Whitten Oval Redevelopment Plans (UPDATE: No AFL Games)

[cecil]

I love the idea, but I don't love the thought of the grandstand being pulled down.

It says it'll be put back up. Just depends if the design incorporates the old stand nicely

 

[Dazb86]

Should be bare minimum 25k if they are going to do it.

 

[Mattdougie]

YES

This was the clubs plan from day one I believe, used Ballarat and it’s predictable failure as a axe to grind with the AFL and government

 

[dogwatch]

Lets be honest if it wasn’t for free women’s football wouldn’t have a market.

Did you read the story? If it wasn't for AFLW there wouldn't be a business case for redevelopment of VUWO.

 

[DelRe]

I think it would be great to see this development and prefer it to a focus on (or even at the expense of) Ballarat.

In relation to the grandstand, it will be redeveloped and although it would be good to keep the original I expect it is not possible while also meeting modern seating requirements and addressing some of the realignment aspects they mention in the article.

Similarly I expect Gordon St and Geelong Rd put significant limitations on the number in an all-seated or mostly all-seated capacity which the photo looks like it will be primarily.

Overall though I would take those trade-offs to see some H&A games back there whoever the team gets to play. The AFL has to make money so it’s not realistic to expect the ‘bigger’ clubs to play there. Start with the smaller games and build out from there would be a good strategy.

 

[_M_16_]

Should be 25k capacity not 18k. We get more than 20k vs low drawing teams, and the nostalgic factor will see enough wanting to attend, that we will be forced to turn people away. Geelong spent similar and got their stadium up to around 40. Would only be worth the $150 million dollar spend if the money is made up for in a short period and the area makes profit and benefits the club and community in many ways. Wouldn't mind seeing the ground made slightly wider dimension wise, allow for more free flowing, entertaining and attacking football.

 

[NBates]

( initially posted in media thread before I realised this one existed)

"priority venues for AFLW matches"

Why? This comp has already screwed us over and I'm no longer interested (you can thank the participants). I guess that's just me though.

Stick to core business I reakon. That's not working too good at mo.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[LondonBulldog]

Did you read the story? If it wasn't for AFLW there wouldn't be a business case for redevelopment of VUWO.

Yes, I read the story and my response was another poster who said it was for the women’s league that why it’s only 18k. From the article upgrades are not really to increase capacity mainly for the training improvements / community.

 

[TiAn_]

It’s staggering how people still can’t see the link between AFLW, Ballarat and things like this or being handed the surrounding land by the State Gov. Great lesson here for some in how the world actually works.

You can directly thank our AFLW team and our Ballarat venture for this even being on the cards at all. Some of you are so short sighted you probably can’t see the end of your nose.

Likewise, if you’re saying this is a bad idea because the initial capacity is slightly lower than you think it should be you’re missing the whole ****ing point. And you’re probably walking into doors given that you can’t see more than an inch in front of you.

Huge step in a great direction our club if this comes off.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Love the idea, but it'll take a lot of convincing governments to fork out $150 million in safe Labor heartland. If the area becomes marginal, different story.

 

[TiAn_]

Love the idea, but it'll take a lot of convincing governments to fork out $150 million in safe Labor heartland. If the area becomes marginal, different story.

That’s why our presence in the marginal seats of GWV is important.

We’re facilitating spending in that region and giving the government a good news story to sell out there.

Greasing wheels for government has always been a key reason why we’re in Ballarat, in addition to the (very good) $$.

I’ve been pointing this out in the Ballarat thread for years.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Games being played at WO in the future are a bonus. Anything that gets us better training facilities so we can compete better and become a more attractive destination for players can only be a good thing.
I don’t follow/support the AFLW or the Ballarat initiative but it’s clear without those this isn’t happening.

 

[Dogs Rule]

That’s why our presence in the marginal seats of GWV is important.

We’re facilitating spending in that region and giving the government a good news story to sell out there.

Greasing wheels for government has always been a key reason why we’re in Ballarat, in addition to the (very good) $$.

I’ve been pointing this out in the Ballarat thread for years.

For sure and we do whatever it takes to get that sweet government...(sorry taxpayer) cash.

 

[Libba39]

18K? If this is a stadium for the future then surely the capacity needs to be 25+.

Also there is one glaring omission on the plan. The worst thing by far when playing games there i the past was the southerly wind coming from the Geelong Rd end. Ideally any new development would include some protection at that end in the form of a stand, however that doesn't appear to be the case from what I can see. (Edit - looking again maybe there is a small construction there?)

What is a 'heritage game' game exactly? Who else would we play there other than GC, GWS and maybe Freo or Port?

Also what happens if there is then a move to redevelop the Showgrounds again? Would we be left out in the cold?

 

[TiAn_]

YES

This was the clubs plan from day one I believe, used Ballarat and it’s predictable failure as a axe to grind with the AFL and government

Haha “I believe”.

You really shouldn’t believe that, it’s ridiculous.

 

[DelRe]

The idea that the club entered into the Ballarat arrangements with the main aim of building relationships with government in the hope of getting money for a development at Whitten Oval is really nothing more than wild speculation.

