Read my previous post regarding the need for a hierarchy of stadiums of varying capacity - Once MES is upgraded to 30 000 the Force would only play at the new Subi replacement stadium if they were to play in a finals match. Rugby tests would be a different storyCarlosA wrote:Mosty people couldn't make it to cockburn on a friday night eliminating the Forces memberships by half.
Building a new stadium in perth... at last.
-
AndrewM
- Bronze
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:59 am
-
Egan
- Platinum
- Posts: 14959
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:14 am
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
I have heard that as well...the only conclusion that must be made is that the new stadium will have retractable seating.CarlosA wrote:My understanding is that the dedevelopment of Members will no longer go ahead because of the new stadium taskforce?
And that rules out Subiaco Oval in my mind, I have the growing feeling that the WACA will win out as the location - Which is going to probably be serviced by light rail (or tram) from the Western Suburbs in Mt. Claremont all the way to East Perth - thus access from the two interchangable train stations.
Well it will need to be if the WACA gets the nod as I think it will - probably involve the total demolition and reconstruction on the site.
And hopefully people learn to walk to the ground from the CBD...is 15mins at most.
-
AndrewM
- Bronze
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:59 am
RubyWA's releases statement regarding stadium..from RugbyWA website (http://www.rugbywa.com.au)
Stadium Update
Thursday, 30 March 2006
RugbyWA
There has been much speculation, most of it erroneous, as to RugbyWA's position on a future playing venue for Tooheys New Super 14 and 'block buster' rugby fixtures. Hopefully, the following will clarify our position:
RugbyWA is likely to support the development of a 60,000 capacity multi purpose stadium that can accommodate AFL, athletics and 'block buster' rugby, cricket and soccer fixtures.
Our members have clearly expressed their desire for a rectangle stadium. Accordingly, RugbyWA and the WACA have held discussions into the prospect of a redeveloped WACA ground with a 35,000 capacity stadium and movable stand to cater for sports played on a rectangle pitch like rugby and soccer.
RugbyWA has also held discussions with other venue operators including the WA Football Commission and Allia (Members Equity).
It is incumbent on us to consider all options.
We are currently involved in negotiations with the WA Football Commission for the use of Subiaco Oval over the next two years.
There have been no discussions as to the use of the WACA for games next year at this time.
Ultimately, we are awaiting the Langoulant Review's recommendation to the State Government and the State Government's response. The fine detail of our submission to the Review is confidential.
Stadium Update
Thursday, 30 March 2006
RugbyWA
There has been much speculation, most of it erroneous, as to RugbyWA's position on a future playing venue for Tooheys New Super 14 and 'block buster' rugby fixtures. Hopefully, the following will clarify our position:
RugbyWA is likely to support the development of a 60,000 capacity multi purpose stadium that can accommodate AFL, athletics and 'block buster' rugby, cricket and soccer fixtures.
Our members have clearly expressed their desire for a rectangle stadium. Accordingly, RugbyWA and the WACA have held discussions into the prospect of a redeveloped WACA ground with a 35,000 capacity stadium and movable stand to cater for sports played on a rectangle pitch like rugby and soccer.
RugbyWA has also held discussions with other venue operators including the WA Football Commission and Allia (Members Equity).
It is incumbent on us to consider all options.
We are currently involved in negotiations with the WA Football Commission for the use of Subiaco Oval over the next two years.
There have been no discussions as to the use of the WACA for games next year at this time.
Ultimately, we are awaiting the Langoulant Review's recommendation to the State Government and the State Government's response. The fine detail of our submission to the Review is confidential.
-
AndrewM
- Bronze
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:59 am
From Friday's West..
$250m plan for Subiaco Oval
MARK DRUMMOND
The WA Football Commission has drawn up an ambitious $250 million master plan to develop Subiaco Oval into a world-class 60,000-seat venue in a bid to head off any rival stadium proposals being entertained by a State Government task force.
While details of the master plan are being kept confidential, The West Australian understands the WAFC wants to redevelop Subiaco Oval in four stages over the next four years, when the ultimate 60,000 capacity would be achieved.
The WAFC is seeking to accommodate rugby, soccer, athletics and concerts into its master plan to ensure a redeveloped Subiaco Oval is a compelling option for the Langoulant stadium task force.
In a move which could shore up those redevelopment plans, it was revealed yesterday that Perth's Western Force Super 14 rugby team was negotiating with the WAFC to continue playing home games at Subiaco Oval for another two years.
