Pure Conjecture

[Swee_82]

Given the way the election has gone, and the likelihood that either major party is going to need the support of the Nationals, and in turn, commitment to the Royalties for Regions program, the West today has highlighted some of the current projects that may need to be scuttled to pay for it- the rail line to Ellenbrook, the Perth waterfront, the mueseum at East Perth and the Albino-Pachyderm (I've also seen reports that include Fiona Stanley hosptial and the new PMH on the list, though I don't think anyone could sensibly target those).

While the Albino-Pachyderm is an improvement on Subi for all concerned, I would be seriously worried that once $1.1 billion (and factor in some cost blowout, which would surely eventuate by the time the thing is built) is spent on sports infrastructure, it's going to be a loooong time before the electorate is going to tolerate putting a few hundred more million into a dedicated rectangular stadium.


From what I understand of Jehna's conversation with Colin Barnett, the Libs didn't seem to recognise the depth of dissatisfaction with the plan and that non-AFL sports were still being left out in the cold. I don't know if Labor's position in support for stadium is born of the same ignorance, or arrogance that they just don't care.

So my question is- does a commitment to Royalties for Regions give either party sufficient scope to pull back on the Albino Pachyderm and opt for cheaper improvements to existing infrastructure (revisiting MES expansion plans and the WAFC plan for Subiaco Oval). Is that a satisfactory outcome or does WA (and particularly the aerial ping pong) absolutely need a new stadium, now? Or, are we about to find a whole new way to be screwed over- is retractable seating the first thing that will be dropped in an attempt to scale back costs?


The thread is titled 'Pure Conjecture' for a reason- what do you reckon is the way forward from here?

[BLR]

I don't know if Labor's position in support for stadium is born of the same ignorance, or arrogance that they just don't care.

It's born of corruption, I mean for gods sake they allowed Neil Fong to be head of Health AND the WAFC, that's a huge conflict of interest when you are trying to decide the sporting future of the state.

[AndyS]

It is still crap - as the paper says, the problem is that they expect the surplus to decline, not that the state will start running in the red. Where have the last half dozen multi-billion dollar surplusses gone? And the things they have said are on the block add up to maybe three or four of the supposed $25B new works program - what is the rest of the stuff on the list?

Maybe we should point out that Aussie Rules kept saying that they were happy with Subi. If we build a state-of-the-art rugby ground and leave them there, they can be by definition no worse off than before the S14 came to town and they'll pocket the $600M odd that the Nats are looking for...

[Swee_82]

It's born of corruption, I mean for gods sake they allowed Neil Fong to be head of Health AND the WAFC, that's a huge conflict of interest when you are trying to decide the sporting future of the state.

'Corruption' is a pretty dirty word, and not one to be bandied about lightly for my money so it might be a bridge too far and it's not really a conflict of interest (don't see how decisions at the WAFC would have implications for the WA Health system and vice-versa-actaully I can, but I do'nt think there's been an example where they have) though it is a clear demonstration of the way the WAFC is ingrained in the WA political system- has it always been like this, or is it more a Labor thing?

It is still crap - as the paper says, the problem is that they expect the surplus to decline, not that the state will start running in the red. Where have the last half dozen multi-billion dollar surplusses gone? And the things they have said are on the block add up to maybe three or four of the supposed $25B new works program - what is the rest of the stuff on the list?

The problem stems from the debt-to-revenue ratio. To keep it below the level required to maintain the state's credit rating, something would have to go.

[Swee_82]

Maybe we should point out that Aussie Rules kept saying that they were happy with Subi. If we build a state-of-the-art rugby ground and leave them there, they can be by definition no worse off than before the S14 came to town and they'll pocket the $600M odd that the Nats are looking for...

But now they'd want someone to underwrite the losses from rental income they've come to expect from the Force, even if they did stay at Subi and retain the lease there.

[BLR]

'Corruption' might be a bridge too far and it's not really a conflict of interest (don't see how decisions at the WAFC would have implications for the WA Health system and vice-versa) though it is a clear demonstration of the way the WAFC is ingrained in the WA political system- has it always been like this, or is it more a Labor thing?