 

[lachy]

That’s why our presence in the marginal seats of GWV is important.

We’re facilitating spending in that region and giving the government a good news story to sell out there.

Greasing wheels for government has always been a key reason why we’re in Ballarat, in addition to the (very good) $$.

I’ve been pointing this out in the Ballarat thread for years.

So what you are saying is the Ballarat move was not about growing our base, as you argued in the Ballarat thread, but was about assisting the government spending money in a marginal seat for us to get a quid pro quo in the future?
Which was the only angle that actually made sense as playing home games at Ballarat was never going to achieve any of stated aims you were supporting as put out by the club, but really you were just saying those knowing the real purpose was to grease the wheels for a later project

 

[lachy]

It’s staggering how people still can’t see the link between AFLW, Ballarat and things like this or being handed the surrounding land by the State Gov. Great lesson here for some in how the world actually works.

You can directly thank our AFLW team and our Ballarat venture for this even being on the cards at all. Some of you are so short sighted you probably can’t see the end of your nose.

Likewise, if you’re saying this is a bad idea because the initial capacity is slightly lower than you think it should be you’re missing the whole ******* point. And you’re probably walking into doors given that you can’t see more than an inch in front of you.

Huge step in a great direction our club if this comes off.

Given the entire proposal is based on AFLW, there can be no argument about the clubs involvement in this venture being a positive. It was never about making money from the gates but from other forms of revenue. Most local clubs are working out the significant grants being provided for womens football. The initial lower capacity is not really an issue for the WO as that can be added to over time if successful.

But Ballarat is a double edged sword. This goes ahead there will be no more Ballarat. No more us supporting government investment in Ballarat. Why will Ballarat continue to support us financially? How will this help Labor in the marginal seat from now on?

 

[VitalDread]

If your spending 150m, get the capacity up the 25k and play 3 to 5 games a year there, basically all interstate teams.

3 to 5 afl games, likely 4-8 AFLW games plus 11 VFL games and 8 VFLW games

 

[VitalDread]

Honestly can't wait for this to happen
Could see how fixture set up like this
Say we have 11 homes games
4 games at Whitten Oval (West Coast, Lions, Freo)
2 Games at Ballarat (vs Suns and Port)
5 Games at Marvel (blockbuster teams)

 

[TiAn_]

Given the entire proposal is based on AFLW, there can be no argument about the clubs involvement in this venture being a positive. It was never about making money from the gates but from other forms of revenue. Most local clubs are working out the significant grants being provided for womens football. The initial lower capacity is not really an issue for the WO as that can be added to over time if successful.

But Ballarat is a double edged sword. This goes ahead there will be no more Ballarat. No more us supporting government investment in Ballarat. Why will Ballarat continue to support us financially? How will this help Labor in the marginal seat from now on?

I wouldn’t assume that our involvement in Ballarat is coming to an end soon. Ballarat will continue to provide a gateway and funds for other ventures for a little while yet.

They’re not mutually exclusive. North are playing four games annually in Tassie. We could easily be playing two in Ballarat and one-two at WO each year, or vice versa.

 

[TiAn_]

So what you are saying is the Ballarat move was not about growing our base, as you argued in the Ballarat thread, but was about assisting the government spending money in a marginal seat for us to get a quid pro quo in the future?
Which was the only angle that actually made sense as playing home games at Ballarat was never going to achieve any of stated aims you were supporting as put out by the club, but really you were just saying those knowing the real purpose was to grease the wheels for a later project

No, if you care to be accurate, I actually argued both points and that they were related.

They’re not a binary, “one or the other” proposition.

The fact that we could achieve both ends (expand reach and grease political wheels) with the one venture made it a no-brainer to me.

I made several other arguments too, but none were to the exclusion of the others.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Would love it. Other teams might actually think oh **** about playing there and we may have a serious home ground advantage. Even if just for a game or 2.

Exactly, Geelong and West Coast and the like must look through their fixture at the beginning of the year and chalk up some wins automatically. It would be nice if we get our act together and make Ballarat and VUVO our fortress with four automatic wins too.

 

[lachy]

I wouldn’t assume that our involvement in Ballarat is coming to an end soon. Ballarat will continue to provide a gateway and funds for other ventures for a little while yet.

They’re not mutually exclusive. North are playing four games annually in Tassie. We could easily be playing two in Ballarat and one-two at WO each year, or vice versa.

Could be a possibility. At least there can be some honesty about the Ballarat venture now, ie we are playing there to allow the government to pork barrel a marginal seat so they will support funding development required in a safe labour seat, which is all the deal ever was. Nopthng in the deal was going to grow a supporter base.

Have always supported the AFLW idea due to government funds available at that level. It is why our club has not jumped up and down about losing players in the short term but to ensure AFL and government support over the longer term.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Honestly can't wait for this to happen
Could see how fixture set up like this
Say we have 11 homes games
4 games at Whitten Oval (West Coast, Lions, Freo)
2 Games at Ballarat (vs Suns and Port)
5 Games at Marvel (blockbuster teams)

Can I like this twice