|
johnny come lately
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 531,
Visits: 0
|
Just heard Andrew Demetriou on Neil "I'm so outraged" Mitchell's program this morning and he was saying that the FFA want to make the MCG temporarily rectangular for the world cup. He was worried about the impact on the AFL season which is fair enough from his point of view. I haven't heard anything about this idea though - it sounds expensive but it would be awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I heard this on the radio this morning too. Sounds interesting to say the least.
Mind you, I don't think Demetriou and AFL House will be too disheartened once they see the cheque that's coming their way.
|
|
|
|
|
martyB
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
I heard from my year 8 science teacher that if you heat the MCG to the right temperature, you can actually reshape it.
Otherwise, what the hell? Are they going to put those $10 plastic chairs in the space between the pitch and stands?
|
|
|
|
|
johnny come lately
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 531,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skinner(C)
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 132,
Visits: 0
|
martyB wrote:I heard from my year 8 science teacher that if you heat the MCG to the right temperature, you can actually reshape it.
Otherwise, what the hell? Are they going to put those $10 plastic chairs in the space between the pitch and stands? No they're talking major re-developments up to $130M Edited by Skinner(C): 7/12/2009 09:29:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
johnny come lately wrote:Just heard Andrew Demetriou on Neil "I'm so outraged" Mitchell's program this morning and he was saying that the FFA want to make the MCG temporarily rectangular for the world cup. He was worried about the impact on the AFL season which is fair enough from his point of view. I haven't heard anything about this idea though - it sounds expensive but it would be awesome! There is an article about it in this mornings Herald Sun. Cost is stated as $130M. The problem with the MCG is that the infield is 25m wider than has ever been used for the World Cup before and is twice the area that football needs. Without this work it is problematical that FIFA would accept the MCG as a venue. In its current configuration the MCG only has about 20% of its capacity with the the maximum distance for optimal viewing of 90m from the centre of the pitch. It also has 15% of its capacity outside the maximum viewing distance of 190m from the furthest corner of the pitch. These parameters make the MCG at the bottom of the third rate stadiums for viewing football. The proposed temporary stands would do nothing for the large number of seats that are grouped around the maximum distance but they would make the stadium appear more like a football stadium. It would probably move it up to the top end of the 2nd rate stadiums in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
johnny come lately
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 531,
Visits: 0
|
Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Just heard Andrew Demetriou on Neil "I'm so outraged" Mitchell's program this morning and he was saying that the FFA want to make the MCG temporarily rectangular for the world cup. He was worried about the impact on the AFL season which is fair enough from his point of view. I haven't heard anything about this idea though - it sounds expensive but it would be awesome! There is an article about it in this mornings Herald Sun. Cost is stated as $130M. The problem with the MCG is that the infield is 25m wider than has ever been used for the World Cup before and is twice the area that football needs. Without this work it is problematical that FIFA would accept the MCG as a venue. In its current configuration the MCG only has about 20% of its capacity with the the maximum distance for optimal viewing of 90m from the centre of the pitch. It also has 15% of its capacity outside the maximum viewing distance of 190m from the furthest corner of the pitch. These parameters make the MCG at the bottom of the third rate stadiums for viewing football. The proposed temporary stands would do nothing for the large number of seats that are grouped around the maximum distance but they would make the stadium appear more like a football stadium. It would probably move it up to the top end of the 2nd rate stadiums in my opinion. This would have to mean that the FFA intends on playing the final at the MCG surely. As you say, it is not an ideal stadium to watch football in its current configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
Skinner(C)
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 132,
Visits: 0
|
Seems the AFL are starting to freak at what the world cup will mean to their season, and are pissed at the FFA for not disclosing what there plans are.
