|
scott20won
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Dolphin just built 3,170 seats behind one goal for $6.5m which included some new (women’s) changing rooms and other facilities.
So a simple build would be: x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170 seats) x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170) x1 Long Grandstand $13M (6,340) x1 Main Grandstand with changing rooms $20m (6,340) x1 Pitch $1m x4 Floodlights $500k x1 other stuff ($2.5m?) Thats $39m for a basic 19,000 seat stadium - it does not cost hundreds of millions. https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=823 Completely agree, we are obsessed with the idea stadiums need fully connected grandstand with major roofing and world class corporate facilities, but in reality we can manage with less then half of what people expect. Its the way clubs and team who fund there own stadiums develop them, slow upgrades and improvements over long periods. I dont think if Coopers Stadium or Central Coast Stadium they would cost in the hundreds of millions range. Many around 40-60m, which is much more realistic. More simple stadiums should be developed, even if its over a four/five year period. Build up a main stand, the most expensive of the lot, have the changing rooms, faculties, corporate all based on that side, and one stand behind a selected goal. Then after a year or two, build the stand behind the opposite goal and then a few years after that, develop up a stand on the opposite side of the pitch. The first round of development with half the stadium built may cost around 25-30m, then each stage around 10m One of the major silver linings of this diabolical period, in terms of football, is that fact that clubs and supporters are finally getting real about stadiums. Frank Lowy's vision of the A League was always an exercise in wishfulfilment - admirable, yes, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. I've been saying for 10 years now that the A League's stadiums and their fields of empty seats have done more harm to the competition than any other single factor, and I stand by that judgement. We will never know, of course, but I venture that the League's arc would have looked very different if games had played to mostly full stadiums every week. Sport is theatre, and it has to look the part. Travel in time back to 2005. Where should Sydney have played? Leichhardt Oval? It would have sent a message that the A-League is small time. It has no corporate facilities and is difficult to get to for anyone not in the Inner West.* Instead they went to the SFS and got 30k to their first game. What about Brisbane? Ballymore? Same issues. Adelaide, Perth, Central Coast, Newcastle had literally nowhere else to play. NZ Knights were playing in a small-ish stadium in outer suburbia (North Harbour) and stunk the place out. Maybe if they had played at Eden Park things would have been different. Victory started out in a decrepit Olympic Park and were selling it out, so moved to Docklands in their second season and got 50k to a Big Blue. It's great to imagine boutique 20k stadiums with great facilities and fantastic transport access, but sadly we have to live in the real world, and none of the A-League clubs were in a position to build their own stadiums, so they had to make do with what was already there, as inadequate as it was. * There was some talk of playing at Parramatta but it's a good thing they didn't, as otherwise there would be no Western Sydney Wanderers and no Sydney derby. I was living in Auckland when the Kingz were in the NSL, BTW, and used to go to North Harbour Stadium for their games. Great stadium and right on the motorway so easily accessible. The U17 WC in 1999 didn't have any problems pulling crowds there. It wasn't a location issue. Eden Park would have made no difference to the Knights. They were road kill and nothing would have changed that. What.... I went there for the MV game against Wellington a few years ago and it was pretty much universal consensus that the location was fucking appalling. It took an hour on a bus from Auckland CBD to cross the harbour and get to this stadium miles away on the outskirts of the northern suburbs only to have to cross a several paddocks and a fucking westfield that contained the only pub for miles. Both teams wearing white, the ref pulling a hammy. Good times. Last year at Lakeside the 4th official pulled a hammy putting up the board for time added on after 1st half .... Had to be stretchered off. Again Ethnic clubs trump the A-League. hahahahahahahahahahahahah But have you ever used green spray paint to colour sand green?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Dolphin just built 3,170 seats behind one goal for $6.5m which included some new (women’s) changing rooms and other facilities.
