This was the original point....
You are the one who is arguing against something nobody has claimed....to the point of absurdity
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Soccer tying to bludge off the Australian Taxpayer again!
- Thread starter weewilly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This was the original point....
You are the one who is arguing against something nobody has claimed....to the point of absurdity
- Moderator
- #77
the point was that soccer was gifted a stadium which is flagrantly not true
Ive been arguing against the idea that soccer was gifted Aami Park and that the apparently the AFL buying Docklands should be some sort of goddamned standard. Ive not wavered from that
Gigantor, I'm pretty sure was referring to the fact that the then Vic government was threatening to make the docklands stadium a rectangle to push the AFL to deal with the docklands. I could be wrong
Nobody has suggested the docklands should be a standard. People have been basically arguing along the lines of "beggars can't be choosers" if you like
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,968
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
Can't recall ever writing anywhere that soccer was gifted a stadium.
I did write precisely what NoobPie quoted above, that on many soccer forums you read soccer fans lamenting the fact that the government gifted the AFL docklands, as in built the stadium with taxpayer money - so that's untruth no. 1.
They then bring up a story that Kennett was going to build a stadium at docklands for them: as in build it with taxpayer money and gift it to soccer (but instead they gifted it to the AFL, etc. - this is the great soccer lamentation re docklands)
More broadly, and this is another favourite tactic of soccer writers and fans unlike. Anytime an oval is developed, for whatever purpose it is being developed (and invariably, it is used for more than just AFL games), that's counted as government expenditure on the AFL (of course any contributions made by the AFL is not counted).
They then look at what soccer specific stadiums have been built, and lo and behold, there are none! (because if it's used for more than soccer, it doesn't count).
Here is a great example where one soccer writer got it doubly wrong, and I won't mention his name because he has since passed away.
So he did the usual trick of counting all the dollars spent on ovals, as in stadium developments, and that was recorded in his ledger as being government money exclusively spent on the AFL. Amongst other things, the biggest thing he got wrong here is that he counted some $800 million of money spent on the MCG as being money spent on the AFL. Do you think he mentioned that some 85% of that was private debt? Of course not! never mind the fact that it's not just the AFL which uses it, even when they are generating the bulk of the funds to pay off that private debt.
Now, on the soccer side of the ledger, do you think the $300 million spent on Melbourne Rectangular Stadium was counted? Of course not!
I did write precisely what NoobPie quoted above, that on many soccer forums you read soccer fans lamenting the fact that the government gifted the AFL docklands, as in built the stadium with taxpayer money - so that's untruth no. 1.
They then bring up a story that Kennett was going to build a stadium at docklands for them: as in build it with taxpayer money and gift it to soccer (but instead they gifted it to the AFL, etc. - this is the great soccer lamentation re docklands)
More broadly, and this is another favourite tactic of soccer writers and fans unlike. Anytime an oval is developed, for whatever purpose it is being developed (and invariably, it is used for more than just AFL games), that's counted as government expenditure on the AFL (of course any contributions made by the AFL is not counted).
They then look at what soccer specific stadiums have been built, and lo and behold, there are none! (because if it's used for more than soccer, it doesn't count).
Here is a great example where one soccer writer got it doubly wrong, and I won't mention his name because he has since passed away.
So he did the usual trick of counting all the dollars spent on ovals, as in stadium developments, and that was recorded in his ledger as being government money exclusively spent on the AFL. Amongst other things, the biggest thing he got wrong here is that he counted some $800 million of money spent on the MCG as being money spent on the AFL. Do you think he mentioned that some 85% of that was private debt? Of course not! never mind the fact that it's not just the AFL which uses it, even when they are generating the bulk of the funds to pay off that private debt.
Now, on the soccer side of the ledger, do you think the $300 million spent on Melbourne Rectangular Stadium was counted? Of course not!
Without getting too heavy into the "who has been gifted the most" scenario, it's time to do an analytical approach.
