Melbourne Rectangular Stadium

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

This probably should go in "General Discussion" - but can I ask you Egan why the legality of homosexuality is the issue here? Homosexuality should never have been illegal in the first place, so I don't see why its legal status reflects on the morality of such conduct.

I've said what I have to say before about the stupid "fag" name for SFC, I don't see the need to repeat myself.

[Jeffles]

My own take on proceedings.

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/play_ ... id=1037038

[Egan]

This probably should go in "General Discussion" - but can I ask you Egan why the legality of homosexuality is the issue here? Homosexuality should never have been illegal in the first place, so I don't see why its legal status reflects on the morality of such conduct.

Because the defence was that because Sydney had fags rather then tards, that they were somewhat of an inferior city.

My responce, what crime is it to be homosexual?

[sandyhill]

Jeffles.
Solve lora infernis!

I support Egan's comments re personal abuse. As a Melburnian (note the spelling, HD), I thought Simmo's post was reasonable, albeit debatable (which is why we have a forum - to inform and debate).

As for Tards, Fags, whatever . Water of a ducks back - I think any abuse here should be only allowed in Latin - afterall, you can then abuse and insult anyone in perfect safety, using a language that eveyone respects - but practically no-one understands.

so - Strupa fascino volanti torum pistrinum provolventem!

This topic reminds me of talking in Latin and forgetting what I'm talking about by the time I get to the verb. What was the topic again? - oh yeah, Melbourne's new stadium and everyone else's jealousy thereof.

Mass of letters about the new stadium in todays HUN - eveyone of them opposed to it. Here's one typical of the rest -
"This mob is unbelievable. Mr Bracks and all your ministers, if you can find money to build a sports stadium we don't need, why can't you find money to fix our roads, public transport, hospitals and other things needed more urgently than ever".

Obviously they're not Austadium members!

[Egan]

Mass of letters about the new stadium in todays HUN - eveyone of them opposed to it. Here's one typical of the rest -
"This mob is unbelievable. Mr Bracks and all your ministers, if you can find money to build a sports stadium we don't need, why can't yopu find money to fix our roads, public transport, hospitals and other things needed more urgently than ever".

Obviously they're not Austadium members!

Move to WA, they will love our government

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

Because the defence was that because Sydney had fags rather then tards, that they were somewhat of an inferior city.

My responce, what crime is it to be homosexual?

Way to miss the point.

Why are journalists always such statists?

[RobertHeatleyStand]

The stadium looks impressive in this virtual flyover...

http://www.mvfc.com.au/_content/video/0 ... source.wmv

[yob]

The stadium looks impressive in this virtual flyover...

http://www.mvfc.com.au/_content/video/0 ... source.wmv

IMO it looks far more impressive in the images. In the video it just looks like something dolphins would choke on.

[spinDr]

or Monkey Magic would ride on...

[Highways]

My own take on proceedings.

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/play_ ... id=1037038

South Melbourne owned in the NSL

[the crow]

Okay this is what I would have done.

Above is a pic of Old Trafford from the early 90s. The stand with UNITED written in seats is the North Stand. It had a capacity of 10,000 from goal line to goal line in one tier with corporate boxes at the back and a cantilevered roof.

This is in the interior of the existing (and more or less identical) South stand):


In Melbourne, two of those 10,000 seat stands on each 125m wing would have given a 20,000 capacity. The ends could be filled in as needs arise and after the limitations from the Docklands contract with the Vic Govt ran out.

It would have been a tonne cheaper and more effective than the pile of testicle champagne that has been proposed.

This is the reason for my remarks....why compare something that looks so modern with something from the industrial past (even though old Trafford doesn’t look like that any more, as it has new cantilevered glass roofs.)

Compare apples with apples is all I say.

This is a proposed multi purpose stadium with 25k seats not a dedicated football stadium for 68K. In fairness you should be comparing with Aussie stadium in Sydney or Suncorp in Briso, which are truly multi purpose stadiums, built for Aussies and their sports and their climate (although allot bigger in seating capacity)

So the field needs to be bigger to accommodate the requirements of more than one code

now lets look at average turnouts and earning capacity, Man U could buy all the footy codes in Australia if it wanted too, where as the Storm and Victory will be pushed to fill a 25k stadium for every match (lets be honest)

Now compare location of seating and corporate facilities, if your going to fork out all that cash for a box do you really want to be stuck right up the back of the stadium? where as the ones on the image posted seem to be very close to the field, and quite frankly the better than the current Olympic park situation where you have an 8 lane running track and grass before you even see the side line.

