Punt Road Oval

[Sideshow Bob 2,386]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-18/tigers-taking-on-pies-in-bid-for-new-stadium

Much better idea coming out of Tiger land. Wouldn't be opposed to Punt rd being fully rejigged as the boutique stadium that is required. Might be a few issues for them in regards to grandstands and heritage listing. 

The Dees should get on board as this could totally upgrade the vicinity and improve our training facilities, and gives us a viable option when playing home games against soulless franchises with no supporter base. All in the shadows of our real home ground

[daisycutter 29,627]

1 minute ago, jako13 said:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-18/tigers-taking-on-pies-in-bid-for-new-stadium

Much better idea coming out of Tiger land. Wouldn't be opposed to Punt rd being fully rejigged as the boutique stadium that is required. Might be a few issues for them in regards to grandstands and heritage listing. 

The Dees should get on board as this could totally upgrade the vicinity and improve our training facilities, and gives us a viable option when playing home games against soulless franchises with no supporter base. All in the shadows of our real home ground

mcc members wouldn't like it

what's the heritage issue?

besides, i thought the ground was truncated when punt road was widened and is below afl size

[old dee 23,801]

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

mcc members wouldn't like it

what's the heritage issue?

besides, i thought the ground was truncated when punt road was widened and is below afl size

They would need to pinch parkland I believe dc.

The ground would move back towards the G.

[Mach5 4,768]

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

mcc members wouldn't like it

what's the heritage issue?

besides, i thought the ground was truncated when punt road was widened and is below afl size

 

My understanding is that the Jack Dyer stand is heritage listed and would need to remain intact.

[Fat Tony 5,258]

The city of Melbourne doesn't need three stadiums to host four games of football per weekend. The AFL just needs to sort out a more equitable distribution of income to ensure that the poorer clubs can compete.

[daisycutter 29,627]

1 minute ago, old dee said:

They would need to pinch parkland I believe dc.

The ground would move back towards the G.

yeah i found a better artist's drawing on the web. it's clearly moved closer to the mcg. by quite an amount when you include western stands

also shows the goals as north-south rather than east-west which was criticised at darklands. not sure if an issue though as richmond was always north-south

[ManDee 7,162]

25 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

mcc members wouldn't like it

what's the heritage issue?

besides, i thought the ground was truncated when punt road was widened and is below afl size

From - http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=93

"The oval was reconstructed and made larger during the summer of 2012/13, increasing it to the size of Etihad Stadium while also removing the turf cricket wickets." 

So Etihad size, yes below AFL standard confirmed.

[whatwhat say what 22,783]

this was first considered nearly three years ago.

 

it won't happen.

[praha 11,240]

33 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

The city of Melbourne doesn't need three stadiums to host four games of football per weekend. The AFL just needs to sort out a more equitable distribution of income to ensure that the poorer clubs can compete.

Etihad is not financially viable, and probably never will be. Its facilities are ageing far too quickly for a stadium that was built only 16 years ago. The fact you stand to be better placed hosting 20,000 fans at a 100,000-seat stadium than you would hosting 20,000 at a 50,000-seat stadium shows just how important a new stadium is. Teams like North, Bulldogs, Saints would probably be better placed financially now if they didn't lose thousands at every home game there, even with decent crowds. Melbourne probably lost 250k for the game against GWS there last year. 16,000 at the MCG might have only been 50k loss. Money matters. Income distribution isn't the answer. It's a bandaid solution. Teams need to be in a position where they are self-sustainable. Melbourne is well on the way but we're lucky to call the MCG home. Carlton says it wants to come to the MCG to better service its fans but it's most certainly more about the money.

Eddie's plan isn't anywhere near as crazy as everybody makes it out to be. Any rational thinker can see that a stadium built with financial gain in mind from the start is important to the future of the league and its smaller clubs. No doubt Collingwood and Richmond would benefit the most from these plans but smaller stadiums that don't lose clubs hundreds of thousands of dollars is definitely the direction we need to go. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by praha

[rpfc 28,546]

Once the AFL takes over Etihad in 10 years time - some of these issues disappear.

And the facilities at Etihad can be stripped out and improved surely?

I don't see the desperate need tbh.

Edited March 18, 2016 by rpfc

[dee-luded 2,959]

2 hours ago, old dee said:

They would need to pinch parkland I believe dc.

The ground would move back towards the G.

?????

