I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I do wonder if, perhaps, a burning hatred of the Steves is distracting a few Dockerlanders to what might be a more realistic view regarding the actual purpose of this survey.
Freo, (like the Weagles and cricket), will only be tenants at the new stadium. The stadium has been designed as a multi-sports stadium, owned by the state, but to be run by a third party, Stadium Australia Operations, who also operate ANZ Stadium in Sydney.
Appeasing the footy sensibilities of Dockers (or Weagles) membership up front will not necessarily be the main concern of the stadium managers, or owners, of what will be a $multi-billion state asset.
Generating income, especially in the short-term, will probably top the list of priorities.
The state government has to pay back the loans it’s taken out to build the place; the stadium management has to make an operating profit.
If a consultancy firm has (almost certainly) been hired to look into ways of “maximising” stadium income, it may have pitched what would, to them, be a really obvious idea of large, one-off fees to buy seating privileges. And more experienced, rational voices (possibly even the Steves?) will have have explained, hopefully in rude and unambiguous terms, how the paying public would never agree or accept any such thing.
So a survey firm will have been engaged, with a very specific brief, to gauge public – i.e. club membership – views on this matter and attitudes towards the new stadium. Involving 3rd and 4th parties would explain the horrid corporate language being used. And the apparent lack of clear understanding of just what it is that motivates the average footy fan to follow a club and attend games.
Sorry to go on a bit, and I’m not excusing anyone for involving us all in this crappy exercise, just offering an explanation. The best way to burst this consultant’s thought bubble is for as many members as possible to fill in the survey with brutally honest answers.
