Future NRL Stadiums

[Teddyboy]

Do you think the NRL use too many stadiums i.e. like with West Tigers and St.Illawarra alongside Penrith, Bulldogs and Parra all have there own grounds.Was looking at the AFL grounds and I think there is only 5 grounds used in Vic/SA/WA.I know the Sydney teams are spread out plus the harbour divides Maly but does the AFL save much dosh from not using loads of stadiums, but then again what is the up keep of keeping the team's HQ and training ground ????.

 

[BDGS]

I prefer the way we have it, compared to the serial AFL model of Stadium use.

 

[VictoryFC]

Actually agree with Teddy. Yosemite Sam is talking some nonsense. Stadiums aren't being designed to hold more than what they can expect to average, it's just not true.

In fact the trend is the other way. Clubs are making smaller stadiums for the very reason that they are financially far more lucrative when supply and demand is taken into account. It's something Australian sports could learn a thing or two from. Playing at 20% capacity in a 100,000 seater is a disaster anyway you look at it. If you create stadiums which squeeze your fan base, you create an environment where attendance is highly coveted. The demand then produces things like waiting lists (which would fizzle out if capacity ever expanded much higher), allows the club to charge higher ticket prices, and it looks great on TV which benefits the entire league. I've only named a few positives, but there are plenty more. Plenty of examples for this if you need me to list them.

 

[Teddyboy]

Actually agree with Teddy. Yosemite Sam is talking some nonsense. Stadiums aren't being designed to hold more than what they can expect to average, it's just not true.

In fact the trend is the other way. Clubs are making smaller stadiums for the very reason that they are financially far more lucrative when supply and demand is taken into account. It's something Australian sports could learn a thing or two from. Playing at 20% capacity in a 100,000 seater is a disaster anyway you look at it. If you create stadiums which squeeze your fan base, you create an environment where attendance is highly coveted. The demand then produces things like waiting lists (which would fizzle out if capacity ever expanded much higher), allows the club to charge higher ticket prices, and it looks great on TV which benefits the entire league. I've only named a few positives, but there are plenty more. Plenty of examples for this if you need me to list them.

That's why I think Central Coast stadium looks good as if they ever get a team then you keep it at it's currant capacity if it doesn't sell out most of the time but if it ever does sell out every game you can expand it with seating at the southern end, and this is what the Gold Coast should have done with there troubled ground.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Actually agree with Teddy. Yosemite Sam is talking some nonsense. Stadiums aren't being designed to hold more than what they can expect to average, it's just not true.

Yes they are, you missed the point. If a club is expecting to average 13K, you do not make the stadium 13K capacity, that would be incredibly stupid and ridiculous. A clubs highest drawing matches are always going to be bigger than their average, and the stadium needs to allow for this.

For example, Penrith averaged 13K last season, but if you restricted them to a 13K stadium their average would be significantly lower, as they are no longer able to post attendances higher than 13K.

I agree with you about ANZ being far too big for it's tenants - this is a problem and looks bad on TV. Most stadiums in the NRL are fine for their tenants, in fact some of them (Kogarah, Parramatta) need to be a bit bigger.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

The AFL negotiate directly with the grounds for their teams. Im unsure if it turns out to be more profitable then our set up. I have a feeling its virtually even.

 

[VictoryFC]

Yes they are, you missed the point. If a club is expecting to average 13K, you do not make the stadium 13K capacity, that would be incredibly stupid and ridiculous. A clubs highest drawing matches are always going to be bigger than their average, and the stadium needs to allow for this.

For example, Penrith averaged 13K last season, but if you restricted them to a 13K stadium their average would be significantly lower, as they are no longer able to post attendances higher than 13K.

No, I think you've just highlighted that you've missed the point. In Penrith's case, a stadium between 15-20k is ideal then (I would say 15,000, with the option of moving larger games if they really want that, but even that would be a mistake). You would have to take a look at their historical averages, and work out what kind of demand you can expect from any new stadium.

HOWEVER, under no circumstances do you build a stadium to hold a crowd for you "best case scenario". That is insane, and no one does this in modern sport. That type of thinking would be laughed out of the boardroom in any serious talk regarding a new stadium. There are several factors to take into account, including location of stadium, and how this impacts on your supporter base; historical/past attendances; access to transport links; the size of your membership; and so on.

Using your logic, every stadium would be double the size than it needs to be just for the once in a season opportunity of selling it out against a rival.

