It will be up in Joondalup with West Perth, East Perth and the Perth Demons backing them.

Also makes sense considering the massive growth corridor with so many ex-pat Poms and Kiwis, etc up that way.

Upgrade Arena Joondalup the same way Freo Oval is at and let them play in the new stadium.



FWIW, Peel will more or less fold in the next 5 years as nobody can be fukked driving down to Mandurah 3 times a week for training/game.

I think it would be better for the team they have there own 25000 stadium up there and the move to the new stadium once the team establishes a solid m'ship base.

Wow a publicity stunt by Mars and the backing of an insignificant state government...

Of course from a traditionalists point of view Tassie should have a team in the national competition. It's a traditional football state and would have far greater grass roots support than GC or GWS. But do you really think the AFL would still not have a team in Tassie if the business case was that strong?

At this stage Joondalup would be the front runner for a third WA team. It makes sence geographically as Freo has the south metro, WCE the golden triangle and the country then Joondalup would have the north. Mandurah is a retirement village and Bunbury/SW just does not have the population. The dark horse could be Swan Districts. They have a very good supporter base and by far the strongest corporate support in the WAFL due to the Pilbara being in their country zone. With the programs BHP, Rio, Chevron and Woodside have going up there it Swans would have a pretty compelling case financially.

Yeah, makes sen to cover the north metro area.

Good point about the Swans. As a Swans supporter that would be a very interesting option.

Lets have a Joondalup team AND a Swan Districts team. That would be awesome.

Yeah, makes sen to cover the north metro area.

Good point about the Swans. As a Swans supporter that would be a very interesting option.

Lets have a Joondalup team AND a Swan Districts team. That would be awesome.

Are traditional Swans supporters too dominated by the Eagles already though? I don't think I know anyone from the eastern suburbs that goes for Freo.

Freo obviously had South and East supporters to gobble up.

I'd think the Falcons, Demons and Royals are less dominated by WC members than Swans are.

Yeah thats a good point. I certainly won't jump ship from WCE. I'd probably support a new team more than Freo though.

Yeah thats a good point. I certainly won't jump ship from WCE. I'd probably support a new team more than Freo though.

haha why??

is it cos of the history? I have only every support WCE twice, 05 and 06 grand finals.

I did support Freo when they entered (WCE still first) but I dunno, they really put me off with some stupid decisions early on and they really lacked passion and grit early on. Never recoeved from that and now I really dislike them. Almost as bad as Collingwood.

I did support Freo when they entered (WCE still first) but I dunno... now I really dislike them.

It is much better this way. Nothing worse than a patronising smug toaster who "cheers for Freo as they are a WA team". There is no team I would rather finished last every year than the Toast, and no team I would support them against in any circumstances.

there was an article last year that West and East Perth footy clubs have begun working together to get the 3rd WA AFL team for Joondalup, they even have a name Joondalup Royal Falcons and the goal was to enter the league in 10 to 15 years.

Joondalup Royal Falcons ah gawd I hope not!

Matt B you are sounding a bit nervous about the Eagles! Looks like they could be on the rebound and going to make the Dockers look pretty ordinary after 15 years and nothing to show for it!!

Matt B you are sounding a bit nervous about the Eagles! Looks like they could be on the rebound and going to make the Dockers look pretty ordinary after 15 years and nothing to show for it!!

On the rebound... or is that an April Fools joke? Anyway that's not the point, the point is there should rightly be passionate hatred between the fans of the two teams.

^^ Didnt mama teach u, u should never hate anything!!!

I'm sure players on an AFL salary would have no problems living down in Mandurah. It's a different case when they're on WAFL wages and have to rely on other employment closer to Perth.

Well I don't think salary is the issue.
AFL Rookies are on a similar pay-scale as a tradie playing WAFL. Also AFL players would have to drive up for most of the week rather than drive down to Mandurah.

Nobody wants to play for Peel because 1. Mandurah is a shit-hole for a stud in his 20s. 2. It has no young bitches. 3. The team stinks. 4. No employment opportunities.

It is much better this way. Nothing worse than a patronising smug toaster who "cheers for Freo as they are a WA team". There is no team I would rather finished last every year than the Toast, and no team I would support them against in any circumstances.

Ah - one of the typical Shocker fans who would be happy to finish 16th if the Eagles finish 17th. The aim of the game is to win a Premiership and not just do better than the Eagles.

Ah - one of the typical Shocker fans who would be happy to finish 16th if the Eagles finish 17th. The aim of the game is to win a Premiership and not just do better than the Eagles.

I don't know how many times I explain this to Docker supporters.

The derby is their grand final and they seem to settle with that achievement - the rest of the season they just turn up for a run.

I don't know how many times I've explained this to Eagles supporters.

Your list is shit!

You think 3 Premierships is something to be sniffy about? GO THE EAGLES! *grabs beanbag, popcorn and watches AFL shiftfight start*

I don't know how many times I've explained this to Freo supporters.

Doesn't matter what list you have if you don't play with any heart and accept mediocrity you'll never win a flag (the only thing that matters in any sport).

Besides Eagles are looking a lot better this year, lots of young players to come up. Freo are at their peak. They need to win a flag in the next 2-3 years or it'll be a long wait after that.

I don't know how many times I've explained this to Eagles supporters.

Your list is shit!

it's not too often you've had to explain that to eagles supporters?

they playing decent right at this minute for a team who hit rock bottom over recent years... :)

And saying in your advertising that you are passionate doesn't mean you are any more passionate than any other club.

All this Eagles v Dockers discussion is weak. Absolute victory belongs to the tiger-blooded Magpies. WINNING! #charliesheen

2 wins to start the season! Very happy!!!

Can't complain about getting half our wins from last season already. Hope we can continue against Sydney next w/e.

I have a bet with someone at work before the season started (me to pay 2 cartons if I lose, him 1) that WCE won't get the wooden spoon this year. It wouldn't surprise you which team he supports.

lol i prefer actual football!

I just like generic AFL trolling.

^^ Yes - we are discussing real football. What other kind is there?

Good win from the toast today, will give them that. What rubbish re just wanting to finish about WCE. I loathe them regardless of ladder positions. IT is a good healthy relationship.

Everyone has teams that they don't like. I have just known a fair amount of Freo fans that aren't unhappy if their team does poorly as long as WCE are doing worse. I can never understand that attitude.

^though at the moment it seems we are doing better than them ;)

My most hated teams in the AFL are Collingwood and Port Adelaide!

Essendon and Collingwood for me.

Port Adelaide and Brendan Fevola for me

^^ Yes - we are discussing real football. What other kind is there?

the one where you cant use your arms/hands! ;)

the one where you cant use your arms/hands! ;)

Which one is that? Surely not soccer where goals can be scored with heads and hands, keepers are allowed to use hands and throw ins are by hands. There is only one football game where the major score is only allowed to be scored using your feet. ;)

okay BartBart ...

Its a game played by more than 1 country (professionally)!

At least we have something original and unique.

I really have no idea why soccer is so popular. Is just such a boring spectator sport. I appreciate the skill level required for it but its just bloody boring to watch.

It comes down to what you prefer. I would rather watch EPL than AFL but then i would rather watch AFL than A-league.

English Premier League is insane. It's on a whole extra level when it comes to domestic football leagues.

GO THE REDS for their 2013 NRL Bid!!!!!!!

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/image.php?u=11913&type=sigpic&dateline=1301468051

okay BartBart ...

Its a game played by more than 1 country (professionally)!

Don't worry - I like all footy codes except for Rugby LEague.

I know more about American Football than i do rugby ...

Me too.

After what happened last time they tried a League team in WA, I dont like the chances of any new WA league team being able to make a go of it.

^^ Wasn't the split in R.L. the reason the Reds died?

Don't worry - I like all footy codes except for Rugby LEague.

And I hate all footy codes except Rugby League. Shame really.

(pity the world is full of arsehole shit stirring trolls eh Bart)?

After what happened last time they tried a League team in WA, I dont like the chances of any new WA league team being able to make a go of it.
Then it just shows your ignorance of the game 14 years on then doesn't it. We'll wait and see eh before any presumption sets in.

And I hate all footy codes except Rugby League. Shame really.

(pity the world is full of arsehole shit stirring trolls eh Bart)?

Pity there are aresholes in the world who can't see a clearly light-hearted discussion and decide to jump in and be aggro, eh GanEden.

At least we have something original and unique.

I really have no idea why soccer is so popular. Is just such a boring spectator sport. I appreciate the skill level required for it but its just bloody boring to watch.
I can't watch a full 90 mins of a game unless I have a vested interest in the game.

In saying that, I can see why the majority of the world likes it.

^^ Wasn't the split in R.L. the reason the Reds died?

Yeah basically.
When you have like 24 teams trying to fit into the one comp, some teams had to merge or face the chop.

It comes down to what you prefer. I would rather watch EPL than AFL but then i would rather watch AFL than A-league.

English Premier League is insane. It's on a whole extra level when it comes to domestic football leagues.

The level of tie wasting, diving and show boating by football (that is soccer) players is what turn me off.

Watching the last 20 mins of Sydney FC v Shanghai last night was unbelievably infuriating. The players act like total twats, fake cramps and strut around like drawing blood is suddenly the worlds most serious crime.

