WNC Briefs the Minister

[Thequeerone]

My understanding of things monetary is simple most things double in price every 10 years i.e. a house cost approx 70,000 to build in 98 would cost 140,000 to build now in 08

[The EnForcer]

As the saying goes, "every cloud has a silver lining". The current global economic crisis may bring our stadium projects to the fore. What I mean is in an effort to give the Australian economy a crutch/boost publicly funded projects are likely to be pushed through as a means of injecting cash directly into the economy. If the government doesn't start using the surplus now then what kind of rainy day are they waiting for?

I'll have 1 off rectangular stadium thank-you very much.

[Blackswan]

If discussions with the decision makers is to be productive it has to be on the basis of understanding the issues. The issue is NOT what we would like to have because we support the Force.

It would also help if we were armed with an understanding of the issues as perceived by the decision makers (not ourselves) and what the drivers are when they make decisions. Then we can frame our argument around what they understand to be important. Thinking that we can convince them that what we think is important is going to change their minds is simply childish - at best.

Some of the commentary on this forum regarding "escalation" and comparison with the cost of developing other stadiums doesn't provide any confidence that the above metrics are achieved.

The same principle applies to any representations we now make to our elected representatives. If we just fire off uninformed and parochial comments then they will just be binned along with the other hundreds the guys receive from the ignoramus.

I'm with you on the objective but we have to be intelligent in the approach if there is to be any chance of success. Bull$$it does NOT baffle either brains or those that are "midfull to another point of view".

[GIGS20]

If discussions with the decision makers is to be productive it has to be on the basis of understanding the issues. The issue is NOT what we would like to have because we support the Force.

It would also help if we were armed with an understanding of the issues as perceived by the decision makers (not ourselves) and what the drivers are when they make decisions. Then we can frame our argument around what they understand to be important. Thinking that we can convince them that what we think is important is going to change their minds is simply childish - at best.

Some of the commentary on this forum regarding "escalation" and comparison with the cost of developing other stadiums doesn't provide any confidence that the above metrics are achieved.

The same principle applies to any representations we now make to our elected representatives. If we just fire off uninformed and parochial comments then they will just be binned along with the other hundreds the guys receive from the ignoramus.

I'm with you on the objective but we have to be intelligent in the approach if there is to be any chance of success. Bull$$it does NOT baffle either brains or those that are "midfull to another point of view".

In answer to that, my primary argument is that professional football and Rugby cannot survive in WA without an uprage to the rectangular stadium option....so the logic is simple, given the increase in immigration from regions where these sports form the cultural landscape, the corporate infrastructure support from national and international companies and the drawcard these sports offer to new sandgropers, the only fiscally sensible solution is to provide the funding required to keep them running.......Let's face it, before the RugbyWA turned over about a million bucks total.......last year (in their toughest membership year the made that much in profit....now if the Force fold, or worse still begin to go into deficit in the professional arena, that's a million dollars or more that needs to be found to prop up community rugby (which is a government responsibility) would you prefer to invest 50 million bucks in ensuring this profit continues.....long term, the project will pay for itself, even if you discount the likely Toursim and advertising dollars we gain by maintaining a successful Force and Glory.

Is that reasoned enough for you?

[Blackswan]

In answer to that, my primary argument is that professional football and Rugby cannot survive in WA without an uprage to the rectangular stadium option....so the logic is simple, given the increase in immigration from regions where these sports form the cultural landscape, the corporate infrastructure support from national and international companies and the drawcard these sports offer to new sandgropers, the only fiscally sensible solution is to provide the funding required to keep them running.......Let's face it, before the RugbyWA turned over about a million bucks total.......last year (in their toughest membership year the made that much in profit....now if the Force fold, or worse still begin to go into deficit in the professional arena, that's a million dollars or more that needs to be found to prop up community rugby (which is a government responsibility) would you prefer to invest 50 million bucks in ensuring this profit continues.....long term, the project will pay for itself, even if you discount the likely Toursim and advertising dollars we gain by maintaining a successful Force and Glory.

Giggs

I agree that the above is a supporting argument but the acid test is whether it is sufficient of itself to persuade others. Based on your earlier feedback on the meeting with the minister and more recently with Greg Harris I think the answer is probably a "no" ??

There are three points I would make to start with (and I trust that you will see that I am supportive of the objective; I just doubt the chances of success of the approach currently being proposed) .....................

One deficiency in the case for a rectangular stadium being based on the above argument alone is that it assumes the decision makers (politicians) are interested in supporting expenditure to achieve a longer term vision, when - as we all understand - their focus is in trying to win the next election. That leads us to the question of what the politicians perceive to be the position they can take, both collectively and individually, that best increases their chances within their particular electorate. In order to find the key to unlock the political support for investmant in a rectangular stadium, we need to understand the politicians perceptions of their electoral risks and opportunities. If we can do that then we can frame an argument that will be persuasive.

Secondly, I suggest that all should read the Stadium Taskforce report. The importance of understanding what is contained in the report in the detail is that it is the reference point for the politicians. It is what they will use to form their opinions and support their arguments either for or against investment in a dedicated rectangular stadium. For example, it addresses the proposal to develop MES; it states quite clearly that a 25,000 stadium was not supported by Rugby WA - who said it would be too small and wanted a 35,000 stadium; it also addresses the benchmark costs of developing other rectangular and oval stadiums around the world. Just three examples, it contains a lot more relevant information.

Thirdly, we need to understand how the change in circumstances over the last 6 months will have changed how others evaluate the options and how we should now construct the case in favour of a dedicated rectangular stadium. The two big changes are of course in the state government and the global financial situation. Both will impact WA state government finances and the state government's approach to managing risk. I suspect that the liberal government is a lot more risk-averse when it comes to expenditure not related to core industries. We can use this to our advantage.

If we put all three points together we can come up with an argument that will be persuasive because it will a) address the issues as perceived by the decision makers; b) be framed in such a way that the politicians do not see it as a threat to their electoral chances; c) be based on data that the politicians use as a reference; and d) be relevant to the circumstances of today, not yesterday.

Jumping up and down hasn't worked in the last two years and it won't work in the future. But we can re-focus the argument in favour of expenditure in a dedicated rectangular stadium and improve the chances of success.

Yes. I do think I have some of the answers. No. I don't think I'm the only one to have some good ideas.

[Happy]

sad truth is we will only have the governments ear nearing the next election

[GIGS20]

Giggs

I agree that the above is a supporting argument but the acid test is whether it is sufficient of itself to persuade others. Based on your earlier feedback on the meeting with the minister and more recently with Greg Harris I think the answer is probably a "no" ??

There are three points I would make to start with (and I trust that you will see that I am supportive of the objective; I just doubt the chances of success of the approach currently being proposed) .....................

One deficiency in the case for a rectangular stadium being based on the above argument alone is that it assumes the decision makers (politicians) are interested in supporting expenditure to achieve a longer term vision, when - as we all understand - their focus is in trying to win the next election. That leads us to the question of what the politicians perceive to be the position they can take, both collectively and individually, that best increases their chances within their particular electorate. In order to find the key to unlock the political support for investmant in a rectangular stadium, we need to understand the politicians perceptions of their electoral risks and opportunities. If we can do that then we can frame an argument that will be persuasive.

Secondly, I suggest that all should read the Stadium Taskforce report. The importance of understanding what is contained in the report in the detail is that it is the reference point for the politicians. It is what they will use to form their opinions and support their arguments either for or against investment in a dedicated rectangular stadium. For example, it addresses the proposal to develop MES; it states quite clearly that a 25,000 stadium was not supported by Rugby WA - who said it would be too small and wanted a 35,000 stadium; it also addresses the benchmark costs of developing other rectangular and oval stadiums around the world. Just three examples, it contains a lot more relevant information.

