31,000 for MES

[docker]

i might get my first chance to go to this ground in a couple of days, if i go to the tattoo spectacular.

[Nines]

you will see the Force's position has been a rectangular stadium, it will just not move into something that has a capacity less then 30,000.

So why countenance anything to do with the WACA then.

Credability shot to pieces there ..

[Egan]

So why countenance anything to do with the WACA then.

Credability shot to pieces there ..

They rejected the WACA for Subiaco in the first season as the Interim Venue because they believed they could get more then 20,000 per game, which they have done.

They then explored the possibility of investigating going to the WACA and when they realised that it was not extremely viable or productive to refuse the development of a rectangular facility, then decided to push for a MES or another rectangular facility up to 35,000.

I am not exactly following your counter-argument.

[Nines]

So why countenance anything to do with the WACA then.

Credability shot to pieces there ..

I am not exactly following your counter-argument.

No , Ok I'll repeat it then .

So why countenance anything to do with the WACA then.

.

[Egan]

The Force got involved with the WACA, but the issues behind the WACA is incredibly complex and not completely the fault of the Force's interference?

The Force get involved in discussions, but at the end of the day the WACA's political motivation is to maintain the venue as the home of cricket. The Force have not poised any allieviation to this desire by the WACA, even if they did start going off their own back in search of a new stadium.

I am still not completely sure what you are trying to explain about me defending the WACA, but I am trying to guess, please correct me if I am wrong.

[Nines]

The Force got involved with the WACA ..........

Why would you do that when you've stipulated that a rectangular field is so important and when :
The WACA has a much smaller capacity than Subiaco .
The WACA is a more rounded shape than Subiaco .
The general viewing is so much worse than Subiaco .




Unless it is polically motivated .

[Egan]

Why would you do that when you've stipulated that a rectangular field is so important and when :
The WACA has a much smaller capacity than Subiaco .
The WACA is a more rounded shape than Subiaco .
The general viewing is so much worse than Subiaco .




Unless it is polically motivated .

I will do it step by step.

The WACA has a much smaller capacity than Subiaco .

Yes but the WACA was willing to upgrade to 35,000 and implore retractable seating, remember this proposal was unearthed by the media, not from official Force statements, dis crediting the fact it was a Force motivation. The West Australian's Dave Hughes revealed this.

The general viewing is so much worse than Subiaco .

I strongly disagree, I believe the WACA would be infinitely better to watch the Force then Subiaco and I am a regular user of both facilities.

The fact is the Force got involved with the WACA, because it was looking at all options, the State Government had thrown in their face that they where not going to build over 25,000 and they wanted more, they wanted their major sponsor to cough up money, the WACA would have got another tenant etc etc.

At the end of the day, the issue in the rectangular stadium debate is the State Government saying it will not build the venue over 25,000 and the Force not accepting a 25,000 seat facility.

Thus it investigated all other options, including the WACA development, because of its distinct dis satisfaction of the size of the venue.

Today it is more a coert public pressure caimpaign that the Force are doing to get the government to cough up the cash.

[Nines]

I will do it step by step.

Try openning the other eye will you .

The WACA is easily the worst major collection of stands and terraces that moonlights as a stadium .

You know that common sense dictates build the best money can afford
and not spread it across the board achieving nothing .

.

[Egan]

The WACA is easily the worst major collection of stands and terraces that moonlights as a stadium .

You know that common sense dictates build the best money can afford
and not spread it across the board achieving nothing

Most people on this site love the current WACA and the design and when I was on my anti-WACA Caimpaign of 2001-03, this was the leading reason why they disagreed with my push for it to be destroyed.

The fact is Ascot Capital are funding this, a private venture, because it will also increase the price of the apartments having a facility such as that in the middle of the development.

It is win/win for Ascot Capital and the WACA.

The money is not wasted, just the state government run development does not get the summer tenant. But remember the historical aspect of what the prime motivation of the WACA board is, to keep the WACA the home of West Australian Cricket.

