-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Storm CEO request's upgraded stadium
- Thread starter Fire Storm
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #27
He's a real doer that Waldron. Already spoken to Bracks, Minister for AF...I mean 'sports' and has had talks with Gallop saying that consessions for Storm isnt just needed, its must!
Wow. Some guy eh.
Wow. Some guy eh.
koreanwarrior
Debutant
- Jul 5, 2004
- 98
- 0
- Other Teams
- Warriors
The stadium used for the 1990 Commonwealth games in Auckland is the same venue that the Warriors play at.
The athletic track was basically ripped up years ago and there's a new stand about to be completed over the opposite side from where the cameras are.
Stuff athletics, nobody goes to watch it anyway.
The 1990 games saw Lynford Christie run .01 outside the world record at that time but really who cares about keeping the track?
Also in Korea where I am living at the mo they built 10 brand new stadiums for the 2002 world cup with about 5 of them having athletics tracks built around them.
coincidentally these venues with the tracks have absolutely no atmosphere and all the domestic soccer teams playing in them draw the worst crowds in the league. One of them is in Busan, a city of 4 million and they generally get between 700-3000 for their games. The stadiums which have stands hugging the touchlines generally average 5,000-15,000.
There's no doubt that the Warriors will get better crowds long terms after their new stand is completed bringing people closer to the sideline and also with covering over them.
It helps though when your owners are the Auckland Regional Council and you are the only sports venue in the country to actually make a profit.
If the Storm played in a top quality venue then they would no doubt draw a few thousand more along each week as in this day and age people expect to get a decent seat, decent food and decent toilets for their money.
The athletic track was basically ripped up years ago and there's a new stand about to be completed over the opposite side from where the cameras are.
Stuff athletics, nobody goes to watch it anyway.
The 1990 games saw Lynford Christie run .01 outside the world record at that time but really who cares about keeping the track?
Also in Korea where I am living at the mo they built 10 brand new stadiums for the 2002 world cup with about 5 of them having athletics tracks built around them.
coincidentally these venues with the tracks have absolutely no atmosphere and all the domestic soccer teams playing in them draw the worst crowds in the league. One of them is in Busan, a city of 4 million and they generally get between 700-3000 for their games. The stadiums which have stands hugging the touchlines generally average 5,000-15,000.
There's no doubt that the Warriors will get better crowds long terms after their new stand is completed bringing people closer to the sideline and also with covering over them.
It helps though when your owners are the Auckland Regional Council and you are the only sports venue in the country to actually make a profit.
If the Storm played in a top quality venue then they would no doubt draw a few thousand more along each week as in this day and age people expect to get a decent seat, decent food and decent toilets for their money.
There is no way AFL is paying for all the upgrades around Australia. The AFL wouldn't have the money, not even close to what it costs to upgrade and maintain all the AFL stadiums Australia-wide. Just like Melbourne and rugby league, Sydney doesn't have a specialised AFL ground because there isn't enough support for AFL to have one. I mean we have an A-Grade and Reserve Grade that covers the majority of Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle have a joint competition which has 9 teams. That isn't nearly enough support for AFL specialised grounds.cos789 said:
In saying this, the SCG is good for AFL, it is comfortable, has respectable facilities and can hold 40,000+ for the Sydney Swans big games. The Melbourne Storm however have sub-standard facilities and although crowds are below 10,000 for the moment, it seems that the people of Meloburne are quick to catergorize and an improved stadium with good facilities might attract some new supporters who originally snubbed their nose to the shabby stadium and rugby league because of the ass-sniffer and boof heads image that Melbourne tries to portray of rugby league. I do not mean offend anyone but I think most will agree with my comments.
- Banned
- #30
Tutaki said:
The WAFL has and is paying for Subiaco .
The SANFL owns finances it's own ground and facilities .
The AFL owned Waverley but was forced to abandon it for and commit to the MCG and telstra Dome .
The AFL was forced to pay for the reconfigure of Telstra Stadium .
I understand the Gabba was a joint venture with cricket .
..[/QUOTE]
Just like Melbourne and rugby league, Sydney doesn't have a specialised AFL ground because there isn't enough support for AFL to have one. I mean we have an A-Grade and Reserve Grade that covers the majority of Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle have a joint competition which has 9 teams. That isn't nearly enough support for AFL specialised grounds.