I don't submit to AFL, NRL etc being exempt from this but it is at a level with football that it just makes it un-watchable. I agree, the EPL is at a different level to most other football.

u watched sydney Vs shanghai, would you be so excited by gayfl is all you saw was subi vs bassendean?

Hahaha, my junior club. Go Bazzo!!

u watched sydney Vs shanghai, would you be so excited by gayfl is all you saw was subi vs bassendean?

I am equally excited about WAFL as general AFL matches.

I don't think you can so easily disregard AFC football. And for the selective record that is Sanj, it's not as if my personal football watching experience is limited to 20mins of one game last night.

u watched sydney Vs shanghai, would you be so excited by gayfl is all you saw was subi vs bassendean?

Don't knock basso!
Prems three years in arrow when I was there!
Then I left because I knew I wouldn't get picked by a wafl club :)

I am equally excited about WAFL as general AFL matches.

I don't think you can so easily disregard AFC football. And for the selective record that is Sanj, it's not as if my personal football watching experience is limited to 20mins of one game last night.

did you just call me a c**t?

a leagueis pretty shit, maybe 1st division level ( 3rd tier league in england)

u watched sydney Vs shanghai, would you be so excited by gayfl is all you saw was subi vs bassendean?
To me, the level is irrelevent regardless of the code. I follow my local club team with as much passion as my Super 15 team or the wallabies. Being a member and contributor to my local club gives me a greater sense of ownership in their fate, vs just someone who pays lots of money to sit on a seat in a stadium

If you analyse any sport, there's very little logic or reason for supporting one over the other. Our connection is not with the sport but the community surrounding it.

did you just call me a c**t?

a leagueis pretty shit, maybe 1st division level ( 3rd tier league in england)

What would you know about English football...?

Liverpool :lol:


A-League is conference football at best... in fact it is lower table League 2...
But just because it is not as good as Liver-fail... doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it.

That would be the same argument for watching WAFL... just because it is crap compared to VFL or even AFL standard doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it.

but it is your local team and that is why i watch A-League, Super Rugby, no matter how frustratingly bad they are (Perth & Force)

18 leagues, 5 champions leagues...

yeah what a bunch of fails!

I always get stick because my English team is shit. Yes they are (Tranmere Rovers), but that is where I was born and they are my team... and it makes the victories against the big boys all the better. Then I moved to Perth...and so I follow Glory (and will continue to when I leave). If no-one supports them they won't improve.

The A League will never compete with the Premier League / La Liga etc.... but it can grow to be a strong "Second Tier" league - competing for talent with smaller European leagues / MLS / lower English divisions etc. These teams still have dedicated followers / good crowds - and people don't expect it to be the Premier League - but whilst the standard isn't quite as good the excitement can still be there.

Where would a pro who is coming towards the end of his career rather go....? (Chris Greenacre left my team in England to go and play for Wellington and has done well - and fair play to him - I had a similar lifestyle choice and I took it!).

Australian dominated sports (AFL / League) have a draft system and they generally share the wealth - so even if you are rubbish, you will one day have a shot at the big time. Football is different (and they couldn't try and operate a draft system here when there is a worldwide market for the players) and as such it is harder to claw yourselves up the league (or drag your league up in a world standing). But when you do it is all the more special.

I agree Eugenius... I guess I'm just lucky I was born on the right side of the Mersey:)

Liverpool is home to 2 great teams.

Liverpool FC and Liverpool FC reserves. :D

I went to a few glory matches last year and loved it. I differently will go again next year.

I agree Eugenius... I guess I'm just lucky I was born on the right side of the Mersey:)

I am lucky I left early enough to avoid getting the accent :)

Liverpool is home to 2 great teams.

Liverpool FC and Liverpool FC reserves. :D

I went to a few glory matches last year and loved it. I differently will go again next year.

definitely.../pedant

http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/51907/memes-pimp-my-grammar-nazi.jpg

I am lucky I left early enough to avoid getting the accent :)

AS a 15 year old scouser in 1987 Perth I got a lot of punches for my accent, but the ladies sure loved it!

Liverpool FC.... irrelevant since the 80's (and yes I do know about 2005).

:tongue2:

I always get stick because my English team is shit. Yes they are (Tranmere Rovers), but that is where I was born and they are my team... and it makes the victories against the big boys all the better. Then I moved to Perth...and so I follow Glory (and will continue to when I leave). If no-one supports them they won't improve.

The A League will never compete with the Premier League / La Liga etc.... but it can grow to be a strong "Second Tier" league - competing for talent with smaller European leagues / MLS / lower English divisions etc. These teams still have dedicated followers / good crowds - and people don't expect it to be the Premier League - but whilst the standard isn't quite as good the excitement can still be there.

Where would a pro who is coming towards the end of his career rather go....? (Chris Greenacre left my team in England to go and play for Wellington and has done well - and fair play to him - I had a similar lifestyle choice and I took it!).

Australian dominated sports (AFL / League) have a draft system and they generally share the wealth - so even if you are rubbish, you will one day have a shot at the big time. Football is different (and they couldn't try and operate a draft system here when there is a worldwide market for the players) and as such it is harder to claw yourselves up the league (or drag your league up in a world standing). But when you do it is all the more special.

Well said, Perth Glory used to get big crowds and have lots of success a few years back..I've never been to a Glory game but will go one day! I do however go to AFL and WAFL and I think, depending on your passion for the particular code and having the time (and money) to attend, are a big factor in attendances. One of my mates is from Liverpool and he's been trying to get me to support them, despite not knowing a great deal about the game in England, i know Liverpool are one of the big teams over there who seem to be despised like Collingwood are over here (reading some of the comments on here..).

i know Liverpool are one of the big teams over there who seem to be despised like Collingwood are over here (reading some of the comments on here..).

I think you will 110% find that Man U are the Collingwood equivalent. Liverpool is the most bloody loved team in the world!!!

Liverpool FC.... irrelevant since the 80's (and yes I do know about 2005).

:tongue2:

This would be a classic example of an oxymoronic statement.

I think you will 110% find that Man U are the Collingwood equivalent. Liverpool is the most bloody loved team in the world!!!

Same shit, different city. They're both havens for bandwagoners.

mate liverpool havent been a haven for bandwagoners for a long time, apart from some of the dumb fucks who staretd following us after the champions league victory

soccer is lame!!!

not as lame as some of the shoes you buy, you colour blind?

mate liverpool havent been a haven for bandwagoners for a long time, apart from some of the dumb fucks who staretd following us after the champions league victory

What's your connection to Liverpool?

dont have a direct one, became a fan for some reason when we lost to wimbledon in the fa cup final in 1988 i was 5, turning 6 at the time. was watching it with my grandfather who was an arsenal supporter but they caught my eye and ive been a fan since. probably going to KL to see them in july and will be going to anfield next year when i have a bit of an extended break from work

not as lame as some of the shoes you buy, you colour blind?

I am!! You like making fun of disabled people??!



p.s not really

not as lame as some of the shoes you buy, you colour blind?

http://thejesuscodpiece.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/oh-no-you-didnt.jpg

Works better as D'int

I d'int make it...

MSpaint is serious business!

Just caught the end of Ch9 news that the new stadium has been announced to be built at the Burswood Tennis centre (60k).

Better wait for details (and year of completion) before we get too excited.

Ch 9 news actually opened their news with "Exclusive Breaking News - We understand that the Premier is going to announce in June a new 60,000 stadium at the State Tennis Centre" in Burswood.

It was the first time in years I watched Ch. 9 and yep it is still shite.

James Packer must be laughing all the way to the casino.

Second, from everybodys favourate news website:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/burswood-site-for-new-60000-seat-stadium/story-e6frg13u-1226038101779

It will also have a monorail to the casino ;)

Subi will become a "boutique" oval...
haha

Trash and treasure?

I wonder if Subi will move back to Subi, in terms of Leederville oval...

They spent serious money on Leederville, it would be a bit of a waste to go back.

Land is too valuable to keep that dumpy stadium without serious game revenue.
Hello Subi Central Mark 4, 5, 6...

They spent serious money on Leederville, it would be a bit of a waste to go back.

Also spent serious money on Subiaco. I mean it's an AFL stadium with facilities that would be much better then WAFL, and it is their actual traditional home ground. I'd imagine there would be a lot of interest.

Subi can't be a stadium without a tenant. Obviously I'd rather they stayed at Leedy.

^West Coast will be the tenant, it will still be their home
for training and everything, though games will be played at the new one

Concerts and other stuff will more than likely be played there

As I said before there is a choice between a new oval at Subi and some cool development elsewhere, or a new oval elsewhere and an oval at Subi. I guess at least the State Tennis Centre site may not have been suitable for much else.

I note Freo happily shares Fremantle Oval with WAFL clubs.

I'm not saying that Subi shouldnt move back to Subi Oval, but them being in Leedy is probably better for your little town :)

As I said before there is a choice between a new oval at Subi and some cool development elsewhere, or a new oval elsewhere and an oval at Subi. I guess at least the State Tennis Centre site may not have been suitable for much else.

I note Freo happily shares Fremantle Oval with WAFL clubs.

Clubs as in 1, South Fremantle.