So a simple build would be: x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170 seats) x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170) x1 Long Grandstand $13M (6,340) x1 Main Grandstand with changing rooms $20m (6,340) x1 Pitch $1m x4 Floodlights $500k x1 other stuff ($2.5m?) Thats $39m for a basic 19,000 seat stadium - it does not cost hundreds of millions. https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=823 Completely agree, we are obsessed with the idea stadiums need fully connected grandstand with major roofing and world class corporate facilities, but in reality we can manage with less then half of what people expect. Its the way clubs and team who fund there own stadiums develop them, slow upgrades and improvements over long periods. I dont think if Coopers Stadium or Central Coast Stadium they would cost in the hundreds of millions range. Many around 40-60m, which is much more realistic. More simple stadiums should be developed, even if its over a four/five year period. Build up a main stand, the most expensive of the lot, have the changing rooms, faculties, corporate all based on that side, and one stand behind a selected goal. Then after a year or two, build the stand behind the opposite goal and then a few years after that, develop up a stand on the opposite side of the pitch. The first round of development with half the stadium built may cost around 25-30m, then each stage around 10m One of the major silver linings of this diabolical period, in terms of football, is that fact that clubs and supporters are finally getting real about stadiums. Frank Lowy's vision of the A League was always an exercise in wishfulfilment - admirable, yes, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. I've been saying for 10 years now that the A League's stadiums and their fields of empty seats have done more harm to the competition than any other single factor, and I stand by that judgement. We will never know, of course, but I venture that the League's arc would have looked very different if games had played to mostly full stadiums every week. Sport is theatre, and it has to look the part. Travel in time back to 2005. Where should Sydney have played? Leichhardt Oval? It would have sent a message that the A-League is small time. It has no corporate facilities and is difficult to get to for anyone not in the Inner West.* Instead they went to the SFS and got 30k to their first game. What about Brisbane? Ballymore? Same issues. Adelaide, Perth, Central Coast, Newcastle had literally nowhere else to play. NZ Knights were playing in a small-ish stadium in outer suburbia (North Harbour) and stunk the place out. Maybe if they had played at Eden Park things would have been different. Victory started out in a decrepit Olympic Park and were selling it out, so moved to Docklands in their second season and got 50k to a Big Blue. It's great to imagine boutique 20k stadiums with great facilities and fantastic transport access, but sadly we have to live in the real world, and none of the A-League clubs were in a position to build their own stadiums, so they had to make do with what was already there, as inadequate as it was. * There was some talk of playing at Parramatta but it's a good thing they didn't, as otherwise there would be no Western Sydney Wanderers and no Sydney derby. I was living in Auckland when the Kingz were in the NSL, BTW, and used to go to North Harbour Stadium for their games. Great stadium and right on the motorway so easily accessible. The U17 WC in 1999 didn't have any problems pulling crowds there. It wasn't a location issue. Eden Park would have made no difference to the Knights. They were road kill and nothing would have changed that. What.... I went there for the MV game against Wellington a few years ago and it was pretty much universal consensus that the location was fucking appalling. It took an hour on a bus from Auckland CBD to cross the harbour and get to this stadium miles away on the outskirts of the northern suburbs only to have to cross a several paddocks and a fucking westfield that contained the only pub for miles. Both teams wearing white, the ref pulling a hammy. Good times. Last year at Lakeside the 4th official pulled a hammy putting up the board for time added on after 1st half .... Had to be stretchered off. Again Ethnic clubs trump the A-League. hahahahahahahahahahahahah stretchered off the sideline for a hammy? What a game of prima donnas we have become aha
|
|
|
|
|
df1982
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 861,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xDolphin just built 3,170 seats behind one goal for $6.5m which included some new (women’s) changing rooms and other facilities.
