• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Waratahs 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
^^^^^^you think $700M to knock it it down is a good idea?

I live on the Northern beaches,they’ve closed 2 public hospitals and replaced it with a privately owned hospital,where less than 6 months in,they’ve decided to stop operating on public patients, as there’s no profit in it for them.
I think it’s deplorable that vanity projects such as this,are given priority over essential services.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
^^^^^^you think $700M to knock it it down is a good idea?

I live on the Northern beaches,they’ve closed 2 public hospitals and replaced it with a privately owned hospital,where less than 6 months in,they’ve decided to stop operating on public patients, as there’s no profit in it for them.
I think it’s deplorable that vanity projects such as this,are given priority over essential services.


I think we can very comfortably do both.

We need significantly more investment in hospitals and schools but we also have an $80B annual budget and negative net debt at a state level. The state can borrow at incredibly low interest rates. There will never be a better time for the state to borrow money and build many projects.

The biggest reason state governments don't want to build/expand public hospitals is not the capital cost of building, it's the recurrent cost of running them. Clearly that is no excuse and we need them.

The problem with framing every argument in terms of x is more important than y so we shouldn't do y is how oppositions effectively argue against a project but rarely is the other actually on the table.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
And now the SMH have admitted they got it wrong yesterday.

D2N2HOyUYAASxL8.jpg
 

Derpus

John Eales (66)
I think we can very comfortably do both.

We need significantly more investment in hospitals and schools but we also have an $80B annual budget and negative net debt at a state level. The state can borrow at incredibly low interest rates. There will never be a better time for the state to borrow money and build many projects.

The biggest reason state governments don't want to build/expand public hospitals is not the capital cost of building, it's the recurrent cost of running them. Clearly that is no excuse and we need them.

The problem with framing every argument in terms of x is more important than y so we shouldn't do y is how oppositions effectively argue against a project but rarely is the other actually on the table.
This.

Top comment.

I don't get how people aren't more worked up over the sale of the Land Titles Office. That was much more significant than the stadium. Literally underpins our entire way of life and the legal structure of our society. An apparent non-issue. Or was that in a previous election cycle?
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
I don't get how people aren't more worked up over the sale of the Land Titles Office. That was much more significant than the stadium. Literally underpins our entire way of life and the legal structure of our society. An apparent non-issue. Or was that in a previous election cycle?


It was this election cycle. 2017.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
I think we can very comfortably do both.

We need significantly more investment in hospitals and schools but we also have an $80B annual budget and negative net debt at a state level. The state can borrow at incredibly low interest rates. There will never be a better time for the state to borrow money and build many projects.

The biggest reason state governments don't want to build/expand public hospitals is not the capital cost of building, it's the recurrent cost of running them. Clearly that is no excuse and we need them.

The problem with framing every argument in terms of x is more important than y so we shouldn't do y is how oppositions effectively argue against a project but rarely is the other actually on the table.
The issue for me is that there is a need for x,but it’s the y’s that have the ear of the Government.
It was only recently, the Government decided larger stadia were white elephants,and it was better to invest in many smaller/cheaper alternatives so that the masses had local access to superior facilities.

The SCG board is much better positioned to lobby to get in the front of the que,than the many,many local authorities that have a much better case for Government investment in their projects.

I’m a regular user of the SFS, it’s fit for purpose IMO.
 

Derpus

John Eales (66)
I’m a regular user of the SFS, it’s fit for purpose IMO.
It's pretty terrible if you get a crown bigger than 10k. Never does though.

On the other hand, new stadiums tend to drive up attendances.

You can always use the slippery slope argument for the stadium as well. If it must pass some kind of public utility test (i.e. it's not important enough to warrant public funding) then this could easily extend to thousands of extraneous activities that would never otherwise be funded, for example Art.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
It seems the SMH was either loose with the truth or can't read.

"A report in the Sydney Morning Herald today regarding compliance works at Allianz Stadium is misleading and incorrect. A formal correction will be sought for both print and online articles.

The report referred to in the article outlined $130m in capital works required. Of this amount, $105.8m comprised end of life replacement of assets predominately of a safety, security and compliance nature.

Of the remaining assets with some residual useful life, a further $18 million would be required to be spent on safety, security and compliance. To isolate the $18m is misleading. The $18m referenced in the article accounts for replacement of electrical boards, emergency lighting, exit signage and fire detection systems only.

This total cost of $130m is only for basic compliance and does not consider improving the stadium for ingress and egress, disabled access, female spectator and player facilities, roof coverage nor meeting seismic code standards. It would have extended the life of the building for five years.

A full safety, security and compliance upgrade of Allianz Stadium was costed at $341m in the Infrastructure NSW Base Case in March 2018. This detail is publicly available.

The SCG was not contacted for comment prior to the story being published in the SMH."


It's still a lot less than demolishing it and rebuilding it.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
The issue for me is that there is a need for x,but it’s the y’s that have the ear of the Government.
It was only recently, the Government decided larger stadia were white elephants,and it was better to invest in many smaller/cheaper alternatives so that the masses had local access to superior facilities.

The SCG board is much better positioned to lobby to get in the front of the que,than the many,many local authorities that have a much better case for Government investment in their projects.

I’m a regular user of the SFS, it’s fit for purpose IMO.