But i dont think anything is set in concrete yet, so the AFL need to chill, the world cup is a long way off yet
This will be another beat up, the story is gaining momentum up here as well
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
johnny come lately wrote:Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Just heard Andrew Demetriou on Neil "I'm so outraged" Mitchell's program this morning and he was saying that the FFA want to make the MCG temporarily rectangular for the world cup. He was worried about the impact on the AFL season which is fair enough from his point of view. I haven't heard anything about this idea though - it sounds expensive but it would be awesome! There is an article about it in this mornings Herald Sun. Cost is stated as $130M. The problem with the MCG is that the infield is 25m wider than has ever been used for the World Cup before and is twice the area that football needs. Without this work it is problematical that FIFA would accept the MCG as a venue. In its current configuration the MCG only has about 20% of its capacity with the the maximum distance for optimal viewing of 90m from the centre of the pitch. It also has 15% of its capacity outside the maximum viewing distance of 190m from the furthest corner of the pitch. These parameters make the MCG at the bottom of the third rate stadiums for viewing football. The proposed temporary stands would do nothing for the large number of seats that are grouped around the maximum distance but they would make the stadium appear more like a football stadium. It would probably move it up to the top end of the 2nd rate stadiums in my opinion. This would have to mean that the FFA intends on playing the final at the MCG surely. As you say, it is not an ideal stadium to watch football in its current configuration. As the venues stand at the moment ANZ is clearly the superior stadium for football but it too is a compromise. If the MCG can be made the equal of ANZ for watching football by the inclusion of temporary stands and retain its superior capacity then it moves above ANZ as the best venue football wise. Melbourne is still a way behind Sydney for recognition internationally and FIFA also take things like that into account. We need to remember that FIFA decide where the Final will be held not the Host Nation. This may be a move by the FFA to get a better venue but with the fall back position that if the Vic Government, MCG Trust, AFL and Cricket reject it then they have a ready made reason for the Final being in Sydney and leaving the MCG for the AFL.
|
|
|
|
|
damian_rose
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 20,
Visits: 0
|
Afl must pull there head in you now we are big and the afl is a p!@s ant of a game!
|
|
|
|
|
martyB
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Or we could build a football specific, rectangular stadium in Melbourne that could be upgraded to World Cup standard...
...or not. :oops:
Why don't they knock down the MCG and rebuild it (a la Wembley Stadium) with reconfigurable stands? Of course, the MCC would never agee.
|
|
|
|
|
johnny come lately
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 531,
Visits: 0
|
Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Just heard Andrew Demetriou on Neil "I'm so outraged" Mitchell's program this morning and he was saying that the FFA want to make the MCG temporarily rectangular for the world cup. He was worried about the impact on the AFL season which is fair enough from his point of view. I haven't heard anything about this idea though - it sounds expensive but it would be awesome! There is an article about it in this mornings Herald Sun. Cost is stated as $130M. The problem with the MCG is that the infield is 25m wider than has ever been used for the World Cup before and is twice the area that football needs. Without this work it is problematical that FIFA would accept the MCG as a venue. In its current configuration the MCG only has about 20% of its capacity with the the maximum distance for optimal viewing of 90m from the centre of the pitch. It also has 15% of its capacity outside the maximum viewing distance of 190m from the furthest corner of the pitch. These parameters make the MCG at the bottom of the third rate stadiums for viewing football. The proposed temporary stands would do nothing for the large number of seats that are grouped around the maximum distance but they would make the stadium appear more like a football stadium. It would probably move it up to the top end of the 2nd rate stadiums in my opinion. This would have to mean that the FFA intends on playing the final at the MCG surely. As you say, it is not an ideal stadium to watch football in its current configuration. As the venues stand at the moment ANZ is clearly the superior stadium for football but it too is a compromise. If the MCG can be made the equal of ANZ for watching football by the inclusion of temporary stands and retain its superior capacity then it moves above ANZ as the best venue football wise. Melbourne is still a way behind Sydney for recognition internationally and FIFA also take things like that into account. We need to remember that FIFA decide where the Final will be held not the Host Nation. This may be a move by the FFA to get a better venue but with the fall back position that if the Vic Government, MCG Trust, AFL and Cricket reject it then they have a ready made reason for the Final being in Sydney and leaving the MCG for the AFL. How is ANZ better for football - is the ground smaller?
|
|
|
|
|
aussie_arsenal
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
So let me get this straight..
The AFL want full control of the Adelaide Oval
They make the MCG have a drop-in pitch every summer
But yet, they won't let us change the field for 1 f**king month.
What a bunch of hypocrites
|
|
|
|
|
imonfourfourtwo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
This would be a major blow to the AFL season if this were to occur. The MCG would be out of use for 3-5 months while the temporary stands r built. The AFL is steeped in tradition and this will be a massive adjustment for them. The should scrap the season for a year. No one will care about the AFL when the world cup is on, no one even cared in 2006. The AFL will have to succumb to the federal government.
