Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: Premier can't see future for Patersons Stadium

  1. #16
    Champion Elf1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Beldon
    Posts
    2,278
    vCash
    5000000
    Has Lathlain now become the Eagles home, for admin, training and shop?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #17
    Veteran chibi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chinatown, Roe St
    Posts
    3,020
    vCash
    5346000
    Yeah, I think that's what the plan is.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!


    Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!

    Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?

  3. #18
    Veteran Contributor hertryk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Devonport Tasmania
    Posts
    4,881
    vCash
    5000000
    Colin can't see past his nose for anything!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #19
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    21,468
    vCash
    460000
    Quote Originally Posted by Elf1 View Post
    Has Lathlain now become the Eagles home, for admin, training and shop?
    Quote Originally Posted by chibi View Post
    Yeah, I think that's what the plan is.
    Correct

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #20
    Legend Contributor Alison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    7,308
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by UNCLE BOOG View Post
    knock the fucker down and build some epic, ground breaking, architecturally designed, bees-knees apartments. [seriously] .
    Errr this is Perth, not Melbourne - the decision makers here are so stuck in the last century they wouldn't know any of those concepts if they hit them in the face!!!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #21
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    15,726
    vCash
    5470000
    The suggestion of an ongoing use was made by the WAFC, IIRC from what I heard on radio news today. Whoever it was rabbiting on added that they have an valid lease for a further 70-odd years blah- blah-blah. At a guess, they are possibly playing that card to try and squeeze some leverage over the new stadium arrangements.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  7. #22
    Champion Elf1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Beldon
    Posts
    2,278
    vCash
    5000000
    Shasta, is that lease not a peppercorn arrangement of a minimal amount per anum ??

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #23
    Immortal Contributor The InnFORCEr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    West Leederville
    Posts
    16,871
    vCash
    3102000
    I'm not Shasta, but the answer to the above is YES!!

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?

    Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!

    Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!

  9. #24
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    21,468
    vCash
    460000
    I fail to see how having that lease for 70 years will work out as some form of leverage. The WAFC will dig it's heel in and play WAFL games at Subi in front of no one? Good luck with that. The maintenance costs would outweigh the benefits of playing the games at Subiaco and the State Government won't help them out with it given they're building a new stadium.

    I would imagine their is a termination clause in the contract between the WAFC and State Government.

    The AFL will simply start fixturing games at the new stadium with or without the support of the WAFC. If the WAFC end up running the new groud that decision has already probably been made via a back room deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elf1 View Post
    Shasta, is that lease not a peppercorn arrangement of a minimal amount per anum ??
    Fairly sure the WAFC leases the ground from the State Government for $1 a year

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by jargan83; 18-09-14 at 08:12.

  10. #25
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    I would imagine it depends on the terms of the lease. If way back in the day it included the clause that it was solely for playing games and was void if they played elsewhere, then they'll have no leverage. But as we saw from the WACA, it wasn't lease issues that would have prevented them from doing what they liked including creating a whole apartment development. If the WAFC lease is similarly non-specific, they could perhaps play at the new ground and retain ownership of Subi and whatever development occurs there. That would definitely be leverage, as I think the reason it has been raised by Barnett now is they want it deeded back so the gov't can get the benefit of the development to offset the cost of the new stadium. And you need to remember that the WAFC is the AFL in WA, as they own both franchises. The AFL keeps pressuring them to hand them back, but they (wisely) keep resisting. The moment they hand them over, football in WA will be broke and broken.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #26
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    GIGS - do you still have that mock up from a few years ago?
    OH MY GOD NO, but it'd only take ten minutes to knock one up with the quality of satellite imagery that's around these days.

    If I remember correctly I kept the Norhern and Western side of the ground and trimmed the South and East didn't it?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  12. #27
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    I would imagine it depends on the terms of the lease. If way back in the day it included the clause that it was solely for playing games and was void if they played elsewhere, then they'll have no leverage. But as we saw from the WACA, it wasn't lease issues that would have prevented them from doing what they liked including creating a whole apartment development. If the WAFC lease is similarly non-specific, they could perhaps play at the new ground and retain ownership of Subi and whatever development occurs there. That would definitely be leverage, as I think the reason it has been raised by Barnett now is they want it deeded back so the gov't can get the benefit of the development to offset the cost of the new stadium. And you need to remember that the WAFC is the AFL in WA, as they own both franchises. The AFL keeps pressuring them to hand them back, but they (wisely) keep resisting. The moment they hand them over, football in WA will be broke and broken.
    Just pay them back their leasing costs for the next seventy years......shouldn't be too hard to sort it.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  13. #28
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    21,468
    vCash
    460000
    Found this via a quick google search:

    Question On Notice No. 8437 asked in the Legislative Assembly on 7 August 2012 by Mr M. Mcgowan

    Minister responding: Hon T.K. Waldron
    Parliament: 38 Session: 1

    Question

    In relation to the lease arrangements that the State Government has with the West Australian Football Commission (WAFC) on Subiaco Oval: (a) will the Government allow the WAFC to continue its lease at Subiaco Oval and its precinct, following the commissioning of the new Burswood Stadium; and
    (b) if yes to (a), is the Government considering altering the current tenure arrangement to allow the WAFC to develop the precinct around the Subiaco Oval?

    Answered on 11 September 2012


    (a) The State Government is not a party to the Subiaco Oval / Kitchener Park lease which is between the City of Subiaco and the WA Football Commission. State approval is not required for this to be allowed to continue.

    (b) If a proposal is put forward by the City of Subiaco and WA Football Commission to make changes to the tenure and zoning arrangement the State Government will consider it at that time.
    http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parl...8?OpenDocument

    Lease is apparently between City of Subiaco and the WAFC (I'm certain the cost to the WAFC is bugger all though).

    I don't see how this will affect the new stadium in that instance given the State Government doesn't have to negotiate with the WAFC. The WAFC may own the licence but the AFL will fixture West Coast and Fremantle where they want. I have a feeling the State Government wouldn't commit to building a new stadium without some form of sign off from the AFL that games will be scheduled there.

    West Coast and Fremantle certainly won't stay at Subiaco when they can make more money at the new site via more bums on seats.

    I guess the sticking point regarding the lease of Subiaco Oval will come when the City of Subiaco wants to turn the Oval into apartments or townhouses.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    And you need to remember that the WAFC is the AFL in WA, as they own both franchises. The AFL keeps pressuring them to hand them back, but they (wisely) keep resisting. The moment they hand them over, football in WA will be broke and broken.
    I wouldn't be so sure. A few months ago I read an article saying that the AFL was pulling funding for country footy in WA as a part of the AFL's attempts to pressure the WAFC into giving up the licences for the Eagles and Dockers.

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sp...wa-grassroots/

    Given the gold mine that both those two teams are for the WAFC it's probably still cheaper for them to fund it themselves. I do agree with your last point, if the WAFC hands over the licences they will become reliant on AFL handouts to survive because the 12 people and 2 dogs that show up for WAFL games aren't going to keep them afloat!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. WA PREMIER & COWAN TAKE TO NEW NIB STADIUM
    By The InnFORCEr in forum Stadiums
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 20-03-13, 10:59
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28-09-12, 11:20
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 16-10-10, 15:28
  4. Premier support for rectangular stadium
    By eleypinkbit in forum Stadiums
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25-06-09, 10:43
  5. Premier all but kills hope for new stadium
    By travelling_gerry in forum Stadiums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-12-08, 19:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •