now have 2 public transport options to get to Princes Park.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Government actually has a brain. Won't rebuild a 45k stadium for a 55k stadium after all.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> AEG-Ogden, a subsidiary company of AEG, the world’s largest entertainment venue operator has unveiled plans for a massive $2 billion ‘Brisbane Live’ ultra-entertainment precinct to be built above the Roma Street rail lines which will be presented to the state government this week.
> 
> *At the centrepiece of the Brisbane Live plan which is based on AEG’s LA Live complex is a new 17,000 seat world class arena which will showcase international superstar concerts and performances as well as world sporting events.*
> 
> The masterplan put forward by AEG-Ogden features a sliding front wall that opens to reveal live acts on stage, the $450 million arena will also include a 4000-capacity rock club and be surrounded by multiplex cinemas, restaurants and bars, and a giant screen and amphitheatre catering for around 15,000 people.


https://brisbanedevelopment.com/unveiled-new-2-billion-brisbane-live-entertainment-arena-precinct/


----------



## VicSOP (Nov 11, 2012)

See below


----------



## VicSOP (Nov 11, 2012)

*Eureka Stadium Ballarat* - High Resolution Images

The Victoria Government release final designs for Stage 1 development of Eureka Stadium. Construction contractors to be announced any day now with construction due to commence in late July 16. Stage 1 will see the ground redeveloped to a capacity of 11,000 with new stands, video electronic scoreboard and lighting. Stages 2 and 3 will eventually see the larger stand extended to encircle the remaining half of the oval.

Below: So far $2.1 million out of the allocated $15.2 million has been spent rebuilding the oval and the North Ballarat No 2 ovals including installation of new light towers on each. Development as at 22 April 2016










*Below:* Peddle Thorp's vision from the same perspective in 12 months from now










*Below:* The view from the redeveloped North Ballarat Sports Club concourse










*Below:* Views across the ground from the North East looking Westward showing details of the new North Eastern seating terraces




























*Below:* The new Stage 1 Western Stand in detail



















*Below:* Rear detailed view of the new Western Stand from Wihte Avenue (Wendouree)


----------



## kunming tiger (Jun 30, 2011)

what is the plan for the oval in terms of future use?


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

Earlier this year the NSW government announced their plans for a $1.6 billion dollar upgrade of sporting infrastructure, they decided to demolish old Parramatta stadium and rebuild a 30,000-32,000 seat stadium (estimated cost $300million) work has already started and due to be completed in 2019,

and to reconfigure Sydney's ANZ stadium (old olympic stadium) into a full rectangular and roofed stadium and bringin all the stands, reducing capacity from 83,500 to 75,000 (estimated cost $700 million) due to commence in 2018/19 and complete around 2021. and remaining funds to be used to upgrade Allianz stadium sydney (sfs).

Well finally the approved design of the new parramatta stadium (to be called western sydney stadium) has been released, and I've gotta say WOW I'm very impressed!

The estimated cost is $300 million and the seating capacity will be around 30-32,000. 

Here is a youtube clip and some still images of the new stadium...






A view looking from the south east corner









A view looking from the north east corner









Outside


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Central Coast Stadium

Proposed










Current










http://www.ccmariners.com.au/articl...tral-coast-stadium/14i1xq3dcctsn1hlx52icc5fcz


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

^^^^^^
I smell an NRL expansion opportunity.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Nothing wrong with an NRL expansion, gives full use to a stadium.. The Mariners might need some help filling it also.


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Some new pics from the new report on the Western Sydney Stadium (Parramatta): http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=8175


----------



## dibo_returns (May 28, 2008)

Noice.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> SCG Trust begin push for new 40,000-seat stadium at Moore Park
> 
> The SCG Trust has reignited its bid for a new stadium at Moore Park with a modified 40,000-seat proposal now on the table.
> 
> ...


www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-...at-stadium-at-moore-park-20170206-gu6gqy.html


----------



## VicSOP (Nov 11, 2012)

Ballarat's Eureka Stadium nearing completion of a $15 million Stage 1 upgrade for hosting AFL games from August 2017. The first stage included rebuilding the front of the existing pavilion, building a 4000 seat stand on the western side of the oval, creation of an eastern terrace and entrance, installation of VFL competition level lighting, and a 50 sqm video scoreboard is soon to be added.

Proposed stage 2 and 3 upgrades in the future involve further construction to extend the grandstand to accommodate an additional 8-9000 seats. Further afield, architects 'Peddle Thorpe' have allowed for the new Eastern terrace to be extended rearward in the future to add an additional 2000 seats without compromising the footprint or design.


----------



## hightower1 (Jan 13, 2013)

^^
Looking good.

Its going to be interesting playing in Ballarat in the middle of winter. 

Might get the AFL's first game to be played in the snow.


----------



## VicSOP (Nov 11, 2012)

EUREKA STADIUM: Is about two weeks away from completion of the first stage in preparation as an AFL venue. These night shots were taken two weeks ago. Lighting will be a feature with coloured LED lights to back light the stands at night and strong LED downlights to be installed around the roofline of the higher stands to illuminate the boundaries. Strong LED spotlamps are built into the roofs to project upward to illuminate spectator areasand not create distraction to the playing field.





































New scoreboard installed temporarily at the Southern end of the oval. The board will eventually be incorporated into a future grandstand thatbwill be built on its present site. The board is 50 square metres and capable of all functions of those at the MCG and Etihad Stadium.



















A Ballarat Roosters player poses with his daughter in front of the redeveloped North Ballarat Sports Club:


----------



## VicSOP (Nov 11, 2012)

Latest promotional video taken about one week ago shows the first stage nearing completion with some good aerial footage and other background info.

https://youtu.be/qkBCgS8FBfs


----------



## VicSOP (Nov 11, 2012)

* Eureka Stadium Update - Ballarat*


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> Southern Expansion gains council approval for 30,000-seat stadium in Loftus
> 
> The football rivalry in the city of Sydney has ramped up in derby week but not due to the Wanderers or Sky Blues.
> 
> ...


www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/souther...00seat-stadium-in-loftus-20171018-gz3k8j.html


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

lol. Sydney has no f**king clue when it comes to stadiums......


----------



## jacobsian (Jan 19, 2003)

Calvin W said:


> lol. Sydney has no f**king clue when it comes to stadiums......


Nothing to do with Sydney. It's a private venture.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 18, 2017)

Yeah, that proposal has nothing to do with the NSW State Government and it’s stadiums plan.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Gimble said:


> Yeah, that proposal has nothing to do with the NSW State Government and it’s stadiums plan.


Not directly. But want to bet your tax dollars will be involved in some way, shape form?

No skin off my back in NSW wants to sink hundreds of millions, even billions on not needed stadiums....

Don't come whinging to the Feds for a hand out down the road....


----------



## jacobsian (Jan 19, 2003)

Calvin W said:


> Not directly. But want to bet your tax dollars will be involved in some way, shape form?
> 
> No skin off my back in NSW wants to sink hundreds of millions, even billions on not needed stadiums....
> 
> Don't come whinging to the Feds for a hand out down the road....


The proposal is on crown land which is occupied by the University of Wollongong and TAFE. The consortium wants a leasehold on the land and in exchange will develop facilities for the University. There's no tax payer funds involved. If anything it means down the road it's money the tax payer won't be spending on the university.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

I can't believe there is sufficient support for a third team in Sydney, unless they are aiming at Central Coast sized support. Where will Sydney play when they redevelop the SFS?

Meanwhile, when does the new West Sydney stadium in Parramatta start being built?


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^^ Sydney FC will play at Leichhardt Oval, Balmain RLC traditional home in Sydney's inner-west.

The West Sydney Stadium is already under construction.


----------



## TooFar (Apr 6, 2004)

Perth Stadium is almost ready


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Perth stadium looks great... what are they using it for outside of footy season, just concerts? Cricket too?


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Perth stadium looks great... what are they using it for outside of footy season, just concerts? Cricket too?


Bigger cricket matches, concerts, some international events (rugby).


----------



## Gimble (Aug 18, 2017)

Southern Expansion media release with details about the stadium location and training facility.

http://www.southernexpfc.com.au/wp-...S-FOR-NEW-INFRASTRUCTURE_17-OCTOBER-2017..pdf


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

There has been quite abit of ‘stadium’ activity in australia in recent years. the Adelaide Oval in SA refurbished into a 50,000 seat stadium. The perth arena in WA completed. 

*Adelaide Oval*










*Perth Arena*



















But its whats to come that is more exciting! I cannot think of another period in Australias history where there was as much stadium activity happening as there is now. only during the construction of stadia for the sydney olympics have we seen similar, but never australia wide like we are seeing now. And now that the NSW government has finally agreed and signed off its stadium funding policy ($2.1 billion), the trend is sure to continue.


Here is a list of the major australian stadiums due to be completed over the next few years;

*Perth stadium, 60,000, almost completed*



















*Western Sydney Stadium, 35,000, already UC & to be completed early 2019*



















*Sydney Football Stadium, 45,000, construction to start ASAP & complete in 2019*



















*North Queensland Stadium, 25,000, already UC & to be completed 2020*



















*Sydney Olympic stadium(ANZ), 75,000, construction to start 2019*


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Gimble said:


> Southern Expansion media release with details about the stadium location and training facility.
> 
> http://www.southernexpfc.com.au/wp-...S-FOR-NEW-INFRASTRUCTURE_17-OCTOBER-2017..pdf


^^^^
With a 30000 seat stadium on the plans, why on Earth are the Sharks not getting involved with this?

I know that they own and operate it, and their Leagues Club is based there, but Shark Park is an ageing relic. If they don't jump on this bandwagon, they might regret it.


----------



## Flipo (Aug 11, 2017)

I think Sydney Olympic Park Archery Center great for me. If anyone's total newcomer wanting to find out a little bit more about archery, then this is the ideal place to start.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> Sea Eagles hire expert in a bid to secure a revamp of Brookvale Oval
> 
> MANLY have engaged the Melbourne stadiums expert who helped the Geelong Cats secure a $210 million redevelopment of Kardinia Park to help save dilapidated Brookvale Oval.
> 
> ...


https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...l/news-story/f63b927f9e3f4a3d4dc52ff28023e521


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> Dandenong in Melbourne’s south-east could be the home of a new 15,000-seat rectangular stadium if the region is granted one of the two new A-League franchises.
> 
> The bid team, known as Team 11, announced plans for the $170m stadium on Monday, in conjunction with the local prominent business owner Gerry Ryan and former Socceroo Vince Grella. The State Government is yet to commit to the project however sports minister John Eren said the government will wait until a decision is made by the FFA before committing.
> 
> Concepts designed by Cox Architecture – designers of Melbourne’s AAMI Park – has Dandenong Stadium capacity initially slated in the range of 12,000-15,000, with the ability to expand to 20,000 in the future.


http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=600


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

I don't know if I like the idea of a 3rd Melbourne A-League team (Prefer Southern Sydney and Hobart) yet it's a neat looking little budget stadium. As the article states "It’s proposed the stadium would not only host the new A-League and W-League team, but also Rugby League, Union and concerts", and it would need to if it is to be Tax payer funded BUT the artist impressions above present it as very Soccer specific with next to no room for Rugby Union & League In-goal areas (end zones).


