This article is taken from the Subiaco post.
http://gotheforce.com/uploaded/156/1171338099.doc
My only problem with this is that you never ever get anything for nothing, so the deal attached to this must be substantial.
Printable View
This article is taken from the Subiaco post.
http://gotheforce.com/uploaded/156/1171338099.doc
My only problem with this is that you never ever get anything for nothing, so the deal attached to this must be substantial.
ooo... it's purty... I think 70,000 - 80,000 seats would be the way to go though ...
friggin awesome!!!!!
Beautiful , impressive and at the dead centre of town - not sure that the goverment will want control of it - they don't seem to like taking control of anything just in case - unless they suspect that the other party is about to take office
Why are these solutions being proposed so close to decision time, ie burswood and karrakatta....The two best ideas are these two and no one put the idea forward initially, i don't understand why they wouldn't want public support to grow over time rather than throw it in the mix at the business end of the decision making process...
My choice would still be Burswood...
Burswood is good apart from the fact that Packer will be controlling it. That concerns me a great deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by frontrow
I find the financial aspect a little suss but that aint our concern, all the rest sounds great!
Maybe they can make the roof into a big slippery dip for Summer Holidays :D
Pardon my cynicism, but if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Let's not get too excited till we see the devil in the detail (sorry for all the cliches, but they really are appropriate). People like this don't do things out of altruism, there is a big buck in it for them somewhere, and I suspect we will be the ones paying it.
Burgs, we are so much alike in our thinking its uncanny.
...and a tad scarey...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fulvio sammut
:offtopic:
i wish that they would just fricking do it! haha. all this talk, just build the bloody thing and hurry up so we can watch quality rugby in a quality stadium!
yeah read that the other day, sounds so good...wish it would just happen!
Hurry up?Quote:
Originally Posted by RugbyFan
Don't forget you are talking about politicains and beaurocrats here. A quick descision might be two years away. Carpenter is doing his best to keep Union as a minor sport in W.A.
The thing that really pisses us off about the whole stadium issue, is that we took out family Gold membership last year, based on the premise/promise that by 2007, the Force would be playing at a revamped Member's Equity Stadium. (MESS)
2007, and we're still at Subi.
And Force attendance and membership is down. O.K. it's only been one game, but it's still down.
Even if they were to announce something at 0900hrs tomorrow, still can't see it being ready for 2008.
So just how many years will it be before Perth/Western Force has a decent RECTANGULAR stadium????
I know of several people who didn't renew their membership because of this factor alone.
Forget Aussie Rules, surely what we're interested in is a rectangular stadium of what???? 30, perhaps 35-thousand seat capacity?????
A bigger oval stadium might onbly be used if the Force were to host a home final. But let's focus on the day-to-day, the lifeblood of the Force, those of us who've paid the money and go each and every week.
Because if we're forgotten, or taken for granted, we, (and I don't just mean my family) won't be here forever.
Yes we'll still be supporters, but will we still be paying our $1,000+ dollars a year?????
Not if there's no venue on the horizon.
Or am I being a little harsh here??
Over 30,000 still went to Round 1 this year, only 3,000 down on the previous best Round 1 '06.
But they are all valid points Mr Hasbeen
Burgs, I was under the impression there were 37,000 at round 1 last year.
That what was what I based my point on....but that impression is just from my rather dilapidated memory.
So if you're right, then I apologise because I'm not going to quibble over 3,000 people.
Stole my thunder Hasbeen, from my dilapidated memory it was 37,037?
All good ideas, but I just want a (right) solution to suit the needs of the square codes for up to 50 years.
On the membership issue though, I think I'll be a member no matter where they play. Other than my wife and kids and work, The Force takes up my passion. As long as I can see the game and feel the atmosphere I'll be there.
I wanna know about the "Party Drugs Blitz Brains" where do I get some (hahaha - not that I'd know what to do with them if I got 'em)
There was 37000 - 38000 at one of teh games last year, can't remember which one off the top of my head...
Maybe next year it will drop another 8000 and then we can move to MES...
Just checked, 37,037 at the Brumbies match last year...
Edit: Good memory WF2006 :D
Nah, you're right sorry mate, it was 37,000 however I would still put that 7k down to novelty factor of being the first game etc.
I guess my point is, if 30k turned up to such a "terrible" venue and we only build a 30-35k replacement then there can't be too many staying away because of the venue, or somebody is cocking up the estimates.
I believe that if we achieve anything greater than tenth in the next two seasons that a 40k stadium will be the absolute minimum to accomodate the interest and growth. What we can't afford is for people to be turned away with a full house sign.
The best thing to happen for the state would be to compete to host a Commonwealth Games so we can justify building the appropriate future stadia now!
Sorry numbers Nazis ;)