‘We, the undersigned residents from the more affluent areas of Sydney, protest the government spending money on the riffraff who follow the rectangular footy codes.’
Okay, the petition instigated by Peter FitzSimons to oppose government expenditure on two new football stadiums is worded more eloquently than that, but that’s how it shapes up to me.
In fact the wording is very clever. It is difficult to mount a case for the stadiums when the argument against uses emotive issues like schools and hospitals.
Let’s look at the infrastructure first. Are the two stadiums really in need of replacement?
Allianz Stadium, once called the Sydney Football Stadium, was one of Australia’s very first all-seater rectangular stadiums, coming online in 1988.
As a first attempt at a rectangular stadium it wasn’t too bad. The ground has a good atmosphere when full, but the bottom-tier seats have a very shallow rake, so viewing is not optimal.
The sweeping saddle-like roof is lovely to look at but offers virtually no protection from the elements for most of the crowd. I once experienced a mighty hailstorm during a rugby league semi-final at Allianz that resulted in fans in the lower tier crowding the narrow aisles and subsequently blocking the view of the few people actually undercover.
Luckily the ground was only half full – I could see it being very unsafe if it were packed.
There are claims that Allianz is out of date in terms of safety standards. If this is true, then it is hard to see how renovations are going to help.
Sadly tragedies like Hillsborough and the spectre of terrorism mean the paradigm for stadium safety has changed. If the stadium has to pulled down anyway, I would rather see it rebuilt.
I would hate to see the site turned into a park for the well-to-do to walk their labradoodles over the ghosts of football matches past.
(Image: Facebook/Allianz Stadium)
ANZ Stadium at Homebush was never designed as a football stadium. It was purpose-built as an athletics stadium for the Sydney Olympics and by October 2000 was effectively redundant.
Pressed into service for football, it is largely unloved. The spectators are just too far away from the action.
Stadium design has advanced since the 1980s. I believe there is a much greater chance the new stadiums can be designed for a 50 to 75-year life span.
In Sydney we have the following conundrum: the AFL has two excellent stadiums – the 50,000-capacity Sydney Cricket Ground near the city centre and the 20,000-capacity Spotless Stadium in the city’s west.
The stadiums are the perfect size for AFL. I don’t begrudge them that. Sydney is a multi-code city after all.
But what of the traditional codes of football in this city: rugby league, football and of course rugby union? Don’t these codes deserve some respect? Aren’t they part of the cultural fabric of the city and the state of New South Wales?
Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne have catered for their traditional codes handsomely. Why should Sydney have second-rate stadiums for its main football codes?
Mr FitzSimons once said that sporting stadiums were the modern-day equivalent of a cathedral, but 20 years later he has altered his view.
What has changed?
Sydney is still a global city, isn’t it? It is competing for sporting and cultural events not just with other cities in Australia but with cities throughout Asia-Pacific.
Top Premier League and European football clubs regularly play preseason in Asia and draw huge crowds. Whether we like it or not, we need top-class facilities to grab some of this market.
I can see the new stadiums only benefiting Mr Fitzimons’s favoured sport of rugby union as well. The new SFS will be a great showcase for the Waratahs, and the atmosphere at Bledisloe Cup matches at the new rectangular stadium at Homebush will be massive.
What better way to attract new people to rugby union, football and rugby league. If an improved stadium experience brings in more crowds, then more kids might be inclined to take up their favourite sport, and with more kids playing sport, there will be fewer obese adults in our hospitals.
So I’m not going to sign the petition. I for one am happy that I’ll able to see rugby union, rugby league and football in a modern, first-class venue worthy of a global city.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
I can assure you it's dollar matching for the Sharks unless of course the Cof E is costing less.In some cases such as Souths they, the Council will be putting in more than the Govt grant. The Raiders should get some monetary value .If the ACT Govt can provide $23m to a team that plays there 3 times a year, they should be entitled surely to $8m toward a Cof E. If the Cof E is domiciled in Queanbeyan,according to my geography is actually in Noo South Wales(with apologies to the late Jack Gibson).
Mosquito
Guest
RU serious?
Mosquito
Guest
I'll think you'll find its not $ for $ from the figures I've seen - at least they are contributing something. The Canberra Times today claims that the NSW Govt will put in money for a Centre of Excellence in Canberra for the raiders. I know the SOO rules mean some boneheads think ACT is part of NSW but are they trying to lose Government?
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Mossie.Redhandkerchief head made the point about monies going to rl clubs ,with his usual shock horror comment, before he went away. What he completely overlooked in typical;l FitzSimon's fashion, that clubs have to put in $1 for $1 from the state Govt.That the Cof Es are not only for NRL clubs usage, but disadvantaged youth, other sports to use the facilities, high profile athletes. He was very silent about the Govt contribution of $20m to the ARU headquarters.about the hundreds of millions already expended on SCG/Spotless/Blacktown for the benefit of 2 only Sydney AFL clubs.Yet the stadium monies are to be used by 3 rectangular codes, and 9 Sydney NRL clubs.Internationals,other major events. $535m maintenance has gone up in smoke on a NSW desal plant lying idle since 2012-2017.That is in addition to the $1.6bn initial cost. The guy was is and remains a first class hypocrite. GWS has received more than their fair share of monies in a very short space of time some of which abusively wasted, for a new kid on the block.Plus the largesse of the ACT Govt. The A League complained about their TV ratings drop was due to the RLWC,so it's a nonsense to suggest the RLWC was the only sport on.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
The RLWC still came out ahead ,and the thousand of free tickets,you'll never know Clip,interested one.The Vic Govt already outlaid monies . In fact quite a few rl supporters complained about the high cost of tickets. The RLWC will still make a min $6m profit compared to the bodgied up rules International which was played, in which other countries,and made how much profit?I doubt anyone in the Nth States knew it was on. The tournament has engendered more interest from Pacific Island countries than ever before ,and created more interest in places such as the UK.Probably why a few EPL clubs are waiting games to be played in their stadiums.