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Why not just give it to Geelong? Revive the SuperCats Basketball franchise (new arena pending) and give Geelong a new A-League license. The SuperDooperCats?


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

The Real Gazmon said:


> Now Richmond FC want a new stadium at Punt Rd... to me, makes more sense than the Eddiehad idea at Melbourne Park, but still... why not invest in a smaller 30k ground in the south-eastern suburbs or something?


Just redevelop Princess Park (Ikon Park). No need for Richmond to have a new stadium if it's mere walking distance from the MCG. What would the capacity be? 40,000+? You'd have to reconstruct the whole stadium in that case.

As for Princess Park, you can keep the upgrades to Carlton's gyms/administration and demolish the rest of the stands. You then do a new North-West to South-East oval layout. Lower the pitch to allow for rows of seating at the gym/administration goal end and a complete coliseum style bowl with roof. This can easily be a 45,000-60,000 seater venue, if completed in stages. Relocate Royal Park Railway Station closer to the venue, whilst removing that level crossing in the process. The venue can be accessed by 3 tram routes, 1 rail route and of course road.

As such, Essendon and Carlton will get Princess Park as "home ground", Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne will get docklands, With Melbourne, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn and St Kilda getting the MCG as "home ground", with Princess Park serving as the reserve "home ground". An additional stadium to play 1 more game around the same time as the 2 other venues.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

With India set to build/renovate on of their cricket stadiums to seat 110,000, it will surpass the MCG as the world's largest cricket stadium.

Can the MCG reclaim the title? I think so. 

You remove the video scoreboards on the Northern stand and expand seating (and complete the roof). This might add 5,000 to that stand. So at 55,000 capacity, it can be as much as 60,000. Which makes the Southern Stand at currently 40,000, expandable, by removing the roof and either matching the height of the Northern Stand for say an additional 5,000 - 10,000 seats, or a new overlap to create that new overlap effect and perhaps push capacity well over 110,000 fully seated. 

So lets say the new expanded Northern Stand is 60,000. Then you add an expanded Southern Stand at well over 50,000. This would make it well over 110,000 thanks to some cheeky additional seating to beat India's record.

Maybe follow Perth Stadium's approach in adding 5,000 seats at ground level for rectangular sports? Capacity can easily be 115,000 at this point.

And what about the video screens? Add new lightweight video screens supported by the Northern Stand's new roof. It will be either above the roof or overlapping. I'm sure spectators don't mind looking slightly more higher than now. These new video screens could be movable too and adjusted for height for optimal viewing.

Might as well claim the title of world's largest stadium too.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Why? It doesn't sellout now, so what point is there in adding more seats? It's starting to look a little sad at games when 30-40 thousand are there. Looks so empty.....

You want the Worlds Largest stadium title? Pyongyang at 150,000 blows the MCG away and yes sources still list it at that capacity.....


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Calvin W said:


> Why? It doesn't sellout now, so what point is there in adding more seats? It's starting to look a little sad at games when 30-40 thousand are there. Looks so empty.....
> 
> You want the Worlds Largest stadium title? Pyongyang at 150,000 blows the MCG away and yes sources still list it at that capacity.....


Pyongyang's May Day stadium is now listed at 114,000 after upgrades. 

The MCG does sellout, at Grand Final and other major events. It just doesn't sellout at low patronage games, but the big clashes have in excess of 70,000 patrons. It should also be noted that the old Waverley Park was supposed to be as high as 154,000, instead of 72,000. So the MCG could warrant an expansion to bring back the title of world's largest cricket stadium, if not the world's largest stadium. 

There's definitely room for it, by simply expanding what you already have.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ I guess they could, but would the costs be recuperated by selling that much more tickets? I doubt it. I love the MCG, I have been fortunate enough to visit this great venue in world sports and to have seen a match there, and maybe they could 'redo' the now 'older part' of the stadium. But also the way it is now I like it and think it is very impressive.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

EPA001 said:


> ^^ I guess they could, but would the costs be recuperated by selling that much more tickets? I doubt it. I love the MCG, I have been fortunate enough to visit this great venue in world sports and to have seen a match there, and maybe they could 'redo' the now 'older part' of the stadium. But also the way it is now I like it and think it is very impressive.


They're renovating the concessions and toilets of the Southern Stand to meet Northern Stand standards. But I do think if they removed the roof, expand the upper level, you can easily put 10,000-15,000 additional seats.

The Northern Stand seats 55,000 at around the same area use of the Southern Stand and that's including the video screens. 

All it takes is a major event to get discussions going again. Just look at Sydney, they're foolishly doing total reconstructions of their Sydney Football Stadium and the Olympic Stadium. MCG should not be an issue if there is appetite for it.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

Lord David said:


> But I do think if they removed the roof, expand the upper level, you can easily put 10,000-15,000 additional seats.


Your are most probably correct. They could get in more seats if they would choose to renovate in this way. But again my question remains; does it makes sense financially? I highly doubt that.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

I think 100,000 is enough....


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Lord David said:


> Pyongyang's May Day stadium is now listed at 114,000 after upgrades.
> 
> The MCG does sellout, at Grand Final and other major events. It just doesn't sellout at low patronage games, but the big clashes have in excess of 70,000 patrons. It should also be noted that the old Waverley Park was supposed to be as high as 154,000, instead of 72,000. So the MCG could warrant an expansion to bring back the title of world's largest cricket stadium, if not the world's largest stadium.
> 
> There's definitely room for it, by simply expanding what you already have.


MCG has had a total of 4 crowds at 100,000+ in the last 12 years. 

http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums_crowds.php?id=71

Largest crowd this year looks to be around 91,000. 

Doesn't look like there is the demand to go bigger.

The MCG has been averaging 53,000 for AFL games so far this season. roughly half full. In this day and age it is better to reduce capacity instead of increasing. 80,000 capacity would creat a scarcity of tickets so prices could increase.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

80,000 capacity? People wouldn't stand for that, especially when the big games and Grand Final are close to sellout. Adding more seats would attract more spectators. The demand is there, particularly during the Grand Final. Also, the 5,000 standing room capacity would be eliminated in this case.


----------



## FCIM (Jul 26, 2014)

Lord David said:


> 80,000 capacity? People wouldn't stand for that, especially when the big games and Grand Final are close to sellout. Adding more seats would attract more spectators. The demand is there, particularly during the Grand Final. Also, the 5,000 standing room capacity would be eliminated in this case.


The MCG is unique in that a couple of teams call it home and the AFL nor its clubs own it. Its far too big for the ordinary season though even with you rabid AFL fans. 

The Americans have it right, smaller capacity stadiums with higher ticket prices, is the best way to maximise revenue from it.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Lord David said:


> 80,000 capacity? People wouldn't stand for that, especially when the big games and Grand Final are close to sellout. Adding more seats would attract more spectators. The demand is there, particularly during the Grand Final. Also, the 5,000 standing room capacity would be eliminated in this case.


Spend hundreds of millions to redevelop to 120,000 for one game a year? Your economics don't add up.

20,000 extra seats even at $500 a ticket (good luck) would take 50 years to pay off. Right now for regular season games you can pick up a nose bleed section ticket for $20 at the MCG. hardly a demand for adding anymore.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

No, you upgrade the venue with relation to a major sporting event. Like an Olympics or World Cup.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Never going to happen in our life times. Guess you can dream.

First you talk about all these events where the MCG sells out, then you say for Grand Finals and blockbuster games, now you are talking Olympics and World Cups. Goal posts keep changing but the reality is it ain't happening.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

If we ever got a World Cup here, I would really hope the MCG is not a stadium that would be used. It is shocking for sports that use rectangular playing fields.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Lord David said:


> With India set to build/renovate on of their cricket stadiums to seat 110,000, it will surpass the MCG as the world's largest cricket stadium.
> 
> Can the MCG reclaim the title? I think so.
> 
> ...


Why, though? Why does it have to be a competition? Why does Australia have to have the world's biggest cricket stadium? There is no good reason to "retain" the title?
A bad reason is just so Melbourne can brag about something else. Melbourne is not going to have the Olympics again anytime in at least the next 60 years. Australia is never going to be named host of the World Cup - FIFA has made that clear enough. Besides, you don't need a stadium over 100,000 to host those things anymore, anyway. The current capacity is MORE than enough.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

I think it's an Australian ego thing at least for him....


----------



## deebs (Jul 10, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Old post, I know, but in the 2018 season, a quick skim through the AFL attendances suggests the MCG had 90,000+ in eight times.
> 
> The low crowds tend to come from Melbourne Demons games, who aren't very well supported - being poor to terrible year on year hasn't helped.
> 
> ...



Yes, if anything the AFL's policy of 'marquee' games on major holidays (eg, yesterday's ANZAC Day match which drew 92,000) is increasing the number if regular-season matches with 80,000+ attendances.

This has also put pressure on the MCC to solve the issue of the public areas selling out while seats go empty in the members reserve. (There are about 22,000 members seats.) For the first time this year, members will be asked to pre-book for these big events, and sections of the members reserve will be made available to the public if the 'outer' sells out while the members looks like not filling to capacity. I suspect this will be a pretty rare event: members fork out about $800 a year for the right to walk up to the gate without booking, so this is a bit controversial and I reckon the MCC will bend over backwards to make sure full members are never turned away. (It's only happened to me once in 35 years, and then they found a few hundred of us standing room in the outer so we at least got to see the game...)

As for Marvel (Etihad), I like it as a place to watch football - especially in July when it's 8 degrees outside and a balmy 16 degrees under the roof), but I know my Kangaroos have always been pretty unhappy at how much it costs to play there. Hopefully, now the AFL has bought the stadium the deal will get better - it's crazy if the league takes the club's money with one hand and just gives it back with the other hand through their 'equalisation fund'...

