Future NRL Stadiums

[blukablu]

Yeah it probably cost $60 million at the time because it was done that way as it's initial construction?

you do realise a $60 million construction job in the US would be closer to $200 million in Australia.

 

[Perth Red]

The new east stand at nib is a smaller scale version of what you are suggesting with no enclosed corporate boxes. It cost in the region of $75million last year. Your suggestions would comfortably be in the region of $250-300million min. Then put a roof on the whole lot and you'd be up around $4-500 million at least. Last time I heard the nsw govt was hardly flush for money.

 

[Captain Apollo]

G
This just comes down to lobbying and justification...

In its oval shape, the stadium is only used by AFL 2 or 3 times a year and by cricket a handful more (all of which could be moved to Skoda or the SCG).

Obviously this would lose ANZ Trust money, so you would have to justify it in those terms (gain compared to lose); Souths, Bulldogs, Eels, Tigers and the Dragons could all agree to play X games there and Wanderers games would be moved there.

In monitory terms it would be easy for ANZ to come out ahead if this deal went through.

And dont say teams wont want to move to ANZ. If it meant the opportunity to play in a stadium comparable to this...

... instead of a suburban ground, I'm sure fans would be ok with driving the extra 15 minutes.

With the NSW Government, it does come down to cost. Regardless of which party is in office, the manadrins in Treasury are the ones listened to the most, so if it is more expensive, forget it. They have nobbled more proposals than you could poke a stick at.

Further one of the most influential Ministers in the Government is a well known rugby union supporter and likes the Swans too. As such he would rather see more games of any sport at the Stadium, league, union, AFL, cricket - the more the merrier is how he looks at it. That Minister is not on their "Pat Malone" in that view. The Minister for Sport is a relative newbie in politics so does not quite have the sway of one of her compatriots.

Also the ANZ Stadium Trust is a Government body mate. ANZ pay for the rights to manage the stadium on their behalf.

 

[Perth Red]

Why would clubs with sub 20k crowds want to play in a 85k stadium? This isn't just about the design but equally the capacity being too large for your avg club game. No one wants to play in a 3/4 empty stadium with as much atmosphere as the moon!

 

[Big Sam]

Watch us and the Dogs crack 50k members by the end of the decade because of this.

Parra too (if they turn it around on the field).

Also, it should be compulsory to close the roof for night matches between May and August whether it's raining or not.

 

[Timbo]

Not really...

Only the end windows would have obstructed views, the facilities would still be good.

And if you needed to replace these, new boxes could easily be added to the new north and south stands.

Yes really.

You wouldn't be able to sell the corporate boxes behind the goalposts for the same price as those on the sidelines.

The SFS has had that issue from day dot.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

The original World Cup proposal.

This is the best that can be done. Although it's not perfect its still MUCH better than the current configuration of the ends. Capacity would be raised to 90 000.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

With the NSW Government, it does come down to cost. regardless of which part is in office, the manadrins in Treasury are the ones listened to the most, so if it is more expensive, forget it. They have nobbled motre proposals tan you could poke a stick at.

Further one of the most influential Ministers in the Government is a well known rugby union supporter and likes the Swans too. As such he would rather see more games of any sport at the Stadium, league, union, AFL, cricket - the more the merrier is how he looks at it. That Minister is not on their "Pat Malone" in that view. The Minister for Sport is a relative newbie in politics so does not quite have the sway of one of her compatriots.

Also the ANZ Stadium Trust is a Government body mate. ANZ pay for the rights to manage the stadium on their behalf.

While this is true, it is a separate point (no less valid, but it has a different justification to what was said earlier).

I was arguing for why you should want it and why it is the best option in terms of possible rectangular stadiums in Sydney.

Regarding the points you raised, I should say that i dont have any illusions that this will eventuate in the new 24 months or even the next 10 years. This idea is only a very long term prospect; if it does happen, it will be well after the current political climate and these individuals.

The idea is based largely around the fact that the NSW Gov. is investing in this precinct; all indications say that, for the forseeable future and well beyond, Homebush will be the major stadium location for Sydney.

That pretty much means that we deal with ANZ as best we can or we condemn ourselves to the whims of the AFL lobby.

