Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
jimmy wrote:AAMI Stadium will remain the training home for the Crows and host NAB Cup matches. The surrounding land is being rezoned as residential and sold off, with SANFL keeping the profits- very sweet deal for them but I guess it had to be to entice them to move into the city......
It had to be a very sweet deal to entice the SANFL to give up an owned stadium and go back to be a tenant . The reason they left AO in the first place was because they couldn't get a reasonable deal .
The AFL were coaxed away from Waverley and are currently lamenting the fact , so I hope they did their homework .
.
If you listen to some of the statements by SACA boss at the announcement there has been some pretty straight talking going on.
So much of the character of the ground had gone with this proposal that I think they would be better getting rid of the hill and completing the stands in the future. I am not saying that with a Association football hat on either because the ground is not suitable for football at all and the extra stands would make it no better.
The open end means nothing concerning FIFA WC matches, it only needs 45,000 seats as this new stadium will have. Just sell 50,000 tickets for the seats and that meets all criteria. Architecture of grounds are not under scrutiny here, just the number of seats and Ben Buckley says it is fine.
FFA and the Federal Government are talking a big game, but when it comes down to it, it looks like the Federal government will not spend the Billions like all other countries have. I predict that the commonwealth will contribute $150m, that's it.
I also predict that now Adelaide Oval is a real possibility, Perth will want to jump on board with the same amount of money $450m and they will build it around Burswood to cash in on the river, entertainment precinct like they are doing in Adelaide. Just a guess from me.
You just don't know how much Ben Buckley knew about the plans, it sounded like it was an announcement he wasn't expecting, so perhaps Demetriou has twisted the design in some ways after talking to the FFA.
Does anyone else know about What Buckley was saying about hills (it doesn't matter if they are there as long as people don't sit there) does that make it non-compliant or is it something that we will submit for FIFA to laugh at?
It was pretty clear that one of the guys on that sports show didn't really understand the whole thing, "Isn't England, Spain and Portugal a joint bid?". Hopefully Buckley does an interview with journalists who know enough to ask meaningful questions.
Actually in that interview he doesn't say that at all. He says that he knows nothing about the detail but that from the concepts they have seen previously it looks positive for the bid. When pressed about the venue only being a 70% seater he said all that was required was 45,000 seats and he understood that it would have that. Hopefully FFA's advisers are over the detail and are listened too when they say what has still to be done to make it compliant as the Premier has promised.
timmers wrote:You just don't know how much Ben Buckley knew about the plans, it sounded like it was an announcement he wasn't expecting, so perhaps Demetriou has twisted the design in some ways after talking to the FFA.
Does anyone else know about What Buckley was saying about hills (it doesn't matter if they are there as long as people don't sit there) does that make it non-compliant or is it something that we will submit for FIFA to laugh at?
It was pretty clear that one of the guys on that sports show didn't really understand the whole thing, "Isn't England, Spain and Portugal a joint bid?". Hopefully Buckley does an interview with journalists who know enough to ask meaningful questions.
You can have a hill but you can't sell tickets for people to use it and people will not be allowed to sit there even if they want to. It will be empty during games if we win the Cup bid. It will just be a grassed area behind the seating at that end. The hill would also not be allowed to be used at any AFC run event either like a World Cup qualifier or ACL game etc.
Simmo79 wrote:Rice Paper, are you a journo? (A real one, not a fake one like Egan)
No, Why do you ask? I work in urban planning / architecture and I get whispers what is being planned to be built around Australia if I'm interested enough in finding out.
The FFA has already talked to Adelaide Oval and the SA government about what FIFA compliant means, this was around mid-year, now the announcement of AO. This is the venue for the WC!!! http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... public_rss "FFA spokeswoman Bonita Mersiades said: "SACA has briefed senior FFA representatives on their plans for Adelaide Oval, and we have provided preliminary feedback on the technical requirements to ensure a venue is FIFA World Cup-compliant. FFA is hoping to meet with the SA Government again next week."
Rice Paper wrote:
The FFA has already talked to Adelaide Oval and the SA government about what FIFA compliant means, this was around mid-year, now the announcement of AO. This is the venue for the WC!!! http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... public_rss "FFA spokeswoman Bonita Mersiades said: "SACA has briefed senior FFA representatives on their plans for Adelaide Oval, and we have provided preliminary feedback on the technical requirements to ensure a venue is FIFA World Cup-compliant. FFA is hoping to meet with the SA Government again next week."
They may have briefed them back then but the images that they released yesterday don't show a stadium that has had anything done to it to make it FIFA compliant. It is still a large format oval. Wider than a venue with an athletics track, wider than any venue that has been used for the World Cup previously. Has an infield 80% bigger than required for football. Now, if they had narrowed it or if the proposal included retractable stands that could move 17m forward like Etihad or ANZ or swing forward like was proposed for Perth Stadium then they might be able to claim it as a suitable stadium but at the moment it is decidedly third rate by world standards for viewing football. If the architect has been briefed to modify the design so that it is suitable for football then he hasn't done his job as far as the viewing bowl is concerned. Problem with including retractable stands as I see it is the design of the western stand that is currently being built. The lower seating could be changed to retractable as it appears to be structurally separate but in moving them forward they would interrupt the sight lines for the tiered seating if I am not mistaken but some sections might help clarify that. The venue has obviously not been designed with much thought for football, it is just trying to fit football in the middle of a space that is not suitable for it. Using an analogy that I have used once before it is like putting a table tennis table in the middle of Rod Laver Arena.
the crow wrote:I cant wait untill all the FFA images come out for all stadiums in Australia, Existing, renovated and new!
it will be interesting to compare to the images that AFL are releasing.
will the WAFL be getting a bit nervous or cocky at this point in time?
