The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[i0Nic]

On top of all this, it gives the perception that afl is the premier sport in qld as it has the fancy new oval and by 2032 Suncorp will be tired and busted - which is where nrl play

watch all the fumblers crow on about this. They are already going on about how afl is taking over qld. They will love gloating that ‘if nrl is so popular why does afl have a brand new 60k stadium and nrl has a 30 year old 55k stadium’

 

[Perth Red]

On top of all this, it gives the perception that afl is the premier sport in qld as it has the fancy new oval and by 2032 Suncorp will be tired and busted - which is where nrl play

watch all the fumblers crow on about this

lol sounds like a legit consideration when deciding how to spend billions of $'s to host an Olympics.

Looking on the positive, it seems not much can be done to Suncorp so at least there will be a suitable venue for Broncos and Dolphins to play at when they eventually pull Suncorp down to build a new 70k rectangular stadium.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

On top of all this, it gives the perception that afl is the premier sport in qld as it has the fancy new oval and by 2032 Suncorp will be tired and busted - which is where nrl play

watch all the fumblers crow on about this. They are already going on about how afl is taking over qld. They will love gloating that ‘if nrl is so popular why does afl have a brand new 60k stadium and nrl has a 30 year old 55k stadium’

You and wbswannies are the only ones talking about fumbleball.

 

[Perth Red]

No you are confabulating two different things
1: Brisbane needs a showpiece Olympic venue
2. That venue needs to be round for the athletics.

they are not linked. As I already said many times but you refuse to acknowledge look at Paris and LA for examples

Paris Olympic stadium was 81k
LA's will be 77k

chalk and cheese to what you are suggesting Brisbane offers up.

 

[Steel Saints]

I can see both sides of it. Build a new 60k stadium for the Olympics so that you could showcase the event and the city to the world. And perhaps boost tourism post Olympics.

However when the Games are done, which oval sporting events will attract 60k on an annual basis? It requires the Lions and Heat to be really good.

 

[Perth Red]

I can see both sides of it. Build a new 60k stadium for the Olympics so that you could showcase the event and the city to the world. And perhaps boost tourism post Olympics.

However when the Games are done, which oval sporting events will attract 60k on an annual basis? It requires the Lions and Heat to be really good.

Hard to say what will happen over the life of the stadium. If youd have said 20 years ago a version of one day cricket would get 30k crowds you'd have been laughed at.

One downside I can see for RL is it could open the door for AFL to put another team in brisbane as club 20. Though given the GWS experiment Im not sure theyd be that keen?

 

[Steel Saints]

Hard to say what will happen over the life of the stadium. If youd have said 20 years ago a version of one day cricket would get 30k crowds you'd have been laughed at.

One downside I can see for RL is it could open the door for AFL to put another team in brisbane as club 20. Though given the GWS experiment Im not sure theyd be that keen?

You could also add the Gold Coast Suns experiment down the road too. If there is a second Brisbane team, that might effect the Suns.

In Olympics these days, there is alot of temporary infrastructure been built. An example is the swimming. In Paris it was held in La Defense Arena, an indoor rugby union, multipurpose facility.In LA, Sofi Stadium will host the swimming.

Maybe what Brisbane could do with the main stadium is have 60k for the Olympics and then reduce it to 45k or 50k after the event is over. Homebush was 110k, then downsized to 83k.

 

[i0Nic]

It's up to the QLD government to get creative with this, the beautiful timing of it is that the IOC are encouraging or even requesting host cities find ways to host the games sustainably.

So we saw Paris use a 30 year old stadium to host the athletics, and they used the city itself to host the opening ceremony. They imaginatively used the choice in venue location to showcase the city, building lots of temporary venues.

We're seeing LA take sports out of LA, and even out of California. They're not building any substantial new venues.

Both of the cities are spending money ensuring that:
1 - Their cities are shown in the best light
2- They're not building venues that are not needed long term, instead focusing the spend on infrastructure
3 - They're challenging the 'history' / legacy of how games have been hosted before, ie the 'Olympic stadium' does not need to be the athletics stadium, and the opening ceremony doesn't even need to be in a stadium

Why can't Brisbane think outside the box and deliver on these 3 points as well? Why do we have to go back to the old school approach of hosting a games, that the IOC are actively wanting to move away from?

