Should the AFL go from Waverley Park to the new Victoria Stadium to be built at Docklands?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`Melbourne deserves the best and this will be part of a new-found tradition. This stadium will have the latest hi-tech facilities to enable that'
Mr Daryl Jackson, the architect who has designed the Victoria Stadium
`The Docklands is just another case of taking football from the supporters'
Swans supporter, Mr Brendan Martin
On Saturday, March 22, 1997, the AFL announced that it had reached an agreement with the Docklands Authority which would give it privileged access to and ultimate ownership of the new Victoria Stadium to be built at Docklands.
The AFL also indicated that it was likely to sell the one stadium it owns (rather than leases) Waverley Park.
Though the Docklands agreement seems to have meet with the general support of the AFL clubs, there are some clubs and others within the Victorian community who do not want to see Waverley Park sold. There are also those who have some reservations about the Docklands agreement.
Background
The decision to build a new sports stadium in Melbourne took some time to be finalised.
It was originally felt that there was a need for a general sporting venue which could cater for crowds between the 100,000 that can be accommodated at the MCG and the 15,000 that can be accommodated at Melbourne Park.
Initially it does not seem that it was intended that this venue necessarily cater for AFL competition.
(Super League intends to be in Melbourne by 1999 and will require a suitable venue. Australian Rugby League also plans to establish a competition in Melbourne.)
Of more pressing significance appears to have been the need to have a ground that would ensure that the 2000 Olympic soccer competition was played in Melbourne.
The premier, Mr Kennett, also seems to have been concerned to have a modern sporting facility to support Melbourne's bid to host the 2006 Commonwealth Games.
Ten possibilities were apparently considered, including upgrading Olympic Park, Waverley Park, Caulfield Racecourse, the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds, Optus Oval, and Sandown Racecourse.
The ultimate decision was to build a stadium in the new Docklands development planned for the west of Melbourne.
The primary consideration appears to have been ease of access, though some commentators have suggested that the stadium project would help kick-start the Docklands project. The Government has denied that this is its intention.
The chairman of the Melbourne and Olympic Park Trust, the State Government's advisor on the project, is Mr Graeme Samuel. Mr Samuel is also an AFL commissioner.
As the plan to build a stadium in the Docklands became known the AFL began to express some tentative interest in using the facility, however, it wanted significant control over the manner in which it could use the ground.
The possible closure of Waverley Park will affect Hawthorn and St Kilda most directly. These clubs currently use Waverley Park as their home ground.
Waverley Park, which was built some 27 years ago, is the only stadium actually owned by the AFL. All other grounds are leased. Waverley Park is 24 kilometers from Melbourne, to the south east.
Also concerned is the Carlton Football Club. Their home ground, Optus Oval, which is also used by the Western Bulldogs, has recently been extensively renovated. Some Carlton representatives do not appear to want competition from another Melbourne ground, particularly one which will have superior facilities
Arguments against the AFL going from Waverley Park to the Victoria Stadium
There have been a number of arguments put against the AFL selling Waverley Park and having a minimum of 27 games a year played at the Victoria Stadium to be built at Docklands.
The first set of arguments are concerns about the proposed Victoria Stadium. The second set of arguments are those being put in defence of Waverley Park. Finally there are those who are concerned about the terms under which the AFL would gain access to Victoria Stadium.
The principal concern voiced about the proposed Victoria Stadium appears to be whether, in fact, the AFL needs another city venue.
Those who have this concern claim that Melbourne already has two high quality venues - the MCG (which has had the Great Southern Stand added and has plans for modernising the Northern Stand) and the Optus Oval (which has recently been refurbished at a cost of $16m).
It has been argued, that if, as the AFL anticipates, the number of Victorian clubs drops to eight or perhaps six, there will not be a need for three venues all located in the central Melbourne area.
Former AFL corporate planner, John Hennessy, has noted that if there were only eight Victorian AFL clubs there would be only 88 matches played in Victoria over the standard football year.
Mr Hennessy has added, `This would reduce to 66 games if we had only six teams so there would be no need for another stadium.'
