Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

[Eastdog]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

We would then have Docklands, West Melbourne and East Footscray as the new suburb which was formally part of West Melbourne.

[Twodogs]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

1. Just google map north Melbourne station and look directly SW of it.

2. A better name for "Egate" is East Footscray, imo.... Or perhaps "Western Melbourne.."

There are west and North Footscray. Why shouldn't there be a East Footscray? While we are at it we could change North Mebourne train station to South East Footscray station.

We need a South Footscray now. I'm thinking Williamstown. Footscray needs a beach.

[Axe Man]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

Good news if true.

Eddie McGuire plan for boutique stadium next to the MCG hits grand hurdle

EDDIE McGuire's grand plan has hit a grand hurdle.

The AFL plans to spend $100-plus million on Etihad Stadium and not knock it down.

In fact, popular opinion has it the AFL will purchase Etihad by the end of the 2017 season — eight years ahead of schedule — and that the asking price and the selling price at the moment is as little as $20m apart.

It means plenty on the back of a $2.5 billion media rights injection.

It means the AFL can get hold of Etihad, spend the required money to improve the facility with help, they hope, from the Sate Government and, most important of all, fix the tenancy deals of Carlton, the Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne, St Kilda and to a lesser extent Essendon, which signed the first and most advantageous deal.

It means that while McGuire's stadium extravaganza would be sensational for Melbourne, it would appear to be pie in the sky — at the moment.

Eddie's stadium hinges on the sale of Etihad Stadium.

The AFL has told clubs they're not in favour of selling Etihad.

The McGuire blueprint is not entirely dead, but it would require the State Government contributing significantly to the project.

But does Dan Andrews spend $500m, for example, on a new stadium or fix up the roads, or schools, or hospitals, child care or public transport?

The AFL put the stadiums on the agenda at a meeting of presidents and chief executives last week and several of the top brass were bewildered by what one called the ''fixation'' from McGuire on a new stadium.

Another wondered why would you would knock down one stadium and simply build another.

The fact is it's not about which stadium, it's about which stadium will give the best deals for the clubs.

And it's about who pays for the stadium. Hello again, Mr Andrews.

Carlton, St Kilda, the Bulldogs etc would play on Mars if they could get a Geelong deal.

The Cats, when stages four and five are complete at Simonds Stadium, will make $1m-plus per game profit on the back of signage and catering and gate and whatever else makes them money because they run the stadium holus-bolus.

The Blues have to pay Etihad if they want to put a sponsor on the scoreboard.

It's a sick joke for the tenant clubs and an embarrassment for the league and whomever else allowed theses deals to be done in the first place. All the time, equalisation in the form of handouts, taxes, levies, distributions continue to muddy the AFL environment.

The AFL wants equalisation, yet how can it be that Carlton lost $2.7m last year, is $6m in debt, and will have to pay $350,000 to the equalisation fund this year.

The Cats lost $3.2m and will have to pay $400,000 in tax.

Equalisation is the buzz word of the past 18 months, but while Carlton, the Bulldogs, the Saints etc, have to scrounge for every dollar while playing home games at Etihad Stadium, the equalisation compass will wave out of control.

The AFL's current position also harms Richmond's hopes for a spanking new stadium at Punt Rd. It could be a goer if the AFL wanted a third ground, but the AFL can't justify a third ground.

What hopes Carlton had of reopening Princes Park will also stagger.

The Blues believe a new railway station at the hospitals on Royal Pde is in the next state budget and that could help build their case as a third venue. It probably won't.

All this talk comes at a critical juncture for the AFL and the clubs. Everyone wants a dollar, and not least the Players Association, but how bout we fix equalisation first, which means fixing stadium deals, which means Etihad Stadium is too crucial to tear down.

[Happy Days]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

Yawn, the AFL-sanctioned 24-hour news cycle at work.

I know right? When are they going to get back to the real issues; who *is* going to be the best of the young gun forwards anyway?

[ledge]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

Update :

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-29/ambitious-plan-underway-to-upgrade-etihad-stadium

[F'scary]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

I don't think the state government should be contributing to the buy out and upgrade of the Docklands Stadium. Surely, a state government should have much higher priorities for the use of scarce resources than this.

Melbourne only needs the two stadiums, the G and the Docklands. 6 games a weekend can be played, that should be plenty to cover any fixture for a round.

