The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[M2D2]

Ok accept for you

My big problem is that SCG trust has rushed the SFS rebuilt to be ahead of ANZ, in a way to not allow the labor government (that will most likely elected in 2 years) to take the SFS rebuild completely off the table. Despite it needed something done to it to make it more attendance friendly. Like a f**kING Roof.
In doing so they have ensured for 2 years more money for them with rent on the SCG to them. And the fans have to deal with that shit. Because of the f**king corrupt SCG trust getting their fingers in this plan as made it that BOTH wont happen now.
Im not alone on this, if you honestly think that the only reason that people dont like this plan, is because of money alone, then you need to get out of whatever echo chamber you are in.
The NRL going along with it, does not indicate they think its a good deal. And even if they did. The same leaders thought that Thursday Night Football and Friday 6PM were good plans.

 

[Perth Red]

Not NRL, except WCC but Headingly South and main Stand is now under construction. Will make a massive difference to the stadium.

 

[unforgiven]

My big problem is that SCG trust has rushed the SFS rebuilt to be ahead of ANZ, in a way to not allow the labor government (that will most likely elected in 2 years) to take the SFS rebuild completely off the table. Despite it needed something done to it to make it more attendance friendly. Like a f**kING Roof.
In doing so they have ensured for 2 years more money for them with rent on the SCG to them. And the fans have to deal with that shit. Because of the f**king corrupt SCG trust getting their fingers in this plan as made it that BOTH wont happen now.
Im not alone on this, if you honestly think that the only reason that people dont like this plan, is because of money alone, then you need to get out of whatever echo chamber you are in.
The NRL going along with it, does not indicate they think its a good deal. And even if they did. The same leaders thought that Thursday Night Football and Friday 6PM were good plans.

I'm actually disappointed that the SFS is being done first, but that is what happens in a negotiating there are compromises, and that it is one that I think is acceptable if the government follows through on their promises. It's ok if you don't like it and I can definitely understand that if you are a Roosters supporter as it means playing regular season games at the SCG and would be a massive disappointment, I know I have not enjoyed the Tigers games they took to the ground in the past. Though the Roosters themselves have come out in favour of the rebuild.

The largest backlash against the stadium deal is not coming from football or sport supporters it is coming from the general public so the vast majority of people against the stadiums are not against it because the SFS is being done first, they are against it because they see as it too much to spend on sport and would prefer to see the money spent elsewhere which is a largely misguided view as well.

I also can not say that the compliance issue is not a real issue and neither can you, maybe it was just really good timing and allowed the SCG trust to get their way, I don't know but there are genuine problems with the SFS and if these concerns a real, safety should probably come before creating a better viewing experience.

I actually love watching footy at the SFS, my favourite ground to watch footy at other than Leichhardt and really enjoyed the years the Tigers used it as a home ground.

 

[TheFrog]

the vast majority of people against the stadiums are not against it because the SFS is being done first, they are against it because they see as it too much to spend on sport and would prefer to see the money spent elsewhere which is a largely misguided view as well.

They are against it because it is not yet 30 years old, and the problems it has could be fixed while spending far less public money. The same applies to Stadium Australia (not yet 20 years old) and Parramatta (too late now but it was also only 30 years old). While at the same time schools and hospitals are far more dilapidated.

I doubt too many object to money being spent on sport, any more than opera or art, but most would prefer it went to the grassroots, rather than the top end which already has a turnover in the billions, and which probably should be contributing to the cost of its venues out of that turnover.

There is no way you can argue that the ground is not a risk for terrorism, it has one main exit to the ground, it is a bottle neck to get out which is a huge problem when dealing with terrorism issues.

If the Sydney Football Stadium, opened in 1988, is a terrorism risk, what then is Town Hall station, opened in 1932? And which one needs addressing more urgently?