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

 

My understanding is that the Jack Dyer stand is heritage listed and would need to remain intact.

 

[dee-luded 2,959]

6 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

The city of Melbourne doesn't need three stadiums to host four games of football per weekend. The AFL just needs to sort out a more equitable distribution of income to ensure that the poorer clubs can compete.

 

your right in that  'the city of Melbourne',  doesn't...

 

the Dandenong region does.  The Peninsular & East Victoria need a boutique stadium,  @ Sth Dandenong,  where the 2 rail lines intersect, & the freeways intersect.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Dandenong+South+VIC+3175/@-38.0106934,145.226725,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad61158384b1c4f:0x403436541f2681be

Edited March 18, 2016 by dee-luded

[stuie 7,374]

4 minutes ago, dee-luded said:

 

your right in that  'the city of Melbourne',  doesn't...

 

the Dandenong region does.  The Peninsular & East Victoria need a boutique stadium,  @ Sth Dandenong,  where the 2 rail lines intersect, & the freeways intersect.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Dandenong+South+VIC+3175/@-38.0106934,145.226725,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad61158384b1c4f:0x403436541f2681be

A footy stadium in Dandenong... What could go wrong?....

 

[Deespicable 2,767]

2 hours ago, praha said:

Etihad is not financially viable, and probably never will be. Its facilities are ageing far too quickly for a stadium that was built only 16 years ago. The fact you stand to be better placed hosting 20,000 fans at a 100,000-seat stadium than you would hosting 20,000 at a 50,000-seat stadium shows just how important a new stadium is. Teams like North, Bulldogs, Saints would probably be better placed financially now if they didn't lose thousands at every home game there, even with decent crowds. Melbourne probably lost 250k for the game against GWS there last year. 16,000 at the MCG might have only been 50k loss. Money matters. Income distribution isn't the answer. It's a bandaid solution. Teams need to be in a position where they are self-sustainable. Melbourne is well on the way but we're lucky to call the MCG home. Carlton says it wants to come to the MCG to better service its fans but it's most certainly more about the money.

Eddie's plan isn't anywhere near as crazy as everybody makes it out to be. Any rational thinker can see that a stadium built with financial gain in mind from the start is important to the future of the league and its smaller clubs. No doubt Collingwood and Richmond would benefit the most from these plans but smaller stadiums that don't lose clubs hundreds of thousands of dollars is definitely the direction we need to go. 

You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for Eddie's black and white rhetoric.

Etihad is not financially viable at the moment because it is not yet owned by the AFL and they cannot dictate the return to the tennant clubs. But come 2025 when the AFL assumes control for $3, it will become an important part of the real estate and perfect for North, Carlton and Doggies to use.

Everyone seems to forget that it is close to trains and in the middle of winter has a retractable roof that makes it massively more pleasant than the MCG on a cold winter's night.

Sure the fact that the masses have to sit upstairs in the bleaches is an issue at the moment, but if the AFL is fair dinkum about looking after fans, it will take steps to actually allow us riff-raf to use  the lower tiers without having to pay squillions.

I'm not a greenie by any means, but do down and look at Gosch's Paddock and watch the Dees or Storm or Victory train there, and you will realise what a disaster it will be if Melbourne has to have all it's stadiums lined up like Ducks in a row along Swan St.

[13thFlagIsComing 542]

I like Etihad.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,508]

I just don't see it working on a logistical scale, not to mention the heritage of the area and the fact (in the Collingwood proposal) that's there is already a stadium siting on the land they want to use.

We need to take each proposal with an artery hardening amount of salt.  Richmond want millions to redevelop their home ground... Collingwood want even more millions for a stadium across the road from their recently annexed home.  These proposals are entirely self serving for the two clubs involved.

[daisycutter 29,627]

2 minutes ago, 13thFlagIsComing said:

I like Etihad.

i like green eggs and ham

i don't like darklands

[beelzebub 23,380]

If Eddie's plans are reliant on putting Richmond station underground then that plan will never leave the platform. Not exactly a 5 min exercise. 

[stuie 7,374]

With 18 months of traffic chaos on the Westgate ahead, I can't see any government adding massive disruptions to Punt Rd to the list.

 

[praha 11,240]

47 minutes ago, Deespicable said:

You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for Eddie's black and white rhetoric.

