0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Subi Oval 'could last 40 years'
PETER KERR, The West Australian August 18, 2009, 11:07 pm
Subiaco Oval is structurally sound and, with minor maintenance work, could last at least another 40 years, according to a new report.
The claim will strengthen the State Government's resolve to defer a decision on whether to redevelop the stadium until 2011, but frustrate development proponents who say it no longer meets standards expected by sports fans.
The report, to be released on Wednesday, was commissioned by Sports Minister Terry Waldron to gauge the useful life of the stadium and identify repairs that were needed before a decision was made on its future.
It did not consider how the facilities compared with other stadiums in Australia, though the AFL has described Subiaco as the worst.
A number of small areas of concrete in the western stand, built in 1969, have cracked and are a safety hazard because they could fall on to people "at any time", the report said.
The WA Football Commission, which leases the stadium, is working on repairs to the stand.
The report said if general upkeep was maintained, the stand could last for another 40 years. The historic gate 19 also needed urgent repairs.
WAFC chief Wayne Bradshaw said while Subiaco Oval could limp through for the next 40 years, it was too small and lacked modern amenities. The WAFC was close to finalising its submission to the Government for a staged upgrade, Mr Bradshaw said.
The WAFC revived the redevelopment option after the Government poured cold water on the previous government's proposal to build a new stadium next door.
Mr Waldron, who commissioned the report in December, said it put to rest speculation about the stadium's structural integrity and would be valuable when deciding on its future.
Subiaco mayor Heather Henderson said she was confident necessary repairs would be made, but she was keen to see a new arena built.
************************************************** ************
I'm impressed by the claim that even though parts of Subi are cracked and "could fall on to people at any time" the ground only needs minor maintenance.
WAFC are already saying "Yes, but it's too small." What was the crowd at the last game?
I hope that knowing Subi can last longer will push the pollies into ear-marking any stadium budget for a rectangular stadium (or failing that, the WACA!)
Yes, well, object lesson there perhaps - "It did not consider how the facilities compared with other stadiums in Australia"...because accountants don't care. Never mind that the facilities (and, I might add, the laws prescribing what can be served and how) are crap - if it isn't actually falling down, it is adequate. Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into making sure what they built was appropriate for their future, as it certainly looks like they might be living with it for a good while to come. Why else would the report have been commissioned?
I'm glad it will last 40 years, that's plenty of time for the WAFC to save up some money to fork out for the rebuild in 40 years time. In the meantime the government can be rest assured that Subi will fine the way it is and therefore put its money into something that can not wait 40 years to be upgraded.
Terry Waldron definately earnt a few brownie points by commissioning this report instead of just opening his pocket to the WAFC's money grabbing hands.
Thank the good lord we are moving to MES/Forcefield.
Whilst I had a bit of a chuckle when I heard this on the radio yesterday, I don't think Subiaco in it's current form will be there in 40 years. It is an antiquated stadium that needs replacing. I am all for a re-build or my preferred option was the Kitchener Park MPS. I was against the MPS for the week to week use for the Glory and he Force, but for Test match Rugby and to lure Socceroos Internationals to Perth we need a new stadium
could last, but it wont
![]()
Be There. Be Heard. Be The Force Behind The Force
Hear Hear......the business model for the MPS needs to be built around oval sports SPECIFICALLY with the occasional rectangular match. I accept that would probably mean not having the cost of reconfigurable stands, but that would be OK, 'Telstra dome/Etihad stadium/whoever's got the most money this week park' and the 'G' seem to do OK without them.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
And hence the comment about there being an object lesson. After Phase 2, what chance MES gets a visit to determine the "structural integrity" of the existing stand and there being a sudden rediscovery of the heritage merit? Particularly if all the budgetary focus has swung to the oval stadium by then. At every stage, we better be confident that we could live with what we get for an indefinite period if necessary.
Or happy to take what we get on the understanding that it's pretty unusual for rugby to get anything of value from the state government
C'mon the![]()
![]()
Gorgon will pay - first for Rugby/soccer ground to keep the foreign investors happy or at least facilitate corporate outings, then when the real bikkies flow Subi will have a big upgrade
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby
ahh good point - the investors thing![]()
Subiaco will last another forty years- easy. The Colliseum in Rome has lasted over 2000 years. (though I doubt Subiaco will be in such good condition as the Colliseum in another couple of years)