It's time to bring back Waverley

[Starburns_]

As against actually owning waverley ?

Middle of nowhere is middle of their home suburbs for over a million people, who are used to no public trnasport which is practically non existant east of warrigal road

My point about Etihad ownership was that even though they don't own it now, they will one day. AFL ownership was the only thing Waverley had going for it, my comment was more to point out how even that lacks value now. I'm honestly surprised I had to explain that.

Any stadium without decent accessibility (such as basically no PT) is automatically a 2nd rate stadium, as Waverley was.

Why not? Was good enough for your predecessors so why not you? Allergic to 90 minute car rides are you? Weak shit

Geelong people are also expected to travel to Melbourne.

 

[Bosk]

AFL ownership was the only thing Waverley had going for it

O Rly?

Just out of interest how many VFL/AFL games have you attended at Waverley Fyfie_?

 

[Starburns_]

O Rly?

Just out of interest how many VFL/AFL games have you attended at Waverley Fyfie_?

I was younger, but I could comfortably say a dozen at least.

Capacity, and ownership are the only things Waverley had that Etihad did not, and capacity is made redundant by the existence of the MCG.

 

[MOONEY 21]

hawforn supporters are tossers.

 

[captain blood 17]

Just what the bay needs. Another foaming circle jerker.

 

[____]

I wonder how much it would cost the AFL to buy out Docklands now

 

[windyhill]

I wonder how much it would cost the AFL to buy out Docklands now

One dollar,believe me, one dollar.

 

[Bombers 2003]

At least Subiaco would be able to take a break from being the ugliest ground in the comp

i think adelaide oval is horrendous

 

[Bombers 2003]

Aurora > Waverly

claremont oval >waverly

 

[Bosk]

I was younger, but I could comfortably say a dozen at least.

Capacity, and ownership are the only things Waverley had that Etihad did not, and capacity is made redundant by the existence of the MCG.

Then you should be able to remember a few small facts about Waverley that you have neglected to mention:

- It had the best playing surface in the competition at the time, by quite some margin too.

- It had what I consider to be optimal dimensions for an AFL ground. Big yes, but not monster wings like the MCG since it was the perfect shape for football. Free flowing footy was the norm at Waverley since there was always lots of space for players to run into, yet huge scores were kicked there regularly.

- From a stadium perspective it serviced an entirely neglected side of Melbourne, the eastern suburbs. Which also happened to be the fastest growth area of the city.

- The stadium was owned by the AFL (as you did mention) so there was no MCC or Tel$tra Dome management to deal with.

Waverley had a ton of things going for it. Every ground (except maybe the MCG) has shortcomings, if the AFL had've worked with the council to improve public transport to Waverley, fixed the carpark with the copious application of gravel, and maybe upgraded the seating then it would've been a great place for football even today.
One thing is for damn sure - clubs like Norf who are getting screwed at Jihad would LOVE to be able to play games at Waverley instead!

 

[Amstaff_]

i think adelaide oval is horrendous

 

[Boxhead_31]

No worries, just need the Mayblooms to give all the cash they got from the sale back and to pay for the land their facilities sit upon now.

 

[Bombers 2003]

What would you know amstiff

 

[Starburns_]

I wonder how much it would cost the AFL to buy out Docklands now

Too much to be worthwhile.

Then you should be able to remember a few small facts about Waverley that you have neglected to mention:

- It had the best playing surface in the competition at the time, by quite some margin too.

- It had what I consider to be optimal dimensions for an AFL ground. Big yes, but not monster wings like the MCG since it was the perfect shape for football. Free flowing footy was the norm at Waverley since there was always lots of space for players to run into, yet huge scores were kicked there regularly.

Both very insignificant considerations in the sense that as far as surface goes, it's either good enough, or it's not, the degree is unimportant. Obviously early days Etihad and current day ANZ were pitiful, but it's not a consideration now.

Ground sizes are variable across the competition and Etihad is not the smallest. Not to mention Etihad's roof has it's own impact on free flowing football, albeit in different ways.

- From a stadium perspective it serviced an entirely neglected side of Melbourne, the eastern suburbs. Which also happened to be the fastest growth area of the city.

That's short-sighted though as it won't remain that way forever, the city has started expanding West because it's starting to reach as far as it realistically could Eastwards. Plus for every person closer in the East, it makes it further away for all others in the Northern and Western suburbs, without the added advantage of being based near a public transport hub.

- The stadium was owned by the AFL (as you did mention) so there was no MCC or Tel$tra Dome management to deal with.

The AFL and MCC appear to have a very good working relationship since the MCC understand who makes them most of their money, quite funny really when it's considered Etihad don't. But I've already addressed ownership here as Waverley's one advantage.

Waverley had a ton of things going for it. Every ground (except maybe the MCG) has shortcomings, if the AFL had've worked with the council to improve public transport to Waverley, fixed the carpark with the copious application of gravel, and maybe upgraded the seating then it would've been a great place for football even today.
One thing is for damn sure - clubs like Norf who are getting screwed at Jihad would LOVE to be able to play games at Waverley instead!