Clubs as in 1, South Fremantle.

well yeah ok 1. But East Perth can't move to Subi too.... next you;d be suggesting West Perth play in Joondalup!

I'm not saying that Subi shouldnt move back to Subi Oval, but them being in Leedy is probably better for your little town :)

I agree... although the oval could be useful for other things... a primary school maybe. 4 x 56 storey resi towers? Who knows:)

Also spent serious money on Subiaco. I mean it's an AFL stadium with facilities that would be much better then WAFL, and it is their actual traditional home ground. I'd imagine there would be a lot of interest.

Subi can't be a stadium without a tenant. Obviously I'd rather they stayed at Leedy.

The facilities might be better than those in the WAFL but its now lacking significantly in terms of AFL standards. A place like the Lexus (or Westpac) centre is now in the bottom dozen or so facilities now and its been like 7 years.

The grass is top notch though.

I was cooking diner and didn't get much of the news story. Was there any soft of government announcement or was this just media bla?

I was cooking diner and didn't get much of the news story. Was there any soft of government announcement or was this just media bla?

The guy on 6PR called the Premiers office asking if the story is true and they replied that they have no idea and that nothings in concrete.

Vlahos (the reporter) also said that the dockers and eagles were all up to date with the details but when the dockers were called, they had no idea about any stadium talk.

I was cooking diner and didn't get much of the news story. Was there any soft of government announcement or was this just media bla?

its media bla. no announcement yet. Nine News 'expects' the Government to announce this decision in June. Will be interesting how/if Barnett responds to this if the story takes off. No one else running with the story other than channel nine/PerthNow.

Is there any reason the Government would wait until June if the decision is already made?

I think the tennis centre site is the most likely given what Barnett has said in the past, but I can't fathom why he'd want to delay it so long.

I guess it could have something to do with the next State budget...or they're waiting for Federal commitments.

I could have sworn we were already supposed to have a decision.
If I recall correctly it was cross-my-heart and hope to die type stuff, too.

NZer, I think it was that they would recommence the investigation/decision making in February 2011, not make a final decision.

Meanwhile, nobody seems to know anything about this except Channel Nine... It appears reporting this was slightly premature...

Eagles stay quiet on new stadium
The West Coast Eagles would support a new Burswood-based football stadium but will wait and see what the State Government has to say about it.

It was reported last night that Burswood would be the site for a new 60,000-seat stadium, which would cost up to $1.2 billion and result in the State Tennis Centre being moved elsewhere.

West Coast communications manager Gary Stocks told WAtoday.com.au the club would leave it to the government to announce details of any project but would support the Burswood site.

Advertisement: Story continues below
"Any site (for a new stadium) would have the support of the club,'' Stocks said.

"We will sit and wait to hear from the government.''

Meanwhile, Tennis West chief executive Andrew Stanbury said he believed his organisation had a "strong hand" to play in any negotiations with the government.

Stanbury said Tennis West was yet to be officially advised of the government's intention to locate the new stadium at Burwsood but would be open to considering alternative locations for the STC, provided it was looked after financially.

"We have not been through this before. But we have an expectation that the government would be fairly forceful about its position,'' Stanbury said.

"But we have 37 years left of a 50-year lease and we believe there is a lot of value in that.

"We would expect the government to recognise the 37 years of that lease and that they would have an obligation to look after us."

Stanbury said Tennis West had not placed a figure on the value of the remaining years of its lease and was happy in its current location, but had begun investigating possible scenarios if a move became necessary.



Source (http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/eagles-stay-quiet-on-new-stadium-20110413-1ddbb.html)

They said the last redevelopment was going to be an increase to 50k but they ended up with less than 43k. I wonder how solid that 60k is...

I'd say Barnett might have a few loose ends to tie up before being able to officially announce it.

OR

Channel 9 are trying to get some action moving by reporting rumours.

both

At least we're spending the boom money wisely, ensuring there is a future for all footy playing Western Australians.

Yeah no bloody good if they can't get into a hospital when they get injured. Waste of bloody money!

What else should we spend the boom money on nate? More hospitals?

AFL runs from the end of March to September! So i suppose once its built we just let it rot in the off season. No point trying to ... i dunno ... secure a world cup soccer match!

They said the last redevelopment was going to be an increase to 50k but they ended up with less than 43k. I wonder how solid that 60k is...

That was more to do with the site constraints at Subi. We could have gone to 50k there but the cost would have been substantially more then the eventual cost.

On an unconstrained site like the tennis centre, I wouldn't think an extra 10k seats would add substantially to the construction costs. At least not in the way it would at Subiaco.

It was because they converted seating areas to corporate boxes late in the design process.

Morons who write rubbish comments and whinge is part of the reason why politicians are scared to do anything in this state:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/burswood-site-for-new-60000-seat-stadium/story-e6frg13u-1226038101779

Plus with useless media I'm surprised anything that is not a hospital, school or police station gets built.

We live in one of the most secure places in the world but we need more police...

What else should we spend the boom money on nate? More hospitals?

We should build more stadiums! One for footy, one for rugby, one for soccer.

Only then will Western Australia's economic future be secure, once the mining boom is over.

We should build more stadiums! One for footy, one for rugby, one for soccer.

Only then will Western Australia's economic future be secure, once the mining boom is over.

'Economic Future' (dictated by govts) is overrated. Sooner or later they'll blow the money on some shit anyway. Spend up and live it up I say!!

Exactly. We NEED to spend money in this city. Its long over due. I'd say having better facilities and creating more interesting places is better for our economy then throwing money down a research black hole.

However, in saying that, I'd like to see a good business plan from anyone who could see a good rate of return for the govt. to spend our money on.

I think the mining boom should be spent on:

(1) building the worlds largest ship;
(2) rounding up all of the rednecks and nimbys in WA - probably around 1 million people;
(3) sending the ship for a few times to NZ

Then we wouldn't need a new stadium.

Then Perth might be an awesome place.

EDIT: But then we will be sending all of the miners away, so no more mining boom. My plan is fatally flawed!

Yay! Lets all watch footy! yay footy! kick a touchdown or something yay!

Not that many stadiums make money.

I wanna go to the footy!! mmm microwaved Chicken Roll!!!

seriously tho! I will cock punch all you fools! You first Nate!!

ahaha

I wanna go to the footy!! mmm microwaved Chicken Roll!!!

seriously tho! I will cock punch all you fools! You first Nate!!

ahaha

hahaahaa

PS - I wouldn't be offering free cock punch's on this site.

Channel 7 news just stated Col wont be making a decision untill around July where this is gonna be,

Col stated he preferred Burswood,

Jonhnny said he doesnt care sometimes we need to move and do whats best for footy,

Subi Council are going to give 1 more pitch at stating Subi should stay as home of footy with plans that show Thomas Rd as a tunnel and plans to sink rail line to make more room for a bigger oval!

We should build more stadiums! ...... one for rugby, o.

BOTH codes or just the upper class Pim's drinking variety?
:lol:

We should build more stadiums! One for footy, one for rugby, one for soccer.

Only then will Western Australia's economic future be secure, once the mining boom is over.

If I didn't know that you are being facetious I would ask why separate ones for soccer and rugby. I reckon we should all comment in any hospital article on PerthNow and complain why our taxes are being spent on hospitals.

People do complain about hospitals. I used to think a hospital was the one thing you could build without any opposition. That was until I went to Denmark to work on a new hospital there and found people picketing against it! I couldn't believe it.

I know that post about new stadiums for football, rugby and soccer was supposed to sound over the top, but if I had my way there would be new separate 100,000 stadiums for the Eagles and Dockers, and 70,000 seat stadiums for rugby & soccer. I'm willing to compromise on an 80,000 seat oval stadium and a 50,000 seat rectangular stadium.

Do we really need a 50,000 rectangular stadium at this stage? 30-35,000 for rectangular and 65-70,000 oval with the capacity to expand in 20 years is pretty good (the expansion ability is essential).

People do complain about hospitals. I used to think a hospital was the one thing you could build without any opposition. That was until I went to Denmark to work on a new hospital there and found people picketing against it! I couldn't believe it.

I know that post about new stadiums for football, rugby and soccer was supposed to sound over the top, but if I had my way there would be new separate 100,000 stadiums for the Eagles and Dockers, and 70,000 seat stadiums for rugby & soccer. I'm willing to compromise on an 80,000 seat oval stadium and a 50,000 seat rectangular stadium.

there are a total of nine stadiums in the world with a capacity over 100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity

perth isnt in the biggest 200 cities in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population

...

I think it's pretty obvious that we don't actually need a stadium that big, which is why people controlling the money would never let me build my twin coliseums. I can dream though.

We should build more stadiums! One for footy, one for rugby, one for soccer.

Only then will Western Australia's economic future be secure, once the mining boom is over.

I know what you mean. It's not like any sort of demographic would want to leave Perth for a 'better' city! This is the greatest city in the world! All the big/greatest cities in the world have terrible 3rd rate sporting infrastructure!

The Olympics has nothing on Perth!

there are a total of nine stadiums in the world with a capacity over 100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity

perth isnt in the biggest 200 cities in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population

...

Not saying we need a stadium that big, but I wouldn't think Columbus, Ohio is in the top 200 cities either.

It's all relative to local need.

