2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadiums?

Discuss stadium news, redevelopment, construction & future stadiums.

Which stadium in NSW do you want to see upgraded?

Sydney Football Stadium
5
38%
Stadium Australia
2
15%
Parramatta Stadium
3
23%
Sydney Cricket Ground
0
No votes
Brookvale Oval
2
15%
Endeavour Field
0
No votes
Leichhardt Oval
0
No votes
Other
1
8%
 
Total votes: 13

bazza
Silver
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by bazza »

what is the capacity that a stadium should be built at?
e.g. if the average is 15,000 - should the capacity be 16,000 or 30,000?

I suspect the cost of building a new 30,0000 seat stadium is not a lot more than a new 25,000 seat stadium

Boba Fett
Silver
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by Boba Fett »

bazza wrote:what is the capacity that a stadium should be built at?
e.g. if the average is 15,000 - should the capacity be 16,000 or 30,000?

I suspect the cost of building a new 30,0000 seat stadium is not a lot more than a new 25,000 seat stadium
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that events that are claimed as 'sell-outs' are often only about 85% of actual capacity. So if the average attendance of a stadium is (for example) 15k, I'm not sure of the economic value of building anything much more than 17-20k. Unless the economic benefit of a handful of events that reach significantly more than this figure could be justified/demonstrated?

I'm all for having one large capacity rectangular stadium somewhere in Sydney (hey look, we already have one right in the population heart!) to cope with SoO, GF, rugby internationals, concerts, etc, but I don't think there is any demonstrated evidence that we need to building anything else larger than 20-25k.

bazza
Silver
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by bazza »

There would also be assumptions:
1. A better ground will improve crowds
2. Population growth
3. More events at the new stadium

What if the cost of building a 30,000 seat stadium was only 5% more than building a 20,000 seater
I imagine running costs would be similar for both

User avatar
yob
Platinum
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:26 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by yob »

bazza wrote:There would also be assumptions:
1. A better ground will improve crowds
2. Population growth
3. More events at the new stadium

What if the cost of building a 30,000 seat stadium was only 5% more than building a 20,000 seater
I imagine running costs would be similar for both
The cost curve on a per seat basis would be interesting. Costs per seat would trend lower at first due to scale increase, but then escalate at a tipping point and gradually accelerate until being near vertical at the 80,000 mark.

Overall there's no general rule because it depends on the design choices. For instance - designing for 30k with no consideration to expansion. Could decrease the price - no extra foundations, single bowl instead of tiers.... or could increase the price because of design choices to maximise the experience of the 30k patrons i.e all the seats jammed up close to the action on a steep rake with sightlines preventing expansion.

gyfox
Platinum
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Launceston

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by gyfox »

Cost per seat is more determined by the quality of behind seating bowl facilities. A basic stadium might cost $5k per seat, a regional stadium providing good game day facilities for corporates that are available to the community on non football days might cost $8k per seat and an iconic stadium with all the bell and whistles might cost $12k per seat. The difference in the seating bowl may not be great between these categories of stadium except in the corporates.

As a general principle the higher work is off the ground the more it costs to build and this tends to negate the economies of scale argument somewhat. Additionally a bigger capacity means more toilets, eating facilities, wider or more walkways, stairways, vomitories and internal and external concourses which all factor into the cost per seat.

Boba Fett
Silver
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by Boba Fett »

bazza wrote:There would also be assumptions:
1. A better ground will improve crowds
2. Population growth
3. More events at the new stadium

What if the cost of building a 30,000 seat stadium was only 5% more than building a 20,000 seater
I imagine running costs would be similar for both
1. Possibly - is there any evidence?
2. Plenty of evidence that this is irrelevant.
3. Such as what? Remember that the proposals are simply for replacements, not greenfield developments.

Re: the cost thing - that could be a fact, yes. But what you're then doing is compromising the fan experience for the majority of the events.