I would suggest that Australia provides the mot financial support for it's major sports.
One reason for this is that an oval can be used for cricket, Australian Rules Football AND every other rectangular code.
The other reason is that the synergy between cricket and Australian Rules Football and popularity of these sports produces a good cost/benefit ratio.
The MCG is probably the best example of this in the world. No other stadium is in constant use like the MCG.
The problem is not the government gifting taxpayers money on stadiums but rectangular sports wanting their own restrictive stadia
despite regularly playing on large ovals. Why build a SFS when the SCG is right beside it ?
Some people have mentioned the Docklands as being some "standard".
Having been a frequent visitor to the new Perth Stadium I feel that is so much better as a standard to aim for.
The capacities and view-lines are similar but the stadiums are world's apart in atmosphere
even allowing the engineering required for a roof.
I would suggest that Australia provides the mot financial support for it's major sports.
One reason for this is that an oval can be used for cricket, Australian Rules Football AND every other rectangular code.
The other reason is that the synergy between cricket and Australian Rules Football and popularity of these sports produces a good cost/benefit ratio.
The MCG is probably the best example of this in the world. No other stadium is in constant use like the MCG.
The problem is not the government gifting taxpayers money on stadiums but rectangular sports wanting their own restrictive stadia
despite regularly playing on large ovals. Why build a SFS when the SCG is right beside it ?
Some people have mentioned the Docklands as being some "standard".
Having been a frequent visitor to the new Perth Stadium I feel that is so much better as a standard to aim for.
The capacities and view-lines are similar but the stadiums are world's apart in atmosphere
even allowing the engineering required for a roof.
- Moderator
- #81
3,000 square metres of SCG turf to be replaced after Super Rugby clash tore it to shreds
SCG ground staff will replace 3,000 square metres of turf ahead of Friday's NRL opener after the Super Rugby clash between the NSW Waratahs and Queensland Reds was marred by a shocking surface.
www.abc.net.au
AFL critics declare Sydney Cricket Ground turf an 'absolute disaster' for Sydney Swans
The Sydney Swans are sweating on the Sydney Cricket Ground's sustainability this season as three other football codes call the venue home.
www.sportingnews.com
Perhaps, that is why.
- Nov 21, 2013
- 5,801
- 4,266
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
If any of the football codes don't like playing at the SYDNEY CRICKET GROUND they should play elsewhere it's that simple.
3,000 square metres of SCG turf to be replaced after Super Rugby clash tore it to shreds
SCG ground staff will replace 3,000 square metres of turf ahead of Friday's NRL opener after the Super Rugby clash between the NSW Waratahs and Queensland Reds was marred by a shocking surface.AFL critics declare Sydney Cricket Ground turf an 'absolute disaster' for Sydney Swans
The Sydney Swans are sweating on the Sydney Cricket Ground's sustainability this season as three other football codes call the venue home.www.sportingnews.com
Perhaps, that is why.
It's the SYDNEY CRICKET GROUND after all said and done and it's main purpose is for CRICKET.
Nah. You're clutching at straws again.
It seems like all the football code like playing at the SCG so lets put our energy into building ovals suitable for all.
Thanks for backing me up on this one ossie.
Just like the MCG. But it's not is it.
The MCG is this magnificent world class stadiums that caters for all football because it's underwritten by AFL crowds.
If someone had made the right decision down the track then the SCG could have been so much better.
- Moderator
- #85
Just because they fit doesnt make them suitable or ideal and due to drainage and sight lines ovals used for cricket and AFL arent ideal, especially when the grass is cut for cricket.
Other sports are well within their rights to chase the same facilities AFl and Cricket can get - although i think the aims should be a little more realistic. Bankwest is the perfect size for this sort of thing, theres no need for both the SFS and ANZ to be larger. I still think the NRL, Sydney FC and Venues NSW should partner up for a stadium like Forsyth Barr.
Drainage is drainage and grass can be cut and irrelevant with complementary seasons.
The oval is the best all-round compromise and since the rectangular sports don't draw as many spectators
then those spectators can use the "meaty" bits of the ground. a win-win situation.
When we're talking taxpayers money it should be on the best economic fit.
Where are the stadium builds for AFL in the northern states ?
- Moderator
- #87
Well thats flat out not true. Grass cut for cricket isnt great for soccer. Its cut way too short - and currently they share seasons. Drainage across an oval causes a slope vastly greater than that of a rectangular size pitch due to the sheer size.
This works in Vic/SA/WA. It doesnt work in QLD/NSW for spectators. Theres a reason Bankwest is doing so well.
I dont disagree
This isnt a zero sum equation. The AFL getting something in the south or putting in money in the north doesnt mean other codes cant get stadiums tailored to their needs. Oval stadiums are not a good spectator experience for fans of rectangular codes. Period.
You mean besides Metricon and Giants Stadium? And the hundreds of millions put into the Gabbba and SCG since 2002?
Finding space for soccer games is hardly a problem in the northern states.
You don't know about stadium drainage do you. It's all about laser flat surfaces with agricultural pipes underneath.
Yet why do the NRL continue to play at ovals when there are alternatives ?
Yet why do the NRL, RU and AL continue to play at ovals when there are alternatives ?
You just displayed how LITTLE is spent on AFL stadiums in the northern states.
They are cricket stadiums and the SCG is used for a multitude of codes.
- Moderator
- #89
Finding modern up to date space is a different story.
You apparently dont know about drainage at all.
Souths play at the SCG for both historic and practical reasons until their new venue is built. Origin is held at the largest venue available to them in whatever state its in,
See above.
did i now. Even if that were true, its irrelevant. Theres no requirement for money to be spent on any one codes stadiums by any government, neither is there a requirement for a commercial return.
So? Including codes that are better suited to rectangular grounds.
Where's the justification ? There's a multitude of NRL stadiums that they could use.
Why not build stadiums for Hurley, Gaelic Football or American Football and a multitude of other sports while you're at it.
All the top stadia have laser-flat surfaces with engineered sub-surface drainage.
You really got caught-out there woookie.
Souths and Easts have been playing at the SCG when the SFS was available.
Seemingly N.S. Oval as well.
Am oval shape is insufficient to put off S.O.O.
Wanting a rectangular shape is more of a whim than anything else.
They are cricket stadiums and the SCG is used for a multitude of codes. So why cannot the best use of money be made by building ovals when ovals can be used successfully by all sports.
Why not build a multitude of stadiums for Hurley, Gaelic Football or American Football and a multitude of other sports while you're at it.
BECAUSE WE ELECT A GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SOUND ECONOMIC DECISIONS.
- Moderator
- #91
Lords has a slope on one side... Glenn Mcgrath used to love it. Most cricket grounds have a slope to the boundary.
And wouldn't it be a sound economic decision to build the best-suited stadia for the sports and fans that will use it the most.
Added benefits include not destroying the turf and endangering the players from overuse. And allowing all sports a freer schedule for games. And, most importantly, a better watch for the fans. I mean, that is what it is all about. Lets put it this way. We would not be hosting the Womens World Cup if we had a thousand underused ovals in this country.
At least I am clutching at something. You are clutching at absolutely nothing. I am sure you would be the first to complain if Nat Fyfe did his knee at the SCG due to a Rugby Union match the night before.
- Moderator
- #92
they dont need to jusitfy it to you lol.
yeah because theres any market for that - have they ever even requested this.
I freely admit I was wrong and my information may have been out of date here. MCG changed to flat surface in 2004, Adelaide Oval in 2013 with the redevelopment. Lets not even talk about the damage contact sports cause to the playing surface.
Souths have some sort of historical attachment - they've done so since before the SFS EXISTED - at least 1 game a year since 1957
ITs also what spectators of those sportswant. Again, we point to the success of Bankwest.
because its not what specatators want. Bankwest is proof of that.
