3rd AFL Stadium in Melbourne

[MadAsHell 4,217]

Was going through some articles recently on this topic and came across this:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-29/tigers-on-the-prowl

This line caught my eye:

"A third option for a boutique stadium could be Casey Fields at Cranbourne.'

Wonder what peoples thoughts of this would be if it meant for instance we played 3 home games a year there but didn't have to play in Darwin or Etihad?

Personally I'd be all for it. Especially as I'm building opposite the ground!

[jazza 1,323]

i think waverly was built to cater for the massive population growth out there, and the league got it wrong

the dome to me is a perfect place for a country person to watch footy

only people living out east would go to a stadium situated there

Edited May 8, 2013 by jazza

[Gorgoroth 13,184]

Would fail I reckon

[rpfc 28,906]

This is an old article, TD. We have previously discussed this. With that said - I will repeat:

I don't care if isn't feasible and shoudn't be done. Let's sell it and worry about logistics later.

This would be the thing that allows us to thrive.

We would turn breakeven games at the G against interstate teams into $500k games in an area we are trying to convince to be financial members of the club. We could build a social club out there and for those that don't want us to have pokies - having a boutique stadium to mirror what Geelong has is the only feasible option.

[Clark_Kent 315]

This is an old article, TD. We have previously discussed this. With that said - I will repeat:

I don't care if isn't feasible and shoudn't be done. Let's sell it and worry about logistics later.

This would be the thing that allows us to thrive.

We would turn breakeven games at the G against interstate teams into $500k games in an area we are trying to convince to be financial members of the club. We could build a social club out there and for those that don't want us to have pokies - having a boutique stadium to mirror what Geelong has is the only feasible option.

This point excactly. I really think it is time to forget th notion of 'our home is the MCG'. We must keep the majority of our games there but start to be smarter about who we are playing at the G and who we play elsewhere. The fact is we cannot keep losing money playing against interstate teams. Unfortunately the crowds we get can't support it.

[MadAsHell 4,217]

I know there's plans to extend the rail out there already to have a Cranbourne East Station which would help and the parkings not to bad. As has been mentioned though you would be shutting out AFL supporters on the other side of the city and the country supporters apart from those in Gippsland.

Also apart from Melbourne and St Kilda (strong supporter base on the near by peninsula) you wonder who else could play games as I'm not sure North or the Bulldogs would want to play in the east?

It's a difficult one. Princess Park is a hassle to get to, The cost to upgrade Punt Road I'd imagine would be huge and boundary on the Punt rd side is to close to the road to build a stand there. I would have thought personally that Victoria Park would have been the most suitable to upgrade but there seems to be no mention anywhere of that?

[MadAsHell 4,217]

This is an old article, TD. We have previously discussed this. With that said - I will repeat:

I don't care if isn't feasible and shoudn't be done. Let's sell it and worry about logistics later.

This would be the thing that allows us to thrive.

We would turn breakeven games at the G against interstate teams into $500k games in an area we are trying to convince to be financial members of the club. We could build a social club out there and for those that don't want us to have pokies - having a boutique stadium to mirror what Geelong has is the only feasible option.

Thanks rpfc, I did a search for this topic on the search engine but couldn't see anything....

I reckon you make a good point, if we could turn Casey Fields into our own version of Kardinia Park and maybe allow say St Kilda to play a few games there also then we could be onto a winner.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I've always been a big fan of using Casey Fields as a boutique stadium.

[Pennant St Dee 13,389]

I've always been a big fan of using Casey Fields as a boutique stadium.

+ 1

[Pates 9,670]

I went to the NAB cup game at Casey and for the first time I really thought there could be something in a boutique stadium down there. I reckon nothing higher than 25000, with the ability to be upgraded in the future (unlike AAMI Park) and I reckon people would come. The train line goes right past the ground, but there would be significant traffic management with vehicles that would need to be improved.