 

[i0Nic]

If we end up with a 60k oval that costs 4B you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be no significant upgrades to Suncorp let alone a new rectangular stadium till post 2040 at earliest.

This will mean that the NRL will definitely move some games to the new oval - Origin, etc. This is a bad outcome.

Some here have tried to claim Accor as successful because we hold the GF and origin there. Hello - we have no other choice. We have to make it work. Accor is used not because it's great but because it's the only large venue in the city.

 

[i0Nic]

Brisbane could be a catalyst of real change for the Olympics and set a new standard of how a city can host it, and for the IOC that could mean renewed interest in cities wanting to host it which has fallen off a cliff. In fact that's why Brisbane was chosen to begin with, a 2nd tier world city without the profile or GDP of cities like Beijing, Tokyo or Paris, that would host it without spending gazillions.

If they build a 4B oval not only is it damaging the premier sporting code of the state and creating a huge hole in taxpayers wallet, but it even sets a dangerous precedent for the Olympics continuing the narrative that the IOC want to move away from, which is you need to spend billions on white elephant stadiums.

 

[Perth Red]

You could also add the Gold Coast Suns experiment down the road too. If there is a second Brisbane team, that might effect the Suns.

In Olympics these days, there is alot of temporary infrastructure been built. An example is the swimming. In Paris it was held in La Defense Arena, an indoor rugby union, multipurpose facility.In LA, Sofi Stadium will host the swimming.

Maybe what Brisbane could do with the main stadium is have 60k for the Olympics and then reduce it to 45k or 50k after the event is over. Homebush was 110k, then downsized to 83k.

Why would you though? Whats the benefit of downsizing it? For big concerts etc the bigger the better. Dont see any logic in spening lots of money to make something smaller.

 

[Trifili13]

Just laughing at people always saying the AFL mob are triggered when the NRL is shown in a better light than their game but the same people are now triggered because the QLD government might build an oval instead of upgrading Suncorp. Personally don't care what they do so long as it's economically viable and the grand kids of current taxpayer are not lumbered with paying the games off.

 

[Perth Red]

It's up to the QLD government to get creative with this, the beautiful timing of it is that the IOC are encouraging or even requesting host cities find ways to host the games sustainably.

So we saw Paris use a 30 year old stadium to host the athletics, and they used the city itself to host the opening ceremony. They imaginatively used the choice in venue location to showcase the city, building lots of temporary venues.

We're seeing LA take sports out of LA, and even out of California. They're not building any substantial new venues.

Both of the cities are spending money ensuring that:
1 - Their cities are shown in the best light
2- They're not building venues that are not needed long term, instead focusing the spend on infrastructure
3 - They're challenging the 'history' / legacy of how games have been hosted before, ie the 'Olympic stadium' does not need to be the athletics stadium, and the opening ceremony doesn't even need to be in a stadium

Why can't Brisbane think outside the box and deliver on these 3 points as well? Why do we have to go back to the old school approach of hosting a games, that the IOC are actively wanting to move away from?

Paris was a high quality 80k stadium already. It didnt need major upgrades because it was Olympic ready.
LA is a 77k stadium, it is getting a few hundred mill for corporate upgrades but is Olympic size.
Gabba isnt, not even close.

If anything is to be learnt, and cutting costs really is a goal, it is dont award the rights to a city without an olympic sized stadium already there.

 

[i0Nic]

Just laughing at people always saying the AFL mob are triggered when the NRL is shown in a better light than their game but the same people are now triggered because the QLD government might build an oval instead of upgrading Suncorp. Personally don't care what they do so long as it's economically viable and the grand kids of current taxpayer are not lumbered with paying the games off.

But that's exactly it - it's NOT 'economically viable' to spend 4B of tax payer money for an oval where a venue that is getting sold out on regular basis languishes. Just to appease AFL so they get shiny new venues across the country and cricket gets to have a couple games there a year.