The public transport upgrades don't fix the whole problem though, in many cases it'd require a longer commute away from the ground (including switching trains). Waverley would need to be at the heart of a PT overhaul to match the convenience of Etihad.

Tyler and a few others have addressed the seating issues, that would have required an overhaul that would have been quite costly in the way it changed the entire setup away from the "bowl" seating.

Don't cry your crocodile tears for Norf, you're ruled by self-interest here. Waverley served it's purpose, it became obsolete as the times changed and the AFL adapted to those changes. I'm not surprised to see you wanting to live in the past on this one, but the arguments for Waverley are all sentimental. And I say all this as someone who's not overly fond of Etihad, and who lived a short bike ride from Waverley.

 

[Bosk]

Both very insignificant considerations in the sense that as far as surface goes, it's either good enough, or it's not, the degree is unimportant. Obviously early days Etihad and current day ANZ were pitiful, but it's not a consideration now.

Etihad's surface is not a consideration now? Easy for us to say when our teams play home games at the MCG but Jihad is still talked about as having by far the hardest surface in the comp and it seems to cause lots more soft tissue injuries especially ankles than the G does.

I'd say its surface is definitely still a factor. Yet another reason I'm extremely glad we don't play there.

That's short-sighted though as it won't remain that way forever, the city has started expanding West because it's starting to reach as far as it realistically could Eastwards. Plus for every person closer in the East, it makes it further away for all others in the Northern and Western suburbs, without the added advantage of being based near a public transport hub.

Melbourne's SE suburbs is still a big growth area, and I'm sure even you can see the obvious folly of locating ALL the AFL venues in the CBD where we all know how bad the traffic situation is.

The AFL and MCC appear to have a very good working relationship since the MCC understand who makes them most of their money, quite funny really when it's considered Etihad don't. But I've already addressed ownership here as Waverley's one advantage.

Are you sure about that? We know the MCC has the AFL by the balls with regards to playing the GF at the MCG for the next however many years, and while that's a tradition I'd like to see continue it is one example that demonstrates the AFL doesn't get everything its own way. The AFL's relationship with the MCC might be alright now, but what's to stop it deteriorating in future?

Like you said, owning Waverley was a huge advantage and it was one the AFL threw away.

The public transport upgrades don't fix the whole problem though, in many cases it'd require a longer commute away from the ground (including switching trains). Waverley would need to be at the heart of a PT overhaul to match the convenience of Etihad.

Tyler and a few others have addressed the seating issues, that would have required an overhaul that would have been quite costly in the way it changed the entire setup away from the "bowl" seating.

Don't cry your crocodile tears for Norf, you're ruled by self-interest here. Waverley served it's purpose, it became obsolete as the times changed and the AFL adapted to those changes. I'm not surprised to see you wanting to live in the past on this one, but the arguments for Waverley are all sentimental. And I say all this as someone who's not overly fond of Etihad, and who lived a short bike ride from Waverley.

I didn't say that pressuring the state government to install a rail link would've fixed the transport situation entirely but it would have certainly improved it.

As for complaining about the cost of upgrading seating - perhaps its time we reminded ourselves how much the AFL spent on Etihad just to put things into perspective. I'm not saying that money was wasted but they could've improved Waverley enormously for a LOT less.

Not that the argument needs to be Waverley vs Etihad, there's no reason why the AFL couldn't eventually own and operate both. Melbourne population isn't going to stop growing anytime soon, and Etihad's capacity is already woefully small. I think there should be room in the AFL's future plans for another MCG-sized stadium.

 

[Starburns_]

Etihad's surface is not a consideration now? Easy for us to say when our teams play home games at the MCG but Jihad is still talked about as having by far the hardest surface in the comp and it seems to cause lots more soft tissue injuries especially ankles than the G does.

I'd say its surface is definitely still a factor. Yet another reason I'm extremely glad we don't play there.

I'd be surprised if there was much difference in injury rates there anymore, we don't hear about it, which leads me to believe the clubs aren't concerned by it anymore. This is backed up by the fact that Brad Scott's team plays most of their games there, if there was a reason to complain, he'd do it.

Melbourne's SE suburbs is still a big growth area, and I'm sure even you can see the obvious folly of locating ALL the AFL venues in the CBD where we all know how bad the traffic situation is.

Traffic is only really a huge issue on weeknights, in which case commuting to Waverley has the same pitfalls. On the weekend once you get out of the general vicinity of the ground, it becomes a lot smoother, which was basically the biggest issue with Waverley's traffic.

But yes, location is mainly about PT, people will drive most anywhere in cars, but the more you force to, the greater the traffic issue.

Are you sure about that? We know the MCC has the AFL by the balls with regards to playing the GF at the MCG for the next however many years, and while that's a tradition I'd like to see continue it is one example that demonstrates the AFL doesn't get everything its own way. The AFL's relationship with the MCC might be alright now, but what's to stop it deteriorating in future?

They didn't give away anything they wanted to keep in that deal though. The Grand Final was always going to stay at the MCG, if it made for a good set of steak knives, so be it. The Footy Industry board has a pretty detailed breakdown of what the recent 5 year extension of that got them, they did very well out of it for what they gave up.

