News Gabba Upgrade & Olympics News

[Grasshopper17]

the Review Committee would have to be fairly incompetent not to know all that information.

Ah well, good thing this committee has been organised by the government so there is no chance of this

 

[Andyz]

Just curious since you are so passionate about a scorched earth demolition and rebuild - what do you think will happen to the Lions membership and viability during the 4 years we are "homeless" during this period of dislocation. I don't share the view that the Gabba needs to be demolished and rebuilt at a highly problematic cost of $2.7b but that difference aside, what the hell is going to happen to our Club? I genuinely fear for its future...

Sometimes you have to take a step backwards to take 2 steps forward (or hopefully a big leap forward!).
You can’t justify not making the best long term decisions just because of a bit of construction inconvenience. If they can find a way to up capacity at RNA to 30k it’s a whisker off the current capacity anyway & will mean Lions members & fans can all get on board in a world class stadium capable of supporting record membership.

I don’t think cost is that much - a house costs $1m these days….and the total development cost of the new Tasmania stadium is expected to be 2.3b!
What do you think the going cost of a new 50-60k stadium is?

It’s essentially covered by the IOC contribution anyway, and a new stadium is required regardless of the Olympics.

We all pay our taxes & we should rightly expect our stadium infrastructure isn’t so bad that Adelaide & Perth have far far better than the 3rd largest (but best) city in our country. Tasmania will soon have a new stadium too….we may be relegated to 6th! It’s pathetic if we are duped a decent ground for the sake of a few $ or inconvenience.

 

[T Rick]

Sometimes you have to take a step backwards to take 2 steps forward (or hopefully a big leap forward!).
You can’t justify not making the best long term decisions just because of a bit of construction inconvenience. If they can find a way to up capacity at RNA to 30k it’s a whisker off the current capacity anyway & will mean Lions members & fans can all get on board in a world class stadium capable of supporting record membership.

I don’t think cost is that much - a house costs $1m these days….and the total development cost of the new Tasmania stadium is expected to be 2.3b!
What do you think the going cost of a new 50-60k stadium is?

It’s essentially covered by the IOC contribution anyway, and a new stadium is required regardless of the Olympics.

We all pay our taxes & we should rightly expect our stadium infrastructure isn’t so bad that Adelaide & Perth have far far better than the 3rd largest (but best) city in our country. Tasmania will soon have a new stadium too….we may be relegated to 6th! It’s pathetic if we are duped a decent ground for the sake of a few $ or inconvenience.

 

[T Rick]

"...a bit of construction inconvenience" seems like an incredibly flippant way of describing the potential demise of our Club...I fear that 4 years without a home will be absolutely catastrophic for the Brisbane Lions and nothing I have seen or heard from the Qld Government gives me any confidence that they can operate within a budget or care a stuff about the Lions. I don't care a stuff about the Olympics but I do care about the Lions. If the Olympics was being held in some other country we wouldn't be talking about a scorched earth approach to enhancing the Gabba...all of a sudden the place is full of concrete cancer and third world standard because the catering stinks and there is no underground parking.

 

[tony]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/brisbane/more-members-than-gabba-seats-brisbane-lions-chairman-andrew-wellington-weighs-in-as-olympic-rebuild-stalls/news-story/a526d3c8cda708aa02f4c2e9d6ea08cf?amp

​

More members than Gabba seats: Brisbane Lions chairman Andrew Wellington weighs in as Olympic rebuild stalls​

The Brisbane Lions could soon have more members than there are seats and their home ground, making the mooted Gabba redevelopment an urgent priority for the club’s attempts to continue growing in Queensland.

Brisbane Lions chairman Andrew Wellington says the club could soon outgrow its Gabba home with record membership and attendance numbers pointing to a not-too distant future in which a larger venue is required.

Speaking at the club’s season launch at Howard Smith Wharves on Tuesday, Wellington revealed the Lions were well on their way to surpassing 55,000 members off the back of roaring on-field success under coach Chris Fagan and strong backroom leadership.

“The good news is that as a club we are in fantastic shape. We already have over 42,000 members and more than 85 per cent of our hospitality offerings for the season are sold,” Wellington said.

“We continue to target over 55,000 members for this year. It’s not so long ago these numbers were unthinkable.

“To give some context – in 2004 after the historic three-peat of premierships we had just over 30,000 members and that was the highest until 2021 when we reached 40,000. Since then we have continued to set record levels of membership each year.”

Roughly half of Brisbane’s home games last season were a sellout and Wellington prophesied more of the same this year and beyond with Fagan leading one of the most talented lists in the AFL to regular finals appearances.

The Lions chairman declared the club had proven its capacity to draw big crowds to the Gabba and could soon outgrow the ageing 42,000 capacity stadium.

“With record membership, more than half our games sold out in 2023 and (with) a population that continues to grow, surely no one could doubt we can consistently fill a larger stadium (if it was) available,” Wellington said.

His comments come at a time where the $2.7b Gabba redevelopment plan has hit a major roadblock in the wake of comments from Olympics powerbroker John Coates and Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner.

Former AOC president Coates told the Courier-Mail this month “we should abandon the Gabba” rebuild, while Schrinner declared the project was “dead, buried and cremated”.

In November 2018, the Stadium Taskforce Report ruled that “without significant replacement and enhancement” the Gabba’s “remaining useful life” was 11.6 years – the middle of 2030.

After Wellington’s comments on Tuesday night, it appears the Lions could shorten that timeline.

The Gabba rebuild, which was drawn up to become the centrepiece of the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, would boost its capacity from 42,000 to 50,000 for sporting events – a welcome increase for the Lions, though with the caveat of displacing their home games for a number of seasons while in development.

A mooted temporary move to the RNA Showgrounds was shot down late last year when the State Government’s redevelopment proposal asked the Lions, Queensland Cricket, Brisbane City Council and RNA to shell out almost $100m.

Given the upgraded venue would have likely seated little more than 20,000 spectators, it would have proved a costly move for the Lions who by that point expect to have three times as many paying members on the books.

A win-win for the Lions would be a staged development approach to the Gabba, in a similar vein to that at GMHBA Stadium which allowed Geelong to continue playing games at its home ground while the venue was upgraded.

The Cats’ fully refurbished 40,000-seater, which cost less than $350m over five stages, will be unveiled for Round 1 against St Kilda.

The Gabba Stadium Project Validation Report, released in November last year, included two options that could allow the Lions to play at the venue during its redevelopment.

The first was a partial rebuild and refurbishment that would retain the north and south stands, with an anticipated cost of $2.55b.

Another option would be to retain a significant portion of the existing structure including the base concrete slab and rebuild the seating bowl, which would also increase the capacity to 50,000 but at an estimated cost of more than $3b.

Regardless of where the Gabba redevelopment lands, Wellington’s comments on Tuesday signalled a statement of intent by the Lions to become a dominant force both on and off the field.

And the immediate focus was made crystal clear: win a premiership.

“Being close (to winning the premiership) last year doesn’t guarantee anything for this year but, knowing we were close, we know we need to get a bit better in some areas,” Wellington added.

“That is within our capabilities and the group is prepared to put in the work and focus on the improvement required to win the premiership this year.”

 

[Grasshopper17]

In November 2018, the Stadium Taskforce Report ruled that “without significant replacement and enhancement” the Gabba’s “remaining useful life” was 11.6 years – the middle of 2030.

Well done Section 5

 

[M Malice]

Why do most of the articles on the rebuild have the current Gabba capacity at 42,000... frustrating.

 

[M Malice]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/brisbane/more-members-than-gabba-seats-brisbane-lions-chairman-andrew-wellington-weighs-in-as-olympic-rebuild-stalls/news-story/a526d3c8cda708aa02f4c2e9d6ea08cf?amp

​

More members than Gabba seats: Brisbane Lions chairman Andrew Wellington weighs in as Olympic rebuild stalls​

The Brisbane Lions could soon have more members than there are seats and their home ground, making the mooted Gabba redevelopment an urgent priority for the club’s attempts to continue growing in Queensland.

Brisbane Lions chairman Andrew Wellington says the club could soon outgrow its Gabba home with record membership and attendance numbers pointing to a not-too distant future in which a larger venue is required.

Speaking at the club’s season launch at Howard Smith Wharves on Tuesday, Wellington revealed the Lions were well on their way to surpassing 55,000 members off the back of roaring on-field success under coach Chris Fagan and strong backroom leadership.

“The good news is that as a club we are in fantastic shape. We already have over 42,000 members and more than 85 per cent of our hospitality offerings for the season are sold,” Wellington said.

“We continue to target over 55,000 members for this year. It’s not so long ago these numbers were unthinkable.

“To give some context – in 2004 after the historic three-peat of premierships we had just over 30,000 members and that was the highest until 2021 when we reached 40,000. Since then we have continued to set record levels of membership each year.”

Roughly half of Brisbane’s home games last season were a sellout and Wellington prophesied more of the same this year and beyond with Fagan leading one of the most talented lists in the AFL to regular finals appearances.

The Lions chairman declared the club had proven its capacity to draw big crowds to the Gabba and could soon outgrow the ageing 42,000 capacity stadium.

“With record membership, more than half our games sold out in 2023 and (with) a population that continues to grow, surely no one could doubt we can consistently fill a larger stadium (if it was) available,” Wellington said.

His comments come at a time where the $2.7b Gabba redevelopment plan has hit a major roadblock in the wake of comments from Olympics powerbroker John Coates and Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner.

Former AOC president Coates told the Courier-Mail this month “we should abandon the Gabba” rebuild, while Schrinner declared the project was “dead, buried and cremated”.

In November 2018, the Stadium Taskforce Report ruled that “without significant replacement and enhancement” the Gabba’s “remaining useful life” was 11.6 years – the middle of 2030.

After Wellington’s comments on Tuesday night, it appears the Lions could shorten that timeline.

The Gabba rebuild, which was drawn up to become the centrepiece of the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, would boost its capacity from 42,000 to 50,000 for sporting events – a welcome increase for the Lions, though with the caveat of displacing their home games for a number of seasons while in development.

A mooted temporary move to the RNA Showgrounds was shot down late last year when the State Government’s redevelopment proposal asked the Lions, Queensland Cricket, Brisbane City Council and RNA to shell out almost $100m.

Given the upgraded venue would have likely seated little more than 20,000 spectators, it would have proved a costly move for the Lions who by that point expect to have three times as many paying members on the books.

A win-win for the Lions would be a staged development approach to the Gabba, in a similar vein to that at GMHBA Stadium which allowed Geelong to continue playing games at its home ground while the venue was upgraded.

The Cats’ fully refurbished 40,000-seater, which cost less than $350m over five stages, will be unveiled for Round 1 against St Kilda.

The Gabba Stadium Project Validation Report, released in November last year, included two options that could allow the Lions to play at the venue during its redevelopment.

The first was a partial rebuild and refurbishment that would retain the north and south stands, with an anticipated cost of $2.55b.

Another option would be to retain a significant portion of the existing structure including the base concrete slab and rebuild the seating bowl, which would also increase the capacity to 50,000 but at an estimated cost of more than $3b.

Regardless of where the Gabba redevelopment lands, Wellington’s comments on Tuesday signalled a statement of intent by the Lions to become a dominant force both on and off the field.

And the immediate focus was made crystal clear: win a premiership.

“Being close (to winning the premiership) last year doesn’t guarantee anything for this year but, knowing we were close, we know we need to get a bit better in some areas,” Wellington added.

“That is within our capabilities and the group is prepared to put in the work and focus on the improvement required to win the premiership this year.”

Those cost estimates for refurb etc are just as expensive or more so than the estimates for a full demolishment and rebuild.

 

[LongLion]

Why do most of the articles on the rebuild have the current Gabba capacity at 42,000... frustrating.

Yep, really p**ses me off. Continues to be reporting not based on facts.

 

[Dalions]

The first was a partial rebuild and refurbishment that would retain the north and south stands, with an anticipated cost of $2.55b.

This option would just be the worst.
It means that all of the extra seating is at the East and Western ends and behind the goals for the footy which is just a Horrible result imo.
Especially for $2.5b

On another point in the article:
If we have 42k members before the season even starts, that is an amazing result.

 

[Viceregal]

Waits for the Rugby guy to point out that we only had 20k or whatever it was to games when we sucked and by the time the new facilities we would not only have gone out of regular finals contention but most of our fan base would have been whittled away by our low ranking and our years of gyspy like existance so the Lions really only need a 25k stadia and can just play their bigger drawing games in Victoria like all good aerial ping pong playing teams should!

 

[Bjo187]

The Cats’ fully refurbished 40,000-seater, which cost less than $350m over five stages, will be unveiled for Round 1 against St Kilda.

The Gabba Stadium Project Validation Report, released in November last year, included two options that could allow the Lions to play at the venue during its redevelopment.

The first was a partial rebuild and refurbishment that would retain the north and south stands, with an anticipated cost of $2.55b.

Another option would be to retain a significant portion of the existing structure including the base concrete slab and rebuild the seating bowl, which would also increase the capacity to 50,000 but at an estimated cost of more than

How the actual f* can the cats fully staged stadium rebuild, at a similarly land locked site, cost 350 mill, yet only replacing the 2 ends at the gabba would cost 2.5 billion, equivalent to an entire demolition and rebuild of the whole stadium? . Is that some very creative accounting when the government wanted the full rebuild done or what?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

While I have no doubt that it was full, public transport is vastly underutilized and yet we continue to pour money into it because it's a service we demand and rightly so. It's a life line to those with no other option.

Well not just those people. It's also a lifeline if it's going somewhere so popular that there isn't enough road space to accommodate everyone driving. There's already big traffic congestion heading to the CBD every morning, and that's with a lot of cars taken off the road because many commuters are using public transport instead. Similarly with stadiums, it's the only efficient way to get a lot of people in and out in reasonable time. Waverley Park wouldn't work well in the 21st century, people would be stuck for hours trying to get home.

But it will never meet everyone's needs. Nor will it service the entire community or provide value to those who don't use it.

It's not designed to meet everyone's needs for every trip. The point is if everyone who can reasonably take public transport does so, the cars they would otherwise be driving are now not on the road, which means less traffic congestion for everyone else. I think that's value that public transport is providing for those who don't use it.

Mind you, if we stopped sprawling so much and built even a little more densely around train stations and major roads, (doesn't even have to be really high, just 4-6 storeys like in European cities), public transport would be a lot more directly useful to people, because more people would live close to stations and major bus routes, and more of their destinations would be around them too.

It's seen as a wasted resource every time an empty bus or train rushes by.

Something else that's fundamental to bringing decent numbers of people to public transport is running it frequently, so people know they don't have to wait long for a service. That does result in some services having low occupancy. But this would again probably improve if we had more people living near train stations and major bus routes, because more people would then want to use them.

The answer isn't reducing the number of services, that would just be going backwards and encouraging more people to drive, adding to traffic congestion. To an extent it has to be a "build it and they will come" approach, the service frequency has to be there first before the passenger base slowly starts to grow.

It's an expense that never returns true value in the revenue it consumes vs the revenue it creates.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, if you're only counting farebox revenue against the cost of running the service. But that's not a fair analysis. It doesn't factor how much society is saving in air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions or road maintenance, compared to the scenario where all the passengers drove cars instead. And that adds up to quite a lot, car rego and fuel excise doesn't come close to covering it.

Ever seen the graph below?



But, in places like Japan where people live densely, farebox revenue is greater than the cost of running the service, because everyone takes public transport. So it is possible if that's what you're looking for, it just requires a really big shift in density.

 

[Elixuh]

Why do most of the articles on the rebuild have the current Gabba capacity at 42,000... frustrating.

Is 42,000 incorrect for a potential opening ceremony, ie if they wanted to they could put the seating in for 42,000, no?

 

[Dalions]

Is 42,000 incorrect for a potential opening ceremony, ie if they wanted to they could put the seating in for 42,000, no?

My understanding was that it was meant to be a minimum of a 60,000 seat stadium.
But they lowered it, allowing Brisbane to build a new 50,000 seat stadium.

 

[Andyz]

Finally we hear some Lions announcements Can’t believe they’ve bitten their tongues so long, it’s common sense they need a bigger ground and asap! Both to show their support of members & supporters but also them financially as they are already at a disadvantage to Melbourne clubs with their 100,000 capacity ticket revenue.

They should have shown their support earlier imo, and stuff this progressive rebuild rubbish just do the thing once & properly!

Who wants huge stands at eastern & western ends - the eastern end will be rubbish all summer with the afternoon sun they don’t even open that stand in some tests for that reason.