User avatar
yob
Platinum
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:26 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by yob »

gyfox wrote:Cost per seat is more determined by the quality of behind seating bowl facilities. A basic stadium might cost $5k per seat, a regional stadium providing good game day facilities for corporates that are available to the community on non football days might cost $8k per seat and an iconic stadium with all the bell and whistles might cost $12k per seat. The difference in the seating bowl may not be great between these categories of stadium except in the corporates.
There's plenty of variation in this band though. A regional venue typically won't require the under bowl areas to be lettable space because land is not scarce. And if patron facilities are built ground level around the perimeter they're unlikely to be subsumed for stadium expansion. So rather than maximise the space and build basement cavities under the lower bowl they simple excavate the dirt into a bowl shape and concrete over the top.

gyfox
Platinum
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Launceston

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by gyfox »

I guess I was using Regional like in the Davis Langdon cost model where it is the level below a National Stadium. They actually call it a regional feature stadium and it has high quality design, back-of-house facilities, retail, hospitality and conference facilities: I should have been more careful in my description but you are right in that the cost is a range depending on facilities and finish not just a single figure.

User avatar
dibo
Gold
Posts: 1609
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:27 pm

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by dibo »

Boba Fett wrote:
bazza wrote:what is the capacity that a stadium should be built at?
e.g. if the average is 15,000 - should the capacity be 16,000 or 30,000?

I suspect the cost of building a new 30,0000 seat stadium is not a lot more than a new 25,000 seat stadium
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that events that are claimed as 'sell-outs' are often only about 85% of actual capacity. So if the average attendance of a stadium is (for example) 15k, I'm not sure of the economic value of building anything much more than 17-20k. Unless the economic benefit of a handful of events that reach significantly more than this figure could be justified/demonstrated?
That logic only holds if you're willing to sell 20,000 tickets for a stadium with capacity of 17,500. Everyone who has bought a ticket has paid for it, so even if the actual attendance was 50% of the capacity, you've still got their cash, but you can't take it if you can't guarantee them a seat.

As to how big a ground ought to be, if past crowds determined future crowds, we'd have expected that crowds at Lang Park would bear a close relationship to crowds at the pre-renovated ground. They don't. There's an obvious and sustained jump to Brisbane Broncos crowds post 2003. I don't think it's fantasy to suggest this has a fair bit to do with the ground. It's not a bandwagon effect; their best period was 1992-1997 and their average crowds since 2003 have been higher than that period.

If you build a decent stadium, people will come.

The SFS has *never* been a good stadium. It's always been too long. It's 15m less long now than at opening, but that's still longer than Lang Park, MRS, Parramatta etc., and they did it by f***ing the sightlines for the bottom half of the ends and doing nothing to improve sightlines for the rest.

Its roof has always been pretty but useless, and it used to be a wind tunnel until they bodged up the windbreakers in the corners.

Its corporate facilities have always been hopeless; the only private lounge areas are all behind the goal lines. It's just a crap design.

I have a hard time believing that if they simply got the design right and put in place a genuinely good stadium with good sightlines, good facilities, good cover and good access and egress that it wouldn't result in better attendances.

Look at the boost that Bulldogs and Souths got from moving games to Homebush. The place is soulless and distant, but it's still better for drawing a crowd than the Showground, SFS or Belmore ever were for those clubs. Souths in particular had a dramatic jump in crowds.

After one year of grumbling, they've taken their average from 12k between 2002-5 to 16.5k in the Homebush years.

I work in Souths territory - there are shitloads of Souths supporters around here who make the trek out to Homebush. If they were heading up the road to a great ground I can't see them being *less* likely to go than they presently are.