Mr Hennessy has claimed, `The MCG, one of the world's great stadiums, could host the majority of the games if the teams in Melbourne were reduced. Other games could be played at Kardinia Park (eight a season) and Optus Oval.'
Some critics have claimed that even without a reduction in the number of Victorian clubs, there is currently no justification for another AFL venue in the centre of Melbourne.
Another concern that has been expressed about the proposed Victoria Stadium is the number of seats it will have.
It has been suggested that the planned seating, for 52,000, is likely to be insufficient to cover current regular attendances let alone the increased attendances that are anticipated into the next century.
Mr Ron Casey, North Melbourne president, has claimed, `I am not convinced Docklands will be big enough to accommodate football crowds now, or in the future.
`North Melbourne last year averaged 40,000 at its games, and that wasn't the highest average attendance at a Melbourne-based club by a long shot.'
Another related concern is that there may be insufficient unreserved seats and that the cost of booking seats may be too great for many supporters.
The AFL has negotiated a deal whereby 5,000 seats will be available for sale at the gate if all other seats are booked.
It has been claimed that with a total seating capacity of only 52,000, supporters interested in attending any AFL game to be played at Victoria Stadium would be wise to book. There are those who are concerned about this because there will be a booking fee attached and all booked seats will cost more than unbooked seats once all charges are considered. The overall concern is that the new stadium will help to price the game out of the reach of many Victorians.
It is anticipated that there will be a general admission charge which has been reported as being $14 or $15 . To reserve or book a seat will then cost either $8, $14 or $20 depending on the type of seating booked. It is also anticipated that there will be a $2 booking fee.
In addition, there is concern that there is an imbalance between the number of unreserved and bookable seats to be made available to the general public and the number of debenture seats.
It is currently proposed to make some 12,000 special seats available as debenture or investment purchases. Each debenture seat would cost $10,000
The Sunday Age, in its editorial of February 16, 1997, noted, `As about 12,000 of the proposed 52,000 seats would be set aside for debenture holders, the stadium's capacity for club supporters and the general public would be effectively reduced to 40,000 - not enough, the clubs say, for popular matches, despite the ... higher prices for tickets.'
There has been criticism of the probable move to Docklands as part of a general trend which is taking AFL football out of the hands of grass-roots, frequently working-class, supporters and making it a sporting competition followed by the wealthy and corporate interests.
Mr Brendan Martin, a Sydney Swans supporter, has been reported as saying, `You have to keep the game affordable for families. The Docklands is just another case of taking football from the supporters.'
A similar view was reported from Mr Ammitzboll of Carnegie. `Docklands will be a corporate stadium so it's unfair to the average person.'
There have been another set of arguments in support of retaining the Waverley Park Oval.
The principal argument offered is that Waverley Park is well placed to serve the south east of Melbourne which is an area of rapid population growth.
Those who believe that Waverley Park should be retained stress that there are some 1.5 million people living in the general vicinity of the Park.
Waverley was originally selected as the area where the AFL (then the VFL) would build its own stadium because this was an area of strong population growth. The league was attempting to establish a strong supporter base in this growth area and also to use it as an area for player recruitment.
Those who wish to see Waverley Park retained use the same arguments today.
Sports commentator, Mike Sheahan, regretting the probable loss of Waverley Park, has stated, `The sad thing is the vast pool of football followers and future footballers in the south-east region of Melbourne will lose their link to AFL football.'
There are also those who have defended the facilities that Waverley Park is able to offer. Mike Sheahan has claimed that `Waverley has a magnificent playing surface and looks a picture during late summer and autumn since the league finally agreed to spend a little loose change to splash a little paint around the place.'
In addition it has been noted that Waverley has a seating capacity of some 70,000, significantly more than will be available at Victoria Stadium. It has also been noted that Waverley Park can make more unreserved seats available then are planned for Victoria Stadium.
It has further been claimed that the supporter base Waverley can offer any club playing home games at Waverley Park is a reason to retain the ground.
Mike Sheahan has noted that, `Hawthorn reportedly is redressing its financial problems via Waverley Gardens and has strong support in the region.'
