Eureka Stadium (Mars Stadium)

[Millsie69]

Cash for Mars Stadium's Stage 2 upgrade is now flowing, While these upgrades won't result in a single new seat or improvement to the lighting (which remain major sticking points that are likely to be addressed post 2021), this $6.6 million upgrade will deliver new permanent food outlets, permanent toilet facilities at the SE end of the ground, new permanent covered entrances and improved ticketing facilities at gates 1 and 2 on Creswick Road, more disabled access and seating in the existing stands, and the upgrading of player facilities to accommodate female athletes. So far the Ballarat Council have recently released approx $3 million in tenders supporting the Stage 2 works.

Stage 2 is all about addressing many of the shortcomings, gripes and grumbles of Stage 1 which saw a very basic boutique stadium designed, approved and built in an astonishing 14 months on a very meagre $15.3 million. It is understood that the Ballarat Council still wish to see the stadium further upraded post 2021/22 by future construcion of more covered seating, enhanced lighting and capacity for 15,000 (+) spectators. The Ballarat Council envision the ground being used year round for AFL/BFNL/CHFL games during Autumn & Winter and for concerts, Rugby Union, Cricket and other public events during the other months.

Is there an eventual plan for seating all around the oval? Or will there always be an open end?

 

[Millsie69]

An interesting question. In short I don't know. The original plans envisioned extending the main stand around the Southern and South Eastern boundaries in two stages to encircle the ground with around 13,000 seats all under cover by 2025. But the grassed hill (capacity 4000) has proven quite popular when the weather permits, especially with families. In the Summer months it is quite spectacular seeing families spread out across it with rugs and deck chairs. The Council and Western Bulldogs FC are keen to keep it with some future enhancements. The Bulldogs want fire pits put on it during the footy season, and tye Council are exploring options including some form of shade sails.

The architects of the stands (Peddle Thorp) actually designed the Eastern Terrace which currently contains eight rows in five bays with about 1000 covered seats to have its roof removed and an additional 14 rows and new cantilevered roof added which would mirror the existing Western Stand. This would add another 2200 seats and I believe is part of the Councils preferred solution for eventual expansion. We are also likely to see the Western Stand extended around the Southern boundary to where the video scoreboard is now. This would add another 4000 covered seats bringing seating capacity overall to approx 11,300 and standing room on the hill at 4000. This would satisfy all interested stakeholders and shelter the oval from Ballarat's blustery Southern and Westerly winds.

I think that these developments are likely to occur around 2023 with the extension of the Western stand likely to be given priority.

At some point in the future, if (and this is a pretty Big 'IF') there were a requirement for the ground to hold 20,000 then they could bulldose the existing Social Club and build a 5000 seat stand incorporating new social club and changeroom facilities which would link the Eastern and Western stands. However, given that the Ballarat Council spent $5.5 million compulsorily acquiring the Social Club facility from the North Ballarat Sports Club in 2018, the Council would be wanting some serious commitments from the AFL beyond just two H&A games per season to justify the expense of building a replacement stand and to justify the expense on the city for maintaining a 20,000 capacity venue. So it is not likely in my estimation that the ground will be built beyond 16,000 capacity.

An interesting read, thank you!

It's a great little stadium. I went to the first game between the Dogs and Port back in 2017 and would love to go back one day.

The fire pits on the hill would be an interesting sight!

 

[Our Game]

Any hint of the Bulldogs plans beyond 2021? Gut feel?

Mine is, and I hope I'm right, they will stick with it as it's starting to come together after some early problems. My club has tended to try and move on - e.g Darwin, Cairns and the Sunshine Coast over the years, so I hope they stick with Ballarat and make it theirs.

It's a pity the Bulldog supporters/Members and Ballarat locals don't seem to like it as it hasn't had a house full yet and it only holds about eleven thousand!
The Dogs would be better off playing interstate sides at the Western Oval if it were fixed up a bit.

 

[Dogs till i die]

It's a pity the Bulldog supporters/Members and Ballarat locals don't seem to like it as it hasn't had a house full yet and it only holds about eleven thousand!
The Dogs would be better off playing interstate sides at the Western Oval if it were fixed up a bit.

