CEO TAKES A STAND

[Demon Head 251]

Demon CEO Steve Harris has got it right here.

Why should all of the tenant clubs be held up because of the newbies from the Victory who have been around for five minutes?

[Jarka 767]

I tend to favour the Victory stance with this issue, 20k is too small.

[brey9186 102]

this is an opportunity to have a world class soccer stadium in melbourne, the type of place that the socceroo's are going to want to play EVERY game they play in australia at

a studium that can host rugby union and league tests and SOO matches

we need to look at the bigger picutre than JUST the demons, 20k isnt big enough, it need to be 30k plus, preferably 50k, but that cant happen with the TD's current agreement with the state government

we will get our training facility eventually, good things come to those who wait

[Jaded No More 59,151]

we need to look at the bigger picutre than JUST the demons

'We' couldn't give a stuff about anyone but the Demons.

If our very own CEO doesn't look after us, nobody else will.

The club has worked very hard to get this off the ground, including years of planning and now fundraising. He has every right to be [censored] about this latest development. His main, his ONLY, concern should be the Melbourne Football Club and finally finding us a home. It's a disgrace that the oldest football club in Australia has been homeless for so long.

It really makes my blood boil, to think that we are now depending on 2 other codes to get this happening, and that we have to sit and wait until another club (especially a soccer club ) can be satisfied. Nobody could care less about the Victory 2 years ago, and they may very well be a passing fad. We're nearly 150 years in the making, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but this was our initiative, was it not?

[_becks_ 35]

Agree with Jarka. I went to the Queensland Roar game and there were 30000 for a nothing game. Not sure whether 20k is enough.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I don't know heaps about the A-League, but from my limited knowledge I can see that there's only one team in Victoria. If the A-League expands and adds, say, 8 more clubs to its comp, at least 2-3 of them could/would be located in Melbourne. If there were that many clubs then surely getting 50k to a game would be difficult. Given another 10-20 years can we assume that with one or two more clubs that any of them will have that many fans? This is a hugely wild assumption by the powers that be that the sport will uphold its form. Will it have this huge attendence in bad years? Will it expand, or diminish after the stadium is completed? I'm all for having a world-class soccer stadium, but surely they've gotta have PROOF that this place will be used. When the AFL built the dome, it was absolutely CERTAIN that it was needed.

I'm no expert on any of these issues, but the fact that these people are going back on deals that can potentially do very real harm to two existing clubs is inexcusable. How is it that THEY are the ones that suddenly have all the power in this situation? This whole construction thing has made me nervous from the beginning.

[occo 2]

Ideally the ground should hold 80k but this will never happen till soccer is idelised much more. Are the dees going to be allowd to use the ground too or is it purely for training (gym) and or admin centre?

[Demon Disciple 11,138]

Sure, soccer has taken off in Melbourne, but if the stadium were to be built by 2008, the hype of the world cup and victory would have settled down by then and soccer will be somewhat similar to a couple of years ago.

IMO a 50k seat stadium is needed ATM, but not in 2008.

The Government should build us the stadium anyway. Stuff the rest (aka Melbourne Victory)

[IWAP 168]

Good on Steve Harris for having his say. His sole position should be how it effects us, and shouldn't give a stuff about the soccer or rugby.

Having said that, its perfectly understandable why the Victory aren't so keen on the current deal. Why build a stadium that seats less than current attendances, and that is without looking ahead to possible growth.

Very frustrating for MFC, but no way MVFC could possibly stick to the arrangement.

[occo 2]

Good on Steve Harris for having his say. His sole position should be how it effects us, and shouldn't give a stuff about the soccer or rugby.

Having said that, its perfectly understandable why the Victory aren't so keen on the current deal. Why build a stadium that seats less than current attendances, and that is without looking ahead to possible growth.

Very frustrating for MFC, but no way MVFC could possibly stick to the arrangement.

Agree. Good on victory. Its a waste of money building a 20 k stadium. Remember WE are relying on victory and storm to afford this so its only fair they get what they want 2.That doesent mean im not dissopointed

[alpha33 277]

Agree. Good on victory. Its a waste of money building a 20k stadium. Remember WE are relying on victory and storm to afford this so its only fair they get what they want 2.That doesent mean im not dissopointed

Surely the Bracks could find an additional way to rob impose a tax on the public in order to finance 10-15k more seats at this joint and then everybody would be happy. An extra toll on our freeways or something like that would do the trick.

