|
jatz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 361,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong
|
|
|
|
|
jatz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 361,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
.
|
|
|
|
libel
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x6020 for Western United v CCM, even with free tickets thats all they get, another disappointing number conveniently just over 6k...
|
|
|
|
libel
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Only 10k at bankwest, wanderers lowest at their shiny new stadium...
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
. You’ve cited a bunch of re-badged training stadiums that already include the land, cant host nighttime professional matches, don’t have corporate facilities, proper media facilities etc.
Whereas if you look at the 2 stadiums actually used for HAL matches, the $10k per seat rule is almost bang on.
AAMI Park - 30k seats, $280M
BankWest - 30m seats, $300M
But this is all bullshit anyway. Cos even if clubs could build a boutique stadium for $100M, who has that kind of money to throw away?!!!
|
|
|
|
|
elksy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 300,
Visits: 0
|
+xOnly 10k at bankwest, wanderers lowest at their shiny new stadium... Worse 9,090. The league average now sits at just 10,079, it was around 10,200 before the round. Another poor week of crowds and it will be down into four digits.
|
|
|
|
|
Etihad Octopus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 56,
Visits: 0
|
9,000 for the Wanderers is shocking.
Not even close to being the biggest club in the league.
What are they going to do if they’re still losing games when Macarthur come in?
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 611,
Visits: 0
|
The reason for low WSW crowds is simple - Yeboah and Kamau.
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 611,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe reason for low WSW crowds is simple - Yeboah and Kamau. I'm not fair to Kamau. He should be playing wing not fullback.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
. You’ve cited a bunch of re-badged training stadiums that already include the land, cant host nighttime professional matches, don’t have corporate facilities, proper media facilities etc.
Whereas if you look at the 2 stadiums actually used for HAL matches, the $10k per seat rule is almost bang on.
AAMI Park - 30k seats, $280M
BankWest - 30m seats, $300M
But this is all bullshit anyway. Cos even if clubs could build a boutique stadium for $100M, who has that kind of money to throw away?!!!
YOu can probably reduce the costs subdstantially if you keep grass banks
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Attendances for last round:
Adl v MVC - 11,412
Bri v Well - 9,987
MCY v New - 6,857
WUD v CCM - 6,020
WSW v Per - 10,994
Aggregate of around 45k
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
. You’ve cited a bunch of re-badged training stadiums that already include the land, cant host nighttime professional matches, don’t have corporate facilities, proper media facilities etc.
Whereas if you look at the 2 stadiums actually used for HAL matches, the $10k per seat rule is almost bang on.
AAMI Park - 30k seats, $280M
BankWest - 30m seats, $300M
But this is all bullshit anyway. Cos even if clubs could build a boutique stadium for $100M, who has that kind of money to throw away?!!!
YOu can probably reduce the costs subdstantially if you keep grass banks The cost of building stadia in Australia will always be high. We have a limited amount of stadia being built, with a limited amount of builders doing that type of work. The firms doing that work need to aim for high profit margins.
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
. You’ve cited a bunch of re-badged training stadiums that already include the land, cant host nighttime professional matches, don’t have corporate facilities, proper media facilities etc.
Whereas if you look at the 2 stadiums actually used for HAL matches, the $10k per seat rule is almost bang on.
AAMI Park - 30k seats, $280M
BankWest - 30m seats, $300M
But this is all bullshit anyway. Cos even if clubs could build a boutique stadium for $100M, who has that kind of money to throw away?!!!
YOu can probably reduce the costs subdstantially if you keep grass banks Maybe, but in nanny-state oztralia I would doubt whether it would get approval. But even still - for a 15k stadium (with 5k of seating removed for grass banks), youre still looking at $100M MINIMUM. Tell me which club has that sort of money? NONE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
. You’ve cited a bunch of re-badged training stadiums that already include the land, cant host nighttime professional matches, don’t have corporate facilities, proper media facilities etc.
Whereas if you look at the 2 stadiums actually used for HAL matches, the $10k per seat rule is almost bang on.
AAMI Park - 30k seats, $280M
BankWest - 30m seats, $300M
But this is all bullshit anyway. Cos even if clubs could build a boutique stadium for $100M, who has that kind of money to throw away?!!!