So a simple build would be: x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170 seats) x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170) x1 Long Grandstand $13M (6,340) x1 Main Grandstand with changing rooms $20m (6,340) x1 Pitch $1m x4 Floodlights $500k x1 other stuff ($2.5m?) Thats $39m for a basic 19,000 seat stadium - it does not cost hundreds of millions. https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=823 Completely agree, we are obsessed with the idea stadiums need fully connected grandstand with major roofing and world class corporate facilities, but in reality we can manage with less then half of what people expect. Its the way clubs and team who fund there own stadiums develop them, slow upgrades and improvements over long periods. I dont think if Coopers Stadium or Central Coast Stadium they would cost in the hundreds of millions range. Many around 40-60m, which is much more realistic. More simple stadiums should be developed, even if its over a four/five year period. Build up a main stand, the most expensive of the lot, have the changing rooms, faculties, corporate all based on that side, and one stand behind a selected goal. Then after a year or two, build the stand behind the opposite goal and then a few years after that, develop up a stand on the opposite side of the pitch. The first round of development with half the stadium built may cost around 25-30m, then each stage around 10m One of the major silver linings of this diabolical period, in terms of football, is that fact that clubs and supporters are finally getting real about stadiums. Frank Lowy's vision of the A League was always an exercise in wishfulfilment - admirable, yes, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. I've been saying for 10 years now that the A League's stadiums and their fields of empty seats have done more harm to the competition than any other single factor, and I stand by that judgement. We will never know, of course, but I venture that the League's arc would have looked very different if games had played to mostly full stadiums every week. Sport is theatre, and it has to look the part. Travel in time back to 2005. Where should Sydney have played? Leichhardt Oval? It would have sent a message that the A-League is small time. It has no corporate facilities and is difficult to get to for anyone not in the Inner West.* Instead they went to the SFS and got 30k to their first game. What about Brisbane? Ballymore? Same issues. Adelaide, Perth, Central Coast, Newcastle had literally nowhere else to play. NZ Knights were playing in a small-ish stadium in outer suburbia (North Harbour) and stunk the place out. Maybe if they had played at Eden Park things would have been different. Victory started out in a decrepit Olympic Park and were selling it out, so moved to Docklands in their second season and got 50k to a Big Blue. It's great to imagine boutique 20k stadiums with great facilities and fantastic transport access, but sadly we have to live in the real world, and none of the A-League clubs were in a position to build their own stadiums, so they had to make do with what was already there, as inadequate as it was. * There was some talk of playing at Parramatta but it's a good thing they didn't, as otherwise there would be no Western Sydney Wanderers and no Sydney derby. There's nothing wrong with the stadiums chosen to begin with especially considering no one knew exactly which way football would go without a ball being kicked and 6 new teams of the total 8. However this doesn't mean there shouldn't have been long term plans in place to eventually move into your own football specific stadium. Like many people have pointed out, it is easily doable and affordable if you're going to build a stadium with 10k capacity, which would be great for the clubs individually, and the league as a whole. By then one of the criteria for expansion clubs would be that you needed to build your own 10k minimum capacity stadium to enter into the league. Playing out of big stadiums to begin with wasn't the worst thing out, but continuing to do so was and is suicidal in the long term in my opinion. In the history of this country, how many football teams have built their own stadiums ? Well, in fact in the lower tiers, there are plenty of clubs that own their own facilities, albeit with small capacities. For the moment, these sorts of clubs can't progress from where they are, but wouldn't it be nice if they had a tiny bit of incentive to be able to progress? Further to that, South Melbourne has a long term lease on a fantastic boutique stadium, a beautiful part of Melbourne, about 3 or 4 km out of the CBD. But no, we followed the dream of a club building its own stadium out in the sticks. What's the difference between South Melbourne's long-term lease on Lakeside and, say, the Wanderers at Bankwest? South Melbourne also have to share their facilities (with athletics). And how many clubs actually own their own grounds? I know of Marconi, Sydney Utd, Melbourne Knights and Brisbane Lions. Maybe Avondale too? Almost all the other 100+ NPL grounds are council or govt owned.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Dolphin just built 3,170 seats behind one goal for $6.5m which included some new (women’s) changing rooms and other facilities.
