Advanced  

Latest Result

Semi Final Sydney Showgrounds
Sun, 17 Sep 2017 • 17:25 WST
West Coast Greater Western Sydney
9.4 (58) 19.11 (125)
Game Focus

Next Game

Round 1 Perth Stadium
Sun, 25 Mar 2018 • 16:20 WST
West Coast v Sydney
Game Focus



The Everlasting Stadium Thread.

Discussion of all things Eagles
(the "EaglesFlyingHigh" board)

Moderators: Mead, Streaker, Mr Q

The Everlasting Stadium Thread.

Postby infiltrator on Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:05 am

Okay, a few of us (such as myself) have made a bit of a habit of straying back onto the issue of a decent stadium in Perth on a few different threads. I guess it's pretty easy to pursue your own pet issue during the long, boring off-season... So, here's my attempt at trying to drag a few of our different thoughts on various threads and rolling it into one place.

1. WHY DO WE NEED IT?

Firstly, Perth needs a credible, international-standard venue for major events - things like the annual Rugby Test, maybe major Soccer games in the future, maybe Aust-NZ will get to host the 2014 or 2018 Soccer World Cup, and we will host the Cricket World Cup again in either 2011 or 2015 - and Perth would want to be a candidate city for some of the reasonably significant games. I wouldn't talk too much about things like the World Athletics Championships (which northern hemisphere types would probably insist on staging during their summer season, when we'd be playing footy at our ground).

Secondly, it's badly, badly, badly needed for major footy games. The AFL would give us a better scheduling deal (more Friday nights, etc) if we could hold 60,000 or 70,000 - we'd be considered a flagship of the comp; as it is, we're an insignificant little outpost. It's also not inconcievable that they might (at some time in the future) decree that they're only prepared to play major finals (eg. Prelims) at venues that can hold over 50,000 or 60,000. We also owe it to our players (and to make us an even more attractive team to play for). If you're drafted by Ess, Coll or Carl, you will get that sensation of playing in front of 90,000, and probably a few times every year - if you're drafted by WCE (or Fre, Bris, etc), you'll never get that roar and chill down your spine until GF Day.

Most importantly though, it's needed for the long-term health of football. We need supply to keep up with the demand for seats, we need families to know that they CAN get seats for their kids, we need to break this current inevitable trend where our entire membership base just gets a year older every year - where might leave us in (say) 30 years time? What will the kids born between now and then think? Will they care? Mr Q put it very well, that "Dads who can't afford to go to the football (and take their boys along) won't be able to afford Fox either... thus meaning they will get less exposure to footy as a game, and are then less likely to actually take the game up...If the boys don't take up the sport, its likely to have a negative impact on the eventual number of players - and further down the track, the number of draftees for the AFL. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Short term gain for long term pain...."

2. HOW BIG?

I reckon about 70,000 is about right. Matt4theMax said "rumours are a 65,000 stadium built in such a way that a further tier can be added on top ( maybe 20 years or so ) increasing capacity to 90,000" - this makes sense also. I could even live with a Stage 1 that gave us 55,000 seats with a Stage 2 that delivered the extra 15,000 within 10 years (with architectural plans, approvals and budgets in place for Stage 2, not just good intentions). Certainly, the key point is that the WAFC's talk of numbers like 45,000 and 50,000 is nowhere near good enough. I can understand their economic rationale that by restricting capacity to 45,000, they can ensure that all members wil renew their seats even when we're going bad (out of a sense of being scared that we'll never get in again when the side's going well), but this is a terribly short-sighted way of looking at things (see Mr Q's point above again, re "Short term gain for long term pain").

3. WHO'S IN?

The whole reason we're in this stupid mess is because each sport has gone off and developed (for want of a better word) their own shabby little venue, and because successive state governments (of both persuasions) have been too gutless to bang heads together and force them to co-opertae around a shared facility. Whilst the romantics would love for there to be 1 cricket ground, 1 rugby/soccer ground, 2 footy grounds (yes, in a perfect world Freo would have their own ground down there), the simple reality is that the population and economy can only support 1 decent venue - so clearly, we need to get all parties together, to have 1 bloody good venue. That means footy & cricket, and ideally the ability to have moveable seating in the bottom tiers, so that these can be brought closer to provide better quality-vantage spots for rugby & soccer - just like Homebush.

