New ACT stadium in World Cup bid

Good point

From what I heard on the grapevine (aka Sportal Forums), they're looking at putting it on Northbourne Oval in Braddon. I really hope they put it there, because it pulls it into the middle of the city (similar to SCG/SFS and the Adelaide Oval) to give a more inclusive atmosphere, and it means that businesses in the city and Inner North will recieve greatly increased patronage on game day and weekends of events.
Also means the corporate facilities are closer to our decent accomodation (Hotel Canberra, Rydges Lakeside, Pavillion on Northbourne, etc).
One more point is if they transform what is now Bruce into an oval, it means that the ACT can host Test matches as well as day-night cricket because of the existing lights, as well as improving the ground where they play the PMs XI games.
But: if they pull Bruce apart, are they going to un-name the Meninga and Gregan/Larkham Stands? Perhaps call them the Brad Haddin and Alex Jesaulenko stands, with the James Hird Hill?

That would be fantastic, I haven't seen it anywhere though have they got a source?

andrew barr said a couple of months ago (shows how long i havent been on the forum) that Northbourne Oval (rugby league oval in braddon, built in 1925, next to braddon club and opposite canberra centre parking) is a possiblity because of it's close to civic but it is heritage listed so it could be difficult!

Then un-heritage list it.

If it doesn't go there, it should go in Dickson or next to Woden Hospital.

Woden - between two arterial roads, good bus links, big enough area, next to a hospital...

efcmetro1878 wrote:Then un-heritage list it.

If it doesn't go there, it should go in Dickson or next to Woden Hospital.

Woden - between two arterial roads, good bus links, big enough area, next to a hospital...

That could be quite good just off Tuggeranong Parkway

i would really like it to be at Southwell Park TBH... the one near the end of northbourne avenue, near national hockey and sports club... its primarly a rugby union ground but if you build a 25-40k stadium there for the brumbies, raiders, canberra a-league, etc, then it will be used for rugby anyway! plust theres heaps of room around it to have multi storey parking etc, and its in the middle of civic

Yeah I agree completely with efcmetero, if they build a new stadium in the city it would be so much better and would increase crowd numbers as it is in the centre (basically) of Canberra.

problem with northbourne oval is there is no parking except for the canberra centre parking which i doubt could hold 20,000 cars! i think this is the same problem in woden though, could you really have 20,000 people parking in hospital car parks, possibly preventing some who needs to go to the hospital. i know its unlikely and the ACT gov would take it in consideration but i just think Southwell Park would be better! either that or the current AIS spot

Southwell park would be good as well. It is basically in the same area as Northborne Oval i.e close to the city.

JohnLovesCanberraUnited wrote:problem with northbourne oval is there is no parking except for the canberra centre parking which i doubt could hold 20,000 cars! i think this is the same problem in woden though, could you really have 20,000 people parking in hospital car parks, possibly preventing some who needs to go to the hospital. i know its unlikely and the ACT gov would take it in consideration but i just think Southwell Park would be better! either that or the current AIS spot

ok first off why are there 20000 cars? if the max crowd is 40k (which would only be for the world cup) then the public transport would have to be very heavy i think you'd be looking closer to 10k cars if even.

sorry but your point about the hospital is BS, if they're in a critical condition why are they on the multi-story car park?

southwell park????

sorry john but this is one of your worst posts

I still think the original plan was a better one...there's more space up at the AIS and there's better transport links to get there in their proposed plan.

Putting it smack bang in the middle of the city/woden smacks of stupidity...traffic would be chaos.
One would think that by the time the stadium is build, the GDE would actually be duplicated all the way through, which would make getting to the stadium a hell of a lot easier to get to than the middle of civic or woden...

Schimch@capital hill wrote:

JohnLovesCanberraUnited wrote:problem with northbourne oval is there is no parking except for the canberra centre parking which i doubt could hold 20,000 cars! i think this is the same problem in woden though, could you really have 20,000 people parking in hospital car parks, possibly preventing some who needs to go to the hospital. i know its unlikely and the ACT gov would take it in consideration but i just think Southwell Park would be better! either that or the current AIS spot

ok first off why are there 20000 cars? if the max crowd is 40k (which would only be for the world cup) then the public transport would have to be very heavy i think you'd be looking closer to 10k cars if even.

sorry but your point about the hospital is BS, if they're in a critical condition why are they on the multi-story car park?

southwell park????

sorry john but this is one of your worst posts

number one - by cars i meant all forms of transport... its easier to say cars than transport

number two - the hospital thing was just a random example but if we have a friday night game at woden... where will hospital staff park because if you havent noticed theyve got a huge of a parking shortage

number three - why not southwell park?