It certainly needs better fixturing in terms of timing and a bit of luck. The first fixture v Port was mid-August and snow was forecast, whilst the 2nd game v Port was a 4.40 Sunday game and it was 4° at the start. Ive never been so cold at the footy.

High reserved seat prices need to be addressed by the Dogs though. $57 when I looked.

There is a future there with some improvements at the ground and spreading the Dogs brand is important. If we / AFL can get it right Eureka can work and become a ground where opposition teams don't want to come and become a Launceston type of home advantage like the Hawks enjoy.

Importantly also spreads AFL footy.

 

[Rickee]

It's a pity the Bulldog supporters/Members and Ballarat locals don't seem to like it as it hasn't had a house full yet and it only holds about eleven thousand!
The Dogs would be better off playing interstate sides at the Western Oval if it were fixed up a bit.

I don't know about Bulldogs fans, but as a (recent) Ballarat local Mars Stadium is an incredible venue to watch sport at. It's very comfortable and modern but still holds a local ground feel. 11,000 is a pretty large capacity for it's regular usage of BFNL games and the occasional A League game (for now), they aren't going to build something much bigger unless an AFL team relocates here and plays every second week, there really is no need.

 

[The_Wookie]

The WBFC have no intention of playing any more than two H & A games per-season there, but also are happy playing at least one pre-season game there each year. The recent unisex team rooms uprade increases its potential for at least 1 AFLW game per-season. By upgrading lighting (post 2022) offers the AFL greater flexibility with game scheduling.

Dont forget Ballarat is guaranteed 2 games a year until 2028 under the terms of the Docklands deal with the Vic Government. The Dogs may well find their way there whether they like it or not.

 

[Rob]

Dont forget Ballarat is guaranteed 2 games a year until 2028 under the terms of the Docklands deal with the Vic Government. The Dogs may well find their way there whether they like it or not.

Lol. How the AFL get away with signing clubs up to shit god only knows.

 

[Rob]

The Bulldogs practically begged the AFL to oust North Melbourne from Ballarat in 2014 and succesfully lobbied the Ballarat Council to break their 10 year sponsorship of the Roos. The WBFC wanted Ballarat and fought tooth and nail to get it. That said, no new contract has been signed committing them beyond 2022. Ballarat is lucrative to them as they get $3 million per year being sponsored to play two games, where as they only make $3 million per year from their 9 Marvel home games.

Not suggesting anything to the contrary, but if the AFL signed a deal to play games in Ballarat without having the corresponding deal with a club to do so, well that's just shit and could easily end with some club getting forced to host a home game.

Clubs put on games, not the AFL.

 

[Rickee]

Not suggesting anything to the contrary, but if the AFL signed a deal to play games in Ballarat without having the corresponding deal with a club to do so, well that's just sh*t and could easily end with some club getting forced to host a home game.

Clubs put on games, not the AFL.

I think you are overestimating the power that the clubs have. They may technically host games, but if the AFL schedules you to play somewhere, you pretty much don't have a choice.

 

[Rob]

I think you are overestimating the power that the clubs have. They may technically host games, but if the AFL schedules you to play somewhere, you pretty much don't have a choice.

I agree - I just think that's wrong. Which was my original point.

 

[Rob]

I suppose that my point here is that nobody is being dudded or duped, the WBFC are hardly being forced to eat a sh*t sandwich as I think that you are suggesting. The WBFC are reaping a lot of benefits from Ballarat including the $3 mil per-annum, a 4000 membership spike from the region, and the exclusive right to expand their football community engagement program across a region of 400,000 people. Further, they are the only Victorian Club with a dedicated home ground other than Geelong.

Trust me, they are not unhappy with Ballarat.

I'm not suggesting they are - I'm merely having a go at the AFL committing to a venue for a period without the consent of a club to play games there. If the AFL signed up to 2 games a year until X year, then there needs to be a club prepared to honour that now. If there isn't, then the AFL shouldn't make that commitment.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm not suggesting they are - I'm merely having a go at the AFL committing to a venue for a period without the consent of a club to play games there. If the AFL signed up to 2 games a year until X year, then there needs to be a club prepared to honour that now. If there isn't, then the AFL shouldn't make that commitment.

The AFL decides where clubs play, not the clubs

 

[Rob]

The AFL decides where clubs play, not the clubs

Which is crap.