I actually think Melbourne should aim to play an AFL game down there in a few years time (perhaps substituting an interstate game v GWS or something), and given they've done games at other country stadiums it's not unfeasible.

But I have definitely become a supporter of this idea, and we should certainly be the ones up the front pushing it.

[Pates 9,670]

i think waverly was built to cater for the massive population groth out there, and the league got it wrong

the dome to me is a perfect place for a country person to watch footy

only people living out east would go to a stadium situated there

I think one of the big challenges with Waverly was that it didn't have any easy public transport to get you there, you had to drive and when you did it was a nightmare getting in and out. Waverly was also much bigger with a capacity bigger than the G, but with shocking facilities. Not to mention the enormous size of the ground. Ultimately Waverly was doomed to fail with terrible design, shocking parking, and lack of transportation.

I agree with would mainly cater to the east but I reckon there would be enough footy starved people out that side of the state that would see it as a much easier way to go to the footy. And when you have a stadium that's only 20-25000 capacity the break even point is much lower.

[rpfc 28,906]

But I have definitely become a supporter of this idea, and we should certainly be the ones up the front pushing it.

A great deal of energy and resources and pressure should be spent/exerted in this effort.

I hope Jackson agrees and we hire a CEO that pushes the idea.

[rpfc 28,906]

I think one of the big challenges with Waverly was that it didn't have any easy public transport to get you there, you had to drive and when you did it was a nightmare getting in and out. Waverly was also much bigger with a capacity bigger than the G, but with shocking facilities. Not to mention the enormous size of the ground. Ultimately Waverly was doomed to fail with terrible design, shocking parking, and lack of transportation.

I agree with would mainly cater to the east but I reckon there would be enough footy starved people out that side of the state that would see it as a much easier way to go to the footy. And when you have a stadium that's only 20-25000 capacity the break even point is much lower.

If it's a 'clean' stadium (owned by the AFL or the council or us) then the breakeven point would be hit during VFL-level attendance...

[ucanchoose 1,816]

Push over Princes Park and build a new stadium / multi user facility there

[The heart beats true 18,183]

I'd much rather we build a boutique stadium and sacrifice some MCG games than hold onto the 'MCG is our only home' mentality and slowly become the North Hobart Kangadees.

Id go to Casey to watch us as these games are more likely to be victories. I reckon the club would be pleasantly surprised by the turn out. I notice a lot of 3 game a year supporters at the GWS and GC games. I hear quiet a bit of 'which one is Jack Watts?' at these games.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Was going through some articles recently on this topic and came across this:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-29/tigers-on-the-prowl

This line caught my eye:

"A third option for a boutique stadium could be Casey Fields at Cranbourne.'

Wonder what peoples thoughts of this would be if it meant for instance we played 3 home games a year there but didn't have to play in Darwin or Etihad?

Personally I'd be all for it. Especially as I'm building opposite the ground!

I think we definately need to aim @ having a boutique stadium in the South East, down the track, as it were...

whether that is @ Casey, or somewhere like Sandown Park, IMO should be considered, as I think the AFL should eventually have 2 Boutique stadiums around Melbourne.

But the other should be right on the Railway line as well with a Railway Station right @ the door to the stadium. (Footscray)

If the government ever gets to some sense, to build the Container Port @ Hastings, & upgrades the Frankston line to 3 lines; with extension thru a twin line to the Hastings Port, plus a loop from the Mornington-Baxter line across to Cranbourne, via Tooradin-Clyde...

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Baxter-Tooradin+Rd+Baxter,++Baxter-Tooradin+rd+Tooradin,&fb=1&gl=au&hq=Baxter-Tooradin+Rd+Baxter,+Baxter-Tooradin+rd&hnear=0x6ad6056fec4b1b59:0x5045675218cea70,Tooradin+VIC&sa=X&ei=78WJUf6CM4nulAXN9IHADA&ved=0CH8QtgM

This would open up the Hastings Port direct to the South East, inc' Cranbourne, Narrewarren, Dandenong areas, helping the areas employment. And also making the Clyde extension even more realistic... IMO.