However, RugbyWA chairman Geoff Stooke said while his code supported the development of a 60,000-seat venue for "blockbuster" matches, Western Force members had expressed a desire for a rectangular stadium.
"Accordingly, RugbyWA and the WACA have held discussions into the prospect of a redeveloped WACA Ground with a 35,000 capacity stadium and movable stand to cater for sports played on a rectangular pitch like rugby and soccer," Mr Stooke said.
The WAFC believes its $250 million redevelopment can be achieved within the existing stadium footprint. According to one source, the extra 17,000 seats would be created by extending the height of the stands by about 10m.
The centrepieces of the redevelopment include redesigned entrances and improvements to corporate suites and entertainment areas.
The master plan is a big shift in strategy by the WAFC, which had previously been seeking about $40 million in government funds for an extra 8000 seats at Subiaco Oval.
It is understood WAFC officials presented their master plan to John Langoulant and his stadium task force team last Friday. It has also been shown to the West Coast board.
Mr Langoulant would not comment on the plan last night, but confirmed he would present his preliminary stadium recommendations to the Government in a month. It will include a short list of possible venues for a new stadium.
WAFC chief executive Wayne Bradshaw said last night the master plan would be made public in about six weeks.
Asked how it would be funded, he said: "Footy would be expecting to put some money in."
$250m plan for Subiaco Oval
MARK DRUMMOND
The WA Football Commission has drawn up an ambitious $250 million master plan to develop Subiaco Oval into a world-class 60,000-seat venue in a bid to head off any rival stadium proposals being entertained by a State Government task force.
While details of the master plan are being kept confidential, The West Australian understands the WAFC wants to redevelop Subiaco Oval in four stages over the next four years, when the ultimate 60,000 capacity would be achieved.
The WAFC is seeking to accommodate rugby, soccer, athletics and concerts into its master plan to ensure a redeveloped Subiaco Oval is a compelling option for the Langoulant stadium task force.
In a move which could shore up those redevelopment plans, it was revealed yesterday that Perth's Western Force Super 14 rugby team was negotiating with the WAFC to continue playing home games at Subiaco Oval for another two years.
However, RugbyWA chairman Geoff Stooke said while his code supported the development of a 60,000-seat venue for "blockbuster" matches, Western Force members had expressed a desire for a rectangular stadium.
"Accordingly, RugbyWA and the WACA have held discussions into the prospect of a redeveloped WACA Ground with a 35,000 capacity stadium and movable stand to cater for sports played on a rectangular pitch like rugby and soccer," Mr Stooke said.
The WAFC believes its $250 million redevelopment can be achieved within the existing stadium footprint. According to one source, the extra 17,000 seats would be created by extending the height of the stands by about 10m.
The centrepieces of the redevelopment include redesigned entrances and improvements to corporate suites and entertainment areas.
The master plan is a big shift in strategy by the WAFC, which had previously been seeking about $40 million in government funds for an extra 8000 seats at Subiaco Oval.
It is understood WAFC officials presented their master plan to John Langoulant and his stadium task force team last Friday. It has also been shown to the West Coast board.
Mr Langoulant would not comment on the plan last night, but confirmed he would present his preliminary stadium recommendations to the Government in a month. It will include a short list of possible venues for a new stadium.
WAFC chief executive Wayne Bradshaw said last night the master plan would be made public in about six weeks.
Asked how it would be funded, he said: "Footy would be expecting to put some money in."
-
Tancred
- Bronze
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:38 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
When will we learn that Football/Rugby stadiums do not work as Athletics/Aussie Rules/Cricket stadiums.AndrewM wrote:
The WAFC is seeking to accommodate rugby, soccer, athletics and concerts into its master plan to ensure a redeveloped Subiaco Oval is a compelling option for the Langoulant stadium task force.
-
Egan
- Platinum
- Posts: 14959
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:14 am
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
I love it how the West claim that Subiaco Oval getting to 60,000 is a new development 
As well as the Western Suburbs paper - had it on the front page
http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=112
As you can see I reported on it several years ago...and I notice in the Western Force press statement that they didn't say they have had discussions with both the WA Government and Town of Vincent - Which I know for a fact have been and are continually going on.
And the CEO has also publicly commented on the fact they are negotiating with the TOV and State Government
The WACA move is an interesting one...35,000 for Cricket/Rugby would be a good move (for things like the Ashes and One Day Internationals) and will keep glory at a more intimate 18,000 people...MES doesn't become a white elephant with the potential new league side and soccer side using MES, WACA being host to Rugby and Cricket, Subiaco being the host of Football and blockbuster events...would mean that all 3 present stadiums would not become white elephants.