Very few things the Government does are for economic return. And all of those sports you named can be fit on a rectangular surface.
And it's a square oval. Why don't you post something relevant for change.
Absolutely - cricket and AFL. I like your thinking.
somebody else was interested.
Why should RU be at the SCG ? Don't they have Concord ?
- Moderator
- #94
Where did the Waratahs play when SFS was out of action!!!!!!!!
You are like an AFL version of Pippen.
You cannot think of an intelligent retort huh.
So you agree - there is a line. The government cannot cannot throw money away on every whim.
Yes, so shape isn't THAT important as you say it is.
Yes but it's what the taxpayers want that is important.
I'd hotly dispute that, but in the case of sport you want the best use of money.
And an oval.
At the SCG you clown. So playing at an oval isn't such an obstacle to rugby union or rugby league.
Tell me, they built Concord Oval as the home of RU so why not play Ru there?
The funny thing is Concord Oval is as rectangular as you can get.
- Moderator
- #97
Its not that. Its that i cant think of any justification you will accept. Your pretty much set in stone regardless.
Ive come out against stadium spending before (I wrote this for the Roar in 2012). I dont think governments should be funding any of it - and that includes AFL used stadiums.
Bullshit. Shape of the ground determines how far away spectators sit and how close to the action they are. Historical attachments notwithstanding - tradition should be honored,
Spectators pay tax too mate. Where were you at when Optus Stadium was bult, with the stadium and environs costing 1.2 billion AND the tapayer will be pay the WAFC 11 million a year for the next 2 decades. Where were you when Adelaide Oval was rebuilt at taxpayer expense for half a billion dollars - including paying off SACA's debt - and then handing management and the profits of the stadium over to the SANFL and WAFL for the next 40 years. The public gets almost no return on their money here.
And id "hotly dispute" thats how the government sees it. Certainly the taxpayers and voters of NSW dont seem to agree.
so?
- Moderator
- #98
Contractually obligated to play at the SFS, and with the SFS gone that contract moved to the other property held by the SCG Trust....the SCG. Just because they played there didnt mean they liked it.
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
The Waratahs can & do play on the SCG oval. Ditto, Socceroo matches on the MCG.
Ditto tier 1 soccer clubs & matches at the old Wembley athletic park/ oval, new London Olympic oval, Rome & Munich Olympic ovals; & various Tier 1 soccer clubs & tier 1 matches on athletic parks/ovals in Eastern Europe (And these UK & Euro. soccer clubs are FAR superior in size/status/crowd support to the antipodean, "uppity" A League minnow variety etc.).
The NSW govt., until 2020, intended to rebuild ANZ Stadium (even though it can now be reconfigured from an oval to rectangle) into a permanent rectangle- costing the taxpayer c. $1.5b (inc. demolition & other costs).
Did you think this demolition policy (& they also said SFS would also be demolished & rebuilt) & new ANZ rectangle was necessary? And was it fair on the taxpayer?
Why was there massive public backlash at demolishing ANZ?
If you think the demolition of ANZ was wise, where can the AFL play in Sydney, if they want to attract a crowd of over 48K?
You previously were dismissive of my references to the UNESCO 2003 Convention of Protecting "Intangible Cultural Heritage"( ie I said AF should be afforded similar respect & protections)- why?
Do you believe that Australian Culture:-
. is important?
. should be celebrated, & encouraged?
. should be protected, & favoured, by the policies of Local, State, & Federal govts., including their spending priorities?
(Particularly if elements of Australian culture can be defined, or accorded the status of, as Australia's "Intangible Cultural Heritage").
Weak.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #100
It is also built for Australian Football as well being the right shape!
Same as the MCG,Gabba,Manuka,Bludstone.Adelaide Oval - all original cricket grounds and the new Perth stadium is also ideal for cricket as well.
Similar threads
- Poll