Mosquito
Guest
Did the NSW Govt wait for Fitzsimons to go on holidays before announcing the NRL clubs places of excellence funding- the clubs are contributing funds unlike the stadia monies
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
@paul2. So stadium safety designers don't consider disasters, accidents, how to clear a venue in an emergency? Plane safety designers don't consider the risk of a plane crash? Not too sure where you're coming from Paul2!
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
A ridiculously flawed argument that the stadium should bring economic benefits for the city! I think you are mixing up the meaning of 'good' and 'flawed'.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
I'm generally with you on Fizy, Sheek. And the point about being more about a sports spend and a vote if you like against the govt. is probably valid and a big reason why people will sign. Did you give it much thought though? Hillsborough wasn't a fire - I think that was Bradford or something.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
Paul - of course there is an element of build it and they'll come in this - in fact any stadium project. It has worked for Port Adelaide, it has worked for the Broncos. Part of the deal is that League, union, and football need to lift their game as well. The other thing is that the stadiums are no bigger than the old ones. Basically replacing them with better ones of the same capacity. There is not a whole bunch of 'extra' seats here.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
@Kangajets: "Hillsborough was the South Yorkshire police fault and is absolutely irrelevant in this debate." I am not disputing that. My argument is that Hillsborough changed thoughts on stadium safety - and is particularly relevant to stadiums constructed shortly before that time.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
Fitz does reference schools, hospitals (even art galleries) in his original article.
Mosquito
Guest
Clip The NRL doesn't control RLWC but I was talking about RL generally who would have interacted on this issue.Still RL wont play internationals in Sydney where they could draw the biggest crowds to make a profit but no in Darwin etc..Why would the NSW Govt pay money to RL to hold RL games in the biggest RL city in the world. Cathar, you have been found out "misleading" on GWS monies above so your stats are suspect but there was nothing else on people would watch any sport.
Mosquito
Guest
The AFL signed up for 30 years so there are good tenants and subsidise the cricket season. Souths, Saints and Wests have all used SFS and left to cheaper deals elsewhere..There are negotiations as to what is the right price.
Mosquito
Guest
I read 45K at dead rubber Bledisloe but 5K travelling NZ fans. There will be 40k against Ireland this year but at least the RU have internationals in Sydney unlike the RL
Mosquito
Guest
Brainstrust Do you read your stuff after u write it eg " the AFL got the clubs it wanted to merge to pay off its mortgage for them " what clubs merged? " MCG the members section has yearly subscriptions, so having such a large members pays for the stadium and the only cost to the AFL is a theoretical one that its not getting the membership ticket money.. THERE ARE 2 GROUNDS COMPETING FOR 10 CLUBS SFS has a membership section which the SCG trust uses to get even higher priced subscriptions, and a rip off rental as well. SFS HAS SAME PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS FOR A LOWER COST STADIUM - THE AFL PAID UPFRONT AND COMMITTED TO THE STADIUM WHEREAS SFS TRIED TO WOO SOUTHS, SAINTS, WESTS TIGERS TO THE GROUND BUT THEY HAVE MOVED ELSEWHERE FOR A CHEAPER DEAL SO RL NOT PAYING ITS WAY FOR ANY UPGRADE.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Don Alas Etihad wasn't cheap rent. The AFL sold out of Waverley (100% owned) and paid $30mill up front at 'Docklands' for the right to buy it out after a 25 year lease. The early uptake tenant clubs got the best deals - with the private operator. The AFL wasn't negotiating other than that there was an agreement of X number of games minimum and a minimum average crowd. A club like North Melb in 1999 was an MCG co-tenant. They never opted for Docklands but got fixtured there and forced to adopt a tenancy in a very one side negotiation with the AFL sitting on their hands (the Wayne Jackson era - he was set on getting North out via merge/relocation or just folding). So for clubs like North and the Doggies - they could lose money on a home crowd of 25,000 while down the road in Geelong the cats would clear half a mill on the same crowd. That wasn't sustainable and subsequent AFL admins changed their tune on it all. And now the venue is bought out early (which it always was to be which was why the AFL were never going to give it up for the 2022 WC bid back in 2009).
Cathar Treize
Roar Guru
Oh well they did manage to get 230k viewers in Victoria for the match during the footy offseason & I doubt there were a 'few thousand free tickets' otherwise they would have gone close to a full stadium. Where's your source Clipper?
clipper
Guest
The NRL doesn't control the RLWC, which I think shot itself in the foot by trying to force NSW to pay to host RLWC games - when they didn't come up with the money they held the opening game in Melbourne to a disinterested public with thousands of free tickets and weren't able to sell out a 30k stadium.
Mosquito
Guest
The trust provided the reasons and the Sydney Herald didnt print it but did put it on their website. The Government wont put their reasons because its all about economic benefits, tourism, enhanced trade opportunities and feel good feeling of having big events for electors. But 80% of the pop'n wouldn't appreciate the economic benefits. They should nail down the opposition as to what it would do.