No more MCG for the MFC?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Firstly, this idea may have been floated before so forgive me if I'm covering old ground.

I've been thinking about the new rectangular stadium being built that will ultimately become Melbourne's new training base and headquarters.

The idea of the new stadium is to provide something specifically for Rugby and Soccer, but was it ever considered to make the stadium/ground big enough to play Aussie Rules as well? For example, a stadium with a retractable seating system that allowed it transfer from an AFL ground to one suited for Rugby/Soccer.

The MCG is a fantastic venue, but is it too big for a club like Melbourne? Instead of being shared by competing AFL teams, Melbourne could share the venue with the Storm and Victory, giving some value to Team Melbourne (which currently doesn't include the Victory).

In reality, it will be a rectangular ground and I wouldn't know if making it big enough for Aussie Rules is feasible or practical, but I am interested to see what people think of moving away from the MCG (still within Melbourne) to a ground with a smaller capacity?

[45HG 1,539]

No

[Spaghetti 264]

The AFL has moved away from the suburban/smaller grounds. I can't see them going back to them in Victoria. I'm sure the AFL would have contractual obligations with the MCG/Telstra Dome as well.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,215]

The club should play home games McLabour Park. We won our last 4 out of 5 games there. I'm a hungry demon supporter!

[AdrianOB 0]

[quote name='Clint Bizkit' date='May 17 2008, 11:12 PM' post='14787

The idea of the new stadium is to provide something specifically for Rugby and Soccer, but was it ever considered to make the stadium/ground big enough to play Aussie Rules as well? For example, a stadium with a retractable seating system that allowed it transfer from an AFL ground to one suited for Rugby/Soccer.

[Little Goffy 12,586]

No.

New stadium is too small and only rectangular.

I don't think they'd be willing to cut corners (guffaw)

And the MCG won't be too big for us when we make our glorious resurgence.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

New stadium is too small and only rectangular.

If you're going to respond, please take the time to read the post.

[casey scorp 2]

In reality, it will be a rectangular ground and I wouldn't know if making it big enough for Aussie Rules is feasible or practical, but I am interested to see what people think of moving away from the MCG (still within Melbourne) to a ground with a smaller capacity?

It's not feasible nor practical to make the new rectangular stadium big enough for Aussie Rules. The stadium is costing $268 million, and is well under construction (refer to webcam http://www.mopt.com.au/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-178/).

It would cost mega-tens of millions to change course now, involving demolition of what has already been built and complete redesign. It would also be bigger and may not fit in the area available.

Even if it was technically possible it wouldn't happen. The ground is being built for rectangular sports, and MFC is just a filler tenant - anyone who thinks to the contrary is delusional.

[deanox 8,629]

telstra dome is a joke. what is the purpose of reducing the capacity to make it a rectangular stadium? no wonder they never put the seats in around the field of play...

and how crap a stadium can you get when you design in seats that cannot see the playing field, forget to put in coaches boxes and dont even consider that you need sunlight to get grass to grow...

[Adzman 2,085]

IF and only IF it was going to benefit the MFC financially in the long term, I would consider a move. I am under the impression there is a TV rights deal stating that a certain number of games are to be played at the MCG per year. That would then force games to be taken from other grounds......which we know the AFL will not do.

A smaller ground will also hurt ticket sales,as the Queens bday match always seems to net us 60,000 in gate numbers.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

A smaller ground will also hurt ticket sales,as the Queens bday match always seems to net us 60,000 in gate numbers.

A game such as Queen's Birthday would probably still be a home game, played at the MCG. Currently Melbourne don't play all their home games at the MCG so it wouldn't be a big issue.

With regards to finances, I found this interesting article: Bigger isn't better

[Kit Walker 207]

The idea of the new stadium is to provide something specifically for Rugby and Soccer, but was it ever considered to make the stadium/ground big enough to play Aussie Rules as well? For example, a stadium with a retractable seating system that allowed it transfer from an AFL ground to one suited for Rugby/Soccer.

In reality, it will be a rectangular ground and I wouldn't know if making it big enough for Aussie Rules is feasible or practical, but I am interested to see what people think of moving away from the MCG (still within Melbourne) to a ground with a smaller capacity?

