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.
Nines wrote: There was no use making the area of the pitch bigger because they intended that the venue be Perth's permanent athletics track. If you weren't aware athletics tracks and AFL pitches aren't compatible so it wasn't an option that AFL "pay for it". The capital cost not recouped by the Games was payed for by Government in the community interest not the sectional interest of Australian Football.
Are you a complete and utter moron ?
The MCG stadium was built for the Olympics .
It had an athletics track .
Perth could have built a useful stadium for cricket nand Australian Football.
Perth built a stadium that wasn't useful except for a one-off .
Currently Perry Lakes stadium is being demolished and replaced by a track . They could have built an athletics track at any time , place and at low cost after the games .
Do you get it now ?
Tracks - low cost .
Stadiums - high cost .
Last edited by Nines on Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nines wrote: There was no use making the area of the pitch bigger because they intended that the venue be Perth's permanent athletics track. If you weren't aware athletics tracks and AFL pitches aren't compatible so it wasn't an option that AFL "pay for it". The capital cost not recouped by the Games was payed for by Government in the community interest not the sectional interest of Australian Football.
Are you a complete and utter moron ?
The MCG stadium was built for the Olympics .
You are quite clearly the moron. Although I can see an athletics track when I look at the MCG on Google Earth I didn't see one when I was there for the Socceroos game on Wednesday 17 June. The reason is that athletics tracks and AFL grounds are not compatible.
For your information the MCG is sized for cricket and AFL. If it was sized for athletics it would be 112 m across not 149 m.
gyfox wrote: I didn't see one when I was there for the Socceroos game on Wednesday 17 June. The reason is that athletics tracks and AFL grounds are not compatible.
Hey utter moron .
After the Olympics Melbourne had the MCG stadium and an athletics facilities . There is no reason what so ever that Perth couldn't have had similar . They already had an athletics track before the Games .
All they needed was a decent stadium .
Nines wrote: There was no use making the area of the pitch bigger because they intended that the venue be Perth's permanent athletics track. If you weren't aware athletics tracks and AFL pitches aren't compatible so it wasn't an option that AFL "pay for it". The capital cost not recouped by the Games was payed for by Government in the community interest not the sectional interest of Australian Football.
Are you a complete and utter moron ?
The MCG stadium was built for the Olympics .
It had an athletics track .
Perth could have built a useful stadium for cricket nand Australian Football.
Perth built a stadium that wasn't useful except for a one-off .
Currently Perry Lakes stadium is being demolished and replaced by a track . They could have built an athletics track at any time , place and at low cost after the games .
Do you get it now ?
Tracks - low cost .
Stadiums - high cost .
SO NOW YOU ALTER YOUR POST AFTER I HAVE REPLIED TO IT SO YOU DONT SEEM AS BIG A MORON AS YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE.
MCG is not an athletics venue. It is a cricket and Australian football venue that has on 2 occasions been modified to a compromise design to host athletics as part of a major Games.
The good burghers of Perth decided that they already had cricket and football stadia so they built an athletics stadium for an athletics event. Surprising that, one wonders why they didn't build a polo crosse stadium for an athletics event.
gyfox wrote: I didn't see one when I was there for the Socceroos game on Wednesday 17 June. The reason is that athletics tracks and AFL grounds are not compatible.
Hey utter moron .
After the Olympics Melbourne had the MCG stadium and an athletics facilities . There is no reason what so ever that Perth couldn't have had similar . They already had an athletics track before the Games .
All they needed was a decent stadium .
So it has finally got through to you that what they needed was a stadium.... for the Empire Games where Australian football and cricket are not events. So they built one.
One last point Nines. You say that the stadium would have become the home of Australian football in WA if it was a little wider. The money spent provided a 30,000 capacity stadium. WAFL grand final crowds at the time were around 45,000, in fact only once since 1948 would the stadium have been big enough to hold the grand final crowd. It is quite clear that the WAFL wouldn't have wanted smaller crowds at their grand final and indeed quite a number of other finals and interstate games. The truth of the matter is that what you believe is that the money should have been spent upgrading Subiaco oval. ie AFL 1st, 2nd 3rd and all others go hang.
gyfox wrote:I am not missing the point, I was making a different point.
