New stadium scrapped

[AndyS]

I believe it is what they do in South Africa - networking and doing deals in the tents before and after, but no shop talk during the game. Surprising civilised, these Jaapies. It may not be the norm here, but it doesn't mean it won't work.

[travelling_gerry]

Ah, I see.

Not quite as attractive as a box then is it? The idea of a hall near the bowlo would be cheaper and better for a prospective sponsor in that case.

Should we quote to contract entertain the sponsors you think?

[fulvio sammut]

We can't sell booze, remember!!?

[Swee_82]

We can't sell booze, remember!!?

So we sell sausage sangas at $20 a piece and leave the beers unattended for a while... TWF's famous BBQ pack.

[slomo]

two free beers with every sausage.....

[blueandblack]

In todays West:

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ntentID=123019


Subi Oval too small in 10 years, Eagles say

Perth needs a stadium that holds at least 52,000 people within 10 years to keep pace with the State’s growing population, West Coast chairman Mark Barnaba has warned.

As football and rugby raced to reposition themselves in the stadium debate after Premier Colin Barnett’s declaration there would be no 60,000-seat multi-purpose stadium project started for at least two years, Mr Barnaba warned that AFL clubs could not afford to wait for another stadium study to come up with another solution.

“Life is very different to what it was 18 months ago and very different in this State,” he said. “Putting hospitals and schools ahead of museums and stadiums is the right decision in anyone’s eyes.”

But that didn’t change the facts facing football and West Coast in particular.

“The fact is that 42,000 is a small ground in this country,” Mr Barnaba said. “We are at full membership for the Eagles and lots of Dockers games are now sold out at that capacity. The population is growing at 2 to 2½ per cent per year.

“In 10 years, that means that you would need 52,000 to 55,000 seats just to maintain the status quo. Subiaco is an old stadium and it doesn’t compare to revamped stadiums in South Australia, Queensland, NSW and Victoria.”

In the paper, this article is credited to Chief Knobjo....Football Writer Mark Duffield. It is on page 9.

[travelling_gerry]

What he fails to acknowledge is that the 2 - 2 1/2 % growth is Rugby followers who want

A PROPER RECTANGULAR STADIUM!

[jargan83]

I just read that article

For AFL Subiaco is too small now (as opposed to Rugby in which it is just rubbish)

Something else I pointed out to someone was that West Coast made a $6 million dollar profit last financial year apparently, Freo made a significant profit as well without remembering the actual figure. The WAFC is probably rolling in cash as well, why don't all 3 of those parties look at an upgrade?

[AndyS]

It doesn't take three parties - the WAFC owns both the Eagles and Freo (http://www.wafootball.com.au/wafc). The paying of rent to the WAFC is presumably an accounting thing to separate the cashflows for the professional and amateur games.

[Burgs]

I don't have any issue with Footy getting a bigger facility, just so long as it isn't at our (Rugby's) expense and we get a decent capacity ground.
Face it, we would/should sell out a 52-55k Subiaco for our Test a year going on past interest, especially assuming a Lions Tour in the distance and perhaps another RWC, and with extra capacity comes a Bledisloe argument.

[jargan83]

I know the WAFC owns the AFL licences for the teams, but I thought they were effectively independant organisations

[jargan83]

I don't have any issue with Footy getting a bigger facility, just so long as it isn't at our (Rugby's) expense and we get a decent capacity ground.
Face it, we would/should sell out a 52-55k Subiaco for our Test a year going on past interest, especially assuming a Lions Tour in the distance and perhaps another RWC, and with extra capacity comes a Bledisloe argument.

I was in favour of the Multi-Purpose stadium for just that, Internationals both Rugby and Football would attract big crowds to such a ground

I don't care if the AFL/WAFC gets a new facility, but it should not be at the expense of any other sport.

I did not think that the Multi-Purpose ground was the fit for Rugby on a week to week basis though

[AndyS]

Owning is still owning. But if they decided to build it themselves, it wouldn't be multi-purpose and I wouldn't hold my breath over being able to rent it for a Test match at anything other than an exorbitant rental.

[jargan83]

the WAFC won't pay for a new ground itself. They didnt even want to move from Subiaco Oval untill the State Government and the AFL had their "speacial" hand shake

At best they might fund an upgarde to Subiaco, but then again maybe they learned their lesson from the last upgrade

[GIGS20]

Owning is still owning. But if they decided to build it themselves, it wouldn't be multi-purpose and I wouldn't hold my breath over being able to rent it for a Test match at anything other than an exorbitant rental.

so what you're saying is nothing will change?

the WAFC won't pay for a new ground itself. They didnt even want to move from Subiaco Oval untill the State Government and the AFL had their "speacial" hand shake

At best they might fund an upgarde to Subiaco, but then again maybe they learned their lesson from the last upgrade

they sure did, that lesson was 'whige loud enough and the state government will assume the tahman position and pay it for you.....whilst signing ownership over to you in perpetuity.....and guaranteeing that you will get an income from the extra seats