YOu can probably reduce the costs subdstantially if you keep grass banks Maybe, but in nanny-state oztralia I would doubt whether it would get approval. But even still - for a 15k stadium (with 5k of seating removed for grass banks), youre still looking at $100M MINIMUM. Tell me which club has that sort of money? NONE!!! http://www.footyindustry.com/?p=4244We need more support from governments. FFA and State federations need to push harder for more funding for the big projects and State and Federal governments need to realise the potential for growth of football. Imagine a 15-25k stadium in the central area of each capital city, each stadium having two teams (A league or second division) as tenants. PS. 10k in a 30k stadia works just fine and looks alright to me. Also, if we want better stadia, take a look at Exploria stadium the home of Orlando City SC in MLS. I just watched a couple of matches in the Florida Cup (Atletico Nacional and Palmeiras were playing). they only had maybe 6-9k and the noise was immense. The design of the stadium amplified the noise, and the commentators kept on going on about it. (ie. low level of field surface, steep rake of stands, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
thekingmb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Well put. As you say, plenty of evidence there. The football, as you note, is only part of the equation. We should be aiming to fill these stadiums, why put a cap on attendance/potential growth? Clubs aren't doing enough to increase attendances atm. Its the same with all sports across this country. Roosters get 10k in 50k stadium Bulldogs get 10k in 80k stadium Rabbits get 10k in 80k stadium Demons get 20k in 100k stadium St Kilda get 20k in 50k stadium GWS get 5k in 25k stadium
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
. You’ve cited a bunch of re-badged training stadiums that already include the land, cant host nighttime professional matches, don’t have corporate facilities, proper media facilities etc.
Whereas if you look at the 2 stadiums actually used for HAL matches, the $10k per seat rule is almost bang on.
AAMI Park - 30k seats, $280M
BankWest - 30m seats, $300M
But this is all bullshit anyway. Cos even if clubs could build a boutique stadium for $100M, who has that kind of money to throw away?!!! Robina Stadium on the Gold Coast with 27.4k seats was built in 2006 for $160m, a less gold-plated design like theirs would be a good place to start.
|
|
|
|
|
CS
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 913,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Well put. As you say, plenty of evidence there. The football, as you note, is only part of the equation. We should be aiming to fill these stadiums, why put a cap on attendance/potential growth? Clubs aren't doing enough to increase attendances atm. Its the same with all sports across this country. Roosters get 10k in 50k stadium Bulldogs get 10k in 80k stadium Rabbits get 10k in 80k stadium Demons get 20k in 100k stadium St Kilda get 20k in 50k stadium GWS get 5k in 25k stadium Just because AFL and NRL do it doesn't mean that it's a good strategy for football. This is exactly the kind of uncritical imitative thinking that led to one error after another wth the A League.
|
|
|
|
|
thekingmb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Well put. As you say, plenty of evidence there. The football, as you note, is only part of the equation. We should be aiming to fill these stadiums, why put a cap on attendance/potential growth? Clubs aren't doing enough to increase attendances atm. Its the same with all sports across this country. Roosters get 10k in 50k stadium Bulldogs get 10k in 80k stadium Rabbits get 10k in 80k stadium Demons get 20k in 100k stadium St Kilda get 20k in 50k stadium GWS get 5k in 25k stadium Just because AFL and NRL do it doesn't mean that it's a good strategy for football. This is exactly the kind of uncritical imitative thinking that led to one error after another wth the A League. Lets take Brisbane for example. Why would they limit themselves to 10k at Redcliffe? They are more than capable of averaging 20-25k at Suncorp if run properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Brisbanegossip
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 94,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Well put. As you say, plenty of evidence there. The football, as you note, is only part of the equation. We should be aiming to fill these stadiums, why put a cap on attendance/potential growth? Clubs aren't doing enough to increase attendances atm. Its the same with all sports across this country. Roosters get 10k in 50k stadium Bulldogs get 10k in 80k stadium Rabbits get 10k in 80k stadium Demons get 20k in 100k stadium St Kilda get 20k in 50k stadium GWS get 5k in 25k stadium Just because AFL and NRL do it doesn't mean that it's a good strategy for football. This is exactly the kind of uncritical imitative thinking that led to one error after another wth the A League. Lets take Brisbane for example. Why would they limit themselves to 10k at Redcliffe? They are more than capable of averaging 20-25k at Suncorp if run properly. A winning Brisbane roar team can easily average 15k plus. There was many games back in the day where Brisbane got 20-25k against the likes of Sydney FC and Victory. With the hype around Fowler, if they start building on this 4 game undefeated run, the crowds will come.