- Banned
- #76
And to this day.
That makes them fighting to be IN the Commonwealth.
It'd be like cutting the anchors free . Australia would be free to sail high.
NZ is a lot closer in nearly every respect than WA.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Perth Stadium on the verge of being canned
- Thread starter Copernicus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
And to this day.
That makes them fighting to be IN the Commonwealth.
It'd be like cutting the anchors free . Australia would be free to sail high.
NZ is a lot closer in nearly every respect than WA.
You were the one boasting about how China would make it all better. My post stands.
And you misunderstand. I never said WA was a hole. I claimed it would become one if it declared succession.
- Banned
- #78
Yes , it'd be the equivalent to a load of boat people arriving in the NW and claiming a new Northern Australia state .
- Banned
- #79
Yeah, just like that.
The reality remains that WA would be extraordinarily wealthy if it wasnt part of Australia.
Still spewing that secession wasn't successful in 1933.
- Banned
- #81
Yeah, coz you guys would have been totally set for the twenty years after that.
Swooper Eagle
Debutant
Blue Dawn
Norm Smith Medallist
Hope your grandparents were good at languages because it wouldn't have been long til they were grappling with Japanese or Bahasa mate.
Geez, your population is still only around two million today. What was it back then - 7,000?
I am, YOU are, WE are Australian.
Swooper Eagle
Debutant
I'm guessing E87 went to Murdoch and studied Law/Business Studies.
Blue Dawn probably went to Monash and did Commerce/Asian Studies.
In these uncertain times, any comparison of intellectual capital should be done using the purchasing power parity method to take out volatile movements in exchange rates.
Blue Dawn
Norm Smith Medallist
No cigar here either swooper but full marks anyway. My uni education is almost too long ago to remember anyway. Always enjoyed a tasty bit of public DIScourse though as do, it would appear, other contributors to this thread.
Btw, did somebody mention something about a stadium???
Yeah, would have been great living in poverty until around 1990 while the country next door boomed!!!
Moo
Premium Platinum
This gets my vote for the strangest derailment of all time.
Many times a logical debate is derailed ...however this is the first time I recall a derailment moving into civil war, seccession, NZ joining the Commonwealth etc
Many times a logical debate is derailed ...however this is the first time I recall a derailment moving into civil war, seccession, NZ joining the Commonwealth etc
Blue Dawn
Norm Smith Medallist
Moo
Premium Platinum
And as previously posted it's actually made for a MUCH more interesting thread.
Perhaps we could re-name the thread.
Was Australia recruiting Western Australia a BIG MISTAKE?
Plausible reasons for seccesion eh?
I'll give you the ethnic cultural difference
We say Beer with 2 syllables
We wouldn't vote yes in a referndum even if it was to vote for a better life
We get better skin cancer
We enjoy drinking beer watching the sun set over the ocean
We go to bed 2 hrs later - but start drinking at the same time
Now for the oppression
You make us play finals away from home when we deserve them. I give you Vlad the conqueror as our oppressor.
You turn off your phones at 2pm our time so we can't get service
You steal our events
You plunder our soil
You take our women
You make us suffer through "local news" from Sydney
The atrocities just continue
I say we take our ore, our diamonds and our gas and set up shop with the UAE
Moo
Premium Platinum
Red leader, red leader ..this is forward scout moon unit 1, I repeat moon unit 1.
I have established a forward base in the UAE....seal the borders ..I repeat seal the borders.
Long live President Rove and Chancellor Rolf Harris.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,265
- 17,826
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
See bolded
Blue Dawn
Norm Smith Medallist
i seriously suggest everyone reads this, it will give you the complete run down on what is happening now, and why Barnett is a ****!
Sat 8/11/08 West Australian
Premier should learn from the mistakes that have left Perth with second-best venues for all the major sports
Banett must face facts on the stadium
MARK DUFFIELD
CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
Dennis Cometti might describe it as "taking the third of two options". As Colin Barnett ignores the findings of WA's major stadium task force in favour of rebuilding Subiaco Oval, he risks crossing a line in the sand — the one between not pursuing the right option and actively pursuing the wrong one.
