The West- "Rugby Fans promised much better viewing at new stadium"

[.X.]

The stands at Olympic Park where the Storm play have looked pretty full of late. And their about to move into a 30,000 seat dedicated rectangular stadium, so regardless of crowd figure they are one up on us.

They also suffer from a tiny in goal area too

[jargan83]

Whats that got to do with the crowd

[.X.]

not alot - its just not a good stadium

[jargan83]

Agreed, but they move into a new stadium at the end of the year.

Olympic Park is over 50 years old isn't it??

[shasta]

The stands at Olympic Park where the Storm play have looked pretty full of late. And their about to move into a 30,000 seat dedicated rectangular stadium, so regardless of crowd figure they are one up on us.

Their Minister for Sport at the time of the decision to build and interestingly now Minister for Planning & Community Development is Justin Madden. Apart from being an AFL legend and Players Association boss, he played Rugby in his Uni days. Too bad he wasn't born a Sandgroper.

[jargan83]

How long ago was that decision made?

[shasta]

How long ago was that decision made?

Wasn't it made when they put in their S14 bid?

[jargan83]

I think your right

the popularity of the Melbourne Victory seems to vindicated it since they missed out on the Super 14

[AndyS]

My two cents...

Puff piece, no question, but I think there is no mention of objections specifically because this piece has been written as a result of there being objections. My guess is that they think the objections are symptomatic of a lack of understanding, not realising (or not wanting to hear) that they are instead rooted in mistrust of the WAFC and the government's ability to resist playing favourites.

I have been to Canberra and Christchurch - I find it hard to believe that this would be better than Canberra, but AMI stadium really did suck (it is also used for cricket, and sucks for that too). On the whole the article may be largely factual, putting aside the obvious reservations about what will actually happen. The only misleading statement I noticed was that "80% of the seats would be under cover" when this is only true for football...once reconfigured for rugby very few of the seats will be covered. I also thought they fudged over the fact that, while less than half the seats are moveable, the rest will be a great deal further away for test matches or any big crowd.

But I also thought there was a veiled message in the short article about the Sharks and ABSA stadium, where they are being told to move into the new soccer stadium to help the finances with associated threats to block any future upgrade. To my mind it highlights why RugbyWA cannot afford to be sidetracked by a quick-fix on MES, but has to focus on getting the best outcome from the new stadium. Without a cast-iron commitment on a rectangular stadium to ARU/S14 standards, they have to be part of the process to ensure that issues like the installation and use of moveable seating are addressed. I'd like to see that made contractually binding eg. if not deployed, the ground fee would be waived and a penalty paid (similar if the seating didn't get installed, with a commitment to then provide a rectangular stadium to an agreed standard). But they have to have an alternative before they can negotiate, and that is the primary purpose of the MES option. One thing is absolutely certain though, $50M will still leave us a very long way short of what we would actually need.

As an loosely related aside, I was at the Eagles game last weekend. Naturally had plenty of time to think and look around, and redeveloping Subi into a rectangular ground would be so easy. If RugbyWA could somehow get that onto the table...

[Jehna]

I'm going to take this as a positive. If the new stadium project was a done deal like the government is trying to make us believe it is, then why do they feel the constant need to justify their actions and write this kind of 'puff' talking it up. Who are they trying to convince? Us or themselves? Perhaps actions like our petition are having more of an impact then we think. T

he State government are under a lot of pressure with respect to unsuccessful projects of late. The mandurah rail line for one has proved to be a financial nightmare not just with the costs blow out but with the current return. That was reflected in the proposal to extend to the bunbury railway which was shot out of the water. Then you've got the perth foreshore redevelopment which is not fairing too well with the voters. The government are in a back peddling position right now and with pressure now on this new stadium I'm not surprised to see articles like this being fed to the media as a means of preventing further critcism...the next election is always on their mind.

[Dave Hughes]

Contrary to popular belief, my stadium article in Super Rugby yesterday was not a puff piece of Government propoganda. The Government doesn't deal with us, remember?
The reason for writing it was experiencing the magnificent Suncorp Stadium last Friday and phoning the Dept of Sport and Rec on Tuesday to ask them how the Kitchener Park edifice compares in a rugby configuration. I discovered they had done a comparitive analysis with every major arena in Australia, plus several overseas, and the answers were a lot more encouraging than I had anticipated (remembering that we in the media box at Subi are even more far removed from the action than most TWF members). On average, spectators will be just 9m further away from the centre spot than at Suncorp and that includes those in nosebleed row at the very top and back, not just occupiers of row one. The stands are a lot more steeply raked than at Subi.
To correct a typo, modern rectangular stadiums average 7.5m from playing area to fence, not 5.7m, to give players stopping room from full sprint to prevent Barry Hall-type injuries).
Obviously the new stadium won't be as good as a rectangular one but, all things considered, it isn't bad. A lot better than I expected, actually. I think rugby fans will grow to like it -- the view will be a hell of a lot better.
The issue which concerns me the most now is governance. Will the Force still get bumped from preferred dates at footy's insistence, particularly if and when S14 is doubled and will conflict with AFL through to August?
As for the suggestion Subi be converted to rectangular, it won't go for two reasons:first, the Government needs rugby to make the business model work and, second, new and old stadiums overlap.

[Jehna]

Rugby spectators will be on average only 9m farther from the action at Perth's proposed $1.1 billion multi-purpose stadium than fans at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, considered the best rugby venue in the world

9 metres is a HUGE difference in viewing! "Only 9m". What rubbish! The prime advantage for spectators in having a rectangular stadium is being closer to the action. This isn't 9m from the side line, this is 9m further than Suncorp. As far as i can see that puts us in a similar position to what we're in now except that there are more seats. How does this allow for a better atmosphere? A bigger stadium, with more empty seats, and a crowd that is just as far away from the play as we are at subi?

[.X.]

Mr Hughes, Hello and welcome to TWF.

Thank you for your response to our thread.

In all fairness to your report and your reasoning behind it isnt it true to say that you are comparing a purpose built Rectangular stadium that according to some over the top Rugby League commentators is the best stadium in the world to a yet to be constructed multi-purpose stadium.

In all fairness a comparison would only work if you comapared Perth's multi purpose stadium with Stadium Australia aka ANZ Stadium and Telstra Dome in Melbourne. as they are the only other multi purpose stadiums in Australia.

Also it should be pointed out, because Ron Alexander failed to mention it, that only 22,000 spectators will move in closer to the sidelines for a Rugby match leaving two thirds of the stadium reaching for their telescopes.

[Dave Hughes]

Not to get into a debate, but people make atmosphere, not stadiums. TWF members at Suncorp last Friday will testify that the atmosphere at Subi (possibly the worst major rugby venue in the world ) when the Force lost to the Crusaders and Tahs was considerably better than at Suncorp (possibly the best in the world) when the Reds won in an upset. The multi-purpose stadium won't be what we ideally want but it will be a lot better than the popular perception.

[jargan83]

But if Suncorp is 5.7m from the action, wouldn't that then mean we would be 14.7m away?? (5.7 + 9 = 14.7)