The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[herbert henry1908]

Honestly the proposed upgrade to SFS to a 55,000 seater with the clear roof, and improved seating plan moving fans closer would be superior to any potential ANZ redesign. Evidently Sydney needs a vast overhaul in terms of infrastructure and transport, that being said the cost to fix ANZ and the reality that outside of Origin and the GF it's not even close to half full is enough for me to support it's demolition. Honestly boost the SFS, make it a 60,000 seater if need be, but it's worth noting that bigger seating means f**k all if you only fill it 2-3 times a year. I'd rather 30,000 average like Lang Park with it's 52,000 capacity over 12,000/84,000.
.

55,000 is too small for our main stadium and too big for a club stadium. Bad number.

Even if you did make Allianz 60k you'd need to do something with ANZ. If you left ANZ as is why would the big events move to Allianz? An extra 22k seats could be sold at ANZ, administrators are interested in more money over good viewing angles.

 

[Raiderdave]

VictorianS? We still doing that are we? Charming. No wonder most people outside NSW and Qld think that RL is full of dumb bogans.
Most Victorians wish there was no GWS, or AFL games @ ANZ anyway. We don't really care about AFL ''conquering'' NSW and Qld. We just want the best for our team. The AFL is national and its job it to grow their game. McLachlan is South Australian. Don't blame Victorians for the actions of the AFL and don't blame the AFL for the current position of the NRL. The blame for low crowds and poor stadiums lie with the NRL and its clubs.
Given that 90% of Sydneysiders prefer RL to AFL, but the Swans/Giants have the biggest crowds and memberships tells me that there needs to be a revolution soon or RL risks fading into irrelevance the way RU has. That Melbourne Storm is now the fourth biggest club (in terms of crowds and memberships) is an indictment on every other club - all of which are in RL heartland. The way things are going, maybe Sydney won't need any new rectangular stadiums.
Sorry for following more than one code of football.
Sorry for being Victorian. At least WE have our shit together.
Go the VictorianS, VictorianS, etc.

Giants have the biggest crowds & memberships ??

hahahahaha
what is it with you brain washed halfwits ?

the fudgeits get crowds of barely 10K ( fudged) in Sydney which would place them dead last in averages behind all Sydney NRL clubs & every other one too outside Sydney
they have 20K members .. of which only 6K reside in Sydney , about half of the lowest Sydney Club in Manly with 12K members
Even their total number including ACT , & interstate members is behind Souths , Parramatta & Penrith

biggest eh ?
don't post crap buddy less you get made look like a fool
they

 

[ReddFelon]

55,000 is too small for our main stadium and too big for a club stadium. Bad number.

Even if you did make Allianz 60k you'd need to do something with ANZ. If you left ANZ as is why would the big events move to Allianz? An extra 22k seats could be sold at ANZ, administrators are interested in more money over good viewing angles.

In general around the world and even within Australia, they're finding that medium sized stadiums of 50-60k are better money makers than the over-sized mega stadiums. Outside of Origin and the GF does ANZ ever get close to half capacity? Not just in RL terms, I mean for the city of Sydney does ANZ actually bring in all that much money? Tickets to events at ANZ are shockingly overpriced in my experience wouldn't that suggest they don't get enough people in when they need to? Not to mention it's not even a proper football stadium, it's a recycled Olympics stadium, it's not circular or rectangular the entire joint is a bad design. SFS is the better choice in my view, certainly it needs to be the South Sydney homeground and if Easts continue their push in getting more supporters from outside the Eastern Districts/Suburbs they too will have a better shot at filling a refurbished SFS than they will ANZ.

 

[herbert henry1908]

In general around the world and even within Australia, they're finding that medium sized stadiums of 50-60k are better money makers than the over-sized mega stadiums.

Whilst I don't doubt that claim, I also think a city our size needs a venue that can attract major international events, such as concerts. 50k seems too small to me, 65k would be a better compromise number.

Outside of Origin and the GF does ANZ ever get close to half capacity? Not just in RL terms, I mean for the city of Sydney does ANZ actually bring in all that much money?

Yes. ANZ stadium has gone past 40k people, 10 times this year. Will likely be more by the end of the year.

Tickets to events at ANZ are shockingly overpriced in my experience wouldn't that suggest they don't get enough people in when they need to?

For smaller events, perhaps.

But for bigger events, reducing the capacity will increase ticket costs. Reducing it too far will price many people out of going to the grand final or SOO.

