Sell Etihad... really out of left field !!

[H_T 3,043]

Persevere for another five rounds, then shut it down for renovations. Spend the whole summer re-sowing or re-laying the grass and get it done properly. No temporary patch-up jobs. No more ACDC concerts, no more rugby, no more cricket.

The idea of selling or demolishing a 10-year-old stadium is ridiculous.

Bon Jovi is scheduled for December.

[old dee 23,779]

A developer !!!

Developed into what?

[Demon Rob 2]

Persevere for another five rounds, then shut it down for renovations. Spend the whole summer re-sowing or re-laying the grass and get it done properly. No temporary patch-up jobs. No more ACDC concerts, no more rugby, no more cricket.

The idea of selling or demolishing a 10-year-old stadium is ridiculous.

no point resowing or relaying - remember, grass there has a managed death not growth.

and unless you can find another purpose for it then why would you not demolish a white elephant?

[Guest melbman]

I disagree. I'm a furniture maker, now if I'm at work and say my mitre saw doesn't have a saftey gaurd on it, I should know where the door is instead of going to the boss "get it fixed" and if he doesn't and someone loses a finger, what's the explanation. "He shouldn't of had his finger there?" no work cover are going to come in and the employee is going to sue the pants off the company. Now etihad have been told about the problem and the players and a officials are not happy with the saftey of the ground. Now if someone does there knee through a direct slip on the turf, look out for one massive law suite.

I don't really have an opinion either way, though i probably lean toward players talking, but in most jobs you most certainly have the right to complain through the correct channels but if you played it through the media you'd be out of a job quick smart

Edit: I just re read the last few posts and i missed the point a bit, it was about having a say or out the door, have to disagree with the out the door and no say

carry on :-~

Edited July 27, 2010 by melbman

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

Hi all, I know one of the architects who worked on this stadium and I had several debates with her on why grass would never grow there when they were building it. I used to get the standard political spin on how they had everything worked out and it would not be a problem. How wrong they were in trying to think they were better than god and shortcutting mother nature.

Grass will never ever grow there without sufficient light and they will have keep on replacing it at great expense which no doubt will be funded by the fans.

Artificial turf is not the answer and will likely be more dangerous than the current situation. The surface will be rock hard, unforgiving and too abrasive for a punishing rough and tumble game like AFL. Players will need to wear knee, elbow and possibly facial guards or else have their skin ripped off. Knee and other joint injuries would also likely increase. In the US many artificial turf stadiums have been returned to grass where possible for these reasons.

The only answers are to continue forever with the current unsatisfactory situation, bulldoze it or get in some extra light to help the grass and root system grow properly. They could do this by placing hydroponic lighting suspended a couple of metres above the ground during the week. Power costs could be offset by adding solar panels which could be positioned on the vast acreage of land around the stadium or on the roof. They could even place mirrors or prisms on the roof to redirect sunlight to the turf on sunny days. Not cheap to set up but in the long run it will be worth it. This has likely a better chance of working than all the ostrich like head in the sand approaches so far.

Edited July 28, 2010 by america de cali

[Hobbits's 17]

Hi all, I know one of the architects who worked on this stadium and I had several debates with her on why grass would never grow there when they were building it. I used to get the standard political spin on how they had everything worked out and it would not be a problem. How wrong they were.

Grass will never ever grow there without sufficient light and they will have keep on replacing it at great expense which no doubt will be funded by the fans.

Artificial turf is not the answer and will likely be more dangerous than the current situation. The surface will be rock hard, unforgiving and too abrasive for a punishing rough and tumble game like AFL. Players will need to wear knee, elbow and possibly facial guards or else have their skin ripped off. Knee and other joint injuries would also likely increase. In the US many artificial turf stadiums have been returned to grass where possible for these reasons.

The only answers are to continue forever with the current unsatisfactory situation, bulldoze it or get in some extra light in to help the grass and root system grow properly. They could do this by placing hydroponic lighting suspended a couple of metres above the ground during the week. Power costs could be offset by adding solar panels which could be positioned on the vast acreage of land around the stadium or on the roof. They could even place mirrors or prisms on the roof to redirect sunlight to the turf on sunny days. Not cheap to set up but in the long run it will be worth it. This has likely a better chance of working than all the ostrich like head in the sand approaches so far.

they should have designed it like they do that of some overseas stadia. So the whole ground slides from outside to inside the stadium. when it is outside it has full access to natural sunlight. this would also benefit the ground when concerts are on at the stadium. the turf doesn't have to be inside the stadium at this time and would prevent damage. this is the only cost effective solution over time !

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

they should have designed it like they do that of some overseas stadia. So the whole ground slides from outside to inside the stadium. when it is outside it has full access to natural sunlight. this would also benefit the ground when concerts are on at the stadium. the turf doesn't have to be inside the stadium at this time and would prevent damage. this is the only cost effective solution over time !

Yes I agree but it is too late now unless they pull the whole stadium down and rebuild it again that way. This will also be far more challenging as most of these sliding pitch stadiums are much smaller and consequently easier to build. Docklands was an ambitious project that tested the limits of engineering and also mother nature. Now they are going to have to get ambitious with solutions to solve the mother nature problem.