WA will be the last piece in the puzzle if you are talking WC stadiums. SA and WA are so similer in their needs it isn't funny, Subiaco and AAMI are roughly the same age and in similier condition while the WACA and AO are also in similer condition.
If the SANFL/SACA can come together after all these years, then you have to wonder if the WAFL/WACA can put away their differences and come up with a city stadium. But WA has one advantage, it is currently the richest state in Australia only rivalled by Victoria. Surely the WAFL/WACA saw what a great proposal the Adelaide Oval is that they will at least dicsuss it among themselves. $450m is the magic number, if the feds come in with $150m, then WA can easily raise $300m.
It is damn difficult to raise anything close to $400m in the commercial world for anything, even real estate developments. So anything approaching $1billion is a vote killer, especially if it is for s sports stadium.
Rice Paper wrote:WA will be the last piece in the puzzle if you are talking WC stadiums. SA and WA are so similer in their needs it isn't funny, Subiaco and AAMI are roughly the same age and in similier condition while the WACA and AO are also in similer condition.
Yes very very similar .
Rice Paper wrote:If the SANFL/SACA can come together after all these years, then you have to wonder if the WAFL/WACA can put away their differences and come up with a city stadium. But WA has one advantage, it is currently the richest state in Australia only rivalled by Victoria. Surely the WAFL/WACA saw what a great proposal the Adelaide Oval is that they will at least dicsuss it among themselves. $450m is the magic number, if the feds come in with $150m, then WA can easily raise $300m.
But the difference is the WACA is not interested in a super stadium and no pressure seems to be able to put to the WACA . All the pressure has been on the WAFC .
The other difference is that the cost of the the Perth super stadium has been put at $1 billion because they are going for a larger stadium (very sensibly unlike Adelaide) and also there is a $300 million cost in the moveable stands .
$450 million seems really on the cheap side . That's what Victoria paid for half the MCG .
Nines wrote:
But the difference is the WACA is not interested in a super stadium and no pressure seems to be able to put to the WACA . All the pressure has been on the WAFC .
The other difference is that the cost of the the Perth super stadium has been put at $1 billion because they are going for a larger stadium (very sensibly unlike Adelaide) and also there is a $300 million cost in the moveable stands .
$450 million seems really on the cheap side . That's what Victoria paid for half the MCG .
.
I had heard a similar $300M figure for the retractable stands but Rob got a figure of $50M extra above normal stand cost to make them retractable from a mate that had something to do with the project team. This seems to fit in with a sample costing I have seen that says the frame and seating elements account for about 20% of total cost. Using the $1B figure that would mean $200M for frame and seating plus an extra $50M to make the lower part retractable. Total $250M.
But the difference is the WACA is not interested in a super stadium and no pressure seems to be able to put to the WACA . All the pressure has been on the WAFC .
The other difference is that the cost of the the Perth super stadium has been put at $1 billion because they are going for a larger stadium (very sensibly unlike Adelaide) and also there is a $300 million cost in the moveable stands .
$450 million seems really on the cheap side . That's what Victoria paid for half the MCG .
.[/quote]
How many people does half the MCG hold? 50,000 = $450m. $450m is not "cheap", there are so many people who don't realise how hard it is to raise this amount of money.
I think you mis-understood me, I was saying the WAFL/WACA think about a 50,000 seat stadium, not 100,000.
The Liberal opposition in SA proposed a $1B stadium, but this one also had a roof. The most recent billion dollar stadiums built were financed before the GFC, Dallas stadium and Yankee stadium and they both had considerable private money invested, Jerry Jones and the Steinbrenners. So I think the only way Australia will get another $1B stadium with moving seats and roof is for someone like Frank Lowey to chip in his own money.
Nines wrote:
But the difference is the WACA is not interested in a super stadium and no pressure seems to be able to put to the WACA . All the pressure has been on the WAFC .
The other difference is that the cost of the the Perth super stadium has been put at $1 billion because they are going for a larger stadium (very sensibly unlike Adelaide) and also there is a $300 million cost in the moveable stands .
$450 million seems really on the cheap side . That's what Victoria paid for half the MCG .
.
$450 million dollars because they don't have demolish stands and they have already got another 100 million dollars being spent. They also will not have the same labour costs as WA.
Nines the Adelaide Oval has a different leasing/ownership structure. WACA owns its land in effect with the 999 year lease, SACA only had managerial rights and the ground is actually owned by the City of Adelaide. The City of Adelaide can withdraw the management of SACA if it is not seeking major events and redeveloping the venue so it can host major events...The WACA has no similar legislation and owns its own venue.
It sees its revenue coming outside of sport, unlike the Adelaide Oval who have a doctrine embedded by the Adelaide City Council that it must host major sporting events. Thus why you wont see a similar scheme in Perth and why the WACA will go at it alone for the next 50-100 years.
Last edited by Egan on Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