Hawthorn and St Kilda, the two clubs currently using Waverley Park as their home ground, both have thirty year leases. Each club will be seeking financial compensation if required to move. Each club is also afraid that such a shift might lose it sponsorship and might also limit its capacity to sell corporate boxes and membership tickets. (It is anticipated that Victoria Park will ultimately be used by up to six Victorian clubs, thus potentially reducing the capacity of each individual club to make special arrangements regarding the sale of seats.)
St Kilda appears to view the prospect of playing home games on the Victoria Stadium as a worthwhile proposition. Hawthorn, on the other hand, would prefer to remain at Waverley Park.
Finally, concern has been expressed over the terms on which the AFL will gain control of Victoria Stadium.
Initially opponents of the move objected to the AFL spending between $30m and $80m so that it could merely lease a ground. It was argued that it made little sense to lease a ground at such expense while selling a ground, Waverley Park, which the AFL owns.
In the event, the deal the AFL has struck with the Docklands Authority appears to guarantee that Victoria Stadium would ultimately belong to the AFL for an outlay of $30m.
There are, however, those who are sceptical about this arrangement.
Greg Durham, a Geelong football administrator, has warned, `Nobody down the years knows what could suddenly happen to alter what originally seemed a sweetheart deal.'
A spokesperson for one of the four developers bidding for the project has given a similar warning. This person has claimed that the Docklands Authority is in no position to negotiate terms with the AFL without the involvement of the developer who will build, finance and initially own the project. He has described the arrangements reached up to this point as `a whole heap of bull...'
Arguments in favour of the AFL going from Waverley Park to Victoria Stadium
There are a number of arguments offered in favour of the AFL going from Waverley Park to Victoria Stadium.
The principal argument offered in support of the change is that Victoria Stadium will offer facilities of a very high quality.
The proposed stadium will seat 52,000 people.
The ground will have see-through entry and exit ramps; new styles of seating (all under cover); new styles of scoreboard; and a retractable roof, the largest of its type in the world. The playing surface will be grass. It has been argued that the roof will allow the playing surface to be covered when it rains prior to a game so that the ground will not be rain-softened. Ground which has been rain-softened is generally damaged when played upon.
The plan which the Victorian Government and the Docklands Authority have accepted includes seating will be hydraulically driven and movable. Seating can be moved out over the field without touching the playing surface. This will allow spectators a better view of players from other codes, requiring a smaller playing surface.
There will be dining areas with floor-to-ceiling windows and views of Victoria Harbor and the city skyline.
With regard to claims that the cost of the better reserved seats is too high supporters of Victoria Stadium have claimed that football fans are willing to pay higher prices for better facilities.
Herald-Sun urban affairs writer, Alen Rados, has stated, `The days are over when spectators have to gag on urine smells in concrete toilets, put up with rain down their backs or Arctic-like winds plucking at their scarves and beanies.'
AFL commissioner, Mr Graeme Samuel, has been reported as claiming, `People are demanding increasing comfort and facilities.'
It has claimed that a recent survey indicates that some 81% of people favour the Docklands development, including Victoria Stadium.
Further, it has been suggested that claims that the new stadium will only service the wealthy are untrue.
Mr Wayne Jackson, the AFL chief executive, has claimed that a season ticket for a family of four for Victoria Park would cost $474.
Mr Jackson has claimed that this compares favourably with the $566 such a ticket would cost at Kardinia Park and the $548 it would cost at Optus Oval.
Mr Jackson has also claimed that the criticisms leveled at Victoria Stadium for supposedly having too few unreserved seats are unreasonable. In Mr Jackson's view, this is another area in which Victoria Stadium compares favourably with other major grounds.
Mr Jackson has claimed that there are no unreserved seats available at Optus Oval when they have capacity crowds. He also notes that when Waverley Park has a capacity crowd, there are only 3000 unreserved seats made available.
According to Mr Jackson, the 5000 unreserved seats Victoria Stadium will make available should there be a sell-out is significantly better than what is available at Optus Oval and Kardinia Park.
