5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I bet we still get our home game there. Why would the AFL give money to the MCG when they can have our Etihad game and take money from us?

Will be interesting to see what happens with Geel, Rich, Haw, Coll and us all not enjoying the occasional 1-2 home games there a year.

Eddie will do his lid if the Pies still have to play there.

who cares what eddie will do.

Hopefully now with the AFL owning the ground they have an AFL members section there on level 2.

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

Which end, the Lockett or Coventry?

You're on fire today Red. Nice work

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

Any chance if a 30 day money back gaurantee?

who'd the afl buy it off anyway? Drunken online purchase no doubt 

I think it's a Chinese knock off on eBay

13 hours ago, Akum said:

It must be coincidence that this happens so soon after an "Etihad side" wins the premiership for the first time for many years??

Maybe I've had too many reds tonight, but what's the implication here?

3 hours ago, DV8 said:

who cares what eddie will do.

Exactly F@#k Eddie.

Seriously the guy is on the nose.  Does his self righteous narna/tantrum at anything and everything that may possibly threaten his darling (not so hot) Pies.  Is their a F@#k Eddie thread on Demonland?  If not, can we please have one?

If they are going to improve the stadium, first place they should start is to put transparent panels on the retractable section of roof to improve the massive light/dark contrast you get on the ground when the roof is open.  Might even partly or fully pay for it's self if it reduced the amount of artificial sun lamps required to grow the grass.  In this respect, perhaps they could also cover the rest of the roof sectiond in solar PV panels to reduce or even make a positive contribution to the stadium's environmental foot print as well as being a good economic decision.

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

If they are going to improve the stadium, first place they should start is to put transparent panels on the retractable section of roof to improve the massive light/dark contrast you get on the ground when the roof is open.  Might even partly or fully pay for it's self if it reduced the amount of artificial sun lamps required to grow the grass.  In this respect, perhaps they could also cover the rest of the roof sectiond in solar PV panels to reduce or even make a positive contribution to the stadium's environmental foot print as well as being a good economic decision.

Exactly but lets not try to improve IT;  lets build boutique stadiums around the place to better serve communities.  And bring those further away geographically into contact with afl footy.

 

would make a great bonfire next guy fawkes day

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

would make a great bonfire next guy fawkes day

Can you move the stadium to Gosch's paddock and face it the right way?

22 hours ago, TGR said:

Problem with Etihad, is that for a non-tenant, it is a waste of money.  The AFL could have received this in another 9 years for $30!

Just because the Etihad home-game clubs were screwed (by Collins?), forced the AFL to cough up 200 mill now.

As was stated by another poster it may well be cash flow positive in addition to giving control of the stadium to the AFL who can run it with an AFL bias which never happened under the previous management.  Despite what people think the AFL are not fools financially.  In addition what is the site worth?  Albeit there was an agreement in place I wouldn't mind betting the AFL has made a pretty significant profit on the overall deal.

I've never understood the dislike for Etihad.  I think it's a fantastic venue for viewing football.  You get as good or better view of a game at Etihad than any other ground I've been to and to me that is the primary feature of any ground.  You are guaranteed a "dry" game, good conditions and skillful footy.  Despite the size of the ground the games are usually fast open affairs where the standard of play is as high.  In the middle of winter the temperature is higher in Etihad than the MCG and getting there is so simple with Southern Cross station a short walk away.  There are good eating venues close to the ground and the cost of food at Etihad is the same as the MCG. I do agree the issue of level 2 seating needs to be addressed.

Our performance there is poor but I agree with TGR, if we are going to be any good then it's got to be anywhere, anytime, anyone.  A negative mindset only provides an excuse to fail.

If you've got philosophical problems with the AFL and big business then very simply don't follow the sport because your problem ain't going away.  Footy is big business. As a teacher of mine once said "like it or lump it". 

16 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Hopefully now with the AFL owning the ground they have an AFL members section there on level 2.

Not sure what they'd do with Medallion Club. Can't just tell members that it's no longer valid, and you can't just give them AFL Gold membership seeing as there's a long wait list.

I suspect medallion club members will be put onto AFL Members wait list and their Medallion membership doubles as AFL Silver. Then once they become Gold, their Medallion Club is stopped. Probably the only way to phase it out.

3 hours ago, DV8 said:

Exactly but lets not try to improve IT;  lets build boutique stadiums around the place to better serve communities.  And bring those further away geographically into contact with afl footy.

 

I don't mind where Docklands Stadium is built, good transport connections, including to geographically further away places like Bendigo, Ballarat and all stops in between via Southern Cross Station.

That said, I did also like it when clubs played at the old suburban grounds.  Added such great character and an interesting dimension to the game.  It would be great if Melbourne could substitute playing it's Docklands home games at Casey Fields.

7 minutes ago, praha said:

Not sure what they'd do with Medallion Club. Can't just tell members that it's no longer valid, and you can't just give them AFL Gold membership seeing as there's a long wait list.

I suspect medallion club members will be put onto AFL Members wait list and their Medallion membership doubles as AFL Silver. Then once they become Gold, their Medallion Club is stopped. Probably the only way to phase it out.