There's one big catch in this though: cricket wickets always run North-South (presumably becuase of not wanting the sun behind the bowler for much of the afternoon...??). This is why the cricket pitches run down the ground (goal-square to goal-square) at the SCG, Adelaide Oval, Bellrieve, the Junction Oval, North Sydney & Telstra Dome, but across the ground (wing to wing) at the MCG, WACA, Gabba & Marrara. Consider Floreat Oval, Richardson Park in South Perth, PSA grounds, the main UWA oval near the Library, just about every WAFL ground (which all run North-South and were used for club cricket decades ago), Kardinya Park (which used to host Sheffield Shield games), Gloucester Park (which hosted World Series cricket in 1977-78), etc, if you need more examples.

This is worth keeping in mind, becuase if your footy ground is reasonably narrow (eg. Subi, one of the narrowest in the AFL) and runs East-West (eg. Subi again), then you'd be needing to actually widen the playing surface by about 30 metres before you'd be able to have decent length boundaries back behind the bowler. Furthermore, if you want Cricket to part of this consolidation at a single premium venue (and maybe to sell their land, chuck some dollars towards the project), you need to offer them something that is superior for their sport than their current site. This is a big barrier if you'd consider moving cricket to Subi, if (like Mr Q and myself) you really liked that West Perth Markets site idea a decade ago, or if you'd consider sinking the rail near the Entertainment Centre car park site and building there - all are extremely narrow, East-West sites.

...phew, that'll do me for now, especially as it's an uncharacterisatically nice day over here - I'll come back later with points 4 (WHERE - and there's plenty of food for thought around on a few threads on this one) and 5 (HOW WE FUND IT) later...
User avatar
infiltrator
Veteran
 
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:27 pm
Location: destroying the Vics from the inside

Postby Lynch Beast on Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:34 am

knock down subi oval and sell it to housing developers

that should bring in about 30 - 40 million
User avatar
Lynch Beast
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:13 pm
Location: Oyster Bay, Long Island, New York

Postby The Kaspoofinator on Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:37 am

I disagree with that. It's in a fantastic position, and I think it'd be cool to either renovate the existing oval, or build a new one on the same site. It's just such a great feeling walking across the streets of subi to see the eagles whoop some easties. The state govt has already knocked down the old perry lakes stadium for housing, and are going to take down that old nursing home in nedlands for housing too. It'd be a shame if we lost subi oval that way.
User avatar
The Kaspoofinator
Veteran
 
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:55 pm

Postby Lynch Beast on Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:58 am

The Kaspoofinator wrote:I disagree with that. It's in a fantastic position, and I think it'd be cool to either renovate the existing oval, or build a new one on the same site. It's just such a great feeling walking across the streets of subi to see the eagles whoop some easties. The state govt has already knocked down the old perry lakes stadium for housing, and are going to take down that old nursing home in nedlands for housing too. It'd be a shame if we lost subi oval that way.


agree.

i get the same feeling when coming back from uni (joondalup)

can't match the smells and atmosphere of this place

if they can find a way to increase capacity by about 12000 then all will be sweet
User avatar
Lynch Beast
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:13 pm
Location: Oyster Bay, Long Island, New York

Postby Coasters on Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:31 am

Only been to Subi a few times but I loved going there!!

the atmosphere was awesome with 40,000 eagles supporters!

If they could somehow re-develop Subiaco Oval into a stadium that could hold 70,000 that would be the best option.

They could knock down the 3 tier stand and the stand along the wing (where the coaches sit) and add another level to the new stand - Making it like a Gabba type bowl which could fit 70,000+.

SWEET - but never gonna happen!
http://www.jobs.wa.gov.auImageImageImage
Member #14

Thanks to ECE for these
Coasters
Veteran
 
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:25 am
Location: West Lakes, SA

Postby TOA on Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:41 am

There is no doubt in my eyes that Subi is a near perfect destination for an oval.

If you look at all the cities over the world, their main oval is very central. The MCG and Docklands are extremely close the Melb CBD. We cannot have our oval 1 hr away from Perth city. Transport wouldnt be practical and the atmosphere would be minimal.

I do think we need a larger oval, however I cannot see the Subi council allowing us to expand.

Its abit of a dead end.
Shannon Hurn player president
User avatar
TOA
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:25 pm

Postby luke76 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:27 pm

Well nothing beats the atmosphere of the Grand Final but I garantee that the atmosphere at Subiaco during the home and away beats that of most the other home and away games. We seem to pull the biggest crouds even with a smaller ground. Imagine what it would be like with room for 60 to 70 thousand. I believe we are back to waitting lists for membership. If we had a bigger ground then membershipo could be increased.