The one thing I hope we DON'T build is a reconfigurable stadium with movable seating.
They tried it in the US for many years and all of them were failures and have long been replaced.
They tried it at Docklands and it doesn't work there either.

What we should have is 3 stadiums:
The WACA (with renovations and capacity improvements) for all top cricket including tests, one day international, 2020, domestic multi-day, domestic one-day and domestic 2020
A new stadium (or rebuilt Subiaco oval) for AFL first and foremost with all the things AFL needs (and not giving a single thought to Soccer or either kind of Rugby) and a capacity to handle eagles and dockers matches into the future
A stadium (the rebuilt nib Stadium for now I guess with a new one later if the demand is there) for Union, League and Soccer (and anything else needing a rectangular stadium)

Although isn't the technology of moveable stadiums better now than even the one at Homebush?

Given the popularity of both the Force and Glory these days and given the potential for a local team in the NRL in the future, there is no reason we cant just build a rectangular stadium for soccer and rugby and build the new stadium for AFL only without needing to spend all that extra money making the seats move.

Although isn't the technology of moveable stadiums better now than even the one at Homebush?

I believe so, but I'm no expert.

I'm pretty sure Docklands and Homebush are considered successful.

The aim isn't so much Perth Glory or the Western Force, but international Rugby, Soccer and Cricket matches. The odd Perth Glory or Western Force game (ie. finals) could also be played there.

You can see the problem evident in Melbourne when they are expecting more than 50,000 to a socceroos match (about docklands capacity) and they only have the option of moving to the MCG which is very much less desirable.

How many cricket matches are there where the demand is much greater than 25,000? A couple of twenty20s and One-day games a year? The WACA should not be getting any significant government funding to expand while it remains in the hands of cricket.

I heard the $100million figure floating around as to what it would cost to make the stadium multi-purpose. I have no idea to the accuracy, but I think it is well worth it to ensure all sports are better off. If the AFL wants to have it's own specific stadium it can fund the upgrades itself.

The one thing I hope we DON'T build is a reconfigurable stadium with movable seating.
They tried it in the US for many years and all of them were failures and have long been replaced.
They tried it at Docklands and it doesn't work there either.

What we should have is 3 stadiums:
The WACA (with renovations and capacity improvements) for all top cricket including tests, one day international, 2020, domestic multi-day, domestic one-day and domestic 2020
A new stadium (or rebuilt Subiaco oval) for AFL first and foremost with all the things AFL needs (and not giving a single thought to Soccer or either kind of Rugby) and a capacity to handle eagles and dockers matches into the future
A stadium (the rebuilt nib Stadium for now I guess with a new one later if the demand is there) for Union, League and Soccer (and anything else needing a rectangular stadium)

Pfft. No.

All the modern US and European stadiums are now being built with retractable/moveable seating. Stade de France is the best example. Homebush works well, even in an oval configuration.

Wembley, retractable
New Cardinals Stadium Arizona, retractable
New Cowboys Stadium, retractable
New Indianapolis Stadium, retractable

It seems like these failed stadiums with retractable seats have been replaced by, well, new stadiums with retractable seats.

I am not saying movable seating doesn't work, I am questioning whether movable seating is necessary for a stadium in Perth.

I am assuming that any retractable seating would allow a swap between an AFL configuration and a rectangular configuration for Soccer and Rugby.
Assuming this, are there events that could be held at this new stadium in a rectangular configuration but which could not be held at the stadium if it was built in a purely AFL configuration? And of these events, are there events that could not be held at alternative venues such as a revamped nib stadium?

I am not saying movable seating doesn't work, I am questioning whether movable seating is necessary for a stadium in Perth.

I am assuming that any retractable seating would allow a swap between an AFL configuration and a rectangular configuration for Soccer and Rugby.
Assuming this, are there events that could be held at this new stadium in a rectangular configuration but which could not be held at the stadium if it was built in a purely AFL configuration? And of these events, are there events that could not be held at alternative venues such as a revamped nib stadium?

International Rugby or Soccer. NIB will never be big enough for such purposes. Even Glory finals like they used to be at Subi. Force if they get successful and have cnsistently large crowds.

Retractable seating isn't absolutely necessary at any new stadium, pretty much all international sports can fit within a Subi Oval style configuration but when it comes to rectangular sports viewing its very poor in an oval shape, the main reason the Force left. If we have a new stadium may as well make it versatile...who knows we might finally get on the radar for Socceroos internationals. We don't have sufficient support for the rectangular codes to justify a top draw purpose-built rectangular stadium so might as well design the new stadium to cater for the big matches.

One or two occasional rectangular events per year isnt justification to spend an extra 300+ million (30%) to make it retractable. Sorry, just not worth it.

For the odd occasion its needed, those people can just make do sitting a little further from the sidelines, like they seem to manage without rioting at dozens of european athletics stadiums.

Then you get to spend the savings on a hoplessly slow / inadequate tram system that seems to give you guys a chub.

Having decent seating at a decent venue= more rectangular pitch sports :)

Much rather spend the $300m on the reconfigurable seating then another billion on a new stadium :)

Where did you get the $300 million extra cost for relocatable seating? A 35,000 seat dedicated rectangular stadium would itself cost between $300-$450 million. Considering further maintenance costs etc. it would make more economic sense to have the one stadium with WCE, Dockers and Force as co-tenants with the potential of attracting the odd Soccer/Cricket match, international sport events and concerts.

Priority has to be the stadium for AFL as more people will get use out of it, but they also need to do something about a rectangle playing ground for the soccer and rugby (Union and League). Whether they work on NIB stadium or look to build a new one they need to fork out the money for both stadiums and stop all this procrastinating. The longer they take the more expensive it will become.
I dont know where they get the prices for stadiums built in Perth as they seem to build world class gems elsewhere for alot cheaper than the quotes we get here!

One or two occasional rectangular events per year isnt justification to spend an extra 300+ million (30%) to make it retractable. Sorry, just not worth it.

For the odd occasion its needed, those people can just make do sitting a little further from the sidelines, like they seem to manage without rioting at dozens of european athletics stadiums.

Then you get to spend the savings on a hoplessly slow / inadequate tram system that seems to give you guys a chub.
The whole point of spending a $billion on a stadium is to benefit the whole community and not just AFL.

I believe those that enjoy watching the Wallabies, Socceroos, etc should be able to watch it in a stadium thats not a million miles from the field of play.

Pfft. No.

All the modern US and European stadiums are now being built with retractable/moveable seating. Stade de France is the best example. Homebush works well, even in an oval configuration.

Wembley, retractable
New Cardinals Stadium Arizona, retractable
New Cowboys Stadium, retractable
New Indianapolis Stadium, retractable

It seems like these failed stadiums with retractable seats have been replaced by, well, new stadiums with retractable seats.
Are you getting confused retractable seating with retractable roofs?? I know Cardinals & Cowboys stadiums can increase capacity with the introduction of standing room but not so sure about retractable seating. Cardinals stadium (or University of Phoenix stadium) has a retractable pitch (something to do with sunlight i believe).

Also why would any of those stadiums need to move from any formation thats not rectangular.

Did anyone see in the Sunday times today some Perth businessman has designed this 324m DNA tower as part of the stadium development in Burswood?...

Are you getting confused retractable seating with retractable roofs?? I know Cardinals & Cowboys stadiums can increase capacity with the introduction of standing room but not so sure about retractable seating. Cardinals stadium (or University of Phoenix stadium) has a retractable pitch (something to do with sunlight i believe).

Also why would any of those stadiums need to move from any formation thats not rectangular.

Baseball?

Baseball?

:lol:

Have you even looked at these stadiums? Neither can host baseball no matter how they reconfigure. It would be similar to trying to fit an AFL field into Burswood.....

It was efforts to try to shoehorn both Baseball and Gridiron Football into the one stadium that lead to the disaster that was the US "cookie cutter" reconfigurable stadiums of the 60s and 70s.

It was efforts to try to shoehorn both Baseball and Gridiron Football into the one stadium that lead to the disaster that was the US "cookie cutter" reconfigurable stadiums of the 60s and 70s.

Actually some stadiums turned out not too bad. But yeah most were horrible.

I think if Perth ends up with a good 60,000+ footy stadium and a 30,000 rectangular stadium at NIB site or elsewhere, that would be the best of both Worlds.

Maybe by the end of the year we can be seeing a site picked and actual works started. But I'm not holding my breath.

Did anyone see in the Sunday times today some Perth businessman has designed this 324m DNA tower as part of the stadium development in Burswood?...

I missed it, did it look good? Not that anything like that would be approved!

Are you getting confused retractable seating with retractable roofs?? I know Cardinals & Cowboys stadiums can increase capacity with the introduction of standing room but not so sure about retractable seating. Cardinals stadium (or University of Phoenix stadium) has a retractable pitch (something to do with sunlight i believe).

Also why would any of those stadiums need to move from any formation thats not rectangular.

I believe both stadiums have;

a) retractable seating to allow 'floating/moveable' pitches to be moved outside/reoriented, and

b) retractable seating for events with a smaller field size. In the case of Cowboys Stadium, I believe there is additional seating that can be rolled out from under the stands for basketball/hockey games.

