Rugby Stadiums

[TOCC]

That Swans deal is a huge win for the SCG. If the Tahs can maintain their success, we might get a similar deal. Surely then the SCG trust could command some money to upgrade parking and amenities around Moore Park.

Parking isn't the problem though, parking has been created as a problem due to the failures in public transport accessibility.

Tex mentioned Waverly Park, but another stadium which has suffered a demise is QEII Stadium in Brisbane, built in 1975 leading up to the Commonwealth Games its sat idle since 2003 when the Broncos moved back to Suncorp Stadium. Similar situation, horrible stadium to get to and from, their original plans relied heavily on car parking and busses.

 

[Pfitzy]

The public transport to Moore Park is fucked. Utterly fucked. If the government is going to spend some millions anywhere, I'd rather they put dedicated PT - light rail or express bus lanes with NO traffic lights - through to Anzac Parade and fuck the car owners.

Problem is, Sydney is so heavily invested in cars that it'll never happen.

 

[Lindommer]

The state government's got a few things on the drawing board for Moore Park access. The biggy's the proposed eastern suburbs tram which should help spectators get to and from the SFS/SCG by improved PT. There's also a thought bubble of a large walkway from Kippax Park over Anzac Parade to get foot traffic away quickly. The whole Moore Park precinct isn't perfect, but, with a few tweaks it could be improved.

 

[Braveheart81]

The state government's got a few things on the drawing board for Moore Park access. The biggy's the proposed eastern suburbs tram which should help spectators get to and from the SFS/SCG by improved PT. There's also a thought bubble of a large walkway from Kippax Park over Anzac Parade to get foot traffic away quickly. The whole Moore Park precinct isn't perfect, but, with a few tweaks it could be improved.

Whilst I definitely think the bridge over Anzac Parade should have remained a thought bubble, it's far more than that now.

They're almost up to the point of starting the bridge going over the road. It's meant to be finished by February for the Cricket World Cup.

Certainly the light rail and the walkway will make accessing the SFS easier. Once they finally upgrade the catering facilities inside the ground I think it will sort everything out and make it a venue with no real drawbacks.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Once they finally upgrade the catering facilities inside the ground I think it will sort everything out and make it a venue with no real drawbacks.

What about the attendees?

 

[Braveheart81]

What about the attendees?

Part of the philosophy behind builing a bridge outside the ground was that the trolls would gather there for easy disposal.

 

[TOCC]

I actually think that bridge will be beneficial and is definitely an improvement in accessibility, however i also feel that the overall design could have been done in a less intrusive manner. Lightrail will also be another key improvement in PT accessibility as long as they able to effectively surge capacity during key events.

If you wanted the 'gold plate' solution you really need the stadium connected to Central Station which serves as a terminus for the rest of the network. Its easy to suggest that SFS is only a bus-ride away from Central, but if you factor in that someone might have previously caught a bus to the train station, swapped trains once and is now having to board a bus its easy to see how people hate the transport links to SFS.

 

[Lindommer]

There're shitloads of pubs (12?) between the SFS and Central, AND, it's downhill after the game! Get yer act together, TOCC.

 

[something]

i'm interested in what people would consider the three best stadiums in Australia, not just for Rugby but for anything - what makes the best stadium experience? keeping in mind atmosphere, public transport etc.

you'd think MCG and Suncorp would have to be in the top 3? any others?

 

[KevinO]

i'm interested in what people would consider the three best stadiums in Australia, not just for Rugby but for anything - what makes the best stadium experience? keeping in mind atmosphere, public transport etc.

you'd think MCG and Suncorp would have to be in the top 3? any others?

MCG
Suncorp
AAMI Park

 

[Antony]

Just going to put this out there: SCG > MCG.

 

[Braveheart81]

I reckon the SCG is the best cricket ground in Australia. The MCG obviously beats it for transport etc.

Suncorp would be the best rectangular stadium.

 

[Train Without a Station]

From an aesthetic and architectural perspective, the SCG is much better than the MCG. But for game day experience, atmosphere, location, transport, etc. I think the MCG is superior.

 

[Quick Hands]

The SFS could be made a 55,000 - 60,000 seat stadium for less than $250 mil. Time for league, union and soccer administrators and fans to mobilise for this to happen.

 

[Braveheart81]

The SFS could be made a 55,000 - 60,000 seat stadium for less than $250 mil. Time for league, union and soccer administrators and fans to mobilise for this to happen.

Stadium Australia has a contractual agreement that it won't happen (no idea when it expires).

The payout from taxpayers to allow it would be substantial.

 

[Joeleee]

Stadium Australia has a contractual agreement that it won't happen (no idea when it expires).

The payout from taxpayers to allow it would be substantial.

This contractual agreement seems completely absurd, I hate it when the government puts in stupid forced non-competes into public contracts. Do you have any links to more information about it? A quick google didn't turn anything up...

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^I believe that Braveheart is correct, there is some sort of contractual agreement between the State government and the operators of ANZ, which does restrict the capacity of the SFS and even extends to ANZ having a veto over the SFS getting a roof.

You're right, the arrangement is absurd, it's what happens when bureaucrats attempt to negotiate with private companies - the private companies play them off a break every time and the bureaucrats aren't playing with your money, they're playing with ours.

But, we now have the operators of ANZ asking for a State government handout to upgrade their facitility. The government would be better off spending the money, buying out the contractual arrangements which restrict the SFS.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

There're shitloads of pubs (12?) between the SFS and Central, AND, it's downhill after the game! Get yer act together, TOCC.