-----

deebs


----------



## akirti4au (Apr 30, 2019)

*Melbourne Cricket Stadium*

*FACTS*

Opened	1854
Capacity	100000 (approx, including standing room)
Known as	The MCG, The "G"
Dimensions	172.9m long, 147.8m wide
Ends	Members End, Great Southern Stand End
Location	Melbourne, Australia
Time Zone	UTC +11:00
Home to	Australia, Victoria
Other Sports it is home to	Australian Rules Football, Soccer, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Lawn Bowls, Squash
Floodlights	Yes
Curator	Tony Ware

*Venue description:*

The Melbourne Cricket Club, founded in 1838 was forced to move several sites, before it could finally choose the current location, in Yarra Park, Melbourne, Victoria, to build the epic Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) stadium in 1853. The MCG, currently is the largest cricket stadium on earth and it is also the 11th largest stadium in the world. Cricket, Rugby and Australian Rules Football are the major sporting events held regularly at the MCG, while it has also played host to the 1956 Summer Olympics, the 2006 Commonwealth Games and a few of the FIFA World Cup qualifier games.

The MCG is colloquially referred by the locals as 'The G'. Due to safety measures, the MCG's capacity, which was well over 100000, was reduced to its current arrangement. The MCG gave birth to the Test match format on March 15, 1877, when Australia and England took on each other in a timeless match. Since then, the ground has been center-stage to over 100 Test matches, including the famous Boxing Day Test match, that is held every year on December 26. Interestingly, cricket Prediction first ODI match was also held at the MCG.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> A planned $180 million soccer stadium in Melbourne’s west will be the first major facility privately built for an Australian team and is set to have the steepest gradient in the country and a distinctive roof modelled on its local area.
> 
> A-League expansion team Western United, which will enter the competition for the 2019-20 season beginning in October, is finalising plans for the stadium they want to be playing at during the 2021-22 season in the western suburb of Tarneit.
> 
> ...


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bu...d/news-story/e8998546365a1acb8b79d5582f06ec22


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

These 15,000 seater, steep pitched, intimate stadiums will be great for the future of Australian football. Be great to have one in Brisbane. Suncorp is a great stadium but too big.


----------



## alejo25 (Nov 17, 2006)

mrErythroxylum said:


> Sydney's new
> *Bankwest Stadium in Parramatta (30,000)*


Nice!:banana:


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

..


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

Stage 2 of the Sydney Football Stadium redevelopment, comprising the detailed design, construction and operation of the stadium has been lodged and is available to the public. 

Inside the statement there is also a section on the other 3 failed stadium proposals, I gotta admit the NSW government picked the best one, some of the others were 'Baaaaa', lol one even looked like something out of a commonwealth games bid from 1986 lol! I recommend people checking them out. 

Click the link below to download and view the entire SFS stage two statement. 
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/10736

Anyways... From this statement we now know that the new SFS will have 45,000 seats with 55,000 seats in concert mode. The stadium will also have the options of 'club' mode where the top section will be closed off and capacity reduced to around 31,000. 

It also provided some new images, here are two of my top-picks. 



















And here is a cool video on the new SFS I found in YouTube


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

The new North queensland stadium is one of my favourite small sized stadiums either proposed, under construction or completed in Australia. 

I really like its unique design, it's almost got a kind of crocodilian look to it. I am not the biggest fan of the open end, the stadium would be flawless if it was being built closed in, although I can understand 'their' reasoning, I do like how they adapted to the open end in the design with the extended roof!

So NQS will be a 25,000 seater (with the option to expand to 30,000) city located stadium. This Baby is due for completion early next year. I Can't wait! 

Here are some recent construction pics. 




























And here is a YouTube video of what a completed NQS will look like...


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

National Basketball League (Australia) 2019-20

Adelaide 36ers - Adelaide Entertainment Centre (10,000)









Brisbane Bullets - Nissan Arena (5,000) - _The Armoury_









Cairns Taipans - Cairns Convention Centre (5,300) - _The Snake Pit_









Illawarra Hawks - WIN Entertainment Centre (6,000) - _The Sand Pit_









Melbourne United - Melbourne Arena (10,500)









New Zealand Breakers - Spark Arena (9,300), Horncastle Arena (7,200) and TSB Stadium (4,560)

























Perth Wildcats - RAC Arena (14,856) - _The Jungle_









South East Melbourne Phoenix - Melbourne Arena (10,500) and State Basketball Centre (3,200)

















Sydney Kings - Qudos Bank Arena (18,200) - _The Kingdome_


----------



## chibimatty (Oct 6, 2010)

Those Wildcats fans!


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

Kings last night had a record NBL attendance. Over 17,000... fantastic effort!


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

The Real Gazmon said:


> Kings last night had a record NBL attendance. Over 17,000... fantastic effort!


The Kings are the one team in the NBL with a venue large enough for an NBA size crowd. The official attendance (against fellow NSW based club Illawarra Hawks, basically their local rival) was 17,514. This is the record stand alone NBL crowd ever since the league started up in 1979 (Wikipedia incorrectly lists the record as 17,803 for a Kings vs West Sydney Razorbacks game in 1999. However it was actually a double header with the Kings playing the Canberra Cannons and West Sydney playing Brisbane and the actual attendance was 17,143. It was Round 1 of the 1999-2000 season and the games opened that season).

As of 12 January 2020 (_edited_), the all-time largest home attendances for each NBL team at their current venues (stand alone games only) is:

Adelaide 36ers - 9,034 (11 January 2020) vs Melbourne United

Brisbane Bullets - 5,276 (7 December 2019) vs Illawarra Hawks

Cairns Taipans - 5,500 (3 March 2004) vs Perth Wildcats

Illawarra Hawks - 5,839 (18 February 2005) vs Sydney Kings (2005 NBL Grand Final - Game 2)

Melbourne United - 10,300 (various occasions)

New Zealand Breakers (at Spark Arena) - 9,330 (7 April 2013) vs Perth Wildcats (2013 NBL Grand Final - Game 1)
New Zealand Breakers (at Horncastle Arena) - 3,333 (20 December 2019) vs South East Melbourne Phoenix
New Zealand Breakers (at TSB Stadium) - _no games played yet_

Perth Wildcats - 13,611 (14 January 2017) vs Adelaide 36ers

SE Melbourne Phoenix (Melbourne Arena) - 10,098 (19 October 2019) vs Illawarra Hawks
SE Melbourne Phoenix (at State Basketball Centre) - _no games played yet_

Sydney Kings - 17,514 (17 November 2019) vs Illawarra Hawks

Both Brisbane and Melbourne United (when they were the Melbourne Tigers - a rather dubious connection at best) have recorded higher home attendances at other venues. As the Tigers, United's record home attendance was 15,129 at the Rod Laver Arena in 1994 against the South East Melbourne Magic, while the Bullets attracted 13,611 to the Brisbane Entertainment Centre for Game 2 of the 1990 NBL Grand Final against the Perth Wildcats.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

The top 10 all-time NBL (Australia) attendance records are:

1 - 17,514 Sydney Kings vs Illawarra Hawks - 17 November 2019 @ Qudos Bank Arena (Sydney Superdome)

2 - 17,143 Sydney Kings vs Canberra Cannons & West Sydney Razorbacks vs Brisbane Bullets - 2 October 1999 @ Sydney Superdome

3 - 15,366 South East Melbourne Magic vs Melbourne Tigers - 22 June 1996 @ Rod Laver Arena (National Tennis Centre)

4 - 15,129 Melbourne Tigers vs South East Melbourne Magic - 11 July 1994 @ National Tennis Centre

5 - 15,122 Melbourne Tigers vs North Melbourne Giants - 23 September 1994 @ National Tennis Centre

6 - 15,099 Melbourne Tigers vs Sydney Kings - 23 July 1994, Round 16 @ National Tennis Centre

7 - 15,064 Melbourne Tigers vs South East Melbourne Magic - 1 November 1996, NBL Grand Final G2 @ National Tennis Centre

8 - 15,049 Melbourne Tigers vs South East Melbourne Magic - 24 October 1992, NBL Grand Final G1 @ National Tennis Centre

9 - 15,034 South East Melbourne Magic vs Melbourne Tigers - 30 October 1992, NBL Grand Final G2 @ National Tennis Centre

10 - 15,028 Melbourne Tigers vs Perth Wildcats - 23 October 1993, NBL Grand Final G1 @ National Tennis Centre

Of the current NBL venues only Qudos Bank Arena (18,200) has the capacity (when set up for basketball) to get onto this list. These days the only basketball that gets played at Rod Laver Arena is when the Australian Boomers play there, usually against New Zealand. The last game to date played at Rod Laver was in 2015 between the Boomers and Tall Blacks as part of the 2015 FIBA Oceania Championship. The Boomers won the game which attracted 15,062 (the pic of Rod Laver Arena in the next post is from that game).


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Some of the Australian venues previously but not currently used by the NBL, though most are in current use as/or WNBL or Suncorp Super Netball (National Netball League) venues.

Adelaide - Titanium Security Arena (8,000) _WNBL_ - _The Powerhouse, The Dome, Brett Maher Court_









Canberra - AIS Arena (5,200) _WNBL, NNL_ - _The Palace_









Hobart - Derwent Entertainment Centre (5,400) _not currently used in national competition_ - _The Devils Den_









Newcastle Entertainment Centre (4,658) _not currently used in national competition_









Melbourne - Rod Laver Arena (15,400) _not currently used in national competition_ - _The Tennis Centre_









Brisbane Entertainment Centre (13,601) _not currently used in national competition_ - _Boondall_









Gold Coast Convention Centre (5,269) _not currently used in national competition_ - _The Furnace_









Townsville Entertainment Centre (5,257) _not currently used in national competition_ - _The Swamp_









Melbourne - Margaret Court Arena (7,500) _NNL_









Perth - HBF Stadium (4,500) _not currently used in national competition_ - _The Superdome_









Sydney - Quaycentre (5,006) _NNL_ - _State Sports Centre_









Brisbane Convention Centre (4,000) _not currently used in national competition_


----------



## Birkish Delight (Aug 19, 2010)

I saw that Football Tasmania are supporting the FIFA Women's World Cup. Hopefully this means they are angling for at least a modest sized rectangular stadium in Hobart rather than planning to use an oval.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Birkish Delight said:


> I saw that Football Tasmania are supporting the FIFA Women's World Cup. Hopefully this means they are angling for at least a modest sized rectangular stadium in Hobart rather than planning to use an oval.


The problem here in Australia though that with Aussie rules being the dominant winter sport and cricket the dominant summer sport, the larger venues are invariably oval or circular.