As soon as the opportunity arises (the exact right governing party and the right political climate), the ARLC need to jump on it; i just believe that this is what they should aim for.

Why would clubs with sub 20k crowds want to play in a 85k stadium? This isn't just about the design but equally the capacity being too large for your avg club game. No one wants to play in a 3/4 empty stadium with as much atmosphere as the moon!

Two things...

Firstly, the idea that teams will still only pull sub-20k crowds into the future, regardless of whether it is likely or not, isnt really worth contemplating. If this is the peak of interest this comp can achieve then teams could continue to play in stadiums that are falling apart. Id like to believe the future holds crowd averages of 40-50k for the shittier teams.

Secondly, stadium design has a lot to do with the atmosphere. This about Suncorp; even when its half full, crowds can make that place shake.
The idea behind my proposal is that it brings the crowd right up to the field and it really holds in the sound.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

And dont say teams wont want to move to ANZ. If it meant the opportunity to play in a stadium comparable to this...

... instead of a suburban ground, I'm sure fans would be ok with driving the extra 15 minutes.

Metlife is a great stadium to watch footy from, but its not a multi purpose venue, its for footy played on a rectangular field. That said, Metlife needs to invest in better seat manufacture technology. During the game I was there for, the lard arse behind me fell through his seat. Said the same thing happened the previous season as well. Kept blaming crap Chinese steel, but I'm sure it was more likely to be something to do with the 200kg+ he was carrying. :lol:

Apart from the stadium itself, I was really impressed by the outside replay screens surrounding the stadium (the tall black towers you can see in the pic). Showing highlights and pre-game interview, really adds something extra to the game day atmosphere when you enter the ground.

 

[Perth Red]

Two things...

Firstly, the idea that teams will still only pull sub-20k crowds into the future, regardless of whether it is likely or not, isnt really worth contemplating. If this is the peak of interest this comp can achieve then teams could continue to play in stadiums that are falling apart. Id like to believe the future holds crowd averages of 40-50k for the shittier teams.

Secondly, stadium design has a lot to do with the atmosphere. This about Suncorp; even when its half full, crowds can make that place shake.
The idea behind my proposal is that it brings the crowd right up to the field and it really holds in the sound.

Firstly I also hope to see those numbers one day but how long do you predict it will take? Crowds on avg have not changed for the best part of 9 years so we could be talking a very very long time before 40-50k is the avg for the lower supported teams! Not sure what the life span of ANZ is but it is likely they will be replacing it before we see the day we see 40-50k avg crowds in Sydney.

re Suncorp, yes it is but that has a lot more to do with having 25k in a 48k stadium. I would imagine with 10-15k in it, it is equally as dead as ANZ is for most NRL games.

 

[newman]

Ive said it a bunch of times before but hell, ill say it again. This...

...is the only way to make ANZ a good stadium.

Yes, it is facing East-West, but with the roof that wouldnt be a problem. Plus there are a heap of other stadiums in Sydney and around Australia; it couldnt be that hard to always schedule 1 stadium at night.

It also wouldnt be that much more expensive to build. The greatest cost of any stadium is the roof; this roof is already built and the stands are not load baring.

Just look at this stadium...

...Its called Summa Field; it was built in 2009 holds 30,000 people and it only cost $60 million.

All ANZ would have to do is build something similar at the North and South ends.

As a corporate box owner at ANZ I would revoke my subscription if they did that with the configuration.

 

[Roy80]

As a corporate box owner at ANZ I would revoke my subscription if they did that with the configuration.

Yeah, becasue they would never put new corporate boxes in the stands running along the sidelines under a multi-hundred million dolar redevelopment.
:lol:

 

[LineBall]

Yeah, becasue they would never put new corporate boxes in the stands running along the sidelines under a multi-hundred million dolar redevelopment.
:lol:

Exactly. Plus they would then have corporate boxes in all four stands.

 

[ek999]

ANZ in its current formation is 128m wide and 170m long. Say we rotate the Rugby League playing configuration 90 degrees so it is now 128m long and 170m wide, the length is probably perfect but you would need to be able to move the side stands in and out about 45m each. There is also the massive cost to essentially replace the northern and southern ends with stands at a much greater pitch along with a roof which is a main requirement. You would need way more than $250 million.

