Exactly, tradition has no part in the naming decision of Perth Stadium, strange you raised it.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Perth Stadium (Optus Stadium)
- Thread starter HaroCant
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Exactly, tradition has no part in the naming decision of Perth Stadium, strange you raised it.
- Moderator
- #1,752
I didnt. You equated it with the naming of the MCG and SCG.
Keep it clean, Perth Stadium, & when the SCG & MCG change their name due to a sponsorship with a falafel multi national, WA should consider should consider following suit - consider then reject.Perth Stadium
Perth Stadium sounds okay to me, does it really matter? Subiaco oval and the WACA are our two iconic stadiums in Perth and we have stuffed them both up over time.
I would of preferred the WACA being made into a 70k stadium and that becoming our major stadium.
Burswood was my second option.
I would of preferred the WACA being made into a 70k stadium and that becoming our major stadium.
Burswood was my second option.
- Moderator
- #1,754
Not really, Im just wasting time until i finish work
Some bloke on the radio the other night said we should call it the WASA
West Australian sports arena.
- Banned
- #1,756
1100 healthcare staff to be cut, but WA gets a big new stadium. Better hope there are no cost blowouts.
Surely Barnett ranks as one of the worst economic managers in state government history.
Surely Barnett ranks as one of the worst economic managers in state government history.
- Moderator
- #1,757
Got to be balanced against the fact that the stadium will be a driver of tourism and promotion of the state and city of Perth over a minimum 30 year lifespan before major upgrades have to be done again.
- Banned
- #1,758
I don't think there is any compelling evidence that publicly funded stadiums consistently yield net economic benefit.
It's a huge issue in the US, likewise, has been famously written about in relation to summer Olympics.
Prestige, donor appeasement and currying favor with football fans are the main drivers, highly doubtful the economics stack up.
So what is the answer then? Don't build anything except hospitals and schools. It won't matter how much money you throw at health they will always want more.
I agree that his party has struggled with money management but at least there will be something to show for it this time. The alternative historically are even worse with money so what do you do.
- Banned
- #1,760
No, just build smart. Burswood was always a bad option, extremely expensive and a gift to Packer.
It is going to require huge infrastructure spending to properly service, which the gov cannot commit to and is going to cause some serious commuter and congestion headaches.
As for the last point, I disagree and don't vote Labor. Barnett's money management has been appaling, compared to any party at any level. The northern infrastructure builds that no one asked for, the stadium, outsourcing health sector jobs, the Roe extension. All these things add up and take money from serious frontline services. 1100 health sector jobs is huge and will have a real impact on the states care. Likewise, that the libs are better managers is a misnomer and not supported by evidence.
How is it a gift to Packer? He offered them 400 million towards it and the government said no. Great location but making the WACA the states premier stadium would of been my choice.
I don't agree with you but this is wrong place for a political debate.
- Moderator
- #1,762
This isnt the US where major stadiums are lucky if they get used 10 times a year or single use Olympic Stadiums. Both major stadiums used for the Olympics here in Australia remain in use - the MCG (1956) has been in continual year round use since 1853, and Homebush (2000) has been home to 4 codes of football since 2000.
And if you dont believe the economics stand up, you should see the city of Adelaide after any match of footy or Big Bash or test cricket at Adelaide Oval. Over its lifetime its going to be of huge economic benefit to the city. Burswood can and should deliver the same for Perth, especially if it hosts both footy and big bash cricket.
- Banned
- #1,763
Was it a serious offer? I doubt it. How much has he directly or indirectly contributed to the coffers of the state party, he certainly lobbied vocally for that location?
Surely the appropriateness of the stadium, or it's location is reasonable to discuss. At the moment neither are contentious issues as the angst has faded, but I suspect both will become talking points when the stadium is completed or come election time.
- Banned
- #1,764
You are arguing anecdote or feeling, vs the reality. I don't think a single Olympic stadium or WC build has returned a net positive cost benefit in the last 50 years. Even the Sydney Olympics, which was tilted far on the better scale, despite cost hasn't seen a positive return on stadium investment.
The state doesn't build sports arenas for the economic benefit.
How serious the offer was and what he wanted in return I don't know but going back some years it was reported he was very happy to contribute 400 million and that was when the plan was to have a foot ground and a rectangle ground next door.
I am happy to discuss the stadium I just thought discussing the financial ability of liberal and Labor this is not the right place.
Back on topic I can assure the cost will blow out like every major project does no matter what it is. You could not be surprised if it does surely?
- Banned
- #1,766
Nope, however it is going to hurt WA and the people who warned of cuts and painful ones may be proved right unfortunately. The WACA or the adjcent Subi site were my preffered, I just can't stomach the expense of Burswood. Also the issues it will cause with city parking and public transport.
I think it is a positive so many WA games are Sunday arvo.
The transport issues will be a big adjustment for all of us here but we will adapt and work with the system. My understanding is that 90% will have to use public transport which is a big change for us all.
The expense will be massive but we will get a great product I think.
The WACA was my preferred option, footy and cricket together was the way to go and the WACA location was in the city which I like.
ffs rebuilding it in suburban Subiaco would have been bloody terrible.
Absolutely
- Banned
- #1,770
Public transport was always my big concern.
I think Sundays are a stretch, but do able. It will take folks a period to get on board.
Friday nights though are a nightmare. The problem is that at peak times trains are at capacity, but they can't run anymore carriages south because they can't expand the tunnel, likewise require a certain interval between carriages. Basically a huge number of patrons are going to have to exit in the city and walk, or go early, which is always an issue given Friday night scheduling in Perth.
It's still my biggest concern for WA footy goers.
- Banned
- #1,771
Why?
It functions now.
Burswood is the most expensive of the options and the biggest burden re transport.
Well hopefully they run river ferry's which I think would help. I would like to think they have a plan but let's face it Friday nights at Subi has not been easy either.
- Banned
- #1,773
That's true. Have a feeling it will be a disaster, which may simply mean less Friday night games in WA.
These things happen and I am not sure Perth has the options available that make night games in Melbourne simple, examples being altering traffic on the city loop (though capacity is an issue) and closing roads, running additional trains to Richmond etc. Two of Melbournes largest stations adjoin the stadia, likewise both are walking distance from the city.
The lack of similar, makes Burswood a bit of a people trap and will mean huge business for the cas.
So we should be buying shares in crown yes??
- Banned
- #1,775
As long as their Las Vegas and Macao business are doing well.