Australia only has two venues that can hold over 50,000 spectators that are actually suited to rectangle pitch sports such as soccer and the two rugby codes. ANZ Stadium in Sydney (83,500) which will soon lose about 6-8,000 in capacity when the ends are re-done and moved closer to the ends of the field, and Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane (52,500). There could be a case for both Etihad Stadium in Melbourne with its movable lower tier seating and Optus Stadium in Perth which can add extra lower level seating to make for a more rectangular surround to the field. But that doesn't alter the fact that both are still oval venues. The rest of their seating doesn't suddenly become a rectangle for quality sight lines, they stay oval.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Australia's Suncorp Super Netball (National Netball League) venues for the 2020 season

Adelaide Thunderbirds - Primary venue - Priceline Stadium (3,200). Alternate venue - Adelaide Entertainment Centre (10,000)

















Collingwood Magpies - Primary venue - Melbourne Arena (10,500). Alternate venue - Launceston Silverdome (5,000)

















Giants Netball - Primary venue - Ken Rosewall Arena (10,500). Alternate venue - AIS Arena (5,200)

















Melbourne Vixens - Primary venue - Melbourne Arena (10,500). Alternate venue - Margaret Court Arena (7,500)

















New South Wales Swifts - Ken Rosewall Arena (10,500). The venue is set to get a roof as part of an AU$50.5m refurbishment to be completed in late 2019.









Queensland Firebirds - Nissan Arena (5,000)









Sunshine Coast Lightning - University of Sunshine Coast Stadium (3,000)









West Coast Fever - RAC Arena (14,856)


----------



## Birkish Delight (Aug 19, 2010)

HoldenV8 said:


> The problem here in Australia though that with Aussie rules being the dominant winter sport and cricket the dominant summer sport, the larger venues are invariably oval or circular.
> 
> Australia only has two venues that can hold over 50,000 spectators that are actually suited to rectangle pitch sports such as soccer and the two rugby codes. ANZ Stadium in Sydney (83,500) which will soon lose about 6-8,000 in capacity when the ends are re-done and moved closer to the ends of the field, and Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane (52,500). There could be a case for both Etihad Stadium in Melbourne with its movable lower tier seating and Optus Stadium in Perth which can add extra lower level seating to make for a more rectangular surround to the field. But that doesn't alter the fact that both are still oval venues. The rest of their seating doesn't suddenly become a rectangle for quality sight lines, they stay oval.


I get that AFL and cricket are the dominant sports and as such the bigger stadiums are round. The reality is that the football codes don't get bigger crowds except for marque events so they only need venues typically in the 20K - 30K capacity range. When you have a stadium like Suncorp that holds 50K+ with a crowd of 10K it drains the atmosphere rather than adding to it.

In Hobart this could/should be 10K-15K, but they could build to 30K (or what ever the requirements are) using temporary stands that could be removed after the Women's World Cup.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Birkish Delight said:


> I get that AFL and cricket are the dominant sports and as such the bigger stadiums are round. The reality is that the football codes don't get bigger crowds except for marque events so they only need venues typically in the 20K - 30K capacity range. When you have a stadium like Suncorp that holds 50K+ with a crowd of 10K it drains the atmosphere rather than adding to it.
> 
> In Hobart this could/should be 10K-15K, but they could build to 30K (or what ever the requirements are) using temporary stands that could be removed after the Women's World Cup.


I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately though most state governments can't see past Aussie rules or cricket and are thus loath to put money even into building a decent size boutique style venue when there is little call for it in the long term unless its somewhere like Sydney or Brisbane where rectangle pitch sports rule the roost. And FIFA aren't exactly big on temporary stadiums for events like a World Cup. Its one of the reasons Australia isn't likely to ever see the men's World Cup, not without a lot of money changing hands because most of our large enough stadiums just aren't suited to rectangle pitch sports.

Australia has only 6 stadiums that can hold over 50,000 fans and only one of them (Suncorp Stadium) is a true rectangle venue and its the smallest of the lot. ANZ in Sydney is being made into a rectangle only venue (something that should have happened after the Olympics, until the AFL got their hooks into the post-Olympic plans), but every other large venue is an unsuitable oval/circle.

Australia's 50,000+ stadiums are:

MCG (100,024) - circle shaped.

ANZ Stadium (83,500) - oval shaped but movable seats made a rectangle. Will be turned into a 70,000 capacity rectangle only venue by 2022.

Optus Stadium (60,000) - oval but can add lower seats for a rectangle like pitch surround.

Adelaide Oval (55,517) - oval

Etihad Stadium (53,359) - oval but with movable lower bowl seats for a more rectangle shape. Capacity reduced to 47,000 in rectangle mode.

Suncorp Stadium (52,500) - rectangle

Until the new 45,000 seat Sydney Football Stadium is re-built (set to open sometime around 2022), the largest rectangle stadium in Australia behind Suncorp is Macdonald Jones Stadium in Newcastle which currently only holds 33,000 at best.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

The 13 venues for Australia and New Zealand's joint bid for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup have been announced:

*AUSTRALIA*

Stadium Australia, Sydney - 70,000. World Cup Final host.









New Sydney Football Stadium - 42,512









Melbourne Rectangular Stadium - 30,052









Brisbane Stadium - 52,263









Perth Oval - 22,225









Hindmarsh Stadium, Adelaide - 18,435









Newcastle Stadium - 29,945









York Park, Launceston - 22,065










*NEW ZEALAND*

Eden Park, Auckland - 48,276









Wellington Regional Stadium - 39,000









Christchurch Stadium - 22,556









Waikato Stadium, Hamilton - 25,111









Dunedin Stadium - 28,774


----------



## Birkish Delight (Aug 19, 2010)

So disappointing that they are proposing to use two circular stadiums that are terrible for watching football. I'm surprised that the Robina stadium on the Gold Coast wasn't proposed.


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

Birkish Delight said:


> So disappointing that they are proposing to use two circular stadiums that are terrible for watching football. I'm surprised that the Robina stadium on the Gold Coast wasn't proposed.




It seems they avoided using stadiums that are main grounds during the AFL season. With only four AFL games a season, Launceston wasn’t included in that category, with the AFL easily able to avoid fixturing games there for 2 months in the middle of winter.

I’m not quite sure what the NRL will do for that period though. In Sydney I guess they will just play more games at the suburban grounds. Where as Brisbane may join the Gold Coast at Robina Stadium, which is what may rule it out.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Birkish Delight said:


> So disappointing that they are proposing to use two circular stadiums that are terrible for watching football. I'm surprised that the Robina stadium on the Gold Coast wasn't proposed.


Unfortunately Tasmania doesn't have a decent rectangular venue (the biggest there, KGV Park, only holds 4,000). Its either York Park in Launceston or Bellerive in Hobart.

At least Tassie got included. The Northern Territory missed out, as did the ACT which actually has a fairly good rectangle venue in GIO (Canberra) Stadium.

As for Wellington in NZ.....when they replaced the old Athletic Park they decided to make it a circular venue so they would also have a decent cricket stadium because Basin Reserve is essentially nothing more than a glorified suburban ground and not really suited to international test, one day or T20 cricket. Thus both rugby codes and soccer were forced into playing at what is an unsuitable venue when big events are in the city. They went the all-purpose cheaper option rather than building two different venues.


----------



## mw123 (Oct 23, 2009)

That one in Launceston seems like an odd choice. Couldn't they have put forward the newly completed Bankwest in Sydney or the new one in Townsville even?


----------



## Stadium Lover (Jun 1, 2010)

mw123 said:


> That one in Launceston seems like an odd choice. Couldn't they have put forward the newly completed Bankwest in Sydney or the new one in Townsville even?


Exactly my thoughts. Piss off Launceston and Wellington, and use Bankwest and Townsville. Both two of the best rectangular stadiums in the country, particularly Bankwest.


----------



## Birkish Delight (Aug 19, 2010)

HoldenV8 said:


> Unfortunately Tasmania doesn't have a decent rectangular venue (the biggest there, KGV Park, only holds 4,000). Its either York Park in Launceston or Bellerive in Hobart.
> 
> At least Tassie got included. The Northern Territory missed out, as did the ACT which actually has a fairly good rectangle venue in GIO (Canberra) Stadium.
> 
> As for Wellington in NZ.....when they replaced the old Athletic Park they decided to make it a circular venue so they would also have a decent cricket stadium because Basin Reserve is essentially nothing more than a glorified suburban ground and not really suited to international test, one day or T20 cricket. Thus both rugby codes and soccer were forced into playing at what is an unsuitable venue when big events are in the city. They went the all-purpose cheaper option rather than building two different venues.


I was hoping Tassie would leverage this to get a 10-15K capacity rectangular stadium in Hobart/ Launceston to up their hopes of securing a future A-League team.

Odd that they left Canberra off, but I assume there were a number of rectangular stadiums (Townsville, Gosford, Parramatta etc) that got left off to accommodate the NRL/ Super Rugby while the tournament is on.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Bankwest lost out because under FIFA's World Cup rules they can't have more than two venues in the one city. Thus the larger Stadium Australia and the new SFS got the nod.

I think they went with York Park to give Tasmania a venue for the tournament, though using either the new Townsville Stadium or even Robina Stadium would have probably been a better choice. I also get the feeling that the disasters of the short lived A-league teams in Townsville and the Gold Coast meant that they weren't about to go back there, even for a World Cup.

The biggest surprise is that Canberra missed out, especially given that they already have a fairly good venue in Canberra Stadium that has 25,011 seats (but can hold up to 29,000 with standing room) that they will either be upgrading or replacing in the next few years anyway. And its not like the Raiders or Brumbies don't have alternate venues. Manuka Oval and Seiffert Oval could be used while a World Cup is on. That's how they have gotten around it with Brisbane, the Broncos can play at the Gabba, Ballymore, their old home ground at QEII or even move a home game or two to the Gold Coast.

In Wellington, unfortunately the cake tin is the biggest venue they have by a country mile they don't have any other venue that even comes close to being suitable. Plus there is the fact that not only is it NZ's capital city but its also the countries second largest urban population behind Auckland. Save building a new stadium, which they weren't about to, it was either the cake tin or miss out altogether. At 39,000 its also the second biggest venue in NZ, bigger than either North Harbour or Mt Smart (both in Auckland) which can only hold 25,000 and 30,000 respectively.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

HoldenV8 said:


> Perth Oval - 22,225
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Odd that Perth's non-oval stadium is named Perth Oval


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

HoldenV8 said:


> Bankwest lost out because under FIFA's World Cup rules they can't have more than two venues in the one city. Thus the larger Stadium Australia and the new SFS got the nod.
> .


What rules?
Qatar showed what a joke that was.

Bankwest shoulve been included.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

fish.01 said:


> Odd that Perth's non-oval stadium is named Perth Oval



It was an Oval for 94 years before being reconfigured into a rectangle in 2004. It used to be home to East Perth FC (Aussie Rules).


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

fish.01 said:


> Odd that Perth's non-oval stadium is named Perth Oval


Odd that he would list it as Perth Oval when the name is HBF Park.