This is the most comedic debate on the web. Everyone should go to the forums on bigfooty.com its about half and half. There are some complete dickheads on there (just like on here, lol. If you want a good laugh go to bigfooty.com
Australia 2018 or 2022!!! Come Play!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
johnny come lately wrote:Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Just heard Andrew Demetriou on Neil "I'm so outraged" Mitchell's program this morning and he was saying that the FFA want to make the MCG temporarily rectangular for the world cup. He was worried about the impact on the AFL season which is fair enough from his point of view. I haven't heard anything about this idea though - it sounds expensive but it would be awesome! There is an article about it in this mornings Herald Sun. Cost is stated as $130M. The problem with the MCG is that the infield is 25m wider than has ever been used for the World Cup before and is twice the area that football needs. Without this work it is problematical that FIFA would accept the MCG as a venue. In its current configuration the MCG only has about 20% of its capacity with the the maximum distance for optimal viewing of 90m from the centre of the pitch. It also has 15% of its capacity outside the maximum viewing distance of 190m from the furthest corner of the pitch. These parameters make the MCG at the bottom of the third rate stadiums for viewing football. The proposed temporary stands would do nothing for the large number of seats that are grouped around the maximum distance but they would make the stadium appear more like a football stadium. It would probably move it up to the top end of the 2nd rate stadiums in my opinion. This would have to mean that the FFA intends on playing the final at the MCG surely. As you say, it is not an ideal stadium to watch football in its current configuration. As the venues stand at the moment ANZ is clearly the superior stadium for football but it too is a compromise. If the MCG can be made the equal of ANZ for watching football by the inclusion of temporary stands and retain its superior capacity then it moves above ANZ as the best venue football wise. Melbourne is still a way behind Sydney for recognition internationally and FIFA also take things like that into account. We need to remember that FIFA decide where the Final will be held not the Host Nation. This may be a move by the FFA to get a better venue but with the fall back position that if the Vic Government, MCG Trust, AFL and Cricket reject it then they have a ready made reason for the Final being in Sydney and leaving the MCG for the AFL. How is ANZ better for football - is the ground smaller? The retractable stands along the side bring the bottom bowl forward to about 10m from the side of the pitch which is only 1.5m more than FIFA say is the minimum. The MCG is 149m across so the first row of seating at halfway is 40.5m away from the edge of the pitch. That is 30.5m further away than the equivalent seat at ANZ. The furthest away seat along the side at ANZ is the same distance as the MCG but is more elevated. What these things combined mean is that every seat on the sides at ANZ is between 30.5 and 0m closer to the pitch than at the MCG and every seat in ANZ also has a better view than its equivalent because of the greater elevation. Another factor that is important for viewing football is the distribution of the seating around the ground. A ground designed for football should ideally have the majority of the seats centred around the centreline of the pitch with another concentration behind the goals at each end. Seating in the corners has the worst view and should be kept to a minimum. This is best achieved by putting 4 half moon shaped stands (in plan) on each of the 4 sides of the pitch. ANZ follows this general format by having a rectangular pitch situated within a circular plan set of stands. The MCG being an oval within an oval set of stands results in an equal distribution of seats around the ground and puts as many seats in the corners as at the ends and sides. There is a set of figures in a book called "Stadia - A design and development guide" that show the best layouts for different sports. Football is Figure 11.2 (a) and and AFL is Figure 11.2 (f) on page 145. It can be viewed on this link http://www.scribd.com/doc/13320073/Stadia-A-Design-and-Development-GuideAnother issue with the MCG at the moment is the flat rake of the bottom bowl which provides relatively poor viewing for spectators. Hopefully the temporary seating will overcome this deficiency. Hope that all helps.
|
|
|
|
|
loki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.4K,
Visits: 0
|
The sabre rattling over this is hilarious. Why on earth couldn't they just use Etihad while the G is being updated and get Princes Park up and running for the smaller games?
