The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[Cumberland Throw]

Lang patk kdr cost $280m

These costings are a joke

From memory it cost $600m to build anz from scratch

How would it cost $750 m for a new seat grading and a roof

 

[Desert Qlder]

If I had a penny for every time I have read how much the Perth stadium cost...

 

[Perth Red]

Lang patk kdr cost $280m

These costings are a joke

From memory it cost $600m to build anz from scratch

How would it cost $750 m for a new seat grading and a roof

Building costs have gone through the roof, excuse the pun, in this country since then. Check out costs of most recent stadiums
2016 Perth 62,500 $1billion
2014 NIB 15,000 refurb $125million
2014 Adelaide 53,000 $610million
2010 AAMI 30,000 $268 million

There's another penny for you DQ lol

 

[beave]

Lang patk kdr cost $280m

These costings are a joke

From memory it cost $600m to build anz from scratch

How would it cost $750 m for a new seat grading and a roof

The Olympic stadium was built during the mid to late '90s (as I'm sure you know mate)

That is nearly 20 years ago, inflation and all that jazz.

 

[BlueandGold]

While it's likely new stadium plans will also sit over Kippax Lake, Sydney lord mayor Clover Moore insists there will be plenty of resistance to such a proposal. "It's incomprehensible that the government would waste $1.2 billion in the city when Allianz rarely gets anywhere near its current capacity and the rugby league clubs and the wider Sydney community say the investment's urgently needed in the west," Moore said. "I agree with them. If the NSW government attempts to build a new stadium over Kippax Lake and Moore Park, I can promise the community will fight it all the way. Six years ago, the previous Labor government tried something similar and they were soundly defeated – with the support of the current prime minister."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...an-grounds-20160408-go20im.html#ixzz45Enf06TV
​

There is no way this Moore park Stadium is going ahead...:lol::lol:

 

[herbert henry1908]

There's a reason Mike Baird engaged the clubs on this decision , he could've easily gone with the proposal of his minister but he delayed it to get the clubs input.

Its always possible that they could go against the clubs , but to go against them twice? Doubtful.

Hell they didn't even bother engaging the FFA & ARU in an official way , only the NRL.

I know we're used to getting burnt but I have a feeling the premier is going to make the smarter choice , after all there's a lot more votes in the west.

 

[blukablu]

This whole thing seems so shady.

 

[CC_Roosters]

There's a reason Mike Baird engaged the clubs on this decision , he could've easily gone with the proposal of his minister but he delayed it to get the clubs input.

Its always possible that they could go against the clubs , but to go against them twice? Doubtful.

Hell they didn't even bother engaging the FFA & ARU in an official way , only the NRL.

I know we're used to getting burnt but I have a feeling the premier is going to make the smarter choice , after all there's a lot more votes in the west.

My thoughts too. They did reject the suburban allocation proposal by the clubs but that was probably fair enough.

 

[Parraren]

Never thought I'd agree with anything coming out of Clover's mouth.

Smartest thing she's ever said.

 

[big hit!]

I doubt they could pull down ANZ interior and sink the pitch, rebuild the stands and put a full retractable roof on for $600mill. That's only $8.3k a seat which is very little by stadium building standards.

perhaps some of the builders and tradies leaguies who work on the job could drive out of their mansions in oatlands in their shiny maloo utes and opt to take a bit less pay for their work on the joint. afterall, the biggest cost to construction projects in this country is ridiculous cost of labour. most other countries can build these things much cheaper for this reason.

:lol: nahhh!!!!

btw, a closing roof should be the lowest priority. get the roof line out to cover the lower tier seats, but a closing roof is surely a luxury it wouldn't really be a great addition if the rest of it is still shit.

 

[herbert henry1908]

btw, a closing roof should be the lowest priority. get the roof line out to cover the lower tier seats, but a closing roof is surely a luxury it wouldn't really be a great addition if the rest of it is still shit.