And it does risk that the grand kids will still be paying it off.

That's exactly my point.

How many Lions sellouts will be needed to recoup 4B, can someone do the math on that?

 

[i0Nic]

I can try to convince myself to buy a shiny new RAM for $200k and justify to my wife it's economically viable because we need it for the yearly camping trip with our friends, while our day to day Mazda CX8 that she uses every single day becomes a rust bucket. And then in a few more years when the Mazda is falling apart and we can't afford to upgrade it I can turn around and say hey at least we got to show off the RAM to our neighbours.

 

[Perth Red]

But that's exactly it - it's NOT 'economically viable' to spend 4B of tax payer money for an oval where a venue that is getting sold out on regular basis languishes. Just to appease AFL so they get shiny new venues across the country and cricket gets to have a couple games there a year.

And it does risk that the grand kids will still be paying it off.

That's exactly my point.

How many Lions sellouts will be needed to recoup 4B, can someone do the math on that?

Gabba will need replacing, if not now in a few years. So your idea is to spend $2bill on a temp stadium at QASC, then spend a few more bill replacing the Gabba anyway in the not too distant future? All so Suncorp can get 5k extra seats?
Makes sense.

 

[i0Nic]

Gabba will need replacing, if not now in a few years. So your idea is to spend $2bill on a temp stadium at QASC, then spend a few more bill replacing the Gabba anyway in the not too distant future? All so Suncorp can get 5k extra seats?
Makes sense.

No, my idea is to spend 1-2B on a new oval or oval upgrade. Not 4B. This would be used for athletics and Lions ongoing.

This would be achieved with a more modest upgrades or a more modest new stadium in a location that doesn't need full infrastructure build like Vic Park. A 50k upgraded Gabba or QSAC would be my recommendation. Or find somewhere to build a Commbank-style 60k oval that could be easily dismantled or downgraded for 1-2b.

All these proposal I've seen are 3-4-5B huge ass fancy ovals with the purpose to 'show off' Brisbane. These proposals are calling for demolishing venues (Gabba) or building brand new venues in areas without roads/transport etc that would all have to be built (Vic Park)

Start with the budget and work backwards. Rather than starting with the goal of 'we don't want to embarass ourselves on the world stage so lets spend many billions on something we don't really need that's going to set back other things we actually need'

Is it that hard to comprehend?

 

[Perth Red]

No, my idea is to spend 1-2B on a new oval or oval upgrade. Not 4B. This would be used for athletics and Lions ongoing.

This would be achieved with a more modest upgrades or a more modest new stadium in a location that doesn't need full infrastructure build like Vic Park. A 50k upgraded Gabba or QSAC would be my recommendation. Or find somewhere to build a Commbank-style 60k oval that could be easily dismantled or downgraded for 1-2b.

All these proposal I've seen are 3-4-5B huge ass fancy ovals with the purpose to 'show off' Brisbane. These proposals are calling for demolishing venues (Gabba) or building brand new venues in areas without roads/transport etc that would all have to be built (Vic Park)

Start with the budget and work backwards. Rather than starting with the goal of 'we don't want to embarass ourselves on the world stage so lets spend many billions on something we don't really need that's going to set back other things we actually need'

Is it that hard to comprehend?

You cant build an Olympic stadium for $1-2bill. All of the upgrades or replacement of Gabba in the link I posted where well over $2bill. This is done by people who actually know what they are talking about!

https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/85356/gabba-stadium-redevelopment-project-validation-report.pdf

 

[i0Nic]

Just look at these supposedly 'economically viable' proposals put forward:



Why not build a more budget style 50k modern oval in the style of Commbank for 1-2B instead of 4b? It will still 'look good' and be a modern serving stadium for Lions and cricket well into the future.

 

[i0Nic]

I can guarantee you can build a Commbank style 50k stadium for under 2B.

But it might not be as fancy as these proposals above or quite as large (neither of which is needed long term, other than a short wankfest for the games)