A Proper Rectangular Stadium!

[Thequeerone]

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)

Why does this statement have the hollow ring of truth about it

[Egan]

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)

Part of the winning bid was the government commitment of a 22,500 facility...not a 35,000 seat facility.

Thus why that promise has not been delivered. If the Force wanted to service its members with a rectangular stadium and forget about the bandwagoners it could, but it chooses for its own reasons that Subiaco Oval is a better alternative.

[AndyS]

It's been a quiet day, so...

I don't disagree Egan - personally I'd sooner stay at Subi rather than try to cram everyone into a 22,500 seat stadium (at least Subi allows for growth). But logic would be irrelevant if the ARU were only interested in an excuse - I can't see that the NZRFU is actually concerned about Carisbrook when it has been fine for so long.

The point I am trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that I would be extremely surprised if the Taskforce recommendations change with respect to their relevance to rugby, i.e:

• The primary focus will be the greatest need – a 60,000 seat stadium for AFL
• They will be looking to do everything possible to encourage/force the maximum use of this facility, both for initial economics and ongoing operational expense. This will include both cricket (which will grow the size of the ground) and rugby (which requires a smaller area)
• The simple fact is that it is possible to play rugby on a cricket/AFL field but not the other way round. The requirements of the bigger field will therefore take precedence, although they may take some steps to accommodate the viewing requirements of rugby.
• If cricket is pushed into using the new facility, they will either have to compromise on the size of their field or it will probably be bigger than anything retractable seating has been used on to date. In either case, the bulk of the seats will be no nearer (and probably further away from) the field of play for rugby than we currently have at Subi.

The alternative to this would be the adoption of a multi-stadium policy, with the two likely options being:

1. Cricket goes its own way using the ground that already exists and accepting the status quo with respect to crowd limitation. The dimensions of the new stadium could be reduced to something approximating other benchmarks (Stadium Australia or similar) with retractable seating to accommodate rugby. With a reduction in utilisation however, it is even less likely that a rectangular stadium will be built any time within the foreseeable future. This essentially offers rugby unlimited seating, at the expense of that seating being no better than currently available.
2. Cricket is played at the new stadium and a dedicated rectangular ground is constructed. The 60,000 seat stadium would then likely be configured optimally for cricket/AFL, probably resulting in a ground similar to the MCG with no real concession to rugby. This would certainly be better for the viewers of the S14, but would probably make the viewing at Tests worse and may in time limit support for S14 (you could expect it to be a very long time before an expansion of the facility would be considered).

From the government point of view, this first option is probably preferable - losing cricket would have the least effect on the economics of the new stadium (less events) and the second stadium already exists. More importantly, unless the Taskforce does a big back-flip, this is going to most resemble the recommendations made and it would require someone to put their bits on a block to go down a different path. So, if RugbyWA prefers the second option, they will need to come up with a convincing business case for the government as to why they should choose the second option.

My personal opinion is that they have got off on slightly the wrong foot. To a bureaucrat, saying that the current viewing arrangements will cost you supporters will sound like “ignore these guys and the issue will go away” i.e eventually, the crowds will diminish to the point where a 25,000 seat stadium or even MES as is will suffice. It also throws the commitment of you supporters in doubt as, if they’ll drift away just because the viewing is sub-optimal, what will they do if team performance were to decline? There is little defence against this argument at the moment as there is no track record - poor performances to date are accepted as being part of the building process, but what will happen if the team reaches the heights and then falls back?

The only line I can see that might have some hope of success is to challenge some of the implicit assumptions of the Taskforce. Most telling would be a demonstration that whatever criteria they might have set on the transition to a two stadium policy are already being met. Whether those criteria will be explicitly defined is questionable, but what I would have liked to see somewhere in the presentations was an examination of population growth in Perth and WA. In particular, a comparison of past population projections versus actual growth would have been interesting as this state has a long record of underestimating itself. It would also have provided a benchmark for the projections of the taskforce, on which they are presumably basing the timing for transition to a multi-stadia approach (~30 years). Superimposed on this, I would also have liked to see a breakdown of where that growth is coming from. Intuitively, I would have thought that the bulk of the growth would have come from locations where rectangular based sports dominate (NSW, Q’ld, New Zealand, South Africa and Europe) rather than AFL (Victoria/South Australia).

