Yep, that pretty much sums up my thoughts. If we play another World Cup standard country, then I'd be interested. Anyone else and I'd probably give it a miss.
Same for me. Not that it isn't worth going for these and more sporting events.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Yep, that pretty much sums up my thoughts. If we play another World Cup standard country, then I'd be interested. Anyone else and I'd probably give it a miss.
Port doesn't sell out the mediocre games at the moment (Lions, Freo) even though they are flying, but easily sell out the blockbusters, so perfect size for them. Crows could probably use a few more seats, but its not essential just yet.does anybody think that the capacity should of been made more e.g. 60,000 ??
I think there was too much comparing with crowds at Aami...Now that football is in the city people actually want to go. It is hard to get a ticket...good luck during finals etc
ANd i know people are going to say the novelty will wear off... truth is i don't think it will. i believe football in the city is bringing people to the game who normally would never of gone...thus bigger crowds therefore capacity should be more IMO.
does anybody think that the capacity should of been made more e.g. 60,000 ??
I think there was too much comparing with crowds at Aami...Now that football is in the city people actually want to go. It is hard to get a ticket...good luck during finals etc
ANd i know people are going to say the novelty will wear off... truth is i don't think it will. i believe football in the city is bringing people to the game who normally would never of gone...thus bigger crowds therefore capacity should be more IMO.
Well, besides FedEx Field (85k in Washington)People have been saying this on the Port board and I have copied my thoughts from there.
Adelaide will never need a stadium bigger than what we have now. We'll never get the Grand Final, so who gives a shit? As the WA teams have shown, keeping up demand for tickets and then selling them at a premium is the way to go. In the NFL the biggest stadium over there holds 82,000 and that's in New York. Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears, in a city of 10 million only holds 63,000. They only play 8 home games a year too. Adelaide does not need a stadium bigger than the current Adelaide Oval.
Not quite. I believe the western stand holds 14k and the eastern stand holds 17k.Actually, Redeveloping the Western Stand to be equal of the Eastern could just about push 60k.
Though, that doesn't become economically logical for another 10-15 years MINIMUM (Probably 20-30 realistically)
Well, besides FedEx Field (85k in Washington)
Having said that, your reasoning is sound.
Teams in the NFL like smaller capacity stadiums for 2 reasons. Sell seats at a premium, more room for corporates (though, you could argue they're one in the same)
In fact, alot of the new stadiums being built for franchises recently are going for that 65-70k range despite there being much more demand. They want to exploit demand and reap in the money.
Minnesota Vikings, they're building a new stadium, but it only has about 600 more seats than their old stadium. (going to 65k)
Atlanta Falcons, they're building a new stadium and losing 6k seats (going to 65k)
Colts just built a new stadium, went to 62k (up from 55k)
Giants/Jets only added 2k to their stadium.
49ers lost 1k with theirs.
The Eastern Stand holds 19,000. If you redeveloped the Western Stand to be equal of that, the capacity would be approx. 58,500, so nearly 60,000. If you could get 60,000 without touching the hill, it's well worth it.Not quite. I believe the western stand holds 14k and the eastern stand holds 17k.
The Eastern Stand holds 19,000. If you redeveloped the Western Stand to be equal of that, the capacity would be approx. 58,500, so nearly 60,000. If you could get 60,000 without touching the hill, it's well worth it.
The college stadiums hold many people, but they are not in the same sort of class as the pro stadiums in the USA or even the AFL grounds here.There's at least 5 teams in college football (Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Alabama and Texas) who all play in 100k seat stadiums. Michigan keep adding slightly more and more each season, I think they have a capacity of about 112k atm.
But colleges don't have the expenses of the NFL, while a lot of these schools still get the huge income from tv rights. So forcing huge profits from corporate facilities isn't a necessity.
The college stadiums hold many people, but they are not in the same sort of class as the pro stadiums in the USA or even the AFL grounds here.
They don't have seats per se but aluminium benches with no backs generally and are not anywhere near the same standard back of house
Seats at metlife in ny.
"Seats" at penn state
& people attend these stadiums, lots of people/lots of times - is the demand for better stadiums downunder driven by theatre goers or footy fans?
Better stadiums cost more money & footy is one product that can draw crowds. see the Adelaide Oval experience:
Demetriou admitted to Fairfax Media that he had some sympathy with the disenchantment being harboured by Adelaide and Port Adelaide with their bright new home at the Adelaide Oval.
