RugbyWA Chairman Geoff Stooke OAM Responds To New Stadium Announcement

[Swee_82]

I agree with parts of what Vasco's saying. I actually highly doubt whether the corporate seats will improve in the MPS, since presumeably the suites will be in the permanent, non-movable part of the stadium. The 'reconfigurable' lower seating bowl supposedly encompasses 22,000 seats or some such (which incidentally would have fit this weekend's crowd in it- how pathetic is that?).
It seems the popular wisdom is that the Force will be moving to an upgraded ME while the new stadium is being built- if they're gonna half-upgrade it, why not go the whole hog and give the Force a permanent home, cos after 6-7 seasons there I can see alot of people getting pissed off and not renewing memberships when we have to move back to an oval.

[jargan83]

Any chance of a TWF blobk at MES should proposed upgrade takes place.

I agree that if they were going to upgrade MES for a temporary 7 year home, why not give us a permanent home??

[shasta]

It was never going to be anything but temporary. We need to remember that RugbyWA probably was never really in a position to publicly support our petition openly. Reading between the lines they were quite happy with what we have been doing though and may be looking forward to a boost in memberships as people re-join in order to make sure of a decent seat when MES is upgraded. I sincerely hope it's not still if. But Kobelke's words about supporting two stadiums were encouraging. In any event, I'll be happier knowing a fair slice of my membership fees are not going to the bloody WAFC in the future. Also, am I right in recalling (but can't be arsed checking right now) that the task force report also recommended starting on a 35,000-odd rectangular stadium once the Kitchener Park project is up and running?

Whatever, it's not over the line yet and we are still a good way short of our goal of 10,000 signatures. Feel free to download some at....

Petition Downloads and Postal Address!

or alternately turn up at the Leederville Bowlo opposite and give us a hand before the next home game.

[AndyS]

Yeah, the plans that have been released to date show 22,000 of the seats moving - essentially all the lower sections. As a result, none will be under cover and none of the corporate areas (the next level up) will move at all. It will be the corporates that will be squinting into the middle distance trying to see what just happened, as they will be further away than at Subi. Those in the moveable seats will range from slightly closer to a bit further away.

The reason Stooke is being very clear that the move is temporary is that the facilities will reflect the amount of money spent. $35-50M on MES is a patch job at best, and the risk is very much that once we move, the Government/WAFC will decide that Rugby is sorted and they don't need to bother about moveable stands or further support. I can see exactly how it will go - the key statement in the ST article was the Government saying that they are still committed to a two stadium policy when there is the business case. So, we move to MES and break even, they say "Well done, you've proven your business case, you have the ground you asked for, we're done".

For mine, the biggest problem with MES is the ground - as has been noted elsewhere, it does not meet ARU standards. It is too short (which is a safety risk for players) and it is too narrow - try to picture the Fox cameramen running the sidelines, along with players sitting there, assistant referees, drinks runners, the advertising that underpins the team sponsorships and all the other paraphernalia.

[shasta]

Any chance of a TWF blobk at MES should proposed upgrade takes place.

If we have been any help to them at all, I reckon Rugby WA might indulge us with that.

[shasta]

For mine, the biggest problem with MES is the ground - as has been noted elsewhere, it does not meet ARU standards. It is too short (which is a safety risk for players) and it is too narrow - try to picture the Fox cameramen running the sidelines, along with players sitting there, assistant referees, drinks runners, the advertising that underpins the team sponsorships and all the other paraphernalia.

Never knew that Andy..........as they say a little knowledge.

But I think we've been on the right track or the "bosses" would have let us know they REALLY DIDN"T want us meddling, rather than just keeping us at arm's length.

[The InnFORCEr]

If we have been any help to them at all, I reckon Rugby WA might indulge us with that.

Logistically Impossible I would say.

My guess is when and if it actually happens, Corporate and Platinum will stay in the existing upgraded grandstand. Gold will end up on a new steel stand opposite and the rest of us will be on the ends.

To form a TWF section means everyone would have to be the same class of member to start with.