The problem with the AIS spot is such: fans can't walk into the city centre from there. That's a huge strain on our rubbish public transport system.

You all do know that a part of a World Cup stadium, is the happenings outside. For a stadium to be World Cup standard and suitable for hosting World Cup matches, it must have cafes, restaurant, facilities and big screens outside.

AIS is fine. There will be plenty of parking, and TBH for the World Cup you don't need it anyway. Foreigners won't be driving around Australia, locals will want to take public transport.

United On The Gong wrote:You all do know that a part of a World Cup stadium, is the happenings outside. For a stadium to be World Cup standard and suitable for hosting World Cup matches, it must have cafes, restaurant, facilities and big screens outside.

AIS is fine. There will be plenty of parking, and TBH for the World Cup you don't need it anyway. Foreigners won't be driving around Australia, locals will want to take public transport.

I'm pretty sure I read that if we win the bid there will be hotels, cafes and such built at the Bruce precint

I can't really weigh in on the location having not lived in Canberra, but for the capacity, I say 27,00 would be far better than 40,000. Obviously as people have mentioned, this provides a far better atmosphere due to a higher filled seat to empty seat ratio. For those saying that it would not be too much of a problem atmosphere-wise to have another 13,00 seats, than I feel is quite wrong. An example we can learn from is the MLS; whose teams were playing in the absolutely gigantic NFL stadiums (some of which are 80,000+) during the first decade of the competition and the poor atmoshpere caused many fans to desert the clubs. Obviously 40,000 is not as big as 80,0000, but think about it this way. The A-League would bring 15+ games to the stadium. Now say that the first game has a crowd of 20,000, as obviously the first game of the new club (complete with a couple eye-catching marquees) would spark a fair amount of interest.

20,000 into 40,000 = 50% occupancy. Thus despite a corwd that most A-League teams would drool over, we're getting the equivalent atmosphere of 11,000 in a 22,000 stadium (e.g Buletongue Stadium on the Central Coast). Whilst that is good for a Central Coast game, those game don't really stick in your memory, a game like the 4-5 loss to Sydney, whilst phenomenal due to the scoreline, was made brilliant due to the 17,000 who turned up to the game.

17,000 into 22,000 = 77% occupancy.
20,000 into 27,000 = 74% occupancy.

As you can see, having a 27,000 seater stadium would bring us closer to that magical 75%+ occupancy which provides such a brilliant atmosphere. A brilliant atmosphere w\for the first game immediately impresses all those in attendance and there is nothing better than a good first impression. This will cause more supporters to turn up time and time again, thus creating a higer average attendance than what would come from a 40,000 seater stadium, perhaps by as much as 2-3 thousand.

But let's say that it brings in an extra 1,500 per game.

1,500 x 16 games = 24,000 fans more. This money from the tickets will go back to the club. Obviously fees will need to be paid to the ground owners and others, but it's our money. Whilst Socceroos games would bring a good crowd, that money goes to the FFA. Sure eventually we'll see some of the cut, but definitely not as much. The club would also save money on having to account for less seats, something that Clive Palmer has utilised at the Gold Coast, but obviously not with much success. If we're only getting say 13-15 thousand a game, why stock the 40,000 sized ground with food/drinks when we could manage the same size crowd in a 27,000 sized ground. It just doesn't make sense. Having to open 13,000 less seats every game (theoretically the size of the whole crowd present), would save money, whilst the improved atmosphere will bring in more fans and consequently more money. Once the team is attracting 20,000+ for most of its games, then ground expansion can be thought of.

Now as for hosting higher-profile Socceroos games; currently they are held at the following stadiums:

Telstra Dome: 55,000 approx
MCG: 100,000 approx
ANZ Stadium: 80,000 approx
Suncorp Stadium: 55,000 approx

See a pattern? All of these are higher than 40,000. All the major Socceroos games will go to these grounds because the FFA can sell more tickets. Enough said.

