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.
Timbo wrote:The ideal solution would have been, in my opinion:
Inner City Stadium (45,000) - SFS (Eastern Suburbs, NSW Waratahs, Sydney FC)
Inner West Stadium (83,500) - Stadium Australia (Canterbury-Bankstown, South Sydney)
Central Outer West Stadium (30,000) - Blacktown/Eastern Creek (Wests, Parramatta, Penrith, WS Wanderers)
Southern Sydney Stadium (30,000) - Top of Sutherland Shire/Bottom of St. George region, as close to bridge as possible (St.George-Illawarra, Cronulla-Sutherland)
That would have solved the problems of all clubs barring Manly, about whom I could not care less.
St.George and Cronulla going their own way has scuppered any chance of the southern option, but the other three are still viable imo.
So nothing for south west Sydney with current population 452k soon to be near 1 million that passes the southern suburbs from Marrackville down sometime between 2021 and 2026? And please don't suggest the Eastern Creek/ Blacktown has any link whatsoever with that region. It is a world away.
I have posted on other forums and I think before on here that it is impossible to service western Sydney long term with a single Tier 2 stadium. The region will have the majority of Sydney's population by 2036.
I'm sorry but in terms of cost effectiveness I disagree.
We can't afford to keep building and funding stadiums because the spread of NRL teams is so big.
ANZ and one other - be it at Parramatta or elsewhere - are the future of Western Sydney stadia. It's too expensive otherwise, regardless of where the population is.
Timbo wrote:The ideal solution would have been, in my opinion:
Inner City Stadium (45,000) - SFS (Eastern Suburbs, NSW Waratahs, Sydney FC)
Inner West Stadium (83,500) - Stadium Australia (Canterbury-Bankstown, South Sydney)
Central Outer West Stadium (30,000) - Blacktown/Eastern Creek (Wests, Parramatta, Penrith, WS Wanderers)
Southern Sydney Stadium (30,000) - Top of Sutherland Shire/Bottom of St. George region, as close to bridge as possible (St.George-Illawarra, Cronulla-Sutherland)
That would have solved the problems of all clubs barring Manly, about whom I could not care less.
St.George and Cronulla going their own way has scuppered any chance of the southern option, but the other three are still viable imo.
So nothing for south west Sydney with current population 452k soon to be near 1 million that passes the southern suburbs from Marrackville down sometime between 2021 and 2026? And please don't suggest the Eastern Creek/ Blacktown has any link whatsoever with that region. It is a world away.
I have posted on other forums and I think before on here that it is impossible to service western Sydney long term with a single Tier 2 stadium. The region will have the majority of Sydney's population by 2036.
I'm sorry but in terms of cost effectiveness I disagree.
We can't afford to keep building and funding stadiums because the spread of NRL teams is so big.
ANZ and one other - be it at Parramatta or elsewhere - are the future of Western Sydney stadia. It's too expensive otherwise, regardless of where the population is.
We can have 2 Tier 1 and 1 Tier 2 stadiums in their preferred location for 2 AFL teams that represent 12.3% of the football attendance market but we can't afford to have 2 Tier 1 (1 of which is also used by AFL) stadiums and 2 Tier 2 stadiums in suitable locations for 12 teams that represent the other 87.7% of the market that need access to the same quality venues. Someone got the equation drastically wrong. The strategy model says they wanted 2 national competition teams per venue and then they force 4+ per venue on the rectangular pitch codes.
Simmo79 wrote:
How many teams do those cities have though? I can't see there being any true rule for working out how many venues are needed for a city. It boils down to how well situated each club is to its fanbase. Sport is a retail business and location is everything. If fanbases are dispersed and can be well-serviced with a central facility then great, but if the fanbase is local then the stadium has to be local as well.
And how geographically spread are those cities...
It was interesting to read in the NSW Stadia Strategy that the population in Melbourne was 50% more dense than the population in Sydney meaning that Sydney required a more intelligent stadia solution than a simple centralised hub and precinct model.
I would have thought it's more to do with the structure of the city rather than the density. Melbourne looks to be much more centralised than Sydney, that's why they can have their 2 major stadiums centrally located.
But it also helps that people actually show up in Melbourne. Both the MCG and Docklands are almost entirely privately funded, whereas in Sydney (like every other city in Australia) there needs to be significant government funding to get the job done, The result is a lot of flip flopping and mindless drivel and in the end whatever happens will probably end up compromised. If a new stadium could draw 40 games @ 30k average then the private sector would have built it already.
It's very simple. If an NRL club would like their own shiny new stadium they are free to build one. At their expense.
What? They're not prepared to do that? It's too expensive? So why would they think governments should fork out the money? All governments have to spend money on are things like transport, health and police for the entire state - surely they have lots of spare money lying around to spend on multiple 30,000 seat stadiums that will be used 12 times a year and pull in an average of 10,000 spectators each.
Boba Fett wrote:It's very simple. If an NRL club would like their own shiny new stadium they are free to build one. At their expense.
What? They're not prepared to do that? It's too expensive? So why would they think governments should fork out the money? All governments have to spend money on are things like transport, health and police for the entire state - surely they have lots of spare money lying around to spend on multiple 30,000 seat stadiums that will be used 12 times a year and pull in an average of 10,000 spectators each.
It's very simple. If an AFL club would like their own shiny new stadium they are free to build one. At their expense.