And not to mention the poorer viewing - an extra 20,000 or so seats with 1/2 of them up in nose bleed section that would have been spaced all around the ground at a lower level instead under a rebuild.
Anyone who’s sat at the back of the mcg top level knows what awful viewing that is, may as well watch on tv than up there with binoculars!

Hopefully they can bargain with the Govt to expand RNA for the interim - 30,000 there would be close to Gabba current capacity anyway and means the Gabba is done properly & faster.

Interestingly I got so frustrated at the garbage playing out that I shot off a few emails - to Miles, to Cisafulli & to the venuereviewfeedback dsdilgp address….Crisafulli said they don’t support it bc they want an independent infrastructure delivery authority….so thankfully they don’t seem to be as silly & short sighted as I had expected & perhaps persuadable. The other replies aren’t worth mentioning though.

 

[notliondown]

Well not just those people. It's also a lifeline if it's going somewhere so popular that there isn't enough road space to accommodate everyone driving. There's already big traffic congestion heading to the CBD every morning, and that's with a lot of cars taken off the road because many commuters are using public transport instead. Similarly with stadiums, it's the only efficient way to get a lot of people in and out in reasonable time. Waverley Park wouldn't work well in the 21st century, people would be stuck for hours trying to get home.


It's not designed to meet everyone's needs for every trip. The point is if everyone who can reasonably take public transport does so, the cars they would otherwise be driving are now not on the road, which means less traffic congestion for everyone else. I think that's value that public transport is providing for those who don't use it.

Mind you, if we stopped sprawling so much and built even a little more densely around train stations and major roads, (doesn't even have to be really high, just 4-6 storeys like in European cities), public transport would be a lot more directly useful to people, because more people would live close to stations and major bus routes, and more of their destinations would be around them too.


Something else that's fundamental to bringing decent numbers of people to public transport is running it frequently, so people know they don't have to wait long for a service. That does result in some services having low occupancy. But this would again probably improve if we had more people living near train stations and major bus routes, because more people would then want to use them.

The answer isn't reducing the number of services, that would just be going backwards and encouraging more people to drive, adding to traffic congestion. To an extent it has to be a "build it and they will come" approach, the service frequency has to be there first before the passenger base slowly starts to grow.


Yeah, if you're only counting farebox revenue against the cost of running the service. But that's not a fair analysis. It doesn't factor how much society is saving in air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions or road maintenance, compared to the scenario where all the passengers drove cars instead. And that adds up to quite a lot, car rego and fuel excise doesn't come close to covering it.

Ever seen the graph below?

View attachment 1910580

But, in places like Japan where people live densely, farebox revenue is greater than the cost of running the service, because everyone takes public transport. So it is possible if that's what you're looking for, it just requires

Sorry Johnny,

What I was trying to point out (and badly obviously) is that Govt services and infrastructure need to meet all sorts of needs and often fall short in lots of criteria for other metrics.

It wasn't specifically aimed at public transport but your post shows how arguments on things the public require just often don't add up on a commercial basis or often satisfy the requirements to demand private investment or even make sense to a lot of outside people (the rest of the population) looking in.

That in a nutshell is why Govt's are required to provide those services and infrastructure. It's why we pay taxes.

And that is why, like it or not, the Govt has a requirement to also ensure things like our sporting stadiums are at some point developed or redeveloped just like all other infrastructure or service.

It's simply part of their responsibility regardless of whether it ticks every box.

Getting efficiency and value for money out of what they spend should be what we are focused on not whether to do it or not.

 

[Elixuh]

My understanding was that it was meant to be a minimum of a 60,000 seat stadium.
But they lowered it, allowing Brisbane to build a new 50,000 seat stadium.

I’m talking about the Gabba as is. I know capacity for Lions games is what 37k or so? But if they held an opening ceremony tomorrow, I’m pretty sure they could get capacity to around 42k. It’s just the current setup prevents that.

 

[Section 5]

First thing, a big congratulations to the Geelong football club for having a long-term vision for their home ground.
But comparing the construction costs of Geelong to The Gabba is just unrealistic.
Included in the Gabba costs is pulling down the 12 story "Gabba Towers" in a green manner.
That's just mentioning one thing.

Also, any large project estimates for a pre covid site to what it ended up costing now would show a huge blowout.
Inflation is a bitch.

