A Proper Rectangular Stadium!

[The Lone Hydrangea]

Exile is on the money. If we cannot get surplus dollars happening now, when can we? Costello, Howard and Ripper are riding on the coat tails of our economy. End of story. If someone doesnt make a decision ......it will never happen. You need to tell your local member that spending taxpayers money on social infrastructure aint a bad thing. Plus the benefits, economically, and also something we are proud of. Its simple.

[Em-Forcer]

Here is an example of a proper rectangular stadium:

http://thewholeforce.com/vbpicgallery.php?do=view&g=85

Something to aim for!!!

[RugbyWA]

EDITION 1
DON’T LET THE WEST
BE SECOND BEST

INVEST IN THE FUTURE OF SPORT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

We all know rugby in Western Australia needs a purpose built rectangular stadium – it’s better for players and fans alike. If Western Australia is to become an important international hub for rugby then it’s vital that a rectangular stadium is built.

But it’s not just rugby players and supporters who want an international, purpose-built rectangular stadium. Glory players and their fans, rugby league and the entertainment industry all support calls for a 35,000 seat rectangular stadium.

RugbyWA has been working with the other codes and the entertainment industry to present the case for a rectangular stadium to the State Government’s Stadia Task Force. The Task Force process has been rigorous and we expect detailed recommendations to be released in the coming weeks.

The case for a purpose-built rectangular stadium in Western Australia is a strong one and we are confident that the economic and demand scenarios provided to the Task Force show that this is the way to go.

We will continue to liaise with Government over the coming weeks as we assess the details of the Task Force report and will keep you all up to date on progress.

For more information visit www.rugbywa.com.au

[Egan]

Details of the project:

"Members Equity Stadium redevelopment – a decision to proceed with this project has been deferred pending the Government’s consideration of recommendations by the Major Stadia Taskforce."

Doesn't seem that's it's totally been scrapped - though in government speak, it may mean the same thing!

This was haltered over a year ago, all development was stopped and funding was at an embargo to the conclusion of the Stadia Taskforce recommendations.

The reasoning?

Because the project could not go ahead, because it was at loggerheads between what the Force wanted and what the State Government wanted.

The parties then agreed to wait upon the Major Stadia Taskforce recommendations to see what would happen.

But the Force 'could' have had a rectangular stadium, it just thought it was more viable to stay at an oval then a 25,000 seater.

government taskforce - a group of cronies the government pay to make it look like the only solution is a 60 000 seat oval.

Incorrect, looking at stadiums for the needs of a sport in Western Australia for the next 50 years, not just the oval codes.

I was reading about the WA Budget in the Fin Review today. It seems that the ME Stadium redevelopment is 1 of 5 projects that have been suspended or delayed 12 months or more.

With only 14,500 men not employed and an unemployment rate of 2.3% for males, the issue from Eric Ripper is that he wants value for buck for all taxpayers. So what he is doing is saying that we will let go of some projects because the construction costs would be more excessive due to skills shortage then if they spaced them out...and time delays etc etc.

But as I repeated above the ME Stadium redevelopment has been suspended for over 12 months after the WA State Government and the Western Force could not get agreement over an acceptable capacity and then agreed to wait until the conclusion of the Major Stadia Taskforce.

^^ Above information is factual and is just facts, trying to get the facts out, so people can make informed judgements about the issue. I am trying to balance the other side, realising its a Force forum, but to just see how the government is positioning itself, so when it does come time to pressurise from the stadium lobby group on this forum, they understand the other side of the argument.

I do disagree with the current policy of the Force because the argument is all about rectangular stadium and the government not wanting one, rather then what it is...an argument about capacity and what the Force deserve. But I won't be complaining if we get a 35,000 seat stadium. Thus good luck to them and I hope their strategy works for them.

[AndyS]

I do disagree with the current policy of the Force because the argument is all about rectangular stadium and the government not wanting one, rather then what it is...an argument about capacity and what the Force deserve.

Sorry Egan, but I have to disagree with you there. Quoting directly from the interim report:

• "The taskforce is of the view that a multi-purpose outdoor stadium with a seating capacity of 60,000...is required to accommodate oval and rectangular sports event drawing crowds beyond the current capacity of MES"
• "High level financial modeling indicates that the viability of the state's major oval stadium will also be impacted by a decision to expand the major rectangular stadium from 25,000 to 35,000 seats"
• "As a consequence, the Taskforce does not see any immediate business case to increase the capacity of MES"
• "[Recommends..]That the Government develops a rectangular stadium of a seating capacity to 25,000, only when there is a business case to do so"

So the recommendation to the government is that we use the major stadium (which will be wider than Subi to accommodate cricket) because otherwise it is harder to justify the stadium, then they'll build a rectangular stadium if it doesn't cost them money (which by definition it always will). It is not a question of how many seats we deserve - they are "offering" us 60,000. It is all about what shape ground we want to watch the game at.