The State Government lose a potential major tenant, but it was always going to be a hard task moving a very parochial tenant that is extremely attached to owning its own land and venue (unique Australia wide) and would attach itself to the devil to remain a venue.

But thanks for telling me that I am one eyed in regards to the WACA, I never thought I would see the day

Cheers

[Nines]

Most people on this site love the current WACA ..

Fine , but don't ask the government to finance your indulgence ,
when a few WACA people are depriving the state of having a super stadium .

I come form Sydney and the government spent vast sums(even by today's standards) on grounds all around Sydney and what did they end up with ? A 35k SFS . What joke . It took the Olympics to correct that .
Look at Melbourne . A lot of money into one stadium in the heart of the city . That's the way to go .

[Egan]

Fine , but don't ask the government to finance your indulgence ,
when a few WACA people are depriving the state of having a super stadium .

I come form Sydney and the government spent vast sums(even by today's standards) on grounds all around Sydney and what did they end up with ? A 35k SFS . What joke . It took the Olympics to correct that .
Look at Melbourne . A lot of money into one stadium in the heart of the city . That's the way to go .

The State Government is not funding this latest indulgence and they are not depriving the state of a super stadium.

Because Australian Rules is the one sport that is demanding a capacity over 43,000 because the Eagles and Dockers have a combined membership of over 85,000 people.

And Eagles have been selling out for many years, whether Cricket is or isn't there has little impact on whether we get a super stadium.

[Nines]

[quote="Egan
The State Government is not funding this latest indulgence and they are not depriving the state of a super stadium.
[/quote]

Ther asking for $20 million aren't they and infrastructure .
Somebody talking about trams ? Whose supposed to pay for that ?

Open your other eye a little . We all know the only reason the WACA can come up with this plan because they have a 99 year lease and they're selling off land . It's really government land in the first place and if they could sell off the whole of the WACA then the government would well and truley down the road building the super stadium .
The WACA are still asking for the other facility that's being proposed .

Common sense says build the biggest and best stadium possible .
Then you have a greater chance of attracting world class events , Commonwealth games even Olympic games .

.

[Egan]

Ther asking for $20 million aren't they and infrastructure .
Somebody talking about trams ? Whose supposed to pay for that ?

Open your other eye a little . We all know the only reason the WACA can come up with this plan because they have a 99 year lease and they're selling off land . It's really government land in the first place and if they could sell off the whole of the WACA then the government would well and truley down the road building the super stadium .
The WACA are still asking for the other facility that's being proposed .

Common sense says build the biggest and best stadium possible .
Then you have a greater chance of attracting world class events , Commonwealth games even Olympic games .

They have requested replacement of lights for the benefits of residents surrounding the precinct and the development of a Cricket School of Excellence in Floreat, which would be an infrastructure requirement in the interests of Western Australia.

Let me say I would be very surprised if a 30,000 seat WACA impacts on the possibility of getting a 60,000 super stadium, heck Adelaide Oval is getting upgraded to 37,000 while AAMII is 52,000.

What's the difference?

If they could sell off the WACA?

its actually a 999 year lease and they actually have sold land off in around 1900 to the Trotting Association, Gloucester Park used to be their land as well.

Thus its not a new thing to be selling off their land, but they actually are not, apparently they will be leasing the land to Ascot Capital, because they want the apartments to be used for different aspects on match day.

The trams was just a self idea that would be done not specifically for the WACA, but for the general inner mixed zone and the plans they have to make a denser inner area.

[Nines]

What's the difference?

.

Sydney has Olympic Stadium
Melbourne has the SCG
WA and SA have nothing that's the difference .



It's an idulgence . get over it .

[Egan]

Sydney has Olympic Stadium
Melbourne has the SCG
WA and SA have nothing that's the difference .



It's an idulgence . get over it .

Yet can Perth and Adelaide sustain a development of that magnitude?

Like I said I think you count the impact and influence of Cricket on the Super Stadium to high. The venue gives little difference to the sustainability of the project in my eyes.