 

[Rob]

Remember that at first North Melbourne wanted to play there, and that the WBFC approached the AFL for the rights to access the redeveloped stadium. The AFL in this instance forced nobody. You don't seem to get it 9rvunderstand tye history behind this arrangement. It's a bit different to when the WBFC, St Kilda and Suns were told that they were playing games in Cairns, they had little say in that. As for China, the AFL committed to playing there and simply offered willing clubs a big bonus to sweeten the deal if they played there.

You seem to think I'm having a go at Ballarat. I can assure you I'm not.

What I'm attacking is the AFL committing games to venues without the signed consent of the entities that actually put the games on - the clubs.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Which is crap.

It's what the league agreed to when they handed this power over to the commission

 

[Rob]

Rubbish, all teams get a say in where they play. But remember that the clubs are just franchisees of a franchise called the AFL. The AFL determines the game schedule but this is done in collaboration with the clubs. For instance, the Western Bulldogs (each season) indicate their preference for their two Ballarat games to be scheduled around late April or early May and later in August preferrably against Adelaide based teams. Of course not every team enjoys that benefit. Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton get the benefit of exclusive blockbuster games at the MCG.

The AFL just throws out some sweeteners to encourage teams to support games in some remote or non-traditional AFL locations with the incentive of lucrative bonusses. Think Melbourne playing games at Alice Springs and Darwin, the Suns and Port playing in Shanghai and Cairns, St Kilda playing games in Wellington and in Townsville in 2019, or GWS in Canberra. Now when you think about it, apart from Port Adelaide who don't need the money the other teams like GWS and the Suns are start up teams with very low support bases and who rely heavily on the AFL for financial support. Melbourne and St Kilda have high debts and don't enjoy a contracted multi-million dollar sponsorship agreement to play a few games per season in places like Ballarat, Launceston or Hobart like the Dogs, Hawks and Roos respectively have. The Dees, Saints, Suns and Giants with no similar arrangements to the Hawks, Roos and Dogs instead get paid handsomely by the AFL for being nomadic. Rather than being told to suck it up as you're suggesting, I'd say that those four clubs are damn happy for the extra money that the AFL pays them for being nomadic. Consider that even Port Adelaide recieved a bonus $3 million for playing in China in 2018, and they completely volunteered to do so.

I think you're confused. Almost all of those venues were arranged by the clubs themselves. Port arranged to play in China, Melbourne want to play in the NT, etc etc. I have zero problem with that - that's how it should be. They're not examples of the AFL signing up to venues and then forcing clubs to play there.

I think you've also got a short memory - remember Optus Oval? The AFL did a deal with Carlton to play 16 games a year there. The problem was that Carlton home games only made up 9 of those, and no other club wanted to play there. So the league forced clubs to host home games and likely draw poor crowds there. How can you possibly agree with that?

Even now with Docklands (although obviously the contract doesn't exist now with AFL ownership) and the MCG, the AFL sign up to play a minimum number of games without having the commitment from clubs. Great when clubs actually want to play there, but how often have you heard complaining from clubs about poor stadium returns and the like? I know a lot of that is just whining, but it clearly takes a lot of autonomy away from clubs.

In this case, it appears that the league have signed a deal with the Vic government to play games in Ballarat until some year in the future. What the league should have done is gone to the Dogs, said to them "Are you happy to commit to this"? And if the answer is yes, then fine, sign the deal. If not, ask around other clubs, but if there's no club willing to jump in, do not sign the deal. It's not a difficult position to take, and I can't see why that would be even remotely controversial.

 

[Rob]

Crikey you're talking 30 years ago with Carlton, and their President at the time (John Elliot) was the only thing keeping them there at Optus until Docklands became an option and even then he fought tooth and nail to keep Carlton playing at Princess Park. The only reason Calton tried to stay at Optus was because the club had over-invested in building the "Legends Stand" back in the early 90s. Back in the 90s the AFL had some pretty shitty options when it came to grounds. Fitzroy were shunted to the Whitten Oval and then on to Princess Park. North were skipping around the country playing anywhere, Footscray even got shunted to Princess Park in 96. That was nearly 30 years ago, what Century are you talking about? Give us ONE, just ONE example where a team has been forced to play where they didn't want to play in the last ten years. Okay nobody liked playing at Subiaco, even the fans hated it, while Football Park was Adelaide's answer to Melbourne's unloved VFL Park.

