Perth's new stadium and unicorns

docker · **Posted:** Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:24 pm

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=123019

Subi Oval too small in 10 years, Eagles say
5th February 2009, 6:00 WST

Perth needs a stadium that holds at least 52,000 people within 10 years to keep pace with the State’s growing population, West Coast chairman Mark Barnaba has warned.

As football and rugby raced to reposition themselves in the stadium debate after Premier Colin Barnett’s declaration there would be no 60,000-seat multi-purpose stadium project started for at least two years, Mr Barnaba warned that AFL clubs could not afford to wait for another stadium study to come up with another solution.

BLOG: Has the Government made the wrong decision?

“Life is very different to what it was 18 months ago and very different in this State,” he said. “Putting hospitals and schools ahead of museums and stadiums is the right decision in anyone’s eyes.”

But that didn’t change the facts facing football and West Coast in particular.

“The fact is that 42,000 is a small ground in this country,” Mr Barnaba said. “We are at full membership for the Eagles and lots of Dockers games are now sold out at that capacity. The population is growing at 2 to 2½ per cent per year.

“In 10 years, that means that you would need 52,000 to 55,000 seats just to maintain the status quo. Subiaco is an old stadium and it doesn’t compare to revamped stadiums in South Australia, Queensland, NSW and Victoria.”

Rugby and the Town of Vincent have launched a joint proposal for government funding of a $75 million upgrade of Members Equity Stadium, where the Western Force will play all matches from next season.

The WA Football Commission is likely to follow with a $150 million to $200 million proposal to redevelop the southern wing of Subiaco to house 8000 spectators and demolish and re-build the old three-tier stand at the western end of the ground.

Mr Barnaba said football did not have time to wait for more studies on stadia infrastructure such as the one by stadium task force.

“It took three years and we just don’t have that amount of time to follow a process which, quite frankly failed to deliver a result,” he said. “At some point we still need a solution for Subiaco Oval.”

Fremantle chairman Rick Hart said his club would be guided by the WAFC.

“From the club’s point of view we wouldn’t be entering into the debate until we were clear on what the alternatives are,” he said.

MARK DUFFIELD

nobleoz · **Posted:** Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:14 pm

Nines says there is new talk of Subiaco development. Anyone got a media ref?

Deagan · **Posted:** Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:34 pm

My sources say a new stadium is part, of a new federal economic stimulus infrastructure package that western australia doesn't need because were so rich from the 2007 mining boom.

except we need a new, stadium badly.

Egan · **Posted:** Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:44 pm

nobleoz wrote:

Nines says there is new talk of Subiaco development. Anyone got a media ref?

My information is that there will only be a minor upgrade of Subiaco Oval, to stop it collapsing on fans.

There are some parts of the venue that Langoulant has suggested should be condemned in next 5 years.

My information has been that Barnett understands that to redevelop Subiaco Oval and spend a lot of money is not the right choice. That a new stadium in the future will be built...

I'd suggest a sub 30 million dollar patch up job in the interim. But since Nines is an AFL propagandist he should outline the redevelopment...

deejaybee · **Posted:** Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:13 am

maybe he's done a photocopy run for someone...

nobleoz · **Posted:** Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:48 am

Have just read that WCE have 8,000 households on their membership waiting list. This makes a redevelopment/expansion of Subiaco an immediate priority, regardless of any WC bid. I presume that Subiaco & Westlakes are the only stadiums in Aust that can not accomodate all members of their main football club.

docker · **Posted:** Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:29 am

BartBart on Ozscrapers wrote:

p12 today's West

Quote:

Hitch in AFL bid for Subi funds
MARK DUFFIELD

The WA Football Commission's $300 million bid for government funding to redevelop Subiaco Oval has hit a snag with rectangular code sports soccer and rugby applying pressure for it to have retractable seating.

It is understood that the AFL, acting on the WAFC's behalf in a bid for Federal funding, remains in talks with soccer ruling body the Football Federation of Australia, which strongly urged for retractable seating so the ground could play a meaningful role in Australia's bids for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

The FFA's approval is in turn seen as a key to getting significant Federal funds for the project, which was due to be pitched formally to Premier Colin Barnett two months ago but is now unlikely to be ready before the end of this month.