Not a single soul in Perth would call it Perth Oval....


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

Well he didn’t use any Sponsored names...


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

docker said:


> Well he didn’t use any Sponsored names...


Sponsor name or not that is the Current Stadium name. I find it bizarre that only in Australia do people refuse to actually use a stadiums name.


----------



## Birkish Delight (Aug 19, 2010)

Calvin W said:


> Sponsor name or not that is the Current Stadium name. I find it bizarre that only in Australia do people refuse to actually use a stadiums name.


Apparently Emirates Stadium (Arsenal's home ground) is referenced as 'Arsenal Stadium' in the Champions League.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Calvin W said:


> Sponsor name or not that is the Current Stadium name. I find it bizarre that only in Australia do people refuse to actually use a stadiums name.


But, it's not just in Australia. It's the same everywhere. Whenever the Olympics or FIFA World Cup are on, the sponsored name is not used. It's not that people "refuse" to actually use a stadium's name, it's just the rules of the IOC and FIFA who have their own very important sponsors (worth billions of dollars) to protect.

Here are just a few examples:

LA 1984: McDonald's Olympic Swim Stadium was called Olympic Swim Stadium and 7-Eleven Velodrome was called Olympic Velodrome
Salt Lake City 2002: Delta Center was called Salt Lake Ice Center
Germany 2006: Allianz Arena (Munich), Signal Iduna Park (Dortmund), AOL-Arena (Hamburg), RheinEnergieStadion (Cologne), AWD-Arena (Hannover), Veltins-Arena (Gelsenkirchen) and Commerzbank-Arena (Frankfurt) all had to go by FIFA World Cup Stadium (Insert Name Here) while easyCredit-Stadion (Nuremberg) was known as Frankenstadion.
Vancouver 2010: General Motors Place was called Canada Hockey Place 
South Africa 2010: FNB Stadium was called Soccer City
London 2012: O2 Arena was called North Greenwich Arena, Ricoh Arena called City of Coventry Stadium, and Sports Direct Arena called St James' Park
Rio 2016: HSBC Arena was called Arena Olímpica do Rio

You'll also probably notice that whenever ABC News or SBS News report on sporting results, they will say Docklands Stadium instead of Marvel Stadium and Lang Park instead of Suncorp Stadium and Stadium Australia instead of ANZ Stadium. That's because ABC and SBS are not private, commercial broadcasters.

That is why the Victorian government really need to come up with a better non-sponsorship name than Melbourne Rectangular Stadium for AAMI Park.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Calvin W said:


> Odd that he would list it as Perth Oval when the name is HBF Park.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single soul in Perth would call it Perth Oval....



You're mistaken. It is still regularly called Perth Oval, from adults to our public broadcaster in all media formats.
Its main gate says Perth Oval.
This is because of history, that it only recently became HBF Park and that there is also HBF Stadium and HBF Arena in Perth which makes it all a little confusing.
It's no different to the public (Queenslanders in particular) referring to Brisbane's main stadium as Lang Park while its corporate name of Suncorp Stadium has been around for 25years.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Anyway fingers crossed a successful Women's World Cup bid and NRL Perth expansion will prompt the WA Gov to complete the Perth Oval masterplan of "Stage 3" a new Western Stand. The current one from the 50's is woefully inadequate.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Walbanger said:


> You're mistaken. It is still regularly called Perth Oval, from adults to our public broadcaster in all media formats.
> Its main gate says Perth Oval.
> This is because of history, that it only recently became HBF Park and that there is also HBF Stadium and HBF Arena in Perth which makes it all a little confusing.
> It's no different to the public (Queenslanders in particular) referring to Brisbane's main stadium as Lang Park while its corporate name of Suncorp Stadium has been around for 25years.


I've been there a few times and have never heard anyone call it Perth Oval.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

As have I and have heard many call it Perth Oval.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

HoldenV8 said:


> Some of the Australian venues previously but not currently used by the NBL, though most are in current use as/or WNBL or Suncorp Super Netball (National Netball League) venues.
> ....


Potential new 17K venue in Brisbane given state govt tick to be put to the market:









Source: https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.636%2C$multiply_1.5109%2C$ratio_1.776846%2C$width_1059%2C$x_152%2C$y_69/t_crop_custom/q_62%2Cf_auto/b7b89ce827a74114b640b5b00dadcd72f0a6a027


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

The new Sydney Speedway has taken another step forward in its planning as the Environment Impact Statement was submitted to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment today.

Situated near Sydney Dragway and Sydney Motorsport Park, the replacement venue for Parramatta Speedway is aiming to start construction by the end of this year, depending on planning approvals.

Racing is set to begin at the circuit in the 2021-22 Speedway season.









SYDNEY SPEEDWAY PLAN PROGRESSES - Auto Action


The new Sydney Speedway has taken another step forward in its planning as the Environment Impact Statement was submitted | Auto Action




autoaction.com.au


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Brisbane's Gabba to host AFL grand final


----------



## deebs (Jul 10, 2009)

More context on the AFL grand final for all you sports fans out there:

This is the premiership match for the Australian Football League, arguably the world's oldest football code with the rules drawn up in 1859.

The first Australian football match was played in Melbourne's Yarra Park, just outside the Melbourne Cricket Ground, in August 1858.

While the shape of the league and format to decide a season winner has changed a few times over the subsequent 161 years, since 1902 the premiership game has been played at the MCG on every occasion but five - four years during WW2 when the MCG was requisitioned as a military camp, and 1991 when the the stadium was undergoing a major rebuild and the match was held at the now-demolished VFL Park in the Melbourne suburb of Waverley.

The Grand Final has never left Melbourne, despite the league progressively expanding from a Victoria-only competition to an Australia-wide competition from 1981, and has been contracted to remain at the MCG until 2057.

The AFL Grand Final has the highest average attendance of any equivalent event, challenged only by the largest of the US college football games. The first crowd of 100,000+ was in 1956, exploiting the newly constructed Northern (later Olympic) Stand just completed in advance of the XVI Olympiad, for which the MCG was the main stadium, although a dangerously over-capacity 96,486 crammed in to the 1938 event, just after the construction of the now-demolished Southern Stand. The record official attendance was 121,696 in 1970.

After the total rebuild of the stadium over the last three decades, and the adoption of modern safety standards and the reduction in standing room, Grand Final crowds have hovered around the 100,000 mark, somewhat suspiciously(!) creeping over that mark by just 14, 21 and 22 people in the last three years.

This year's pandemic has thrown the AFL season into disarray. Games began - as scheduled but without crowds - over 19–22 March before being paused; round 2 of a re-fixtured season resumed on 11 June. The two Melbourne stadiums (MCG and Docklands) continued to host some matches until 5 July when a second-wave outbreak in Melbourne resulted in prohibitive travel restrictions and prompted the AFL to adopt a "hub" model for the rest of the season, under which most Melbourne teams relocated to Queensland.

Since then, a reduced season has been played across all Australian states and the Northern Territory, albeit with severe attendance restrictions, but not in Victoria, Tasmania or the Australian Capital Territory - all of which would usually have seen matches played.

Although Melbourne is likely to have emerged from its second COVID wave by the time the Grand Final is played at the end of October - a month later than usual - the need for certainty around planning and attendance has made it obvious for several weeks that the game would move interstate for the first time. The primary contenders to host the prestigious event were Perth Stadium - where a capacity crowd of 60,000+ may have been possible - and the Gabba (42,000, but likely to be capped at 30,000 for the grand final) in Brisbane.

Although Queensland is not a traditional Australian Football stronghold (preferring the rival Rugby League code), the AFL has apparently favoured the opportunity to "grow the game" by rewarding the match to Brisbane. Western Australians - always fanatical Australian Football supporters - are likely to be, shall we say, disappointed. The decision was also influenced by the AFL's gratitude to the Queensland state government for facilitating the complex requirements of the hastily arranged hub for many of the Victorian clubs.

The Grand Final - traditionally played on a Saturday afternoon - will be played at night for the first time, a controversial proposal that has been pushed by the AFL's TV network for several years but resisted by traditionalists and, until now, the league. It remains to be seen whether this will be the foot-in-the-door that forces the matter once the game (presumably!) returns to Melbourne in 2021. The current contract to hold the game at the MCG has been extended one year to 2058 as compensation for the move.

September in Melbourne - which prides itself as one of the world's great sporting cities and where football is something of a religion - will be a very different experience this year without football finals at the MCG. The city even has a public holiday the day before the Grand Final - the only place in the world to grant everyone a day off in honour of a football match, and not even on the same day! This year the holiday will be repurposed as a day of thanks following (hopefully!) the end of the lockdowns and nighttime curfew that have successfully curtailed the second COVID wave but have robbed the city of one of its signature cultural elements, the winter football season, from the AFL to the smallest suburban kids leagues. There is cautious optimism that the other major sporting events on the Melbourne calendar - the Spring horse-racing carnival and Melbourne Cup, the Boxing Day cricket test, and the late-January Australian Open tennis - will be staged, albeit with reduced crowds.


-----

deebs


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307172649605369863


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Construction begins on the Sea Eagles Centre of Excellence

Rugby League is ready to soar to new heights on the Northern Beaches with construction beginning today on the $33.1 million Manly Sea Eagles Centre of Excellence and Northern Grandstand at Lottoland.









Construction begins on the Sea Eagles Centre of Excellence


Rugby League is ready to soar to new heights on the Northern Beaches with construction beginning today on the $33.1 million Manly Sea Eagles Centre of Excellence and Northern Grandstand at Lottoland.




www.seaeagles.com.au


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

A suburban football grounds plan to build boutique stadiums in the suburbs is shaping as a key plank of the NSW budget.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal the government will announce funding for planning a local stadium at Kogarah, and will foreshadow intention to push ahead with stadiums at Brookvale, Liverpool and Penrith, in this month’s state budget as part of its plan to drive jobs and growth in the economy through fast construction opportunities.

The stadiums, expected to be in the 18,000 to 20,000 seat capacity range, would not only drive suburban-based sport and be used by major clubs, but they would also be made available for use for community projects such as fairs, markets, concerts or Christmas carols.

One plan under consideration is to build one boutique stadium per year, although it is understood the NRL is keen for any program to be accelerated to capitalise on the need to kickstart the state’s economy.

Under the plan, Kogarah Oval would be shared by the Dragons, the Sharks and possibly Sydney FC.

Brookvale could be shared by the Manly Sea Eagles, and rugby union clubs the Manly Marlins and Warringah Rats.

Liverpool would be used by the Tigers and the Bulldogs.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1323013265287360513


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

If they continue the same stadium design on the Eastern side at kogerah, it will be one of the nicest looking small stadiums in Australia


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Adelaide’s Hindmarsh Stadium is set for a AUD$45m (€27.7m/£24.9m) revamp as the city targets hosting matches at the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023.

