Souths are just as important as Rusty's marriage

Nonsense.I am arguing about bringing in ARL crowd averages(which encompassed all clubs home games) which you assumed,which had little to do with the decision to build the SFS. The point on whether 40,000 is adequate,well ATT it wasn't because G/F were sellouts ,whereas prior to the SCG they would get 60-70,000 at a G/F .And ru tests at the SCG were sellouts. I am commenting on a particluar bloke from an AFL area, who lectures me and others about rl,after me having being involved in the game for decades.The moniker only adds to the equation.The track record speaks for itself.Similarly I take issue at times with Clipper. Been around long enough to recognise cynics.

I'm arguing about the SFS and whether it's an appropriate venue for RL in Sydney. You're arguing about a particular bloke (whose name you don't like) commenting on RL issues. That's the difference here.

Of course I responded that way and would do so again if need be ,it was you who brought up crowd averages pertaining to the SFS being built. My point was to emphasise the ARL crowd averages had little to do with why it was built .Secondly to suggest even your code does not sell out grounds out week in week out. If I spent considerable time on AFL boards,with the moniker rugby league,lecturing those fans(who have been following their code for decades) on aspects of the code,I would expect a similar response.

Hang on, I didn't mention the AFL or its crowds...you did. In debating rugby league at the SFS, you suddenly sneered at the MCG and Etihad attendances. In turn, I responded with the actual figures. So who's doing what now?

Understand my' rambling" appears to get one a little ruffled,so you come up with your usual pro AFL spin .Our crowds are bigger than yours blah blah.Then use the links to show how wonderful thye are..No wonder you use the code's name as your moniker. The stadiums weren't full, get it. The discussion is indeed about whether the SFS is appropriate,yet you can on board AR with crowd averages,which take into account all clubs that don't use the SFS as home base.That is the man point I am debating . The Govt deemed the necessity,no doubt with lobbying from the main codes to have a new stadium as the SCG was oval and unsuitable in the scheme of things ,and the capacity was based on the monies available ATT.People were complaining then it should have been 60,000. if the SFS was the only major rectangular stadium in this city,it would not be adequate,and it was for many years.. The one thing that is believable is your constant discrete sniping at rl,and the covert promo of AFL on rl tabs.Using interested" in all sports mantra",wth a moniker such as yours.LOL.Now that is ünbelievable."

At the end of all that rambling, you *still* have a swipe at the MCG & Etihad for their crowds: "The percentages may well have been bigger than NRL/A League,but they were not full." haha...unbelievable. This discussion is about whether the capacity at SFS is appropriate. The number (or lack of) games which half-filled the stadium shows that a bigger capacity is NOT needed. I noticed you also ignored the fact a half-full MCG is 50k and a half-full SFS is only 23k. But anyway, I'll raise the bar to a 3/4 full analysis. In 2012: - the MCG had 10 games of AFL of 75k+ (3 quarters full) - Etihad had 8 games of 40.5k+ (3 quarters full) - ANZ had 3 games of 62.5k+ (3 quarters full)... Origin & 2 finals - the SFS had 1 game of 33k+ (3 quarters full) I think the numbers speak for themselves. If there's something Sydney does NOT need, it's bigger stadiums.

