For Christ's sake mate, nice piece of selected quoting there. Funny it is the rest of my post that gives the piece you have quoted some context. Would the crowd they drew last night had of sold out the smaller venue? I seriously doubt it, so that argument holds no weight. That is just your average conservative dribble and maybe you should expand the thought to considering how hard the sell will be for next years Melbourne fixture. Is it not a market where the ARU needs to extend the games profile. Speak for yourself and not "us" on the financial management argument because personally I don't view the game through that prism as the first thought. Expand the game to increase the revenue. The rectangular stadium holds 30,000 in a more conducive environment to view a game of rugby. That is a hardly a small crowd. Do you seriously think Docklands was going to be sold out?
The ARU needs to break the mould and take a chance at the new venue. Much like it has started with Saturday arvo tests at the SFS. On the basis of your argument, that should be scrapped and back to the Olympic Stadium test rugby goes. Do the Melbourne public, both new fans and the current rugby tragics not deserve the enhanced experience? In answering that, also consider that unlike Sydney, they only get one test match experience each year.
Some great points there Ruggo.
The other factor I'd reference in terms of 'bigger picture' thinking wrt rugby's longer term interests in the very context you rightly raise is this: do people really think that Suncorp's status as a 'fortress' for both the Reds and Wallabies over a number of years, and with (generally) good attendances there, is merely a happy co-incidence?
Of course it's not. The fact is that well-designed stadium suited solely to rectangular football codes and with close-in seating designed to maximise 'fan intimacy' with the pitch dramatically increases not only positive fan engagement, but also the equally important feedback the team gets from that relative fan intimacy and connection. Thus a two-way reinforcement process starts and everybody lifts. Derivatively, the whole fan experience is that much better and potentially reinforces a positive experience of rugby (subject to the team's quality of play, of course). Moreover, it just might be so that the team in these conditions feels fractionally more ready to take some risks and play a more expansive and dynamic style of play.
I have been to both the ANZ when full and half-empty and ditto Etihad. I would categorically state that there is way more likelihood of a
casual rugby fan enjoying rugby and wanting to return again in either Suncorp or SFS than is the case with either of the foregoing stadia, they just don't suit rugby as a spectacle.
I get all the financial arguments of course. But the ARU told the media this week they were budgeting for a c.29,000 crowd in MEL that I think that level would have fitted into AAMI. The massive cash that the ARU is pumping into the Rebels surely must be aimed at building a successful, growing base for rugby in MEL. If not, FFS, why make that investment when the whole code is in trouble financially. From the many mates who texted me last night stating how awful was the atmosphere in a half-full Etihad, I cannot think the interests of the code in MEL are best served through simply trying to get an extra 5,000 or so seats sold there above the physical limits of the (for rugby) far superior AAMI.