South Australia’s government has pledged a total of $89m for redevelopment at Hindmarsh Stadium and Memorial Drive Tennis Centre in its budget for the coming year. A total of $209m has been earmarked to deliver a “a sporting golden era” through the State Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Plan.

The redevelopment of the 16,500-capacity Hindmarsh Stadium, the home of the Adelaide United A-League soccer team, will upgrade the venue ahead of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023, to be staged in Australia and New Zealand. FIFA will decide which five Australian venues will host games, with Hindmarsh Stadium one of seven to have been proposed.

The $45m fund will deliver a new pitch, upgraded lighting and shade covering over the east grandstand. Hindmarsh Stadium – currently known as Coopers Stadium – will also welcome new and upgraded changerooms, enhanced media/broadcast facilities, and improved disability access and corporate facilities.

The $44m for Memorial Drive Tennis Centre — the home of the Adelaide International tennis tournament which is played the week before the Australian Open — will deliver stage two of the venue’s redevelopment, coming soon after a $10m project to install a canopy-roof structure.

Stage two will see an additional 1,500 seat capacity across four new grandstands for a total capacity of 6,000 as well as improved access to the adjacent Adelaide Oval precinct. There will also be new areas for event activities, general function spaces, enhanced digital infrastructure and elite training and recovery facilities.









Adelaide venues boosted by AUD$89m for redevelopment


Adelaide’s Hindmarsh Stadium is set for a AUD$45m (€27.7m/£24.9m) revamp as the city targets hosting matches at the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023. South Australia’s government has pledged a total of $89m for redevelopment at




www.thestadiumbusiness.com


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Richmond Football Club today thanked the Daniel Andrews State Government following the announcement of a $15.5 million funding contribution for the redevelopment of Punt Road Oval and the establishment of the William Cooper Centre.

The planned redevelopment will provide improvements and much-needed upgrades to the Club’s men’s and women’s football facilities, while also supporting Richmond’s cutting-edge community programs and administration needs.









State Government Announce Funding for Punt Road Oval Redevelopment


Richmond today thanked the Daniel Andrews State Government following the announcement of a $15.5 million funding contribution for the redevelopment of Punt Road Oval.




www.richmondfc.com.au


----------



## Birkish Delight (Aug 19, 2010)

Just been told that Football Queensland are stipulating 200 lumen Lux levels for all NPL clubs. Anyone know how this compares to major venues?


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

RMB2007 said:


> After almost two decades of seeking to redevelop its home ground at Brookvale Oval on Sydney’s Northern Beaches, NRL club the Manly Sea Eagles is poised to begin the building of a new Centre of Excellence and 3,000 seat covered grandstand at the northern end of the venue.
> 
> With a Northern Beaches Council commissioned report having recommended the development application be rejected the Sydney North Planning Panel has overruled the arguments made by Council’s assessor and approved the development.
> 
> ...


Being a Manly fan, I like this. Other than the extension to the Jane Try Stand in 2012, Brookie really hasn't had any sort of major visible to the public upgrade since the Ken Arthurson Stand was opened in 1995.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Western Melbourne Group (WMG), the ownership body of Australian A-League football club Western United, has received planning permission from the state of Victoria for its new stadium.

WMG today (Friday) said it is one step closer to delivering Wyndham City Stadium after State Planning Minister Richard Wynne approved a key planning amendment. The planning approval allows detailed design of the stadium and development to be finalised and construction timelines to be determined.

The development is set to be the first major sports stadium owned by a professional football club in Australia. The 15,000-seat stadium will be the centrepiece of a broader development that links sports, commercial and residential precincts.

The development, being undertaken by WMG and Wyndham City Council, will turn approximately 70 hectares of land in Tarneit into a mixed-use precinct comprising of sport, entertainment, commercial, residential and community uses.









Western United gets green light for new stadium


Western Melbourne Group (WMG), the ownership body of Australian A-League football club Western United, has received planning permission from the...




www.thestadiumbusiness.com


----------



## Skylineup076FR (Aug 19, 2009)

*Melbourne Park redevelopment continues as new Show Court reaches milestone *(Tuesday 2nd February 2021) 








The new 5,000-seat arena​Source: *AUSTADIUMS*


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Posted this on a Northern Beaches forum
Brookvale well underway


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Also Manly have design and costings from both Architects and the builder (ADCO) to complete a full rebuild.
Capacity approx 19,000 all seater which would be fine for NRL and club rugby Marlins v Rats derby games.
Throw in the odd Waratahs game and possibly A League Mariners v Sydney FC maybe?
Plenty of football fans on the Northern Beaches.


----------



## trichardscottc (Oct 1, 2020)

Pump71 said:


> Also Manly have design and costings from both Architects and the builder (ADCO) to complete a full rebuild.
> Capacity approx 19,000 all seater which would be fine for NRL and club rugby Marlins v Rats derby games.
> Throw in the odd Waratahs game and possibly A League Mariners v Sydney FC maybe?
> Plenty of football fans on the Northern Beaches.


Do we have any planning documents or official documents for this? Would be very interesting.


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Nothing will be made public until NSW govt finalise the Stadium funding, ie Kogarah, Brookvale and Penrith.
What Manly are trying to do is get the project shovel ready if money does come through.
Would also think Federal might be keen to throw some love Manly's way seeing they lost the Tony Abbott seat of Warringah at the last election to Zali Steggall.
Should at least match the $12.5m they gave for the Centre of Excellence to try and win back some votes.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Pump71 said:


> Also Manly have design and costings from both Architects and the builder (ADCO) to complete a full rebuild.
> Capacity approx 19,000 all seater which would be fine for NRL and club rugby Marlins v Rats derby games.
> Throw in the odd Waratahs game and possibly A League Mariners v Sydney FC maybe?
> Plenty of football fans on the Northern Beaches.


Which architect?


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

architect is Hassell
Plus Urbis town planners


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

What's Brisbane going to do for the 2032 Olympics?
Re main stadium


----------



## verbatim9 (May 2, 2016)

A new one


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Brisbane doesn't really need a new stadium does it?
They have Ballymore and QE2 unused, Suncorp and the GABBA fit for purpose minus some minor upgrades.
Brisbane only has the Broncos and Lions as major tenants for 40,000 + venues.
IOC seems very keen on keeping costs down as cities around the world aren't as keen as they used to be to even apply to host nowadays.
Perhaps a 60,000 seater new with half utilising temporary seating, so Brisbane could get a useful 30,000 boutique ground for Reds and Roar, which the city lacks.


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

More info on Brookvale Oval masterplan (screenshots the best I can do)


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

My unsolicited thinking for the Brisbane Olympics venue, would be to expand the Lang Park to over 60,000 seats and use it for the ceremonies.

Focus on rebuilding the western Grand Stand that was built in 1994 to be bigger, since the other three sides of Lang Park were only opened in 2003.

Purchase the properties that front Castlemaine Street between Black Street and Blaxland Street, move Castlemaine Street over to the west by a bit, add in a forecourt, and the stadium is not as constrained as what the Gabba is by Stanley and Vulture Streets.

Then later down the track Lang Park can also be expanded to 75,000 seats by redeveloping the other three stands.

Also give the Gabba a bit of a spruce up.


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

They hare plans for the western stand don't they?


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Lottoland update 7/3/21


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Pump71 said:


> Brisbane doesn't really need a new stadium does it?
> They have Ballymore and QE2 unused, Suncorp and the GABBA fit for purpose minus some minor upgrades.
> Brisbane only has the Broncos and Lions as major tenants for 40,000 + venues.
> IOC seems very keen on keeping costs down as cities around the world aren't as keen as they used to be to even apply to host nowadays.
> Perhaps a 60,000 seater new with half utilising temporary seating, so Brisbane could get a useful 30,000 boutique ground for Reds and Roar, which the city lacks.


Yeah NRL Bris 2, Roar and Reds could all be considered for a new boutique stadium like Bankwest and AAMI.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

docker said:


> My unsolicited thinking for the Brisbane Olympics venue, would be to expand the Lang Park to over 60,000 seats and use it for the ceremonies.


Any expansion of Suncorp would have to be permanent. Great for Maroons but Broncos dont need 60,000 +.


----------



## deebs (Jul 10, 2009)

deebs said:


> The Queensland government has just announced they would completely rebuild the Gabba in Brisbane to host the 2032 summer Olympics, slightly increasing its capacity to 50,000 seats.
> 
> The announcement refers to the Opening and Closing ceremonies, but it's not immediately clear whether the athletics would be held there - given the ceremonies have been specifically called out, I suspect not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Thee goes the budget Olympics then


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Pump71 said:


> Thee goes the budget Olympics then


That's instead of the planned larger Bowen Hills stadium so already factored in to the acceptable budget I think.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

will it include a different seating design, cos the current is enough to make one puke? And heres hoping to much better lighting, the gabba looks a right old miserable and dark place at night on tv.


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Lottoland taking shape
Centre of Excellence starting to rise out of the ground
The depth of the northern stand also evident now


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

We finally have movement at Lottoland
Structure taking shape
Seating rows are being installed Infront of the scaffolding and a slab is being formed for a pour soon


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

A lot has happened in the last 3 months
New name and grandstand taking shape
The new 4 Pines Park


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Western United's A-League parent company to begin the construction process on the Wyndham City Stadium next month.

The construction process will commence on the 25th of October, 2021. Being built by Western Melbourne Group (WMG), Western United's parent company, the stadium will upon its completion be the first fully soccer-owned senior stadium in Australia.

Once completed the stadium will have a 15,000 spectator capacity complete with in-club accommodation, offices, training facilities and changing rooms. 









Western United’s A-League stadium to begin construction


Western United's A-League parent company to begin the construction process on the Wyndham City Stadium next month.




www.ftbl.com.au


----------



## dibo_returns (May 28, 2008)

"The first phase of the construction will start with the upgrading of Leakes Road, construction of an interim Iron Road and the site's haul road."

So they're building a road.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

RMB2007 said:


> Western United's A-League parent company to begin the construction process on the Wyndham City Stadium next month.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I assumed this was never going to get anywhere. Not a fan of the identity of the club, but a big positive this for the A-League.


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Brookies latest update
Stand taking shape, now at internal fitout stage


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Lotto land is Brookvale Oval I gather? Used to work there long time ago. How big is the capacity there when refurb is complete?


