Let me begin by spelling out my position.
ANZ should just be reconfigured to rectangular format.The SFS should be refurbished only ,to bring it up to 21st century requirements.
My position is that both Parra and the SFS needed replacing and there needs to be a rectangular stadium at Homebush. The new Parra stadium is a thing of beauty with one exception which I’ll get to below. The new SFS should be built to the same standard as Parra with a similar capacity. The 45,000 plan is ridiculous and just empire building on the part of the SCG Trust. Ideally the new stadium would be built closer to Central Station - preferably over the rail yards and Prince Alfred Park (allowing tenants to keep playing at the SFS during construction)
I kind of have two positions on what should happen at Homebush.
Option 1 - Either the existing stadium should be replaced with a new large rectangular stadium or it should undergo a major re-configuration within the existing bones to make it rectangular. In both cases the stadium should have a club mode that ensures the stadium does not detract from the majority of events (ie. regular club games) that it hosts.
OR Option 2 - The existing stadium should remain untouched and only be used for large events Wembley style. A new third Parra style stadium should be built (probably directly north of the train station, next to the brickpit) to host all Homebush games except the Grand Final and Origin. The difference in price between Option 1 and 2 should be spent on upgrades to other grounds in Sydney/Wollongong.
I said above that I think one thing is wrong with the new Parra design. In my opinion all three stadiums should have included closing roofs. Sydney has a long and well documented history of crowds staying away if there is the slightest chance they’ll get wet or even if it’s a very cold night. How often do we excuse ourselves saying “this game would’ve got a bumper crowd if not for the weather”? All three of our major stadiums should have closing roofs to remove this excuse.
Look I'm not overeading FitzSimons.He tries to be the hero of the" downtrodden masses" populist approach,and any cause that looks to have large numbers of support, he'll jump on the bandwagon.
I could provide list of same, which is pointless and boring anyway.Some of which I in fact agree with.
He's the one who mentioned low crowds at ANZ in his anti arguemnt,and guess which code winter time is the majority tenant?The NRL.
One thing does not have to have anything to do with the other. Crowds at Homebush are low compared to the capacity. That’s a fact. Homebush is only 19 years old and was last upgraded 12 (?) years ago. Again that’s a fact. Rugby League need not enter into it to state those two things. And motivation still need not be more than being a NSW tax payer.
His dislike for rugby league is hardly a trade secret,ongoing.His if you like ,bete noire.Grab the Herald weekly, or his regular stints on ch9 Sport Show.All there in horrible black and white.Not paranoia just in your face stuff.
I read a fair number of his columns in the SMH but see few of his television appearances. The impression I get is he has a healthy respect for League and its players even as a Union man. He clearly watches a lot of League even if he is a Union man. And even if he is happy to occasionally shit can League or just make a joke at its expense, I don’t see any systematic *malicious* intent to destroy or harm the game. I consider his efforts at explicitly damaging League trivial compared to that done by Phil Rothfield and co on a weekly basis.
I put it to you if his code absolutely dominated with crowds and utilised regularly both ANZ and the SFS ,would he be of the same volition? Perhaps or perhaps not.
I’m sure he would have a different stance given it would benefit his game and he has a personal interest in seeing it thrive. His view would be coloured in favour of his game exactly as yours and mine is coloured in favour of our game. We don’t need to hate Union or AFL and wish to see them destroyed to support the current stadium upgrades that benefit League. And likewise we don’t need to hate Union or AFL to oppose upgrades that don’t impact the game we love but do effect us as taxpayers. A much better indicator would be if such a massive amount of money was being spent and the primary benefactor was cricket or soccer. Would he oppose in the same way? My guess is yes he would. It doesn’t benefit Union and he’s still a tax payer.
The simple fact he completely ignored expenditure on Spotless for a new team in town,the money wasted in Blacktown for GWS and State Govt monies for SCG improvements, suggests to me he sees what he wants to see.All in NSW BTW.The same gent secures invitation to the AFL Anzac Day match.
The stand replaced at the SCG genuinely was end of life and needed replacing regardless of whether the tenant of the day was the Swans or cricket. I grant you the Spotless expenditure when ANZ stood right next door. The expenditure in both cases pales next to the money being argued about now. And I’m afraid I still don’t see why the motivation needs be maliciously against a League as opposed to just a misguided tax payer equating billions spent once in 25 years with tens of billions spent on health and education annually.
His political views are well known and it's certainly not the State Libs.
Which makes it all the more surprising that he’d have it in for League - a game that grew out of the working class traditions of coal miners and labourers and has traditionally been identified with the left. As opposed to Union which has traditionally been the game of the upper classes (who could afford to not be paid when injured), the private schools and the right. It seems an accident of his education that Fitzsimons isn’t predisposed to actually being a League man.
I mentioned the 3 football codes.I failed to mention other forms of entertainment that would utilise these stadiums, such as EPL games, gridiron,concerts,even Opera.
Agreed. There are certainly good arguments in favour of keeping up with the Joneses - if only for Sydney’s capacity to compete for events.
The SFS and I've been there with my daughter, semi time, is antiquated particularly for females.I would have been happy with just refurbishment TBH,saving money.
Agreed. The SFS is certainly not up to modern standards in terms of amenities. It was one of the last generation of stadiums built before corporate facilities became a vital income stream for tenants.
ANZ was destined to be rectangular post Olympics,and if that had happened I doubt there would be any need for current costly refurbishment.
Agreed. The redevelopment was botched. The distraction and financial drain of the Super League war and its aftermath really hurt League’s ability to dictate the design of the Olympic Stadium and let a well run AFL subvert it. Still short sighted on the part of the politicians and the civil service advising them not to see that League would be by far the major user.
I agree from an opposition(taxpayers point of view)it appears simplistic not to go ahead.
That being so.
Taxpayers protested in SA and WA for their new stadiums.In states which do not have the financial surpluses available as the NSW Govt does.The result is big crowds and interstate visitor growth.
Both the existing Football Park and Subiaco were genuinely end of life like the stand at the SCG, and in the case of Subiaco had been sold out for years. The upgrades were justified in the mind of the general public and really not comparable to definitively ANZ and less so the SFS (don’t think anyone is arguing Parra didn’t need doing).
So perhaps in those instances Occam's Razor simplistic explanation missed the mark(excuse the pun).
The alternative is on the basis of leaving and doing nothing,when is the best time? 2040,when how much will it cost.
Or leave them both so they can be classified by the National Trust as historical 100 year old buildings?
You’re preaching to the choir. I want to see the upgrades to the benefit of the game I love. And I’m annoyed that the populist argument run by Fitzsimons has put that at risk. But I don’t see that it’s some anti-League agenda driving the opposition. It just doesn’t require a malicious intent to reach a position of opposition based on a pretty simplistic understanding of the issues.
I really don’t think we’re that far apart. But it might help you to understand where I’m coming from if I finish by quoting my favourite saying. A saying that guides me in this argument and many other situations in life - Hanlon’s Razor. In essence it can be variously described as...
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence/ignorance/stupidity.”
Or to put it another way, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a f**k up. They’re not out to get you, you’re just collateral damage. And while the righteousness of our position is obvious to us enlightened souls, the poor masses just don’t know any better.
Leigh.
$2m? Might buy them premium grade troff lollies for a year. Not much else