Thirdly, we need to understand how the change in circumstances over the last 6 months will have changed how others evaluate the options and how we should now construct the case in favour of a dedicated rectangular stadium. The two big changes are of course in the state government and the global financial situation. Both will impact WA state government finances and the state government's approach to managing risk. I suspect that the liberal government is a lot more risk-averse when it comes to expenditure not related to core industries. We can use this to our advantage.

If we put all three points together we can come up with an argument that will be persuasive because it will a) address the issues as perceived by the decision makers; b) be framed in such a way that the politicians do not see it as a threat to their electoral chances; c) be based on data that the politicians use as a reference; and d) be relevant to the circumstances of today, not yesterday.

Jumping up and down hasn't worked in the last two years and it won't work in the future. But we can re-focus the argument in favour of expenditure in a dedicated rectangular stadium and improve the chances of success.

Yes. I do think I have some of the answers. No. I don't think I'm the only one to have some good ideas.

Welcome on board. I think we can frame good answers to each of those points. Firstly, I'll address the Langoulant report. Yes it is the benchmark of record, and the bane of our existence in many ways. The restrictions put upon the major stadia taskforce were (IMHO) designed specifically to produce the solution that was proposed. The costing of the 35,000 seat dedicated stadium was ridiculous! This was possibly because the primary clause in the proposal was that the government would not commit funds to any stadium in which it did not have 100% ownership. That basically shot any proposal from an existign group dead on the spot. MES is operated by Allia, Subiaco is operated by WAFC and the WACA is owned by the WACA. This and many other clauses simply made it impossible for any position other than the MPS option to be considered. THe costing of $450 Million dollars (even taking into account inflation and cost overruns) was exorbitant and must have been inflated by the required compensation to buy ownership of the venue, but I digress. The Langoulant clearly stated RugbyWA's requirement for a dedicated rectangular venue, admittedly, they wanted 35,000 seats....and to be perfectly honest, I think 35,000 seats is required for the good of Rugby in WA. Our argument, with all officials has been that ' In the ideal world we need a 35,000 seat dedicated rectangular stadium now...hoever we're realistic about the chances of getting that, so we'll take dedicated first, 35,000 seats second."

As for Political cost/benefit, well we're now living in a state balanced upon a political knife edge, the Nationals have the balance of power with 4 seats, the Liberals can barely govern and (OK I don't have current figures yet, but) last election could have been won with 700 votes in the right electorates. Moreover the most marginal electorates in the state (Ocean Reef, Riverton, Swan Hills, Bunbury to name a few) are heavily populated with rugby supporters, many of whom will have signed our petition. In the current climate EVERY issue is an issue of political survival and YES I believe wholeheartedly that a failure to uphold the peoples' wishes regarding supporting rugby in WA can topple the government.

The current climate has changed two things....the financial fiability of all sporting codes and infrastructure projects and the business projections of professional teams and the state's willingness to commit big dollars to infrastructure projects, preferring to commit such funds to reigonal development and economic stimulation. OK Regional Development is not going to help us, but the economic stimulation argument works in our favour. RugbyWA talked (somewhere) about growing from a business that turns over 1 Million dollars to a business that turns over 28 (or so) Million dollars...there's some stimulus....ad to that the fact that the Force and Glory, byt their very existance bring rich, healthy, privately health-insured, young men into our state to buy houses cars and all other manner of tax producing materials. There is also a significant tourism dollar generated by the mere existence of these teams, along with the inevitablemassive support staff continent. Supporters use our airports, hotels, eateries and view our great state whilst visiting to support their team. We attain international profile by having these teams. Much more so than the AFL, which has a limited international viewership, essentially reserved to expatriates and an extremely limited number of nationals.

In short, although our argument has been a little disjointed, I think we have the basis of what you're suggesting.

