What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

More Melbourne stadium jitters

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
The Age said:
How do you fit more than 30,000 fans into a 20,000 capacity stadium?

Royce Millar and Michael Lynch
January 13, 2007

PLANNING for Melbourne's proposed new rectangular sports stadium is in disarray, with the State Government in a quandary over seating capacity, budget blow-outs and threats of compensation claims by rival venue Telstra Dome.

Well-placed sources have confirmed that the new home for A-League soccer club Melbourne Victory and National Rugby League side Melbourne Storm was close to being scrapped by the Government late last year and does not have the support of senior cabinet members.

Construction giant Grocon yesterday said it believed a Government review of the size and budget of the multimillion-dollar project had put it on hold.

In April, Premier Steve Bracks revealed a scheme by Cox Architects to build a 20,000-seat, $190 million stadium at Edwin Flack field, next to Olympic Park. Builders Grocon, Baulderstone Hornibrook, Abi Group and Leighton were invited to bid.

But now the Government is under intense pressure to increase capacity because of Victory's success and popularity. The club has dominated the A-League and has attracted average crowds of 30,000 in the seven matches it has played at Telstra Dome since quitting the smaller Olympic Park earlier this season.

This week the Government wrote to the bidders flagging an increase in the stadium size and budget.

In the letter, a Major Projects Victoria officer said the Government was "still finalising the overall capacity" that would "allow the final funding arrangements to be finalised". Under the tender deal, a contract was to be let by March 1 and construction finished in 2009. But the letter acknowledges there will be a "delay" in moving to the next stage of the tender process.

Victory has told the Government that a 20,000-seat stadium would be obsolete before it was built, and an embarrassment.

It has not yet signed a deal with the Government to make the new stadium its home and is being hotly courted by Telstra Dome.

The team will play its home matches at Telstra Dome until the end of the 2008-09 season.

Despite the Government brief seeking bids on a stadium with a capacity of 20,000, at least two of the builders have proposed 30,000-seat schemes.

Victory is believed to want a minimum capacity of at least 30,000, which would allow it to play most games at the new venue but move blockbusters to the larger Telstra Dome.

Worsening the predicament is a deal the Government struck with Telstra Dome during the early planning for the Docklands venue. Telstra Dome can seek compensation if the Government opens a stadium of 25,000 or more seats within 10 years of its opening in 2000.

The new stadium's future is looking increasingly uncertain, with senior Government, sporting and building industry sources agreeing that Spring Street is "in a pickle".

"They've painted themselves into a fine old corner," one development source said.

A Government insider confirmed that a seating capacity of 27,750 could be accommodated in the existing Cox design. But greater size would require a total redesign and create a huge cost blow-out.

The project, believed to have been initially costed at $80 million and last year officially at $190 million, is now believed to be edging towards $250 million.
Sources say bureaucrats working on the project have gone back to the Government, seeking more money to cover an expansion.

"Obviously, if we build more seats more money will be required, yes," a senior Government source said.

Without Victory, which would play a minimum of 10 home A-League matches a season plus high-profile Asian Champions League matches, the project looks doomed.

Government, building industry and sporting sources agree it is highly unlikely the Government would spend so much money for a stadium for rugby league games attracting an average crowd of about 10,500.

Grocon spokeswoman Jane Wilson the company looked forward to the Government resolving its capacity and financial issues soon.

Government spokesman Licardo Prince said Melbourne Victory's success had affected crowd numbers. He said the Government was discussing capacity issues with tenderers but remained committed to a 20,000-seat stadium, with scope to expand to 25,000.

Telstra Dome chief Ian Collins declined to comment.

Some sports industry observers believe the simplest solution would be to spend a much smaller sum refurbishing Olympic Park for Melbourne Storm and other tenants. Soccer could be catered for through the construction of a 40,000-plus stadium elsewhere that could also host Socceroo matches against high-profile opponents.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/soccer/new-city-stadium-in-doubt/2007/01/12/1168105180621.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Leigh
 

mark123

Juniors
Messages
828
Its interesting isnt it.

Whod have guessed.

Another case of beuracratic red tape getting in the way of what should be done.

Same old situation. Men protecting their dollar. As if it were in line with the amount of pussy they pull in bed.
 

aarondoyle

Juniors
Messages
1,008
Dammit!!!

I hope to hell Melbourne gets it's rectangular stadium. I think the Melbourne Storm crowds will double with a proper stadium, but I don't like their chances of surviving without one.
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
Totally agree. Olympic Park is the weight around their neck that could ultimately sink the Storm. A modern purpose built rectangular ground is vital to their long term growth prospects and chances of financial independence from the News Ltd crutch.