Thanks for your long comment it was a great read. I agree that the 27000 seats sounds like the best solution. Despite it seeming low, looking at A-league crowds we would most likely only fill half that on a regular basis. Possibly with big games (ie Sydney and Melbourne) we will be looking closer to that 75% ratio you were mentioning.

arinceo wrote:I can't really weigh in on the location having not lived in Canberra, but for the capacity, I say 27,00 would be far better than 40,000. Obviously as people have mentioned, this provides a far better atmosphere due to a higher filled seat to empty seat ratio. For those saying that it would not be too much of a problem atmosphere-wise to have another 13,00 seats, than I feel is quite wrong. An example we can learn from is the MLS; whose teams were playing in the absolutely gigantic NFL stadiums (some of which are 80,000+) during the first decade of the competition and the poor atmoshpere caused many fans to desert the clubs. Obviously 40,000 is not as big as 80,0000, but think about it this way. The A-League would bring 15+ games to the stadium. Now say that the first game has a crowd of 20,000, as obviously the first game of the new club (complete with a couple eye-catching marquees) would spark a fair amount of interest.

20,000 into 40,000 = 50% occupancy. Thus despite a corwd that most A-League teams would drool over, we're getting the equivalent atmosphere of 11,000 in a 22,000 stadium (e.g Buletongue Stadium on the Central Coast). Whilst that is good for a Central Coast game, those game don't really stick in your memory, a game like the 4-5 loss to Sydney, whilst phenomenal due to the scoreline, was made brilliant due to the 17,000 who turned up to the game.

17,000 into 22,000 = 77% occupancy.
20,000 into 27,000 = 74% occupancy.

As you can see, having a 27,000 seater stadium would bring us closer to that magical 75%+ occupancy which provides such a brilliant atmosphere. A brilliant atmosphere w\for the first game immediately impresses all those in attendance and there is nothing better than a good first impression. This will cause more supporters to turn up time and time again, thus creating a higer average attendance than what would come from a 40,000 seater stadium, perhaps by as much as 2-3 thousand.

But let's say that it brings in an extra 1,500 per game.

1,500 x 16 games = 24,000 fans more. This money from the tickets will go back to the club. Obviously fees will need to be paid to the ground owners and others, but it's our money. Whilst Socceroos games would bring a good crowd, that money goes to the FFA. Sure eventually we'll see some of the cut, but definitely not as much. The club would also save money on having to account for less seats, something that Clive Palmer has utilised at the Gold Coast, but obviously not with much success. If we're only getting say 13-15 thousand a game, why stock the 40,000 sized ground with food/drinks when we could manage the same size crowd in a 27,000 sized ground. It just doesn't make sense. Having to open 13,000 less seats every game (theoretically the size of the whole crowd present), would save money, whilst the improved atmosphere will bring in more fans and consequently more money. Once the team is attracting 20,000+ for most of its games, then ground expansion can be thought of.

Now as for hosting higher-profile Socceroos games; currently they are held at the following stadiums:

Telstra Dome: 55,000 approx
MCG: 100,000 approx
ANZ Stadium: 80,000 approx
Suncorp Stadium: 55,000 approx

See a pattern? All of these are higher than 40,000. All the major Socceroos games will go to these grounds because the FFA can sell more tickets. Enough said.

Brilliant post

And I agree wholeheartedly. The bottom line is that the FFA will always give the World Cup qualifiers to the big cities: Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The likes of Canberra, Perth, Adelaide and maybe a Gold Coast will only draw minor friendlies and Asian Cup qualifiers. Doesn't matter about size of the stadium, size of the city... the FFA will always want to put high drawing games in big cities, as the gate revenue would be a much more significant number than if it is played at a smaller city.
This then leads on, that Canberra does not need a white elephant. NO Canberra club is going to sell it out, unless we see a Raiders finals match, or a Brumbies GF.
The Canberra A-League team, IMO, will only get crowds around the 8,000 mark, so there simply is no need for a 40,000 seater stadium.

Just a couple of days ago i went to a Real Madrid game at the Santiago Bernabeu and with 80,000 people the atmosphere was fantastic and it really does make a football game all the more enjoyable. I think a 27,000 seater is the way to go for canberra as the atmosphere of a game is very important.

I think the problem is though, that if we build this new stadium and, say, the Brumbies get a home GF, then how can we put in temporary seating to bring it back up to 30-33,000

efcmetro1878 wrote:I think the problem is though, that if we build this new stadium and, say, the Brumbies get a home GF, then how can we put in temporary seating to bring it back up to 30-33,000

Who cares about the Brumbies?

Joey47 wrote:

efcmetro1878 wrote:I think the problem is though, that if we build this new stadium and, say, the Brumbies get a home GF, then how can we put in temporary seating to bring it back up to 30-33,000

Who cares about the Brumbies?

are you being serious?

I care deeply about the Brumbies. They're a local success story and a key indicator of demand in the region.

i'm pretty sure the brumbies are the most supported and succesful sporting team that canberra has ever had!