What do you think would have been envisaged for the venue post Games at the time?
You're obviosly missing the point . Nothing was envisaged for venue post games .
What were the possibilities ?
Australian Football and cricket - too small .
.
Not necessarily. It did hold 50,000 during the games, and i'm told the stands (which were probably temporary) went back quite a long way.
Gyfox is obviously trying the make the point that we should build huge rectangular stadiums for the world cup despite the fact that there isn't a ghosts chance in hell that they're going to get filled post world cup, and that's fine because their only purpose was the world cup - and any other use is a bonus.
The flaw in that argument is that someone has to pay for it, and governments that make these decisions are going to be around after the world cup has happened and will be accountable for grossly underutilised stadia. Think Hindmarsh and Bruce Stadium - built primarily for the Olympics, yet those debacles ended the careers of politicians in SA and the ACT respectively because they turned out to be expensive white elephants.
Rob wrote:
Gyfox is obviously trying the make the point that we should build huge rectangular stadiums for the world cup despite the fact that there isn't a ghosts chance in hell that they're going to get filled post world cup, and that's fine because their only purpose was the world cup - and any other use is a bonus.
The flaw in that argument is that someone has to pay for it, and governments that make these decisions are going to be around after the world cup has happened and will be accountable for grossly underutilised stadia. Think Hindmarsh and Bruce Stadium - built primarily for the Olympics, yet those debacles ended the careers of politicians in SA and the ACT respectively because they turned out to be expensive white elephants.
What I am saying is that some events require venues way beyond what is needed after the event and that values other than financial return need to be taken into account when assessing their success or not. In the case of a multi event Games the venue should not be looked at in isolation but in the light of the total Games. If it is possible to have a post games use that is profitable, great. If it needs to be subsidised by Government that also is OK. Lots of services to all sorts of parts of the community are subsidised. Why should sport be different?
gyfox wrote:What I am saying is that some events require venues way beyond what is needed after the event and that values other than financial return need to be taken into account when assessing their success or not. In the case of a multi event Games the venue should not be looked at in isolation but in the light of the total Games. If it is possible to have a post games use that is profitable, great. If it needs to be subsidised by Government that also is OK. Lots of services to all sorts of parts of the community are subsidised. Why should sport be different?
It's not - but you've got a situation in Perth and Adelaide where no world class stadia exist and the demand is arguably there to warrant them. Why would you aim to build stadia that don't satisfy that demand?
It would be political suicide to do otherwise, irrespective of your own ideological beliefs. The World Cup only lasts for a few weeks, then after it's finished you'd have this great facility lying fallow for all eternity. The government would get rightfully hammered.
No issue with sport being subsidised, but that's not an excuse to waste money for the sake of it.
The flaw in that argument is that someone has to pay for it, and governments that make these decisions are going to be around after the world cup has happened and will be accountable for grossly underutilised stadia. Think Hindmarsh and Bruce Stadium - built primarily for the Olympics, yet those debacles ended the careers of politicians in SA and the ACT respectively because they turned out to be expensive white elephants.
Maybe in Hindmarsh's case the fact that the public was told that the cost would be $27M and the actual cost was $41M might have something to do with that. The Auditor General's report was quite interesting when I skim read it. I have never looked at the ACT case.
What needs to be learnt from events like these is that Governments and proponents need to be completely open and accurate in their dealings with the general public and that cost changes need to be made public.
Egan wrote:Its all well and good Gyfox, but they could have chosen a better location, with better public transport access.
They should have either put it on Riverside, or in Kings Park.
People are judging the decisions made in 1964. At the time Subiaco Oval had only two stands, the population was only 400,000 people in the city.
It was a blunder, but I doubt the WAFL or the WACA wanted an athletics track built on their ground for the Games...
Subiaco was a ground for football only up until 1996. And the Commonwealth Games was held in January - Cricket season.
Thus the multi-purpose venue that was the WACA was not used.