I make it 10 (or 11 if you start up the crawl Moore Park Road at the Olympic Hotel.) and even then you need to take a wee detour towards Central to check in to the last few.

The route taken is the 2 km stroll down Moore Park, Fitzroy and Fouveaux starting at the SFS car park.

Which ones have I missed?

1. Captain Cook Hotel
2. The Cricketers Arms Hotel
3. The White Horse Hotel
4. The Forresters
5. Excelsior Hotel
6. Button Bar
7. The Red Door
8. The Keg and Brew
9. The Aurora Hotel
10. Central Hotel

(11. The Olympic Hotel)

With a couple of detours the number can increase rather rapidly (read Crown Street).

 

[Braveheart81]

This contractual agreement seems completely absurd, I hate it when the government puts in stupid forced non-competes into public contracts. Do you have any links to more information about it? A quick google didn't turn anything up.

It seems it is actually 48,000 capacity. (apologies for the poor formatting). This comes from page 24 of http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__da...ralia_updated_contracts_summary_June_2002.pdf

Competitive stadiums
The Project Agreement does not limit or restrict the ability of the
Government, either directly or through any department, authority
or local council, to construct and/or operate other sporting or
entertainment venues in NSW.
It does, however, set out provisions for possible renegotiation
of the Stadium Australia contracts if the project is adversely
affected by the development or redevelopment of a “competitive
stadium”.
The original Project Agreement’s requirement for negotiations
in these circumstances was significantly relaxed by the Project
Agreement Amendment Deed of 20 December 1999, which narrowed
both the definition of “competitive stadiums” and the types of re
-
developments potentially triggering the requirement.
Under the Project Agreement, as amended by the Project
Agreement Amendment Deed, SOPA may now be required to
negotiate with the Trustee if the Government or one of its agen
-
cies:


Develops a competitive stadium with more than 35,000 seats
within 50 kilometres of the Homebush Bay area (other than
in Wollongong or on the Central Coast)


Redevelops such a competitive stadium in ways listed below,
or


Provides financial assistance of more than $1 million (indexed
to the CPI) for such a development or redevelopment,
and this competitive stadium’s development or redevelopment
and operation are solely responsible for a “material adverse effect”
on the Trustee’s ability to carry out the project or repay its debt
financiers, or on the returns to the Stadium Australia Trust’s
unitholders and the Operator’s shareholders.
In the case of the Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney Cricket
Ground and Parramatta Stadium, the types of redevelopments
18
potentially triggering this requirement are confined to redevelop
-
ments which:


Increase the number of permanent seats to more than 48,000,
48,000 or 35,000 seats respectively


Provides a closed or closeable roof for the Sydney Football
Stadium or Parramatta Stadium


Increases the roof area of the Sydney Football Stadium to pro
-
tect an additional 5% or more of its seats from the weather,
or


Increases the floor space of the enclosed corporate suites at
Sydney Football Stadium by more than 30%.
For other venues, the types of redevelopments potentially trig
-
gering a requirement to negotiate are confined to permanent rede
-
velopments or changes which:


Increase the number of permanent seats to more than 35,000,
or


In the case of venues which already have more than 35,000
seats, enable the venue to attract different events or greater
attendances or otherwise facilitate a material change in the
functions or uses of the venue.
Any such negotiations must aim at enabling the Trustee to
preserve its abilities to procure the operation and maintenance of
Stadium Australia in accordance with the Project Agreement,
maintain Stadium Australia as a competitive venue for major
events, repay its debt financiers and provide Trust unitholders
with previously forecast levels of return.
SOPA must also negotiate with the Operator with a view to
enabling it to provide its shareholders with previously forecast
levels of return. These negotiations with the Trustee and the Oper
-
ator must consider, among other things, possible amendments to
the project’s contracts and possible variations to the operation
and maintenance term and/or the financial and other contribu
-
tions of SOPA and the Trustee.
In addition to these provisions for negotiations following an
actual development or redevelopment of a competitive stadium,
SOPA must discuss with the Trustee:


Any serious proposal by the Government or one of its agen
-
cies to develop a competitive stadium with more than 35,000
seats within 50 kilometres of the Homebush Bay area (other
than in Wollongong or on the Central Coast), or to redevelop
an existing competitive stadium in any of the ways listed
above, if the Trustee reasonably believes this proposal would
be likely to have a “material adverse effect” on the Trustee,
and


Any serious proposal for the sale of the Sydney Cricket Ground,
the Sydney Football Stadium or Parramatta Stadium to the
private sector.
Changes in law
If there is a discriminatory change in NSW law that specifically
and only affects :


The Stadium Australia project


The project and other privately owned venues within the
Homebush Bay area, or


The project and other competitive stadiums, but grants relief
to the other competitive stadiums,
and this change has a “material adverse effect” on the Trustee,
SOPA must negotiate with the Trustee and the Operator with a
view to compensating them on the same basis as under the
competitive stadium provisions outlined above.
The risk of all other changes in law (e.g. federal and other State
changes) is borne by the Trustee, except for the native title indem
-
nity provided by SOPA and other than to the extent that the
changes affect the “OCA works” to be carried out in the stadium
precinct.

 

[Braveheart81]

Interesting that the SFS isn't even allowed to protect more than 5% more seats from the weather without triggering something!