The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[Perth Red]

Should have had the foresight to build the convention centre at Burswood and the stadium where the convention centre is.

Not enough room on the city foreshore for a big stadium and public access for 60k plus. Once upon a time they were going to build a 25k rectangular stadium where the Perth Arena is now. That would have been brilliant!

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Should have been built over the WACA and trotting ground sites at east end of the city but politics with cricket and I reckon some greasing by Crown has seen it just on the outskirts of city centre.
Direct one stop 5min train ride from city station or a walk over the fancy footbridge from the east perth pubs and cafes and Crown resort with bars and restaurant options next door so not too far away from drinks and food options. They are also building a brewery on site as part of the stadium development.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/m...ext-to-new-perth-stadium-20161218-gtdho1.html

Its a shame they didn't build a 35k rectangular stadium on the site as well to get all year round use of the facilities.

When i saw it across river, i thought it was out of town. I think i was wrong.

 

[herbert henry1908]

But they werent owned by the government then, and the government had no say. The only way they could have stepped in, was to buy out the lease like they did 2 years ago or to throw in more money than the AFL & Cricket did.
Which if you are blaming the government for that, then why not blame the NRL for not throwing money at SAG. God knows this place loves to blame Gallop for alot of stuff already.

It depends upon the terms of the lease.

But to suggest the only thing the govt could have done is buy out the lease is ridiculous.

Often under long term lease arrangements the owner of the property needs to give approval for major works. In this case it wasn’t even a long term lease, it was only medium term. I’m also the certain the govt would’ve need to sign off on major work.

 

[M2D2]

It depends upon the terms of the lease.

But to suggest the only thing the govt could have done is buy out the lease is ridiculous.

Often under long term lease arrangements the owner of the property needs to give approval for major works. In this case it wasn’t even a long term lease, it was only medium term. I’m also the certain the govt would’ve need to sign off on major work.

Considering that they HAD to buy the lease to get anything done at ANZ stadium this time because SAG didnt want to change the configuration and invest any more money into it, SAG were willing to NOT DO A THING to ANZ even with 15 years left of their lease...And a 30 year lease is not a 'medium term' lease.
Its not ridiculous at all. They (SAG) wanted to make it so AFL and Cricket could be played there due to them throwing money at it. For the Government to step in, they too would have had to throw money at it, the idea they would step in and go "no. you must become rectangular" would more than likely breach the terms of the lease and open the door for litigation..
And considering that AFL regular season games were getting more attendance at ANZ than NRL regular season games were, it was a wise business decision, even if you dont like it.

 

[El Diablo]

When i saw it across river, i thought it was out of town. I think i was wrong.

did condom head whinge about the WA Government spending $1.6 billion on a stadium there?

 

[El Diablo]

And considering that AFL regular season games were getting more attendance at ANZ than NRL regular season games were, it was a wise business decision, even if you dont like it.

the AFL only ever played 55 games there and 46 of those were regular season games

you're also an AFL groupie

 

[M2D2]

the AFL only ever played 55 games there and 46 of those were regular season games

you're also an AFL groupie

Back to the insults. This one is especially funny cause i havent gone to an AFL game in this millennia.

 

[El Diablo]

Back to the insults. This one is especially funny cause i havent gone to an AFL game in this millennia.

sure lol

 

[M2D2]

sure lol

Thats all you can do right?
Lol. Throw insults around. Because its clear to see that you derail after the facts arent on your side.
When someone brings up the fact that AFL regular season games got a higher attendance average than NRL regular seasons game, nah has nothing to do with facts that prove as far as SAG is concerned it was a good business idea. Nah, That person must love AFL. Even when they havent gone to an AFL game in this millenium and has only been to one game EVER, yet went to 20+ NRL games last season.

 

[OldPanther]

lol

wtf are you on about?

i guess i must have just imagined Soccer being played at the Olympics

fake news below

Very interesting conversation going on but this bit confuses me. @M2D2 said it wasn't built for rectangular sports which it wasn't. They have to cover the track to make it work and you just repeated that soccer played there.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Considering that they HAD to buy the lease to get anything done at ANZ stadium this time because SAG didnt want to change the configuration and invest any more money into it, SAG were willing to NOT DO A THING to ANZ even with 15 years left of their lease...And a 30 year lease is not a 'medium term' lease.
Its not ridiculous at all. They (SAG) wanted to make it so AFL and Cricket could be played there due to them throwing money at it. For the Government to step in, they too would have had to throw money at it, the idea they would step in and go "no. you must become rectangular" would more than likely breach the terms of the lease and open the door for litigation..
And considering that AFL regular season games were getting more attendance at ANZ than NRL regular season games were, it was a wise business decision, even if you dont like it.

