Leave Allianz Stadium alone

#Crosscoder - The indication today for the $700 mill refurb of ANZ and leave Allianz more or less alone - seemingly sensible. AFL folk are happy to say bye to ANZ - the rebuild should make it a rockin' house. I don't see the ARU as having cash to splash but the talk about a $20 mill home for the NSW Blues looks a good outcome for them. The NRL I presume will be happy enough if new ANZ is somewhere people enjoy attending - that'll make ground rationalisation a bit easier to push.

#Crosscoder - re the thread - I guess I was expanding on the section where the author posits "Then there’s the proposed upgrade to ANZ Stadium. Again, a worthwhile investment." Noting I didn't respond to anybody else in the thread - just making a comment. Buckets of cash.....in waiting aside. re the MCG/ABC article - don't believe everything as stated. “The AFLbenefitted but cannot claim credit to the Northern Area of teh MCG which was a commonwealth Games project.The Southern stand was jointly funded by the Vic Govt $$30m MCC $25m(the AFL did not contribute). The Southern Stand reference is a more recent refurbishment (some new TV screens and a bit more jazzing up of what at that point was a 20 something year old stand - the 'Great Southern Stand' as it's known and houses the AFL members reserve. The initial build of that stand 20 something years ago was $142 million at the time with no Govt money. The notion of the 'Northern stand' (encompassing Olympic, Members and Ponsford stands as they were) - as a Commonwealth Games project is of course very misleading. As stated it was a $434 million project and only $77 million of Govt funding - a fair chunk about setting up as an athletics field and then reconfig back to normal. The AFL certainly benefits but to say the AFL can't claim any credit ignores that the AFL were signed on for additional years to their long term lease to underpin the revenues. Granted there is an annual direct AFL payment of around $8-9 million. MCC revenues around $140 million include about $50 mill from MCC memberships and another $60 mill split Event related and commercial ops related. The primary event is the AFL with more event days and than any other - and the lease arrangements that guarantee a min number of matches, base attendances etc upon which these revenues are based upon. Remember - the MCC members value proposition is based very much around access to the best seats in the house for the AFL including finals and guaranteed GF. And some go to the Boxing Day test match too. Without the AFL at the venue - then - you don't get these works without an awful lot more Govt expenditure. And keep mindful - AFL direct payment of say $8 mill a year - over what is now a 45 year lease from 1992 - 2037; that adds up. And on match day - the venue is managed by the MCC on behalf of the MCG Trust. This final point relates to Etihad too - for many years the MCG and Etihad were about the most expensive venues for AFL to be played at. The deal for the AFL to get decent facilities is for the AFL to pay for it. Which is why at Etihad at the end of the 25 year lease the AFL pays a nominal $30 to take full ownership of stadium/management/land. Yes - that's nice. However - that is achieved at a hefty price along the way which is why there is interest even now 10 years out - in buying the lease out early - the point at which it's worth more to the AFL to control the venue/revenues rather than paying through the nose. There's a fundamental difference between annual rental agreements and 25-45 year lease arrangements. Geelong - across the phases of the project - yes, I've acknowledged they've received funds from all 3 levels of Govt, as well as their own GeelongFC funding and AFL funding too. The community owns the venue. As I've illustrated - co-funding models help the AFL and in this case the club too - have a far greater say. However - there can still be cricket, soccer, rugby matches at the venue. The challenge for the SFS is how much say any of the 3 rectangular codes should have. If the NRL puts in (or commits to) then they might buy themselves a bit more say - their requested outcomes are more likely to be delivered. If the other codes want to stump up some cash then go for it - and that then becomes good for reducing Govt funding too. i.e. the Govt pay for the base model and the other codes fund the add-ons, the bells and the whistles (so to speak).

I think that you are spot on.. but I am certain Government can find better things invest in other than the Parrots vanity... a stupid irrelevant little man with an over-inflated sense of importance. Despite the fact that I have tried to I cannot see any compelling evidence to suggest that the grounds are the sole reason for the markets non attendance at live games... Has it ever occurred to anyone that transport, parking availability with reasonable ingress and egress to facilities and the abundance of live TV coverage in homes, pubs and clubs may just be playing a part?? TV ratings would suggest that it is by far the most significant contributor to the issue. Add that to soaring prices and I think there are opportunities for some pretty easy fixes without sending the State broke on bricks and mortar solutions. Politicians and evidently demented dj's like buildings though... they act as a monument to their brilliance. Even in "Field of Dreams" Kevin's corn field didn't have Sydney's traffic nor dysfunctional transport to deal with. I also wish someone would bitch slap the next boofhead who references Melbourne to support the centralised Stadia policy.

Allan Jones will not be a happy Vegemite if that be teh case marron. I can almost hear the ranting rising to a crescendo on 2GB.