There's no reason for either side to be frustrated

I didn't say that pressuring the state government to install a rail link would've fixed the transport situation entirely but it would have certainly improved it.

As for complaining about the cost of upgrading seating - perhaps its time we reminded ourselves how much the AFL spent on Etihad just to put things into perspective. I'm not saying that money was wasted but they could've improved Waverley enormously for a LOT less.

$30million (obviously not including what the Etihad deals cost them)? Selling Waverley netted them close to $100million. The MCG upgrade of a decade ago also would have made Waverley look horribly outdated, an upgrade that would coast far more money, for less reward.

Not to mention the AFL will inherit a stadium with a roof, ideal for concerts, which also can be used as a Cricket, Soccer, and Rugby venue, all of which the AFL can make money off. None of which would be available at Waverley.

Not that the argument needs to be Waverley vs Etihad, there's no reason why the AFL couldn't eventually own and operate both. Melbourne population isn't going to stop growing anytime soon, and Etihad's capacity is already woefully small. I think there should be room in the AFL's future plans for another MCG-sized stadium.

The deal that funded Etihad was paid for by the sale of Waverley (as were other things), they were never going to get both.

The AFL don't need another MCG sized stadium when the MCG is there, there's still clubs drawing 20k to games who aren't going to break Etihad's capacity anytime soon. People have spent so much time talking about the "boutique stadium" of 25-30k for smaller clubs in recent years, Etihad will be that stadium when the AFL take control.

 

[vjknight]

Like you said, owning Waverley was a huge advantage and it was one the AFL threw away.

hey bosk, youre sounding a lot like some delusional folk out there.

waverley and everything it stood for became redundant for 2 reasons - etihad, and drainage technology allowing the G to be used twice a weekend every weekend of the year.

 

[Bombers 2003]

thanks for the dvd tour,amstaff,its not terrible at all

 

[Matt Stevic]

Etihad's surface is not a consideration now? Easy for us to say when our teams play home games at the MCG but Jihad is still talked about as having by far the hardest surface in the comp and it seems to cause lots more soft tissue injuries especially ankles than the G does.

I'd say its surface is definitely still a factor. Yet another reason I'm extremely glad we don't play there.

Look through my previous posts if you want my opinion, in short I loved the place. I can't be bothered typing a heap of stuff now but you bet I will tomorrow.

 

[Matt Stevic]

As for complaining about the cost of upgrading seating - perhaps its time we reminded ourselves how much the AFL spent on Etihad just to put things into perspective. I'm not saying that money was wasted but they could've improved Waverley enormously for a LOT less.

I agree with absolutely everything you've said but this is one bit that really sticks out. It just goes to show that the stuff the AFL said about Waverley in the 90s was grade A bullshit. What was wrong with it exactly? The seats? Yes they were wooden (not comfy and bloody awful if there's a fire) but how much would it really cost if they were upgraded. The legroom was good and I don't remember a bad seat. Yes it was cold but it's a bloody winter sport, it's not like the MCG is a furnace. I was a kid when I went and Mum always told me to rug up for the footy anyway! I wouldn't know about Collo's Cesspit because I've never been there, but I hear there's a permanent breeze. Don't even mention the screen, the AFL used that as an excuse to dump the stadium but then upgrade Etihad's screen? WTF? Besides I kinda liked seeing everything in brown and gold

Actually I don't agree entirely. I AM saying money was wasted. It was wasted because of the AFL's conflict of interest at the time relating to the convicted murderer (of Fitzroy) Ian Collins.

 

[Matt Stevic]

The AFL don't need another MCG sized stadium when the MCG is there, there's still clubs drawing 20k to games who aren't going to break Etihad's capacity anytime soon. People have spent so much time talking about the "boutique stadium" of 25-30k for smaller clubs in recent years, Etihad will be that stadium when the AFL take control.

Well if that's the case why dump the suburban grounds? You can't have it both ways.

Wayne Jackson (and Ross Oakley as well for that matter) never actually got that watching the footy is a fun activity. They lacked the understanding needed to relate to a common footy fan. For all his faults Andrew Demetriou is a huge improvement in this respect.

 

[tucky74]

Own the "past players " Sign from the old VFL park.

Or used too...bloody alcohol

 

[tucky74]

Give me Waverley park over the shitlands every day.

Nothing beats the kick to kick then smash em up in the car park with the LH Torana at Waverley park.

And if you knew the local roads you could gtfo in no time.

 

[Starburns_]

Well if that's the case why dump the suburban grounds? You can't have it both ways.

Because they were shit, and 25k grounds are pointless. My point was relating to the small ground people want now for small games, that would be used half a dozen times a year, it's a ridiculous expectation to have a ground solely for that. They may as well have the slightly larger one that will remain useful as the crowds grow.

 

[tucky74]

Because they were shit, and 25k grounds are pointless. My point was relating to the small ground people want now for small games, that would be used half a dozen times a year, it's a ridiculous expectation to have a ground solely for that. They may as well have the slightly larger one that will remain useful as the crowds grow.

25k grounds were great.would still be great for certain games.

They were never shit,mabye you didn't attend enough games in the 70/80s