Etihad is not financially viable at the moment because it is not yet owned by the AFL and they cannot dictate the return to the tennant clubs. But come 2025 when the AFL assumes control for $3, it will become an important part of the real estate and perfect for North, Carlton and Doggies to use.

Everyone seems to forget that it is close to trains and in the middle of winter has a retractable roof that makes it massively more pleasant than the MCG on a cold winter's night.

Sure the fact that the masses have to sit upstairs in the bleaches is an issue at the moment, but if the AFL is fair dinkum about looking after fans, it will take steps to actually allow us riff-raf to use  the lower tiers without having to pay squillions.

I'm not a greenie by any means, but do down and look at Gosch's Paddock and watch the Dees or Storm or Victory train there, and you will realise what a disaster it will be if Melbourne has to have all it's stadiums lined up like Ducks in a row along Swan St.

I still question the financial viability of Etihad even once the AFL takes over. They are not going to run the stadium at a massive loss. Etihad ran only up until recently on a loss every year, primarily as a means to keep costs for clubs as low as possible, and they were still astronomically high. Of course Eddie is talking about this from Collingwood's perspective, but at the end of the day if it benefits Collingwood, it's probably going to be beneficial for everyone else. Even they run at a loss at Etihad for their home games there. 

From the city's perspective, Etihad is the elephant in the room. It more or less breaks the entire Docklands precinct off from the rest of the city. Anyone who doesn't factor in the stadium as part of the reason why Docklands stinks (metaphorically) is very naive. 

The Aus Open has demoted Hisense Arena and replaced it with Margaret Court Arena. I don't see why the idea of knocking it down and replacing it with another stadium has been met with such contempt. And I find it ironic that you're worried about the parks along Swan Street while standing behind the ugly concrete heap that is Etihad and the surrounding Docklands area. 

I agree with others here that this all seems like a pipedream and the logistics of Eddie's and Richmond's plans make both very difficult to ever come to fruition, but I think that Etihad, its design, and its placement weren't thought through very well. I think it's clear that the city of Melbourne, the government, and many of the clubs share this train of thought. Etihad is going to be left behind, already is being left behind with the likes of Adelaide Oval, the new Perth stadium etc leading the way. Mark my words, Etihad will eventually go the way of Waverley. 

[ex52k2 238]

      If  and  when  the  new  underground  ever gets  built,  you  will  have  no  trains  going  to  Richmond  from  the  SE  suburbs. The  Pakenham  and  Cranborne  lines  and  all  stations  due  east  will  turn  off  before  going  through  South  Yarra  station.  That  means  if  you  live  anywhere  out  there  you  will  have  to  get  off  your  train  at  Caulfield  and  wait  for  a  Frankston  train  to  get  to  the  G.

    As  the  Frankston  trains  stops  at  all  stops  to  Richmond  a  train  trip  that  now  takes  1hr  20  min  will  take  over  2  hrs.  GREAT.  2!st  century  thinking,  catch  public  transport. But  wait  that  isn't  the  worst,  people  can  space  out  their  arrival  to  manage  the  extra  time  needed.  Now  here  is  the  doosy,  what  happens  after  the  game  when  ALL  people  travelling  on  the  PAKY, Crany  and  Frankston  lines  have  all  to  fit  on  the  Frankston  train.

   Have  you  stood  on  the  Richmond  platforms  after  a  MFC  game?  Crowded  to  say  the  least,  and  we  don't  have  many  big  crowds.  Now  3  lines  have  to  fit  on  one  train,  and  you  want  to  put  ANOTHER  stadium  there  using  Richmond  station. Please  readers  put  yourselves  in  somebodies  place  after  a  30000 people  game  and  try   fitting  on  a  Frankston  train,  please  breathe  in  and  hold  it  till  you  get  to  Caulfield.

    Edit  PS  Put  the  new  stadium  at  Sandown  Park  on  the  vacant  land  on  the  western  side  of  the  track. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by ex52k2

[Skuit 10,031]

Urgent stop can't stop eddie stop need new train stop stop.

[Demi Dee 578]

2 hours ago, stuie said:

A footy stadium in Dandenong... What could go wrong?....

 

If it really does go wrong, we can draw a giant pentagon in the middle and leave it too the real Demon supporters out that way. 

[TRIGON 4,788]

2 hours ago, 13thFlagIsComing said:

I like Etihad.

Good for you, though can't tell if trolling or...

 

[What 18,810]

Bulldoze Etihad and redevelop Punt Road oval.