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Well put. As you say, plenty of evidence there. The football, as you note, is only part of the equation. We should be aiming to fill these stadiums, why put a cap on attendance/potential growth? Clubs aren't doing enough to increase attendances atm. Its the same with all sports across this country. Roosters get 10k in 50k stadium Bulldogs get 10k in 80k stadium Rabbits get 10k in 80k stadium Demons get 20k in 100k stadium St Kilda get 20k in 50k stadium GWS get 5k in 25k stadium Western Bulldogs are going to upgrade Whitten Oval so they can play lower drawing AFL games there.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Well put. As you say, plenty of evidence there. The football, as you note, is only part of the equation. We should be aiming to fill these stadiums, why put a cap on attendance/potential growth? Clubs aren't doing enough to increase attendances atm. Its the same with all sports across this country. Roosters get 10k in 50k stadium Bulldogs get 10k in 80k stadium Rabbits get 10k in 80k stadium Demons get 20k in 100k stadium St Kilda get 20k in 50k stadium GWS get 5k in 25k stadium Just because AFL and NRL do it doesn't mean that it's a good strategy for football. This is exactly the kind of uncritical imitative thinking that led to one error after another wth the A League. Lets take Brisbane for example. Why would they limit themselves to 10k at Redcliffe? They are more than capable of averaging 20-25k at Suncorp if run properly. 20-25k means they need a 30k stadium for good atmosphere and visual impact.
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPeople, we come back to the issue all the time, and it is THE biggest issue negatively affecting the League - the stadiums. TV audiences tune in and see empty seats, row up on row. It kills the optics and it looks like no one cares. It is a huge tv audience issue and a major game day experience issue. To put it colloquially, as long as teams keep playing out of ludicrously oversized stadiums, the League is fucked. Spot on, there's loads of evidence out there that shows that atmosphere and attendance at games affects the viewers perception of how good a football match is - i.e. you play the exact same game of football in a 3/4 empty stadium and another in a sellout and people will perceive the sold-out match to be of higher quality. When you're trying to sell sport to people, you're not just selling the physical act of kicking a ball into a net. You're selling the whole experience, the atmosphere, the noise, the rivalries and the stories of the season. Playing in empty husks of stadiums absolutely kills all of this. Smaller more intimate venue = better atmosphere and better fan experience, attracting people to the game. Therefore, build boutique atmospheric stadiums. So, why hasn't it happened? Its a no brainer if you just look at it from a fan engagement point of view, however, this is like being in opposition in politics. Everything is simple, all solutions are obvious, all problems rectifiable, just so long as your not the one that has to do it. Bluebird raised valid points. Money, you have to have it, or you have to be able to get it, at a reasonable price. I suggest loans for Football stadiums not underwritten by the government would be seen as something of a risk, and therefore, somewhat expensive. If your crowd doesn't go up, you need to make more money per seat. You cannot invest that much money, and end up with the same income stream as before, thats how businesses go broke. Another great way for businesses to go broke, put a huge amount of money in, 'because its going to be such a great customer experience, everyone will love us, and come here and spend their money, we will make it back in no time', then they dont. Seen businesses doing this go broke in weeks, not months. Bottom line, improving the fan experience is no where near enough. The outlay demands improved cash flow and greater profit. The current climate is not conducive to people being willing to spend large amounts of money on betting that smaller stadiums can achieve this. KPMG reports average stadia development costs in Australia have averaged about $10 000 per seat, or $150 mill for a 15 000 seat stadium. Plus 2% annual maintenance costs, or $3 mill per annum. If the stadium is developed by a club, thats 15 games a year to pay off your debt and maintenance costs, before you start generating a profit. People arent talking 1 here either, most clubs play in unsuitable venues, so there needs to be a bunch. Lets assume 5. Thats $750 million that needs to be paid off, and $15 mill a year in maintenance. All this needs to come out of the pockets of fans. If all these stadia are full all the time, and they can sell off lots of external events and get co tenants, thats doable, but what if they arent? I am fully aware of why fans want better stadiums, and I strongly suspect all the clubs would love to have them, but I fully understand why the do not exist, and arent being planned. I doubt this changes very much for a long time. KPMG are wrong So why arent we drowning in boutique stadia. The two aren’t related.