That does not surprise me. Then the need to bring in crowd averages, which no doubt were influenced by other ARL home crowds had little to do with the SFS being built. Sydney needed ATT a large rectangular capacity stadium.I attended ru tests at the SCG an oval ground with Hill standing room.The memories of 78,000 people at the SCG where people were sitting on roofs ,is there in the ARL museum and history. You do understand then maybe not,the OP stadium was built because we got the Olympics>no OPs then I doubt oit would have been built and perhaps the SFS would have been expanded.The fact the NRL have G/Fs and SOO, there is a consequence of Oz winning the Olympics. if you use that argument the Sharks should not have expanded their ground and stadiums,as in the early days they averaged about 5-8,000,nor St George nor Parramatta. The old sports ground was the Roosters home ground,the SFS was built in and around that area.It was not the home ground of the remaining ARL clubs. Here you go again AR ,with your usual "possibly unintended"suggestion Do you believe the Govt was planning for the next 5-10 years only.Gee I can see where your loose dollar predictions come from for the NRL TV deal. I am more than certain you have little knowledge of the early 80s re rugby league>the code was in crisis prior to Arthurson and Quayle taking over.Violence had permeated the code,participation numbers were dropping.A new broom had come in ,and the code was growing.the very reason News wanted a slice of it. I repeat the stadiums involving your code are not always sellouts in fact not many.The 1/2 full 1/3 full is not 100% full. QED that is not a bogus comparsion,it is simply spelling out maximum utilsation is not 331/3% 40% or 50%.If they were sellouts regularly I would have no argument..The percentages may well have been bigger than NRL/A League,but they were not full. The stadiums get good utilisation in Melbourne,but its not close the gates.

I'm not sure what your point is. You say SFS was "built with the future in mind" (in particular, SOO and Tests). Today, those rep games are played at ANZ - a stadium that obviously wasn't contemplated in 1986. Fast-forward 35 years and it was clearly a good call (though possibly unintended) not to make the SFS bigger. Today, it virtually never breaks half-capacity so the 45k seats are more than enough. You also say "the MCG nor Etihad is not full every week,so one could argue that capacity is overdoing it." That's a bogus comparison. In 2012: - the SFS had 2 NRL games in which attendance was over 23k (half capacity). (there were also 2 ALeague games & 1 Super game over 23k). - the MCG had 23 games which were over 50k (half capacity) - Etihad had 21 games which were over 27k (half capacity) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Australian_football_code_crowds

Elementary dear Watson err AR. The SFS was built not just for the ARL competition,but with perhaps SOO,tests and ARU tests in mind.Multipurpose not just for the Roosters.If it were just for Rooster club games I doubt it would have been built. ATT it was the only "large"rectangular stadium in Sydney,the next door neighbour the SCG was not . It was therefore built with the future in mind,not for the prevailing crowd averages that existed ATT in the ARL,which have since jumped despite a SL war.What the overall crowd average has to do with a central stadium escapes me.The outer suburban crowds would have helped drag the average down.The relevance is IMO minimal. BTW I am not for an other large stadium in Sydney,a waste of money;I want current stadiums from SFS/ANz and suburban ones upgraded to fit the needs and comforts of the 21st century. It certainly did not involved building another rectangular one nearby. Let's not kid ourselves the number of times the majority of big stadiums(rectangular and oval) are sold out,you can just about count on your hand each year, for club games. The capacity is what it is,the MCG nor Etihad is not full every week,so one could argue that capacity is overdoing it. I am happy with the SFS capacity.I am not happy with the lack of cover.I am happy with ANZ. to a degree,I am not happy with the lack of cover .It does lack that rectangular close in aspect,which makes games more atmospheric. The SOO/G/F and ru tests have outgrown the SFS.

CC "What the crowds were in 86 are completely irrelevant to the crowds and utilisation of today AR." How so? In 1985 the average crowd was 8k. In '86 it increased to 9.7k. MG said he was disappointed in '86 whe he learnt the capacity was only going to be 40k. Given today's average is 16.4k, and there was only one game over 30k in 2012, it seems they got it about right.

And I am not. Above that, I wrote what I thought would happen. A bog standard, simple - not trying to impress anyone with engineering or architectural feats - stadium, upgraded from parramatta's current configuration, and it would probably cost 200-300 million and seat 40-50k. The going rate for a decent stadium, such as suncorp would be in the 300 million region. Now personally, I think sydneys west needs a stadium of that size. 85k is simply too big when its not a rectangle to begin with. But never say never, old chap. That they are 'glaring' oversights is your interpretation. Why would that count against such a stadium? More to the contrary, we have a soccer team out there, and Union sides would no doubt want to play there. Its not such a disadvantage. - Also, though it may be an economic powerhouse nation, the germans are the biggest lovers of cheap seats. Thats right. Cheap seats, or more importantly, terraces. And this is....because people can't all afford to goto the football. Sydney is a major city, it can offset any drawbacks with extra teams, and sure, we may not be an economic powerhouse as such on the level of germany, nor blessed with exceptional wealth (and the ability to fill to capacity such a stadium each week, even in snow), BUT we are higher than many would think. Ok, so we have no money, but that is why the project would need to capture the interest of many, and benefit from a healthy input from the ARLC, perhaps to the tune of many millions, and a say in the usage (or other benefits agreed upon). I must admit my information is a few years old, I have not checked it recently. But there you go. Baseless assumptions, no offence, besides the limitations of our typing, maybe we can agree somewhere in the middle?