IMO I still want the Cockburn Stadium.
As well as the Western Suburbs paper - had it on the front page
http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=112
As you can see I reported on it several years ago...and I notice in the Western Force press statement that they didn't say they have had discussions with both the WA Government and Town of Vincent - Which I know for a fact have been and are continually going on.
And the CEO has also publicly commented on the fact they are negotiating with the TOV and State Government
The WACA move is an interesting one...35,000 for Cricket/Rugby would be a good move (for things like the Ashes and One Day Internationals) and will keep glory at a more intimate 18,000 people...MES doesn't become a white elephant with the potential new league side and soccer side using MES, WACA being host to Rugby and Cricket, Subiaco being the host of Football and blockbuster events...would mean that all 3 present stadiums would not become white elephants.
IMO I still want the Cockburn Stadium.
-
Egan
- Platinum
- Posts: 14959
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:14 am
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
Interesting to see that the Force and the WACA are coming together, I had a feeling one of the Rugby Codes would make use of a combined revenue source.
I also think it would probably include the extension of the Grass Banks on both sides, although converting the present grass banks to solid seating - currently their is room for 2 tier seating on both goal sides (would be able to be solid structure, because it is currently suited to rectangular sports on the goal side of the venue) - Extra capacity 4-5000 = 25,000 capacity
Then the 10,000 capacity on the northern side increase that another 10,000 with a stand able to hold 20,000 and you will get your capacity of 35,000.
The 20,000 seat stand would probably be much like Suncorp (The new stand side along the wing would hold 20-22.000?, but movable, I think it would turn into a decent stadium, IMO although it would be a little out of balance, with small stands (eg Players Pavillion and stand next to the Lillee Marsh) next to this massive stand.
I presently can not see them building a second tier on the Players Pavillion or the other stand, and I would suspect they wouldn't especially with the ability for the present redevelopment proposal to be for the public (Force members)
The only problem I see with this proposal is that they would need to launch a massive caimpaign to get the State Government to implement the planned Tram project, without that, the infrastructure will be at absolute boiling point...it can't handle 20,000 crowds...it will never be able to handle 35,000 seat crowds.
I also think it would probably include the extension of the Grass Banks on both sides, although converting the present grass banks to solid seating - currently their is room for 2 tier seating on both goal sides (would be able to be solid structure, because it is currently suited to rectangular sports on the goal side of the venue) - Extra capacity 4-5000 = 25,000 capacity
Then the 10,000 capacity on the northern side increase that another 10,000 with a stand able to hold 20,000 and you will get your capacity of 35,000.
The 20,000 seat stand would probably be much like Suncorp (The new stand side along the wing would hold 20-22.000?, but movable, I think it would turn into a decent stadium, IMO although it would be a little out of balance, with small stands (eg Players Pavillion and stand next to the Lillee Marsh) next to this massive stand.
I presently can not see them building a second tier on the Players Pavillion or the other stand, and I would suspect they wouldn't especially with the ability for the present redevelopment proposal to be for the public (Force members)
The only problem I see with this proposal is that they would need to launch a massive caimpaign to get the State Government to implement the planned Tram project, without that, the infrastructure will be at absolute boiling point...it can't handle 20,000 crowds...it will never be able to handle 35,000 seat crowds.
-
Rob
- Gold
- Posts: 2681
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:13 pm
- Location: Perth
Probably when rugby and soccer can support a 60,000 seat stadium by themselves.Tancred wrote:When will we learn that Football/Rugby stadiums do not work as Athletics/Aussie Rules/Cricket stadiums.AndrewM wrote:
The WAFC is seeking to accommodate rugby, soccer, athletics and concerts into its master plan to ensure a redeveloped Subiaco Oval is a compelling option for the Langoulant stadium task force.
-
sandyhill
- Gold
- Posts: 2366
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:01 pm
- Location: Just across the road from Australia's largest stadium
If that is so, why has the Western Force approached the WACA to develope it as a soccer and rugby venue?Tancred wrote:When will we learn that Football/Rugby stadiums do not work as Athletics/Aussie Rules/Cricket stadiums.AndrewM wrote: The WAFC is seeking to accommodate rugby, soccer, athletics and concerts into its master plan to ensure a redeveloped Subiaco Oval is a compelling option for the Langoulant stadium task force.