User avatar
yob
Platinum
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:26 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by yob »

dibo wrote:Look at the boost that Bulldogs and Souths got from moving games to Homebush. The place is soulless and distant, but it's still better for drawing a crowd than the Showground, SFS or Belmore ever were for those clubs. Souths in particular had a dramatic jump in crowds.
Have a look at North Melbourne:

http://afltables.com/afl/crowds/kangaroos.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Docklands hasn't done sh*t for their crowds.

gyfox
Platinum
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Launceston

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by gyfox »

I think Port and the Crows at AO is a current example of what can happen.

The Wanderers in their second season had 11 sell outs in 13 games and in their third season had 4 sell outs in 14 games despite competing for the wooden spoon all season. While its difficult to know what the demand is I would expect an average attendance around Victory's 22k at AAMI to be not far off the mark if they are performing well.

User avatar
yob
Platinum
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:26 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by yob »

gyfox wrote:I think Port and the Crows at AO is a current example of what can happen.
Adelaide's crowds at Adelaide Oval are only slightly up on their usual 40k. It was only the last few years of Football Park that crowds ticked noticably lower, but this was in the new climate of selling Adelaide Oval/Denigrating Football Park. Port has experienced staggering uplift.

Seems to me that with examples pointing either way the logical conclusion is the stadium is not the only variable, nor is it the most important.

I'm not seeing this world where Easts are pulling 55,000 at Moore Park because the ends are 5 metres closer to the action.

gyfox
Platinum
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Launceston

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by gyfox »

Even though the second new stadium in western Sydney is more than a decade away according to Minister Ayres the lobbying has already started. Phil Gould in an article today is saying that the Panthers will never walk away from Penrith and says they are in discussions with Government about the stadium being in Penrith. Both Liverpool and Campbelltown have put up their hands for it previously and no doubt will again soon. The Minister himself made these comments:-
A new outer western Sydney stadium will be a state-of-the-art facility attracting international events.

Mr Ayres said it was “too early to make a determination” on its location but it would not be an upgrade of an existing stadium.

“I am almost certain it will be a new facility that will host major sports as well have the capacity for other business activity,” he said.

“It will host major events and concerts, gala dinners and cater for exhibition-type events.”

The area housing the new western Sydney stadium will be well serviced by road and transport infrastructure.

“The new stadium will be very focused around the proposed western Sydney airport as that will greatly influence the delivery of more tourists into western Sydney,” Mr Ayres said.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslo ... 7516707845" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That sounds awfully like Badgerys Creek is very much in the frame to me. Although Ayres is the Member for Penrith I think he would have difficulty pushing Penrith as the location over South West Sydney as the latter already has a population 250k greater and is forecast to grow by 200k more than the West Sydney Sub Region by 2031 by which time it will have twice the population.

bazza
Silver
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by bazza »

Boba Fett wrote: 1. Possibly - is there any evidence?
Anecdotally there are examples with Lang Park, MRS, Adelaide Oval (though more location) and Parramatta stadium v1986.
Also in the VFL most Melbourne teams moving the Docklands or MCG has led to increased crowds
in the NRL, the Bulldogs moving to Homebush has led to higher crowd averages than they got at Belmore
Boba Fett wrote: 2. Plenty of evidence that this is irrelevant.
Pretty sure NRL and AFL crowd averages are higher than in the past
Boba Fett wrote: 3. Such as what? Remember that the proposals are simply for replacements, not greenfield developments.
Getting more NRL teams to play at the new stadiums is one

skippy
Bronze
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: 2015 NSW election aftermath, what does it mean for stadi

Post by skippy »

There is not the demand in Sydney for more than one stadium greater than 45k capacity. The capacity of SCG and SFS is well suited for the teams that play there. The occasional sell out should be expected and can induce demand and let the clubs raise ticket prices for premium events. e.g. Sydney FC vs. WSW

What the NRL is aiming for is to have two 60k+ stadiums that can be bid to host State of Origin & NRL major drawing finals, thereby extracting a much lower rent than they currently get from Stadium Australia. Same for major soccer events and Bledisloe Cup. We will see if the NSW Government falls into their trap.

Post Reply