Not to mention it's not even a proper football stadium, it's a recycled Olympics stadium, it's not circular or rectangular the entire joint is a bad design.

That's what's being fixed.

SFS is the better choice in my view, certainly it needs to be the South Sydney homeground and if Easts continue their push in getting more supporters from outside the Eastern Districts/Suburbs they too will have a better shot at filling a refurbished SFS than they will ANZ.

SFS is being redone anyway. the question is, should it be our main stadium or a club stadium?

If it's our main stadium something still needs to be done with ANZ.

Also Souths are highly unlikely to move back.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Personally I don't see the issue with building on the kippax lake site. You could get around the concerns of locals by making the existing SFS site into open parkland. Just trade one for the other.

The issue is that the land on the southern side of Driver Avenue, is not part of the SCG Trust lands. It is part of the Centennial and Moore Park Trust, which is a separate organisation governed by a different Act of the NSW Parliament than that which governs the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust. Both Acts stipulate quite explicitly what land is vested in each trust, and what those lands may be used for by the respective trusts.

To change that, you would require legislation to amend the respective Acts, and as the NSW Government does not have the numbers in the NSW Legislative Council (the state's upper house for those unaware) they would be unlikely to get the numbers to agree to any proposed legislative change. You could not make the changes administratively as each trust has different objectives and statutory obligations as to how its respective lands may be used.

 

[herbert henry1908]

The issue is that the land on the southern side of Driver Avenue, is not part of the SCG Trust lands. It is part of the Centennial and Moore Park Trust, which is a separate organisation governed by a different Act of the NSW Parliament than that which governs the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust. Both Acts stipulate quite explicitly what land is vested in each trust, and what those lands may be used for by the respective trusts.

To change that, you would require legislation to amend the respective Acts, and as the NSW Government does not have the numbers in the NSW Legislative Council (the state's upper house for those unaware) they would be unlikely to get the numbers to agree to any proposed legislative change. You could not make the changes administratively as each trust has different objectives and statutory obligations as to how its respective lands may be used.

I'm aware of the legislative problems.

However if you made the swap it should be paletable to all concerned, including other politicians. The govt don't have a majority but they are very close to it in the upper house, they'd only need a few cross benches to support.

Not sure why they'd be unlikely to get the numbers for *any legislative change*. They pass legislation all the time through compromise in the legislative council. A swap of land isn't a land grab and shouldn't raise any serious questions. They'd get it passed I think.

Of course totally taking the kippax lake site from the centennial parks trust and not replacing it with the current Allianz site would be a much harder battle.

 

[M2D2]

I'm aware of the legislative problems.

However if you made the swap it should be paletable to all concerned, including other politicians. The govt don't have a majority but they are very close to it in the upper house, they'd only need a few cross benches to support.

Not sure why they'd be unlikely to get the numbers for *any legislative change*. They pass legislation all the time through compromise in the legislative council. A swap of land isn't a land grab and shouldn't raise any serious questions. They'd get it passed I think.

Of course totally taking the kippax lake site from the centennial parks trust and not replacing it with the current Allianz site would be a much harder battle.

The proposed that when they were wanting ro rebuild the SFS there.
It didnt get very far.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The proposed that when they were wanting ro rebuild the SFS there.
It didnt get very far.

Exactly. The SCG Trust were not proposing a land swap, just assuming more land.

As to the Government being close to having the numbers, they effectively have 18 out of 42 members voting (as 1 Liberal is President of the Legislative Council). The kerfuffle that erupted after it was discovered how the Government got through the legislative change to the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust Act to enable the building of the RU's "Centre of Excellence" will ensure any change would not be favourably looked upon by the Opposition nor the cross benchers.

Further HH, do you seriously believe if such a land swap happened like you suggest, that at some future date the SCG Trust would not try and subsume the "old SFS" site into its lands considering you would have one parcel of Centennial Park Trust land isolated inside a ring of land controlled by the SCG Trust? I could hear it now "as it is closer to our facilities, it would be cheaper for us to maintain in" etc etc.

 

[herbert henry1908]

The proposed that when they were wanting ro rebuild the SFS there.
It didnt get very far.

Unless I'm mistaken they wanted to keep the current site for other uses & take the kippax lake site as well.

This proposal would be to simply swap one for the other. With a 3 year period that Allianz would remain whilst the other stadium is built & then demolished and turned into centennial park land.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Exactly. The SCG Trust were not proposing a land swap, just assuming more land.

Yes I know.