So a simple build would be: x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170 seats) x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170) x1 Long Grandstand $13M (6,340) x1 Main Grandstand with changing rooms $20m (6,340) x1 Pitch $1m x4 Floodlights $500k x1 other stuff ($2.5m?) Thats $39m for a basic 19,000 seat stadium - it does not cost hundreds of millions. https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=823 Completely agree, we are obsessed with the idea stadiums need fully connected grandstand with major roofing and world class corporate facilities, but in reality we can manage with less then half of what people expect. Its the way clubs and team who fund there own stadiums develop them, slow upgrades and improvements over long periods. I dont think if Coopers Stadium or Central Coast Stadium they would cost in the hundreds of millions range. Many around 40-60m, which is much more realistic. More simple stadiums should be developed, even if its over a four/five year period. Build up a main stand, the most expensive of the lot, have the changing rooms, faculties, corporate all based on that side, and one stand behind a selected goal. Then after a year or two, build the stand behind the opposite goal and then a few years after that, develop up a stand on the opposite side of the pitch. The first round of development with half the stadium built may cost around 25-30m, then each stage around 10m One of the major silver linings of this diabolical period, in terms of football, is that fact that clubs and supporters are finally getting real about stadiums. Frank Lowy's vision of the A League was always an exercise in wishfulfilment - admirable, yes, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. I've been saying for 10 years now that the A League's stadiums and their fields of empty seats have done more harm to the competition than any other single factor, and I stand by that judgement. We will never know, of course, but I venture that the League's arc would have looked very different if games had played to mostly full stadiums every week. Sport is theatre, and it has to look the part. Travel in time back to 2005. Where should Sydney have played? Leichhardt Oval? It would have sent a message that the A-League is small time. It has no corporate facilities and is difficult to get to for anyone not in the Inner West.* Instead they went to the SFS and got 30k to their first game. What about Brisbane? Ballymore? Same issues. Adelaide, Perth, Central Coast, Newcastle had literally nowhere else to play. NZ Knights were playing in a small-ish stadium in outer suburbia (North Harbour) and stunk the place out. Maybe if they had played at Eden Park things would have been different. Victory started out in a decrepit Olympic Park and were selling it out, so moved to Docklands in their second season and got 50k to a Big Blue. It's great to imagine boutique 20k stadiums with great facilities and fantastic transport access, but sadly we have to live in the real world, and none of the A-League clubs were in a position to build their own stadiums, so they had to make do with what was already there, as inadequate as it was. * There was some talk of playing at Parramatta but it's a good thing they didn't, as otherwise there would be no Western Sydney Wanderers and no Sydney derby. I was living in Auckland when the Kingz were in the NSL, BTW, and used to go to North Harbour Stadium for their games. Great stadium and right on the motorway so easily accessible. The U17 WC in 1999 didn't have any problems pulling crowds there. It wasn't a location issue. Eden Park would have made no difference to the Knights. They were road kill and nothing would have changed that. What.... I went there for the MV game against Wellington a few years ago and it was pretty much universal consensus that the location was fucking appalling. It took an hour on a bus from Auckland CBD to cross the harbour and get to this stadium miles away on the outskirts of the northern suburbs only to have to cross a several paddocks and a fucking westfield that contained the only pub for miles. Both teams wearing white, the ref pulling a hammy. Good times. Last year at Lakeside the 4th official pulled a hammy putting up the board for time added on after 1st half .... Had to be stretchered off. Again Ethnic clubs trump the A-League. hahahahahahahahahahahahah But have you ever used green spray paint to colour sand green? Haha you've been watching Bentleigh Greens again. Hahahahah
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Dolphin just built 3,170 seats behind one goal for $6.5m which included some new (women’s) changing rooms and other facilities.