Closing roof isn't just about footy , ANZ are going to need a revenue source in summer. That's concerts.

Heavy rain can cause their cancellation.

The roof would easily pay for itself.

Plus when it rains in Sydney it doesn't just come straight down , we typically get heavy rain & wind.

 

[Crippler]

I have seen no mention of how long ANZ stadium would be out of service while these redevelopments take place?

Would it be years?

 

[seanoff]

I have seen no mention of how long ANZ stadium would be out of service while these redevelopments take place?

Would it be years?

Yes

 

[herbert henry1908]

It's possible they could do it in stages , but then again if Parra gets built first probably not much point.

I'd presume they'd start work immediately at the end of a footy season , which would probably limit the disruption for the NRL to two seasons.

 

[TheFrog]

Parramatta Stadium opened almost exactly 30 years ago. It is about in the middle of its useful life. The SFS opened in 1988, and Stadium Australia was built for the Olympics, and is only about 17 years old.

So why is the Baird Liberal Government throwing all this public money at infrastructure that is nowhere near its use-by date? Because Liberal governments love to build infrastructure for the people? Or because they want to enrich their party benefactors, and most particularly the SCG Trust? The answer without doubt is the latter.

Parramatta I can sort of understand but honestly I wouldn't be doing it if it were my money. They now have a successful Wanderers as tenants, but really I wonder what sort of crowds this team can expect when they have a lean trot. The Eels got 15,600 for the local derby last week, with a team that for the first time in years looks like having a good year. They don't appear to need a 35,000 stadium.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Parramatta Stadium opened almost exactly 30 years ago. It is about in the middle of its useful life. The SFS opened in 1988, and Stadium Australia was built for the Olympics, and is only about 17 years old.

So why is the Baird Liberal Government throwing all this public money at infrastructure that is nowhere near its use-by date? Because Liberal governments love to build infrastructure for the people? Or because they want to enrich their party benefactors, and most particularly the SCG Trust? The answer without doubt is the latter.

Parramatta I can sort of understand but honestly I wouldn't be doing it if it were my money. They now have a successful Wanderers as tenants, but really I wonder what sort of crowds this team can expect when they have a lean trot. The Eels got 15,600 for the local derby last week, with a team that for the first time in years looks like having a good year. They don't appear to need a 35,000 stadium.

I would hope it's because ANZ was poorly designed for the post Olympics needs.

We have one of the most competitive rectangular sporting markets in the world and all of our stadiums are compromised.

Allianz was poorly designed from the beginning , virtually no weather protection which has never been properly rectified. It also gave up way too much space for trust members.

ANZ as I previously stated attempted to be a jack of all trades , but ended up being a master of none. It's a highly compromised stadium in terms of viewing site lines.

We're a world city with a competing sports market , we should have at least one world class stadium.

 

[adamkungl]

So, with the NRL shooting down any suburban upgrades, answer me this.

Why should the outer suburban clubs sacrifice home games, against their fans wishes, for the "greater good" of which they'll never see any benefit?

If the NRL want this to get across they should do it without Cronulla and Manly. I understand Penrith are happy to move some.

Probably means the Central Coast, Campbeltown, Wollongong get shafted, but that's par for the course.

Maybe they can pull the 65 game requirement down to 60

 

[Frank Discussion]

So, with the NRL shooting down any suburban upgrades, answer me this.

Why should the outer suburban clubs sacrifice home games, against their fans wishes, for the "greater good" of which they'll never see any benefit?

If the NRL want this to get across they should do it without Cronulla and Manly. I understand Penrith are happy to move some.

I agree with this 100%

 

[T-Boon]

AdamKungle, what about if those clubs (Cronulla, Manly) get compensated in some way?

 

[Frank Discussion]

AdamKungle, what about if those clubs (Cronulla, Manly) get compensated in some way?

The fans and sponsors don't get compensation.

As a sharks fan I have no interest in losing home games so that the roosters/dogs/Souths get stadium upgrades.