 Medallion members already have automatic rights to purchase GF tickets so it should not really be an issue.

The problem with the Medallion club is that you are guaranteed seat XYZ and it is yours to use, give to someone else or not use.

A simple system of use it or lose it needs to be introduced. Yes there will be some trade offs but I'm sure someone can work it out.

18 minutes ago, praha said:

Not sure what they'd do with Medallion Club. Can't just tell members that it's no longer valid, and you can't just give them AFL Gold membership seeing as there's a long wait list.

I suspect medallion club members will be put onto AFL Members wait list and their Medallion membership doubles as AFL Silver. Then once they become Gold, their Medallion Club is stopped. Probably the only way to phase it out.

One punter suggested that you could make them have to log on several days/weeks prior to cinfirm they were going to be used and if they weren't, then they could be offered up for sale at an premium to GA.  I think a variation on this could work quite well, where if the member was not going to use them, then they could offer them up for sale, with the member and the AFL sharing the profits.

Maybe this will mean there will no longer be a requirement to have a certain minimum number of games there per year, which will mean we (along with the other MCG tenants) are no longer forced into Etihad home games.

On 10/7/2016 at 0:59 PM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Exactly.

I didn't hear us Demonlanders complain in 2002 when we had something like a 9-3 record there since its opening.

Did Demonland exist in 2002?

On 07/10/2016 at 10:00 AM, Wrecker45 said:

Hope they blow it up.

I like the ground. Easy to get to. Great view from every seat and you don't get wet. Can't blame the ground for Melbourne's poor record 

On 07/10/2016 at 10:51 AM, Wrecker45 said:

It's a poorly designed stadium that doesn't even meet the standards of a backyard tennis courts orientation. It's also not the AFL's job to worry about what any future developer would do with the land.

I hate the place and can't wait to see the back of it.

 

How is it a poorly designed stadium? What does orientation have to do with an indoor stadium? 

There is absolutely no way that the stadium will be demolished. Stadiums life span is 50 years and not 20. 

Regardless it's still crown land and the stadium is on an extended lease. The AFL does not own the land 

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I don't mind where Docklands Stadium is built, good transport connections, including to geographically further away places like Bendigo, Ballarat and all stops in between via Southern Cross Station.

That said, I did also like it when clubs played at the old suburban grounds.  Added such great character and an interesting dimension to the game.  It would be great if Melbourne could substitute playing it's Docklands home games at Casey Fields.

Well if they build a boutique stadium at Dandenong Sth, then we would get that chance to do just that.

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

How is it a poorly designed stadium? What does orientation have to do with an indoor stadium? 

There is absolutely no way that the stadium will be demolished. Stadiums life span is 50 years and not 20. 

Regardless it's still crown land and the stadium is on an extended lease. The AFL does not own the land 

All of Docklands is crown leasehold (makes it easier for planning purposes). The stadium could however be on a special purpose lease that could make redevelopment difficult.

Then again redevelopment would probably go hand in hand with development of another stadium which would require crown (State) approval so it would all be part of one deal.

As an aside stadium deals are fascinating. One of the reasons NFL teams move (LA Rams for instance) is because another city offers them a better stadium deal. The Olympics require "clean" ad free stadiums which often rule some stadiums out.

On 07/10/2016 at 3:22 PM, AzzKikA said:

Who the heck is Tracky Pants!?

 

 

On 07/10/2016 at 3:24 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Cam Bruce

 

On 07/10/2016 at 3:29 PM, AzzKikA said:

You knew what the next question was going to be....why tracky pants?

Errrr  because he used to wear tracky pants  at training and IIRC at warm up

 

On 07/10/2016 at 9:00 PM, Chook said:

Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

I am sure Donald Trump would be very keen to push the button as a first act in his Presidency.  

7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

How is it a poorly designed stadium? What does orientation have to do with an indoor stadium? 

There is absolutely no way that the stadium will be demolished. Stadiums life span is 50 years and not 20. 

Regardless it's still crown land and the stadium is on an extended lease. The AFL does not own the land 

Nothing, as long as they keep the roof shut every day the sun rises and falls. But whilst they continue to open the roof during daylight, it is a joke.

9 minutes ago, monoccular said:

 

 

I am sure Donald Trump would be very keen to push the button as a first act in his Presidency.  

Probably better than the SA Government building a wind farm there.

7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

How is it a poorly designed stadium? What does orientation have to do with an indoor stadium? 

There is absolutely no way that the stadium will be demolished. Stadiums life span is 50 years and not 20. 

Regardless it's still crown land and the stadium is on an extended lease. The AFL does not own the land 

They better demolish the MCG it has well past its stadium lifetime.

8 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

One punter suggested that you could make them have to log on several days/weeks prior to cinfirm they were going to be used and if they weren't, then they could be offered up for sale at an premium to GA.  I think a variation on this could work quite well, where if the member was not going to use them, then they could offer them up for sale, with the member and the AFL sharing the profits.

Not gonna happen- these are corporate memberships and they pay $5k a year for them you think they're gonna be forced to log on to a website days in advance to notify if theyre gonna use the seat theyve already paid for?