The AFL did not sign a deal to play games at Subiaco or Football Park. So I don't know what you're talking about there.

The only stadiums, to my knowledge, where the AFL have committed a minimum number of games this century (without having the clubs on board) is the MCG and Docklands. And to answer your question, many clubs have complained about playing at Docklands. If you think otherwise, you've been living in a cave.

And don't dare try to use the WBFC as your example. YOU CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING of the history behind the WBFC venture into Ballarat. They wanted Ballarat and approached the AFL to support them and then Victorian Opposition Leader Dan Andrews in 2014 to commit to it if he got elected. He agreed to fund $15 million for construction of Stage 1 of Mars Stadium if he got elected. At that point the AFL only agreed to support the WBFC proposed Ballarat venture if the stadium got built first and it didn't cost the AFL a cent. That's the history of it, not your made up interpretation of it. I cannot stress strongly enough that the WBFC wanted Ballarat as far back as 2008 and ran a campaign to break North Melbourne and its highly successful and mutually beneficial parntership with the North Ballarat Roosters. The WBFC wanted Ballarat and Greater Western Victoria exclusively for themselves and NMFC being associated in the region didn't fit with their plan. The WBFC got exactly what they wanted, no argument. They are now getting a series of upgrades to Mars Stadium which aren't costing their club a cent. If they decide to extend their tenure out to 2028, that will no doubt be a re-negotiated agreement where they might lobby for increased sponsorship, or expansion of the stadium. But at the end of the day, they'll get what they negotiate for.

As for Port in China ... no ... again you are trying to re-write history. The Suns and the Saints were the first to play there and the Suns who were slated to play there again needed another opponent in 2018, and in steppeth Koschy who jumped at the opportunity for his club and said "thank you very much, Port can do with $3 mil".

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. You're going completely off the rails.

You keep saying that clubs are being forced against their will and are having no say in where they play, but haven't cited one example. I presented the facts, the time lines and history while you present "the AFL signs up to venues and forces clubs to play there". WHO has been forced to play at those venues? You contradicted yourself in the opening sentence of your previous post in saying, that of those clubs asked to play at those venues. That's the truth of the modern state of play, not the 90s version that you appear to be citing.

You keep saying things that i'm not saying.

What i'm saying is this:

The AFL should only sign deals to play at stadiums when supported by clubs that are prepared to honour the deal.
If that doesn't exist, then the AFL should not sign the deal. Simple.

The only reason you would disagree with the above is that you think it's completely reasonable that the AFL commits to games when the clubs are not prepared to give that commitment. There's no middle ground here. And if that's you, then perfectly fine. We just disagree. But don't twist my words to fit into whatever batshit crazy narrative you're trying to create. It's nothing against any particular stadium, nor against any club.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

Mars Stadium works underway:
View attachment 1030234
It appears above that the lower part of the hill will get about eight rows of concreted standing terrace with the grass removed in preparation for concrete works.
View attachment 1030236
Permanent Gate 2 construction has commenced behind the hill and new stairs will feed spectators directly up from the gate. Permanent toilets and amenities are being constructed to the rear of the scoreboard above still allowing enough space behind the boundary for future grandstand construction.

I do love a good old fashioned terrace

 

[Dogs till i die]

Mars Stadium works underway:
View attachment 1030234
It appears above that the lower part of the hill will get about eight rows of concreted standing terrace with the grass removed in preparation for concrete works.
View attachment 1030236
Permanent Gate 2 construction has commenced behind the hill and new stairs will feed spectators directly up from the gate. Permanent toilets and amenities are being constructed to the rear of the scoreboard above still allowing enough space behind the boundary for future grandstand construction.

View attachment 1030644

View attachment 1030645

Works looking good - getting the basics right first.

Let's hope the Dogs re-commit to Ballarat. Gotta say i won't miss the grassy slopes on a wet day - as nice as it looks..

 

[Boristown]

Are they leaving the grassy hill area behind the goals at the showgrounds end?

 

[beema limapep]

The staff at Mars Stadium are keen to see the stadium back in use. In 2020 because of COVID, two A League games were cancelled (Including a Good Friday Melbourne Derby between Western United and Melbourne City where they anticipated a sellout); two AFL games in May and August cancelled; as well as the local Central Highlands League and Ballarat FL competitions both being abandoned and their respective grand finals cancelled at the stadium in September.