Leigh.
 

meltiger

First Grade
Messages
6,268
PLANNING for Melbourne's proposed new rectangular sports stadium is in disarray, with the State Government in a quandary over seating capacity, budget blow-outs and threats of compensation claims by rival venue Telstra Dome.

Gee, real suprise there :roll: *Cough* 80 million dollar rail improvement that blew out to more than a billion *Cough*

Well-placed sources have confirmed that the new home for A-League soccer club Melbourne Victory and National Rugby League side Melbourne Storm was close to being scrapped by the Government late last year and does not have the support of senior cabinet members.

Why? On what possible basis could this stupid government be against the new stadium?

I wonder if anyone has been in Justin Madden's (Sports minister, ex-AFL player) ear ...

But now the Government is under intense pressure to increase capacity

Should have been designed for 30,000 from the word go. Besides the Victory, 20,000 really doesn't allow the Storm to grow their crowds significantly.


In the letter, a Major Projects Victoria officer said the Government was "still finalising the overall capacity" that would "allow the final funding arrangements to be finalised". Under the tender deal, a contract was to be let by March 1 and construction finished in 2009. But the letter acknowledges there will be a "delay" in moving to the next stage of the tender process.

Would be interesting to know if the 'delay' is due to changing priorities on capacity, or Bracks and his cronies not wanting to build it at all.

Victory has told the Government that a 20,000-seat stadium would be obsolete before it was built, and an embarrassment.

They are 100% right. If the stadium is built to 20,000, then MVFC will still play most of their games at Spencer Street.

Despite the Government brief seeking bids on a stadium with a capacity of 20,000, at least two of the builders have proposed 30,000-seat schemes.

Worsening the predicament is a deal the Government struck with Telstra Dome during the early planning for the Docklands venue. Telstra Dome can seek compensation if the Government opens a stadium of 25,000 or more seats within 10 years of its opening in 2000.

During early planning? Very shortsighted on behalf of the Kennett government if this is the case. Although, if any Victorian forum members remember the history of the stadium, it was originally not meant to be so big (capacity), and was meant to be rectangular, until the AFL stepped in offering funding for an increased capacity, oval stadium. This clause could have been related to the original stadium just wasn't removed when the plans changed.

In either case, it's not helpful obviously.

The project, believed to have been initially costed at $80 million and last year officially at $190 million, is now believed to be edging towards $250 million.

LMAO. 80 million must be the favourite guestimation number of the Bracks Government :roll: No suprise it's already trebled in cost even before a single slab of concrete has been laid.

Without Victory, which would play a minimum of 10 home A-League matches a season plus high-profile Asian Champions League matches, the project looks doomed.

& so it shouldn't. Spending THAT much money only on the Storm would be a criminal waste of money.

Government spokesman Licardo Prince said Melbourne Victory's success had affected crowd numbers. He said the Government was discussing capacity issues with tenderers but remained committed to a 20,000-seat stadium, with scope to expand to 25,000.

This is all spin, hard to beleive a word of this.

Some sports industry observers believe the simplest solution would be to spend a much smaller sum refurbishing Olympic Park for Melbourne Storm and other tenants. Soccer could be catered for through the construction of a 40,000-plus stadium elsewhere that could also host Socceroo matches against high-profile opponents.

So we waste money refurbishing Olympic Park, only to build a 40,000 seat rectangular stadium for soccer that the Storm would move into anyway? How stupid is this?


They just need to get all parties together, and #a - Work out if the Storm & Victory are happy to play in their respective locations through to the end of the 2009 season - Then once the 10 year agreement with Telstra Dome is up, open a new 30,000-35,000 seat stadium and #b - Commit to building a modern stadium for the growing number of us Victorian's who support rectangular games.
 

aarondoyle

Juniors
Messages
1,008
Anyone know the premiers number? Email address? Post office box? Give it to the soccer fans and league fans and let them fill he inbox with protest.
 

LESStar58

Referee
Messages
25,496
I don't think they should automatically up the capacity just beacuse the Victory, in one stellar season in only a 2nd year of competition, have astronomical crowd numbers. The mob is fickle. Look what happened to the Storm crowds. Victory play in summer anyway. Let them use OP for what games interlap with the AFL fixture then if Telstra Dome want the Victory permanently then fair play to them!
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
But the point is that it's not really viable for the Victorian government to fund a $80m+ ground for only 13-16 events per year. That's why it needs the Victory.

Leigh.
 