"The plans haven't been finished yet," WAFC chief executive Wayne Bradshaw said yesterday.

"We have still got financial modelling to do. We expect to do that in (AFL) grand final week."

Mr Bradshaw would not say whether retractable seating was included in current plans.
He said it "could be one view" that football was under pressure to offer a rectangular format as part of the plans.

It is believed the AFL has urged the WAFC to stay quiet on the plans until they get a tick from the FFA and are taken to the Federal Government.

Sports Minister Terry Waldron was given a briefing on the project last week in a meeting with Mr Bradshaw and representatives of West Coast and Fremantle football clubs.

Mr Barnett's position on a major stadium is that it is on hold for two years but he has agreed to look at the WAFC plans and Mr Waldron has privately encouraged the WAFC to proceed with the concept.

The first stage of the plan would cost just under $300 million and provide more than 30,000 seats, taking the stadium's capacity to 51,000.

The western end of the ground and the northern wing would be completely rebuilt with a three-tier stand, taking out the old three and two-tier stands, which are 40 and 30 years old respectively, and some work on the northern stand, built in 1999.

FFA chief executive Ben Buckley did not return calls but an Australian Rugby Union spokesman confirmed his code had given its views.

"Quite obviously, we'd love to see retractable seating at Subi," he said. "We believe it's appropriate for a multi purpose stadium. But we have offered an opinion, that's all."

The spokesman said the redevelopment of ME Bank Stadium remained a high priority for rugby.

build the sexy stadium already and have retractable seating, hell just build something i fit into, and will stop ripping my clothing in...

Soaks · **Posted:** Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:35 pm

We'll see a GC17 v West Sydney Grand final before we see new stadiums built in Perth.

gyfox · **Posted:** Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:15 pm

docker wrote:

BartBart on Ozscrapers wrote:

p12 today's West

Quote:

Hitch in AFL bid for Subi funds
MARK DUFFIELD

The WA Football Commission's $300 million bid for government funding to redevelop Subiaco Oval has hit a snag with rectangular code sports soccer and rugby applying pressure for it to have retractable seating.

It is understood that the AFL, acting on the WAFC's behalf in a bid for Federal funding, remains in talks with soccer ruling body the Football Federation of Australia, which strongly urged for retractable seating so the ground could play a meaningful role in Australia's bids for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

The FFA's approval is in turn seen as a key to getting significant Federal funds for the project, which was due to be pitched formally to Premier Colin Barnett two months ago but is now unlikely to be ready before the end of this month.

"The plans haven't been finished yet," WAFC chief executive Wayne Bradshaw said yesterday.

"We have still got financial modelling to do. We expect to do that in (AFL) grand final week."

Mr Bradshaw would not say whether retractable seating was included in current plans.
He said it "could be one view" that football was under pressure to offer a rectangular format as part of the plans.

It is believed the AFL has urged the WAFC to stay quiet on the plans until they get a tick from the FFA and are taken to the Federal Government.

Sports Minister Terry Waldron was given a briefing on the project last week in a meeting with Mr Bradshaw and representatives of West Coast and Fremantle football clubs.

Mr Barnett's position on a major stadium is that it is on hold for two years but he has agreed to look at the WAFC plans and Mr Waldron has privately encouraged the WAFC to proceed with the concept.

The first stage of the plan would cost just under $300 million and provide more than 30,000 seats, taking the stadium's capacity to 51,000.

The western end of the ground and the northern wing would be completely rebuilt with a three-tier stand, taking out the old three and two-tier stands, which are 40 and 30 years old respectively, and some work on the northern stand, built in 1999.

FFA chief executive Ben Buckley did not return calls but an Australian Rugby Union spokesman confirmed his code had given its views.

"Quite obviously, we'd love to see retractable seating at Subi," he said. "We believe it's appropriate for a multi purpose stadium. But we have offered an opinion, that's all."

The spokesman said the redevelopment of ME Bank Stadium remained a high priority for rugby.

build the sexy stadium already and have retractable seating, hell just build something i fit into, and will stop ripping my clothing in...