I acknowledge that location may have been better but it doesn't change the fact that what was provided was a purpose built athletics centre.
By the way 64 was the Tokyo Olympics.
Looking at images of play at Subiaco in the early 60' there appeared to be a couple of stands and terraced standing (?) areas around the rest of the ground.
gyfox wrote:What I am saying is that some events require venues way beyond what is needed after the event and that values other than financial return need to be taken into account when assessing their success or not. In the case of a multi event Games the venue should not be looked at in isolation but in the light of the total Games. If it is possible to have a post games use that is profitable, great. If it needs to be subsidised by Government that also is OK. Lots of services to all sorts of parts of the community are subsidised. Why should sport be different?
It's not - but you've got a situation in Perth and Adelaide where no world class stadia exist and the demand is arguably there to warrant them. Why would you aim to build stadia that don't satisfy that demand?
It would be political suicide to do otherwise, irrespective of your own ideological beliefs. The World Cup only lasts for a few weeks, then after it's finished you'd have this great facility lying fallow for all eternity. The government would get rightfully hammered.
No issue with sport being subsidised, but that's not an excuse to waste money for the sake of it.
My comments about Perry Lakes where not made with the World Cup bid in mind. They are long held views about how inadequate public thinking led by bean counters has devalued the worth and therefore construction of cultural infrastructure in our country.
With regard to World Cup venues, In my view both Perth and Adelaide would do well with new multi-purpose venues with retractable seating.
In SA the Government is not going to run with that idea because the Opposition put it to the public first.
In WA the Government appears to have been blinded by the large flashing $1+B price tag. That is the price it seems for an iconic building for 65,000, whereas FFA are proposing a high quality 25,000+20,000 seat stadium for $250+M. The choice is up to the WA Government which way it wants to go and they have about 6 months to decide so that our bid book can include what they agree to with the various stakeholders.
gyfox wrote:What I am saying is that some events require venues way beyond what is needed after the event and that values other than financial return need to be taken into account when assessing their success or not. In the case of a multi event Games the venue should not be looked at in isolation but in the light of the total Games. If it is possible to have a post games use that is profitable, great. If it needs to be subsidised by Government that also is OK. Lots of services to all sorts of parts of the community are subsidised. Why should sport be different?
It's not - but you've got a situation in Perth and Adelaide where no world class stadia exist and the demand is arguably there to warrant them. Why would you aim to build stadia that don't satisfy that demand?
It would be political suicide to do otherwise, irrespective of your own ideological beliefs. The World Cup only lasts for a few weeks, then after it's finished you'd have this great facility lying fallow for all eternity. The government would get rightfully hammered.
No issue with sport being subsidised, but that's not an excuse to waste money for the sake of it.
My comments about Perry Lakes where not made with the World Cup bid in mind. They are long held views about how inadequate public thinking led by bean counters has devalued the worth and therefore construction of cultural infrastructure in our country.
With regard to World Cup venues, In my view both Perth and Adelaide would do well with new multi-purpose venues with retractable seating.
In SA the Government is not going to run with that idea because the Opposition put it to the public first.
In WA the Government appears to have been blinded by the large flashing $1+B price tag. That is the price it seems for an iconic building for 65,000, whereas FFA are proposing a high quality 25,000+20,000 seat stadium for $250+M. The choice is up to the WA Government which way it wants to go and they have about 6 months to decide so that our bid book can include what they agree to with the various stakeholders.
More so they don't want to spend money on stadia, rather believe they spent a lot on Hindmarsh only 9 years ago as well as wanting to put priorities in other areas. Thus they favour Adelaide Oval. The liberals are in chaos here. 36% approval to the Liberals, 64% to Labor.
WA Government won't be spending $250 million on a World Cup Stadium, because then they would have to spend $400-500 million on an Australian Rules Football Stadium. A sport that has been waiting longer and has been selling out more often.
I would build the 65,000 major venue though. But you simply have to understand Gyfox, the Rectangular stadium being approved means the government has to satisfy Aussie Rules and spend more than that on upgrades of the worst AFL stadium...
Not as simple for scrooges as you like to present it as.
