What they said ... `Football belongs to the people, Waverley Park allows them to be part of football' Mr Keith Stowers, in a letter published in The Age on September 3, 1998
`... the community doesn't need Waverley Park. It is essential to nothing' Age sports commentator, Patrick Smith
On September 1, 1998, the Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, joined the campaign to prevent the Australian Football League (AFL) selling the Waverley Park football stadium.
Mr Kennett indicated, in state parliament, that he would be seeking a meeting with the AFL's chief executive, Mr Wayne Jackson, in a bid to have the stadium retained by the AFL.
In taking this stance, Mr Kennett has effectively sided with Hawthorn, the club the premier follows, and 16 local councils in the vicinity of Waverley Park. These groups have been part of an attempt to keep Waverley Park as a venue for Australian Rules football.
The AFL has consistently resisted bids to save Waverley Park, arguing that it needs the money from the sale and that it will soon have no use for the stadium as a venue.
Background
The then Victorian Football League (later the Australian Football League) decided to build its own stadium in 1962. Up to this point all VFL games (including those played at the MCG) were played on leased grounds.
In 1962 the VFL bought 200 acres of land in the city of Waverley. Construction of the new stadium began in the mid-1960s and in 1970 the first games were played on the ground, which was then named VFL Park. It remains the only ground the AFL actually owns, rather than leases.
Waverley Park has hosted a number of finals, including the 1991 Grand Final. In the 1970s, it was also used for World Series Cricket. More recently it has become the home of the Waverley Reds in the Australian Baseball League.
The Waverley Park Stadium is currently the AFL's number two ground. The number one ground is the MCG, which is leased from the Melbourne Cricket Club.
In March, 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, high-tech stadium to be built at Docklands in the west of Melbourne.
This was seen to put the future of Waverley Park in doubt. There is also some suggestion that Docklands may displace the MCG as the AFL's primary ground in Victoria.
The tangle of interests involved in negotiating the competing rights of these two venues has been teased out by Age sports commentator Patrick Smith. Smith's article, titled State must step in on stadiums wrangle and published on July 10, 1998, can be found on the Internet at http://www.theage.com.au/footy98/news/columnists/smith/980710smith.html
The article is complex, as is the situation it describes, but it rewards careful reading.
There are a number of other Internet sites which supply relevant background information.
The Age @ The Footy, a collection of Age sports reports dealing with Australian Rules football, has reproduced a large number of articles dealing with aspects of this issue.
In a comment titled, Waverley dead if rival gets go-ahead, The Age's sports commentator, Patrick Smith, outlines his belief that if the Docklands stadium goes ahead, Waverley Park will be dispensed with. The article was originally published on March 14, 1997, and can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/sport/970314/scsp.txt.htm
A second article titled, Victorian club may play in Sydney, gives interesting background on the possibility of a second Melbourne side transferring to Sydney. Any such side would be likely to use the Homebush Stadium after the 2000 Olympics. Such a move would give even less reason for retaining Waverley Park once Docklands is established.
The article was written by Stephen Linnell and originally published on May 8, 1997. It can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/footy/news/general/0508syd.html
Two weeks later an article titled, Sydney and the 'bush for Collingwood,
raised the possibility of Collingwood playing some third of its games at the Homebush stadium after the 2000 Olympics. This would give the club the advantage of the Olympic stadium and access to a wider supporter base, without having to surrender its Melbourne connection. The Collingwood plan makes no distinction between the club playing at Waverley Park or Docklands.
The article was written by Anthony Mithen and published on May 21, 1997. It can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/footy/news/coll/0521_home.html
In a fourth article, AFL cool on Hawk plan to roof Waverley, Age sports reporter Stephen Linnell reports on the AFL's lack of support for Hawthorn plans to develop Waverley Park. The item was originally published on June 5, 1998. It can be found at http;//www.theage.com.au/footy/news/haw/0605_wav.html
In an earlier article published on June 1, 1997, more detailed information was given on Hawthorn's plans to develop Waverley Park. These include replacing the scoreboard and roofing some 80 to 90 per cent of the stadium. There is also information on Hawthorn's increased club membership.
The article is titled Hawthorn's Waverley roof plan. It was written by Richard Hinds and can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/footy/news/haw/0601_waverley.html
A sixth article, titled Push to keep Waverley Park for AFL gains momentum, written by Stephen Reilly and originally published on 22 July, 1997, can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/footy/news/general/0723_wav.htm
This outlines some of the early moves made by the Hawthorn football club and ten local councils to retain Waverley Park as a football stadium.
Arguments against the sale of the Waverley Park football stadium
Those who argue that Waverley Park should remain an AFL stadium and not be pulled down and the site redeveloped, stress the stadium's value to the football clubs which use it and to the local communities which surround it.
The Hawthorn and St Kilda clubs each has a contract with the AFL to use the Waverley Park ground until 2032.
In recent years Hawthorn has doubled its club membership to some 26,000. It has been struggling clear of earlier proposals that it should amalgamate with Melbourne. Part of Hawthorn's club development plan appears to have been its moves to develop Waverley Park as a permanent home for the club and to attract supporters to it.