Again, I never said that Penrith should build a 13k because they are averaging 13k (although international evidence will point out that such a move could be revolutionary for the NRL in many respects), but rather that you should build a stadium that you know you can realistically fill within a certain timeframe. That should be the aim of every stadium: satisfy your supporter numbers as much as possible, but tighten it to ensure full houses, and the extra demand the results from playing to a full house.

As many people involved with sports operation will assure you, if you're going to build a new stadium today, build it slightly smaller than your existing fanbase that attends regularly enough (note: not existing attendance, existing fanbase). If you still don't agree, just go read an general sports marketing book, and it'll you exactly what I said in better detail.

 

[Red Bear]

Eg Arsenal building a 60K stadium allowed them to charge through the roof for tickets. If they built a 75K one it would probably cost more, there'd be less demand and thus less ticket revenue.

 

[Teddyboy]

No, I think you've just highlighted that you've missed the point. In Penrith's case, a stadium between 15-20k is ideal then (I would say 15,000, with the option of moving larger games if they really want that, but even that would be a mistake). You would have to take a look at their historical averages, and work out what kind of demand you can expect from any new stadium.

HOWEVER, under no circumstances do you build a stadium to hold a crowd for you "best case scenario". That is insane, and no one does this in modern sport. That type of thinking would be laughed out of the boardroom in any serious talk regarding a new stadium. There are several factors to take into account, including location of stadium, and how this impacts on your supporter base; historical/past attendances; access to transport links; the size of your membership; and so on.

Using your logic, every stadium would be double the size than it needs to be just for the once in a season opportunity of selling it out against a rival.

Again, I never said that Penrith should build a 13k because they are averaging 13k (although international evidence will point out that such a move could be revolutionary for the NRL in many respects), but rather that you should build a stadium that you know you can realistically fill within a certain timeframe. That should be the aim of every stadium: satisfy your supporter numbers as much as possible, but tighten it to ensure full houses, and the extra demand the results from playing to a full house.

As many people involved with sports operation will assure you, if you're going to build a new stadium today, build it slightly smaller than your existing fanbase that attends regularly enough (note: not existing attendance, existing fanbase). If you still don't agree, just go read an general sports marketing book, and it'll you exactly what I said in better detail.

That is a very good post, plus any fan's locked out are only going to support the team by watching it at home or going to the Pub.
I have always found that 15000 capacity ground is great to watch a game as it not too big and not too small but any bigger depends on the ground (but thats just me).

 

[BDGS]

Building smaller stadiums will instantly prevent any game of improving their crowd numbers and may be seen as a negative move particualry for our sport in our location.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

No, I think you've just highlighted that you've missed the point. In Penrith's case, a stadium between 15-20k is ideal then (I would say 15,000, with the option of moving larger games if they really want that, but even that would be a mistake).

I disagree 15K would be ideal for Penrith, in the past 3 seasons they have had 10 crowds in excess of that figure, what's the sense in that?

HOWEVER, under no circumstances do you build a stadium to hold a crowd for you "best case scenario".

Never did I say 'best case scenario'. In an ideal situation, a clubs average crowd should be around 70% of the stadiums capacity. This ensures that the stadium still feels quite full on match days, and also allows for growth in the future.

Using your logic, every stadium would be double the size than it needs to be just for the once in a season opportunity of selling it out against a rival

See above.

Again, I never said that Penrith should build a 13k because they are averaging 13k (although international evidence will point out that such a move could be revolutionary for the NRL in many respects), but rather that you should build a stadium that you know you can realistically fill within a certain timeframe.

Revolutionary how? Certainly not crowd wise.

As many people involved with sports operation will assure you, if you're going to build a new stadium today, build it slightly smaller than your existing fanbase that attends regularly enough (note: not existing attendance, existing fanbase). If you still don't agree, just go read an general sports marketing book, and it'll you exactly what I said in better detail.

All I'm interested in is building crowds, and making stadiums smaller so that they are always filled to capacity would be a big step backwards IMO.

 

[bobmar28]

Yes they are, you missed the point. If a club is expecting to average 13K, you do not make the stadium 13K capacity, that would be incredibly stupid and ridiculous. A clubs highest drawing matches are always going to be bigger than their average, and the stadium needs to allow for this.

For example, Penrith averaged 13K last season, but if you restricted them to a 13K stadium their average would be significantly lower, as they are no longer able to post attendances higher than 13K.