EDIT: Just had a thought, ANZ is 128m at its widest which is OK but it probably wouldn't be long enough for the full 80 or so metres that it needs to be to fit in a Rugby League field plus a few metres so players don't get injured sliding into the fence

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

ANZ in its current formation is 128m wide and 170m long. Say we rotate the Rugby League playing configuration 90 degrees so it is now 128m long and 170m wide, the length is probably perfect but you would need to be able to move the side stands in and out about 45m each. There is also the massive cost to essentially replace the northern and southern ends with stands at a much greater pitch along with a roof which is a main requirement. You would need way more than $250 million.

EDIT: Just had a thought, ANZ is 128m at its widest which is OK but it probably wouldn't be long enough for the full 80 or so metres that it needs to be to fit in a Rugby League field plus a few metres so players don't get injured sliding into the fence

The point i was trying to make is that it wouldnt actually be very much more expencive then the current redevelopment proposal.

Building the roof would be by far the most expensive section of the plan but that is entirely independent of the lower stands. Therefore the roof doesnt have to be changed if the stands are.

We know that the field is big enough as it is to hold an East-West field (a standard stadium is 130m, Brooky is 127m if i recall correctly. Old Trafford is 116; thats where you start to run into problems).

This means that the East and West stands could remain completely unchanged, you just leave the lower bowl permanently retracted. This would result a far better view for the upper deck (the only section of the stadium that cannot be changed without dramatically altering the roof).

With regards to the north and south end, the current plan is to pull out each end up to the tunnels on the trylines and adding in retractable stands.

The only change to the plan that i propose is, instead of building retractable stands, bring the front row forward so they are 90m apart and build permanent ones.

Now this is the bit i have to really stress; a stand that doesnt have a roof is very cheap to build. Most of the strength demands on a stand come from the roof, so if it is not holding one up it does not need to be reenforced anywhere near as much.

In the empty space between a northern sideline and the north end of the roof, the builders could effectively rebuild these stands...

...just closer in.

 

[ek999]

You have me confused, you want the north and south ends permanantly 90m apart with no roof?

 

[some11]

It's kind of a joke the home of RL in Australia doesn't have a world class rectangular stadium for it.

 

[big hit!]

not too much unlike the style of Olympic Stadium, just built for a rectangular purpose from the get go.

It's built primarily for the width of American Football field of play which is just under 49m, plus the the additional space on the sidelines for the staff and players on the sides of the field. From the above pic, it just fits in the width of a the modern standardised soccer field of 68m the exact same width of the standardised rugby league field.

The Seattle ground probably needs an extra 2 or 3 metres on either side league and soccer, but the point more than anything is the closeness of the stands to the field of play, as well as the enclosed impression of it, without having an enclosed roof. The reason the stands have roofs unlike others in America, such as in the mid west and north-east, is because precipitation is more than likely to remain liquid and not snow in Seattle during the Autumn and winter.

They've managed to record earthquake type numbers here during Seahawks games.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/201...ns-generated-earthquake-marshawn-lynch-td-run

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

You have me confused, you want the north and south ends permanantly 90m apart with no roof?

No, im saying the new stands dont have to hold the roof up.

The way ANZ is designed, it could have a completely enclosed roof with no lower bowl whatsoever; the roof is designed to carry its own weight.

This means that (once the roof is on) you could redirect the field East-West and build new north and south stands similar to those that existed for the Olympics (stands that dont carry the weight of the roof and therefore are much cheaper to build).

Edit: Think of it like this, if you were to build a house that is missing 3 walls, the one remaining wall has to be very bloody strong to hold up the roof. (this is effectively what building a grandstand is like)

But if you were to build a house that was missing 3 walls AND the roof, all you have to build is that one wall and all it needs to do is hold itself up.

 

[Perth Red]

You'd still need very deep foundations for a wall stood on its own. The stadium foundations, drainage and infrastructure was not designed for your design, I think your being a bit simplistic in how easy it would be.

Also the current roofline at the ends is lower than the sides, you wouldn't fit the height of main stands under it unless you raised the structure.