 

[Cherry_poppins]

They needed to just upgrade the 2 big ones for cheap as chips while fixing up boutique stadiums so we don't end up in a situation of homelessness like the AFL have

 

[unforgiven]

They needed to just upgrade the 2 big ones for cheap as chips while fixing up boutique stadiums so we don't end up in a situation of homelessness like the AFL have

Was never going to happen, the government has stated many times that they will not be upgrading stadiums they do not own.

 

[Cherry_poppins]

Well they own blottoland but due to its socially elite area in a bogan state they're afraid to touch it

 

[unforgiven]

They are against it because it is not yet 30 years old, and the problems it has could be fixed while spending far less public money. The same applies to Stadium Australia (not yet 20 years old) and Parramatta (too late now but it was also only 30 years old). While at the same time schools and hospitals are far more dilapidated.

How do you fix the access issues to the SFS?

Stadium Australia was just poorly designed from the start, you can not fix those problems

I doubt too many object to money being spent on sport, any more than opera or art, but most would prefer it went to the grassroots, rather than the top end which already has a turnover in the billions, and which probably should be contributing to the cost of its venues out of that turnover.

Which Australian sport has a turnover of a billion $?

 

[unforgiven]

Well they own blottoland but due to its socially elite area in a bogan state they're afraid to touch it

No they don't

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I doubt too many object to money being spent on sport, any more than opera or art, but most would prefer it went to the grassroots, rather than the top end which already has a turnover in the billions, and which probably should be contributing to the cost of its venues out of that turnover.

rent

 

[Cherry_poppins]

No they don't

Council rents it
Councils are part of the government

 

[unforgiven]

rent

or content for those venues

Council rents it
Councils are part of the government

They are a different tier of government with their own budgets, liabilities and assets. The local council is exactly who the state government expects to pay for brookvale.

 

[Captain Apollo]

I'm actually disappointed that the SFS is being done first, but that is what happens in a negotiating there are compromises, and that it is one that I think is acceptable if the government follows through on their promises. It's ok if you don't like it and I can definitely understand that if you are a Roosters supporter as it means playing regular season games at the SCG and would be a massive disappointment, I know I have not enjoyed the Tigers games they took to the ground in the past. Though the Roosters themselves have come out in favour of the rebuild.

The largest backlash against the stadium deal is not coming from football or sport supporters it is coming from the general public so the vast majority of people against the stadiums are not against it because the SFS is being done first, they are against it because they see as it too much to spend on sport and would prefer to see the money spent elsewhere which is a largely misguided view as well.

I also can not say that the compliance issue is not a real issue and neither can you, maybe it was just really good timing and allowed the SCG trust to get their way, I don't know but there are genuine problems with the SFS and if these concerns a real, safety should probably come before creating a better viewing experience.

I actually love watching footy at the SFS, my favourite ground to watch footy at other than Leichhardt and really enjoyed the years the Tigers used it as a home ground.

There was no negotiation on this. Fact is ANZ was going to be done first and only then, any left over money was to be spent on the SFS. That was the plan. It changed though because of Stuart Ayres.

Once Mike Baird quit as Premier, Ayres began working behind the scenes to overtunr the agreement. I mean he had handled it that badly in the first place, Baird as Premier took the whole issue off his hands.

Ayres was the one pushing the SCG Trust's plan for a new stadium to be built over Kippax Lake, on land the SCG Trust does not control. Ayres was behind it all the way. If he could, he would have given the trust what they wanted. I mean why else do you think the Tibby Cotter Bridge was built?

With Baird out of the picture, and Berejiklian not as passionate about sport, Ayres began working to overturn it. He talkedf Berejiklian into throwing more money into the project so both stadiums could be done. He was the one who then pushed for the SFS to be done first.

So if you want to talk about "negotiating", that is only suiccessful if both sides stick to what they agreed. Ayres is the one who changed the paramaters.

On a final note, considering Ayres is also the Minister for WestConnex, it is no surprise he has the average member of the public outraged over this. The guy is a snake oil saleman, and everyone knows it.

