320 million Indoor Stadium for Perth

[Egan]

I still am just seeing blank dirt when I go past the Entertainment Centre

[docker]

As prompted by a member of the skyscraper forum

what the hell does that mean? does it mean someone told you to or that... umm... what do you mean??

[Nines]

It's amazing that we don't hear blip out of anyone meekily accepting a
$320 million indoor stadium , but baulk at a much needed 60k stadium .

.

[Egan]

It's amazing that we don't hear blip out of anyone meekily accepting a
$320 million indoor stadium , but baulk at a much needed 60k stadium .

.

Maybe because Concerts are a lot more popular by the entire community then Australian Rules Football and you have the threat of the loss of the Hopman Cup, which for the Government gives significant world profile every year of Perth. Which is the main reason this is getting built, because the Burswood Dome is on the drawing board to be demolished and needed Government compromise in regards to smoking facilities at Burswood (or some sort of concession given, in order for them to keep the Burswood Dome up) with plans of itt being demolished before the new stadium was built.

We are not at threat of losing any sporting side by not building a 60,000 seat stadium.

The WAFC have said it plainly in their plans that they will continue at a sh*t facility, if it does not get what it wants...

[sandyhill]

... you have the threat of the loss of the Hopman Cup, which for the Government gives significant world profile every year of Perth. ...

Umm - sorry to deflate your grandiose opinion of the 'Hopman Cup', but no-one outside of WA gives a toss about that meaningless mixed doubles hit'n'giggle funfest, which attracts the cream of tennis' hacks and nobodies. Strictly one for the isolated locals of Perth, as no-one else cares. On the other hand, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane (and last year even Hobart) host actual proper tennis toutnaments with far more interest and following everywhere outside WA.

[Egan]

Umm - sorry to deflate your grandiose opinion of the 'Hopman Cup', but no-one outside of WA gives a toss about that meaningless mixed doubles hit'n'giggle funfest, which attracts the cream of tennis' hacks and nobodies. Strictly one for the isolated locals of Perth, as no-one else cares. On the other hand, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane (and last year even Hobart) host actual proper tennis toutnaments with far more interest and following everywhere outside WA.

Sorry but I have seen more hype for a Foundation Day Derby then the Memorial Drive Championships, for the first few hours I was one of only around 50 souls in the complex

That may be your opinion, but the state government gets great international exposure into the countries that participate and there was genuine threats by the eastern states to capture the tournament.

Which is the reasons behind the State Government's funding of this complex. The accompanying tourist dollars and advertising they get through Asia is huge...

Just look at the design of the venue, looks more like a tennis court then a basketball/concert venue. And this facility is being built primarily for the Hopman Cup, which is the biggest annual sporting event with the sort of corporate sector support and TV viewing for a week through Asia/Europe/South America and North America through the Tennis Channel.

No other sport event gives this sort of coverage for Western Australia.

So maybe Australia wide it is not big, but this tournament gets great international coverage.

[Nines]

So maybe Australia wide it is not big, but this tournament gets great international coverage.

$320 for one event that gets questionable international coverage .
Then why demolish the old stadium ?

Same argument you use against the super stadium ,
but hey 22 AFL games + AFL finals , S14 games + finals , cricket , soccer ,concerts ,commonwealth games .


Same argument you use could be said against improving MES and building a rectangular stadium .

Your agenda is showing .!!!

.

[Egan]

$320 for one event that gets questionable international coverage .
Then why demolish the old stadium ?

Same argument you use against the super stadium ,
but hey 22 AFL games + AFL finals , S14 games + finals , cricket , soccer ,concerts ,commonwealth games .


Same argument you use could be said against improving MES and building a rectangular stadium .

Your agenda is showing .!!!

.

1 - The Government wanted Burswood Dome to stay opened. But it is a privately run venture and thus why they have no say on whether it is demolished or not.

Plus you want to see the biggest concerts in Perth, good luck in the present scenario! As Burswood has never been an appropriate venue for Perth. Concerts+Tennis+Basketball provide valid reasons, plus adding an iconic venue to the city means it is a worthwhile investment. But you may feel this is not a good agenda if you hate tennis, music and basketball.

Again it comes down to people looking at it through parochial eyes. Rather then from the perspective of state interests for the whole community.

Same argument you use against the super stadium ,
but hey 22 AFL games + AFL finals , S14 games + finals , cricket , soccer ,concerts ,commonwealth games .

What is my agenda against the super stadium?

My agenda is to have a stadium that is not run by a WAFC and is something that is of usage for the entire community, not just those who support a particular aussie rules club.

The fact is look at what is actually happening Nines.