I’d expect they would also have to demonstrate that the government is not going to be excessively out of pocket by having two stadia. That will be much tougher, with the only real option I see being a variation on the Kitchener Park concept where both stadia are run as a single entity with Subiaco redeveloped into the rectangular stadium. This would involve gutting Subi but retaining the shell and some of the internal facilities, such that the redevelopment would be predominantly secondary structures rather than primary - essentially relatively light stands creating the rectangular ground, supported off the existing larger structure. It would probably also make a feature rather than issue of the nominal overlap between the Kitchener Park stadium and Subi, using it to provide common entertainment (bars/restaurants etc) and function rooms rather than duplicating those facilities in two locations. Alternatively, and depending on how pressing some of their other concerns are (eg conflict with Roberts Road), they could also look at taking advantage of the smaller playing surface requirement for a partial redevelopment (eg. the South stand).

Apart from that, the only other hope may be to somehow turn it into an election issue next year. But I wouldn’t hold my breath – while stadia might be an issue, I’d expect a lot more noise to be coming from the AFL camp about their requirements.

[.X.]

I could be wrong on a couple of issues here and I will cop that on the chin I am going out on a limb here - so feel free to catch me please.

I would take a guess that RugbyWA major dislike of MES at the moment has nothing to do with enough seating for the fans, and more to do with a lack of Corporate Box areas for their Sponsors. (I write this knowing nothing about MES). Corporate Sponsorship is where the dollars are.

[AndyS]

I'm sure corporate facilities would be right up near the top of the list, but there are a bunch of others too including:
- very much the amount of seating for punters (the average crowd is about 50% greater than the ground capacity)
- the amount of temporary seating included in that
- the standard of the clubroom facilities
- the lack of adequate media facilities, especially for television coverage (which is, after all, what S14 is all about)
- many of the peripherals (big screens, security facilities etc)
- the concession facilities for a S14 crowd size (esp. if that forms part of their revenue stream)

Also, I thought I read somewhere that the field doesn't actually conform to ARU guidelines (??)

[jargan83]

the last i heard was that cricket (ie the waca) was not interested in moving to any potential new ground and I would like to see cricket stay at the waca (history of the ground, its a cricket ground rather then a stadium etc etc). But i think if the government was to build a new ground i think that they are thinking along the lines of forcing the waca to move. The reason the waca had its ost recent re-dovelopment was to make it more attractive to rectangular sports codes (soccer, rugby) I think (correct me if im wrong) that Rugby WA werent interested in the waca was mainly due to the size as the waca ground can only fit in about 23,500 people. The waca recently proposed another redevelopment that would raise capacity to 30,000. But lets not loose sight of the main point and thats the fact that we need a purpose built retangular stadium, preferably (i know its a big wish here) one that has room to be upgraded in the future. The last upgrade to subiaco oval was done to what was needed at the time and had no view to the future (west coast membership has sold out subiaco and the dockers are heading that way as well). 35,000 seats is a good number, the membership for the force dropped this year but i think the actual average crowd figure was steady, or dropped slightly but not a big number that says an upgrade to MES to the tune of 22,500 seats would satisfy the rectangular sports code fans of the state (city). Long has the short sightedness of the government of WA sold out the sporting fans of this city (to obsessed with bell towers and train sets), Go to any other state in the country and you will find world class sporting facilities, even melbourne as far as i know is preparing (or already has) to upgrade olympic park (correct??) to 30,000 seats. I know footy is the main sport here, but surely with an average crowd of about 28,000ish people we deserve to have a stadium for rugby, soccer etc. So not even i know what the point of this rant is, just felt like adding my 2 cents about the cricket side of the arguement and having a bitch about the government and how they might (most likely will) try to screw us.

just been nosing around the internet and have just read about the 2011 Asian Cup finals (soccer to those who arent sports junkies :p) and how if we (Australia) get an application in, we would be almost certainties to host it, so therefore games might be played in perth, its not in the actual article but if subiaco and a current memebers equity stadium were the only options perth may miss out on games, well the big ones at least (in my opinion that is)

http://blogs.foxsports.com.au/footba...of_excitement/

[AndyS]

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree about the cricket. Their financial position may not be the best, but I'm sure the main reason they are being included is that they are sitting on such prime real estate. The last Ashes tour probably skewed perceptions a little but let's face it, sell-out crowds at the WACA are the exception rather than the rule. As an old player, I would hate to see cricket played in a largely empty stadium. I'd be particularly upset if it meant short boundaries and suspect that it could actually cost Perth major Test events - the Sydney test was played at the SCG, excess demand and all.

[blueandblack]

Move Perth's cricket to Lilac Hill then you have the WACA free to convert into a "proper rectangular stadium"

[AndyS]

Hell no, then how am I supposed to slope off for an out of office "meeting" on test match Friday?

Anyway, the challenge is finding the will not the real estate.