I believe both stadiums have;

a) retractable seating to allow 'floating/moveable' pitches to be moved outside/reoriented, and

b) retractable seating for events with a smaller field size. In the case of Cowboys Stadium, I believe there is additional seating that can be rolled out from under the stands for basketball/hockey games.

Wouldn't the ground level suites be in the way?

I believe both stadiums have;

a) retractable seating to allow 'floating/moveable' pitches to be moved outside/reoriented, and

b) retractable seating for events with a smaller field size. In the case of Cowboys Stadium, I believe there is additional seating that can be rolled out from under the stands for basketball/hockey games.

They end up being ground level seating so the view is usually quite bad.

I believe both stadiums have;

a) retractable seating to allow 'floating/moveable' pitches to be moved outside/reoriented, and

b) retractable seating for events with a smaller field size. In the case of Cowboys Stadium, I believe there is additional seating that can be rolled out from under the stands for basketball/hockey games.

But thats not exactly retractable seating in the same sense as ANZ Stadium or Etihad in (moving from Oval shape to rectangular and vice versa). It's basically still in rectangular form.

Also the only tournaments that are big enough to warrant the use of say Cowboys stadium is say the Final 4 in college ball and that won't be happening in Dallas ever year. And again its retractable seating for sports in rectangular shape and not of oval orientation.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9230306/afl-tipped-to-help-fund-new-stadium/)


AFL tipped to help fund new stadium
GARETH PARKER, The West Australian April 20, 2011, 2:25 am

The State Government has come away from a meeting with AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou confident it has secured a commitment from the league to help pay for a new 60,000-seat stadium.

Sport and Recreation Minister Terry Waldron and Liberal backbencher John McGrath met Mr Demetriou and AFL executives in Melbourne yesterday .

Mr Waldron said the AFL had agreed to contribute in line with its commitments to other stadium projects at AFL venues, including the MCG redevelopment, Geelong and Gold Coast.

He said figures were not discussed yesterday, but Colin Barnett said the AFL contribution would likely be modest, in the order of $10 million to $15 million.

The Premier has said he hoped the Commonwealth would provide up to $250 million of the project's expected $1 billion-plus cost.

"I would like some (financial) contribution from the AFL, but it is probably more important to get their input into the nature and design of the stadium and their support in encouraging a Commonwealth contribution," Mr Barnett said. "The Commonwealth had earmarked a contribution of $250 million towards a new stadium had Australia won the bid for the world soccer cup. Now, Australia didn't win that bid but I hope the $250 million … can still be on the table.

"The WA Government will obviously fund the majority of the stadium."

Mr Waldron said yesterday's meeting was very productive and the AFL had pledged to assist with planning and technical expertise.

"We brought the AFL up to date with the Premier's indication to make a decision in the middle of the year and we talked about the three sites," Mr Waldron said.

"We also talked about the size of the stadium and we talked around the 60,000 seat mark with the possibility of extending that to 70,000."

An AFL spokesman said Mr Demetriou was unavailable for comment yesterday because he was locked in meetings with TV executives over the AFL's new television rights deal, the value of which could reach $1 billion over five years.

Listening to Barney yesterday he'll probably build it without any support from anyone however they're on a mission to scrounge as much as they can (even if it's relative pittance) from here there and everywhere. The 'excess' funds should be just enough to cover for wastage and inefficiencies.

Having funding from other sources in the mix probably makes the Government more accountable to keeping to a time frame and budget.

Even Adelaide has better infrastructure than us (http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/soccer/socceroos-to-play-friendly-against-new-zealand-in-adelaide/story-e6frg26u-1226042055257)

Not really. The FFA could give us a Socceroos game anytime they want to. They just use the "no suitable stadium" as an excuse. Games at the MCG and now Adelaide Oval show they have no problem holding the games at ovals.

Not really. The FFA could give us a Socceroos game anytime they want to. They just use the "no suitable stadium" as an excuse. Games at the MCG and now Adelaide Oval show they have no problem holding the games at ovals.

We can't hold competitive matches because Subiaco doesn't meet basic standards like having a flat surface. We don't get friendlies because we don't bid for them...

Are you telling me that if the FFA showed interest in Perth, the government would not jump at the chance?

The only 'reason' we don't get games is because the FFA don't view it as profitable as holding the games on the east coast.

Are you telling me that if the FFA showed interest in Perth, the government would not jump at the chance?

The only 'reason' we don't get games is because the FFA don't view it as profitable as holding the games on the east coast.

They also have contracts with the NSW and Victorian governments to hold a specified number of games.

Why would they fixture a big friendly here and get 43k max when they can get as much as double that in Sydney or Melbourne?

Its being hosted in Adelaide

Its being hosted in Adelaide

hahahahahahahaha

Which highlights the lack of action by the state government. The SA government has been publicly lobbying the FFA for a friendly in June for months.

I think theres more to it than just saying 80,000 people in Sydney is more profitable than 40,000 people in Perth. Just using an example in the AFL, a low drawing team playing at the Dome have to get 30,000 people to rock up just to break even. Where-as Geelong make nearly $850,000 with only 25,000 people watching.


Perth however isn't offering much incentives for any big games to come here. Unless you call Australia v Indonesia a big game.

Playing on a substandard surface or stadium would be to the detriment of both the game and to Perth. The teams wouldn't want to come back and play here and the fans would complain about the seating/viewing and stadium facilities (or lack of them).
I hope they hurry up with this and just build the decent stadiums!

No surprise from negative comments from the Opposition...

Source (http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/wa-being-sold-short-cook-20110421-1dq7d.html)

WA being sold short: Cook
Simon White
April 22, 2011 - 8:33AM

Shadow sports minister Roger Cook has accused Premier Colin Barnett of selling the state short by asking for $50 million from the AFL towards a new football stadium in Perth.

Mr Barnett told 6PR radio yesterday that he intended asking for $50 million from the AFL and $150 million from the federal government towards what is likely to be a $1 billion project.

But Mr Cook accused the Premier of being $50 million less ambitious than he needed to be in approaching the AFL.

"If you look at Carrara (on the Gold Coast), the AFL has put in between eight and 10 per cent of the capital cost ($126 million) of building that stadium,'' Mr Cook said.

"The Premier needs to be driving the hardest bargain he can. And eight or 10 per cent of a new Perth stadium will be about $100 million.

"The AFL may turn around and ask the Premier to explain why he's going for the most expensive option with a new stadium but that's then for him to explain.''

Mr Cook said he was confident the federal government would contribute financially to the construction of a new stadium, despite declining to fund stadium upgrades in Adelaide, Blacktown and Geelong after Australia's failed bid to secure the 2022 soccer World Cup.

He said the likelihood of federal contribution to a new stadium should be judged in the context of the Australian government's commitment to funding various projects across WA and not in light of the South Australian government being forced to go it alone with a $535 million upgrade of Adelaide Oval.

After it emerged yesterday that WA sports minister Terry Waldron would meet next week with Tennis West officials, Mr Cook described the seemingly increasingly likely Burswood location of a new stadium as "the worst kept secret in Perth.''

Mr Barnett, who has voiced his personal support for a Burswood stadium, last week denied reports that the state government had already given the go-ahead for a $1.2 billion, 60,000-seat stadium on land currently occupied by the State Tennis Centre.

But Tennis West chief executive Andrew Stanbury confirmed yesterday the government had requested a meeting before the end of the month.

Tennis West has 37 years to run on a 50-year lease on the crown land of the STC site and Mr Stanbury has previously said it would be expect to be fairly compensated if it had to leave early.

"It's disappointing the stadium has become one of Barnett's pet projects,'' Mr Cook said.

"My concerns with Burswood are that there is an asbestos waste dump there and no public transport or social community facilities.

"There is nowhere for parents to take their children before or after games other than the casino.''

Mr Waldron said yesterday the meeting with Tennis West was simply to provide an update on the progress of stadium planning.

Looks like next month wil be a big one for announcements! Let's hope they go with Burswood site!

No surprise from negative comments from the Opposition...

Source (http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/wa-being-sold-short-cook-20110421-1dq7d.html)

Does the opposition understand the reasons behind the money being spent on the gold coast?

So much money is being spent because the AFL are setting up a new 17th team in an area, which obviously requires a stadium. The fact that the AFL are 100% committed to making Gold Coast and GWS work means that they are going to fund them at all costs, and give them huge concessions with early draft picks to ensure success.

The fact that WCE and Freo are established and successful clubs means that they dont need to spend the money they do on Gold Coast and GWS - because fans will come regardless

I'd love it if people did their research before opening their mouth - it just shows slackness

It's not relevant (to them). They just need to be NEGATIVE. That's their job. People will buy it. Or so they hope.

It's not relevant (to them). They just need to be NEGATIVE. That's their job. People will buy it. Or so they hope.

True

way more important is what will the owners of the casino be contributing ?... what the AFL will be contributing in not as important

... it MUST be multi-purpose ! ... to design a stadium for Australian rules will hand the AFL bastards too much power... who else is going to utilise a billion dollar oval ?... cricket in WA wants to do its own thing ... rugby and soccer won't use "another fucking oval!"
concerts at ovals (like subiaco) either put attendees too far from the stage or ruin the surface when you try to keep them closer ..

Cricket refuses to play at any venue other than the WACA ground.

Cricket refuses to play at any venue other than the WACA ground.

