Why Sydney needs a new football stadium

How can the management of the SCG Trust possibly be regarded as having 'been good' when it is they who tell us Allianz is in a state of disrepair? If it is in such a bad state they are responsible because it has been their responsibility to maintain it - as they do the SCG. If things were so bad at Allianz they have failed miserably at their job. A new stadium will mean nothing to the average punter since they will still be seated on a plastic seat and still have to line up to buy food/beverages and go to the toilet. It will be a different story for the corporates who will have lavish boxes well supplied with food and drink and toilet facilities. The SCG Trust should be sacked.

I would still say that it's unrealistic. Spotless is fine for all Giants games for the foreseeable future - including any finals they may host.

Can't find any info on the Bears contribution - it wasn't that long ago.

1. Yes, the women's facilities at the SFS are poor... they are as poor or even worse at the SCG, so why is that not being demolished? 2. Safety standards have changed - why then were our lives put at risk the past year? If it was so unsafe, why were we there?? And it's such a laugh, brookvale and leichhardt stands are death traps... yet people will still go. No one goes to a great stadium simply because it's a great stadium. They go when their team/s are playing, or if they are a member, or going along with a mate. And in Sydney, it's twice as difficult... your team has to be so clearly on top.

It's called selling negativity, and the customer generally buys it.

Didn't the Bears contribute to the CC stadium? The ARU and the FFA also consulted with Government.Rugby league are hardly sole tenants.Like others ,you appear to ignore Union Internationals,Bledisloe cups,Soccer internationals. The SFS is not an ideal stadium to take females to with their toilet or lack of facilities.I have a fair idea,I have daughters, who have attended with me.

The facilities for women at the SFS are ordinary for starters.There is distinct lack of cover,and there are safety issues.Maybe a complete refurbishment is the answer I don't have the answer. That and scheduling ,and transport issues are a couple of the main reasons people don't go to the SFS. They go to the SFS when there are semis ,eg Sharks v Cowboys in 2016 because it's an event.They don't go to the SFS because its also a you beaut up to date stadium with all the facilities needed. It's nonsense to suggest people like Allianz stadium. Plus you are comparing stadiums which is generally used by 1 only football code.Whereas Allianz is used by two in winter and one that overlaps during that time. Some people listening to them on radio and reading their comments, would have you believe only rugby league utilised the facilities.Talk about clueless. Also safety standards and requirements have changed over the decades.

If they are worried about gridlock,Daley would;t be cancelling the F6.

No he would be looking at semi finals at ANZ.

There has been far more hospitals and other infrastructure built in the last few years, than I have seen from any Labor Govt.And they had decades old demountanbles at schools then, oh wait they now realise they should have done something. Daley noted re Allianz on the ABC recently is a great stadium to watch as Taylor Smith said it was one of the best venues she has played. Trouble is this guy either lied or had not a clue, she actually played at ANZ.This same guy is going to cancel the F6 ,which would alleviate congestion to the southern suburbs and to Wollongong. I've seen new additions to Sutherland Hospital completed. The slow thinking Lib Govt should be spelling out with examples what they are doing and have done, instead of letting Daley take the high moral ground.Flog perceived negativity and the naive public falls for it.

great points

I cannot believe that the biggest issue in the upcoming state election is $730 mil on a stadium. In the scheme of things how piddly is that? ALP is putting all their energy into arguing that point, I've not heard anything else. Seriously if someone was to change their vote based on that?!!!

I didn;t mention Docklands in the above and that was 20 years ago. Why not bring up paying for the concrete superdome 50 years ago. If the AFL had held onto Waverely they would be rich with the property boom. The climate has changed and this is the era of the government spending big money on stadiums . In the case of Perth and Adelaide, zero contribution, rent goes to the local AFL. Government who put in the money gets nothing and will even pay for the maintnance , so no point in owning a stadium these days. Now its not just stadiums, its training facilities as well. For some reason a sport with a falling standard of skills compared to the past , which has restricted its talent base in order to have a pseudo American style draft system, without the large competitive college leagues to make it a worthwhile , now needs all these expensive training centers when all the proper training should be done on an open field. Docklands was mainly paid off though by tenant clubs conned into exorbitant deals by the puppet master AFL for the private operator. Then I think the private operator may have started going out of control because all these buildings started appearing around Docklands. Then Eddie revealed everything demolish it sell it for flats and let the government spend billions giving AFL something over the railway line. Why would you want to build something near the MCG though unless you wanted to get rid of that as well in another scheme. The MCG is the AFL biggest obstacle, see you cant take full advantage of all this government largesse because the MCC are there.

The new stadiums I read account for 2.4% of the state's budget. So the construction, trades & hospitality industries, all whom will benefit from this, not count when factoring in job stimulation aside from sporting benefits?

Thats the rub, innit. Melbourne can do what they want, but the centralising of games at Homebush and Moore Park just hasn't worked in Sydney. The crowd and atmosphere are appalling at both venues. The NRL clubs would be better off making cost efficient upgrades to their traditional home grounds, they don't need more than a 20K capacity. Having smaller grounds with the crowd packed in and right on top of the players would be a far better look for the game and improve the atmosphere. That's what they do in the EPL and it hasn't hurt them, and it would be a real point of difference over the AFL.

Funny thing is all the money is going no where due to the huge population growth. With an extra milllion people we'll need a lot of hospitals and schools...

The infrastructure is good argument is lazy. Some infrastructure is bad - Westconnex a prime example. There are lots of factors- where, why, how much cost, how much damage, how much planning. The stadium isn't the worst infrastructure project we've seen simply because damage is limited to the site- you don't have to destroy half of Sydney. But it's still a waste of money and not needed.

Not only did the AFL tip money into the building of Docklands, the remainder was 100% funded by private debt, not one cent of Government money was utilised. With the the MCG, only about 12.5% of Government money went into the last big re-build, the remainder was funded by private debt.

When you look at stadiums around the world like LA Coliseum which has been standing for nearly 100 years and has been renovated numerous times. It holds 70-80 k and LA is twice as big as Sydney. The NSW government have had a knee jerk reaction to the NRL to build 2 new stadiums which will only be ever half full bar SOO and grand finals. Look at the MCG which has been around for 50 years and also has numerous renovations. The NRL was instrumental in getting Central Coast stadium she Northern Eagles were brought into the competition.

No other state in the country seems to have had this issue. Their politicians seem to grab onto infrastructure development in sport as something to be lauded not squashed. Do your research Keith. That's just poor. WA - Perth Stadium was justified because demand far exceed supply when it came to Subiaco, and the WACA is without fail the most dilapidated stadium in the country. And people were baulking at the price tag. That blew the budget big time. SA - The Adelaide oval re-development...again, demand exceeded supply. Football park was also incredibly antiquated (wooden seats?), with zero coverage for rain etc etc. Adelaide oval being smack bang in the middle of the city also helped building a case for a redevelopment. Qld - Suncorp was an easy justification. Lang Park was 40-50 years old. VIC - The AFL own Docklands, so that's excluded from any debate. The MCG...well...speaks for itself. And even then, it wasn't a complete demolition, it's been the phased upgrades overtime paid for by the MCC, AFL and state government. NSW - People don't go to the SFS because it is an old stadium, or the facilities are poor. People don't go because it's location is abysmal if you don't live in the East or immediate south, and people just don't like going to live sport on the same frequency as the other states. The fact that the SFS sells out a couple of times a year is proof people actually like the stadium when the right event is on (rugby international, anzac game, WSW-SFC derby etc).