Burswood stadium site, Reactions??

I don`t know if i missed the reaction to everyone regarding James Packers` proposal regarding the three stadiums on the back nine at burswood golf course...Anyhow, what are peoples views regarding this proposal???
I believe it would be fantastic to have all these venues in one central location, it would become a major hub for both sport and entertainment, and you also have access to the casino and tennis and belmont racetrack...Consider the possibilities...Interesting to get egans point of view on this too...

I don't think there really was a reaction on TWF frontrow? If so I missed it too, I think I was still getting back from Qld.
I never really heard the full story however in terms of location (ie to the City) I don't have a great problem with it. Personally I think the Casino is the Eight Natural Wonder, a hole above the ground, but I appreciate others are drawn to it.
For me, the biggest attraction to Subi (and one of my benchmark criteria for liking or disliking other spots) is that I can jump on the Freo line and get delivered to the door. Likewise the Showgrounds.
I think easy rail access is critical to any proposal as it takes out all the parking issues plus drink driving etc. By having it central then all roads (well, rails actually!) lead to "Rome".
To me that is a major flaw with the WACA in that there should have been designed a spur line to the door for the quick movement of people in and out, likewise Ascot.
I assume that Packers proposal has allowed for the suburban issues that I understood to be the death knell for the Super Dome?
Perhaps that was where the back nine was going to be moved to?
I would be suprised if there aren't some pretty major construction issues at Burswood too as much of that area, and the CBD, is reclaimed swamp and river.
In general, being at Burswood wouldn't stop me going but I think there are better alternatives.

spot on burgs:public transport would be a problem;swampy ground another

Pros : heaps of space, sporting "hub", close to pubs and city, walking distance from my place :D
Cons : transport (the place is a nightmare whenever there's a big show on), rectangular stadium not quite big enough, no government support for it.

I don't know that the swampy ground is really an issue. I don't think the casino or other buildings about (or the State Tennis Centre) have had much trouble in that regard.

"If" it is an issue re swampy ground tragic, it would be that the Casino and existing buildings are on dryland further back from the river.
Probably the biggest factor though is as you mention, no Government support for it.

not that thats ever stopped Packer........I believe he is trying to re-creat the image of Melbournes South Bank......

Packer owns Burswood and the ground, Murdoch owns (the rights to) Super 14 and Tri Rugby.....not a chance of working through that one, apart from the other issues.

Gerry: Is he banning AFL players? :iconrofl:

doesnt Packer own part of Foxtel as well???

Yeah Burgs.....I think that sould be Rule #1 - No AFL players

Foxtel Ownership:
Telstra 50%;
News Corporation 25%;
Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd (PBL)25%

Then imagine all the crowd has to go past his casino to go home......works for me...

the train goes past burswood - wouldn't that be close enough to the proposed ground ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The InnFORCEr

Packer owns Burswood and the ground, Murdoch owns (the rights to) Super 14 and Tri Rugby.....not a chance of working through that one, apart from the other issues.

---

I am well prepared to be corrected on this one, I could be wrong, but as far as I am aware the Murdochs and the Packers have always played nice in business, and something such as this would be in their best interest to work together.

Mr Packer desire to get the stadium in his (Burswoods) backyard is just good business - after the match where would a large percentage of the Force Fans go for a drink after the game? Burswood. Where would the opposition teams stay? Burswood?

Although I don't know all the issues it sounds like a great idea to me. A total entertainment complex. Although many of us are still very happy with going to the game alone many people want more than just the game. You need to have a place where they can have fun before and after the event. It's also a place to go if you don't have a ticket to the game or when there isn't a game.

Take a look at what they are building here in NJ. A football stadium, baseball field, Hockey/basketball arena, horse racing track, huge kids play area, shopping mall, night clubs with 3 story tv screens for those without tickets to the games, indoor snow skiing, hotels, & office space.

Meadowlands Xanadu

It is very similar to the packer proposal, minus the rollercoasters and amusement parks, but even this could be possible in the future as part of the belmont racetrack redevelopment.
Now, as for transport issues, there is already a railway station located at the racetrack, and also one at the casino, with parking at both locations as well, plus more parking would be considered in the proposal as well, so those who are questioning the viability of this issue due to public transport concerns should consider them null and void...(i also believe a ferry option was put forward as well)
So, access is available to the casino, the golf course(9 holes), the racetrack, three stadiums, one of which would be a rectangular stadium, the other a super stadium and one a concert/indoor venue, water access for powerboat races etc, the tennis centre, all looks quite inviting really...