Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
nobleoz wrote:What everyone is forgetting on this post is that Waverley was built to eventually accomodate the GF - & to have crowds of 150,000. This could have happened, but politics intervened. When I lived in Melb I liked going out to Waverley. The facilitities in the outer were far superior to the MCG. If the railway had been built, who knows?
In the end Premier Cain threatened to legislate for the GF to always to be at the MCG - so the AFL had no choice. They then signed a lease which incl allowing VFL Pk members access to the MCC members. They thought they got a good deal - maybe they did - but it was the end of Waverley for the GF.
When the Southern Stand was proposed the AFL agreed to provide funding, if in return they got use of it for VFL members & football club members, incl boxes & dining rooms. Finally football supporters got decent facilites. The AFL thought they were getting a good deal - buyt they signed that long lease....
Without the AFL funding the Sthn Stand would not have been possible. Football followers finally had decent facilities. And the AFL got a better deal for its members - previously unthinkable by the MCC.
The AFL seems to have got good deals for its members, clubs & supporters - but it has also bound itself to long leases & just 2 Melb grounds.
I believe this is a fair summation of a historical event.
Does anybody see it differently ?
I believe that cricket has benefited historically from the involvement of Australian Football .
Does anybody see it differently ?
Egan ?
nobleoz wrote:What everyone is forgetting on this post is that Waverley was built to eventually accomodate the GF - & to have crowds of 150,000. This could have happened, but politics intervened. When I lived in Melb I liked going out to Waverley. The facilitities in the outer were far superior to the MCG. If the railway had been built, who knows?
In the end Premier Cain threatened to legislate for the GF to always to be at the MCG - so the AFL had no choice. They then signed a lease which incl allowing VFL Pk members access to the MCC members. They thought they got a good deal - maybe they did - but it was the end of Waverley for the GF.
When the Southern Stand was proposed the AFL agreed to provide funding, if in return they got use of it for VFL members & football club members, incl boxes & dining rooms. Finally football supporters got decent facilites. The AFL thought they were getting a good deal - buyt they signed that long lease....
Without the AFL funding the Sthn Stand would not have been possible. Football followers finally had decent facilities. And the AFL got a better deal for its members - previously unthinkable by the MCC.
The AFL seems to have got good deals for its members, clubs & supporters - but it has also bound itself to long leases & just 2 Melb grounds.
I believe this is a fair summation of a historical event.
Does anybody see it differently ?
I believe that cricket has benefited historically from the involvement of Australian Football .
Does anybody see it differently ?
Egan ?
.
Not in NSW it hasn't. If League had stayed at the ground the same developments would have happened as have happened since the Swans started to use it.
nobleoz wrote:What everyone is forgetting on this post is that Waverley was built to eventually accomodate the GF - & to have crowds of 150,000. This could have happened, but politics intervened. When I lived in Melb I liked going out to Waverley. The facilitities in the outer were far superior to the MCG. If the railway had been built, who knows?
In the end Premier Cain threatened to legislate for the GF to always to be at the MCG - so the AFL had no choice. They then signed a lease which incl allowing VFL Pk members access to the MCC members. They thought they got a good deal - maybe they did - but it was the end of Waverley for the GF.
When the Southern Stand was proposed the AFL agreed to provide funding, if in return they got use of it for VFL members & football club members, incl boxes & dining rooms. Finally football supporters got decent facilites. The AFL thought they were getting a good deal - buyt they signed that long lease....
Without the AFL funding the Sthn Stand would not have been possible. Football followers finally had decent facilities. And the AFL got a better deal for its members - previously unthinkable by the MCC.
The AFL seems to have got good deals for its members, clubs & supporters - but it has also bound itself to long leases & just 2 Melb grounds.
I believe this is a fair summation of a historical event.
Does anybody see it differently ?
I believe that cricket has benefited historically from the involvement of Australian Football .
Does anybody see it differently ?
Egan ?
.
Not in NSW it hasn't. If League had stayed at the ground the same developments would have happened as have happened since the Swans started to use it.
Totally agree . I could have titled the thread cricket is better off because of winter tenants .Including the SCG just widens the debate .
I do know that the SCG offered the winter lease to the NSW(Australian)FL early in it's history and the NSWFL stupidly declined .So Australian Football did in a very small way help cricket before the Swans .
Couldn't you just as easily argue that aussie rules is better off because of cricket (1992 World Cup contributed to the GSS being built), the Commonwealth Games (Northern Stand), the Olympics (Gabba, the original massive stands at the MCG)...
dibo wrote:Couldn't you just as easily argue that aussie rules is better off because of cricket (1992 World Cup contributed to the GSS being built), the Commonwealth Games (Northern Stand),
You're kidding yourself if you think either of these things would have been built if no footy games were played there. Both those events were just the catalyst, not the reason.
If you want an indication of what our cricket grounds would be like without other sports, have a look at England as the maximum possible standard.
dibo wrote:Couldn't you just as easily argue that aussie rules is better off because of cricket (1992 World Cup contributed to the GSS being built), the Commonwealth Games (Northern Stand), the Olympics (Gabba, the original massive stands at the MCG)...
I take it by that comment you agree that cricket is better off because of Australian Football .
dibo wrote:Couldn't you just as easily argue that aussie rules is better off because of cricket (1992 World Cup contributed to the GSS being built), the Commonwealth Games (Northern Stand),
You're kidding yourself if you think either of these things would have been built if no footy games were played there. Both those events were just the catalyst, not the reason.
If you want an indication of what our cricket grounds would be like without other sports, have a look at England as the maximum possible standard.
And isn't Lords so much better as a cricket venue than the MCG.
gyfox wrote:And isn't Lords so much better as a cricket venue than the MCG.
I suppose if you take away the pisspoor capacity, the lack of cover for spectators, the square shape of the playing surface, the fact it's not even flat and just leave the history of the venue, then I suppose Lords slightly shades the MCG. But only just.
gyfox wrote:And isn't Lords so much better as a cricket venue than the MCG.
I suppose if you take away the pisspoor capacity, the lack of cover for spectators, the square shape of the playing surface, the fact it's not even flat and just leave the history of the venue, then I suppose Lords slightly shades the MCG. But only just.
LOL... The MCG is my least favourite ground for cricket. The game wasn't meant to be played in concrete jungles.
gyfox wrote:The MCG is my least favourite ground for cricket. The game wasn't meant to be played in concrete jungles.
So I take it that you would be favour of the MCC divesting itself from the MCG and building a boutique stadium .
Just because I feel that way doesn't mean others have to. If they wanted to do that I would go and watch Shield games at their new venue whereas I won't at the moment. Somehow I don't think they will though.
Other then, Australian Rules Football has helped in the construction of cricket grounds. But cricket as is being shown can be financially viable and survive with Australian Rules Football.
If the SCG lose the Swans as a tenant, it would be a huge blow. But they will still survive.
Other then, Australian Rules Football has helped in the construction of cricket grounds. But cricket as is being shown can be financially viable and survive with Australian Rules Football.
If the SCG lose the Swans as a tenant, it would be a huge blow. But they will still survive.