Few things.

Stadium Australia group no longer owned the lease when the govt bought it back recently.

The lease was sold to ANZ stadiums from SAG, I know, I was one of the shareholders of SAG as an original member.

With a change of owner of the lease could’ve come a change of conditions of the lease.

But that’s not why the govt bought back the lease. They couldn’t politically spend $800m plus on something they didn’t own. It would’ve been even worse optics than what we have now.

30 years is absolutely a medium term lease in terms of commercial property management. If you want, it’s a medium length long term lease.

We can’t know what would’ve broken the lease. But the govt paying SAG not to go oval wouldn’t have resulted in litigation, it would’ve been a reasonable step to a) help Sydney’s main winter codes b) protect the commercial viability of the SCG.

AFL we’re only ever prepared to play 2-3 games there, cricket at that point perhaps only 1 game. The cost of covering this wouldn’t have been major at all. AFL’s crowds were not a big factor when so few games would be played there.

 

[M2D2]

Few things.

Stadium Australia group no longer owned the lease when the govt bought it back recently.

The lease was sold to ANZ stadiums from SAG, I know, I was one of the shareholders of SAG as an original member.

With a change of owner of the lease could’ve come a change of conditions of the lease.

But that’s not why the govt bought back the lease. They couldn’t politically spend $800m plus on something they didn’t own. It would’ve been even worse optics than what we have now.

30 years is absolutely a medium term lease in terms of commercial property management. If you want, it’s a medium length long term lease.

We can’t know what would’ve broken the lease. But the govt paying SAG not to go oval wouldn’t have resulted in litigation, it would’ve been a reasonable step to a) help Sydney’s main winter codes b) protect the commercial viability of the SCG.

AFL we’re only ever prepared to play 2-3 games there, cricket at that point perhaps only 1 game. The cost of covering this wouldn’t have been major at all. AFL’s crowds were not a big factor when so few games would be played there.

Yeah the Government would have had to pay, i literally said that. The Goverment was not going to do that and they shouldnt have to the only people that could have stopped it enabling oval games there was NRL who didnt throw any money at it.
They (the government) had no say in saying what should or shouldnt be done to the stadium at the time without throwing in money. Them to (use a wally term) try and dictate terms would not have gone down well little over a year into the lease and i honestly wouldnt be surprised if it cost less to do keep it oval than it would have been to make it rectangular seeing as how it was already an oval.
We all would have preferred making it rectangular. But they didnt. And considering the attendances AFL got compared to the NRL teams. It was a smart business decision for them.
Money talks.

 

[Mr Angry]

When i saw it across river, i thought it was out of town. I think i was wrong.

No you where not, like getting to the Gabba from the CBD, or Moore Park. Not in the CBD but not that far either.

I spent a year in Perth, Mounts Bay Rd under Jacobs Ladder, beautiful place, but the ground near the Casino is a beautiful spot, not in the CBD.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Yeah the Government would have had to pay, i literally said that. The Goverment was not going to do that and they shouldnt have to the only people that could have stopped it enabling oval games there was NRL who didnt throw any money at it.
They (the government) had no say in saying what should or shouldnt be done to the stadium at the time without throwing in money. Them to (use a wally term) try and dictate terms would not have gone down well little over a year into the lease and i honestly wouldnt be surprised if it cost less to do keep it oval than it would have been to make it rectangular seeing as how it was already an oval.
We all would have preferred making it rectangular. But they didnt. And considering the attendances AFL got compared to the NRL teams. It was a smart business decision for them.
Money talks.

You originally said the only way to do it was buy out the lease. That was wrong. Compensation was likely an option.

The NRL at the time couldn’t rub two bob together, they had no money.

You keep saying “considering the attendances the AFL got”, but it’s not like the AFL were ever prepared to commit a whole season there. The major tenants were still overwhelmingly rectangular codes. Something like a 5 to 1 ratio.