The WACA - Do not want to move
Rugby - Do not want to use that super stadium facility
Commonwealth Games - Not even an after thought

At the end of the day, look at what is happening on the ground in Perth to realise that it is 'all' sport that are impacting on this decision. And I have been critical of the WACA, Rugby WA and even to some extent Perth Glory's antipathy of the Major Stadia Taskforce report

Which I do not have any qualms in saying, I fully support.

Thus yes that is my agenda, spending 1.5 million dollars supporting something that I believe is excellent for the future needs of our state.

And you would find the columns of Mark Duffield who has said similar, is the same agenda.

'Sport benefits' for the whole state, not just looking after one individual sport at a time.

[Nines]

[quote="Egan]

The Government wanted Burswood Dome to stay opened. But it is a privately run venture and thus why they have no say on whether it is demolished or not.

[/quote]

So leave it to private enterprise .

[quote="Egan]

The WACA - Do not want to move
Rugby - Do not want to use that super stadium facility
Commonwealth Games - Not even an after thought

[/quote]

So just build a super stadium for Australian Football .
No different to you indoor stadium argument .


.

[Egan]

So leave it to private enterprise .

Maybe so, but the Government somehow put this as a greater priority as they did the 20 million dollars they spent on a Speedway. But I am not against them spending money on an Indoor Facility as I would not be against them spending money on a Super Stadium.

So just build a super stadium for Australian Football .
No different to you indoor stadium argument

Argue that to the State Government. I doubt they will listen for more then 2 mins, if you have not realised, my post's contain the realism of what is out there. Not actually my entire view. But I would think that it would be more viable for it to be able to be used and the state government would want it to be used, for one off bigger events in other codes. Thus why it would probably have retractable seating.

And realistically if you have been reading for years now, this is all a pie in the sky job. You have to realise them building something for just Australian Rules - very minimal likliness to happen and I doubt this facility will be built as it is. [/quote]

[Nines]

Argue that to the State Government. I doubt they will listen for more then 2 mins, if you have not realised, my post's contain the realism of what is out there.

It's Ok . I know you're not acting professionally so I'm not taking your views seriously .

The only realism is that the government is trying to get away with the minimum , whatever the cause . Any if anything eventuates it's because of politics not because it just or right or the people demand it .
The realism is people know this and if it gets turned into an election issue you never know what could happen .

.

[Egan]

It's Ok . 1I know you're not acting professionally so I'm not taking your views seriously .

The only realism is that the government is trying to get away with the minimum , whatever the cause . Any if anything eventuates it's because of politics not because it just or right or the people demand it .
The realism is people know this and if it gets turned into an election issue you never know what could happen

1 - Glad, its just a debate and getting other people's views. I just vehemently disagree with the model you are suggesting.

You seriously think this would get the Liberal Government in?

[Nines]

Glad, its just a debate and getting other people's views. I just vehemently disagree with the model you are suggesting.

Is that a problem ?

.

[Egan]

Is that a problem ?

.

Not at all, read through this forum. Most of the time I have had debates because I disagreed with their views.

Nines, you may be a newer member and not realise that I have participated in many debates on the location of the venue, to who manages it, to what sort of size the stadium would be.

We welcome a difference of opinion, just expect debates that analyse every point and will come back at you if disagreed upon with evidence that we have and being stadium buffs. We normally have plenty of knowledge in these things, so we can disagree with statements you have about MES etc etc.

I just thought we kept going round and round in circles, so just thought we should end it. But I can continue it if you would like to see my points more thoroughly explained.

Cheers Egan

[Nines]

I just thought we kept going round and round in circles, so just thought we should end it. But I can continue it if you would like to see my points more thoroughly explained.

Cheers Egan

That's because you "vehemently disagree" .
You're not open to a rational debate . The debate goes around in circles because I use your exact arguments to nullify your points .

You are not open to rational debate because you don't acknowledge
any valid points made by your detractors .

You are not open to rational debate because you put excessive weighting on your points of view sometimes , when they are really minor rebuttals .

For example . You seem to have a real problem with the WAFC .
That the Force pays rent to oh-my-gosh to West Australian Football .
1. The Force , like all major clubs would always have to pay rent .
2. That it goes to Australian Football should be good for sport .
3. If they went to MES like they said they would be advancing WA soccer .
4. if they went to the WACA like they investigated is money to cricket .
5. Would you rather the money went to the government coffers and lost ?
6. My taxes have been going to a myriad of I personally don't like
so what's the difference .
7. The Force came here with those express conditions .
8. There are a large numbers of places around the world where Australian football clubs are paying rent to rugby clubs .
A new league has just been established in the UK where AFCs play out of rugby clubs like south America .

,