At this stage the AFL have provisionally scheduled a senior game there for Sat 10th April against the Brisbane Lions. While it recently didn't get a JLT game, I suspect that the locals were more disappointed that the stadium was definitely overlooked by the AFL for an AFLW game despite being recently upgraded to host AFLW. The WBFC say that they are committed to the city and the region for the long haul and yes COVID 19 won't last forever. It will be interesting to see what direction the new Western Bulldogs Club President wants and how she sees the club's future, or if she shares the vision of Ballarat as part of its long term future.

At least the ground will be in great condition for its February and May A-League games given that it will have had a 10 month hiatus from any sort of use.

Has alot of potential. Its a nice intimate set up already. For what it is the Eureka stand is a cracker.

 

[Sammoll]

Construction on the hill starting to take shape

 

[Millsie69]

Yes, look what they've done to our hill. It will improve the view of play for people in the first several rows on the hill and it remains to be seen whether they install seats there which would add another 1000 (odd) but I will be interested to see if they eventually install any sort of canopies or if the heating points proposed by Peter Gordon get installed.

I wonder if this season, where everyone must have a reserved seat, will play into that thinking, that they're better off having the seats installed there to ensure the extra attendance? Or will they look longer term to keep the hill/standing room?

 

[Sammoll]

Good work Ballarat! Should be a good game

 

[Roogal]

Ballarat Council considerations for future works at Mars Stadium:

Before any future expansion of the facility can occur many of the existing niggles and shortcomings must first be addressed. In short the stadium was built to a limited budget of just $22 million in 2017 which meant that there were compromises and sacrifices to build just a bare bones stadium. Things not included in the 2017 build were (in no particular order):

• Limited permanent seating
• No permanent gates that would facilitate quick and seamless entry of patrons
• No permanent toilets in the unconstructed areas of the ground
• No permanent food or beverage outlets
• Limited competition lighting
• No additional permanent car parking
• No permanent public transport access.

A 2018 study, commissioned by the State Government and conducted by the Ballarat Council considered future development options and timings. It highlighted that most of the known shortcomings listed above had to be addressed first before any future expansion to the capacity of the stadium beyond its present 11,000 capacity could even realistically be considered. It noted the long lines and delays for fans entering the facility on big events caused by usage of tentage and manual check in procedures, the usage of Portaloos, poor stadium lighting, lack of permanent catering support amenities and lack of car parking as immediate points of concern.

It noted that any attempt to increase ground capacity beyond 11,000 without first addressing the prevailing logistic shortcomings identified above would exacerbate and compound these problems thus deterring patrons from returning for future events. Presently the Council are addressing the issues of ground entries, toilets and catering as well as having taken steps to improve the standing areas. However, recent reports through Ballarat media and commentary by local Councillors indicates that they are now turning their sights to the pending re-purposing of the remaining adjacent Ballarat Showgrounds site (although technically, Mars Stadium is actually built inside the Ballarat Showgrounds on the site of it's old show ring and trotting track) to the South of the Stadium which are pending closure and subsequent re-location after 2023.

Councillors are already indicating that they see the redeveloped Showgrounds site being used in a future sports role which may see construction of substantial new unspecified sports facilities and car parking. The elephant in the room of course is whether an event day train platform could be constructed. All of the discussion seemingly centres on constructing a rail platform on the Maryborough Line closest to the stadium. Of course this has a number of limitations including:

• An additional rail siding would need to be constructed as this would be effectively the dead end of the line for football or event day trains
• Specific dedicated football or event trains would have to be allocated to support this from limited rail stock
• It's been suggested that the station could be located further North to create a permanent third station for Ballarat to be used by future growth suburbs.

On the other hand, a cheaper and more practical solution exists 650 metres walking distance from Gate 2 South of the Stadium off Lexton Street which would utilise the main active Wendouree passenger line. This is an active line were regular country passenger trains pass through every hour. This alternative platform would be located midway between the main Ballarat Station and the Wendouree Station and would effectively only need minimal facilities as it would only be active for major public events in the Eureka Sports precinct. I am surprised that this option never comes up in either Council or public conversation. It would solve a lot of their problems.