Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47

Thread: I am Thirty Five Thousand. Are you?

  1. #31
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    When the pressure for more seats gets high enough to justify it, you add seating and will find a comparable number of memberships when they open.
    Except that they never will if no-one knows that it is on. Rugby doesn't get televised free-to-air, so there is no opportunity for new supporters to get the bug other than to wander down to see what the fuss is about. If they can't, they'll shrug their shoulders and move on.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #32
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    Burgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Country WA
    Posts
    22,644
    vCash
    334000
    Yep, on the money Andy, you have to have room for walk up spur of the moment punters.
    I have run the figures in another thread but here are the Force Home crowd figures for the first full round (ie each opposition over two seasons):

    Brumbies 37,037
    Chiefs 29,239
    Waratahs 26,140
    Bulls 23,392
    Stormers 24,507
    Crusaders 30,230
    Highlanders 30,704
    Lions 25,523
    Hurricanes 27,648
    Reds 26,032
    Sharks 28,400
    Cheetahs 24,313
    Blues 30,083

    Average: 27,942

    Against opposition from each Nation:

    Aus 29,736
    NZ 29,581
    SA 25,227

    So again, these are the figures being achieved in such a "shocking" stadium as Subiaco and the fans are set to come flooding back in a rectangular venue.
    When combined with a thirty odd year stadium life and thirty years of WA population growth I strongly believe that even 35k is selling ourselves and the other rectangular codes short.
    Even if a 45k only had punters in the side seats with the ends empty for the first three to five years in the smaller matches, it allows room for growth.
    As the walk ups come in you sell out one section on one end before opening up the next etc.
    I am all for people power, I was part of the Subi demonstration too (base of the goal post NE Corner...) however I don't want to see ourselves compromise too low.
    The EWF originally put in a proposal based on 4k members and attracted 21k in their first year.
    Let's not make such a gross underestimation of the public thirst for Union in Perth a second time around!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Bloody oath we did!"

    Nathan Sharpe, Legend.

  3. #33
    Champion KenyaQuin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,264
    vCash
    5000000
    Hear hear Burgs..I was thinking along the same lines however my thoughts were not as clear..if that makes sense..anyhow, I'm with you on this one.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #34
    (formerly known as Coach) Your Humble Servant Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    14,227
    vCash
    262778
    I think projections should probably be based on what our NSW, QLD and to a lesser extent ACT counter parts achieve. Western Force has had (and is possibly still enjoying) a honey moon period.

    I don't think we would really expect much more support than what those over east have enjoyed during their most successful seasons. Based on the figures above, 32K would enough for a dedicated rectangular stadium and would make an MES upgrade a realistic option in addition to the "multi purpose" subi redevelopment. Any larger and we'd be looking at a knock down/rebuild and I just don't see this happening.

    Any historical figures on crowd sizes at Brumbies, Tahs and Reds games - esp during successful season campaigns?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #35
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    I agree to some extent Coach, but at the same time there is no analogue for a population of 2 million and no competition from League. Mostly though, I just think this state always underestimates its infrastructure needs (eg. "the Narrows will be fine 'til 2020"). Whatever gets built - if we somehow managed to get a rectangular ground, that would be it for the next 10 years.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #36
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    I think projections from 2008 will be crucial, It was notable that whilst 2007 showed a drop in memberships, there wasn't an appreciable drop in attendance, I think 2008 is likely to be similar, My mate has not renewed his membership, in favour of saving a few bucks and walking up. He's still going to go to every game (and will probably buy nickel tickets and wander down to sit with me anyway) If this trend continues, it not only justifies the case for a 30,000 seat oval, but presents a solid business case for not overestimation by too far. At the moment, Subi is so undersubscribed by members, that it's easy to get around the ticket prices and still get a good seat. If we have a 30,000 seat stadium which sells out any time we play an Aussie or Kiwi team, watch the memberships skyrocket.