Govt by compensating stadium Australia wouldn’t have just benefited the rectangular codes, it also would’ve protected the commercial viability of the SCG. A stadium which they effectively own through a trust.

It would’ve made a lot of sense from the governments perspective to keep all Oval sports at the SCG. It would’ve made any further investment in the ground much easier to justify.

 

[M2D2]

You originally said the only way to do it was buy out the lease. That was wrong. Compensation was likely an option.

The NRL at the time couldn’t rub two bob together, they had no money.

You keep saying “considering the attendances the AFL got”, but it’s not like the AFL were ever prepared to commit a whole season there. The major tenants were still overwhelmingly rectangular codes. Something like a 5 to 1 ratio.

Govt by compensating stadium Australia wouldn’t have just benefited the rectangular codes, it also would’ve protected the commercial viability of the SCG. A stadium which they effectively own through a trust.

It would’ve made a lot of sense from the governments perspective to keep all Oval sports at the SCG. It would’ve made any further investment in the ground much easier to justify.

No. I didnt.

But they werent owned by the government then, and the government had no say. The only way they could have stepped in, was to buy out the lease like they did 2 years ago or to throw in more money than the AFL & Cricket did.
Which if you are blaming the government for that, then why not blame the NRL for not throwing money at SAG. God knows this place loves to blame Gallop for alot of stuff already.

Nice try though.
AFL STILL threw more money at SAG than anybody else did, especially when AFL threw money at SAG, when SAG was throwing money at NRL clubs to play there and AFL with that 1 game had more attendance and produced more profit for them than ANY of the NRL games.
Let me repeat that once again. Per game for regular season games. They made more money from AFL than NRL, adding onto their investment into the redevelopment.
It made perfect business sense. It still does.
Youre whole argument that the Government should have thrown money at it was never ever going to happen not a year into a 30 year lease. Thats literally throwing money away in a bidding war with 2 sporting codes, one of which probably did it just to be spiteful.
The idea that you want to blame the government for SAG's decisions especially after you claiming you were a shareholder of SAG and probably made money off said decisions is hilarious.
Especially when a liberal government turned down ANZ selling back the lease 2 years before they did, for half the price.

 

[El Diablo]

they gave them f**k all you AFL stooge

two lots of $500k and they were only loans

 

[M2D2]

they gave them f**k all you AFL stooge

two lots of $500k and they were only loans

There we go with the AFL insults again, its like you literally have nothing else after getting rekt over and over and over again. Perth Red offers more intelligent discourse and legitimate points than you.
How sad you must be that Perth Red of all people is better than you.
Especially when AFL regular season games made more money for SAG than any Regular season NRL games. The 1 million loan claim, which i wont even get into how much DOUBT that whole claim is. Is still more than NRL offered. Which was Zero.
No matter how you swing it.
They made a correct business decision. Sucked for us going to NRL games at ANZ. But it is what it is.

 

[Perth Red]

No you where not, like getting to the Gabba from the CBD, or Moore Park. Not in the CBD but not that far either.

I spent a year in Perth, Mounts Bay Rd under Jacobs Ladder, beautiful place, but the ground near the Casino is a beautiful spot, not in the CBD.

No its not walking distance from cbd, but is 5min one stop train ride and enough within walking distance that there will be plenty of food and drink options before and after game. It is a great spot perched on the banks of the Swan and is very impressive when driving down Graham Farmer Freeway. Cant wait to see the Dbl Header there in March.

 

[El Diablo]

Sucked for us

lol

funny stuff coming from an AFL troll

 

[Perth Red]

You originally said the only way to do it was buy out the lease. That was wrong. Compensation was likely an option.

The NRL at the time couldn’t rub two bob together, they had no money.

You keep saying “considering the attendances the AFL got”, but it’s not like the AFL were ever prepared to commit a whole season there. The major tenants were still overwhelmingly rectangular codes. Something like a 5 to 1 ratio.

Govt by compensating stadium Australia wouldn’t have just benefited the rectangular codes, it also would’ve protected the commercial viability of the SCG. A stadium which they effectively own through a trust.

It would’ve made a lot of sense from the governments perspective to keep all Oval sports at the SCG. It would’ve made any further investment in the ground much easier to justify.

NRL's stupidity for playing games there. If the clubs and NRL had refused to use it till reconfigured it would have been done straight after the games.