So a simple build would be: x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170 seats) x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170) x1 Long Grandstand $13M (6,340) x1 Main Grandstand with changing rooms $20m (6,340) x1 Pitch $1m x4 Floodlights $500k x1 other stuff ($2.5m?) Thats $39m for a basic 19,000 seat stadium - it does not cost hundreds of millions. https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=823 Completely agree, we are obsessed with the idea stadiums need fully connected grandstand with major roofing and world class corporate facilities, but in reality we can manage with less then half of what people expect. Its the way clubs and team who fund there own stadiums develop them, slow upgrades and improvements over long periods. I dont think if Coopers Stadium or Central Coast Stadium they would cost in the hundreds of millions range. Many around 40-60m, which is much more realistic. More simple stadiums should be developed, even if its over a four/five year period. Build up a main stand, the most expensive of the lot, have the changing rooms, faculties, corporate all based on that side, and one stand behind a selected goal. Then after a year or two, build the stand behind the opposite goal and then a few years after that, develop up a stand on the opposite side of the pitch. The first round of development with half the stadium built may cost around 25-30m, then each stage around 10m One of the major silver linings of this diabolical period, in terms of football, is that fact that clubs and supporters are finally getting real about stadiums. Frank Lowy's vision of the A League was always an exercise in wishfulfilment - admirable, yes, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. I've been saying for 10 years now that the A League's stadiums and their fields of empty seats have done more harm to the competition than any other single factor, and I stand by that judgement. We will never know, of course, but I venture that the League's arc would have looked very different if games had played to mostly full stadiums every week. Sport is theatre, and it has to look the part. Travel in time back to 2005. Where should Sydney have played? Leichhardt Oval? It would have sent a message that the A-League is small time. It has no corporate facilities and is difficult to get to for anyone not in the Inner West.* Instead they went to the SFS and got 30k to their first game. What about Brisbane? Ballymore? Same issues. Adelaide, Perth, Central Coast, Newcastle had literally nowhere else to play. NZ Knights were playing in a small-ish stadium in outer suburbia (North Harbour) and stunk the place out. Maybe if they had played at Eden Park things would have been different. Victory started out in a decrepit Olympic Park and were selling it out, so moved to Docklands in their second season and got 50k to a Big Blue. It's great to imagine boutique 20k stadiums with great facilities and fantastic transport access, but sadly we have to live in the real world, and none of the A-League clubs were in a position to build their own stadiums, so they had to make do with what was already there, as inadequate as it was. * There was some talk of playing at Parramatta but it's a good thing they didn't, as otherwise there would be no Western Sydney Wanderers and no Sydney derby. I was living in Auckland when the Kingz were in the NSL, BTW, and used to go to North Harbour Stadium for their games. Great stadium and right on the motorway so easily accessible. The U17 WC in 1999 didn't have any problems pulling crowds there. It wasn't a location issue. Eden Park would have made no difference to the Knights. They were road kill and nothing would have changed that. What.... I went there for the MV game against Wellington a few years ago and it was pretty much universal consensus that the location was fucking appalling. It took an hour on a bus from Auckland CBD to cross the harbour and get to this stadium miles away on the outskirts of the northern suburbs only to have to cross a several paddocks and a fucking westfield that contained the only pub for miles. Both teams wearing white, the ref pulling a hammy. Good times. Last year at Lakeside the 4th official pulled a hammy putting up the board for time added on after 1st half .... Had to be stretchered off. Again Ethnic clubs trump the A-League. hahahahahahahahahahahahah stretchered off the sideline for a hammy? What a game of prima donnas we have become aha Reports of a stretcher may have been slighrly exagerated....... haha was still hilarious thou
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xDolphin just built 3,170 seats behind one goal for $6.5m which included some new (women’s) changing rooms and other facilities.