I believe the wce have put a proposal to the state gov for a new bigger ground? does anyone know anything about this??????.
"Only a fan understands"
User avatar
luke76
Regular
 
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:33 am

Postby Lynch Beast on Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:08 pm

looking at google earth and found a tool that lets you measure the distance between points and looks to be very accurate

walking distance i am 1152.07 and straight line 975.75 meters

and also here are some pictures of Subi oval to get a real view of how narrow the block is and to see a possible way for expansion

Image
Image
User avatar
Lynch Beast
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:13 pm
Location: Oyster Bay, Long Island, New York

Postby shibz_1989 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:27 pm

I'm confused...isn't Subi the biggest ground in the AFL? If so, why does it have less seating then say the MCG or Telstra Dome?
.: Proud Bleeder of Purple :.

180 days til more Keplerrrr Loooove <3
shibz_1989
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:11 pm
Location: Block 116, Row C, Seat 9

Postby Sico 17 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:41 pm

shibz_1989 wrote:I'm confused...isn't Subi the biggest ground in the AFL? If so, why does it have less seating then say the MCG or Telstra Dome?

The playing surface is the biggest and longest in the AFL. It is not the biggest stadium though.
User avatar
Sico 17
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Plan A Deviant

Postby shibz_1989 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:48 pm

Sico 17 wrote:
shibz_1989 wrote:I'm confused...isn't Subi the biggest ground in the AFL? If so, why does it have less seating then say the MCG or Telstra Dome?

The playing surface is the biggest and longest in the AFL. It is not the biggest stadium though.


Ohhh I get it. Thanks for that.
.: Proud Bleeder of Purple :.

180 days til more Keplerrrr Loooove <3
shibz_1989
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:11 pm
Location: Block 116, Row C, Seat 9

Postby stadiumking on Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:55 pm

ooh hoo hoo....you've just opened a can of worms.
First thing's first: there is no room at the existing site to redevelop Subiaco Oval to a significant capacity...60-70,000.
There are restrictions due to the residential area it is located in, and there is no room on the wings. It's just not feasible. They squashed in an extra 1000ish seats this year, hence some record crowds recently.
You understand that a stadium of capacity 100,000 needs shitloads of space...something that inner-city, trendy, pricey, residential Subiaco doesn't have and won't ever have.

I suggest anyone interested on this matter at all read these threads:

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 79&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 61&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 11&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 96&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 66&start=0

there are some ripper pictures of a possible redeveloped Subiaco Oval (see below), and among some distractions that are inevitable on forums, talk about a new stadium, 60,000 capacity, somewhere else...perhaps at Belmont Park.

does this tickle anyone's fancy?
Image
***Mitch Brown. Proudly brought to you by Nathan Bassett***
User avatar
stadiumking
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:23 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby Streaker on Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:02 pm

I think Belmont is the best option but the development already planned for that area may kill off the idea, but like everything it relies on gaining government approval.

What I wouldn.t mind seeing is the government combining Gloucseter Park, The WACA and the old Police HQ and MTT bus terminus and building a sporting precinct with Indoor Tennis arena, basketball stadium, football and cricket oval and whatever else we need. Ascot or Belmont could host the trots.
Streaker
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:26 pm

Postby Thrawn666 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:07 pm

stadiumking wrote:talk about a new stadium, 60,000 capacity, somewhere else...perhaps at Belmont Park.


I will say it again in this thread so everyone understands

THERE WILL BE NO STADIUM BUILT AT BELMONT PARK

Thank you
Panzer Division Marduk
User avatar
Thrawn666
Veteran
 
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Perth

Postby Royals on Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:28 pm

stadiumking wrote:ooh hoo hoo....you've just opened a can of worms.
First thing's first: there is no room at the existing site to redevelop Subiaco Oval to a significant capacity...60-70,000.
There are restrictions due to the residential area it is located in, and there is no room on the wings. It's just not feasible. They squashed in an extra 1000ish seats this year, hence some record crowds recently.
You understand that a stadium of capacity 100,000 needs shitloads of space...something that inner-city, trendy, pricey, residential Subiaco doesn't have and won't ever have.

I suggest anyone interested on this matter at all read these threads:

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 79&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 61&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 11&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 96&start=0

http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtop ... 66&start=0

there are some ripper pictures of a possible redeveloped Subiaco Oval (see below), and among some distractions that are inevitable on forums, talk about a new stadium, 60,000 capacity, somewhere else...perhaps at Belmont Park.

does this tickle anyone's fancy?
Image



some good stuff in those links
loads of issues to think about no wonder they are taking their time
User avatar
Royals
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: The Castle

Next

Return to West Coast Eagles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests

cron