PB Now my response after your AFL sidekick/apologist AR unsurprisingly chipped in. 1) Your first point here was a false assumption the NRL have a stash of cash.They currently don't. 2) The thread was about the SFS and you chose to make it an all encompassing one about Sydney stadiums. 3) You completely ignore the fact 3 codes will use the SFS,all tenants ,all users. When you started lecturing in this debate what the NRL should do re contributions to stadiums,I responded the AFL were hardly not looking gift horses in the mouth. I cited Jeff Kennett and for your and AR's edification here is a quote from the former Vic premier and Hawthorn man on 3rdf October 2013:- "Demetriou was excellent at playing off all Governments against Opposition.Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by us(Govts) through political manoeuvring under Demetrio's baton,while the AFL committed little cash." Further from the ABC article "The AFLbenefitted but cannot claim credit to the Northern Area of teh MCG which was a commonwealth Games project.The Southern stand was jointly funded by the Vic Govt $$30m MCC $25m(the AFL did not contribute). The Geelong Cats received $75m from the Vic Govt for stage 4(project est $90m)." Perhaps our AR can read without his blinkers glasses and suggest they are made up. Mike Baird(NSW Prem) also made the point,the Oval codes have received plenty of funding,now it's the rectangular code's turn. Now to clear the air once and for all and show you & your mate , exactly where I stand. 1) I do not want the NSW Govt wasting money on a brand new SFS at Moore Park.refurbish the current one is wise spending. 2) I am fully supportive of the fact,the NRL in particular when they have the cash available,they contribute as should co tenants.If the latter two can't then management rights to those who can. 3) I am also supportive of the Govt not spending money on suburban grounds,even though I'm a Shark's fan. 4)What I find hard to fathom,when someone has the "temerity" to question the AFL(as a result of AFL people here having a shot at the NRL) and what they have or have not contributed and what other parties have,it's somehow off preciously off limits.Especially when the perception is AFL has contributed huge sums and other parties vey little. Kennett put that to bed. Perhaps AR could write to Kennett and chastise him for his honesty.

Knew you(part of the posse) would arrive on cue AR.Perhaps if you had been following the debate and my responses to PB,and now a later open,you might get up tp speed. Point I never stated the NRL has put money into stadiums ,never pretended they did.However when a flag waver (who appress ignorant on a couple of matter)comes here lecturing the NRL on what they should do with cash they currently don't have and ignoring teh fact 3 codes not one are involved I will spell out a response to PB ,which may sink in for both you and him.

Fairfax reporting anz to get the bulk with leftovers for SFS refurb only.

#AR I know....I'm all for a healthy discussion - and, part of the reason I've suggested the NRL get out their cheque book is exactly what the AFL does - puts in some dough and helps get things moving. The AFL thought doesn't generally end up with much bricks and mortar.....and in the case of the MCG have to put up with being managed by the MCC (so they get the best seats in the house to everything still) and at Etihad by corporate interests (on behalf of super funds managers? so I prob shouldn't complain). We've seen Geelong where the AFL and Geelong FC have invested millions, along with 3 levels of Govt - into a facility owned by Geelong Council (they're in the news for other reasons now - but - it's also a very important federal seat down there....go figure!). The AFL generally engage in partnership projects with multiple levels of Govt. It's not a bad way of getting things done. Better than just begging in the street and whinging when it doesn't suit. Waste? - to me Adelaide has done a brilliant job with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. They will get their money back on that. It looks great and it's revitalised the city on event days. Waste - by comparison - would be building a qrtr of a billion dollar rectangular stadium in Adelaide.

Wasn't the footbridge also for Sydney high and girls high students to cross from the bus lane on the eastern side of Anzac parade to the schools. No traffic lights near the schools.

Those tours are for PR. Liverpool or whoever will still play here. And the other concerts etc will come anyway - no-ones leaving Sydney off the itinerary.

Cheers for the link Daniel. The bridge... well, as the article infers, it wouldn't be a waste if the trust gets the parkland and puts their stadium right next to the bridge would it. And I'm sure whoever collected the fee didn't put it to waste. They might have even thanked a mate or two on the trust for the opportunity....

It shows a staggering level of ignorance when a person is bleating about government contributions for stadiums...and then specifically cites Etihad and the MCG. And then, after it's been pointed out, in detail, how those examples in fact demonstrate the *opposite* of government funding, they contibue to push their point with "I'm not here to assist you"... My word.

Daniel, Certainly in terms of ability to draw in more numbers, America has that population to do it. I just mean it still blows my mind that they seem to do it no matter the weather. Meanwhile, if it's even approaching single figures in temp or it rained the Tuesday before, Sydney-siders seem to avoid stadiums like the plague.

Yes. It's a perfect location.

Plus 1

Ok

Leave it ALONE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqSTXuJeTks