Waratahs 2019

[WorkingClassRugger]

Correct, which is why out of an $89 billion infrastructure budget, the government is spending $8 billion on new schools, $6.8 billion on hospitals (including one on the northern beaches), $51.2 billion on rail and road projects, $5.6 billion on water and sewage projects compared with much less spending on sports grounds and museums etc.

https://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/budget-2018-06/Budget_Paper_2-Infrastructure Statement-Budget_201819.pdf

Melbourne, which is a city of similar size to Sydney, has had 4 stadia which have all be completely rebuilt since the SFS was built in 1988 - MCG, Docklands, AAMI and Kardinia Park. Brisbane and Perth which as less than half the size of Sydney have each had 2 stadia rebuilt in the same period. Gabba, Suncorp, Perth Stadium and NIB Stadium. The fact that there's even a debate going on in Sydney about it is the unusal thing about the whole issue.

Yes, but everything you listed in the first paragraph would come under the definition of critical infrastructure. Stadiums are most certainly not critical.

 

[Adam84]

If the government only invested in what is considered ‘critical infrastructure’ then we would live very boring lives with no arts, music, concerts, sporting events, conventions etc.

Not to mention the lack of economic growth created through ‘non-critical’ investment programs like Tourism NSW, small buisness and emerging industry grants.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If the government only invested in what is considered ‘critical infrastructure’ then we would live very boring lives with no arts, music, concerts, sporting events, conventions etc.

Not to mention the lack of economic growth created through ‘non-critical’ investment programs like Tourism NSW, small buisness and emerging industry grants.

The govt. does have a responsibility to look to foster all of the elements above. But they do that via other agencies/departments and community groups etc. You'll find they are all funded separately from infrastructure such as what we've been discussing. And where they cannot budget they legislate. I'm talking about the specific investment in infrastructure needed to ensure that the community is capable of enjoying all of the above. Something stadiums don't actually qualify as being.

 

[Adam84]

The govt. does have a responsibility to look to foster all of the elements above. But they do that via other agencies/departments and community groups etc. You'll find they are all funded separately from infrastructure such as what we've been discussing. And where they cannot budget they legislate. I'm talking about the specific investment in infrastructure needed to ensure that the community is capable of enjoying all of the above. Something stadiums don't actually qualify as being.

Sorry but this comment has lost me, maybe I’ve missed something

Are you saying that non-critical infrastructure is funded separately from infrastructure as we’ve been discussing and that this is instead funded via departments/agencies?

Also your comment “investment in infrastructure needed to ensure the community is capable of enjoying all of the above”, you’ve going to have to elaborate again because i dont understand the context of what you’re referring to here.. what is “the above” that you refer to?

 

[Derpus]

The govt. does have a responsibility to look to foster all of the elements above. But they do that via other agencies/departments and community groups etc. You'll find they are all funded separately from infrastructure such as what we've been discussing. And where they cannot budget they legislate. I'm talking about the specific investment in infrastructure needed to ensure that the community is capable of enjoying all of the above. Something stadiums don't actually qualify as being.

Stadium certainly doesnt appear to meet the definition of part 5 for infrastructure in the EPAA.

But i dont think its the case that Infrastructure NSW would be precluded from pursuing development that is not strictly infrastructure.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Sorry but this comment has lost me, maybe I’ve missed something

Are you saying that non-critical infrastructure is funded separately from infrastructure as we’ve been discussing and that this is instead funded via departments/agencies?

Also your comment “investment in infrastructure needed to ensure the community is capable of enjoying all of the above”, you’ve going to have to elaborate again because i dont understand the context of what you’re referring to here.. what is “the above” that you refer to?

Yes. There are State classifications for infrastructure and development. State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) and State Significant Development (SSD). One is primarily funded by Govt. The other can be by Govt., public/private partnership or private.

The infrastructure in which we are discussing .i.e. roads, train etc. come under SSI while hospitals, schools etc. come under SSD. Tourist and recreation facilities are SSD under the legislation. The Allianz redevelopment falls under this classification. But that's not the argument. It's the value and necessity of the development. Which for the expense in a complete tear down and rebuild has to be justified with the potential return.

And if you had referenced them then that would have been fine. But you used the likes of Tourism NSW and the Arts etc. which are actually separate to that of planning and infrastructure and what is covered under the legislation that covers in in the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). They are funded separately via their own departments or agencies.