I haven't seen Subiaco up close so I can't comment on how they could retrofit retractable seating in place of the entire lower bowl but I am certainly interested in how it can be done.

gyfox · **Posted:** Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:49 pm

I just had a look at a whole lot of photographs of Subiaco and the possibility of retractable stands making it OK for a World Cup venue is not looking good.

For starters the ground runs East - West. This restricts the time of games to early afternoon or night time because of sun angles and fairness to teams running from the eastern end in the second half.

The infield is 190m long. Retractable stands would be required behind the goals because the fence would be 42.5m from the goal line. To bring it down to the same distance as ANZ Stadium these stands would have to be able to move forward 11m but ANZ is a compromise oval and shouldn't be considered an ideal length. Ideally they should be able to move closer to the goal line but the distance they can move is governed by sight lines from the permanent seating behind them. If the gap behind the retractable seating becomes too wide then it becomes very ugly looking.

The infield is 132m wide. FIFA requires a minimum of 85m so retractable stands on the sides of the ground would have to pivot at a point 10m behind the goal line and swing the stand at the centre line of the pitch 16m forward. This would halve the distance of the front row from the sideline but it would still be 7.5m further than the FIFA minimum. Installing this type of retractable stand may create restricted viewing seating behind them and decrease the capacity of the stadium when in rectangular mode. It is also quite unsightly especially on the southern side where there is no tier above the lower bowl.

Retrofitting of retractable stands is only possible if the lower bowl can be removed without affecting the structural integrity of the stand and in any case it is much more expensive than fitting them into new construction.

Some time ago Rob found out that the budget for the retractable stands in the proposed new stadium was of the order of $50M so for this proposal it would be expected to be more than that if it is possible at all.

I can't help thinking that adding this $50M+ to the $160M for the planned ME Bank Stadium upgrade would go a long way to securing a purpose built rectangular stadium for Perth without the compromises that everyone has to make in a multi purpose designed venue.

Tancred · **Posted:** Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:16 pm

gyfox wrote:

I can't help thinking that adding this $50M+ to the $160M for the planned ME Bank Stadium upgrade would go a long way to securing a purpose built rectangular stadium for Perth without the compromises that everyone has to make in a multi purpose designed venue.

QFT

dibo · **Joined:** Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:27 pm **Posts:** 1398

Tancred wrote:

gyfox wrote:

I can't help thinking that adding this $50M+ to the $160M for the planned ME Bank Stadium upgrade would go a long way to securing a purpose built rectangular stadium for Perth without the compromises that everyone has to make in a multi purpose designed venue.

QFT

and if they go for the modular model talked about some months ago ($220m for a 45k stadium, downsized to 25k afterwards) it gives perth a WC quality rectangular stadium that isn't white elephant sized afterwards.*

the WAFC and WAFL can sort themselves out with the oval without the need for any faffing around, and if they want to keep a 200m long playing surface then they can, no biggie.

* presumably if there's demand coming out the wazoo for football or rugby codes or they simply want the available capacity for big games the venue can either be left as is or be 're-upsized' to its WC capacity.

Egan · **Posted:** Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:17 pm

If the FFA are even considering this, it shows the huge problems it is having in constructing a credible World Cup venue in Perth...

I don't think you are going to see any commitments in place that compromise the planned upgrade.

The design of the rectangular stadium, is apparently a state facility. This may not have the capabilities to be turned into a World Cup facility.

The unicorns are flying...

gyfox · **Posted:** Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:32 pm

Egan wrote:

If the FFA are even considering this, it shows the huge problems it is having in constructing a credible World Cup venue in Perth...

I don't think you are going to see any commitments in place that compromise the planned upgrade.

The design of the rectangular stadium, is apparently a state facility. This may not have the capabilities to be turned into a World Cup facility.

The unicorns are flying...

With what has been published about the ME Bank upgrade so far it won't be able to be upgraded for the World Cup. LIt is on the wrong site for starters,

Soaks · **Posted:** Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:44 pm

Tancred wrote:

gyfox wrote:

I can't help thinking that adding this $50M+ to the $160M for the planned ME Bank Stadium upgrade would go a long way to securing a purpose built rectangular stadium for Perth without the compromises that everyone has to make in a multi purpose designed venue.

QFT

Pardon my ignorance fellas,QFT?

Perth's new stadium and unicorns

Who is online