In 1997 Hawthorn organised fireworks at Waverley Park, held parades and provided bus transport to the ground. It has been claimed that these initiatives have been successful with Waverley Park attracting an annual 750,000 spectators.
Hawthorn has further plans for the ground. The club has proposed that a $5 levy be placed on all spectators coming to games at Waverley Park and that this money be used to put a roof over most of the seating areas and to replace the outdated scoreboard.
Hawthorn's president, Mr Ian Dicker, has also attracted the support of 16 local councils. These councils have indicated that they will help to meet Waverley Park's $2.2 million annual maintenance bill.
The second argument offered in favour of the retention of Waverley Park as a football stadium is that the AFL can get the funds it supposedly requires by selling Waverley Park to Hawthorn.
When the estimated value of Waverley Park was $55 million Hawthorn indicated that it was working on a purchase plan. Since then the 16 local councils referred to earlier have claimed that they would be prepared to help to meet the purchase cost from a community trust fund.
The third argument offered in favour of the retention of Waverley Park is that it services a large number of spectators. The south-east of Melbourne is an area of population growth and thus is an area which already has large numbers of football supporters and where there is potential for further growth.
This point has been made by Hawthorn club president, Mr Ian Dicker.
It has also been made by the Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, who has claimed that people in Victoria's south-east deserved to have access to an AFL venue, and further that the spread of population made Waverley the ideal third stadium, after the MCG and Docklands.
A petition published in The Herald Sun on September 4, 1998, and placed at the expense 13 cities and shires claims, `Two million Victorians have cheap and convenient access to the footy at Waverley Park.'
The fourth point made is that Waverley Park can seat more people than the proposed Docklands Stadium and offers the cheapest seating available in Victoria. Its critics claim that Docklands will be priced out of the reach of many Victorians, especially those with families.
Waverley Park can seat some 70,000 people; on the current plan, Docklands will be able to accommodate some 55,000.
Mr David Ginsbourg, in a letter written to The Age and published on September 5, 1998, has claimed, `What will happen if it [the AFL] goes ahead with its Docklands plan is that there will be a lot fewer seats at Melbourne games for the ordinary supporter and they will be considerably more expensive.'
Fifthly, it has been claimed that because Waverley Park is an older style stadium it allows supporters better access to the game and thus the chance to become more involved.
Mr Keith Stowers, in a letter published in The Age on September 3, 1998, wrote, `Families, babies in prams, many with their grandparents, come to a day out at the football without the restriction of having to cram into plastic buckets three floors above ground level. The cheer squads are able to move from one end of the ground to the other ... thousands can kick a football on the ground at the end of the match ... Football belongs to the people, Waverley Park allows them to be part of football.'
The sixth point made is that any decision to close and pull down Waverley Park is part of a larger trend of disregard for supporters and traditions within the AFL.
This point has been made by Mr David Ginsbourg, who has argued, `The AFL's track record in recent years shows clearly that it measures "success" by the amount of money coming in, not the number of people following football or attending matches.'
A similar point has been made by Mr Keith Stowers, who has claimed, `Many of us can only hope that the decision-makers at the AFL come to the realisation that the future of football lies not in smart cards, retractable roofs and sterile grandstands ...'
Arguments in favour of the sale of the Waverley Park football stadium
The first argument offered in support of the sale of Waverley Park is financial.
The AFL anticipates selling Waverley Park for some $80 million. The AFL has argued that it needs the money from the sale of Waverley Park to cover its financial commitments in the establishment of the new Docklands stadium.
The AFL requires $30 million to meet its initial share in the cost of the new Docklands stadium. (Under the terms negotiated by the AFL, it anticipates it would own the new stadium within 25 years.)
The AFL has also maintained that the surplus cash from the sale of Waverley Park (estimated to be approximately $50 million) could be put to good use.
The AFL chief executive, Mr Wayne Jackson, has argued that the money could be used both to develop the game across Australia and to support Victorian clubs.
Mr Jackson has stated, `If we could generate those sorts of funds to develop the code nationally, we may well succeed in shoring up our sport for generations to come.
It is a lot of money to be able to put into the development of the game, some share of which, of course, would have to go back into the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne.'
Others, such as former AFL Tribunal chairman, Neil Busse, have argued that the bulk of the surplus funds should be directed towards Victorian clubs.
It is also anticipated that the AFL would use part of the proceeds from the sale of Waverley Park to increase its stake in Sydney's Olympic Stadium in Homebush. The AFL appears to have plans to have a significant number of AFL games played at Homebush and also appears to be encouraging at least one further Victorian club to re-locate to Sydney.
It has also been argued that some of the money from the sale of Waverley Park would enable the AFL to set up a reserve fund. The AFL appears to be considering holding in reserve some $10 to $20 million of the money raised through the sale of Waverley Park.
AFL chief executive, Wayne Jackson, has claimed, `We [the AFL] have been a clearing house and any organisation should have some form of reserves and I think the AFL ought to have a modest and appropriate reserve policy ...'
Secondly, those who support the sale of Waverley Park argue that selling this stadium and surrounding land and then directing a portion of the proceeds to the purchase of Docklands would give the AFL a better facility.