In not pursuing the right one — that is, delaying a new $1.1 billion multi-purpose stadium project — the Premier would face a political battle he can manage. A politician can easily twist that into a stadium versus schools and hospitals debate and claim moral high ground.
But in actively pursuing the wrong one, he faces a much tougher battle. He is fighting against the facts that an independent planning body took two years and $1.7 million of taxpayers' money to illuminate.
To understand the stadium crisis that past governments and sports administrators have created in Perth and to prevent those mistakes being repeated, Mr Barnett should cast an eye over history.
Governments and sports made decisions over 30 years which led to three out-of-date and under-used stadiums while every other big city, with their own health and education concerns, has done it better.
The sports wanted their individual nests but they have been
unable to maintain or improve them in line with modern standards and so have turned to taxpayers for help.
The major stadium task force concluded that Perth lacks a world-class stadium and should build one. The key word was multi-purpose, reconfigurable for oval and rectangular sports, including Australian Rules, rugby, soccer and cricket and, who knows, perhaps a Commonwealth Games.
The previous Labor government, like Mr Barnett, was leaning towards a patch-up but were eventually dragged to the facts. They then had to take the sports, kicking and screaming, with them.
The irony of this debate is that while economics may kill the project, economics underpinned the task force conclusions and it went beyond the notion that it is easier to build and maintain one than three.
A stadium's economic efficiency depends on its ability to generate money and that in turn depends on the number of times it is used. The MCG was used 58 times this year for AFL football and will also host a cricket Test and one-day internationals. Telstra Dome was used more than 40 times for AFL.
To get a WA stadium anywhere near that level of use you need AFL, rugby, at least some soccer and cricket and a concert or two.
Mr Barnett has spoken several times of the successful MCG rebuild between 2003 and 2006, without accepting the differences between that project and any attempt to rebuild Subiaco Oval on the current site. The MCG started with a capacity of 100,000 people and it did not fall below 60,000. Any attempt to rebuild Subiaco would start with the two and three-tier stands at the western end, putting 18,000 seats out of use. Only half of the MCG was rebuilt over four years which, incidentally, gives the project a similar construction time frame to the multi-purpose stadium as proposed by the task force.
The MCG did not need to include a rectangular field. Any new Perth stadium does, or sooner or later we will either be building a separate rectangular stadium or losing a Super 14s rugby team. Rugby and soccer are played elsewhere in Melbourne and will soon be played at a purpose-built rectangular stadium, in yet another example of another city building modern facilities we are told we can't afford.
Mr Barnett has spoken of his reluctance to spend $1.1 billion "on another 20,000 seats". This is misleading. The new stadium itself would cost about $800 million with up to $300 million in associated infrastructure. About 10,000 seats at Subiaco are in a 40-year-old grandstand, a further 8000 in a stand 30 years old. They may be the worst grandstands in the AFL.
What he doesn't often talk about is Roberts Road, a big reason the task force chose a different site. The road slices along the southern wing of the existing stadium, preventing expansion without re-routing the road and buying houses to the south.
Finally, we have barely heard Mr Barnett mention the task force report, even though it is the most comprehensive document on the topic and one of the most substantial produced here in recent times. It outlines the reasons for pursuing a multi-purpose stadium and the reasons for not pursuing a rebuild.
Mr Barnett certainly wasn't in a position to decry the report. Before he was briefed on it a little over two weeks ago, he hadn't read it.
Having just sealed an election win courtesy of his deal with the Nationals, Mr Barnett would like his chances of winning a political debate on the stadium issue. But while the politics of the issue changed at the election, the facts didn't.
Sooner or later Mr Barnett is going to have to face those facts.
[inset from same article]
PREMIER'S RHETORIC v THE EVIDENCE
Probably a staged redevelopment would cost more, however, if you build a totally greenfield new stadium, once you start, you've got to
build it, there's no capacity to spread it over time.
- October 24
THE REALITY
The independent view is that the staged redevelopment would definitely cost more, be a logistical nightmare and would make it extremely difficult to include a rectangular field, raising questions about the future of the Western Force or creating the need to spend hundreds of millions on a purpose built rectangular stadium.