If they can't organise that in the DECADE that they've got to sort it out then there really is no hope for the morons.
|
|
|
|
|
davidsomethingelse
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
No AFL for 1 year sounds to good to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
davidtorres wrote:No AFL for 1 year sounds to good to be true. Hah. Would be great.
|
|
|
|
|
johnny come lately
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 531,
Visits: 0
|
Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Gyfox wrote:johnny come lately wrote:Just heard Andrew Demetriou on Neil "I'm so outraged" Mitchell's program this morning and he was saying that the FFA want to make the MCG temporarily rectangular for the world cup. He was worried about the impact on the AFL season which is fair enough from his point of view. I haven't heard anything about this idea though - it sounds expensive but it would be awesome! There is an article about it in this mornings Herald Sun. Cost is stated as $130M. The problem with the MCG is that the infield is 25m wider than has ever been used for the World Cup before and is twice the area that football needs. Without this work it is problematical that FIFA would accept the MCG as a venue. In its current configuration the MCG only has about 20% of its capacity with the the maximum distance for optimal viewing of 90m from the centre of the pitch. It also has 15% of its capacity outside the maximum viewing distance of 190m from the furthest corner of the pitch. These parameters make the MCG at the bottom of the third rate stadiums for viewing football. The proposed temporary stands would do nothing for the large number of seats that are grouped around the maximum distance but they would make the stadium appear more like a football stadium. It would probably move it up to the top end of the 2nd rate stadiums in my opinion. This would have to mean that the FFA intends on playing the final at the MCG surely. As you say, it is not an ideal stadium to watch football in its current configuration. As the venues stand at the moment ANZ is clearly the superior stadium for football but it too is a compromise. If the MCG can be made the equal of ANZ for watching football by the inclusion of temporary stands and retain its superior capacity then it moves above ANZ as the best venue football wise. Melbourne is still a way behind Sydney for recognition internationally and FIFA also take things like that into account. We need to remember that FIFA decide where the Final will be held not the Host Nation. This may be a move by the FFA to get a better venue but with the fall back position that if the Vic Government, MCG Trust, AFL and Cricket reject it then they have a ready made reason for the Final being in Sydney and leaving the MCG for the AFL. How is ANZ better for football - is the ground smaller? The retractable stands along the side bring the bottom bowl forward to about 10m from the side of the pitch which is only 1.5m more than FIFA say is the minimum. The MCG is 149m across so the first row of seating at halfway is 40.5m away from the edge of the pitch. That is 30.5m further away than the equivalent seat at ANZ. The furthest away seat along the side at ANZ is the same distance as the MCG but is more elevated. What these things combined mean is that every seat on the sides at ANZ is between 30.5 and 0m closer to the pitch than at the MCG and every seat in ANZ also has a better view than its equivalent because of the greater elevation. Another factor that is important for viewing football is the distribution of the seating around the ground. A ground designed for football should ideally have the majority of the seats centred around the centreline of the pitch with another concentration behind the goals at each end. Seating in the corners has the worst view and should be kept to a minimum. This is best achieved by putting 4 half moon shaped stands (in plan) on each of the 4 sides of the pitch. ANZ follows this general format by having a rectangular pitch situated within a circular plan set of stands. The MCG being an oval within an oval set of stands results in an equal distribution of seats around the ground and puts as many seats in the corners as at the ends and sides. There is a set of figures in a book called "Stadia - A design and development guide" that show the best layouts for different sports. Football is Figure 11.2 (a) and and AFL is Figure 11.2 (f) on page 145. It can be viewed on this link http://www.scribd.com/doc/13320073/Stadia-A-Design-and-Development-GuideAnother issue with the MCG at the moment is the flat rake of the bottom bowl which provides relatively poor viewing for spectators. Hopefully the temporary seating will overcome this deficiency. Hope that all helps. Thanks Gyfox. So to clarify, does ANZ Stadium have retractable seating which can configure the ground into a rectangular shape already (like Etihad)?
|
|
|
|
|
imonfourfourtwo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Etihad Stadium is in limbo. No one has any offical word if it will be used or not, only rumours. Princess Park will have to be used, its a pity they just knocked down a stand though ruducing the capacity. I was there last week, they built a social clubroom and it looks great. When I was admiring it I got kicked off by Greg Inglis (no joke), the storm were just starting training. Its a good ground, be pretty funny if the FIFA wanted Brazil or someone based there to really screw em up.