If cricket wants to keep getting important matches, they must either expand the WACA or find a bigger more modern facility. 25,000 doesn't cut it for an Ashes match. Not when you can host in Tasmania and pull in similar numbers. Perth needs bigger.

isn't lords only 30k capacity?

i would prefer tha current redevelopment proposal...

It's not relevant (to them). They just need to be NEGATIVE. That's their job. People will buy it. Or so they hope.

At least their being constructive about their criticism. Seems pretty rare for oppositions these days.

AFAIK the WACA have proposals to redevelop the ground to add capacity.

I guess one of the problems for the WACA is that there really isn't much scope for expanding the number of events held there unless you add more concerts and that wont happen because Subiaco is bigger and better for concerts than the WACA and because politics/NIMBYism/whatever make adding more events to the WACA calendar hard.

Why build it on burswood and add 10-20% in cost?

because tha flow-on benefit to tha eastern side of tha city/burswood and surrounds far out-weighs tha one off additional cost to build at this location...

and that's what we need, growing tha city...

No surprise from negative comments from the Opposition...

Source (http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/wa-being-sold-short-cook-20110421-1dq7d.html)

Labor had their chance to build a stadium, and luckily Subiaco wasnt
(re)developed. It would be great if the AFL did put in a higher percentage of funding but regardless the State Govt needs to press ahead with the development. The cost of this stadium is ridiculously high..
The London Olympic Stadium (80,000 seats) is around $1 billion,
The new Sports Complex in Singapore is $1.1 billion for a 55,000 seat stadium, a 4000 seat aquatics centre and another sports hall of some sort. Does Perth have a marked up 'insurance type' premium where everything is costed higher than it actually costs elsewhere?
I wouldnt have thought there was that much of a skills shortage to affect a project like this and we have the raw materials here so why is it so expensive?

If cricket wants to keep getting important matches, they must either expand the WACA or find a bigger more modern facility. 25,000 doesn't cut it for an Ashes match. Not when you can host in Tasmania and pull in similar numbers. Perth needs bigger.

It's a shame they couldnt work out a decent WACA redevelopment that catered for both the major sports that use an oval. That way it would have benefitted both cricket and football..

Why build it on burswood and add 10-20% in cost?

The simple answer would be because the cheaper options aren't always the best.. Long term mindset is required.

And they really don't know how much extra it will cost at the moment. Once they do a geotechnical exploration they should know better.

Isn't that $1 billion+ figure the cost for the whole works including transport upgrades? The other thing about any site apart from Subiaco is that you can then make some money back by selling off Subiaco.

The WACA sells out 3 days for the Ashes every 4 years, hardly enough demand for a big increase in capacity.

Any Australian One-Dayers and maybe Twenty20s should be moved to the new stadium where you'd expect a crowd closer to 50,000 than 25,000. But again these events are only 2 days a year.

Keeping the WACA as a 25-35,000 cricket stadium that can survive without enourmous government subsidies is a big win for cricket. It will be the last of the big 5 cricket stadiums in Australia to not have a drop-in pitch. They will also still own the stadium (which any redevelopment into the major stadium would have taken away).

in terms of who benefits most ... I keep looking back to the casino ... a multi-purpose stadium a kilometre from the casino opens up all sorts of possibilities for them ...and not just around AFL football ..
eg. high rollers from SE Asia watching perth glory play in a regional league with a salary cap that would bankrupt A league clubs... $5 million Penninsula Cup ifeature race at Belmont Park

p16 today's West


Barnett urged to keep new stadium busy
GARETH PARKER

If you're going to spend more than $1 billion on a stadium, you should make the building work as hard as possible.

That's the message stadium architect Richard Breslin would send to Premier Colin Barnett as he mulls over where and when to build a new 60,000-seat stadium for Perth.

Mr Breslin, senior principal for the Australia and New Zealand office of international stadium planning and design firm Populous, said yesterday the huge cost of new major stadiums means their owners — in this case the State Government—should try to leverage as many events as possible into the venue to justify the infrastructure expenditure.

That approach was advocated by the Langoulant task force report, for which Populous, then known as HOK, was a technical consultant.

The task force recommended building a stadium — with a reconfigurable lower seating bowl — that would be used to host 40 events a year including 24 AFL matches, eight rugby matches and seven days of international cricket.

But the Barnett Government has backed away from that approach, setting aside $88 million for a first-stage upgrade of rectangular nib Stadium in East Perth, while the WA Cricket Association has its own plans to redevelop the WACA Ground.

Mr Breslin, whose firm would likely bid for design work if the Government decided to go ahead with construction of a new stadium, said he understood why people were uneasy about governments spending huge sums on stadiums while there were other pressing needs.

"If Perth had crumbling health or school systems, I think it would be much harder to justify $1 billion for a new stadium," Mr Breslin said.

"But every city eventually goes through this. It gives you a chance to give the city much more than just the bricks and mortar."

The project leader of Populous' master planning work for the 2012 London Olympics, Mr Breslin said "legacy" issues were at the forefront of the London bid team's minds as they sought to avoid venues becoming white elephants after the Games.

The current plan is for London's 80,000-seat main stadium to be downsized to 60,000 seats for soccer club West Ham United. Mr Breslin said up-front construction costs totalled about one-third of total stadium running costs over a 50-year lifespan, and so it was important to get the capacity of a new venue right.

Labor had their chance to build a stadium, and luckily Subiaco wasnt (re)developed.

Bit Harsh - they did a lot of groundwork and lost an election they thought they wouldn't. If anything Barney has slowed the process down but at the end of the day the $$$ need to be available in the budget. When this goes ahead it will have been a cumulative effort. If ALP had not pushed when they did it would be years off.

THere was nothing b ad about the Langoulant preferred option of the new Stadium at Subiaco. Important also to note that Barney initially preferred exactly the (re)development option at Subi compared to the new Subi stadium, that really was quite clever in the way it kept the stadium operational Death Star style.

Does Perth have a marked up 'insurance type' premium where everything is costed higher than it actually costs elsewhere?

Indeed it does! HIgh labour costs on top of the isolation factor on top of a fairly low-competition high end construction sector (although from what I gather now is a good time to get a project like this running in terms of geting a good price from builders).

THere was nothing b ad about the Langoulant preferred option of the new Stadium at Subiaco. Important also to note that Barney initially preferred exactly the (re)development option at Subi compared to the new Subi stadium, that really was quite clever in the way it kept the stadium operational Death Star style.


Barney's a shrewd operator, seesms like he was only "considering" a redeveloped Subiaco as a means of extracting more money from the Feds for a potential world cup bid.

Heard him on ABC radio today saying he still expects $150 million (as opposed to $250 million) from the Feds. He also sounds pretty confident that he gan get $50 million from the AFL.

Would probably personally prefer the stadium on Mueller/Kitchener Park but Burswood probably has more long term appeal in that an "Olympic Park" style area can be built, with less chance of operations being affected by NIMBY's.

I think pollies like throwing out ideas and seeing how they are judged by the public. In this case there was a resounding no for a patched up Subi Oval. I didn't mind the Kitchener Park option (except for it allowing the Subi Council and residents to influence things like number of night time events). The shame is there is no really ideal option - with each possible having drawbacks. At least the Cockburn option wasn't seriously considered.

Bit Harsh - they did a lot of groundwork and lost an election they thought they wouldn't. If anything Barney has slowed the process down but at the end of the day the $$$ need to be available in the budget. When this goes ahead it will have been a cumulative effort. If ALP had not pushed when they did it would be years off.

THere was nothing b ad about the Langoulant preferred option of the new Stadium at Subiaco. Important also to note that Barney initially preferred exactly the (re)development option at Subi compared to the new Subi stadium, that really was quite clever in the way it kept the stadium operational Death Star style.

Pretty much spot on.

Also lets not forget that the new Subi plan recommended by Langoulant was pretty much dead as soon as Barney won the election. Those two are quite bitter enermies IIRC.

What is the basis of the animosity of Barnett towards Langalount anyway?

Some internal Liberal thing

Here's an article that gives a bit of insight into the Langoulant-Barnett relationship. http://http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/hostility-takes-back-seat-as-oakajee-chief-works-on-premiers-legacy/story-e6frg2r3-1225849847523

Barnett has a dislike for anything that was proposed by the Labor Govt, regardless if it was a good or bad idea. Labor wasted the years they had in power and the opportunities from that first big resource boom. Apart from the countless reports, reviews etc and the Mandurah train line and starting off Perth Arena, they have very little to show.
As for Subiaco Oval, the area is not the best for a major stadium, either redeveloped or built a few metres away at Kitchener Park. A major issue for those options has been many of the residents complaining about any event that occurs at Subi and the poor parking facilites and Drachonian parking laws around there. Sure public transport is preferred option, but if you dont live on a train line, good luck trying to get a bus after a night game or on a Sunday/ public holiday evening.
The Burswood plan, while having some issues, is better because it has less of a problem with existing residents and is closer to a major highway and freeway. Plus if the casino operators build a carpark on the current Burswood Dome site, as has been mentioned on here, it will have greater accessibility options (public transport and private vehicles).
As someone who goes to Subi for every home game, I have had enough of the bullshit the area puts the football public through, and I think alot of the public who go there feel the same.
Langoulant's report was influenced by the WAFL, so the interests of that organisation were best served to keep footy in Subiaco.

