Perth Stadium (Optus Stadium)

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality said:
My take is cricket is 'inside the tent' with Stadium management, footy is not & the WAFC recognise that, & need to get it sorted.
Click to expand...

That's a no brainer. The WACA had the good site but didn't want to know about the new stadium. Now it wants to be a big part of it. Instead of being penalised for their stupidity they want $200 million AND for football to come across. Totally senseless. $200 million is 10 years rent for football !

The WACA is good spot for a stadium and an ideal real estate to sell off to finance the stadium.
Seemingly Subiaco cannot be sold off as land a.t.m. but I presume a government can change that.
I still cannot believe this wasn't sorted a long long time ago.
 
Kwality said:
$1.5 GST you suggest, $900k goes east pumping up ES economies, only $600k will stay in the stressed WA Treasury.
Click to expand...

Unlike WA, Vic & NSW have NEVER been on the receiving end of net federal distributions...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality said:
My take is cricket is 'inside the tent' with Stadium management, footy is not & the WAFC recognise that, & need to get it sorted. The Boston report hopefully will set out a mechanism to resolve the issues.

Everyone knows AFL footy is the ongoing cash cow for the Stadium & as things stand there is a finite pot of gold that can fund the place - a basic overview: there is the rent currently paid at Subi, there is the extra cash generated from increased seating, leaving the royalties paid by the clubs to the WAFC.
I previously questioned whether the Stadium will look to grab the royalties as rental, then kick back the WAFC to fund WA footy & make it look like the pollies have done the right thing by footy.

I cant see the public buying massive increases in memberships.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly won't be renewing if the cost of membership goes through the roof, and I'm sure there are plenty like me. They need to get this right!!
 
telsor said:
Unlike WA, Vic & NSW have NEVER been on the receiving end of net federal distributions...
Click to expand...
Not to the same extent. 30 cents in dollar compares to record lows in vic and nsw of 70 and 80 cents in the dollar.
 
RedV3x said:
????????????????????
Click to expand...

This is true so I'm not sure why the multiple question marks - just do a bit of googling for yourself.

Just like many countries Australia protected its manufacturing industry by placing tariffs on other countries imported goods.
However when you slap tariffs on other countries goods they tend to do the same back making your own exports (of which WA is the biggest exporter) more expensive.
Hence WA being the biggest loser of the artificial prop-up of manufacturing was compensated traditionally.


However I'm no pro on this stuff at all - I hope I explained it properly.
 
WestCoast05 said:
This is true so I'm not sure why the multiple question marks - just do a bit of googling for yourself.

Just like many countries Australia protected its manufacturing industry by placing tariffs on other countries imported goods.
However when you slap tariffs on other countries goods they tend to do the same back making your own exports (of which WA is the biggest exporter) more expensive.
Hence WA being the biggest loser of the artificial prop-up of manufacturing was compensated traditionally.


However I'm no pro on this stuff at all - I hope I explained it properly.
Click to expand...

:thumbsu: plus the export of iron ore was embargoed by the Federal Govt after WW2 - when it was lifted WA began promoting the mining, more than a decade after Lang Hancock identified the original Pilbara prospect.

More relevant to the Stadium are Freos 2016 results:
Freos report has become available - and ive put it up here.
Thanks Wookie !!
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RedV3x said:
That's not the equation.
Can that match draw 15,000 visters to Perth, generate $15 million, $1.5 G.S.T and $0.5 million for W.A. government.
Of course who's paying for the ground rent ?
Are the Glory stumping up the $1 million ground rent asked of AFL ?
Click to expand...
The WAFC & the AFL should ensure, as they are the biggest tenant & cashcow for PS, that other sports/ concerts etc are not paying less rental than AF is.
AF should not be expected to pay more -thus subsidising other users of PS.

The AFL had a "no worse off" clause in its contract with Docklands owners. Apparently, there were some loopholes in it, which allowed Docklands management to offer reduced rentals (cf AFL) to Melb. Victory & concerts etc.
I hope the AFL is discussing this issue with the WAFC, WC, & Freo. -anyone know if this is the case?
 
RedV3x said:
That's a no brainer. The WACA had the good site but didn't want to know about the new stadium. Now it wants to be a big part of it. Instead of being penalised for their stupidity they want $200 million AND for football to come across. Totally senseless. $200 million is 10 years rent for football !

The WACA is good spot for a stadium and an ideal real estate to sell off to finance the stadium.
Seemingly Subiaco cannot be sold off as land a.t.m. but I presume a government can change that.
I still cannot believe this wasn't sorted a long long time ago.
Click to expand...

The WACA is not a good spot for a stadium. It looks fine on a map but in reality it's locked away from the main road and rail corridors and consequently it's a pain in the arse to get to.
 