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Yeah Lottoland is Brookvale Oval But it's now named 4 Pines Park
They're saying no change to capacity with this new stand but official size is debatable it has been 23,000 officially but council have had it reduced to a cap of 18,000 for the last few years 
Don't think they'd get a bigger crowd than 18k in it as it is 
Future plans have it finished with 20k seats


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Pump71 said:


> Brookies latest update
> Stand taking shape, now at internal fitout stage


Arguably the worst stadium in the league, so that's a sight for sore eyes. Would love to see something like that wrap around the whole stadium, or maybe leaving just one side of the hill if people are really hellbent on sitting on grass. At least this will stop the whole relocate Manly nonsense.


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

According to the club stage 2 is the eastern hill so no more grass hills, funny enough depending on the Penrith Stadium funding Brookvale could become the first suburban ground to be all seater (also pending funding)


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Pump71 said:


> According to the club stage 2 is the eastern hill so no more grass hills, funny enough depending on the Penrith Stadium funding Brookvale could become the first suburban ground to be all seater (also pending funding)


There is a bit of opposition from Manly fans about getting rid of the eastern hill and replacing it with an all-seat grandstand. Some fans think the hill is sacred ground and should be left untouched, other than the odd upgrade like better toilets out the back.

However, the reality is that if Manly ever want to host Semi-Final football, or the local council who own the ground want to have the Waratahs or any A-League games there, then it will probably have to become an all-seater at some point.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Panthers set to benefit first in NSW stadium cash splurge

9 News has reported a decision on the list of stadiums to be upgraded is almost finished and will be announced prior to Christmas, as NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet looks to spend $800 million on stadium infrastructure over the next five years.

It’s understood Penrith would benefit first, with $300 million to be spent on a brand new 25,000-seat stadium to replace the existing BlueBet Stadium, with construction to begin at the end of the 2022 season. The Panthers would play at CommBank Stadium for two years, before returning to their new home for the 2025 season.

Also expected to receive upgrades is Brookvale Oval and Jubilee Stadium, however the traditional home of the Wests Tigers, Leichhardt Oval, is expected to miss out. It also remains to be seen if a proposed new stadium will be built in Liverpool.



https://www.austadiums.com/news/1091/panthers-set-to-benefit-first-in-nsw-stadium-cash-splurge


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

25,000 is a good decision.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

The Richmond Football Club has unveiled updated designs for the $65m redevelopment of its spiritual home, which includes the construction of a new Jack Dyer Stand.

It means the Tigers’ headquarters will remain in their heartland at Punt Road Oval which they’ve called home for more than 135 years.

As revealed in November last year, the existing grandstand, which was built in 1914, will be demolished to make way for the new facility, while the oval will be expanded.



https://www.austadiums.com/news/1104/designs-revealed-for-65-million-punt-road-oval-redevelopment


----------



## OpenLynx (Mar 17, 2018)

*Sydney International Speedway Opening*

After Parramatta Speedway ("Be There!") was closed down for the Sydney Metro West Stabling, The Metro project team built a brand new Sydney International Speedway at Sydney Motorsport Park in Eastern Creek, and will opening to the public January 14, 2022.

The tenants/promoters are marketing it as "Eastern Creek Speedway"




__





Eastern Creek Speedway






www.easterncreekspeedway.com.au
























Credit: Facebook
Facebook Eastern Creek Speedway


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Don't have any screens to share, but some cracking views of the new SFS during the cricket coverage. The SCG looks quaint by comparison, which is understandable.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

^ was thinking the same


----------



## miguel_valencia (Sep 15, 2019)

One question. I am new on this topic, but I am a supporter of an eventual Australian soccer World Cup. If the country could host that tournament, are the great oval stadiums able for receiving soccer matches, in the line of USA 94?


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Able?
I guess that's up to FIFA. They've all hosted soccer matches before. 95000 showed up to the MCG to watch a friendly between Liverpool and Melbourne Victory FC a few years back.


----------



## miguel_valencia (Sep 15, 2019)

I am saying it because Australia is building good soccer stadiums but lesser than FIFA capacity requirements. However, great australian soccer or cricket grounds are perfect (Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane...)


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Australia will probably never host the World Cup because of the prevalence of cricket stadiums that needs to be used for the bid. Our 2018/22 bid was a colossal waste of time and money, bribery or no bribery.

Cricket stadiums are much worse for football than Olympic/athletics stadiums. The gaps are enormous on all sides, not just behind the goals. It's a very unpleasant experience if you're sitting in the lower tier.

We have Lang Park in Brisbane, the two in Sydney, SFS and SA. That's it. Newcastle could get a makeover, but that's 4 stadiums. Bankwest and AAMI are 30,000 and not likely to be expanded. Even if you add New Zealand, all they can offer is one stadium in Auckland.

USA 94 only had a couple of athletics tracked stadium, and as I said those are way better for football. You can actually see fans on the sidelines on television. In cricket stadiums you can't see anything apart from pitch.

The other problem for us is that excellent football stadiums are rising up across Asia, who will be our competitors for any future World Cup. Since China is going to win the next World Cup in Asia, we're looking at 2042 as the earliest opportunity for Asia again I reckon. By then we could be 6th in terms of football stadium infrastructure behind China, Japan, Korea, Middle East, and even Indonesia/South East Asia.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

FYI, most of the rectangular stadiums can be seen on the Australia/NZ Women’s World Cup 2023 site here: Destination


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Ramanaramana said:


> USA 94 only had a couple of athletics tracked stadium, and as I said those are way better for football. You can actually see fans on the sidelines on television. In cricket stadiums you can't see anything apart from pitch.


USA 94 only had one stadium with an athletics track between the stands and the pitch, that was Stanford Stadium in California. With the exception of RFK Stadium in D.C. which was an old cookie cutter baseball/football hybrid, all of the other venues were either NFL or college venues all built for rectangular pitch sports.

Right now, America is probably the only nation capable of hosting a FIFA World Cup where every stadium (say, a minimum of 10 venues) was either under a dome/roof or a retractable roof. Dallas (AT&T Stadium), Minneapolis (US Bank Stadium), Detroit (Ford Field), Indianapolis (Lucas Oil Stadium), New Orleans (Caesars Superdome), Atlanta (Mercedes Benz Stadium), Los Angeles (SoFi Stadium), Las Vegas (Allegiant Stadium), Houston (NRG Stadium), Phoenix (State Farm Stadium), San Antonio (Alamodome), St Louis (The Dome at America's Center). All capable of seating at least 70,000, all under a roof.

AT&T Stadium in Dallas is capable of seating around 100,000 under its roof.


----------



## dibo_returns (May 28, 2008)

Sightlines in many American football stadiums are poor. They've widened the pitches to allow front-row spectators to see more over the top of the 500 people milling around the sidelines of American football games, but the focal point then is well inside the sideline of the (much wider - 68m vs 48.8m) association football field.

Given the height above the field, the seats are actually too close to be able to see properly - the near sideline will in many cases be hidden behind people's heads.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

While I agree, the worst examples of that are corner flags being hidden. You'll still get better views of the rest of the field. I prefer that personally to MCG ground level........ 2nd/3rd tier of MCG/Marvel is a different story. That's where I usually go as views are good, even if other end of the field feels a little too small if you're sitting behind goals. I've only been ground level behind goals at MCG once and decided never again, worst sporting experience by a mile.

Though the cricket at MCG on ground level sucks too I reckon, especially if you're not behind wickets. Really the only sport it works for is Aussie Rules.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Ramanaramana said:


> Though the cricket at MCG on ground level sucks too I reckon, especially if you're not behind wickets. Really the only sport it works for is Aussie Rules.


All the major Cricket ground / AFL stadiums in Australia (Bar Optus Stadium) have awful shallow rake angles for their ground tiers, which compounds the sightline issues of being so far from the action. The MCG is 12 degrees, Adelaide Oval and SCG 10 degrees, probably worse for the Gabba (though it has one wing that's steeper, where it's 2 tiers instead of 3). Even Marvel Stadium is low at 11 degrees. I guess this is not a problem for the sightlines of Cricket, focusing at the center of a huge playing areas (MLB parks also have much shallower ground tiers than NFL Stadiums).
I can't remember if Optus Stadiums ground tier is 14 or 16 degrees, but it's also raised which helps a bit.

Compare that with the rectangle stadiums, Suncorp's ground tier is 18 degrees, HBF Park's is 18 degrees. The multipurpose ANZ Stadium (or whatever it's called now) is 15 degrees.


----------



## Sandro14 (Nov 28, 2021)

If a football world cup heads to australia, only rectangular shaped stadiums can be used. For now, we should focus on the new wyndham stadium, the new home of a-league club western united. This venue could create a domino effect on the other clubs, which could be forced to build their a-league specific stadiums (newcastle jets, central coast mariners, macarthur, wellington phoenix, brisbane roar and perth glory).


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Sandro14 said:


> If a football world cup heads to australia, only rectangular shaped stadiums can be used. For now, we should focus on the new wyndham stadium, the new home of a-league club western united. This venue could create a domino effect on the other clubs, which could be forced to build their a-league specific stadiums (newcastle jets, central coast mariners, macarthur, wellington phoenix, brisbane roar and perth glory).


Sharing stadiums makes sense in Australia in a way that it won't in other countries. There's no reason for Newcastle, CCM or Perth to build new stadiums. They play in suitable stadiums already.

I'm not sure that only rectangular stadiums would be used for a World Cup. You just wouldn't want to have half of your stadiums being ovals. I think some exceptions would be made, such as using the MCG and Optus in Perth, but no more than that.


----------



## dibo_returns (May 28, 2008)

Clubs are running with $3m or so player payrolls and still losing money. They're not going to be building $50m stadiums any time soon.


----------



## hifidelity (Jul 12, 2019)

bean counters in treasury departments across the country must shake their heads in disbelief when politicians head off on a vanity frolic and commit public funding for new stadiums or upgrade/redevelopment work

there is only 1 football code in this country that can justify ongoing investment in large stadiums of the type that would appeal to FIFA .... and it aint any of the rectangular codes


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Said it before but Australia has no business hosting a World Cup. Too many better options in Asia. We're the Belgium of Asia. A dwarf among giants.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

hifidelity said:


> there is only 1 football code in this country that can justify ongoing investment in large stadiums of the type that would appeal to FIFA .... and it aint any of the rectangular codes


Rugby football isn't popular in Australia anymore?


----------



## miguel_valencia (Sep 15, 2019)

In addition to Ramanaramana post, I cannot understand how FIFA could accept Australia in AFC.
This is the same situation for Israel and Kazakhstan (asian in FIFA), Guam (oceanian in AFC), Suriname and Guyana (south american in CONCACAF)...


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> Rugby football isn't popular in Australia anymore?


