Tuesday, June 16, 2020

If it's good enough for Real Madrid, surely it's good enough for Tasmania

Last night, I watched a replay of Real Madrid's La Liga game against Eibar, which was played on Sunday.

The game was not played at Real Madrid’s home, the Santiago Bernabeu stadium in Madrid, which has a capacity of 81,044.

It was built in 1947.

Real Madrid have used the shutdown of the league to begin renovations at the Bernabeu.

With no spectators allowed anyway, they were not going to lose money by not playing at the Bernabeu.  There is a lot of dirt and debris on the pitch at present so the playing surface would not be suitable for play.

The club used the Estadio Alfredo di Stefano  for the game against Eibar and they will play all their home games there until the end of the current season.

It is where their youth team, Castilla, usually plays.

It's a beautiful ground with a pitch the same size as that at the Bernabeu and a capacity of just 6,000.

Such a stadium would be the ideal set-up for Tasmanian football.

If we had such a stadium it would end all the arguments about us not having a suitable venue for, say, the A-League, or for a Tasmanian team in the A-League.

The location would obviously cause arguments.  Should it be in Hobart or Launceston?  Perhaps Campbell Town would be the idea central location?

The location is important as factors such as facilities and accessibility need to be considered.

But, the really important factor, I think, is ground capacity because the debate has often involved grounds that would potentially hold 10,000 or even 20,000 spectators.

We don’t need a stadium of that size for football in Tasmania.  Past experience of competitive A-League games in Tasmania, as well as A-League friendlies and games involving visiting teams, clearly show that.

It’s always been a struggle to get 6,000.

Forget about capacities of 10,000 or 20,000, therefore, and try and fill a 6,000-capacity stadium.

Counter intuitively, if spectators were turned away because capacity had already been reached, that might be good.

People may end up buying tickets early for the next game lest they miss out.

Surely it would be better to have a full house in a 6,000-cpacity ground than, say, 5,000 spectators in a 10,000- or 20,000-seater stadium.

The cost of building such a stadium would surely be considerably less than the cost of building one that holds double or triple that number.

Anyway, this is an idea that I feel needs consideration and perhaps government and sponsors may be more amenable to the idea.

If you want to know more, read the following article from the Evening Standard in the UK:


Brad said...

Agreed Walter. A boutique stadium would serve the purpose, and a crowd of 6,000 (full stadium) would have a far better atmosphere than 6,000 at Bellerive. The disputes, as per usual, would come from it's location. The State capital is Hobart.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree Walter. Its a far more realistic situation. If you look at small grounds in the UK for football and rugby it always looks great having a packed 6,000 seater!

Far better than the NRL getting 8,000 in a 80,000 seater