Edited July 28, 2010 by america de cali

[old dee 23,779]

Yes I agree but it is too late now unless they pull the whole stadium down and rebuild it again that way. This will also be far more challenging as most of these sliding pitch stadiums are much smaller and consequently easier to build. Docklands was an ambitious project that tested the limits of engineering and also mother nature. Now they are going to have to get ambitious with solutions to solve the mother nature problem.

The problem seems to me to be two fold.

- it will be ok if only used for football but cannot make money in that guise

- if you use it as a multi purpose stadium then it makes money but it stuffs the surface for football.

So they / we have a large dilemma ( I say we because guess who will have to pay to solve the problem )

Have the playing surface ok and make no profit or make a profit and have a substandard playing surface!

[e25 5]

The problem seems to me to be two fold.

- it will be ok if only used for football but cannot make money in that guise

- if you use it as a multi purpose stadium then it makes money but it stuffs the surface for football.

So they / we have a large dilemma ( I say we because guess who will have to pay to solve the problem )

Have the playing surface ok and make no profit or make a profit and have a substandard playing surface!

That's not two-fold, that's a catch 22.

But you're right, I think.

[Sir Why You Little 36,971]

I just want to know why it was built facing the wrong Direction-That is the problem and the Architects should be Hung out to dry for it. The whole stadium is a farce & why i refuse to go there.

Wayne Jackson doing Business on the Cheap i suspect. That place will never improve-it's built Wrong.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

The stadium itself, its positioning in the city, ease of access by public transport, ability to be indoor or outdoor etc are all good.

The surface is the only problem.

They just need to be prepared to shell out several million to fix the problem.

The US Masters at Augusta had a problem for years with one of their greens. It was covered in part by overhanging trees which blocked out the natural sunlight for much of the day. This resulted in poor growth of that particular area of the green, uneven pace of the grass and imperfections etc.

The USGA or whoever run Augusta solved the problem by diggin up the green and installing in-ground heaters. The heaters helped the germination of the grass, promoted deep root growth and they have never had a problem since.

This sounds awfully a lot like the problem at Etihad and would seem to be the best solution. Stick the heaters in the ground at the point where the soil starts (about 2/3rds of a meter down i believe). This will promote the growth required and then with the assistance of uv lighting if required it will be fine. It is an expensive initial outlay but in the long term will reap the benefits of allowing them to schedule concerts etc late in summer without damaging the ground for AFL.

It just comes down to them being willing to part with the almighty $

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

The stadium itself, its positioning in the city, ease of access by public transport, ability to be indoor or outdoor etc are all good.

The surface is the only problem.

They just need to be prepared to shell out several million to fix the problem.

The US Masters at Augusta had a problem for years with one of their greens. It was covered in part by overhanging trees which blocked out the natural sunlight for much of the day. This resulted in poor growth of that particular area of the green, uneven pace of the grass and imperfections etc.

The USGA or whoever run Augusta solved the problem by diggin up the green and installing in-ground heaters. The heaters helped the germination of the grass, promoted deep root growth and they have never had a problem since.

This sounds awfully a lot like the problem at Etihad and would seem to be the best solution. Stick the heaters in the ground at the point where the soil starts (about 2/3rds of a meter down i believe). This will promote the growth required and then with the assistance of uv lighting if required it will be fine. It is an expensive initial outlay but in the long term will reap the benefits of allowing them to schedule concerts etc late in summer without damaging the ground for AFL.

It just comes down to them being willing to part with the almighty $

A great idea. Adding heat to the surface will certainly help but it will still need a lot of light also. Golf course greens do not get the same amount of abuse as football pitches. Heat alone will not help damaged grass recover quickly enough but combined with adequate light it could be possibly the best solution for the the pitch.

As fot cost I don't see it being in the long term more expensive than relaying the turf as often as they are currently doing now. The owners should be thinking of its long term survival and viability. If someone does take legal action for an injury acquired there it could make the stadium unusable for future football use. There is no way the stadium could survive on concerts alone. They'll have to sell it to someone like Hillsong church for a bargain price.

Edited July 28, 2010 by america de cali

[Guest The Boss]

The stadium itself, its positioning in the city, ease of access by public transport, ability to be indoor or outdoor etc are all good.

The surface is the only problem.

They just need to be prepared to shell out several million to fix the problem.

The US Masters at Augusta had a problem for years with one of their greens. It was covered in part by overhanging trees which blocked out the natural sunlight for much of the day. This resulted in poor growth of that particular area of the green, uneven pace of the grass and imperfections etc.

The USGA or whoever run Augusta solved the problem by diggin up the green and installing in-ground heaters. The heaters helped the germination of the grass, promoted deep root growth and they have never had a problem since.

This sounds awfully a lot like the problem at Etihad and would seem to be the best solution. Stick the heaters in the ground at the point where the soil starts (about 2/3rds of a meter down i believe). This will promote the growth required and then with the assistance of uv lighting if required it will be fine. It is an expensive initial outlay but in the long term will reap the benefits of allowing them to schedule concerts etc late in summer without damaging the ground for AFL.

It just comes down to them being willing to part with the almighty $

You obviously have NFI.

Half the problem is that the turf sits a couple metres above a concrete base.

[beelzebub 23,313]

It might only be my lay appreciation of the situation but isnt it that the surface shifts. There is grass there but complete sods move. Isn t this the problem ?

Heating a green is fine... but the gren isnt dug up and replaced on a rotational system is it ?? Its stays put.

I have heard though that one major problem is that the subbase is invariably too cold to promote growth.