|
karta
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 567,
Visits: 0
|
People involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option.
The AFL-media led whinging is ridiculous and shows how out-of-touch some people are. The Gabba hosted their GF but now getting half a billion to refurbish it is a disaster...
Vic Park is much needed greenspace and should never have been an option.
The outcome to use/upgrade Lang Park and to rebuild our _athletics_ stadium and have a real legacy to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane.
If the AFL is really upset they can move out to Ipswich where the QLD government just built them a $70M stadium. I'm sure the Gabba's staff would prefer to see the back of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
roosty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 758,
Visits: 0
|
+xPeople involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xPeople involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane. There is a 50k+ stadium. Suncorp. How often does the Gabba sell out?
|
|
|
|
|
Footyball
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
This Brisbane Stadium chat doesn't involve any rectangular stadiums, it doesn't matter to football.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis Brisbane Stadium chat doesn't involve any rectangular stadiums, it doesn't matter to football. Well… it kinda does involve rectangular stadiums QSAC, whilst an athletics ground, is a rectangular ground within that. It was the Matilda’s base for the World Cup. Plus the headline grabber from the media, is that Suncorp is getting a minor facelift/upgrades instead of a new (primarily) AFL stadium for the Olympics
|
|
|
|
|
karta
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 567,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xPeople involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane. You're an anti-vaxxer :) You're also right, but not about the Gabba. Lang Park needs the upgrade. The Gabba's size is more than enough for Brisbane's needs now and in the future. It's also functionally newer than Lang Park and used far less. Lang Park hosts multiple clubs throughout the year (Broncos/Dolphins/Roar/Reds), yearly internationals with Socceroos/Matildas/Kangaroos/Wallabies, festivals like Magic Round, State of Origin, big concerts and other unique events. It honestly should've been upgraded to 65/70K years ago. It also means that the QLD Govt can make a real play for the NRL GF and other events that the current size of Lang Park denies them. +xThis Brisbane Stadium chat doesn't involve any rectangular stadiums, it doesn't matter to football. Just call them football stadiums. The people who say the four syllable 'rectangular' instead of the more traditional 'football' are the same people upset about this decision. The flow on effect of this decision is that Lang Park will reclaim the title as the best football stadium in the country and likely force NSW's hand into re-configuring Stadium Australia into a football ground. If BNE and SYD both have large, modern football stadiums then good luck to MEL events when competing for touring clubs/nations... More high quality football grounds in this country is not a bad thing for a football fan.
|
|
|
|
|
Footyball
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Yes, football stadiums. What have been floated though are big round stadiums, not suitable for football. Nothing to see folks.
|
|
|
|
roosty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 758,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x[quote]People involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane. You're an anti-vaxxer :) You're also right, but not about the Gabba. Lang Park needs the upgrade. The Gabba's size is more than enough for Brisbane's needs now and in the future. It's also functionally newer than Lang Park and used far less. Lang Park hosts multiple clubs throughout the year (Broncos/Dolphins/Roar/Reds), yearly internationals with Socceroos/Matildas/Kangaroos/Wallabies, festivals like Magic Round, State of Origin, big concerts and other unique events. It honestly should've been upgraded to 65/70K years ago. It also means that the QLD Govt can make a real play for the NRL GF and other events that the current size of Lang Park denies them. By george! You want to spend $1.5 billion downgrading the QSAC, $1.5 billion samegrading the Gabba, and another ~$2 billion upgrading lang park, and you're trying to argue this makes complete sense? The hilarious thing is you've spent close to $5-6 billion once you factor in public transport upgrades, and you've actually acheived a net reduction in seats, once QSAC is demolished to 14k. Wouldn't it make more sense to just build a new stadium, one which will be eventually needed anyway, and will last at least 50 years, and will provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift? Even the pro environment /green argument fails as Gabba and QSAC now redundant can be converted into green space or sustainable housing precincts. Your argument is bizarre and sucks on every level; financially, environmentally, practically, economically. Just build the new stadium ffs! They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x[quote]People involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane. You're an anti-vaxxer :) You're also right, but not about the Gabba. Lang Park needs the upgrade. The Gabba's size is more than enough for Brisbane's needs now and in the future. It's also functionally newer than Lang Park and used far less. Lang Park hosts multiple clubs throughout the year (Broncos/Dolphins/Roar/Reds), yearly internationals with Socceroos/Matildas/Kangaroos/Wallabies, festivals like Magic Round, State of Origin, big concerts and other unique events. It honestly should've been upgraded to 65/70K years ago. It also means that the QLD Govt can make a real play for the NRL GF and other events that the current size of Lang Park denies them. By george! You want to spend $1.5 billion downgrading the QSAC, $1.5 billion samegrading the Gabba, and another ~$2 billion upgrading lang park, and you're trying to argue this makes complete sense? The hilarious thing is you've spent close to $5-6 billion once you factor in public transport upgrades, and you've actually acheived a net reduction in seats, once QSAC is demolished to 14k. Wouldn't it make more sense to just build a new stadium, one which will be eventually needed anyway, and will last at least 50 years, and will provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift? Even the pro environment /green argument fails as Gabba and QSAC now redundant can be converted into green space or sustainable housing precincts. Your argument is bizarre and sucks on every level; financially, environmentally, practically, economically. Just build the new stadium ffs! They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals. Just going to touch on two points: provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift Is providing an alternative not just providing another white elephant? They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals.