Missing the point much? Why do we need these stadium you talk of? Give us a case for why they are required and why they'll provide more benfit than the cost. It has nothing to do with you tangential todger groping suncorp tidbit. Where are the facts that support your underlying claim that we NEED multiple 80 to 100k stadia. Youve presented nothing other than the absence of your miracle solution which suggests to me more rational people than yourself have thankfully thrown the idea out Do you really think the only thing making stadium Australia (anz or whatever creditor owns it now) an epic failure of a white elephant was that it wasn't formed by four right angles?

A stadium like Boruusia Dortmund's would be nice alright. Alright if you overlook a few glaring facts. Dortmund is a major city in an economic powerhouse nation where there are no rival football codes. No League, no Union worth mentioning, and no German Rules Football to contend with. Is it any wonder, it's a success? We'd like a couple of those please. Don't hold your breath.

Oh. Are you supposed to READ the posts Oikee. I though it best to wait for someone to make a comment (even take it out of context if you want) and attack. That's what I do with you. Isnt that how it should be done? Have a nice day Oikee.

The SFS was to be used for test matches also,and built with the future in mind.What the crowds were in 86 are completely irrelevant to the crowds and utilisation of today AR. Plus I think you are being generous with the half roof description.I have been rained on from a great height,fro a supposedly dry and prime seating section. The architect whose name escapes me,but won an award,admitted he was not a sport's fan.As practical as a toilet with a see through door.

Yes who is going to build them. Just want to bring up a point about building stadiums and cost right now. (and i dont know how and how much) There seems to be this trend of needing to define new stadiums around the world with some magnificent architecture. China has the birds nest and then they have their aquatic center, built for the olympics. Melbournes bubble roof was an interesting design, and all seem to have practical purposes. But having some magnificent design seems to be the order of the day, as if justifying its existence. I think league needs to just build something practical first and foremost. I think if we upgrade Parramatta, it would follow the lines more like Newcastle's upgrade than anything else. And that this type of upgrade would be the most realistic outcome for sydney, given cost and imperative to upgrade. There is simply not the money available to go on an rectangular stadium building spree like Oikee suggests. It simply needs to have a useful roof, bigger capacity stands, modern amenities, and upgraded transport. In the past I have estimated the cost to build a stadium from scratch for approx 30k @ 260-300 million, and for 50k upgrade to an existing stadium much the same.....so to my mind, to get a "jewel" out at Parramatta (for some extra trim, auxilliary facilities) you would be looking at approx 320-400 million. Going off what other sports have done in this country in terms of stadia, a comparitively small sum of money, approx 20-40 million would be needed to "chip-in" in order to get the project running; and of course persuasive and unrelenting lobbying and begging, while showcasing the needs of the people and factoring in the public's acceptance. Its not beyond rugby league now to get this done. But the timing would need to be right, given that we have existing facilities. It would also need to fit in with the recent nsw govt stadia policy I believe, since we won't be able to drum up the 300 million ourselves. But if we work with govt, we have a chance. So realistically you would be looking at an upgraded parra (and/or sfs) , but focussing on Parra here, and it would follow a Newcastle-like approach though it may happen faster. It would have a simple roof, would not be an architectural majesty, and would follow function over design. It could be 40-50k, and it may cost 300 million or more to build. I dont believe such a stadium would need to have all the bells and whistles, because ANZ stadium is nearby, but it would need to be all that in order to serve RL well. And if other codes got involved (they would want their say or direct input too perhaps) we would need to make sure we were foremost in that group. In fact I think we are the only ones with any money at the moment. My preference is to build something supremely awesome, such as a westfallen, Mestalla, ect, but who knows, though I think we will be building what I outlined above. And it will be a good stadium either way.