In saying this, the SCG is good for AFL, it is comfortable, has respectable facilities and can hold 40,000+ for the Sydney Swans big games. .[/QUOTE]
Firstly the AFL attracts an average crowd of 35,000 not your 9000 for the Storm in Melbourne .
The SCG is too small and does not conform to the average dimensions .
Telstra Stadium is small and too narrow to conform to average dimensions .
Apart from that Sydney doesn't event have any DECENT grounds let alone facilities .As for the NSWAFL it has Premier League , First and Second Division (all with reserves) .And Newcastle and Central Coast are not the only centres to have senior leagues ,not to mention junior leagues .There really is no comparison between the NSWAL and the VRL
.[/QUOTE]
it seems that the people of Meloburne are quick to catergorize and an improved stadium with good facilities might attract some new supporters who originally snubbed their nose to the shabby stadium and rugby league .[/QUOTE]
Well Telstra Dome didn't attract them did it !
TD refused to reconfigure the stadium. 
.
Terrible lines of sight. A bit like how the bulldogs would be lucky to get 10k at the Baseball stadium but get 20k at the Stade De Oz.
.Terrible lines of sight. A bit like how the bulldogs would be lucky to get 10k at the Baseball stadium but get 20k at the Stade De Oz.
- Thread starter
- #32
Fans didnt want to do to TD in the first place. I didnt. Its a terrible ground for atmosphere. 9000 at OP would sound louder then 20,000+ at TD. I've been to the MCG in front of 50,000+ and 15,000 at OP is a better atmophere and just as loud. It's incredible.
If it had better facilitys and and stands that were closer to the playing field, you'd get more fans. Thats my opinion anyway.
If it had better facilitys and and stands that were closer to the playing field, you'd get more fans. Thats my opinion anyway.
TD's great for AR, but I wouldn't bother going to see rectangle-pitch codes there.
It actually makes a lot of money through other corporate events - it's constantly booked out for concerts and stuff like that. When I was labouring for an event hire company about a year back I can remember spending a lot of time laying fake plastic flooring on the field.........
Anyways - with regards to the AFL owning grounds, the AFL put up a significant portion of the funds to build the Telstra Dome and are buying it back off the current majority owners (channel 7) as per the construction agreement.
The AFL put up a large proportion of the funds to rebuild the Gabba (along with the Queensland cricketing fraternity).
The WAFL own Subiaco.
The SANFL own Football Park (now known as AAMI stadium). I think. They used to anyway.
So, in short, it makes sense for the NRL to build a good rectangular field in Melbourne. It would be a great asset - hire it out for soccer internationals etc.
It actually makes a lot of money through other corporate events - it's constantly booked out for concerts and stuff like that. When I was labouring for an event hire company about a year back I can remember spending a lot of time laying fake plastic flooring on the field.........
Anyways - with regards to the AFL owning grounds, the AFL put up a significant portion of the funds to build the Telstra Dome and are buying it back off the current majority owners (channel 7) as per the construction agreement.
The AFL put up a large proportion of the funds to rebuild the Gabba (along with the Queensland cricketing fraternity).
The WAFL own Subiaco.
The SANFL own Football Park (now known as AAMI stadium). I think. They used to anyway.
So, in short, it makes sense for the NRL to build a good rectangular field in Melbourne. It would be a great asset - hire it out for soccer internationals etc.
- Thread starter
- #34
News Lts should do it. Unless Uncle Rupert is down to his last 100 Billion. No good wasting any of his retirment fund now is it?
He has so much money. So simple to do. Whats wrong with multi-billionaires nowdays. So stingy.
He has so much money. So simple to do. Whats wrong with multi-billionaires nowdays. So stingy.
The Qld Govt funded the upgrade. Interestingly, it was designed as a budget stadium costing less than half of Lang Park. It was meant to cover the entire ground, but they ran out of money and the Gabba has not been a full circle for half a dozen years bcoz of that. Due to the Lions success leading to excellent Gabba crowds, the Qld Govt is pitching in again to complete the circle.Richoagain said:
I'm interested to hear more on your belief that "[t]he AFL put up a large proportion of the funds...".