I believe that the contract put in place when the Docklands stadium was built prevents any further grounds with a capacity over a certain size (about 30k) until at least 2015 or so. I think the new stadium is above that but doesn't breach because it is only a rectangular stadium.

The reason it was constructed was to provide a specialist ground for the rectangular field sports so it was never going to be configured to be AFL capable.

Even though it would be less convenient for me personally, I wouldn't have a problem with something like the purported Casey Fields option (with a capacity of 20-25k) to play games against most of the interstate sides (except Brisbane due to their ex-Fitzroy base).

[Demon Rob 2]

Move from the G when we move to the VFL? Is that what you're suggesting?

Once you move from the MCG you basically sign the death certificate for the Demons.

[redlegger 4]

We should never leave the MCG - - but the AFL has to come up with a better deal for clubs like us, North, Western Bulldogs - even Saints, because it's near impossible for these clubs' home games against interstate teams to be financiallly viable...

The AFL's previously been happy for these games to be sold interstate. The clubs either sell tham (with backlash from members) or plead and beg us to attend - like the recent Freo game.

With 2 new interstate teams coming, it'll be worse. There has to be a way for these games to be made financially viable.

Reality is: This should have been the role for Princes Park. I'd rather play Freo there than Darwin, Cairns or Canberra

[Tassie Devil 28]

Sell our home games to the 'dome.

Carlton might pay a premium.

Good crowd at the Gold Coast last night. Wouldn't have happened in Hobart (nor would the <16K for a taxpayer funded Hawks home game) Hobart would have managed at least 25K.

[The Emblem 1]

Leaving the G would be relinquishing the club's identity. Relocation interstate would surely follow.

[Rogue 585]

No

[Real Demon 232]

The challenge isn't finding a smaller stadium, it's filling a bigger one!

There's no easy way out........build the supporter base / membership, and grow the business........moving into a smaller stadium is taking the easy way out, and the first step in our demise.

Show me a club in the AFL that has thrived by downsizing?

Let's be serious!

[Jarka 767]

Play home games against interstate clubs at Casey once the ground is finished.

Negotiate hard to get a great deal, say take over the catering rights, so the outcome has several advantages. Firstly, we have a great home ground advantage similiar to the Cats, and secondly we turn a guaranteed loss if it was played at the G to a money making venture.

On top of that we're actively marketing the club to the locals, the Hawks did it with Waverley and it worked. It would also force non members to buy memberships to guarantee a seat.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Show me a club in the AFL that has thrived by downsizing?

Bigger isn't better

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Play home games against interstate clubs at Casey once the ground is finished.

I'm warming to this idea and not just because Cranbourne is a lot closer for me than the 'G.

I was thoroughly impressed with Casey Fields when I saw Melbourne play North there, well before the idea was proposed. Hawthorn seem to be doing quite well out of playing some games in Tassie and the beauty of Cranbourne (I never thought I'd say that) is that it is still accessible for most fans in the Melbourne area.

[Tassie Devil 28]

Hawthorn seem to be doing quite well out of playing some games in Tassie

That has nothing to do with the venue - that is all about my taxes going towards something I don't like or want or need.

Jeff may be out of politics but he still knows a sucker when he sees one.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

That has nothing to do with the venue - that is all about my taxes going towards something I don't like or want or need.

The point is, they are opting to play away from the MCG.

[Tassie Devil 28]

Bigger isn't better

If we were to confront the MCC and threaten to walk, would we have much power to negotiate a better deal?

I know I would save on my annual MCC fees - but there are many thousand's on the waiting list to replace me.

What I am wondering is, if we told the MCC to shove it, would the MCC lose revenue from the lower numbers in the members on any given game day? (if that indeed happens)

Would we benefit from a 'clean' stadium?

Mind you, if I was still living in Melbourne I would fight such an idea tooth and nail - but now I am able to take a more dispassionate view of our situation.

Sell some of our home games to the Cartel - but make sure we have all the loose ends tied up first.

[Rogue 585]

I'm warming to this idea and not just because Cranbourne is a lot closer for me than the 'G.

I was thoroughly impressed with Casey Fields when I saw Melbourne play North there, well before the idea was proposed.

What impressed you?