So a simple build would be: x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170 seats) x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170) x1 Long Grandstand $13M (6,340) x1 Main Grandstand with changing rooms $20m (6,340) x1 Pitch $1m x4 Floodlights $500k x1 other stuff ($2.5m?) Thats $39m for a basic 19,000 seat stadium - it does not cost hundreds of millions. https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=823 Completely agree, we are obsessed with the idea stadiums need fully connected grandstand with major roofing and world class corporate facilities, but in reality we can manage with less then half of what people expect. Its the way clubs and team who fund there own stadiums develop them, slow upgrades and improvements over long periods. I dont think if Coopers Stadium or Central Coast Stadium they would cost in the hundreds of millions range. Many around 40-60m, which is much more realistic. More simple stadiums should be developed, even if its over a four/five year period. Build up a main stand, the most expensive of the lot, have the changing rooms, faculties, corporate all based on that side, and one stand behind a selected goal. Then after a year or two, build the stand behind the opposite goal and then a few years after that, develop up a stand on the opposite side of the pitch. The first round of development with half the stadium built may cost around 25-30m, then each stage around 10m One of the major silver linings of this diabolical period, in terms of football, is that fact that clubs and supporters are finally getting real about stadiums. Frank Lowy's vision of the A League was always an exercise in wishfulfilment - admirable, yes, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. I've been saying for 10 years now that the A League's stadiums and their fields of empty seats have done more harm to the competition than any other single factor, and I stand by that judgement. We will never know, of course, but I venture that the League's arc would have looked very different if games had played to mostly full stadiums every week. Sport is theatre, and it has to look the part. Travel in time back to 2005. Where should Sydney have played? Leichhardt Oval? It would have sent a message that the A-League is small time. It has no corporate facilities and is difficult to get to for anyone not in the Inner West.* Instead they went to the SFS and got 30k to their first game. What about Brisbane? Ballymore? Same issues. Adelaide, Perth, Central Coast, Newcastle had literally nowhere else to play. NZ Knights were playing in a small-ish stadium in outer suburbia (North Harbour) and stunk the place out. Maybe if they had played at Eden Park things would have been different. Victory started out in a decrepit Olympic Park and were selling it out, so moved to Docklands in their second season and got 50k to a Big Blue. It's great to imagine boutique 20k stadiums with great facilities and fantastic transport access, but sadly we have to live in the real world, and none of the A-League clubs were in a position to build their own stadiums, so they had to make do with what was already there, as inadequate as it was. * There was some talk of playing at Parramatta but it's a good thing they didn't, as otherwise there would be no Western Sydney Wanderers and no Sydney derby. There's nothing wrong with the stadiums chosen to begin with especially considering no one knew exactly which way football would go without a ball being kicked and 6 new teams of the total 8. However this doesn't mean there shouldn't have been long term plans in place to eventually move into your own football specific stadium. Like many people have pointed out, it is easily doable and affordable if you're going to build a stadium with 10k capacity, which would be great for the clubs individually, and the league as a whole. By then one of the criteria for expansion clubs would be that you needed to build your own 10k minimum capacity stadium to enter into the league. Playing out of big stadiums to begin with wasn't the worst thing out, but continuing to do so was and is suicidal in the long term in my opinion. In the history of this country, how many football teams have built their own stadiums ? Well, in fact in the lower tiers, there are plenty of clubs that own their own facilities, albeit with small capacities. For the moment, these sorts of clubs can't progress from where they are, but wouldn't it be nice if they had a tiny bit of incentive to be able to progress? Further to that, South Melbourne has a long term lease on a fantastic boutique stadium, a beautiful part of Melbourne, about 3 or 4 km out of the CBD. But no, we followed the dream of a club building its own stadium out in the sticks. What's the difference between South Melbourne's long-term lease on Lakeside and, say, the Wanderers at Bankwest? South Melbourne also have to share their facilities (with athletics). That's a fair question, and one worth investigating. Hopefully some can add what they know about both deals. Going off memory, noting I'm not Victorian, I thought South Melbourne had something like a 40 year lease (someone can correct me if that is incorrect). Noting that the NSL only survived 27 years, 40 years is a pretty long lease. Also, during the football season, South Melbourne have exclusive use - I'd say that's a key difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xDolphin just built 3,170 seats behind one goal for $6.5m which included some new (women’s) changing rooms and other facilities.