What I'm saying is do it differently as a land swap.

As to the Government being close to having the numbers, they effectively have 18 out of 42 members voting (as 1 Liberal is President of the Legislative Council). The kerfuffle that erupted after it was discovered how the Government got through the legislative change to the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust Act to enable the building of the RU's "Centre of Excellence" will ensure any change would not be favourably looked upon by the Opposition nor the cross benchers.

They actually have 20 members, 19 minus the president.

There are 4 right leaning cross benches who they use to pass legislation all the time.

Further HH, do you seriously believe if such a land swap happened like you suggest, that at some future date the SCG Trust would not try and subsume the "old SFS" site into its lands considering you would have one parcel of Centennial Park Trust land isolated inside a ring of land controlled by the SCG Trust? I could hear it now "as it is closer to our facilities, it would be cheaper for us to maintain in" etc etc.

That can be dealt with in the legislation.

Any future attempt to subsume the land would have to go through parliament. Just like any attempt now to take the kippax lake site would too.

 

[Captain Apollo]

They actually have 20 members, 19 minus the president.

Edited: Oops, I can't add up . You are correct. Source: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/pages/party-representation.aspx

 

[adamkungl]

What's so special about Kippax lake anyway.. it's an ugly fetid pond and the only activity that takes place on its lands seems to be Roosters or Tahs training, and parking cars.

I am 100% supportive of green space and public parklands but this is of pretty low importance to the community.. unless you're talking about a few ducks.

 

[herbert henry1908]

No, they have a total of 19 members, 18 once you exclude the President (I had 18 in total which I admit was wrong). The Liberal Party have 13 Members, The Nationals 7 Members. Source: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/pages/party-representation.aspx

Um, mate. 13+7 = 20

Minus the president = 19.

 

[herbert henry1908]

What's so special about Kippax lake anyway.. it's an ugly fetid pond and the only activity that takes place on its lands seems to be Roosters or Tahs training, and parking cars.

I am 100% supportive of green space and public parklands but this is of pretty low importance to the community.. unless you're talking about a few ducks.

I agree. Plus there's heaps of green space in that area anyway.

A land swap would at least be worth exploring. Would mean 3 teams wouldn't lose their home ground for 2-3 years, plus Sydney could still host the SOO if ANZ was done at the same time.

 

[siv]

Unless I'm mistaken they wanted to keep the current site for other uses & take the kippax lake site as well.

This proposal would be to simply swap one for the other. With a 3 year period that Allianz would remain whilst the other stadium is built & then demolished and turned into centennial park land.

Turned into a Car Park not open space

And I suspect we would see more offices set up on the existing gold members car park

 

[Captain Apollo]

Um, mate. 13+7 = 20

Minus the president = 19.

I know. That is why I'd gone back and edited my previous post (which must have happened as you were typing the above).

 

[M2D2]

It wont pass legislation and they wont trade.
It still has the same problem that all of Moore Park has. Which is why they wont even bother doing it, youll find the majority of the NSW goverment that dont have their fingers in the SCG trust want these kind of events held away from the CBD.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Turned into a Car Park not open space

And I suspect we would see more offices set up on the existing gold members car park

That is pretty much what looks like happening.

The last change to the SCG Trust lands, the Government snuck it into one of the budget bills in 2016 so the Australian Rugby Union Development Centre could be built on the current Gold Members Car Park.

Herbert Henry,why did the Government sneak the change into one of the budget bills? Simple, because unlike at Federal level, budget bills cannot be amended or blocked by the Legislative Council. That is how sure the Government were of the numbers only just over 12 months ago. That is why I reckon legislative change like you are suggesting would be so problematic.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Turned into a Car Park not open space

And I suspect we would see more offices set up on the existing gold members car park

Absolutely.

So it was no surprise the locals kicked up such a fuss.

If you guaranteed a swap of land in the legislation it would be better received.

Even better received if you only did a 35k seats stadium.

 

[herbert henry1908]

It wont pass legislation and they wont trade.
It still has the same problem that all of Moore Park has. Which is why they wont even bother doing it, youll find the majority of the NSW goverment that dont have their fingers in the SCG trust want these kind of events held away from the CBD.

They haven't even tried a swap, and they only need 3 votes. We don't know how members of the govt would react to a swap deal.

Plus the swap doesn't need to occur for a major stadium like previously proposed.
You could do it just for a 35k seat stadium & still have the major stadium at ANZ.

There's clear & common sense benefits to this.