.

Edited May 8, 2013 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

i think waverly was built to cater for the massive population growth out there, and the league got it wrong

the dome to me is a perfect place for a country person to watch footy

only people living out east would go to a stadium situated there

I agree, I think the first stadium should be @ Footscray or on that train line... it opens up the whole of Victoria to all Vics, including the 'Croweaters' coming over as well.

I think, Casey, or the Sandown Park area, down the track...

IMO opinion the blue boys are into their friends on the Commission,,, to further strengthen their position as a Power Club, with incomes generated from games @ Princes Park... but no train line for people Traveling great distances, just open grass spaces.

this to me smacks more of 'pork barreling'...

[praha 11,253]

I don't like the drive out there. From the North it is about 1.25-1.5 hour drive, which is pretty much what it took me to get to Waverley back in the day.

If the club can establish a strong foothold there and generate maybe 5-10k extra members within 20-30 kms of the stadium then it would definitely be worth it. I might not always go to games there but a 15-20k seat stadium would be great.

[Suzanna 72]

I think one of the big challenges with Waverly was that it didn't have any easy public transport to get you there, you had to drive and when you did it was a nightmare getting in and out. Waverly was also much bigger with a capacity bigger than the G, but with shocking facilities. Not to mention the enormous size of the ground. Ultimately Waverly was doomed to fail with terrible design, shocking parking, and lack of transportation.

I agree with would mainly cater to the east but I reckon there would be enough footy starved people out that side of the state that would see it as a much easier way to go to the footy. And when you have a stadium that's only 20-25000 capacity the break even point is much lower.

Waverley however, was very close to (what was known as) the Mulgrave Freeway (now called the Monash I believe) with an exit close by, so although public transport was very limited, freeway access was good. Unfortunately Casey Fields can't boast that. Waiting for a railway extension would be a case of don't hold your breath... While it is a good ground (a former Dee told me it was a fantastic playing surface) it has challenges that would need to be overcome first. Not the least being the need for more seating/shelter. There's not a lot, you get sunburnt in summer unless you get there early enough to grab one of the sweaty, sticky seats in the grandstand, or in winter there is not much shelter from the biting wind and rain. Whoever would pay for these facilities (Casey council or the Scorpions?) would probably want some assurances of future matches first. I think for NAB cup (that gets a lower turnout anyway) it is a great stadium, but for regular matches it really isn't enough. Plus you have to remember that a lot of people who would go to a game in the city (might rely on public transport or else live on the 'other side') would stay home and watch the match on telly if it was moved to Casey. So just because you might get 17000 people at a game at the G and lose money, you couldn't count on those 17000 turning up to Casey in order for the club to make a profit. I don't think the ground could cope with anywhere near that number of people, I certainly wouldn't want to be in the queue for the one exit to get out at the end of the match!

[PJ_12345 1,098]

This point excactly. I really think it is time to forget th notion of 'our home is the MCG'. We must keep the majority of our games there but start to be smarter about who we are playing at the G and who we play elsewhere. The fact is we cannot keep losing money playing against interstate teams. Unfortunately the crowds we get can't support it.

Case in point: this weekends game against Gold Coast.

[bush demon 2,163]

Waverley failed because the AFL said it failed. Much better than Docklands. Look up some old youtube clips and see some great matches there. Casey is a no-brainer, can learn from Docklands and Waverley. The new Melbkurne is now demographicay there now makes sense to acquire that new fan base and call it melbourne. .

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Waverley failed because the AFL said it failed. Much better than Docklands. Look up some old youtube clips and see some great matches there. Casey is a no-brainer, can learn from Docklands and Waverley. The new Melbkurne is now demographicay there now makes sense to acquire that new fan base and call it melbourne. .

Having a stadium in the Docklands was a great idea, but the stadium they built was shocking.