Investment in infrastructure has a direct correlation with economic growth. Better infrastructure also cuts down on commute time that then allows for people to enjoy other aspects of their communities. Without it neither would be possible.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Stadium certainly doesnt appear to meet the definition of part 5 for infrastructure in the EPAA.

But i dont think its the case that Infrastructure NSW would be precluded from pursuing development that is not strictly infrastructure.

It's not. I touch on it in my post above. It's classified as State Significant Development. But that's not the issue in my opinion. It's the value of it as a development.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's not. I touch on it in my post above. It's classified as State Significant Development. But that's not the issue in my opinion. It's the value of it as a development.

Think you'll find that the business case for knock-down and rebuild is compelling in comparison to the refurbishment option. (my bold)

The refurbishment option returns a financial result which is significantly inferior to those of the redevelopment options. In an average year, the refurbishment option forecasts a small positive operating result before life cycle costs, and a negative result after life cycle costs.

The two options for rebuilding the stadium are estimated to return similar financial performances. Each of the options is expected to return a materially improved and positive operating result both before and after life cycle costs. The financial results of the two redevelopment options are within an acceptable margin of error, indicating there is effectively no difference between the financial performance of the two options

http://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/media/1527/sfs-final-business-case-summary_web-version.pdf

 

[Derpus]

Presumably it would have to be rebuilt shortly (5-10 years) regardless. The only half convincing argument against it in my book is the suggestion that it should be privately funded or at least PPP, but i dont think that would ever happen. We would just end up with a defunct/closed stadium.

 

['Tattsy'TaylorFan1]

Ned Hanigan is starting to become really effective over the ball jackaling for turnovers. Awesome to see.

 

[Adam84]

Yes. There are State classifications for infrastructure and development. State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) and State Significant Development (SSD). One is primarily funded by Govt. The other can be by Govt., public/private partnership or private.

The infrastructure in which we are discussing .i.e. roads, train etc. come under SSI while hospitals, schools etc. come under SSD. Tourist and recreation facilities are SSD under the legislation. The Allianz redevelopment falls under this classification. But that's not the argument. It's the value and necessity of the development. Which for the expense in a complete tear down and rebuild has to be justified with the potential return.

And if you had referenced them then that would have been fine. But you used the likes of Tourism NSW and the Arts etc. which are actually separate to that of planning and infrastructure and what is covered under the legislation that covers in in the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). They are funded separately via their own departments or agencies.

Investment in infrastructure has a direct correlation with economic growth. Better infrastructure also cuts down on commute time that then allows for people to enjoy other aspects of their communities. Without it neither would be possible.

Sure... it’s infrasturcutre investment can be funded under SSD, like schools and hospitals. I never argued otherwise, No change to the discussion.

So what we’re discussing is the merit or economic value of the investment in new stadium. Again, no change.

Subsequently is your last comment about allowing people to enjoy aspects of their community subjective to an individuals enjoyment value derived from attending sport events?

 

[John S]

It was good to see the Tah's hang on for the W on Saturday. The last try nearly wrecked it for me though. Would have been good to keep the Crusaders to the one try.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

It was good to see the Tah's hang on for the W on Saturday. The last try nearly wrecked it for me though. Would have been good to keep the Crusaders to the one try.

A forward pass one at that.

 

[John S]

Yeah, maybe. It would have been good if the ref looked at more angles.

 

[I like to watch]

A forward pass one at that.

Best time to be at the wrong end of a bad decision is when it doesn’t count.....

karma owes us one.
Hopefully to be delivered in a scenario where it does count.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So, where and when can the Tahs next play Mason at 10?

 

[I like to watch]

^^^^ 6/4 v uni

 

[Quick Hands]

Yes, but everything you listed in the first paragraph would come under the definition of critical infrastructure. Stadiums are most certainly not critical.

Which is probably why only about 2% of the infrastructure budget is for stadia.

 

[Blackadder]

https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2019/03/31/one-percenters-march-31

Big Will looks set to stay overseas

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Which is probably why only about 2% of the infrastructure budget is for stadia.

SSD generally speaking are privately funded projects. Or public/private partnerships. Which if it were private money or a public/private partnership with the vast majority of the funds not coming from the state budget I'd be far more open to it. Another worry is that they'll spend all this money on rebuilding both stadiums and then sell it off. That's just pure speculation on my behalf but a new asset with little relative outlay is an attract ticket item. Like roads that use public money to be built but then are signed off to a private company for 40+ years.