[Vasco]

For mine, the biggest problem with MES is the ground - as has been noted elsewhere, it does not meet ARU standards. It is too short (which is a safety risk for players) and it is too narrow - try to picture the Fox cameramen running the sidelines, along with players sitting there, assistant referees, drinks runners, the advertising that underpins the team sponsorships and all the other paraphernalia.

Maybe this has been discussed before, but could someone please tell me, how much would be saved by not having a reconfigurable stadium? It seems to me that, if we had a rectangular stadium for 30,000 or so, the only requirement for a 60,000 stadium would be for internationals, 1 or maybe 2 per year. I would happily put up with this shortcoming if it meant a decent stadium suitable for Super 14. The saving in not having a reconfigurable major stadium may be a significant contribution to a smallert rectangular stadium's cost.

[The InnFORCEr]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but could someone please tell me, how much would be saved by not having a reconfigurable stadium? It seems to me that, if we had a rectangular stadium for 30,000 or so, the only requirement for a 60,000 stadium would be for internationals, 1 or maybe 2 per year. I would happily put up with this shortcoming if it meant a decent stadium suitable for Super 14. The saving in not having a reconfigurable major stadium may be a significant contribution to a smallert rectangular stadium's cost.

Totally agree, "save it" for a real (rectangular) stadium, instead of wasting it

[GIGS20]

My guess is when and if it actually happens, Corporate and Platinum will stay in the existing upgraded grandstand. Gold will end up on a new steel stand opposite and the rest of us will be on the ends.

Not my understanding of the proposal TiF, What was explained to me was a completely new grandstand on the eastern side containing more seating, Upgraded corporates and player facilities, The southern stand being extended and seating either side of the shed. I suspect this has to do with the heritage listing gettign in the way of them doing anything of value to the Western side of the ground!

WF want to be sure they play no games at sunset though, their corporates won't see a bloody thing!

I'd reckon your Gold members will get the shitty seating in the stands, the diamonds will hit the western grandstand and corporates will get the New, flash stand.

I don't know how this goes for longevity, but if they're building a new stand for corporates it will be a proper construction, not a donger!

[jargan83]

Surely they could build around the western grandstand?

[The InnFORCEr]

Not my understanding of the proposal TiF

Thanks for the inside info, as I said, "my guess". I've been wrong before but I try not to make a habit of it

[Swee_82]

In any event, I'll be happier knowing a fair slice of my membership fees are not going to the bloody WAFC in the future.

Got that right Shasta- that's one thing in the new stadium's favour I guess.

Also, am I right in recalling (but can't be arsed checking right now) that the task force report also recommended starting on a 35,000-odd rectangular stadium once the Kitchener Park project is up and running?

Gigs has read the report more thoroughly than me, but I think the 35,000 seat rectangular was slated for "in the future", definately no indication that it will actually follow the Multi-purpose in a timely manner.

Whatever, it's not over the line yet and we are still a good way short of our goal of 10,000 signatures. Feel free to download some at....

Petition Downloads and Postal Address!

or alternately turn up at the Leederville Bowlo opposite and give us a hand before the next home game.

Thats some quality spruiking there! You off work for the Chief's game?

[GIGS20]

Surely they could build around the western grandstand?

I don't know that corporate clients would be impressed with their view being from outside the 22s though!

Gigs has read the report more thoroughly than me, but I think the 35,000 seat rectangular was slated for "in the future", definately no indication that it will actually follow the Multi-purpose in a timely manner.

The term used was "May be constructed when the business case supports its construction"

That basically means that we need to fill MES at whatever it's capacity is and have queues of people turned away every match. Don't forget the financial modelling didn't support a 25,000 seat rectangular stadium built from new.....The problem is the length of the S14 season, Rugby alone will not convince the Stadia Taskforce members of viability, we need to attract 15-20 25,000 plus events to make a case they'll listen to.

[.X.]

Any chance of a TWF blobk at MES should proposed upgrade takes place.

It has been discussed. Unofficially of course