I agree with you about ANZ being far too big for it's tenants - this is a problem and looks bad on TV. Most stadiums in the NRL are fine for their tenants, in fact some of them (Kogarah, Parramatta) need to be a bit bigger.

Kogarah should be 25k all seater.

 

[meltiger]

Perhaps it will be like Melbourne when they played at Olympic park, bigger games and finals could be moved to oval grounds?

Don't Rugby Union play some test on that cricket ground called subicao or something similar to that?

I know some like to let you get away with it but don't act like a twat. Was only a question

But yes, Melbourne is a different beast, not only do we have two stadiums with higher capacities essentially built within the last 25 or so years, and in Etihads case - the last 15, there was also a contractual roadblock which limited the capacity of AAMI Park. If Perth also got a new AFL ground then yes that would be a different story. Any SOO or big finals could be sent there.

Given the population makeup, I would kinda hope Perth drew more than Melbourne anyway.

 

[Perth Red]

I love the 3 home tenant dressing sheds. Reds can perm brand the room as their own.

Question. Why 25? Is there no expectation they could draw higher?

The state Govt is determined to make the new AFL stadium multi purpose in order to attract international football and Rugby(sic) matches. The plan for that stadium is retractable stands to create a more rectangular stadium when needed with a capacity of around 60K. Having NIB at 25k for regular games and the new stadium with 60K for finals and internationals is their plan.

 

[azza29]

The state Govt is determined to make the new AFL stadium multi purpose in order to attract international football and Rugby(sic) matches. The plan for that stadium is retractable stands to create a more rectangular stadium when needed with a capacity of around 60K.

They said that about Etihad too. Has been in rectangular mode all of half a dozen times in 10 years. They don't like to do it because apparently it wrecks the turf.

More often than not the crowd is just miles away from the pitch.

 

[Perth Red]

they reckon that this will be the best adaptable stadium in the world! Well it is going to cost close to $1.5billion by the time it is built so it had better be! WA Govt are keen to get a higher profile and International sport is a good way of doing it, AFL won't have the say in this stadium the way it does at Etihad. reality is it will probably only be used in rectangle mode 3 or 4 times a year anyway. Int soccer, RU and maybe the odd SOO.

 

[BDGS]

I know some like to let you get away with it but don't act like a twat. Was only a question

But yes, Melbourne is a different beast, not only do we have two stadiums with higher capacities essentially built within the last 25 or so years, and in Etihads case - the last 15, there was also a contractual roadblock which limited the capacity of AAMI Park. If Perth also got a new AFL ground then yes that would be a different story. Any SOO or big finals could be sent there.

Given the population makeup, I would kinda hope Perth drew more than Melbourne anyway.

Excuse me?

How i was acting like a twat?

I asked a question in response to your question.

80% of this forum must be twats going by that logic. I think you went off at something that is not there.

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

Grandstand roof finally in place
BY MICHELLE WEBSTER
28 Jul, 2011 12:00 AM
Light rain drizzled down on WIN Stadium yesterday morning but workers installing seating in the impressive new western grandstand were dry as a bone.
After months of painstaking work, battling wet weather and frequent high winds, the final touches were put on the white roof of the $29 million grandstand.
The roof's completion marks the final major construction milestone for the stadium project.

More at:
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/...grandstand-roof-finally-in-place/2240390.aspx

 

[meltiger]

BDGS maybe I misread the tone of your post, if so I apologise.

The state Govt is determined to make the new AFL stadium multi purpose in order to attract international football and Rugby(sic) matches. The plan for that stadium is retractable stands to create a more rectangular stadium when needed with a capacity of around 60K. Having NIB at 25k for regular games and the new stadium with 60K for finals and internationals is their plan.

Thanks mate, so that's still planned?

We've discussed this before, but is it entirely being funded by the government over there, or are the AFL chipping in?

ie Will the stadium be managed free of AFL interference?

 

[whall15]

they reckon that this will be the best adaptable stadium in the world! Well it is going to cost close to $1.5billion by the time it is built so it had better be! WA Govt are keen to get a higher profile and International sport is a good way of doing it, AFL won't have the say in this stadium the way it does at Etihad. reality is it will probably only be used in rectangle mode 3 or 4 times a year anyway. Int soccer, RU and maybe the odd SOO.

Stade de France is quite good.