    I think there's a good business case for 30,000 with planned expansion points at 5 years 10 years and 15 years, up to double the size in 15 years time. as you fill one capacity, start saving to build the next!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  7. #37
    Veteran zimeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    3,128
    vCash
    5000000
    The main concern i have is that with the new stadium only due in 2015 (6 full seasons) what is going to be done in the interrim?
    Subi wont be around for a couple of years before that as well so that leaves the WACA or ME... maybe Perry lakes if worst come worst.
    Will the State government commit to their promise of $25 mill in upgrades?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #38
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    Actually, we are better off than AFL there...Subi wouldn't be knocked down before building the new stadium as it only overlaps the eastern stand. We can survive without that.

    For mine I still think they should consider a two field arrangement, with shared training, entertainment and maintenance facilities.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #39
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    If we only lose one stand of Subi, can it be reconfigured into a rectangle once the white elephant is up and running?

    We could turn the pitch, Build another eastern stand and redevelop the remaining stands so they fit a real pitch. Surely something like that would be good for 30-40,000?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  10. #40
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    Speechifying to the choir here - banged on about it on one of the dead threads...

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    ...personally I'd sooner stay at Subi rather than try to cram everyone into a 22,500 seat stadium (at least Subi allows for growth). But logic would be irrelevant if the ARU were only interested in an excuse - I can't see that the NZRFU is actually concerned about Carisbrook when it has been fine for so long.

    The point I am trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that I would be extremely surprised if the Taskforce recommendations change with respect to their relevance to rugby, i.e:
    • The primary focus will be the greatest need – a 60,000 seat stadium for AFL
    • They will be looking to do everything possible to encourage/force the maximum use of this facility, both for initial economics and ongoing operational expense. This will include both cricket (which will grow the size of the ground) and rugby (which requires a smaller area)
    • The simple fact is that it is possible to play rugby on a cricket/AFL field but not the other way round. The requirements of the bigger field will therefore take precedence, although they may take some steps to accommodate the viewing requirements of rugby.
    • If cricket is pushed into using the new facility, they will either have to compromise on the size of their field or it will probably be bigger than anything retractable seating has been used on to date. In either case, the bulk of the seats will be no nearer (and probably further away from) the field of play for rugby than we currently have at Subi.

    The alternative to this would be the adoption of a multi-stadium policy, with the two likely options being:
    1. Cricket goes its own way using the ground that already exists and accepting the status quo with respect to crowd limitation. The dimensions of the new stadium could be reduced to something approximating other benchmarks (Stadium Australia or similar) with retractable seating to accommodate rugby. With a reduction in utilisation however, it is even less likely that a rectangular stadium will be built any time within the foreseeable future. This essentially offers rugby unlimited seating, at the expense of that seating being no better than currently available.
    2. Cricket is played at the new stadium and a dedicated rectangular ground is constructed. The 60,000 seat stadium would then likely be configured optimally for cricket/AFL, probably resulting in a ground similar to the MCG with no real concession to rugby. This would certainly be better for the viewers of the S14, but would probably make the viewing at Tests worse and may in time limit support for S14 (you could expect it to be a very long time before an expansion of the facility would be considered).
    From the government point of view, this first option is probably preferable - losing cricket would have the least effect on the economics of the new stadium (less events) and the second stadium already exists. More importantly, unless the Taskforce does a big back-flip, this is going to most resemble the recommendations made and it would require someone to put their bits on a block to go down a different path. So, if RugbyWA prefers the second option, they will need to come up with a convincing business case for the government as to why they should choose the second option.

    My personal opinion is that they have got off on slightly the wrong foot. To a bureaucrat, saying that the current viewing arrangements will cost you supporters will sound like “ignore these guys and the issue will go away” i.e eventually, the crowds will diminish to the point where a 25,000 seat stadium or even MES as is will suffice. It also throws the commitment of you supporters in doubt as, if they’ll drift away just because the viewing is sub-optimal, what will they do if team performance were to decline? There is little defence against this argument at the moment as there is no track record - poor performances to date are accepted as being part of the building process, but what will happen if the team reaches the heights and then falls back?