What did the WAFL have to gain by keeping football in Subiaco?

The WA Football Commission wanted to rebuild Subi rather than building something new but that was because a rebuild left them in control whereas a new stadium would not.

Barnett has a dislike for anything that was proposed by the Labor Govt, regardless if it was a good or bad idea. Labor wasted the years they had in power and the opportunities from that first big resource boom. Apart from the countless reports, reviews etc and the Mandurah train line and starting off Perth Arena, they have very little to show.


I could (as well as most people here) list of a fist full of major projects started and completed during the last governments term. To say that nothing was achieved or completed is laughable.

More specifically though, the stadium and waterfront never really became issues until Carpenter took over. I'm not sure Gallop would've made such strong commitments to the projects if he stuck around...particularly on the stadium.

As someone who goes to Subi for every home game, I have had enough of the bullshit the area puts the football public through, and I think alot of the public who go there feel the same.


Guh? I quite like that you can catch the train or, if you're early enough, park at the ground....and are then within easy walking distance to the city, Leederville, Subiaco etc after the game. I'm not sure it would be any better at any other site.

IF this goes ahead I would think Packer would be upgrading Burswood precinct to cater for the football crowd. Burswood needs expanding, it already is full these days. This could be the catalyst for improvement.

Also a better train station would also be a huge improvement.

what's so draconian about the parking laws around Subi?

Aren't they already going to spend money to make Burswood Train Station better?

IF this goes ahead I would think Packer would be upgrading Burswood precinct to cater for the football crowd. Burswood needs expanding, it already is full these days. This could be the catalyst for improvement.

Also a better train station would also be a huge improvement.

I'm supposing your thinking of the surronds of the casino as every inch internally has been renovated already.


Also we are getting a so-called super station. My thinking is that its just going to be a bigger version of the current station and not something like one a few stops up.

I'm supposing your thinking of the surronds of the casino as every inch internally has been renovated already.


Also we are getting a so-called super station. My thinking is that its just going to be a bigger version of the current station and not something like one a few stops up.

Yes I mean expansion. They've done well internally but its too small.

^^ too small? aside from that it's still expanding, it is the 2nd largest casino, both by floor size and gaming tables in the country!

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5663139039_e0e3b1097c_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22766589@N08/5663139039/in/photostream

As you can see externally there are a few things under way, to the left are new 'condos' .. luxury apartments for high rollers u/c. In the middle, as i mentioned the casino will expand into the current fountain area. and near the riverside entrance, bottom left you can see a small extension taking place which will be the new emporium. what you cant see in the pic is that on the roof of intercontinental there is a new gaming salon also u/c for the high rollers.

^^ too small? aside from that it's still expanding, it is the 2nd largest casino, both by floor size and gaming tables in the country!

Bigger than Star City? :/

what do you think? if it's no.2 and obviously crown is no.1 ..

trying to see if there is any evidence online. cant find anything, most listings are like 10 years old. basically there are a number of criteria that casinos are measured by, and in some burswood comes 2nd, others not.

lol here is a brochure from burswood mentioning it's no.2 status ... http://www.business.burswood.com.au/brochures/1102-01_Burswood%20BrochureFEB11.pdf

I knew Crown was number 1, I was doubting whether this place was actually bigger than Star City though.

No it's not. Also I'm pretty sure star city has had some fairly major recent upgrades.
imo star city is better than crown (the casino part) with its higher ceilings and open spaces. Crown makes you feel claustrophobic. anyway that's besides the point.

The upgrade work is still ongoing.

In terms of revenue, Burswood is numero uno.


Can people see why Packer does not give a flying hoot if the stadium goes at the tennis centre or not?

not really. 'Numero Uno' does not mean it can't improve.
On a sidenote - Are you saying Burswood generates more profit than any other casino in Aus? just curious

^^ due to the new casinos opening in singapore the high roller side of things, both for burswood and crown has taken a major hit, and is a large earner so both are now 'renovating' to lure such clients back. (the high-roller sections of the casinos). perhaps the plans for burswood might change based on this stadium thing, as the proximity between the two would have an impact on burswood, as in people going to the stadium will very likely be using up all the parking at burswood, so the planned multi-storey carpark may even get bigger if the stadium will infact be just next door.

I heard the new stadium was going to be built in Herdsman.

I heard the new stadium was going to be built in Herdsman.

how many floors of parking? will the crane be red?

70,000 seater stadium for ALL football codes. Get it built not bloody hard! Melbourne can do it, Sydney can do it, Brisbane can do it yet Perth spends 20 years thinking about it!

what's so draconian about the parking laws around Subi?

They enforce the laws with a bit too much enthusiasm, with scores of parking inspectors dishing out countless infringements, the lack of suitable parking anywhere near Subi or the side streets (resident only parking on football days), parking at St John of God and at Fitness First is a total rip off.
I'm not a big fan of Subi, just my preference is for a decent modern stadium with appropriate facilites for the spectators, in another area...even Herdsman! :)

70,000 seater stadium for ALL football codes. Get it built not bloody hard! Melbourne can do it, Sydney can do it, Brisbane can do it yet Perth spends 20 years thinking about it!

:cheers:

What did the WAFL have to gain by keeping football in Subiaco?

The WA Football Commission wanted to rebuild Subi rather than building something new but that was because a rebuild left them in control whereas a new stadium would not.

Because "Subiaco is the home of football". They had a better deal at Subi. Their HQ is there and their chairman at the time wanted the stadium in Subi. Like alot of things in Perth, they were resistant to change so preferred to stay in the area they know best.

At Subi Oval they had A4 (or was it A3?) pieces of paper outside the toilets saying they are having problems with water pressure and are looking into the problems. From what has been mentioned on the radio (last year or maybe the year before) parts of the stadium have had toilets that don't flush properly on match day due to water pressure issues.

yeah, they're a4, haha, i see them every week. also, i get the feeling that wafc will stay in subiaco even when the game moves to burswood - assuming all goes to plan :|

Take a photo and show tha world...

I didn't think of doing that. I might next time - though it does look dodgy taking photos of people going into toilets!

Channel your inner ninja.

They enforce the laws with a bit too much enthusiasm, with scores of parking inspectors dishing out countless infringements, the lack of suitable parking anywhere near Subi or the side streets (resident only parking on football days), parking at St John of God and at Fitness First is a total rip off.
I'm not a big fan of Subi, just my preference is for a decent modern stadium with appropriate facilites for the spectators, in another area...even Herdsman! :)

I've had this kind of argument before. The answer is simple.. use public transport. If you refuse to do so, parking issues are your problem to deal with.

Subi council WANTS you to break parking laws on game days. It's money for jam!!
PS: I have no problem with it.

Because "Subiaco is the home of football".
A particiular boring glorified borefest form of football aye it is.

A particiular boring glorified borefest form of football aye it is.

You're confused - we aren't talking about Rugby League.

Or soccer.

I've had this kind of argument before. The answer is simple.. use public transport. If you refuse to do so, parking issues are your problem to deal with.

Too true! It would be great if they did more to address the problem. I know the rationale for using public transport, I've done enough reports and surveys into it. But the reality is that Perth's public transport is not up to scratch, especially for events that require mass transport for crowds at an event. I've given it a go, and keep giving it a go but at the end of the day I'm not going to wait ages on St. George's Terrace at night for buses that often turn up late. The trains are generally ok and get you into the city without too much trouble. It's the connecting buses that are infrequent especially in the evening and on PHs/weekends.Add in the winter rain/cold and much of the public will find it easier to drive to an event.
If they're serious they need to make sure services are adjusted (frequencies) so they are able to better cater for people accessing/ leaving such events.

If the buses were as reliable as the trains, more than a quarter of commuters would use public transport.

Andrew Demetriou let slip today, while discussing the approval of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, that a decision regarding WA's stadium is coming in June.

^^ IIRC - Barnett has already mentioned June as a decision date.

Can't wait!! Hopefully it's early in June and they wont make us wait too much longer.

^^ IIRC - Barnett has already mentioned June as a decision date.

I thought he only confirmed 'sometime after the budget'....as in, no funding in the budget.

The June date had been thrown around iirc.

Not anything that we didn't know already.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9332606/no-funding-for-stadium-in-budget/)


No funding for stadium in Budget
Ben Harvey and Neale Prior, The West Australian May 7, 2011, 2:35 am

Premier Colin Barnett is poised to hand down a State Budget that contains no funding for the construction of a new sports stadium, details a $200 million electricity price bombshell and exposes an education budget which is out of control.

The centrepiece of the Liberal-National Government's third Budget will be a $200 million-plus cash boost for the not-for-profit sector.

Charities and church groups will use the money to become more professional and start competing with the public service and private companies to deliver welfare services.

The move towards pay parity for tens of thousands of social service workers, that is being forced in part by an imminent decision by Fair Work Australia to raise minimum wages in the sector, will be championed by Mr Barnett as a significant social dividend from the mining boom and the defining announcement of a "people's Budget".

The new policy will push up the day-to-day cost of running the Government at a time when officials are trying to rein in uncontrolled spending on schools.

The education budget is set to come in up to $100 million over projections, due in large part to the cost of paying an army of teachers' assistants that has continued to amass over the past year.