So how do you explain the constant Brian Burke fiasco?

And the WAFC constantly being pandered to, given just about everything they could ever want from a stadium they aren't even doing a thing to build? The fact that a minister in the government is actually the head of the Football commission is a huge conflict of interest and the way it panned out surely was evidence of misdealings. I mean, the cost of it is hugely inflated, the time span to build it is crazy, there is really no reason a competant government would build it given the alternatives.

Labor is built on the back of union support, hence why stadiums take so long to be built, the unions know that they are the ones with the power so can take their time. And you can be sure the union hard men will have a few 'words' to say to Pollies, perhaps by way of a manilla envelope.

[jargan83]

Neale Fong isnt a minister in the government, just a high up public servant
Posted via Mobile Device

[AndyS]

But now they'd want someone to underwrite the losses from rental income they've come to expect from the Force, even if they did stay at Subi and retain the lease there.

No doubt, but they can easily be flipped the bird over that - tenants come and go and, if they don't move and their control of the ground is unchanged, they have been done no harm. Tenant revenues are not a right, and they could always try dropping their prices...

[BLR]

Neale Fong isnt a minister in the government, just a high up public servantPosted via Mobile Device

Ah well, the point is he has a close relationship with parliamentarians that was entirely inappropriate to deal in two seperate issues that are so important at the current time.

[Swee_82]

So how do you explain the constant Brian Burke fiasco?

Not saying it doesn't exist, jsut that there's no evidence corruption is directly behind the stadium decision. I have no idea how to explain why otherwise sensible people would continue to work with someone who is clearly persona-non-grata, but they do. The man obviously still weilds power within WA Labor- why else would people risk explusion for dealing with him. Interesting, the electorate doesn't seem to be as concerned with it when it's not being presented on the front pages of the papers (See the result in Kalgoorlie- Bowler was thrown out for leaking informationt to Grill, yet he has been elected as an Independent and may well decide who ultimately governs the state)

And the WAFC constantly being pandered to, given just about everything they could ever want from a stadium they aren't even doing a thing to build? The fact that a minister in the government is actually the head of the Football commission is a huge conflict of interest and the way it panned out surely was evidence of misdealings. I mean, the cost of it is hugely inflated, the time span to build it is crazy, there is really no reason a competant government would build it given the alternatives.

Yes, the WAFC is a political machine, I've no doubt it influenced the decision. Evidently RugbyWA has nowhere near the political nous.

And he wasn't the minister. Or a member of the government. (Edit: Sorry, Jargs posted while I was ranting)



No matter what happens from here, as of the weekend the political landscape has changed alot, and with it, the boundaries in which the original stadium petition was pitched. What is the most appropriate direction for Stadium Infrastructure in WA?

[BLR]

Just out of curiousity, do we need a particular party to win?

Wouldn't the most fair solution be to have the various party members to have their leaders and then keep it like that. Libs and Labor will vote for bills as is while the independents and Nats hold a true balance of power, instead of siding with one party. It seems the whole idea of having one leader is a throw-back to the old forms of government and is only so the media knows who to talk about when something goes wrong.

[Flamethrower]

A state run by a committee.

Yeah, like that would work.

[.X.]

One thing to not lose sight of is the Petition - at the end of the day a petition presented to a member of Parliament must be presented to the Parliament.

We aren't finished yet - we have only just begun.

[BLR]

A state run by a committee.

Yeah, like that would work.

No, parties still have their leaders and they still vote like normal but the 'leader' of the winning party doesn't exist. We are in a parliamentary system anyway, it isn't like in the US where the president can do what he wants and get away with it, everything goes to a vote anyway. The position of premier is pretty much obsolete, to create a 'head of state' being a throw back to old times when a strong central leader was deemed neccessary.

I mean, whenever something goes wrong they claim to have no knowledge and blame it on other people in the party anyway.

[Flamethrower]

So, where does the buck stop?? In any form of society there needs to be a leader.




A committe was formed to build a better horse.


The best they could build was a camel.