    The only line I can see that might have some hope of success is to challenge some of the implicit assumptions of the Taskforce. Most telling would be a demonstration that whatever criteria they might have set on the transition to a two stadium policy are already being met. Whether those criteria will be explicitly defined is questionable, but what I would have liked to see somewhere in the presentations was an examination of population growth in Perth and WA. In particular, a comparison of past population projections versus actual growth would have been interesting as this state has a long record of underestimating itself. It would also have provided a benchmark for the projections of the taskforce, on which they are presumably basing the timing for transition to a multi-stadia approach (~30 years). Superimposed on this, I would also have liked to see a breakdown of where that growth is coming from. Intuitively, I would have thought that the bulk of the growth would have come from locations where rectangular based sports dominate (NSW, Q’ld, New Zealand, South Africa and Europe) rather than AFL (Victoria/South Australia).

    I’d expect they would also have to demonstrate that the government is not going to be excessively out of pocket by having two stadia. That will be much tougher, with the only real option I see being a variation on the Kitchener Park concept where both stadia are run as a single entity with Subiaco redeveloped into the rectangular stadium. This would involve gutting Subi but retaining the shell and some of the internal facilities, such that the redevelopment would be predominantly secondary structures rather than primary - essentially relatively light stands creating the rectangular ground, supported off the existing larger structure. It would probably also make a feature rather than issue of the nominal overlap between the Kitchener Park stadium and Subi, using it to provide common entertainment (bars/restaurants etc) and function rooms rather than duplicating those facilities in two locations. Alternatively, and depending on how pressing some of their other concerns are (eg conflict with Roberts Road), they could also look at taking advantage of the smaller playing surface requirement for a partial redevelopment (eg. the South stand).

    Apart from that, the only other hope may be to somehow turn it into an election issue next year. But I wouldn’t hold my breath – while stadia might be an issue, I’d expect a lot more noise to be coming from the AFL camp about their requirements.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #41
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Well explained AndyS, I think you have explained all the salient points in an unfortunately clear manner (I say unfortunately because I feel much worse having read it)

    The redeveloment of Subiaco Oval is only a pipedream from me AFAIK It would be nice, but I'm noted for clutching at straws in hope (reference all my responses to ARC related questions as evidence) If we're to hold out any hope of getting a rectangular stadium at all, we need to find a wealthy private citizen who happens to be a rugby fan, and owns a large parcel of land somewhere in the Metro area.

    That's not terribly likely, is it?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  12. #42
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    Probably not, but hope springs eternal - they'd need to be wicked generous though, and have something on the Government as they'd try to block any separate development anyway (they need rugby to prop up the economics).

    I'm not sure the two stadium thing couldn't be done though...I don't think their plan is to develop Subi for financial return (at least, not according to their artist impressions anyway). They would have already mobilised the construction and fabrication lads, they'd have to be pulling it down and remediating anyway, they'd be able to continue using some of the training facilities that have had a lot of money sunk into them etc etc. They would never get a less expensive opportunity to get a rectangular ground and it would all be under common management. It is perhaps just in the telling and selling of the story.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  13. #43
    Veteran Contributor The EnForcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,645
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    Speechifying to the choir here - banged on about it on one of the dead threads...
    Keep it up AndyS that has to be one of the best posts I have read...I think I missed it first time round.

    Your idea of the combined stadium, i.e. amalgamating the existing Subi structure with the new kitchener structure and converting the Subi portion into the rectangular sports arena, is fantastic. Apart from giving everyone exactly what they want it would be an awesome and unique structure, a real iconic sporting centre demonstrating WA's commitment to all sports.

    Smart thinking.

    Anybody on here any good at drawing? Would be great to get a sketch of what AndyS has suggested and we can post it.....you never know, Andy may have something here.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Just happy to be here

  14. #44
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000

    Had a quick Bash at it

    How's this for a quick and Dirty go at it.

    Surely there's an Architect or Draftie on here who can do the job right!
    Attached Images Attached Images  

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  15. #45
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    Burgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Country WA
    Posts
    22,644
    vCash
    334000
    You ARE the tracing Master!!!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Bloody oath we did!"

    Nathan Sharpe, Legend.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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