The AFL Grand Final is never leaving Melbourne again unless forced to by a pandemic, etc as it was for 2020/2021. NRL, maybe. But that won't be in an upgraded cricket/AFL stadium, that will just be in Suncorp. This obsession with trying to have a Melbourne-class (not going to say world-class because of the sport) AFL stadium astounds me... Sure, it might work for the Olympics, but do you really think the Brisbane Lions are going to get above 40k regularly to a standard season game? Upgrading/building a new stadium for the Olympics to accomodate that is just having seats there that won't be used. BBL hovers around 25k, and Lions only get crowds like they got for the first game when they're premiership contenders. No one should be building things for AFL, full stop.
|
|
|
|
roosty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 758,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]People involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane. You're an anti-vaxxer :) You're also right, but not about the Gabba. Lang Park needs the upgrade. The Gabba's size is more than enough for Brisbane's needs now and in the future. It's also functionally newer than Lang Park and used far less. Lang Park hosts multiple clubs throughout the year (Broncos/Dolphins/Roar/Reds), yearly internationals with Socceroos/Matildas/Kangaroos/Wallabies, festivals like Magic Round, State of Origin, big concerts and other unique events. It honestly should've been upgraded to 65/70K years ago. It also means that the QLD Govt can make a real play for the NRL GF and other events that the current size of Lang Park denies them. By george! You want to spend $1.5 billion downgrading the QSAC, $1.5 billion samegrading the Gabba, and another ~$2 billion upgrading lang park, and you're trying to argue this makes complete sense? The hilarious thing is you've spent close to $5-6 billion once you factor in public transport upgrades, and you've actually acheived a net reduction in seats, once QSAC is demolished to 14k. Wouldn't it make more sense to just build a new stadium, one which will be eventually needed anyway, and will last at least 50 years, and will provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift? Even the pro environment /green argument fails as Gabba and QSAC now redundant can be converted into green space or sustainable housing precincts. Your argument is bizarre and sucks on every level; financially, environmentally, practically, economically. Just build the new stadium ffs! They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals. Just going to touch on two points: provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift Is providing an alternative not just providing another white elephant? They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals.