Unless there's a fire, or you're a female trying to use one of the 48 female cubicles in a crowd of 40,000, or a disabled person wanting to go to an event at which there's only 28 wheelchair accessible seats in the ground.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
Unless there's a fire, or you're a female trying to use one of the 48 female cubicles in a crowd of 40,000, or a disabled person wanting to go to an event at which there's only 28 wheelchair accessible seats in the ground.


Or you need to get a pram into the ground.

It's still a lot less than demolishing it and rebuilding it.


Sure, but you could also argue that spending $130m band-aid solution is a complete waste of money.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
^^^^^^you think $700M to knock it it down is a good idea?

I live on the Northern beaches,they’ve closed 2 public hospitals and replaced it with a privately owned hospital,where less than 6 months in,they’ve decided to stop operating on public patients, as there’s no profit in it for them.
I think it’s deplorable that vanity projects such as this,are given priority over essential services.

I live on the northern beaches too and for decades people here have complained about governments not spending money on the area. The government closes two dilapidated hosptials and opens a brand new state of the art one and people still complain.

To take your argument a step further, governments would never spend any money on sporting facilities, the arts or other discretionary items because there is always something more deserving on which to spend money.

It's actually possible to do both.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
And let's not forget the number of interstate and international visitors that come to sporting events and spend money, some of which is then collected in taxes.

Every other state capital has rebuilt it's sporting grounds since 1988 and events just won't come to Sydney to a ground which is non-compliant with basic safety standards, before we even get to the issue of comfort.
 

fatprop

Jason Little (69)
Staff member
I live on the northern beaches too and for decades people here have complained about governments not spending money on the area. The government closes two dilapidated hosptials and opens a brand new state of the art one and people still complain.

To take your argument a step further, governments would never spend any money on sporting facilities, the arts or other discretionary items because there is always something more deserving on which to spend money.

It's actually possible to do both.


Become a marginal seat and the will care
 

Froggy

Nev Cottrell (35)
Closing two hospitals on the northern beaches was way overdue.
My father spent a lot of his last year in Mona Vale hospital, it was literally held together with duct tape! When they got a decent easterly rainfall, patients were all crowded into the western side of the corridor as the eastern side had flooded. No-one aware of their condition could argue with closing those two hospitals.

As to the stadium, it amounts to such a small percentage of the state's infrastructure it doesn't preclude them from doing everything else. All the media about the stadiums is really just political leading to the election (and very effective too).

The idea of the SFS being iconic is rubbish, it's not 40 years old (I remember watching rugby at the old Sydney Sports Ground, which stood where the SFS is today). The SCG and the MCG are iconic, this is just a sports ground. As an aside I used to think Cardiff Arms Park was iconic, didn't stop the Welsh from pulling it down.
 

Adam84

Mark Ella (57)
I wouldn't call it impractical since it served its intended purpose quite well for 30 years.

Reality is modern sporting stadiums need major upgrades to reflect the changing expectation in match day experiences. More bars, restaurants, luxury suites is pretty standard in modern stadiums getting built around the world.
 

Rugbynutter39

David Codey (61)
Closing two hospitals on the northern beaches was way overdue.
My father spent a lot of his last year in Mona Vale hospital, it was literally held together with duct tape! When they got a decent easterly rainfall, patients were all crowded into the western side of the corridor as the eastern side had flooded. No-one aware of their condition could argue with closing those two hospitals.

As to the stadium, it amounts to such a small percentage of the state's infrastructure it doesn't preclude them from doing everything else. All the media about the stadiums is really just political leading to the election (and very effective too).

The idea of the SFS being iconic is rubbish, it's not 40 years old (I remember watching rugby at the old Sydney Sports Ground, which stood where the SFS is today). The SCG and the MCG are iconic, this is just a sports ground. As an aside I used to think Cardiff Arms Park was iconic, didn't stop the Welsh from pulling it down.
Reality is top class stadiums attract major sporting and entertainment events that bring in significant tourism dollars but labor playing the emotional vote card conveniently ignore that.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
The issue for me is that there is a need for x,but it’s the y’s that have the ear of the Government.
It was only recently, the Government decided larger stadia were white elephants,and it was better to invest in many smaller/cheaper alternatives so that the masses had local access to superior facilities.

The SCG board is much better positioned to lobby to get in the front of the que,than the many,many local authorities that have a much better case for Government investment in their projects.

I’m a regular user of the SFS, it’s fit for purpose IMO.

It's all down to priorities.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
It's all down to priorities.

Correct, which is why out of an $89 billion infrastructure budget, the government is spending $8 billion on new schools, $6.8 billion on hospitals (including one on the northern beaches), $51.2 billion on rail and road projects, $5.6 billion on water and sewage projects compared with much less spending on sports grounds and museums etc.

https://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/sites..._2-Infrastructure Statement-Budget_201819.pdf

Melbourne, which is a city of similar size to Sydney, has had 4 stadia which have all be completely rebuilt since the SFS was built in 1988 - MCG, Docklands, AAMI and Kardinia Park. Brisbane and Perth which as less than half the size of Sydney have each had 2 stadia rebuilt in the same period. Gabba, Suncorp, Perth Stadium and NIB Stadium. The fact that there's even a debate going on in Sydney about it is the unusal thing about the whole issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top