Anyway, thats all a bit of a side issue. It's blindingly obvious that regardless of where its located (subi or somewhere else - I'll leave that to the locals to discuss and decide) the clear priority must be for at least a 60,000 capacity stadium, as Subi (after yet another regulation sell-out on Thursday night) is no longer adequate for the weekly AFL crowds. Maybe any need for other small rectangular stadiums can be looked at afterwards, but the gov't needs to make a decision on the major stadium development now and implement it, as that is where the real need is already proven.
-
Egan
- Platinum
- Posts: 14959
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:14 am
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
Well as someone in another forum said
6 months they will still be talking about it
12 months it will be going to a commitee
18 months everyone will forget about it
Compare the difficulty to construct a stadium in WA and the rest of the country...and we are some ways the most difficult state in the world to build a bloody stadium - thus all our sporting venues are years behind the rest of the country...plus we build things on the cheap
6 months they will still be talking about it
12 months it will be going to a commitee
18 months everyone will forget about it
Compare the difficulty to construct a stadium in WA and the rest of the country...and we are some ways the most difficult state in the world to build a bloody stadium - thus all our sporting venues are years behind the rest of the country...plus we build things on the cheap
-
Egan
- Platinum
- Posts: 14959
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:14 am
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
www.sundaytimes.com.au
Stadium debate
02apr06
THE WACA ground is the preferred site for a new outdoor stadium.
About 34 per cent of West Australians prefer the WACA, despite plans by the WA Football Commission to turn Subiaco Oval into a 60,000 seat multi-sport stadium, as revealed by The Sunday Times last month.
(www.austadiums.com revealed this November 11th 2004 that there were plans for a 60,000 seat stadium http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=112)
The survey also found that 58 per cent chose the old Entertainment Centre's CBD site for a new, indoor, sports stadium; instead of Burswood (21 per cent) and the Claremont Showgrounds (10 per cent).
Last month The Sunday Times revealed that, as debate raged over Perth's proposed new sports stadium, football heavyweights had started canvassing preliminary versions of their masterplan to redevelop Subiaco.
According to the survey, a Cockburn site for the outdoor stadium had 25 per cent approval, Subiaco had 22 per cent and 19 per cent of West Australians wanted other sites.
Stadium taskforce chairman John Langoulant and his panel are expected to make initial recommendations about the project to the WA Government in a month
- Its a little bit rich for the Sunday Times to make these claims, when austadiums.com revealed this over a year ago...we may not have the readership or the clout that these other papers have, but its a little rich to claim that they were the first to reveal information on the master-plan for Subiaco Oval...with austadiums.com revealed details of this years ago, on basically the same information that the Sunday Times and The West Australian are now publishing.
They should feel free to publish it, but maybe need to come onto this site and read the articles that we have written before claiming that they are the ones that have exclusively revealed the stadium info - however I did not see the article in question that was written a month ago.
Stadium debate
02apr06
THE WACA ground is the preferred site for a new outdoor stadium.
About 34 per cent of West Australians prefer the WACA, despite plans by the WA Football Commission to turn Subiaco Oval into a 60,000 seat multi-sport stadium, as revealed by The Sunday Times last month.
(www.austadiums.com revealed this November 11th 2004 that there were plans for a 60,000 seat stadium http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=112)
The survey also found that 58 per cent chose the old Entertainment Centre's CBD site for a new, indoor, sports stadium; instead of Burswood (21 per cent) and the Claremont Showgrounds (10 per cent).
Last month The Sunday Times revealed that, as debate raged over Perth's proposed new sports stadium, football heavyweights had started canvassing preliminary versions of their masterplan to redevelop Subiaco.
According to the survey, a Cockburn site for the outdoor stadium had 25 per cent approval, Subiaco had 22 per cent and 19 per cent of West Australians wanted other sites.
Stadium taskforce chairman John Langoulant and his panel are expected to make initial recommendations about the project to the WA Government in a month
- Its a little bit rich for the Sunday Times to make these claims, when austadiums.com revealed this over a year ago...we may not have the readership or the clout that these other papers have, but its a little rich to claim that they were the first to reveal information on the master-plan for Subiaco Oval...with austadiums.com revealed details of this years ago, on basically the same information that the Sunday Times and The West Australian are now publishing.
They should feel free to publish it, but maybe need to come onto this site and read the articles that we have written before claiming that they are the ones that have exclusively revealed the stadium info - however I did not see the article in question that was written a month ago.