Messages
21,880
Quidgybo said:
But the point is that it's not really viable for the Victorian government to fund a $80m+ ground for only 13-16 events per year. That's why it needs the Victory.

Leigh.

i dont think 80 million is outrageous for just the storm , but when your talking more than 200 million it is.Also the melbounre club rugby union team will use the venue for 5 or so games.

The NRL need to be leaning their weight ( if they have any) on the victorian government, i thought there was some sort of trade off in place to play the rep games down there so the stadium would be built!?

if this or another new ( cheaper ) stadium doesnt go ahead i really fear for the future of the storm.
 
Messages
10,949
mark123 said:
Its interesting isnt it.

Whod have guessed.

Another case of beuracratic red tape getting in the way of what should be done.

Same old situation. Men protecting their dollar. As if it were in line with the amount of pussy they pull in bed.
Most Storm supporters knew it wouldn't go to plan. :(
 

LESStar58

Referee
Messages
25,496
Then what does it mean for our future?

As recently as 05 they were still unsure wether or not to persist with us...if the stadium doesn't go ahead we are in all kinds of trouble!
 

LESStar58

Referee
Messages
25,496
Guess the other option is to build a 24K seat stadium and stay within the limits imposed by the TD wankers!
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
68,858
I reckon they should go back to the drawing board and build a 30,000 stadium for opening in 2010. Financially compensate the Storm for the delay thus allowing them to play at Telstra Dome until the new ground is ready. Dome are happy as they get an extra tennant for 3 years, Soccers happy as they get their bigger ground, Storm are happy as they get to play in a modern stadium. 6 months isn't long to wait to get a 30 year+ lifespan of a stadium evryone is happy with. It will also put Melbourne in a very strong position for the next expansion of Super 14.

Don't know how it could cost so much to build when the KC stadium in Hull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC_Stadium which was opened a couple of years ago cost only $100million and is 25,500 capacity. What are they making it out of?
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
herbert henry1908 said:
i dont think 80 million is outrageous for just the storm
And in a RL state it might not be. But to the average Victorian taxpayer this would be more akin to the QLD government spending $80m on the Brisbane Bullets than on the NQ Cowboys.

Also the melbounre club rugby union team will use the venue for 5 or so games.
4 home games on top of the Storm's 12 (each drawing well under half the crowd of a Storm game). Hence why I said 16 events (ie. the Stadium would only be in full use 16 days per year). That said, Austadium's are tossing around speculation that the RU team might actually play out of Princes Park...

Leigh.
 
Messages
3,877
LESStar58 said:
Guess the other option is to build a 24K seat stadium and stay within the limits imposed by the TD wankers!

They're hardly wankers for wanting to protect their investment through the terms of their agreement with the government.
 

Dr Crane

Live Update Team
Messages
19,531
IMO Unless the Dome is willing to move the seats forward at a reasonable cost until the capacity 'embargo' runs out then a rectangular field stadium should be allowed to be built regardless of capacity rules.

As in, if the Dome is unwilling to be a rectangular stadium they forfeit their agreement. That should have been in the agreement in the first place anyway.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
68,858
Think it is more a cost issue than an unwillingness. Hence why I suggested the Govt chipping in with costs to allow the Storm play at TD (with stands extended) until 2010 when the new stadium can open.
 

cyberdj

Juniors
Messages
95
When Storm were based at TD, crowds dropped, the place was like a ghost town and the atmosphere that we get at OP was sorely missing. If Storm were silly enough to go back to TD they will count the costs... I'd prefer to watch the game on TV then go to TD to watch Storm beat the competition, and the group of 20 odd ppl I go to each game with, are of the same opinion, we went to two games at TD and never returned, till they went back to OP.

Why not just built the new stadium with 24,999 seats, and have a number of empty rows that can have seats installed in 2010?
 

meltiger

First Grade
Messages
6,268
Perth Red said:
to allow the Storm play at TD (with stands extended) until 2010 when the new stadium can open.


Will never happen during the AFL season.


Channel 7/AFL will never give the Storm that kind of leg up.


That's who the Stadium Management are answerable to, not the government.


TD should NOT be an option for the Storm, the best thing they ever did was move back to OP after the disasterous experiment last time around.
 

meltiger

First Grade
Messages
6,268
Perth Red said:
Think it is more a cost issue than an unwillingness.

I don't agree.

Mentioned this article to someone last night, and the first thing they said was 'I wonder what the AFL's been saying to them'

The Sports Minister is 110% certain to be a prime mover in cabinet being anti-stadium.
 
Top