Everyone tells me it (the MCG) is fantastic... Well that was a case of rebuilding it. And the rebuilding is not just gutting it and fixing it up, it is actually taking a whole section of the ground out, levelling the site... by an eighth, rebuilding that eighth and then working your way around the ground. - October 21
THE REALITY
The new stadium as proposed by the task force would be used in 2014 with a capacity of 40,000. It would be finished and reach 60,000 seat capacity in 2016.
Mr Barnett has said construction of a rebuilt stadium would start no later than 2012. Even if the Government committed to a stage each year, doing an eighth at a time, the ground would be a building site until at least 2020.
The Premier expressed reluctance to build a stadium for "an extra 20,000 seats."
- October 20
THE REALITY
The remark pretends that the 42,000 existing seats at Subiaco Oval are adequate. The old three and two tier stands which seat 18,000 are almost 40 and 30 years old respectively with extremely poor facilities. There are concerns about seat space and female toilets in the newer Eastern stand. There is no scope for further development on the southern wing without significant house and road resumptions on Roberts Road.
Projects like stadiums and museums are all good things but they don't generate much in the way of return on the investment so it's just money out and not much coming back in.
- October 14
THE REALITY
The WA Government has previously claimed that five rugby World Cup matches in 2003 injected $40 million into the WA economy. The Gold Coast AFL consortium claims its 10 home games at a 20,000 seat stadium will be worth $34 million to the local economy annually.
Sat 8/11/08 West Australian
Premier should learn from the mistakes that have left Perth with second-best venues for all the major sports
Banett must face facts on the stadium
MARK DUFFIELD
CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
Dennis Cometti might describe it as "taking the third of two options". As Colin Barnett ignores the findings of WA's major stadium task force in favour of rebuilding Subiaco Oval, he risks crossing a line in the sand — the one between not pursuing the right option and actively pursuing the wrong one.
In not pursuing the right one — that is, delaying a new $1.1 billion multi-purpose stadium project — the Premier would face a political battle he can manage. A politician can easily twist that into a stadium versus schools and hospitals debate and claim moral high ground.
But in actively pursuing the wrong one, he faces a much tougher battle. He is fighting against the facts that an independent planning body took two years and $1.7 million of taxpayers' money to illuminate.
To understand the stadium crisis that past governments and sports administrators have created in Perth and to prevent those mistakes being repeated, Mr Barnett should cast an eye over history.
Governments and sports made decisions over 30 years which led to three out-of-date and under-used stadiums while every other big city, with their own health and education concerns, has done it better.
The sports wanted their individual nests but they have been
unable to maintain or improve them in line with modern standards and so have turned to taxpayers for help.
The major stadium task force concluded that Perth lacks a world-class stadium and should build one. The key word was multi-purpose, reconfigurable for oval and rectangular sports, including Australian Rules, rugby, soccer and cricket and, who knows, perhaps a Commonwealth Games.
The previous Labor government, like Mr Barnett, was leaning towards a patch-up but were eventually dragged to the facts. They then had to take the sports, kicking and screaming, with them.
The irony of this debate is that while economics may kill the project, economics underpinned the task force conclusions and it went beyond the notion that it is easier to build and maintain one than three.
A stadium's economic efficiency depends on its ability to generate money and that in turn depends on the number of times it is used. The MCG was used 58 times this year for AFL football and will also host a cricket Test and one-day internationals. Telstra Dome was used more than 40 times for AFL.
To get a WA stadium anywhere near that level of use you need AFL, rugby, at least some soccer and cricket and a concert or two.
Mr Barnett has spoken several times of the successful MCG rebuild between 2003 and 2006, without accepting the differences between that project and any attempt to rebuild Subiaco Oval on the current site. The MCG started with a capacity of 100,000 people and it did not fall below 60,000. Any attempt to rebuild Subiaco would start with the two and three-tier stands at the western end, putting 18,000 seats out of use. Only half of the MCG was rebuilt over four years which, incidentally, gives the project a similar construction time frame to the multi-purpose stadium as proposed by the task force.