"We" the government. Do you think "we" did not build the round grounds, of course "we" did. Look, rugby league can throw in 10 million , like them do, and "we" can put in the rest, like them make "we" do. Hope that makes sense. Its common knowledge. them=afl.

Sometimes Von i question if you read posts properly. I have said all along the only rectangle Stadium in Australia over 50 thousand.,,,,,, SFS and Aami park are not over 50 thousand, and the SFS is nothing to cheer about, our rugby league heartland with a rectangle stadium called the SFS which dont even hold 50 thousand my man. This country needs 70 to 100 thousand "rectangle" stadiums in every major city. It can be done, i dont want to hear it cant be done. Now if your not sure what retangle loooks like,(you live in Sydney, or Melbourne maybe) then i surgest you look at Suncorp, it is rectangle, it has 4 sides and a roof that has 4 sides. :)

Oikee. Can't believe you hijacked this thread lol Getting some things out the way first: Where is this money coming from, 300 million X 4, conservative - who wants to pay between 1.2- 3.5 billion dollars for stadiums when we have hospitals and roads other services in need of money? And its not just stadia, we need to think of transport, and auxilliary facilities I do believe that Parramatta stadium should get an upgrade. ASAP. But that is it. I think they should aim for westfallen-clone (dortmund) or metsalla (valencia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestalla_Stadium --> In fact Parra getting an upgrade would probably halt AFL expansion more than anyone would care to admit. The grandeur it would create for rugby league could leave AFL long in the lurch and its no secret AFL stadia has been favored across the country recently. --> Its time to even the rectangle stadia score. And when we get that shot ( I don't believe every city will get one, but 2 may - sydney and canberra)............so when we get that shot - we must make it count. Fact being, when you get a proper rugby league stadium - once people realize how good it is - and the team is performing well they will go out in droves. Parra to my mind could fit this, it could be a 40-50 k stadium. Then add in upgraded transport to that. I say something like Borussia dortmund's westefallen because its the best ground in europe for watching football, widely love... I say metsalla because with that stadium, it has one small side, and 3 big ones. It could save some money by just extending 3 stands. I dont know how to build stadiums and what would cost good. I would suggest parra could benefit from having all its stands upgraded, at least internally. __ So wishful thinking: I think it looks like we will get 2 new rl stadia. canberra and upgrade to parra. __ Look, Brisbane has a good stadium for league....melbourne has a good one (and melbourne people dont mind going to the bigger Etihad on occassion...and sydney has good stadia (just cant get to them), though some stadia in sydney are dumps. A new parra would be great. We can't do much about Perth or Adelaide. All in all, though, can't fault your passion, but we shouldn't hold our breath on this one. I simply think that to better our chances, we need to lobby govt and work out a plan in which the ARLC can figure into any such arrangement, to get a foot in the door to have some direct say over any new Parramatta stadium - even chip in some money. ---> See, I firmly believe we need to have a direct say/running/involvement in a stadium in this country, a place to call our own....it will allow us many opportunities. :: So we either need to work out how to fully own it, or at least have a major say in its running. :: I am not sure thats at the top of our agenda or what as a priority, but it should be high on the list. I think its important so we can position the sport in such a way that its top of the heap. :) keep going Oikee, your ideas are not bad, we do need to even the score and get to the top of the heap, we are so close, with one arm pulling us up to the summit, we just need to trim some fat, and heave hard

Von, I don't see myself as "hanging out continuously in the rugby league section". Like most people, I follow as many sports as I can...and if I read an interesting article with good discussion points, I'll post a comment. I think some people just find my moniker provocative (which is a shame really). I'd like to think my posts are based on facts and reason...that's why when someone like oikee posts utter drivel and nonsense (and thus reduces the quality of the site) I rebuke that nonsense.