He’s probably a Victorian. Rugby league is the biggest sport in 2 of our 3 biggest states, NSW and Queensland.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

miguel_valencia said:


> In addition to Ramanaramana post, I cannot understand how FIFA could accept Australia in AFC.
> This is the same situation for Israel and Kazakhstan (asian in FIFA), Guam (oceanian in AFC), Suriname and Guyana (south american in CONCACAF)...


Israel makes some sense due to tension of hosting matches against Arab nations. For the same reason Russia/Ukraine and Serbia/Croatia cant be drawn in the same groups.

Australia to AFC was purely business/administrative. We gained more from it than Asia, but I think it helps the bigger Asian nations having another strong side for competition (strong by Asian standards anyway).


----------



## miguel_valencia (Sep 15, 2019)

Yes, yes, I understand it, but It delete the sense of the continents and gives an ugly sensation of monetization.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

miguel_valencia said:


> This is the same situation for Israel and Kazakhstan (asian in FIFA), Guam (oceanian in AFC), Suriname and Guyana (south american in CONCACAF)...


• Israel is kinda obvious, avoid matches against countries that oppose their existence as a country.
• Kazakhstan was part of the USSR (a UEFA country) until December 1991. I can't think of any other former USSR countries that aren't in UEFA.
• Guam I haven't read about.
• British Guyana, French Guiana and Suriname have histories as British / French / Dutch colonies, and thus arguably their recent history is much more similar to those of their Caribbean neighbours to the north. They are also the only countries on the landmass to have neither Spanish nor Portuguese as official or widely-spoken languages.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

miguel_valencia said:


> Yes, yes, I understand it, but It delete the sense of the continents and gives an ugly sensation of monetization.


It does, but then again continents/confederations are a bit of a false construction, as there’s nothing separating Asia and Europe. Australia leaving has made a mockery of Oceania though. I reckon East Asia and West should split with the east absorbing Oceania.


----------



## miguel_valencia (Sep 15, 2019)

What I consider is the fact that OFC must be 1 directed place in the World Cup, for the champion of the continent.
Kazakhstan did the change from AFC to UEFA due to a little part of its territory in Europe (and using the argument of Turkey and Russia). From 1991 to 2002 it was part of AFC (like Turkmenistan, Kyrguizstan, Tadjikistan and Uzbekistan). The difference is that at a cultural level, Kazakhstan is Asia, but Russia (2/3 in Asia) and Turkey (4/5 in Asia) are Europe at an historical level. The future is the confederation of Eurasia! ha ha ha ha.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

World Club cup would be the one for Australia to host, between the three Sydney stadia. 
the Oceania confederation should just be added to the Asia qualifying for the last phase. New Zealand has proven itself at the World Cup and merge the American continent after an initial qualifying comp for the north. Would bring huge money for the tv rights to South America which would make it attractive for eight qualifiers.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

I'm on board with that. Best OFC team joins last round of Asian qualifiers, while Asia gets benefit of 11 new votes. Fair trade.

Americas I agree with, and with collective slots for North and South going up to 12 from 2026, less chance of US or Mexico missing out, though it might be touch and go. Alternatively just have combined Copa and Nations League.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Ramanaramana said:


> He’s probably a Victorian. Rugby league is the biggest sport in 2 of our 3 biggest states, NSW and Queensland.


And the Swans outdraw all Sydney NRL teams. 
By and large Rugby League doesn't draw the attendance to justify stadiums of 40000+. We only have Suncorp Stadium (and soon the new SFS) as a true rectangular venue fitting FIFA World cup requirements.

On the otherhand the AFL does have the demand for 40000+ capacity stadiums across the nation.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Walbanger said:


> And the Swans outdraw all Sydney NRL teams.
> By and large Rugby League doesn't draw the attendance to justify stadiums of 40000+. We only have Suncorp Stadium (and soon the new SFS) as a true rectangular venue fitting FIFA World cup requirements.
> 
> On the otherhand the AFL does have the demand for 40000+ capacity stadiums across the nation.


Yeah the need for stadium sizes you're right. I was replying to the question of RL not being popular.

Attendances for Swans or Lions and how they rank against NRL aside, NSW and QLD are rusted on RL states. I'm Victorian, so no homerism for those states on my part.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

The new Northern Grandstand


View some updated images for the new Northern Grandstand




www.seaeagles.com.au


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Masterplan for Manly's home ground below
Would be a great boutique stadium


----------



## dibo_returns (May 28, 2008)

Link for that here: https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov...DPE-EP-WORK PPSSNH-47!20200721T041626.805 GMT

That's on p10


----------



## Pump71 (Feb 18, 2021)

Stadium Australia's new Great Southern Screen


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507099945828028423


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

RMB2007 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507099945828028423


Well of course he does…. what a joke.


----------



## ANANDPAZARE (Mar 19, 2010)

Any new pictures of kardinia park?
The new stand is under construction?


----------



## Sandro14 (Nov 28, 2021)

About kardinia park, i haven't heard anything about.


----------



## Sandro14 (Nov 28, 2021)

I created a new thread reguarding the new western united stadium, an a-league club which started playing in the 2019-20 season.


----------



## hifidelity (Jul 12, 2019)

ANANDPAZARE said:


> Any new pictures of kardinia park?
> The new stand is under construction?


regular updates/photos available on this website






News - GMHBA Stadium Stage 5 Redevelopment


I like the idea, especially if they're looking at moving the AFLW season so it starts in August and runs over summer It would mean a dedicated stadium for the AFLW team, plus the VFL & VFLW sides without having to share the stadium with other sports - so if we're going to see cricket and/or...




www.bigfooty.com


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Sandro14 said:


> I created a new thread reguarding the new western united stadium, an a-league club which started playing in the 2019-20 season.


I see it was closed by someone. It’s interesting there are so many stadiums for less that 20k, maybe he doesn’t like football?


----------



## Sandro14 (Nov 28, 2021)

Juanpabloangel said:


> I see it was closed by someone. It’s interesting there are so many stadiums for less that 20k, maybe he doesn’t like football?


Then we should talk about the new western united stadium in this thread. Someone should give updates about it, since construction of both stadium and training centre are underway.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

If a stadium is 20,000 or more, then it can have its own thread. Any stadium under 20,000 goes in the main section:









Stadiums and Sport Arenas - Forum Rules


When starting a new thread (20,000+ for Stadiums and 10,000+ for Arenas), please follow the correct style of thread title. CITY NAME (BLOCK CAPS) - Native Name (capacity) For Demolished stadiums: CITY NAME (BLOCK CAPS) - Native Name (capacity, opening year - closing year) If its a venue for a...




www.skyscrapercity.com


----------



## trichardscottc (Oct 1, 2020)

RMB2007 said:


> If a stadium is 20,000 or more, then it can have its own thread. Any stadium under 20,000 goes in the main section:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's just un-Australian mate >:/


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

I suspect that rule comes from American sports who want all their basketball stadiums etc. to have their own thread


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Sandro14 said:


> Then we should talk about the new western united stadium in this thread. Someone should give updates about it, since construction of both stadium and training centre are underway.


Maybe you should retitle it to 15k expandable to 20k, as any stadium generally is!


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Maybe you should retitle it to 15k expandable to 20k, as any stadium generally is!


Although Western United struggle to get a few thousand, hopefully a new stadium will give them A proper identity, which lets be honest is what makes a building or a stadium home.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Juanpabloangel said:


> I suspect that rule comes from American sports who want all their basketball stadiums etc. to have their own thread


The rules are clearly stated that stadiums have to be a minimum of 20,000 and arenas have to be 10,000 plus.

A minute or two to read prevents frustrations afterwards. To me it seems like a logical rule so every two bit stadium with one or two stands doesn't have it's own thread.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

I believe the stadium development is going to be a small boutique stadium which I would have preferred to see have its own thread just like these indoor arenas, if someone wants to start it. I guess I am not in charge but I was disappointed that you had to close it.


----------



## Sandro14 (Nov 28, 2021)

To this date, only the training facility of western united is under construction, and includes a 5000 spectator pitch, which can be used for a-league games. The 15000 spectator stadium has yet to commence construction.
There's also cooper's stadium under renovation for next year's women's world cup. New roof on the east stand, lighting upgrade and pitch renovation.


----------



## docker (Apr 13, 2006)

A report comparing possible sites for a new Hobart Stadium.



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/336410/Feb_2022_Hobart_Stadium_Location_Report.pdf












The 6 sites are within the red circle. With North Hobart Oval being ruled out due to space constraints.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

The NRL will hold the NSW government to ransom as the ugly fallout from a new phase of the Sydney stadium wars threatens to spill into the courtroom and strip the state of lucrative grand final hosting rights.

Following months of uncertainty over whether a handshake agreement to rebuild a cluster of suburban stadiums would proceed, Premier Dominic Perrottet on Tuesday evening told the NRL he would not commit to a timeframe for investment and would prioritise funding for flood reconstruction.

“I find it appalling that they’re using human tragedy of the floods to renege on an agreement,” the powerful chair of the Australian Rugby League Commission, Peter V’Landys, told the _Herald._

Under a 2018 agreement struck by the then premier Gladys Berejiklian, the NRL grand final would remain in Sydney until 2042 on the proviso the Olympic venue would be reconfigured into a 70,000-seat rectangular stadium at a cost to taxpayers of about $800 million.

The government abandoned the plan during the pandemic and V’Landys claims he had secured a verbal commitment from Berejiklian and also Perrottet for between $250 million and $350 million to instead be spent upgrading stadiums in Cronulla, Manly, Leichhardt and Newcastle.

While there is nothing in writing that will force the government into honouring any suburban ground funding, the NRL believes the original agreement for Sydney Olympic Park still stands.

Sources have told the _Herald_ that the NRL alleges there is a legally binding agreement to invest $800 million into the upgrade of Stadium Australia and will hold the government to the deal despite the code’s preference for money to be redirected into boutique stadiums.

“When you consider the billions of dollars they spent in the recent budget, the amount they need to honour our agreement is insignificant,” V’Landy’s said. “We will press that they honour the original agreement, which will cost the NSW taxpayer more due to the way they have handled this.”

The NRL spent Tuesday exploring its legal options and has one of the country’s most respected barristers, Alan Sullivan QC, at its disposal on the ARL Commission.

In a statement, Perrottet said the government remained committed to upgrading suburban stadiums but natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic meant investment should be staged.









NRL set to hold government to ransom as stadium war threatens to spill into courtroom


NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet has formally written to the NRL advising it of the decision to abandon suburban ground funding. The NRL and Peter V’landys are now fighting back.




www.smh.com.au


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Maybe the NRL should buy all those stadiums and expand them with their own funds and let the government build dams instead.


----------



## Sandro14 (Nov 28, 2021)

Any new updates of coopers stadium renovation (recent pics of july-early august)?


----------

