Originally Posted by jono
exactly! well said
Exile
Port Macquarie
"Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place and I don’t care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard ya hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done! Now if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain’t you! You’re better than that!" - Rocky Balboa
Exactly.
But the government wants us there to justify the white elephant. I'm pretty sure that the Business case for a dedicated Rectangular stadium looks better at the moment the a case for a stand alone oval stadium. Based on my very basic calculations the Rectangular stadium would be used between 33 and 40 times to the oval grounds 22.
Whoever thinks Rectangular sports can co-exist with the WAFC/AFL at one ground must have found Ben Cousins stash or must be dazed from a Daniel Kerr headbutt
i think we need to find out more about the mechanism that they are using to move the stadium.
re. petition chat on monday.
i think that we will have a better argument when we know for sure how the stands are going to be moved, and the potential damage to the surface of kitchener. whether that be caused by a massive beam lying across the grass along the front of the movable stands, pressurepoints from struts spaced too far apart. or having to rip up the ground to gain access to the tracks.
if we could get that info, add it to the damage that the same amount of use will do to NEW, UNESTABLISHED grass. rugby's case got stronger; because as both codes of rugby put more pressure on the grass, who will suffer first on a substandard playing surface?
i just had a brainwave. has anyone thought of going to south fremantle oval one evening and trying to talk to mark harvey or rick hart?
Thats probably a good idea
i'd be more than happy to do it.
but is there any point? i'm not sure if i would get noticed or have any attention paid to.
spose i could give it a try. and then if it doesnt work pass the baton on.
unless someone else wants to do it.
i'm just not sure if (mainly) rick hart would pay attention to an 18 year old kid who isnt wearing a freo jersey
I'll meet you down there one arvo if you want. Two brains are better the one, i'll just wear my Force jersey down
sounds good.
i'll look into when they are training.
What I'd be interested to know is whether the designers have just made a pretty building, or actually looked at issues such as air flow and temperature - being enclosed all around they've potentially got a real hot-house, particularly with all those glass panels. If I was the government boys I'd be just a little bit worried...spend all that money, it better be flawless. They cock it up (a la the turf issues with ANZ/Telstra stadium and, even more so, the Telstra Dome) and they are going to be total laughing stocks.
I htought you weren't 18 yet?
Well said BLR. You win pointless statement of the day
It is the WA State Government Andy
I htought you weren't 18 yet?
17 days mate. 17 days
i'm rounding up
About bloody time, I've been trying for weeks!
dont worry, it wont be your last
congratulations
To that end here's the text of a letter that's been sent to the Director, Sports & Rec & John Kobelke. I'll send it to The West in a slightly different form as a letter to the editor in a couple of days.
………..,
I'm part of a group of Western Force members who have been campaigning to have a dedicated rectangular stadium provided in Perth. We are not opposed to a Multi Purpose Stadium. We think it will be a great asset to WA and will promote the staging of major events for the international codes. We question it being a viable "stand alone" solution for all codes, other than AFL, on a week to week basis. We note the issues raised in an article by Dave Hughes in "The West" on 24 April and your answers to them.
While these issues all have some relevance to our objections concerning the Multi Purpose Stadium concept, none of them get to the heart of our misgivings. The main points we would ask you to clarify are……..
Exactly how will the "swinging" seats operate?
How much turf will need to be disturbed to deploy the seats?
Can anyone guarantee the operation can be completed without making the playing surface dangerous for AFL?
Can the operation be completed/reversed overnight to allow smooth scheduling of matches for all codes with equal priority?
Our fear is that the turf will be constantly damaged. We think that the only likely way to remedy such damage would be to limit the number of conversions.
This will potentially be a cause of tension between the WAFC and Rugby. Given the WAFC's priority tenant status and the undisclosed details of any assurances they and the AFL may have been given in order to reverse their opposition to the Project, we have become nervous about the possible outcomes.
If you can clarify some of these issues for us perhaps we too might reconsider our opposition to the MPS concept as the sole solution.
Last edited by shasta; 30-04-08 at 10:55.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
