News GMHBA Stadium Stage 5 Redevelopment

[dazbroncos]

The problem between the two parties centres around the fact that the footy club take all the revenue from match days (catering etc) which is a different set up to the MCG trust. The footy club take all the money and then tell the trust to pay for upgrades when they don't earn any money through football.

TO me it should be a combined effort - Trust, Telcos, Club and local Govt.

GO Catters

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Think it should have been kept in house. By all means tell members it is being worked on but don't publicly throw the trust under the bus

 

[SkittleCats]

The problem between the two parties centres around the fact that the footy club take all the revenue from match days (catering etc) which is a different set up to the MCG trust. The footy club take all the money and then tell the trust to pay for upgrades when they don't earn any money through football.

Then why was it set up in the first place? The whole point of setting up the trust is to oversee the stadium for all tenants, not just the football club. The phone reception issue is an issue for all users of the stadium, not just the AFL team, therefore it is on them to fix it. And lets be clear, the problem isnt occasional drop outs, the problem is you literally cant use your phone inside or around the stadium, it isnt just convenience, it is a genuine health and safety issue too, people need to be able to communicate.

Nobody said anything about the trust benefitting financially from the arrangement when it was set up, they arent the MCC. They are there to manage all parties to the benefit of everyone who uses the stadium.

 

[CatAttack84]

The Trust is furious that Hocking has put the issue with the phone reception onto them

Then they should quit, because if the muppets can't see it doesn't fall to a tenant they shouldn't be involved.

If there's any truth to the rumour that they also wanted to name the new stand something that panders to the loud minority another reason they should walk on.

 

[Two Planks]

Then they should quit, because if the muppets can't see it doesn't fall to a tenant they shouldn't be involved.

If there's any truth to the rumour that they also wanted to name the new stand something that panders to the loud minority another reason they should walk on.

And how do you suggest they fund it

 

[CatAttack84]

And how do you suggest they fund it

Should've been part of the business case and budget for each stage. Otherwise that's like designing new hospitals without modern connectivity. Having been involved in tenders in this space, it doesn't happen, and yet for a modern stadium seems it does.

 

[datax990]

Some photos from inside and outside on Saturday night:

View attachment 1932917

View attachment 1932918

View attachment 1932919

View attachment 1932920


View attachment 1932921


View attachment 1932922

View attachment 1932924

View attachment 1932925

View attachment 1932926

View attachment 1932927

Any chance you'd be willing to upload your second-last photo (from the top of the Selwood Stand) to Wikimedia Commons mate? The main photo on the Kardinia Park page needs an update. Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

 

[canny30]

Then why was it set up in the first place? The whole point of setting up the trust is to oversee the stadium for all tenants, not just the football club. The phone reception issue is an issue for all users of the stadium, not just the AFL team, therefore it is on them to fix it. And lets be clear, the problem isnt occasional drop outs, the problem is you literally cant use your phone inside or around the stadium, it isnt just convenience, it is a genuine health and safety issue too, people need to be able to communicate.

Nobody said anything about the trust benefitting financially from the arrangement when it was set up, they arent the MCC. They are there to manage all parties to the benefit of everyone who uses the stadium.

It must be an issue for local residents within walking distance of the stadium.....must be a pain in the arse, as well as a safety issue for them

 

[Henry85]

It must be an issue for local residents within walking distance of the stadium.....must be a pain in the arse, as well as a safety issue for them

Couldn’t agree more. I live in Richmond and go to games at the G regularly for any team. And my phone works pretty damn well considering the large crowds. It’s simply not acceptable that KP can’t do something about it. Needs to rectified asap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boxhead_31]

The problem between the two parties centres around the fact that the footy club take all the revenue from match days (catering etc) which is a different set up to the MCG trust. The footy club take all the money and then tell the trust to pay for upgrades when they don't earn any money through football.

Club put $60m of their own cash into the stadium redevelopments

 

[Jemaine]

Phone reception was fine with Optus, I was watching kayo fine at the end of quarters. But yeah that means I'm with Optus (only for the soccer) which sucks elsewhere.

Also sad that after years of checking into these redevelopment threads for updates on how the new stands were coming along, this is the end of the line. Has been a great journey to this now world class stadium.

 

[kickazz]

Couldn’t agree more. I live in Richmond and go to games at the G regularly for any team. And my phone works pretty damn well considering the large crowds. It’s simply not acceptable that KP can’t do something about it. Needs to rectified asap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not making excuses for them but the concentration of people at a KP game, compared to how many people are normally in the area, is much higher than it is for an MCG footy game compared to the number of people in that area.

So it makes sense for 3/4/5G infrastructure to be very high capacity near the MCG, because of the large (especially daytime) population of the Melbourne CBD and inner suburbs.

I mean, a full KP has 40% of the people of a full MCG. On an average weekday, the number of people in the reception area of KP would be less than 5% (educated guess) of that in the general reception area of the MCG.


So WiFi is the way to go.

 

[canny30]

Not making excuses for them but the concentration of people at a KP game, compared to how many people are normally in the area, is much higher than it is for an MCG footy game compared to the number of people in that area.

So it makes sense for 3/4/5G infrastructure to be very high capacity near the MCG, because of the large (especially daytime) population of the Melbourne CBD and inner suburbs.

I mean, a full KP has 40% of the people of a full MCG. On an average weekday, the number of people in the reception area of KP would be less than 5% (educated guess) of that in the general reception area of the MCG.


So WiFi is the way to go.

A mobile phone tower wouldn't cover the distance between the MCG and the CBD....so not sure that's an excuse.

 

[kickazz]

A mobile phone tower wouldn't cover the distance between the MCG and the CBD....so not sure that's an excuse.

Yeah they can, it's not even 2km. Plus you've got densely populated Richmond, Fitzroy, South Yarra, etc they all add up.

 

[catters05]

Will the club push for all home games at KP from 2025 onwards?

 

[canny30]

Will the club push for all home games at KP from 2025 onwards?

We should.

It's total BS how we are still being held back from having all home games as legacy of Waverly being built over 50 years ago when all teams were forced to play 2 homes a game there.

I don't see Newcastle in the NRL being forced to play home games in Sydney.

We play 9 home games and 14 away games. In addition we get ZERO home finals.

No other team in the AFL is fisted that hard.

The VFL legacy assists Melbourne teams massively but hurts us.

 

[Pods]

We should.

It's total BS how we are still being held back from having all home games as legacy of Waverly being built over 50 years ago when all teams were forced to play 2 homes a game there.

I don't see Newcastle in the NRL being forced to play home games in Sydney.

We play 9 home games and 14 away games. In addition we get ZERO home finals.

No other team in the AFL is fisted that hard.

The VFL legacy assists Melbourne teams massively but hurts us.

This has been said before but I’m pretty certain the club elects to play two Melbourne games at the MCG.

It has been mentioned by Cookie and Hock many many times.

I’d also prefer all 11 in Geelong though (and I’m Melbourne based)

 

[tommy2011]

This has been said before but I’m pretty certain the club elects to play two Melbourne games at the MCG.

It has been mentioned by Cookie and Hock many many times.

I’d also prefer all 11 in Geelong though (and I’m Melbourne based)

They would definitely prefer all home games in Geelong. Financially it's a no-brainer. The club has always played it softly-softly, knowing the AFL got itself into an almighty tangle with its stadium deals. If Hawthorn and North pulled out of Tassie and thus filled the Marvel/MCG minimum game requirements, Geelong would get 11 home games (as the fixture now stands).

 

[Pods]

They would definitely prefer all home games in Geelong. Financially it's a no-brainer. The club has always played it softly-softly, knowing the AFL got itself into an almighty tangle with its stadium deals. If Hawthorn and North pulled out of Tassie and thus filled the Marvel/MCG minimum game requirements, Geelong would get 11 home games (as the fixture now stands).

Yeah I don't think that's correct historically.

Financial ROI would no doubt be different now with the increased 40k capacity, but prior to that I'm fairly sure a significant crowd at the G had a better ROI.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter until the club say they want 11 at home and the AFL block it. I've not heard this said by anyone of significance at Geelong

As noted, I hope it happens soon though (us having 11 in Geelong)

 

[bombersboy]

Think it should have been kept in house. By all means tell members it is being worked on but don't publicly throw the trust under the bus

Hocking did not throw the Trust under the bus. All he said was we are working with the Trust to improve it for round 5 against North.

 

[bombersboy]

Yeah they can, it's not even 2km. Plus you've got densely populated Richmond, Fitzroy, South Yarra, etc they all add up.

The issue probably only show up with large capacity crowds. From my experience it has been an issue with crowds around 20k+ Are there other events held at the ground that draw a near capacity crowd. If there are then Trust has to own the issue. If it is only AFL then there is an arguement for GFC/AFL owning part of it. Could lack of coverage be an Occ Health and Safety issue?

 

[tommy2011]

Yeah I don't think that's correct historically.

Financial ROI would no doubt be different now with the increased 40k capacity, but prior to that I'm fairly sure a significant crowd at the G had a better ROI.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter until the club say they want 11 at home and the AFL block it. I've not heard this said by anyone of significance at Geelong

As noted, I hope it happens soon though (us having 11 in Geelong)

They have said it before, but in a softly-softly way. As in, we would like it, but we understand the difficulties. Even when capacity was under 30,000, home games at Geelong brought in more dollars than the MCG. You have to keep in mind the effect of reserved seats at K Park, the fact that MCC members and AFL members bring little in terms of dollars to a Geelong home game at the MCG. And then there's the corporate/food/beveridges equations. MCG would have to almost be a sell-out to compete.

 

[Pods]

They have said it before, but in a softly-softly way. As in, we would like it, but we understand the difficulties. Even when capacity was under 30,000, home games at Geelong brought in more dollars than the MCG. You have to keep in mind the effect of reserved seats at K Park, the fact that MCC members and AFL members bring little in terms of dollars to a Geelong home game at the MCG. And then there's the corporate/food/beveridges equations. MCG would have to almost be a sell-out to compete.

Still don’t think that’s correct. Sub 30k at Geelong wouldn’t bring in same ROI as 80k at MCG.

Anyway, we agree on the fundamental goal of getting home games in Geelong

 

[SkittleCats]

Still don’t think that’s correct. Sub 30k at Geelong wouldn’t bring in same ROI as 80k at MCG.

Anyway, we agree on the fundamental goal of getting home games in Geelong

I'm on my phone so can't find the quote but in sure Cook said in an interview years ago that they need at least 80k at the MCG to make the same amount as a game at KP brings the club. And that would've been when the stadium was at 20k capacity.

 

[cats_09]

I'm on my phone so can't find the quote but in sure Cook said in an interview years ago that they need at least 80k at the MCG to make the same amount as a game at KP brings the club. And that would've been when the stadium was at 20k capacity.

I know the quote you're talking about - pretty sure it was raised when we had a "home" game against Richmond at the MCG on a shit Melbourne winter weekend and we only got like 35k in attendance

There was multiple figures discussed, but rough numbers for the MCG were

• 60k to break even
• 70k+ for a decent profit
• 80k to match a KP sell out

MCG games really don't help us financially in comparison to home games at home