The AFL Grand Final is never leaving Melbourne again unless forced to by a pandemic, etc as it was for 2020/2021. NRL, maybe. But that won't be in an upgraded cricket/AFL stadium, that will just be in Suncorp. This obsession with trying to have a Melbourne-class (not going to say world-class because of the sport) AFL stadium astounds me... Sure, it might work for the Olympics, but do you really think the Brisbane Lions are going to get above 40k regularly to a standard season game? Upgrading/building a new stadium for the Olympics to accomodate that is just having seats there that won't be used. BBL hovers around 25k, and Lions only get crowds like they got for the first game when they're premiership contenders. No one should be building things for AFL, full stop. No it’s not another white elephant because you’re effectively doubling Brisbane’s capacity to host major concerts. Currently Suncorps capacity to host them is capped due to concerns about impacts on local residents around Milton and Paddington. As for the NRL/AFL argument, the only event it regularly sells out Suncorp is state of origin. Maybe once or twice year. But that isn’t a reason to reduce its capacity, just because 99% of time it is a “white elephant”. The same applies for the new Brisbane stadium, 99% of the time it will be useless , but occasionally , maybe once or twice a year, its insurance policy will be activated and it will sell out. Your argument is moot anyway, simply because the financials of upgrading , downgrading and side grading existing stadiums and building new transport links where it isn’t needed makes no sense. The newer, bigger, better stadium at Victoria park is ultimately cheaper and far better investment
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]People involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane. You're an anti-vaxxer :) You're also right, but not about the Gabba. Lang Park needs the upgrade. The Gabba's size is more than enough for Brisbane's needs now and in the future. It's also functionally newer than Lang Park and used far less. Lang Park hosts multiple clubs throughout the year (Broncos/Dolphins/Roar/Reds), yearly internationals with Socceroos/Matildas/Kangaroos/Wallabies, festivals like Magic Round, State of Origin, big concerts and other unique events. It honestly should've been upgraded to 65/70K years ago. It also means that the QLD Govt can make a real play for the NRL GF and other events that the current size of Lang Park denies them. By george! You want to spend $1.5 billion downgrading the QSAC, $1.5 billion samegrading the Gabba, and another ~$2 billion upgrading lang park, and you're trying to argue this makes complete sense? The hilarious thing is you've spent close to $5-6 billion once you factor in public transport upgrades, and you've actually acheived a net reduction in seats, once QSAC is demolished to 14k. Wouldn't it make more sense to just build a new stadium, one which will be eventually needed anyway, and will last at least 50 years, and will provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift? Even the pro environment /green argument fails as Gabba and QSAC now redundant can be converted into green space or sustainable housing precincts. Your argument is bizarre and sucks on every level; financially, environmentally, practically, economically. Just build the new stadium ffs! They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals. Just going to touch on two points: provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift Is providing an alternative not just providing another white elephant? They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals.
The AFL Grand Final is never leaving Melbourne again unless forced to by a pandemic, etc as it was for 2020/2021. NRL, maybe. But that won't be in an upgraded cricket/AFL stadium, that will just be in Suncorp. This obsession with trying to have a Melbourne-class (not going to say world-class because of the sport) AFL stadium astounds me... Sure, it might work for the Olympics, but do you really think the Brisbane Lions are going to get above 40k regularly to a standard season game? Upgrading/building a new stadium for the Olympics to accomodate that is just having seats there that won't be used. BBL hovers around 25k, and Lions only get crowds like they got for the first game when they're premiership contenders. No one should be building things for AFL, full stop. No it’s not another white elephant because you’re effectively doubling Brisbane’s capacity to host major concerts. Currently Suncorps capacity to host them is capped due to concerns about impacts on local residents around Milton and Paddington. Why does it need to be doubled though? Very rarely are there two major concerts at the same time, and people can't perform in two places at once.
As for the NRL/AFL argument, the only event it regularly sells out Suncorp is state of origin. Maybe once or twice year. But that isn’t a reason to reduce its capacity, just because 99% of time it is a “white elephant”. The same applies for the new Brisbane stadium, 99% of the time it will be useless , but occasionally , maybe once or twice a year, its insurance policy will be activated and it will sell out. Yeah that's fair enough. I mean personally... I don't think Suncorp needs anything done to it. I just think $900 million (assuming nothing gets spent on Suncorp, which we know isn't going to happen) being spent on upgrading/facelifting/etc the Gabba should suffice for everything it needs to be. Again, this is working off the figures used to upgrade the MCG for 2006 Comm Games (and accounting for inflation)
Your argument is moot anyway, simply because the financials of upgrading , downgrading and side grading existing stadiums and building new transport links where it isn’t needed makes no sense. The newer, bigger, better stadium at Victoria park is ultimately cheaper and far better investment .
