What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

malleekid

Juniors
Messages
103
1. Refurbishment number one.
2. If they must insist on a rebuild stage the build, start in the carpark and on top of the existing roosters/aru headquarters. The venue can operate while they build 1/3 of the stadium next to it. Knock down the west first and operate out of the east only (I understand media/corporates/members). Just spit balling.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
I wouldn't be so sure. I think you'll see a split for premium events between the two stadiums; State of Origin and the NRL Grand Final would more than likely remain at Homebush, but I could see the major slice of Rugby Internationals (including the Bledisloe), Soccer Internationals and even Rugby League Internationals being hosted at Moore Park.

I'd say they would prefer internationals to be played out of the CBD rather than out west. A new SFS hosting Wallabies, Socceroos, and Kangaroos would be bigger tourism lure than playing out of Homebush.
 

cleary89

Coach
Messages
16,483
It def would. Most of the swans crowd head out in paddington after the game. What do you do after a night at ANZ? Drink midstrength from a plastic cup at the brewery?
 

Dogs Of War

Coach
Messages
12,721
It def would. Most of the swans crowd head out in paddington after the game. What do you do after a night at ANZ? Drink midstrength from a plastic cup at the brewery?

That's something that needs to be fixed at Homebush. With all the companies and residents moving there in sure it can support a new venue to drink at that has full strength alcohol
 

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
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.

Suburban grounds were never going to get this money (even if it was in the ARLCs power, they would have no reason to want to when the same $ investment in a better location could benefit more teams and more fans).

If Manly/Penrith/Shark want to remain in their decaying little grounds, they can. But they cant reasonably expect public money and they will just fall further behind the larger clubs.

(Sharks at least own their own ground, so staying put is something of an investment. Penrith and Manly dont have this same reaoning; just a self-righteous sense of entitlement)

The reason Manly and Penrith should be helping the ARLC meet their 65-game quota (how hard is it to move 2 games?!?!?!?!) is for a longer term self interest. The ARLC can help them if they get into financial trouble/top-up grants or be lenient on punishments for player/club indiscretions or even help them lobby for public funding at a later time (maybe for a CoE/training facility or help in negotiating tenancy deals by bringing in ARLC-controlled game or programs)

If these clubs stay on their moral high-horse and potentially cost RL these stadium deals, any goodwill between these clubs and the ARLC would be gone.

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

Campbelltown =/= CC or Wollongong...

The latter 2 are regional cities, the former is an outer suburb of the most RL rich city on the planet.

If Wollongong or the CC were abandoned, that would be a ridiculous decision. If the SW were to not get games, that would be an admission of the reality that major events are not meant for suburban areas with not central pubic location....
 
Messages
21,880
I'd say they would prefer internationals to be played out of the CBD rather than out west. A new SFS hosting Wallabies, Socceroos, and Kangaroos would be bigger tourism lure than playing out of Homebush.

They'll need to pay the ARU if they want to get that , at least for the Bledisloe.

FFA are in record as preferring more money go into ANZ too.
 
Messages
21,880
If Manly/Penrith/Shark want to remain in their decaying little grounds, they can. But they cant reasonably expect public money and they will just fall further behind the larger clubs.

(Sharks at least own their own ground, so staying put is something of an investment. Penrith and Manly dont have this same reaoning; just a self-righteous sense of entitlement)

The reason Manly and Penrith should be helping the ARLC meet their 65-game quota (how hard is it to move 2 games?!?!?!?!) is for a longer term self interest. The ARLC can help them if they get into financial trouble/top-up grants or be lenient on punishments for player/club indiscretions or even help them lobby for public funding at a later time (maybe for a CoE/training facility or help in negotiating tenancy deals by bringing in ARLC-controlled game or programs)

If these clubs stay on their moral high-horse and potentially cost RL these stadium deals, any goodwill between these clubs and the ARLC would be..


Few things ,

Penrith is hardly decaying , outside of Pirtek I'd say it's the next best loca ground.

Penrith have said they're willing to take some games to help the 65 game quota , but that quota seems to have gone out the window anyway. They are the only club of the three you mentioned who have said they will.

Panthers may not own Penrith park but given they derive a lot of match say revenue having the leagues club next door that's an issue.

But given the turn around in the clubs finances we'll be able to fund upgrades to the stadium anyway. The $22m devepment just opened was fully funded by the club.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
Suburban grounds were never going to get this money (even if it was in the ARLCs power, they would have no reason to want to when the same $ investment in a better location could benefit more teams and more fans).

If Manly/Penrith/Shark want to remain in their decaying little grounds, they can. But they cant reasonably expect public money and they will just fall further behind the larger clubs.

(Sharks at least own their own ground, so staying put is something of an investment. Penrith and Manly dont have this same reaoning; just a self-righteous sense of entitlement)

The reason Manly and Penrith should be helping the ARLC meet their 65-game quota (how hard is it to move 2 games?!?!?!?!) is for a longer term self interest. The ARLC can help them if they get into financial trouble/top-up grants or be lenient on punishments for player/club indiscretions or even help them lobby for public funding at a later time (maybe for a CoE/training facility or help in negotiating tenancy deals by bringing in ARLC-controlled game or programs)

If these clubs stay on their moral high-horse and potentially cost RL these stadium deals, any goodwill between these clubs and the ARLC would be gone.

Yeah ok, they should lose all goodwill from fans to get theoretical-maybe-sometime goodwill from the ARL. Sure. :lol:

Campbelltown =/= CC or Wollongong...

The latter 2 are regional cities, the former is an outer suburb of the most RL rich city on the planet.

If Wollongong or the CC were abandoned, that would be a ridiculous decision. If the SW were to not get games, that would be an admission of the reality that major events are not meant for suburban areas with not central pubic location....