Mr Jackson has also stressed that the AFL has negotiated that greater numbers of unreserved seats be available when games are not sold out. For example, there will be 15,500 seats available in a crowd of only 20,000.
Supporters of the Docklands stadium also maintain that the AFL has negotiated effectively and secured a good deal for clubs and supporters.
Defenders of the AFL/Docklands Authority agreement note that the AFL has secured:
The sole right to set admission prices
The right, with the clubs, to set reserve seat prices
Exclusive rights to matches on Friday and Saturday
The right to schedule matches on most Sundays
The right to set AFL fixtures before other stadium users
Rights to all signs within the stadium and liquor rights for all AFL matches.
The AFL will also not have to meet the costs of maintaining the facility.
With regard to ultimate ownership, some AFL spokespeople have suggested that the League may own the stadium within 10 years, others are suggesting that it may take between 40 and 50 years.
The stadium will be what is referred to as a BOOT project. Under the terms of such a project the private developer builds, owns, operates and then transfers the project.
It is anticipated that the developer who secures the right to build the project will want both to recoup costs and achieve a significant profit. Where estimates currently vary is as to how long it will take to achieve this double aim.
Mr Jackson has claimed that under the terms of the agreement the stadium operator would receive 15% of gross receipts at Victoria Stadium. (The remaining 85% is to go to the ALF.) However, the operator would receive 90% of gross receipts for any qualifying final or State of Origin match played on the ground.
It has also been claimed that the new stadium will result in financial gain for those clubs which use it as their home ground.
Mr Jackson has claimed that clubs using Victoria Stadium as their home ground could `could boost their match return revenue by between $160,000 and $850,000 per season'.
Supporters of the proposed Victoria Stadium at the Docklands development have also claimed that it has further features which, in comparison to Waverley Park, make it the superior choice.
The first of these is that Victoria Stadium would be a new, modern facility, while Waverley Park is 27 years old, and, it is claimed, in need of substantial renovation.
Critics of Waverley Park maintain that it has a number of weaknesses which would need to be overcome if it were to remain one of the AFL's premier venues into the next century.
The AFL has estimated that a minimum of $14 million and a maximum of $80 million is needed to bring Waverley Park up to the desired standard.
Herald Sun sports writer Mike Sheahan has said, `The more realistic figure is architect Darryl Jackson's estimate of $27 million, which would solve the most pressing problems, including a reconfiguration of the playing area to bring the action closer to the spectators.'
Mr Sheahan adds, `There's a further $4-6 million for a scoreboard to replace the sepia board...'
The AFL maintains that it is not worthwhile spending more than $30 million upgrading Waverley Park when for that amount of money the league could gain the use of and be the ultimate owners of Victoria Stadium.
Further, it has been claimed, if the league sells Waverley Park, for which it would expect to realise some $30 million, the move to Victoria Stadium would be revenue neutral.
Mr Wayne Jackson has stated, `The AFL has negotiated moving from a stadium currently in the order of 30 years of age, requiring substantial annual maintenance, and capital expenditure in the order of $15 - $18 million, to take it forward another 30 years.'
Instead of this, Mr Jackson said, the league is planning `to go into a stadium that will be thirty years younger, state of the art, no capital expenditure required, and no maintenance required, on a 40-50 year lease. That's an outstanding deal for the AFL.'
It has also been claimed that Victoria Stadium will be a more suitable venue because it is much better served by public transport than is Waverley Park.
The architect of Victoria Stadium, Daryl Jackson, has said, `A site in the Docklands, behind Spencer Street Station, has been chosen because of train, tram, car, pedestrian and even water-taxi access.'
Waverley Park, on the other hand, requires most spectators to come to the ground in their own cars and after 27 years still has no direct rail link with Melbourne.
Finally it has been acknowledged that the closure of Waverley Park and the setting up of the Victoria Stadium at Docklands would disadvantage football supporters to the south east of Melbourne. However, the AFL is hopeful that over the next couple of years, as the Victoria Stadium is being built, it will be able to convince those living in the south east that the trip to Melbourne is worth the effort.