Transport links is a good point. As I've said earlier, not from Brisbane, so I can't really comment on that. But again, stadiums can be made bigger and better without needing to be newer.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]People involved in actually delivering the games have said from the start that the Gabba is a bad option. to host future IAAF events makes complete sense. Spending billions on a new stadium that would host one test a year, some T20's and a dozen unpopular AFL games was utterly insane. Ok buddy. Spending a combined $3 billion on a couple of el cheapo refurbs to maybe host some future IAAF makes “complete sense” while building a new brand new 50 year stadium to cater for Olympics, cricket, AFL and atheltics is “utterly insane”? You’re utterly insane. Brisbane is a growing city, and will continue to grow and grow. At some point in the near future, Gabba will be too old and too small, and we are going to need that 50k+ stadium built anyway. The long term economics of building a new stadium makes complete sense whilst keeping the two tired old relics on life support to showcase our status as a new world city to the world is utterly insane. You're an anti-vaxxer :) You're also right, but not about the Gabba. Lang Park needs the upgrade. The Gabba's size is more than enough for Brisbane's needs now and in the future. It's also functionally newer than Lang Park and used far less. Lang Park hosts multiple clubs throughout the year (Broncos/Dolphins/Roar/Reds), yearly internationals with Socceroos/Matildas/Kangaroos/Wallabies, festivals like Magic Round, State of Origin, big concerts and other unique events. It honestly should've been upgraded to 65/70K years ago. It also means that the QLD Govt can make a real play for the NRL GF and other events that the current size of Lang Park denies them. By george! You want to spend $1.5 billion downgrading the QSAC, $1.5 billion samegrading the Gabba, and another ~$2 billion upgrading lang park, and you're trying to argue this makes complete sense? The hilarious thing is you've spent close to $5-6 billion once you factor in public transport upgrades, and you've actually acheived a net reduction in seats, once QSAC is demolished to 14k. Wouldn't it make more sense to just build a new stadium, one which will be eventually needed anyway, and will last at least 50 years, and will provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift? Even the pro environment /green argument fails as Gabba and QSAC now redundant can be converted into green space or sustainable housing precincts. Your argument is bizarre and sucks on every level; financially, environmentally, practically, economically. Just build the new stadium ffs! They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals. Just going to touch on two points: provide a viable alternative to Suncorp to host major performing artists like Taylor Swift Is providing an alternative not just providing another white elephant? They could even boost the capacity to 60-70k, then you would have a genuine competitor to Sydney to host NRL/AFL finals.
The AFL Grand Final is never leaving Melbourne again unless forced to by a pandemic, etc as it was for 2020/2021. NRL, maybe. But that won't be in an upgraded cricket/AFL stadium, that will just be in Suncorp. This obsession with trying to have a Melbourne-class (not going to say world-class because of the sport) AFL stadium astounds me... Sure, it might work for the Olympics, but do you really think the Brisbane Lions are going to get above 40k regularly to a standard season game? Upgrading/building a new stadium for the Olympics to accomodate that is just having seats there that won't be used. BBL hovers around 25k, and Lions only get crowds like they got for the first game when they're premiership contenders. No one should be building things for AFL, full stop. No it’s not another white elephant because you’re effectively doubling Brisbane’s capacity to host major concerts. Currently Suncorps capacity to host them is capped due to concerns about impacts on local residents around Milton and Paddington. As for the NRL/AFL argument, the only event it regularly sells out Suncorp is state of origin. Maybe once or twice year. But that isn’t a reason to reduce its capacity, just because 99% of time it is a “white elephant”. The same applies for the new Brisbane stadium, 99% of the time it will be useless , but occasionally , maybe once or twice a year, its insurance policy will be activated and it will sell out. Your argument is moot anyway, simply because the financials of upgrading , downgrading and side grading existing stadiums and building new transport links where it isn’t needed makes no sense. The newer, bigger, better stadium at Victoria park is ultimately cheaper and far better investment
It's also not about total capacity these days It's the revenue that can be generated. Old stadiums are being replaced by ones with more and better corporate facilities that bring in much more $ per head Once you've sold all the corporate boxes you're missing out, regardless of whether some of the top tiers have empty seats For Example, The new Spurs Stadium has been specifically designed to get people in the ground earlier and have people staying longer as well. This certainly applies to Music promoters when they come to choose which 3 cities their artist will pick to play in 
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Sounds like he's been wedged, but doesn't care. Announcement just to get/keep votes before the election, and doesn't have to do anything until after he's in. Probably give his main rival a hospital pass as the "Minister for the Olympics"
|
|
|
|