Geelong started on this journey in 2003/4 so it has been 20 years in the making. Do the Lions want to wait 20 years.
This also means stage 1 is already 20 years old.
Below some costs taken from a few sites but gives you an idea.
The total $ may not add up according to reported total costs, but this is just to show the relative costs over time.

Also, the total capacity increase over 20 years was just 12k.
This is what you pay for having better seating comfort and facilities.

Construction stage	Costs $million	Approximate Completion Date	New Ground Capacity
Zero Started late 2003			28K
One	25	2005	28k Did not change
Two	30	2010	30k
Three	33	2013	30k
Four	91	2017	36k
Five	142	2023 very end	40k

 

[Section 5]

I’m talking about the Gabba as is. I know capacity for Lions games is what 37k or so? But if they held an opening ceremony tomorrow, I’m pretty sure they could get capacity to around 42k. It’s just the current setup prevents that.

You could get it back to around 39/40k with some changes but not 42k.
The improvements to corporates and larger video screens can't really be changed.
Austadiums finally changed the Gabba official capacity to 37k early in 2023 after many years being incorrect.
The Lions v Tigers finals game in 2019 was 37,478

 

[Dalions]

I’m talking about the Gabba as is. I know capacity for Lions games is what 37k or so? But if they held an opening ceremony tomorrow, I’m pretty sure they could get capacity to around 42k. It’s just the current setup prevents that.

I know what you were saying and what I am saying is no, it won’t be enough.
The IOC had a minimum of 60k capacity for opening and closing ceremonies but was lowered for Brisbane to be able to build a 50k stadium which they would allow.
So 42k I wouldn’t imagine would be accepted.
John Coates is an idiot.

 

[Elixuh]

I know what you were saying and what I am saying is no, it won’t be enough.
The IOC had a minimum of 60k capacity for opening and closing ceremonies but was lowered for Brisbane to be able to build a 50k stadium which they would allow.
So 42k I wouldn’t imagine would be accepted.
John Coates is an idiot.

Sorry sorry gotcha now. The post that I was responding to was talking about the reporting of the current max capacity of the Gabba. I was just using the opening ceremony as an example re if they wanted to rearrange things with the existing build I think 42k is technically the correct capacity.

 

[Dalions]

Sorry sorry gotcha now. The post that I was responding to was talking about the reporting of the current max capacity of the Gabba. I was just using the opening ceremony as an example re if they wanted to rearrange things with the existing build I think 42k is technically the correct capacity.

I thought you were talking about ioc requirements initially, my bad

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Sorry Johnny,

What I was trying to point out (and badly obviously) is that Govt services and infrastructure need to meet all sorts of needs and often fall short in lots of criteria for other metrics.

Heh, apologies, you got me started on a subject I enjoy talking about.

It wasn't specifically aimed at public transport but your post shows how arguments on things the public require just often don't add up on a commercial basis or often satisfy the requirements to demand private investment or even make sense to a lot of outside people (the rest of the population) looking in.

That in a nutshell is why Govt's are required to provide those services and infrastructure. It's why we pay taxes.

And that is why, like it or not, the Govt has a requirement to also ensure things like our sporting stadiums are at some point developed or redeveloped just like all other infrastructure or service.

Sure, that's true. However, I think it's fair to say that transport meets a more basic human need than professional sport does. Or at least there's fewer substitutes available for that need that don't themselves cause other problems. The same is true of health or education or housing. That's why there is never enough of those things in many people's opinions.

Now that doesn't mean stadiums should never be funded by government, but when there are severe problems with any of those higher needs (eg poor housing affordability, increasing homelessness or ambulance ramping), it's only natural that people will want to have some serious reassurance that those are being addressed first, before they see a big outlay on a lesser human need like a stadium. Particularly if neither AFL, Cricket nor the Olympics meets their need for entertainment very well. And unfortunately, governments at all levels have not been seen to be doing enough on housing affordability, homelessness or ambulance ramping.

 

[Walshawk]

I know what you were saying and what I am saying is no, it won’t be enough.
The IOC had a minimum of 60k capacity for opening and closing ceremonies but was lowered for Brisbane to be able to build a 50k stadium which they would allow.
So 42k I wouldn’t imagine would be accepted.
John Coates is an idiot.

The IOC no longer has minimum capacity rules. 40k is fine. The IOC report said it was happy with Metricon.