[Pates 9,670]

Waverley however, was very close to (what was known as) the Mulgrave Freeway (now called the Monash I believe) with an exit close by, so although public transport was very limited, freeway access was good. Unfortunately Casey Fields can't boast that. Waiting for a railway extension would be a case of don't hold your breath... While it is a good ground (a former Dee told me it was a fantastic playing surface) it has challenges that would need to be overcome first. Not the least being the need for more seating/shelter. There's not a lot, you get sunburnt in summer unless you get there early enough to grab one of the sweaty, sticky seats in the grandstand, or in winter there is not much shelter from the biting wind and rain. Whoever would pay for these facilities (Casey council or the Scorpions?) would probably want some assurances of future matches first. I think for NAB cup (that gets a lower turnout anyway) it is a great stadium, but for regular matches it really isn't enough. Plus you have to remember that a lot of people who would go to a game in the city (might rely on public transport or else live on the 'other side') would stay home and watch the match on telly if it was moved to Casey. So just because you might get 17000 people at a game at the G and lose money, you couldn't count on those 17000 turning up to Casey in order for the club to make a profit. I don't think the ground could cope with anywhere near that number of people, I certainly wouldn't want to be in the queue for the one exit to get out at the end of the match!

I don't think anyone would consider making it a proper AFL ground until A LOT of work was put into it. The stadium would be a completely from scratch deal, similar to a Skoda/Metricon stadium type thing and I think a condition would be to get the train line extended to the ground, perhaps even just for games (if they do just the one track in and out). There would also need to be plenty of work put into traffic management to prevent the one current road being the only entrance by car. This is certainly not a case of us simply saying to the AFL we want games at Casey, it would be something that would need a lot of ground work and funding from the AFL, the local and state government, and (if we were to have a stake in it) the MFC.

I did say earlier that we should push for one game down there in the next few years, but perhaps until they have a more practical way of getting people in there it needs to go on the back burner.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Pates

[rpfc 28,906]

I did say earlier that we should push for one game down there in the next few years, but perhaps until they have a more practical way of getting people in there it needs to go on the back burner.

F___ that. Keep it burning up front.

Let's worry about ourselves, and let others deal with the logistics.

This is $500k+ every game here.

We are not trying to get the best deal for the AFL teams in Melbourne - we are trying to get the best deal for ourselves.

[DeeSpencer 26,273]

Who would tip in dollars? City of Casey don't have the resources to make it 20,000 capacity. The other option would be to make it 10,000 with some temporary seating and things and make it a one of type match with sponsorship from City of Casey but then it wouldn't be long term.

I don't see the problem with only 2 stadiums in Melbourne. We just need every team to thrive and reasonable stadium deals.

Hawthorn and North have good deals in place with Tasmania. Essendon, Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood shouldn't need additional funds from alternative venues.

St Kilda are having a go at New Zealand which I think makes a heap of success.

It's really the Western Bulldogs and us who are out on a limb here. The dogs are in particular trouble due to a horrible deal with Etihad. But the closer it gets to the AFL takeover of Etihad the better chance they have of a good stadium deal with the stadium that is closest to their demographic of supporters. I always thought that if two teams were going to own Etihad it would be North and the bulldogs who's supporters come in from trains in that direction.

We seem to be betting on Darwin at the moment. Long term I don't like the idea. I don't think Darwin is attractive as a corporate or membership point of view and I think it really hurts the players having a match up there and then backing up. Casey could be a better investment from a memberships basis and much easier on the players to travel to our VFL home ground not 3 hours flight and then humidity. But without the corporate money and with only a small crowd without long term investment I wonder how much we could gain from it.

That's my question I guess. If the AFL announced tomorrow our match this Sunday had moved from the MCG to Casey what kind of $$ would we be looking at? 100,000 from an attendance of 10,000 plus people after you take the cost price and maybe 50,000 tipped in from the city of Casey for benefits to the area?