KPMG do a lot of work in the Government space including no doubt infrastructure analysis - they tell the government what they want to hear.
And the AFL are building a 10,000 capacity stadium and CoE for $70m
So you can build a $330m stadium in Western Sydney or Townsville but you can also build way, way cheaper than that.
So your question is a good one. I’d modify it slightly and ask why isn’t football awash with boutique stadiums?
The HAL is understandable - Franks plan was big stadiums: NRL do it, Union dies it, Cricket does it ... when Roar tried to move from Suncorp to Ballymore a few years back Frank apparently persuaded them to stay.
But below that - why have Dolphins RL, QRU and AFLW all got boutique stadiums but no NPLQ have?
It’s not just the HAL missing out but NPL (and Div 2) that’s missing out.
. You’ve cited a bunch of re-badged training stadiums that already include the land, cant host nighttime professional matches, don’t have corporate facilities, proper media facilities etc.
Whereas if you look at the 2 stadiums actually used for HAL matches, the $10k per seat rule is almost bang on.
AAMI Park - 30k seats, $280M
BankWest - 30m seats, $300M
But this is all bullshit anyway. Cos even if clubs could build a boutique stadium for $100M, who has that kind of money to throw away?!!! Robina Stadium on the Gold Coast with 27.4k seats was built in 2006 for $160m, a less gold-plated design like theirs would be a good place to start. ok great. lets do it which club has $160M to spend?
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
The Brisbane Strikers had a botique stadium that would hold about 10,000 - 15,000 as part of their HAL proposal back in 2004. Cost was banded around at $18,000,000 to upgrade a very ordinary Perry Park.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe Brisbane Strikers had a botique stadium that would hold about 10,000 - 15,000 as part of their HAL proposal back in 2004. Cost was banded around at $18,000,000 to upgrade a very ordinary Perry Park. That was to develop two sides (the main stand and the YMCA end) and was meant to use the CJ Foundation money from memory. Still very achievable today .... meanwhile Dolphin Oval, Ballymore, and Springfield get the money
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe Brisbane Strikers had a botique stadium that would hold about 10,000 - 15,000 as part of their HAL proposal back in 2004. Cost was banded around at $18,000,000 to upgrade a very ordinary Perry Park. That was to develop two sides (the main stand and the YMCA end) and was meant to use the CJ Foundation money from memory. Still very achievable today .... meanwhile Dolphin Oval, Ballymore, and Springfield get the money @waz Is that Springfield proposal going ahead?
|
|
|
|
|
elksy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 300,
Visits: 0
|
Phoenix v Jets: 8.5k - Crowds growing, however not sure how well they can do for a friday
Victory v Sydney: 17k - Victory struggling, once again not sure how the friday night will affect
Mariners v Roar: 6.5k - Surely a decent boost due to the big win the other week
City v Perth: 8k - 2nd v 3rd clash, best time slot
Western v Adelaide: 7k - New home, a bit of marketing increased, might go for them
|
|
|
|
|
thekingmb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Phoenix v Jets: 8k - Standard for the nix when they are winning
Victory v Sydney: 20k - Considering what the derby got, 20k seems a stretch but i think it can
Mariners v Roar: 5.5k - Same old Mariners
City v Perth: 7k - 3 games in 3 days in Melbourne is just stupid
Western v Adelaide: 8k - Will try and get a high figure and justify permanent move away from Geelong
|
|
|
|
BullsFC
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 274,
Visits: 0
|
Nix v Jets - 9k
Victory v SFC - 12k
CCM v Roar - 5k
City v Glory - 6k
WU v AUFC - 5k
|
|
|
|