Attempts by the Government to sideline the issue of rising utility prices will be torpedoed by the inclusion in the Budget of the cost of doubling the amount of power generated from renewable sources, which Canberra has ordered to occur by 2020.

At present, less than 9 per cent of power is generated this way in WA and the move towards expensive green sources is estimated to add $200 million to the cost of production - which will flow through to higher bills under the Government's policy of charging cost-reflective rates for power.

The politically charged issue of State debt, which is set to approach $20 billion within three years, will continue to cause headaches for Mr Barnett after the decision was made not to include the cost of building the new sports stadium in the forward estimates, with funds made available for only initial site testing.

The $1 billion-plus project has not been endorsed by Cab- inet and therefore does not have to be accounted for in the Budget but a portion of the construction cost is likely to have to be fin- anced during the period covered by the four-year forward est- imates.

While there is no doubt the Government is committed to building the stadium, the omission is likely to spark a fresh round of speculation about when construction will start.

A $400 million expansion of the Binningup desalination plant, which is widely considered to be inevitable, is also not included in the forward estimates.

The Government will address the issue of how it is delivering fat surpluses at a time when debt is rising by changing the way it presents the Budget on May 19.

The Budget papers will continue to highlight the usual deficit and surplus measure, which is known as the operating balance.

But a "cash deficit" figure which shows both the day-to-day running costs and the financial impact of the Barnett Government's large asset investment program will be highlighted.

The cash deficit for 2010-11 is forecast to be $1.91 billion, as opposed to an operating balance surplus of $758 million. Did you know? $20b The amount of WA's public sector debt predicted within three years

Not happy

^^ hmm hetro.

in other news after some discussions rumor has it the dome will become an entertainment complex/shopping place, and the multistory carpark is going in the current carpark (the one closest to great eastern near the riverside entrance

good idea. They'll probably get rid of the dodgy roof.

Regardless of what happens, the current dome structure should go, its an eyesore IMO.
Replace it with an upscale shopping and entertainment area to expand the offerings (similar to what is seen at other casinos around the world) and then use the "shops at international standard hotels" classification (since Burswood is most definatly an international standard hotel) under "special retail shops" to open them beyond the normal allowed hours (i.e. 6am-11:30pm every day of the year)

i don't think perth dome is an eyesore... it's actually a decent structure, not many stadiums have that dome... tha problem is its integration with tha surrounds... infact i'd be happy for it to stay if they built around it and fvck'd off every single ground surface car bay at burswood...

pushing burswood reputation a bit high i think... even "up-scale" shops at crown don't stay open that late...

Regardless of what happens, the current dome structure should go, its an eyesore IMO.
Replace it with an upscale shopping and entertainment area to expand the offerings (similar to what is seen at other casinos around the world) and then use the "shops at international standard hotels" classification (since Burswood is most definatly an international standard hotel) under "special retail shops" to open them beyond the normal allowed hours (i.e. 6am-11:30pm every day of the year)

They could just register them as Small Retail Shops and open whenever they like...

Regardless of what happens, the current dome structure should go, its an eyesore IMO.
Replace it with an upscale shopping and entertainment area to expand the offerings (similar to what is seen at other casinos around the world) and then use the "shops at international standard hotels" classification (since Burswood is most definatly an international standard hotel) under "special retail shops" to open them beyond the normal allowed hours (i.e. 6am-11:30pm every day of the year)
Burswood is definitely not an international standard hotel. Maybe with the recent upgrades but Intercon Perth has to be one of the worst iv been to (I've stayed at about a dozen of them).

I can see your retail shops idea working. Burswood is actually a really good spot being quite central to a lot of areas. Only thing is, I don't see them opening that earlier. Maybe a mid-day opening is more like it with a late close.

Hopefully any retail upgrade around Burswood comes with a major upgrade to the train station.

Burswood is definitely not an international standard hotel. Maybe with the recent upgrades but Intercon Perth has to be one of the worst iv been to (I've stayed at about a dozen of them).

I can see your retail shops idea working. Burswood is actually a really good spot being quite central to a lot of areas. Only thing is, I don't see them opening that earlier. Maybe a mid-day opening is more like it with a late close.

atm intercontinental is looking alot like the rest of the others around the world ... fancy and expensive looking. still got some floors to be redone so the rooms and everything is top shit but the lobby and the largest floors have all been redone to look amazing. what you have to remember is that this intercontinental is unique, it's part of a great complex, with a casino and convention facilities next door. this is both good and bad, as you get the idiots and bogans wondering into the hotel area and making it look not so '5 star' ..

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9560216/barnett-defends-old-dump-for-new-stadium/)


Barnett defends old dump for new stadium
AAP, The West Australian June 1, 2011, 4:37 pm

Despite Premier Colin Barnett favouring a former industrial waste dump as the site for Perth’s new stadium, he doesn’t believe there’s an urgent need for soil testing.

Mr Barnett has previously said the proposed new football stadium would probably be built at the current site of the State Tennis Centre at Burswood.

A task force headed by businessman John Langoulant, which is examining options for a new Perth stadium, found the Burswood site would cost more than other sites due to it being built on land previously used as a waste dump.

It was revealed in a budget estimates hearing that the WA Government would announce the site for the proposed major stadium before any geotechnical investigations had been carried out.

Mr Barnett today defended the decision, saying the Government’s first priority was to decide the size and location of the stadium, and when it will be built.

“Once the decision is made, it will be quite some time before any physical construction begins because first detailed specifications of the stadium have to be done,” he told reporters.

“There will be an international design competition for the stadium and then there will be all the tendering processes, so there will be plenty of time to do the soil testing.”

Mr Barnett said that, despite the ground possibly being softer than at other potential sites, the Burswood casino complex was evidence that the land could be successfully developed.

“There’s no question you can build on the site,” he said.

“The advice I have received recently ... from people looking at it in detail is perhaps it’s not such a big deal, it’s a matter of having stronger supporting foundations on the site than a firmer site. It’s not a show-stopper.”

Although the Langoulant taskforce found a stadium at Burswood would be more costly than other sites due to the ground surface, Mr Barnett said it would be offset by other factors.

He said construction would not have to work around existing buildings or congested roads.

The Langoulant task force found Burswood was the only site which offered the opportunity to develop a “much more expansive sports and events precinct” like Sydney’s Olympic Park.

WA Sports Minister Terry Waldron told a budget estimates hearing yesterday that a new stadium for Perth would not be built before 2017.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Source (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/no-urgent-soil-testing-required-at-proposed-burswood-stadium-site/story-e6frg14c-1226067423263)

No urgent soil testing required at proposed Burswood stadium site
Josh Jerga From: AAP June 01, 2011 4:53PM

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/04/12/1226038/102261-burswood-stadium.jpg
FAVOURED: The State Tennis Centre at Burswood, tipped to be the home of a new 60,000 seat stadium. Source: PerthNow

WEST Australian Premier Colin Barnett doesn't see an urgent need for soil testing despite favouring a former industrial waste dump as the site for Perth's new stadium.

Mr Barnett has previously said the proposed new 60,000-seat stadium would likely be built at the current site of the State Tennis Centre at Burswood.

A task force headed by businessman John Langoulant, which is examining new stadium options, found the Burswood site would cost more than other sites due to it being built on land previously used as a waste dump.

It was revealed in a budget estimates hearing that the WA government would announce the site for the proposed major stadium before any geotechnical investigations were carried out.

On Wednesday, Mr Barnett defended the decision, saying the government's first priority was to decide the size and location of the stadium, and when it will be built.

``Once the decision is made, it will be quite some time before any physical construction begins because first detailed specifications of the stadium have to be done,'' he told reporters.

``There will be an international design competition for the stadium and then there will be all the tendering processes, so there will be plenty of time to do the soil testing.''

Mr Barnett said that, despite the ground possibly being softer than other potential sites, the Burswood casino complex was evidence you could successfully build on the land.

``There's no question you can build on the site,'' he said.

``The advice I have received recently... from people looking at it in detail is perhaps it's not such a big deal, it's a matter of having stronger supporting foundations on the site than a firmer site. It's not a show-stopper.''

Although the Langoulant taskforce found a stadium at Burswood would be more costly than other sites due to the ground surface, Mr Barnett said it would be offset by other factors.

He said construction would not have to work around existing buildings or congested roads.

The Langoulant task force found Burswood was the only site which offered the opportunity to develop a ``much more expansive sports and events precinct'' like Sydney's Olympic Park.

Sports Minister Terry Waldron told a budget estimates hearing on Tuesday that a new stadium for Perth would not be built before 2017.

not built before 2017!!!!!!

considering it's going to take 5 years or so to build it that means they'll have to start in 2012 which is about right isn't it?

If there are contamination issues, that will take years to deal with in itself? Building on old waste dumps has issues as well with instability. I didn't think it was generally allowed, unless you're prepared dig it all out first?

^They are questions, not statements by the way...

When he says not built before 2017 i sure hope he doenst mean construction to start in 2017?

Hope the Station adjacent (Belmont Park) gets a decent upgrade, too.
I guess we'll have an even bigger ocean of carpark to accompany the stadium, too.

Six years to construction isn't a long time in planning for a project that big, especially considering it's only at Barnett's thought bubble stage.