[mo64 5,262]

Firstly I'm a MFC and Victory member. It may pain of few people to read this, particularly the 'Soccerphobes', but despite MFC being the oldest football club in the country, the Victory have surpassed it in the pecking order of sporting clubs in this city, and would sit just behind Collingwood and Essendon. They would also have more clout within the chambers of Spring St.

The stadium won't proceed without the Victory signing on as a tenant. And why would they, when the proposed 20k seating is 10k less than their average crowds.

The only reason why we don't have a home is because past administrations sat on their hands, and allowed Collingwood to get the jump on us with the Lexus centre.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Will the Victory be this dominant forever? The world cup only finished a little while ago. To have them behind the Pies and Bombers is correct, but only for one year thus far. Give it a couple more then I'll be convinced.

Also, just going on what occo said, is it even possible to build a soccer stadium that can seat 80K? Some of them wouldn't be able to see much.

[JACKATTACK 17]

It is insane to think that we need another stadium of the size some of you are suggesting. We already have the MCG and the dome. I recently left Vancouver, where they were considerin scrapping their only decent sized stadium (60,000) because it wasn't being used enough.

I'm with Dappa on this one, the Victory's attendance records may drop off in which case 20,000 is plenty. Stop wasting everyones time and get on board.

[IWAP 168]

Firstly I'm a MFC and Victory member. It may pain of few people to read this, particularly the 'Soccerphobes', but despite MFC being the oldest football club in the country, the Victory have surpassed it in the pecking order of sporting clubs in this city, and would sit just behind Collingwood and Essendon. They would also have more clout within the chambers of Spring St.

Mo64, i'm also a member of both clubs, but disagree strongly with the statement that Victory are 3rd in the pecking order of sporting clubs. MFC has double the memberships MVFC do, and if i'm not mistaken MFC attendances were larger than Victorys for the most recent seasons. On what basis are Victory so far up the 'pecking order' ?

[Guest baysidedave]

I tend to favour the Victory stance with this issue, 20k is too small.

me too they need at least 30,000

[sideshowbob 0]

On what basis are Victory so far up the 'pecking order' ?

1. Success.

2. International exposure.

3. Widespread support from all of melbourne rather than divided between nine different teams.

It's a better political strategy for the pollies to support the victory than it is to support the demons.

And this is coming from a Demons and Storm member!

[Whispering_Jack 28,094]

MELBOURNEfc new home confirmed

[mo64 5,262]

'On what basis are Victory so far up the 'pecking order' ?

Remembering that the Victory are always playing against interstate teams with very few travelling supporters, I'd suggest that the attendances of actual Victory fans at Telstra Dome games would surpass that of MFC supporters at our home games. Just look at our attendances when we play fellow Vic clubs like the Bulldogs and Carlton. If MFC had better support, there would be no need to sell home games interstate.

As for membership numbers, the Victory memberships have been sold on the basis of playing home games at Olympic Park, and the culture of buying memberships to soccer clubs is probably at the level where the AFL was 10 years ago.

As far as the 'pecking order', if you look at the media coverage that the Victory get, whether it be press, radio or Pay per view, I'd suggest that it far outweighs most individual Melbourne clubs are getting during the AFL season. MFC definitely don't receive daily coverage in the Age and The HS during the AFL season. And we have yet to see what impact the Asian club championships will have on the Victory brand.

[Hatchman 487]

over 50,000 people turned out to watch Victory at the Telstra Dome not that long ago.

20k is definitely not enough.

[beelzebub 22,349]

the answer isnt that hard..

an optioned stadium to the capacity of 28000 is quite easily feasible apparanetly without too much heartache.. This would satisfyall on most occasions..

on the other odd accasions when a larger venue is requied... quess what a little place called Telstra is down the road... if the AFL can work it so games are moved to suit occassions...im sure little upsart Victory can amass some of its grey matter and do similar.. ..otherwise it can bugger off and work out its own solution.