What? They're not prepared to do that? It's too expensive? So why would they think governments should fork out the money? All governments have to spend money on are things like transport, health and police for the entire state - surely they have lots of spare money lying around to spend on a third stadium for two clubs that will be used 9 times a year and pull in an average of 8,000 spectators.
Boba Fett wrote:It's very simple. If an NRL club would like their own shiny new stadium they are free to build one. At their expense.
What? They're not prepared to do that? It's too expensive? So why would they think governments should fork out the money? All governments have to spend money on are things like transport, health and police for the entire state - surely they have lots of spare money lying around to spend on multiple 30,000 seat stadiums that will be used 12 times a year and pull in an average of 10,000 spectators each.
I was at Skoda Stadium for Soundwave recently. That's the ground that needed to be upgraded ($45mil) for reasons of pure vanity for a new, unsupported AFL club, despite the fact that a few metres away is a stadium that could more then adequately host that clubs games without the need for any additional spending and whose design was compromised for that very purpose to the detriment of its main tenants and users.
Boba Fett wrote:It's very simple. If an NRL club would like their own shiny new stadium they are free to build one. At their expense.
What? They're not prepared to do that? It's too expensive? So why would they think governments should fork out the money? All governments have to spend money on are things like transport, health and police for the entire state - surely they have lots of spare money lying around to spend on multiple 30,000 seat stadiums that will be used 12 times a year and pull in an average of 10,000 spectators each.
I was at Skoda Stadium for Soundwave recently. That's the ground that needed to be upgraded ($45mil) for reasons of pure vanity for a new, unsupported AFL club, despite the fact that a few metres away is a stadium that could more then adequately host that clubs games without the need for any additional spending and whose design was compromised for that very purpose to the detriment of its main tenants and users.
What is your opinion on that?
You've answered your own question actually. Skoda Stadium is used for other purposes - Easter Show, music festivals, etc. Much more used than, say, Jubilee, or Centrebet, or Brookvale, etc
And I'm not sure how ANZ's design has been compromised by AFL. If anything, the fact that its original purpose was an athletics track (for the Olympics) has had a bigger impact on the shortcomings of the stadium (which are mainly that the ends are too removed from the field of play for rectangular codes).
Boba Fett wrote:
And I'm not sure how ANZ's design has been compromised by AFL. If anything, the fact that its original purpose was an athletics track (for the Olympics) has had a bigger impact on the shortcomings of the stadium (which are mainly that the ends are too removed from the field of play for rectangular codes).
If not for AFL, the ground would have been developed into a nice rectangular stadium after the olympics
Boba Fett wrote:
And I'm not sure how ANZ's design has been compromised by AFL. If anything, the fact that its original purpose was an athletics track (for the Olympics) has had a bigger impact on the shortcomings of the stadium (which are mainly that the ends are too removed from the field of play for rectangular codes).
If not for AFL, the ground would have been developed into a nice rectangular stadium after the olympics
I'm not sure that's true, or was ever seriously considered. You'd have to pretty much rip out the entire lower bowl and rebuild it from scratch. That would cost a fair bit more than the conversion process already did.
what? the ends of the lower bowl were ripped out anyway when it was reconfigured from Olympic into ovtangular. It would have been pretty much the same process to rectanguarise it, the way God intended.
Last edited by Simmo79 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
An ovatangular infield was the original post Olympics intention. The lower tier right around the ground was to have a once off 15.6m move inwards. This was done for the ends but the tiers on the side were changed to retractable to a structural design done by Sinclair Knight Mertz. There was a drawing of the original intention on the Stadium's thread at one stage.
Boba Fett wrote:It's very simple. If an NRL club would like their own shiny new stadium they are free to build one. At their expense.
What? They're not prepared to do that? It's too expensive? So why would they think governments should fork out the money? All governments have to spend money on are things like transport, health and police for the entire state - surely they have lots of spare money lying around to spend on multiple 30,000 seat stadiums that will be used 12 times a year and pull in an average of 10,000 spectators each.
I was at Skoda Stadium for Soundwave recently. That's the ground that needed to be upgraded ($45mil) for reasons of pure vanity for a new, unsupported AFL club, despite the fact that a few metres away is a stadium that could more then adequately host that clubs games without the need for any additional spending and whose design was compromised for that very purpose to the detriment of its main tenants and users.
What is your opinion on that?
You've answered your own question actually. Skoda Stadium is used for other purposes - Easter Show, music festivals, etc. Much more used than, say, Jubilee, or Centrebet, or Brookvale, etc
And I'm not sure how ANZ's design has been compromised by AFL. If anything, the fact that its original purpose was an athletics track (for the Olympics) has had a bigger impact on the shortcomings of the stadium (which are mainly that the ends are too removed from the field of play for rectangular codes).
And by your attempted dodge you've answered my question. You don't have a problem with pissing tax payers money up against the wall the the sake of the AFL's vanity, you fully support it. So your objection to funding for rectangular grounds in not principled as you try and portray but utterly self serving and sectarian.
The upgrades for Skoda were absolutely NOT necessary for other events or for anything but the Giants. $45million just so a new AFL franchise can appear a bit more popular on the telly.
All AFL does is tip in a small amount of cash at the get go, so it can get a seat at the table to direct the design process in their favor..... They then get up on their high horse big noting themselves that they have funded this or that where all that they have done was direct the bulk of the public cash in the proposed development towards their own interest.
They are very good at it....Stadium Austalia is a prime example of this slight of hand.
I see the ANZ roof and rectangularisation plan hit the news again yesterday. I wonder where they would get the money from? I could live with 75k capacity with the shorter viewing distances.