The MCG did not need to include a rectangular field. Any new Perth stadium does, or sooner or later we will either be building a separate rectangular stadium or losing a Super 14s rugby team. Rugby and soccer are played elsewhere in Melbourne and will soon be played at a purpose-built rectangular stadium, in yet another example of another city building modern facilities we are told we can't afford.
Mr Barnett has spoken of his reluctance to spend $1.1 billion "on another 20,000 seats". This is misleading. The new stadium itself would cost about $800 million with up to $300 million in associated infrastructure. About 10,000 seats at Subiaco are in a 40-year-old grandstand, a further 8000 in a stand 30 years old. They may be the worst grandstands in the AFL.
What he doesn't often talk about is Roberts Road, a big reason the task force chose a different site. The road slices along the southern wing of the existing stadium, preventing expansion without re-routing the road and buying houses to the south.
Finally, we have barely heard Mr Barnett mention the task force report, even though it is the most comprehensive document on the topic and one of the most substantial produced here in recent times. It outlines the reasons for pursuing a multi-purpose stadium and the reasons for not pursuing a rebuild.
Mr Barnett certainly wasn't in a position to decry the report. Before he was briefed on it a little over two weeks ago, he hadn't read it.
Having just sealed an election win courtesy of his deal with the Nationals, Mr Barnett would like his chances of winning a political debate on the stadium issue. But while the politics of the issue changed at the election, the facts didn't.
Sooner or later Mr Barnett is going to have to face those facts.
[inset from same article]
PREMIER'S RHETORIC v THE EVIDENCE
Probably a staged redevelopment would cost more, however, if you build a totally greenfield new stadium, once you start, you've got to
build it, there's no capacity to spread it over time.
- October 24
THE REALITY
The independent view is that the staged redevelopment would definitely cost more, be a logistical nightmare and would make it extremely difficult to include a rectangular field, raising questions about the future of the Western Force or creating the need to spend hundreds of millions on a purpose built rectangular stadium.
Everyone tells me it (the MCG) is fantastic... Well that was a case of rebuilding it. And the rebuilding is not just gutting it and fixing it up, it is actually taking a whole section of the ground out, levelling the site... by an eighth, rebuilding that eighth and then working your way around the ground. - October 21
THE REALITY
The new stadium as proposed by the task force would be used in 2014 with a capacity of 40,000. It would be finished and reach 60,000 seat capacity in 2016.
Mr Barnett has said construction of a rebuilt stadium would start no later than 2012. Even if the Government committed to a stage each year, doing an eighth at a time, the ground would be a building site until at least 2020.
The Premier expressed reluctance to build a stadium for "an extra 20,000 seats."
- October 20
THE REALITY
The remark pretends that the 42,000 existing seats at Subiaco Oval are adequate. The old three and two tier stands which seat 18,000 are almost 40 and 30 years old respectively with extremely poor facilities. There are concerns about seat space and female toilets in the newer Eastern stand. There is no scope for further development on the southern wing without significant house and road resumptions on Roberts Road.
Projects like stadiums and museums are all good things but they don't generate much in the way of return on the investment so it's just money out and not much coming back in.
- October 14
THE REALITY
The WA Government has previously claimed that five rugby World Cup matches in 2003 injected $40 million into the WA economy. The Gold Coast AFL consortium claims its 10 home games at a 20,000 seat stadium will be worth $34 million to the local economy annually.
Blue Dawn
Norm Smith Medallist
^^
Are you trying to re-rail the derailment ot something kranger? Interesting article though. Gave great background to those of outside of Perth who couldn't give a jatz cracker.
Are you trying to re-rail the derailment ot something kranger? Interesting article though. Gave great background to those of outside of Perth who couldn't give a jatz cracker.
^^
i did consider posting it in the New Subiaco Stadium doomed thread but this thread seemed to be getting a lot more readership, so the article was more likely to be seen and give forumers an idea of whats goin on
i did consider posting it in the New Subiaco Stadium doomed thread but this thread seemed to be getting a lot more readership, so the article was more likely to be seen and give forumers an idea of whats goin on
- Banned
- #100
If you any of you sand bludgers do get serious about secession, let me know. With my experience and contacts with the Scottish Nationalists, I'll happily advise your campaigns for afew hundred K of those mining boom bucks.
Similar threads