If a rework can be accomodated to a capacity of say 35000....then that ought to be looked into, with a rectangular construction ....elongating all faces ought not be a real stretch ( so to speak ) . adding another couple of tiers etc, increasing sanitation to cope ..so on so on.... nothig hi tech or clever neede... just a bit bigger !!..... any which way Victory ought to shut up...its getting a shiny new Stadium to play in.

[IWAP 168]

Remembering that the Victory are always playing against interstate teams with very few travelling supporters, I'd suggest that the attendances of actual Victory fans at Telstra Dome games would surpass that of MFC supporters at our home games. Just look at our attendances when we play fellow Vic clubs like the Bulldogs and Carlton. If MFC had better support, there would be no need to sell home games interstate.

As for membership numbers, the Victory memberships have been sold on the basis of playing home games at Olympic Park, and the culture of buying memberships to soccer clubs is probably at the level where the AFL was 10 years ago.

As far as the 'pecking order', if you look at the media coverage that the Victory get, whether it be press, radio or Pay per view, I'd suggest that it far outweighs most individual Melbourne clubs are getting during the AFL season. MFC definitely don't receive daily coverage in the Age and The HS during the AFL season. And we have yet to see what impact the Asian club championships will have on the Victory brand.

well i think we're gonna have to disagree on this one, after all, we are merely arguing semantics

I have my doubts about who would receive more media coverage out of MVFC and MFC. MVFC are getting daily write ups in the past few weeks in the lead up to the finals, but for most of the season there seemed to be just a write up of the previous weeks game on the Monday, and a preview on the Friday, with only things like the Kosmina - Muscat incident breaking into the other days. The Herald Sun, i'm sure you'll agree don't feature much on the Victory, and when they do it rarely seems to flattering.

But as well as Victory are doing in the summer, this town is nothing but AFL for the rest of the year. The AFL as a competition is lightning years ahead of what the A-league can hope to be. The turnover for each club (Melbourne included) would be far greater than that of the Victory.

I think its inevitable with the continuing success of the A-league, the exposure from the Asian Champions League and the potential reaching of the socceroos, that Victory will become bigger than most of the clubs, but not today.

[Finks 19]

I don't have anything constructive to add.

Just this....

I hate soccer.

[sideshowbob 0]

Sorry belzebub59 but your answer misses a few key points.

the answer isnt that hard..

an optioned stadium to the capacity of 28000 is quite easily feasible apparanetly without too much heartache.. This would satisfyall on most occasions..

The Victory's point is that a larger venue will nearly always be required. They have only ten home games, and up to four (home games against Syd and Adelaide) would definitely need to be moved each season, and this year's Queensland game would also need to be moved too as they got over 30,000

on the other odd accasions when a larger venue is requied... quess what a little place called Telstra is down the road... if the AFL can work it so games are moved to suit occassions...im sure little upsart Victory can amass some of its grey matter and do similar.. ..otherwise it can bugger off and work out its own solution.

That's exactly what the victory is doing. It's "own solution" will be to say no to olympic park and just move all games to the Dome. Also, the AFL's record on moving games to suit occasions isn't exactly all that good!

If a rework can be accomodated to a capacity of say 35000....then that ought to be looked into, with a rectangular construction ....elongating all faces ought not be a real stretch ( so to speak ) . adding another couple of tiers etc, increasing sanitation to cope ..so on so on.... nothig hi tech or clever neede... just a bit bigger !!..... any which way Victory ought to shut up...its getting a shiny new Stadium to play in.

a 35,000 stadium will require considerable compensation to be paid to Telstra Dome so it's not a feasible option.

[beelzebub 22,349]

a 35,000 stadium will require considerable compensation to be paid to Telstra Dome so it's not a feasible option.

if that is part of the package to build a new stadium.... then that simply comes into teh total cost of ownership realm.. only problem then is who pays what share

No one has the monolpoly on bums on seats really !!..would Telstra be compensated if game was moved to teh G or Princess ( hypothetically speaking ) doubt it !! .. is Telstra compensated because of added capacity to tennis centre etc.. no..so what real call does Telstra have on a New Soccer stadium...am genuiney intrigued :-)