 

[Perth Red]

Do stadiums return their capital expense in income from useage? Putting aside benefits to the city from sports tourism, how many years does it take to recoup $1.2 billion stadium cost?

 

[Yosemite Sam]

My big problem is that SCG trust has rushed the SFS rebuilt to be ahead of ANZ, in a way to not allow the labor government (that will most likely elected in 2 years) to take the SFS rebuild completely off the table. Despite it needed something done to it to make it more attendance friendly. Like a f**kING Roof..

You are kidding yourself if you think the ALP is going to be elected in the near future, especially with Foley in charge. The current government hasn't been perfect, but they have overseen an incredibly successful period for NSW as far as infrastructure is concerned. Sydney is staring to boom again after a long period of lull.

With the amount of projects scheduled for completion in the next few years before the election, there is zero chance Labor will be getting anywhere near a majority vote for a change of government.

The stadiums are safe, both will be done as per plan. Give it 6 months and all this scare talk will have died in the arse.

 

[POPEYE]

The f**king scare talk is that stadiums will be built in favour of meaningful spending

 

[TheFrog]

Was never going to happen, the government has stated many times that they will not be upgrading stadiums they do not own.

What this means is that teams who use the big venues and their supporters are subsidised by those who use other venues, which have to be maintained (generally) through council rates. So you pay rates to maintain your local team's ground, and you also contribute to the big venues through state taxes which everyone pays. This is far from equitable.

 

[unforgiven]

There was no negotiation on this. Fact is ANZ was going to be done first and only then, any left over money was to be spent on the SFS. That was the plan. It changed though because of Stuart Ayres.

Once Mike Baird quit as Premier, Ayres began working behind the scenes to overtunr the agreement. I mean he had handled it that badly in the first place, Baird as Premier took the whole issue off his hands.

Ayres was the one pushing the SCG Trust's plan for a new stadium to be built over Kippax Lake, on land the SCG Trust does not control. Ayres was behind it all the way. If he could, he would have given the trust what they wanted. I mean why else do you think the Tibby Cotter Bridge was built?

With Baird out of the picture, and Berejiklian not as passionate about sport, Ayres began working to overturn it. He talkedf Berejiklian into throwing more money into the project so both stadiums could be done. He was the one who then pushed for the SFS to be done first.

So if you want to talk about "negotiating", that is only suiccessful if both sides stick to what they agreed. Ayres is the one who changed the paramaters.

On a final note, considering Ayres is also the Minister for WestConnex, it is no surprise he has the average member of the public outraged over this. The guy is a snake oil saleman, and everyone knows it.

That is dribble, no negotiation, where did you pull that rubbish from. The NRL increased their commitment to NSW when it was announced that the SFS would be rebuilt as well. How is that possible if they hadn't been involved with a process of negotiation with the state government. Agree with everything you say about Ayres, but to say there had been no negotiation that is rubbish. Its ok to amend, change or scrap an agreement if both parties are ok with that occurring. The NRL was more than happy to sign up to a new agreement.

 

[unforgiven]

What this means is that teams who use the big venues and their supporters are subsidised by those who use other venues, which have to be maintained (generally) through council rates. So you pay rates to maintain your local team's ground, and you also contribute to the big venues through state taxes which everyone pays. This is far from equitable.

The state government wants all teams to play at one of the bigger stadium that they own, they announced this policy years ago. They don't want to be paying for the upkeep, maintaince, and upgrading of around 20 little suburbain grounds, they want to provide 4 or 5 world class stadiums that they own.

The big venues are also not just for club footy games they are for big events.

I'm a Wests Tigers supporter that lives in Penrith, I pay rates to maintain the Panthers home ground. lol

 

[morley101]

Do stadiums return their capital expense in income from useage? Putting aside benefits to the city from sports tourism, how many years does it take to recoup $1.2 billion stadium cost?

I believe the TV income from the Olympics basically paid off the stadium and the government on-sold the Olympic stadium to private interests.