Plans for a Dedicated Rectangular Stadium are Dead

[Thequeerone]

from todays West Australian
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ontentID=37892



Plans for a rectangular arena dead
21st August 2007, 6:00 WST

Plans for a modern rectangular stadium in Perth are officially dead, with the $25 million the State Government promised in 2004 for the project diverted to the new 60,000-seat multi-purpose arena.

Department of Sport and Recreation chief Ron Alexander revealed yesterday the money former Sports Minister Bob Kucera produced to upgrade Members Equity Stadium during the bidding process to lure the Western Force to Perth would now help foot the $800 million bill for the new facility, increasingly likely to be built at Kitchener Park in Subiaco.

In return, rugby and soccer have gained significant concessions in the design of the stadium, with 22,000 retractable seats along the touch lines and behind the posts in the rectangular configuration.

“The seating will be better for rugby fans than at Telstra Stadium in Sydney,” Mr Alexander said. “And overall it will be way better than at Subiaco Oval because the permanent stands will be more steeply raked.”

He said plans for a rectangular stadium were dumped when the Government task force did the sums and found it would probably operate near capacity fewer than 10 times a year and lose about $5 million a year.

“That’s based on a 35,000-seat stadium with the same number of corporate suites as Subiaco Oval,” he said.

“We’ve worked hard to put rugby in the best possible position.

“They won’t have their own venue but they won’t be beholden to football if the new stadium is independently controlled, as planned.”

DAVE HUGHES

[Darren]

The only bit of positive news from that is "...they won’t be beholden to football if the new stadium is independently controlled, as planned." except for the fact they they had "planned" to give $25million to upgrade MES....

[Thequeerone]

What kills me is the 22,000 spectators - it won't be big enough - we averaged 29,000 last season - can't believe we have signed up to this

[Burgs]

I'm a Rugby Supporter and I VOTE!!!

[hopep]

No Sweat guys, the whole thing is still very much up in the air.

The AFL have promised to sign off on the proviso "AFL wont be worse off" - read this as 'we want to run it and keep the profits'. If that happens, the soccer and rugby guys simply pull out and say " You run it, on your own."

The other factor is that as this has dragged out for so long, the final recommendation won't be in till late this year or early 2008. With a state election in 2009 - political punidts are indicating that the Govt. will sit on it and make it an election issue.
In other words, nobody is going to do anything for another 2 years.

I still say, if the AFL want to 'manage' the new stadium, Rugby WA and WA Soccer, but the freehold on ME (or another location) and build their own. but make sure its FREEHOLD - get out of this 'cap-in-hand' nanny-state mentality.
How many corporate businesses out there ask the state to build them a new head office, and subsidise the rent? MY guess - NONE.
Get professional, follow a business model and go FREEHOLD.

[frontrow]

i agree hopep, with the money swimming around in corporate coffers at the moment, i can't see why they couldn't amalgamate and even join up with Packer and try to use Burswood...Plenty of cash there....

[slomo]

so does this mean we'll be playing in a half empty stadium when its built? id rather have 29,000 in a 35,000 stadium as opposed to 29,000 in a 60,000 stadium, the atmosphere in a half empty stadium is crap.

[rick boyd]

What kills me is the 22,000 spectators - it won't be big enough - we averaged 29,000 last season - can't believe we have signed up to this

The 22,000 is just the RETRACTABLE seating. The stadium will seat 60,000. The real danger is it will lack atmosphere because it will always be half empty.

At least the seating will be more angled so spectators will be closer to the pitch (and hopefully the press box will as well).

[slomo]

The 22,000 is just the RETRACTABLE seating. The stadium will seat 60,000. The real danger is it will lack atmosphere because it will always be half empty.

EXACTLY!

[AndyS]

By the same token, everyone will be sitting along the touch lines rather than behind the dead ball line - no excuses for anyone who bitched about their seat and didn't renew memberships. Don't think too many will be closer to the game than Subi though and I doubt any of the retractable seating will be under cover.

[shasta]

My biggest concern is still whether, with the "retractable" seating, it will be feasible for EWF to play there on Friday night and the cross country netballers the next day.
I can't think of a stadium built in the last 20 years that didn't have issues with the playing surface early on. One whiff of that and it'll likely be sheeted home to the retractable seats, and a decision taken that "in the interests of all tennants" the capacity seating will only be used for Test Matches. If it's guaranteed water-tight that this won't happen I guess it'll be better than Subi at least. I'm more optomistic about building our crowds to the high 30's in the near future in a suitable stadium

[jargan83]

Disappointing to say the least htat we dont get a proper rectangular stadium, but at least we get somewhere better then that rubbish tip the WAFC calls subiaco oval. I have to agree with slomo and say that the atmosphere at a half empty stadium usually sucks

How many corporate businesses out there ask the state to build them a new head office, and subsidise the rent? MY guess - NONE.
Get professional, follow a business model and go FREEHOLD.

if the government pays for the new stadium i say football has no right to claim management rights. So is this the government going for the "helping everyone out" by building a multi-purpose stadium or bowing the pro-cross country i mean AFL lobby by scrapping the $25 million pledge to upgade Members Equity stadium and putting it towards a multi purpose stadium that the AFL will use most of the time???

[BOD is GOD]

WHAT A JOKE!! why is it that WA is the only state without (apart from SA or TAS but hey) that do not have a decent capacity rectangular stadium. QLD has three, Ballymore, Suncorp and ANZ. NSW have countless amounts of stadiums. Why not WA there is room for more then one sport in this state and EWF membership in the last two years has proven that. Also why is the government complaining that it will be to costly to build and maintain a 60, 000 seat stadium then build something like suncorp which is only 50, 000 but has an unreal atmosphere. A decent stadium may even lead to us being able to host some premier international rugby games.

[JediKnight]

so does this mean we'll be playing in a half empty stadium when its built? id rather have 29,000 in a 35,000 stadium as opposed to 29,000 in a 60,000 stadium, the atmosphere in a half empty stadium is crap.

My thoughts exactly.....all of the above.

Wasn't happy when I read the article in The West this morning.....it spoiled my muffin. How/why can the State Government retract their 'offer' of funding for a rectangular stadium.....wasn't it a contractual obligation?

[Jehna]

Like i said in another thread, I'm heading over to Canberra in a couple of weeks as a youth rep for WA to basically badger the federal government on state issues. This is pretty high on my agenda (i'm not biased AT all) so I'm taking note of all of this, and any comments you want to throw my way will def be considered


Btw Frontrow...love the avatar