BringBackTorps said:
The WAFC & the AFL should ensure, as they are the biggest tenant & cashcow for PS, that other sports/ concerts etc are not paying less rental than AF is.
AF should not be expected to pay more -thus subsidising other users of PS.

The AFL had a "no worse off" clause in its contract with Docklands owners. Apparently, there were some loopholes in it, which allowed Docklands management to offer reduced rentals (cf AFL) to Melb. Victory & concerts etc.
I hope the AFL is discussing this issue with the WAFC, WC, & Freo. -anyone know if this is the case?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Main reason being some events are being PAID to be played there. If there was a no worse off clause then both clubs would get paid millions.

I don't have a problem with a fair deal for usage, but what it should involve is priority access. The AFL clubs should get guaranteed access for the ground for all regular season games and potential finals. Within reason of course. That's the price for the stadium has to pay in return for a couple of reliable tenants which are almost guaranteed to fill the ground consistently.
 
Rob said:
I doubt it. Main reason being some events are being PAID to be played there. If there was a no worse off clause then both clubs would get paid millions.

I don't have a problem with a fair deal for usage, but what it should involve is priority access. The AFL clubs should get guaranteed access for the ground for all regular season games and potential finals. Within reason of course. That's the price for the stadium has to pay in return for a couple of reliable tenants which are almost guaranteed to fill the ground consistently.
Click to expand...

The two are separate. You can have football "no worse off" without worrying about others.
ATM we're worrying about how much football has to pay, to be "no worse off".
If football gets a good deal, I don't really care that much what else eventuates but atm it seems football is getting rightly screwed.
 
Last edited:
Rob said:
The WACA is not a good spot for a stadium. It looks fine on a map but in reality it's locked away from the main road and rail corridors and consequently it's a pain in the arse to get to.
Click to expand...

The WACA is walking distanc e from the Perth CBD and closer from Mciver railway stn. It's close to a major exit, Adelaide Tce, from Perth.
Yes, no rail access, but you could build light rail around foreshore.
 
BringBackTorps said:
The WAFC & the AFL should ensure, as they are the biggest tenant & cashcow for PS, that other sports/ concerts etc are not paying less rental than AF is.
AF should not be expected to pay more -thus subsidising other users of PS.

The AFL had a "no worse off" clause in its contract with Docklands owners. Apparently, there were some loopholes in it, which allowed Docklands management to offer reduced rentals (cf AFL) to Melb. Victory & concerts etc.
I hope the AFL is discussing this issue with the WAFC, WC, & Freo. -anyone know if this is the case?
Click to expand...

I believe in football getting a sustainable deal. I believe it's complete stupity to build a stadium that nobody can afford to use.
IMO a pro rata approach is the best way. In that way every pays the say % and the finances are up front for all to see.
It also means that the major tenants would be premier targets as they returned the most revenue,
but other events could be used to boost the number of events.
 
WestCoast05 said:
This is true so I'm not sure why the multiple question marks - just do a bit of googling for yourself.

Just like many countries Australia protected its manufacturing industry by placing tariffs on other countries imported goods.
However when you slap tariffs on other countries goods they tend to do the same back making your own exports (of which WA is the biggest exporter) more expensive.
Hence WA being the biggest loser of the artificial prop-up of manufacturing was compensated traditionally.


However I'm no pro on this stuff at all - I hope I explained it properly.
Click to expand...

Fine. It wasn't clear before how far back you were referring to or who was most affected.
 
Milang_Panthers said:
Just got a little bit more excited. How can anyone say theyd rather watch cricket at the WACA? I understand the pitch and the history but look at all that shade!!! :p
Click to expand...

The WACA have been ultimately happy with the WACA and mediocracy until their investmentss failed, big bash appeared
and the new stadium is staring them in the face.
 
WestCoast05 said:
This is true so I'm not sure why the multiple question marks - just do a bit of googling for yourself.

Just like many countries Australia protected its manufacturing industry by placing tariffs on other countries imported goods.
However when you slap tariffs on other countries goods they tend to do the same back making your own exports (of which WA is the biggest exporter) more expensive.
Hence WA being the biggest loser of the artificial prop-up of manufacturing was compensated traditionally.


However I'm no pro on this stuff at all - I hope I explained it properly.
Click to expand...

Australian tarrifs have been comparitivelt weak since the cuts but button

Even the ones we have havent stopped imports (ie the car industry)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Perth Stadium (Optus Stadium)

Similar threads

Boyohboywowwee
Is it time for another SCG upgrade or a Perth stadium like stadium built in Sydney
Replies
14
Views
2K
Bjo187
Bjo187
Bunk Moreland
The next Melbourne stadium
2 3
Replies
66
Views
6K
errant bounce
errant bounce

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top