Now compare location, would you be able to get away with building something a dull and agricultural as Old Trafford, in a city as design conscious as Melbourne? Just reading the detail of the stadium as posted on the victory website it seems that the design is innovative ie: the roof BIO FRAME efficiency (geodesic dome uses 50% less steel than conventional construction)

So with that said I would like to save other comments till after it’s built, it would be interesting to see if peoples attitude change after experiencing things first hand.

As per my first post, all Melbourne needs is a proper Union team. Super 15 perhaps!!!


http://www.melbournevictory.com.au/defa ... &pageid=71

[hot_dogma]

My own take on proceedings.

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/play_ ... id=1037038

ROFLMFAO

Ladies and gentleman we have a winner.

[Simmo79]

This is the reason for my remarks....why compare something that looks so modern with something from the industrial past (even though old Trafford doesn’t look like that any more, as it has new cantilevered glass roofs.)

Why? Value for money. I’ve made that abundantly clear.

Compare apples with apples is all I say.

This is a proposed multi purpose stadium with 25k seats not a dedicated football stadium for 68K. In fairness you should be comparing with Aussie stadium in Sydney or Suncorp in Briso, which are truly multi purpose stadiums, built for Aussies and their sports and their climate (although allot bigger in seating capacity)

So the field needs to be bigger to accommodate the requirements of more than one code

That’s a well-established point from this thread and a previous thread. Glad to see you agree. How about lurking before you leap, pal? You’d see that I haven’t suggested a holus bolus rip off of Old Trafford, merely borrowing the basic design feature of a single level cantilevered grandstand. And there isn’t exactly a shitload of difference between the multi-purpose, true blue, dinky-di stadiums you’ve mentioned and a purpose built soccer stadium.

now lets look at average turnouts and earning capacity, Man U could buy all the footy codes in Australia if it wanted too, where as the Storm and Victory will be pushed to fill a 25k stadium for every match (lets be honest)

This isn’t about ManUre and their pulling capacity – it’s about comparing a simple single level stand (from Old Trafford) with what has been envisaged in Melbourne. I could have used almost any basic design from any new football, RU or RL ground or grandstand in the UK as a basis for comparison. You appear to have missed the point.

I have suggested that a simpler design would be more efficient for expansions. It may be true that neither MVFC nor the Storm could fill a 25k ground right now, but that is a distinct possibility in the medium term future for at least MVFC. An expanded stadium would also be useful for the ARU and ARL in scheduling international matches. So yes, expansion should be on the cards.

Now compare location of seating and corporate facilities, if your going to fork out all that cash for a box do you really want to be stuck right up the back of the stadium? where as the ones on the image posted seem to be very close to the field, and quite frankly the better than the current Olympic park situation where you have an 8 lane running track and grass before you even see the side line.

The location of the corporate boxes I’ve suggested would be very similar to the first level of enclosed boxes in each stand at Suncorp. Would also be better than the positioning than at the SFS or Telstra Stadium (which have excellent vantage points being along the touch line and high enough to get a good strategic feel for the game).

Now compare location, would you be able to get away with building something a dull and agricultural as Old Trafford, in a city as design conscious as Melbourne? Just reading the detail of the stadium as posted on the victory website it seems that the design is innovative ie: the roof BIO FRAME efficiency (geodesic dome uses 50% less steel than conventional construction)

I just don’t care about innovation, design consciousness or any other irrelevant extravagences. I’m not saying that a stadium should be a bare concrete skeleton on the outside but this project is just a waste of cash. Excellent sightlines, acoustics and decent capacity make a great stadium IMO, not how pretty the roof is.

That’s where the divergence of opinion lies.

(why didn’t the G get such a gosh darn beautiful make-over? Why did it get a relatively simple design? Tell me what’s wrong with the roof that the Northern Stand has and why the G didn't get the bubble wrap look as well)

And I stick by my assertion that the initial cost of this project will make a future government baulk at significant expansions in the future. Maybe it will reach 25k, maybe it won’t, but Melbourne will be without a mid-size rectangular stadium for a very very long time and that will be a bit of a pity for the Sporting Capital of the World.

[spinDr]

it depends what you are after. A stadium or an architectual work of art. Why not let the people who are actually going to use the thing decide. I wonder what they would rather.

images of what simmo is getting at

[the guy]

it depends what you are after. A stadium or an architectual work of art. Why not let the people who are actually going to use the thing decide. I wonder what they would rather.

Brilliantly said.

Stadiums are not meant to be works of art, that happens on the big grass patch in the middle.


Unlike with women, with stadiums whats on the inside is ALL that counts.