The only grounds unable to be used are the MCG, Adelaide Oval, WA Stadium (hopefully) and Etihad Stadium (Potentially)
Possible AFL Venues during the world cup.
Princess Park
TEAC Oval
Windy Hill
Punt Rd Oval
Kardina Park
Eastern Oval (Ballarat) - Keven Sheedy and Nth Melbourne want this ground to be upgraded
Footy Park
Subiaco
York Park
Bellerive Oval
Carrara Stadium
Manuka Oval
The Gabba
The SCG
Cazaly's Stadium (Cairns)
Marrara Stadium (Darwin)
Blacktown Sports Centre
Alberton Oval
The Parade (Norwood)
Most of these grounds hold a small capacity - but if the AFL are desperate to keep the season going these ground will have to be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
davidsomethingelse
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
macktheknife wrote:davidtorres wrote:No AFL for 1 year sounds to good to be true. Hah. Would be great. It would be better than that. It would be FUCKING AWESOME!
|
|
|
|
|
yet another user name
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 949,
Visits: 0
|
Gyfox wrote:the infield is 25m wider than has ever been used for the World Cup before and is twice the area that football needs. There are no problems only opportunities. Play two WC matches at the MCG simultaneously. We'd be sure of good crowds and the WC could be over in three weeks instead of the current interminable four. No worries. Edited by Yet Another User Name: 7/12/2009 01:41:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
benoncehobbled
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 181,
Visits: 0
|
More info on this story here: http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=415here: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26450914-5018851,00.htmland here: http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/12/07/afl-season-in-doubt-if-world-cup-bid-successful/It's a predictable discussion - with all the AFL crackpots losing the plot . . . On a related note - I'm sure all are aware of the upgrades taking place to Carrara Stadium (Gold Coast) and Adelaide Oval. The proponents of those upgrades are sprouting them as possible World Cup venues. I don't often swear, but WTF? What kind of football legacy do they think such venues will provide? Who's going to watch football from 200 metres away? And what kind of crack-pot third tier sporting event do our leaders take the World Cup to be? Edited by benoncehobbled: 7/12/2009 04:35:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
johnny come lately wrote:[
Thanks Gyfox. So to clarify, does ANZ Stadium have retractable seating which can configure the ground into a rectangular shape already (like Etihad)?
It has them at the sides but not at the ends. The retractable stands come in much further than Etihad though.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6K,
Visits: 0
|
Skilled Park upgrade beats a Carrera upgrade
New Adeaide City stadium beats a grass hill at Adelaide oval
Etihad football beats MCG football, but a rectangle MCG is worth Lowy staying on this mortal coil for.
Save your breath - the Dec 11 funding proposal to FIFA will set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Federal govt provides;
New Adelaide stadium
New Canberra stadium
|
|
|
|
|
icoulddoitbetter
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
an mcg final would be a horrible idea ..from the perspective of paying supporters, that is.. they should include binoculars with the ticket price
|
|
|
|
|
icoulddoitbetter
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
I'd rather them withdraw from the bidding process.. and have another ty in 20 years than suggest we play in all these round venues. Let's hope the FFA know what they're doing!
|
|
|
|
|
SMFC and proud
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
From what I can gather, not one purpose built football stadium will be built anywhere in Australia if we get the WC. Only upgrades, reconfigurations etc of existing AFL/NRL stadiums or stadiums that will ultimately end up as AFL/cricket venues.
Who is the FFA/fed govt trying to kid here?
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
SMFC and proud wrote:From what I can gather, not one purpose built football stadium will be built anywhere in Australia if we get the WC. Only upgrades, reconfigurations etc of existing AFL/NRL stadiums or stadiums that will ultimately end up as AFL/cricket venues.
Who is the FFA/fed govt trying to kid here?
Perth's new stadium plan to disagree
|
|
|
|
|
danieljames
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 450,
Visits: 0
|
icoulddoitbetter wrote:an mcg final would be a horrible idea ..from the perspective of paying supporters, that is.. they should include binoculars with the ticket price i wonder if you have ever been to the MCG to watch a football game... in case you havent here are photos taken from the back on the top level.... IMO not as bad as everyone makes it out to be....  
|
|
|
|