Their token nod to rugby is:

• "The taskforce makes the following further recommendations...Moveable lower seating tier to accommodate the different field formats (oval and rectangular)"

but:

• "The cost to develop a new stadium on a greenfield site has been estimated by consultants to be in the order of $8,000 to $10,000 per seat"

The first thing in project assessment is benchmarks and analogues - do you know of anywhere that uses moveable seats to turn a cricket ground (diameter ~150m) into a rectangular stadium, and what that is likely to do to their cost estimate per seat?

[Egan]

Andy it is interesting, the interim report has changed dramatically by the Burswood proposal and is quite outdated, because the WACA have snubbed it and they are going a long their own course.

This was also published at a time when the Force where investigating going to the WACA and other venues and when they where publicly looking at all options.

The aspect is that the interim report states that a 60,000 seat major stadium would be developed with the ability to have retractable seating so that it could hold major Rugby games and Force finals.

What the Stadia Taskforce want is the Western Force to play out of this facility, for the viability. As they where struck in the option that sport could not develop its own seperate faciliites and they where looking at it in an economic sence. But this has been blown out of the water by the WACA ruling out playing International Cricket at the venue.

The issue that has come to the forefront though, is that the State Government was quite prepared to build up to 25,000. But had nor the confidence to invest any further to 35,000...which is why we did not get the development.

The major report will let us know

1. What timeframes the Force should wait for it to be viable to have a 35,000 seat stadium

2. What stadiums the taskforce believe is necessary in Perth for the next 50 years for all sports

High level financial modeling indicates that the viability of the state's major oval stadium will also be impacted by a decision to expand the major rectangular stadium from 25,000 to 35,000 seats"

The rectangular stadium only holds 17,000

That statement is contradictory and says that it should not be developed from 25-35,000...it does not hold 25,000.

[QUOTE]As a consequence, the Taskforce does not see any immediate business case to increase the capacity of MES"
"[Recommends..]That the Government develops a rectangular stadium of a seating capacity to 25,000, only when there is a business case to do so"[/QUOTE]

That business case would have been done and dusted because a 25,000 seat stadium would have been viable for the Western Force. Thus the government would have built it, because it 'was' viable and was only a little more then the 22,500 seat facility they had planned to build.

Thus the rectangular facility is 17,000 but if the Force agreed on the capacity of 25,000, there would be a strong business case for it to go forward and the government would have built it.

Read this report I did in June of last year with the CEO of the Town of Vincent to see the commitment of a 25,000 seat stadium by the Government at MES.http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=243

Its commitment to 35,000 will be harder struggle. I have no doubt that the 25,000 seat stadium is justified with the crowds in the second season, thus if the Force accepted a 25,000 seat stadium the government will build. It just needs the Force as a tenant.

And remember the Stadia Taskforce is independent of the Government, thus what the stadia taskforce is saying is not exactly what the government is saying...so interlinking the taskforce statements and saying that they did not believe the development was not justified, goes beyond the meetings that the Force had before the embargo of the MES re-development was put forward.

[.X.]

- do you know of anywhere that uses moveable seats to turn a cricket ground (diameter ~150m) into a rectangular stadium, and what that is likely to do to their cost estimate per seat?

Stadium Australia aka Telstra Stadium aka Olympic Stadium, depending on who you talk too.

This Stadium has had AFL matches, Cricket One Day-ers (Oval Configuration) as well as Rugby Union Test Matches, including the Rugby World Cup Final in 2003, Rugby League Matches including Grand Finals and State of Origin Matches, Soccer Matches including the Football World Cup Qualifier Australia v Uruguay as well as Concerts (U2) all in Rectangular Configuration.

It must be said that every time the Stadium is configured for the Oval there are countless complaints about the state of the playing surface from the areas that are "configured".

I don't believe that a versatile stadium is the way to go.

[Egan]

do you know of anywhere that uses moveable seats to turn a cricket ground (diameter ~150m) into a rectangular stadium, and what that is likely to do to their cost estimate per seat?

Telstra Dome had retractable seats for the Rugby League test match, For the FIFA World Cup the stadium in Munich had seats that retracted over the athletics facility.

The initial costs are outweighed when the ability to attract more events becomes the real economic benefit to a government.

And how can I forget, the site of the Rugby Union World Cup Final this year is also a retractable venue St Denis.