More importantly, I wonder if you have the time and/or inclination to massage these ramblings into a cogent plan of action for us to use when talking to the various media outlets and officials. We're all willing, but inexperienced. Perhaps you're just the sort of bloke we need to pull us together into an effective force!

PM me if you're keen

[Blackswan]

Gigs

I'd be happy to help. Developing the plan for going forward involves combining the good ideas from several people and devising the best strategy and arguments following constructive debate.

Call me a dinosaur but I haven't figured out how to send a PM yet ........... doh!

[Elf1]

Gigs

I'd be happy to help. Developing the plan for going forward involves combining the good ideas from several people and devising the best strategy and arguments following constructive debate.

Call me a dinosaur but I haven't figured out how to send a PM yet ........... doh!

Your input would be most welcome Blackswan (I was going to abbreviate it then realised)

[jargan83]

elf can teach you to pm (i think he knows how)
Posted via Mobile Device

[Blackswan]

Article from: The Australian
HUNDREDS of millions of dollars will be spent by the Rudd Government to deliver "quality of life" infrastructure projects that "revitalise town centres", including building community halls, libraries and sporting grounds to create short-term jobs.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese will unveil the stimulus package tomorrow when Kevin Rudd meets the nation's 565 mayors in Canberra.

The Government will cast the spending as necessary for job creation and a way of pumping money into communities to help them avoid becoming victims of the economic downturn.

Mr Albanese said the new investment package would stimulate local communities.

"The regional and local community infrastructure program will assist the delivery of quality-of-life infrastructure such as revitalising town centres and building community halls, libraries, sporting grounds, parks and pools," Mr Albanese said.

"As well as helping to make local communities around Australia better places to live and work, this type of investment will support local jobs and stimulate local economies."

The new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Fund will replace the Howard government's controversial Regional Partnerships program, and although it was to have been created in next year's federal budget, the Government has decided to bring it forward in light of the global financial crisis.

"The program will build on our $26 billion commitment to the nation's road and rail networks." Mr Albanese said.

Acting Treasurer Lindsay Tanner said spending on local government infrastructure projects was being considered.

"One of the possibilities that is always there in circumstances where you need to stimulate the economy is localised infrastructure spending," he said.

The first Council of Australian Local Government summit, which starts today, will be attended by more than 550 mayors as well as the Prime Minister and senior cabinet ministers.

The meeting will focus on infrastructure needs and the challenges facing major cities and regional centres.

Several senior ministers will attend the talks with the mayors, including Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

The Government will unveil the criteria the projects will have to meet if they are to obtain funding, to avoid accusations that the new fund is an opportunity to put pork-barrel schemes into marginal Labor electorates.

Mr Albanese promised the summit would be a historic meeting "representing a new partnership between the commonwealth and local councils".

[TOCC]

^^^ the scope of the projects funded in the above article will only be relatively small projects(eg below $1million). I doubt they would cough up a large chunk of it for a stadium in WA.

[Swee_82]

^^^ the scope of the projects funded in the above article will only be relatively small projects(eg below $1million). I doubt they would cough up a large chunk of it for a stadium in WA.

Sure they will, we just need to convince them Paly need a really, really, REALLY flash home ground or something

[Thequeerone]

Blackswan to PM LEFT Click on name above picture

Everyone else - We have a hung parliament folks - lets regroup - address the issues and bloody well go for it - next election could be next week with this Global Crisis.

Bear in mind that in the Northern Suburbs Electorates of Wanneroo (less than 100 votes to Liberal and Joondalup maybe 500 votes to Labour) we have 2 of the largest Rugby /Kiwi/Saffer/British populations - the trains didn't do it for this electorate maybe a decent stadium for rugby could be it.

[Blackswan]

Blackswan to PM LEFT Click on name above picture

oh $h!te it's that easy .......... that's what happens when you don't have a mouse.......

ta