Those who hold this view maintain that significant money will need to be spent to refurbish Waverley Park. However, they argue, for an investment of $30 million the AFL would have a controlling interest in, and ultimate ownership of, a new, state-of-the-art facility at Docklands.
It is also claimed that there are plans being considered to increase the seating available at Docklands so that it would be able to accommodate the same number of fans that Waverley Park can hold.
Thirdly, it has been argued, that by the time Docklands is complete, the AFL will have no need of a stadium at Waverley Park.
According to this line of argument, with the completion of the Docklands stadium Melbourne will have the use of the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), the Docklands Stadium and the Optus Oval (Carlton's home ground).
The AFL has a contract requiring league games to be played on Optus Oval until 2006.
There also appears to be an understanding that league games will continue to be played at Kardinia Park, Geelong's home ground.
The Age's sports commentator, Patrick Smith, has claimed, `The overpowering weakness in any argument to keep Waverley is this: the AFL competition and the football community don't need it.
Docklands and the MCG will cater nicely for football crowds, with Optus Oval there to pick up the slack ...'
The need for Melbourne stadiums would be even further reduced if a further Melbourne club were to relocate in Sydney.
Fourthly, it has also been argued that Waverley Park is not necessary to the sporting life of southern-eastern Melbourne.
Age sports commentator, Patrick Smith, has claimed, `... the community doesn't need Waverley Park. It is essential to nothing. Sports like basketball, soccer and cricket flourish in the south-east without millions tied up in real estate.'
Finally, in relation to the contracts both Hawthorn and St Kilda have to use Waverley Park until 2032, supporters of the sale maintain that these clubs could be financially recompensed for the inconvenience of having to re-locate.
There are even those who claim that if Hawthorn and/or St Kilda re-located to Docklands or the MCG, they would be advantaged by the move and would not need compensation.
This position has been put by AFL chief executive, Wayne Jackson. Mr Jackson has claimed, `If Hawthorn played their footy at the MCG or Docklands, they would probably have a better financial result than playing at Waverley, so it's difficult to understand what claim could be made.
We've always acknowledged that that contract is there (with Hawthorn and St Kilda) and so we're not at loggerheads with either of the clubs on that issue.'
Further implications
It seems all but inevitable that the AFL will sell Waverley Park. Even those who want to see it remain an AFL ground appear to concede that it will be sold.
The question then becomes who will buy it. Hawthorn has indicated that it wishes to do so, however, the on-going speculation about the fate of the site appears to be driving up its price. Its estimated value, at least as reported, has risen from some $30 million to $80 million. Even if the $80 million figure is not reached, at the very least, Hawthorn would have to be able to out-bid any other interested buyer and it appears unlikely that it would be able to do so.
St Kilda, on the other hand, though apparently happy at Waverley Park, has not seemed as actively involved in the ground's defence and may be considering making a move to the Docklands stadium.
There are those who have challenged the Victorian Government to contribute to the cost of the ground's purchase. It is all but certain that this will not happen. Though the Victorian Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, has indicated that he wishes to see Waverley remain a league ground, he has also stated that it would be inappropriate for the Government to become financially involved.
If the sale of the ground seems certain and its purchase by Hawthorn unlikely, one of the major questions left to resolve is how the money from the sale will be used. There are those who claim that it should be used to support football in Victoria, there are others who believe that much of the money not put towards Docklands will be used to develop football interstate.
The Age has commented that the AFL seems to be losing the public relations war. It will be interesting to note if the quality of the facilities at Docklands overcomes the feelings of alienation supposedly felt by many Victorian football fans.
Sources The Age
2/9/98 page 1 news item by Sandra McKay, `Kennett bid to save Waverley'
3/9/98 page 14 editorial, `Why should Waverley go?'
3/9/98 page 14 letter from Keith Stowers, `The true meaning of footy'
3/9/98 page 1 (Sports section) news item by Stephen Linnell, `AFL blasts Kennett'
3/9/98 page 3 (Sport section) news item by Stephen Linnell, `Invest Waverley spoils: Busse'
3/9/98 page 3 (Sports section) comment by Patrick Smith, `Dicker's got ticker but AFL is slicker'
4/9/98 page 3 (Sports section) analysis by Stephen Linnell, `Waverley money for "rainy day"'
5/9/98 page 6 comment by john Elder, `In a traffic-choked suburb, the AFL dream fades to a dull grey'
5/9/98 page 10 letters from Frank Power & David Ginsberg, `The battle to save Waverley ... not the Docklands"
9/9/98 page 21 comments by Jess Crea et al, `Waverley Park: is it worth saving?'
The Australian
2/9/98 page 10 news item by Michael Magazanik & Tim Pegler, `Kennett tries to score at Waverley'
The Herald Sun
2/9/98 page 3 news item, `Kennett backs Waverley'
4/9/98 page 5 news item, `Broad support for Waverley'
4/9/98 page 103, petition placed by 13 Victorian Cities and Shires and signed by 18 prominent Australians, `We want Waverley!'
Back to previous page