[Flamethrower]

WA being so short sighted would never even dream of taking a step such as this. Why don't they look at Suncorp Stadium and start building. The project could be built in stages with the end resulting in a 52,500 seat stadium. Lets stop building Perry Lakes style short term fixes and plan for more than the next 10 years.

http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=110

[JediKnight]

And how can I forget, the site of the Rugby Union World Cup Final this year is also a retractable venue St Denis.

This must be a new addition to St Denis because when I was there to watch France v Scotland in the late 90s, it certainly didn't have retractable seats. The crowd are too far from the playing area (there's an athletics track between the pitch & the seats) and the atmosphere is very flat, even with the French bands.

However, they do serve Pastis (the drink, not the pie-like food) in the bars so it's not all bad!!!

[AndyS]

Each of the examples are athletics stadia...you can play cricket at Stadium Australia, but it is a compromised field (120m on the short side compared to the typical 135-150m).

Even then it is still a big call - as X has noted, moveable seats are likely to play hell with the surface for the AFL (although that probably has a lot to do with a drop-in surface on the track) and which is the major code? Regardless, assuming a similar 120m compared to the 70m for a rugby ground, there may be some improvement in the bleachers but none in the stands compared to Subi. And if cricket is removed from the equation, we are back to the situation we have now and the whole idea of rationalising stadia is shot.

The other observation I would make is that, when they talk of a business case, they mean for the Government, not the Force. I could make a great business case for me in everyone donating their income to me, but... The government will very much be weighing up the cost of two ideal stadia against just one that might be a bit ordinary for some tenants, and they'll be the landlord either way.

[shasta]

assuming a similar 120m compared to the 70m for a rugby ground, there may be some improvement in the bleachers but none in the stands compared to Subi.

If you look at RL fixtures currently played at Stadium Oz they the thing you'll notice (apart from all the empty seats) is that even the extra seating is quite a bit further back than purpose built places like Lang Park and Loftus Versfeld.

I hope the rugby fraternity put up a helluva fight against the multi "purpose only option". But if it ends up that way the stand seating can be improved a little compared to Subi by parallel alignment as at Stadium Oz.

You can bet that when there are problems with the playing surface under retractable seating the decision will be to only use them before AFL season or for major sellout matches.

[AndyS]

So I wonder what parallels might be drawn from this, what with Melbourne waiting in the wings??
----------------------------------------------
"The Highlanders' future after 2010 depends on the Otago and Southland unions' ability to push through the plans for a NZ$180m ($132.25), according to a television report in New Zealand on Saturday.

The TV3 news channel said that the NZRU may decide not to renew the franchise unless a suitable alternative venue to Carisbrook - which was stripped of its test status two years ago, could be found.

Plans are afoot between the Otago municipality and Otago University to build the new stadium with a retractable roof within the next three years, but the bill for the stadium is to be footed almost exclusively by the taxpayers, a principle meeting currently with widespread local opposition.

"It will be very difficult to re-negotiate the current franchise agreement with the current facilities we have for Super 14 rugby, and they are not up to standard," said Highlanders CEO Russell Gray.

The NZRU Deputy CEO Steve Tew echoed the sentiments.

"we are very supportive of the Highlanders concept but the people of Otago and Southland and the Highlanders need to make a decision," said Tew.

The problem was also explained by Dunedin Mayor Peter Chin, who stressed the importance of rugby in the region.

"It (rugby) is very important to the whole Otago and Southland region," said Chin.

"We don't want New Zealand to end north of the Waitake river."

[shasta]

Even with the enormous profile the game has in NZ I think the Highlanders may have a struggle there. They're usually a tough opponent on the field but never quite break the tag of perennial mid-table finishers. Unless they play another NZ franchise they rarely draw a big crowd.

I don't think the two cases are the same just yet. But if The Force settle into the same pattern they might be. The crowds are good now but people will not pay to see a mediocre team in a non suitable venue.

The problem we have here is that unlike NZ there's probably plenty of pollies in WA who'd be secretly happy if The Force did end up struggling. The only way RugbyWA will win support from them is to make lots of loud noises.

[AndyS]

Lack of crowds may be the subtext, but interesting that the pretext is the quality of the facilities. I agree it is perhaps unlikely, but the point RugbyWA could consider making is that a S14 franchise is no different from any other major event in that it can be moved on the sole discretion of the awarding body. Part of the winning bid was a commitment by the government on facilities and failure to meet that would provide a ready made excuse regardless of why relocation might be advantageous to the ARU (and you can bet they will be paying very close attention to attendances at the Rebels home games)