Profitability of Docklands should be a major goal. Perhaps the AFL shouldn't go overboard with the upgrade, just do enough to keep the Stadium well maintained.

[jeemak]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

I don't think the state government should be contributing to the buy out and upgrade of the Docklands Stadium. Surely, a state government should have much higher priorities for the use of scarce resources than this.

Melbourne only needs the two stadiums, the G and the Docklands. 6 games a weekend can be played, that should be plenty to cover any fixture for a round.

Profitability of Docklands should be a major goal. Perhaps the AFL shouldn't go overboard with the upgrade, just do enough to keep the Stadium well maintained.

If the public retrieves a benefit outside of what the AFL derives as profit from the stadium then the public purse should be expected to pay for the additional benefit.

Think of this like you'd think of a freeway built by a private consortium, but in this case the private sector is engaging the public sector to get it off the ground.

[F'scary]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

If the public retrieves a benefit outside of what the AFL derives as profit from the stadium then the public purse should be expected to pay for the additional benefit.

Think of this like you'd think of a freeway built by a private consortium, but in this case the private sector is engaging the public sector to get it off the ground.

I'm just not sure what the public benefit is that requires government money being ploughed into a revamp of this stadium. I can get community sporting and recreation facilities as a pubic benefit but need to be shown how this would apply to Docklands Stadium and how such significant sums of money could be prioritised towards this ahead of all the other things state government has to deliver.

[jeemak]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

I'm just not sure what the public benefit is that requires government money being ploughed into a revamp of this stadium. I can get community sporting and recreation facilities as a pubic benefit but need to be shown how this would apply to Docklands Stadium and how such significant sums of money could be prioritised towards this ahead of all the other things state government has to deliver.

It's probably best we don't get bogged down in a conversation about macro economics, especially when there's no proposal tabled.

I'd love the government to spend money on things other than sporting stadiums and surrounding areas too, but I'm a pragmatist.

[Bornadog]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

I don't think the state government should be contributing to the buy out and upgrade of the Docklands Stadium. Surely, a state government should have much higher priorities for the use of scarce resources than this.

Melbourne only needs the two stadiums, the G and the Docklands. 6 games a weekend can be played, that should be plenty to cover any fixture for a round.

Profitability of Docklands should be a major goal. Perhaps the AFL shouldn't go overboard with the upgrade, just do enough to keep the Stadium well maintained.

You don't think the Government has contributed money towards building stadiums at the MCG, or what about the $20 million (Fed and State) towards VU Whitten Oval.

[hujsh]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

You don't think the Government has contributed money towards building stadiums at the MCG, or what about the $20 million (Fed and State) towards VU Whitten Oval.

I see more public good coming from the WO than Ettihad though

[jeemak]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

I see more public good coming from the WO than Ettihad though

What - if any - will the stamp duty be for the changing hands or sale of Docklands?

You could imagine the government getting pretty keen about chipping in if there was.........

[F'scary]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

You don't think the Government has contributed money towards building stadiums at the MCG, or what about the $20 million (Fed and State) towards VU Whitten Oval.

I can see genuine public benefit in the Western Oval transformation, the facility was in a very, very poor state prior, close to being condemned. The redev included a child care centre, restoration and creation of public parkland, locker room facilities for community sporting groups who use the ground, paved parking and sealed roads. There is also a basketball/netball facility - was that part of the redevelopment? And it is out in the suburbs.

Docklands stadium is a different kettle of fish. As I wrote, I would have to see the detail to understand if there was genuine public benefit or whether it is just our government ploughing public funds into corporate box land.

[Twodogs]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

Yep the community sporting centre was built as part of the redevelopment. It's a good facility too. Apart from anything else the competition prompted the local YMCA to upgrade and offer more services.

[ledge]

Re: Etihad Stadium - New Initiatives

I can see genuine public benefit in the Western Oval transformation, the facility was in a very, very poor state prior, close to being condemned. The redev included a child care centre, restoration and creation of public parkland, locker room facilities for community sporting groups who use the ground, paved parking and sealed roads. There is also a basketball/netball facility - was that part of the redevelopment? And it is out in the suburbs.

Docklands stadium is a different kettle of fish. As I wrote, I would have to see the detail to understand if there was genuine public benefit or whether it is just our government ploughing public funds into corporate box land.

The government will have more say and more concerts and events will be held their without paying huge cost to the owner, thus more profit and a huge resource.