So a simple build would be: x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170 seats) x1 Behind goal stand $6.5m (3,170) x1 Long Grandstand $13M (6,340) x1 Main Grandstand with changing rooms $20m (6,340) x1 Pitch $1m x4 Floodlights $500k x1 other stuff ($2.5m?) Thats $39m for a basic 19,000 seat stadium - it does not cost hundreds of millions. https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=823 Completely agree, we are obsessed with the idea stadiums need fully connected grandstand with major roofing and world class corporate facilities, but in reality we can manage with less then half of what people expect. Its the way clubs and team who fund there own stadiums develop them, slow upgrades and improvements over long periods. I dont think if Coopers Stadium or Central Coast Stadium they would cost in the hundreds of millions range. Many around 40-60m, which is much more realistic. More simple stadiums should be developed, even if its over a four/five year period. Build up a main stand, the most expensive of the lot, have the changing rooms, faculties, corporate all based on that side, and one stand behind a selected goal. Then after a year or two, build the stand behind the opposite goal and then a few years after that, develop up a stand on the opposite side of the pitch. The first round of development with half the stadium built may cost around 25-30m, then each stage around 10m One of the major silver linings of this diabolical period, in terms of football, is that fact that clubs and supporters are finally getting real about stadiums. Frank Lowy's vision of the A League was always an exercise in wishfulfilment - admirable, yes, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. I've been saying for 10 years now that the A League's stadiums and their fields of empty seats have done more harm to the competition than any other single factor, and I stand by that judgement. We will never know, of course, but I venture that the League's arc would have looked very different if games had played to mostly full stadiums every week. Sport is theatre, and it has to look the part. Travel in time back to 2005. Where should Sydney have played? Leichhardt Oval? It would have sent a message that the A-League is small time. It has no corporate facilities and is difficult to get to for anyone not in the Inner West.* Instead they went to the SFS and got 30k to their first game. What about Brisbane? Ballymore? Same issues. Adelaide, Perth, Central Coast, Newcastle had literally nowhere else to play. NZ Knights were playing in a small-ish stadium in outer suburbia (North Harbour) and stunk the place out. Maybe if they had played at Eden Park things would have been different. Victory started out in a decrepit Olympic Park and were selling it out, so moved to Docklands in their second season and got 50k to a Big Blue. It's great to imagine boutique 20k stadiums with great facilities and fantastic transport access, but sadly we have to live in the real world, and none of the A-League clubs were in a position to build their own stadiums, so they had to make do with what was already there, as inadequate as it was. * There was some talk of playing at Parramatta but it's a good thing they didn't, as otherwise there would be no Western Sydney Wanderers and no Sydney derby. There's nothing wrong with the stadiums chosen to begin with especially considering no one knew exactly which way football would go without a ball being kicked and 6 new teams of the total 8. However this doesn't mean there shouldn't have been long term plans in place to eventually move into your own football specific stadium. Like many people have pointed out, it is easily doable and affordable if you're going to build a stadium with 10k capacity, which would be great for the clubs individually, and the league as a whole. By then one of the criteria for expansion clubs would be that you needed to build your own 10k minimum capacity stadium to enter into the league. Playing out of big stadiums to begin with wasn't the worst thing out, but continuing to do so was and is suicidal in the long term in my opinion. In the history of this country, how many football teams have built their own stadiums ? Well, in fact in the lower tiers, there are plenty of clubs that own their own facilities, albeit with small capacities. For the moment, these sorts of clubs can't progress from where they are, but wouldn't it be nice if they had a tiny bit of incentive to be able to progress? Further to that, South Melbourne has a long term lease on a fantastic boutique stadium, a beautiful part of Melbourne, about 3 or 4 km out of the CBD. But no, we followed the dream of a club building its own stadium out in the sticks. What's the difference between South Melbourne's long-term lease on Lakeside and, say, the Wanderers at Bankwest? South Melbourne also have to share their facilities (with athletics). And how many clubs actually own their own grounds? I know of Marconi, Sydney Utd, Melbourne Knights and Brisbane Lions. Maybe Avondale too? Almost all the other 100+ NPL grounds are council or govt owned. Difference is popcorn rent on match day vs having your pants financially pulled down around your ankles.South may share with Athletics Victoria but all football related activities I believe we have control of. When you come to our stadium (If your lucky you can come through our social club, have a beer and a fairly crap souva while admring our trophies and 60 years of history) to watch a W- league game, international friendly or even Real Madrid training session you come knowing that South somehow benefits from your visit, can Wanderes say the same? I personally don't think stadium ownership is the actual solution, most leagues around the world rely on council/local government providing and maintaining ownership. What I am pleased about is the push for more facilities by the state federations. The clubs you mention, I don't believe actually own the grounds themselves but rather the social club as an entity owns both land and stadium and leases it out to the soccer club as a separate entity at a popcorn fee - let me know if this is wrong Croatia/Marconi people, there are many more examples, Bulleen Lions is one that springs to mind. Avondale don't even own the plastic chairs at the Calabricciosa club they are nomads.
|
|
|
|