Advertisement
Despite record crowds and - for Port Adelaide - an unprecedented membership high of 53,000, both clubs have been shocked at their poor financial returns from the stadium. Port Adelaide hosted the sold-out Showdown in round two and received a $35,000 cheque as its match-day profit. The Crows are still waiting for the breakdown of their first home game, again Sydney in round three.
Both clubs are blaming exorbitant costs placed on them by the Stadium Management Authority. Port was charged $18,000 for match-day traffic management, whereas the MCG charges clubs $1000 for the same service. Port and the Crows also fear the AFL signed away key stadium rights in its zeal to get the deal done.
Read more: [URL='http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stadium-issues-rile-afl-clubs-20140523-38uft.html#ixzz32aU5KEgz[/QUOTE']http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stadium-issues-rile-afl-clubs-20140523-38uft.html#ixzz32aU5KEgz[/URL]
& people attend these stadiums, lots of people/lots of times - is the demand for better stadiums downunder driven by theatre goers or footy fans?
the big college stadiums host a grand total of
6 (SIX) games a year. not lots, not 11, not 22 like AO and Subi or 50 like the MCG. 6. that's all.
You're trying your hardest to find any negatives with the Adelaide Oval. The $17,000 that was charged on the first showdown was overkill due to the unexpected of a brand new stadium. Its now down to about $5,000 per game from traffic management. Catering and staff numbers were also huge for the first few games due to the unexpected, now they are getting more practice/feedback of what happens on games days, the costs are being cut down each week from reducing surplus staff. And hey, you really believe sensationalist newspapers for "facts". I am waiting to hear from my football club on the real profit & loss of gamedays. Until then all this geriatric sensationalism about poor financial returns is just speculative, media driven crap to get interest in a story.
Ive got one fact for you - the Adelaide Oval is the best thing to happen for SA football and our city in decades.
And if they play a few more SANFL games there it will also be the best thing to happen to the local league also (ie Anzac Day)
Anyway feel free to post more of your anti South Australia/Adelaide Oval bullshit
Kwality have you actually been to the ground to watch your west coast eagles play either the crows or port adelaide? Have you been to the cricket there? It used to be a bit like the waca ground where cricket was only played there. It's now like the gabba where both the footy and the cricket can be played there.
You say your melbourne based if waverley park had of been done up like the adelaide oval i'd reckon you'd still complain.
I'm saying don't judge the grounds until you have actually seen the footy or the cricket on them.
Adelaide oval is a lovely oval. When on camp one year we happed to have access to watch the older west indies team train in the nets. Great experience! Saw the bradman muesum which is absolutely awesome.
RussellEbertHandball is your friend. If you haven't checked it out, have a look at the stadium deals thread on the Port board. No stadium deals have been signed long term, and the AFL is reviewing the $MA financials in July.Yep I've been there albeit the old ground for both footy & cricket, just like the WACA - the new development is not what I'm on about, my worry is the $magic pudding approach that its going to be a gold mine for the SMA, SACA, SANFL & those AFL clubs that were supposed to profit most - I'm not complaining about the facility, I had no problems with Waveley or Footy Park because I go to the footy for the footy not the experience, but the clubs need to be profiting from the game they put on.
The money cat, not the experience & I'll only be satisfied when the details of the financial arrangement is made public - surely the AFL haven't stuffed up again, loading the AFL clubs up with long term debt to the SANFL whilst not ensuring they're on a good deal at the new facility.
they also never show live games against the gate as well.Well, besides FedEx Field (85k in Washington)
Having said that, your reasoning is sound.
Teams in the NFL like smaller capacity stadiums for 2 reasons. Sell seats at a premium, more room for corporates (though, you could argue they're one in the same)
In fact, alot of the new stadiums being built for franchises recently are going for that 65-70k range despite there being much more demand. They want to exploit demand and reap in the money.
Minnesota Vikings, they're building a new stadium, but it only has about 600 more seats than their old stadium. (going to 65k)
Atlanta Falcons, they're building a new stadium and losing 6k seats (going to 65k)
Colts just built a new stadium, went to 62k (up from 55k)
Giants/Jets only added 2k to their stadium.
49ers lost 1k with theirs.
RussellEbertHandball is your friend. If you haven't checked it out, have a look at the stadium deals thread on the Port board. No stadium deals have been signed long term, and the AFL is reviewing the $MA financials in July.