The AFL believes that there may be some loss of supporters from Melbourne's south east, but does not believe that there are likely to be many.
Wayne Jackson has claimed, `We agonised over the typical football fan in the south-eastern suburbs.
`If needs be, we can make it attractive to the fans of St Kilda and Hawthorn to try out the new stadium - and if they do not like it we will have lost a few fans along the way.'
Further implications
At this stage it seems highly likely that the AFL will go ahead with the agreement they have reached with the Docklands Authority and play 27 games a year at Victoria Stadium.
The successful bidder, who will build and initially own the project, will be announced in August. The stadium is expected to be completed by late 1999.
Victoria Park is certain to have a significant impact on the AFL competition. The league hopes that the modern facilities will attract further supporters and perhaps assist it in its ultimate intention of making the game international.
If the new stadium is as popular as it is hoped it will be, it should boost the revenues of the up to six clubs which are likely to use it as their home ground. It will be interesting to note if this will be at the expense of those clubs who are not likely to use it as their home ground. If so, it could help bring about the AFL preferred option that the number of Victorian-based clubs be reduced.
It will also be interesting to note if Waverley Park does cease to be an AFL ground.
Currently there is at least one consortium interested in buying the ground so that it can continue to be an AFL venue. Whether this plan goes ahead will depend in part on whether Hawthorn and/or St Kilda remain on at Waverley and whether they are joined by another club, perhaps Collingwood.
The Premier, Mr Kennett, has stated that the project will go ahead with or without the involvement of the AFL. Be that as it may, the revenues guaranteed by AFL crowds must make the project more appealing for the four groups who are bidding for it.
Sources
The Age
11/2/97 page 1 news item by Stephen Linnell, `Reserve your place, for a mere $500'
16/2/97 page 16 editorial, `Is this the place for a stadium?'
23/3/97 page 1 news item by Rohan Connolly, `A new home for football'
23/3/97 page 1 news item by Ian Munro and Rohan Connolly, `How Neil Diamond got stadium crackling'
23/3/97 page 2 news item by Adrian Rollins, `We will try to save Waverley: Hawthorn'
23/3/97 page 2 news item by Adrian Rollins, `Final four to fight out contract'
23/3/97 page 18 editorial, `Docklands: AFL wins a close one'
23/3/97 page 3 (Sportsweek) news item by Rohan Connolly, `Race for Docklands'
23/3/97 page 3 (Sportsweek) comment by Rohan Connolly, `The other battle now begins'
23/3/97 page 4 (Sportsweek) news item by Stephen Howell, `Priority for AFL may be a setback'
23/3/97 page 4 (Sportsweek0 comment by Richard Hinds, `Docklands double'
23/3/97 page 5 (Sportsweek) news item by Linda Pearce, `AFL's home "gone"'
23/3/97 page 5 (Sportsweek) news item by Linda Pearce, `League to squander $30m, says Elliott'
25/3/97 page C3 (Metro) analysis by Dugald Jellie, `Build it and they will come - and complain'
The Herald Sun
16/2/97 page 64 analysis by Rod Nicholson, `Grounds for grave concern'
24/2/97 page 1 news item By Alen Rados, `Sports city'
24/2/97 page 8 news item, `Opening our doors to the world'
24/2/97 page 9 news item by Alen Rados, `Stadium an urban feast'
24/2/97 page 18 editorial, `Blueprint for ugly west end'
25/2/97 page 10 analysis by Daryl Timms, `Super stadium in the dock'
23/3/97 page 10 analysis by Rod Nicholson, `Waverley dumped in $30m deal'
23/3/97 page 55 news item by Scot Palmer, `Hawks cling to Waverley hope'
24/3/97 page 1 news item by Michelle Coffey and Daryl Timms, `Tycoon's plan for footy revolution'
24/3/97 page 76 comment by Mike Sheahan, `Waverley hopes go west'
24/3/97 page 76 news item by Daryl Timms, `Interest high in ground deal'
24/3/97 page 80 news item by Daryl Timms, `Pies eye park'
25/3/97 page 72 news item by Daryl Timms, `MCG cash fear'