Patterson's Stadium

Remove this Banner Ad

It's time you woke up and smelt the roses because instead of blaming the government for the non action regarding a new oval take a long hard look at the WAFC, Eagles and Dockers - because while these three continue to have a vested interest in the building of a new stadium, it will never happen
Correct
The WAFC made sure that a new stadium would have to be under their control,so building it at Burswood would never happen.

This stuffup will haunt West Australian football for decades
 
at least AAMI, ANZ, Etihad and Skilled role off of the tongue
Patterson's is shit
I liked Subi
will continue to call it Subi like I call ANZ Stadium, Telstra Stadium :eek:
 
They can rename the stadium but not for such a pathetic price. WA football deserves better.

Im with others. Naming rights can only be justified if they are going to bring some compensation to football, a five year deal worth 25 Million would be better.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is easily fixed, just do what the ABC does, refer to grounds by their traditional names:

MCG - DOCKLANDS - FOOTBALL PARK - YORK PARK - THE GABBA - SUBIACO - PRINCES PARK - OLYMPIC STADIUM - SCG - KARDINIA PARK

This means no free advertising for sponsors at any level of society.

amc0485l.jpg
 
I don't see what the big problems is, from a business stand point they receive 5m over 5 years for changing the sign.

You'd be stupid not to take that!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I read an article a day or so ago which I can't find back now, but they were saying that Pattersons was only one of about companies interested.
 
*siiigghhhh*

I can think of much bigger Western Australian companies that they should go after for naming rights.

First one that comes to mind is Wesfarmers. Could probably make more money off of them as well. But Patterson's stadium....serrrriooussslyyyy!?!

:mad:

Oh well...
Why would Wesfarmers want to sponsor it? It adds nothing for them. Maybe Coles or Bunnings, or even "K-Mart Stadium", but they would probably receive a similar response to Pattersons.
 
As much as i'm happy with Woodside as a major sponsor, you'd think they would have got more exposure, at a cheaper price, with the Subiaco naming rights. Woodside Park doesn't sound that bad either.

You could say the same about SGIO as well.

Under $1m a year seems absurdly cheap.
 
wa is seriously reluctant to change ANYTHING. its just a name change for crying out loud!

have a look at victoria: do they still call etihad, telstra dome, or colonial stadium or whatever other superlatives? the abc call it docklands though


one of the reasons why i dont live there anymore
 
Why not pattersons park? Sounds traditional and it sounds good too. In reality subi needs the wrecking ball and a new stadium needs to be built. However, this would wreck the tradition anyway, so tradition should be broken in WA anyway it seems.

Subi is a hole so I doubt it's tradition is that valuable (I mean WA people, if the gov did build a new stadium and destroy subi, would you complain?), and it doesn't nearly compare to the mcg's history and international standing (for those who asked whether we should also allow mcg to be renamed maccas stadium). Ask any foreigner, especially one who knows about cricket whether they have heard about the mcg, most likely they have. Ask any foreigner of any sport about subi and they'll probably say no. The first test cricket match was held at the mcg and has held THE match for Australian footy for at the least 20 odd years.

So subi being renamed? I can handle, mcg? One of the only two stadiums alongside SCG I consider sacred. Subi is not sacred, especially when it's a dump anyway.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Patterson's Stadium

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top