Wests Tigers games aren't a major event, they're a local event. Not sure what reality you're living in.

Campbeltown and Wollongong are equivalent in that they're both getting smaller and smaller scraps of supposedly equal mergers as the years go on.

Central Coast is similar in that they're depending on other clubs taking games there, after repeat shaftings by the NRL.

All 3 sets of fans will see less games yet again if the NRL forces clubs to meet this 65 game quota.
 
Messages
15,227
But once it's gone it's gone and the city really lacks green space and that's why there will be significant push back from the locals and Clovers mob. A refurb is a sensible idea. The stadium isn't that old (hey I played on the field on opening day that wasn't that long ago, right? RIGHT?) and could be made genuinely excellent without too much thought with the existing bones.

Put a light rail up to the joint and it will be sensational.

I can't believe state govt aren't pushing for this as an option over the more expensive rebuild. Well when you look at who's involved on the SCG trust I can believe it.

They are doing that mate, easy access from Central.

http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/information/maps
 

JonnoM

Juniors
Messages
163
Let me get this right....
Ayres/Baird want a new stadium on the Allianz site
Roosters,Waratahs and Sydney FC do not want a new stadium on the Allianz site
SCG Trust do not want a new stadium on the Allianz site
Most Sydneysiders do not want a new stadium on the Allianz site.
BUT,the NSW Govt want to go ahead and build this monumental white elephant.

WTF is going on.

FFS,redevelop ANZ into the planned 75,000 seat proposal is the only logical answer that makes sense.
 

macavity

Referee
Messages
20,648
And it is important for Sydneys biggest and (ideally) best city to have world class entertainment facilities. But not at the cost of those who actually use it.

Just build it over the f**king lake and knock down the SFS afterwards

Sydney is at best the 4th best city in Australia.

Although Adelaide is quite lovely too.

Much bigger problems than stadiums, and no political will to fix them.
 

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
The waratahs snobbery is laughable. They wont play at homebush as they average 20-25k for the season and its too big while a new parra stadium at 35k is too small. Just own up and admit you hate western sydney folk. A 20k average for them is generous from what i have seen this year.
 

cleary89

Coach
Messages
16,483
Especially as its literally a day after pulver came out saying they want to get into public schools across sydney. Will always be an old boys game playing in the eastern suburbs.
 
Messages
21,880
Stadium war is over with ANZ to receive major upgrade
EXCLUSIVE


The great stadium war is over with a major upgrade of ANZ Stadium winning out over a new stadium at Moore Park.

Fairfax Media can reveal that state cabinet is expected to be told tomorrow that an upgrade of Parramatta Stadium will continue and ANZ Stadium will be refurbished after that and leftover funds will be used to refurbish Allianz Stadium.

Cross-section of the earlier upgrade plans for Allianz Stadium, a plan the SCG Trust and Sports Minister Stuart Ayres ...
Cross-section of the earlier upgrade plans for Allianz Stadium, a plan the SCG Trust and Sports Minister Stuart Ayres are now determined to avoid. Photo: SCG Trust
Political infighting between Premier Mike Baird and Sports Minister Stuart Ayres has brought the issue to a head with the premier freezing Mr Ayres out of negotiations since returning from Israel on Sunday.

Advertisement

Mr Baird will take control of Sydney's stadium negotiations after agreeing to meet with the three furious Allianz Stadium tenants, in another blow to the ambitions of the under-fire Sports Minister.

The Premier has also given Mr Ayres a Friday deadline to gain a 100-game commitment from the three football codes at the network of major stadiums, allowing Mr Baird to take control of the allocation of the $1.6 billion investment.

Premier Mike Baird and Sports Minister Stuart Ayres in September when they announced $1.6 billion in funding for ...
Premier Mike Baird and Sports Minister Stuart Ayres in September when they announced $1.6 billion in funding for stadiums over the next 10 years. Photo: Nick Moir
That allocation will be $350 million for a new stadium at Parramatta, $450 million for a refurbishment of Allianz Stadium and $700 million to turn ANZ Stadium into a permanent 75,000-seat rectangular stadium.

This is a victory for the Sydney-based NRL clubs, who have campaigned against the NRL and Ayres to ensure a shift of funding away from Allianz Stadium to Olympic Park.

The Sydney Roosters, NSW Waratahs and Sydney FC were seething on Monday after Mr Baird announced a new stadium at Moore Park would be built on the existing site, which the clubs allege is not the message Mr Ayres has been spreading.

The clubs, who insist Mr Ayres gave them multiple assurances they wouldn't be displaced, had sought an urgent meeting with Mr Ayres after plans to build a 55,000-seat stadium over Kippax Lake were quashed by the Premier.

However, Mr Baird has stepped in an attempt to solve the now farcical stadium dilemma, agreeing to meet with the clubs, which insist they will not compromise on a plan that involves having to be relocated during the construction of a new venue.

"We want to meet with the decision-maker, and it appears that is what is happening," Waratahs chairman Roger Davis told Fairfax Media.

"We're happy to listen and wait and we're encouraged that the key decision-makers have indicated they want to meet with us to work out what is best for the clubs, the community and the state. It's positive that people are willing to talk but we will not compromise on the fact that we must continue to have access to Allianz Stadium."

A spokesman for Mr Baird confirmed "the Premier is willing to meet the clubs, although no date has been arranged".

This is a major blow for Mr Ayres who, up until the past week, had control of negotiations with clubs, codes and venues about the allocation of the $1.6 billion. Mr Ayres, with the Sydney Cricket & Sports Ground Trust, who have championed a brand new stadium at Moore Park, to cost around $1 billion.





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/premier-m...&promote_channel=social_twitter#ixzz45hzNpehp
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
 

Latest posts

Top