mike
Well-known member
I think the article itself is pretty factually true. Doesn't mean the Wests Tigers won't play there or take up the lease for that matter.
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
Balmain Tigers Face Voluntary Administration
- Thread starter radiowave82
- Start date
innsaneink
Well-known member
So we play souths again huh?
ninemsn yup
ninemsn yup
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
I didn't think it was costing the club anything to play at LO
mike
Well-known member
@Sabre said:
Not sure what article you are referring to but nothing like that is started in the article I pointed to.
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
Benjirific
New member
@OutbackJack said:
Ah the lease has been surrendered, they hand over the keys on April 1 (next Wednesday).
@GNR4LIFE said:
It wasn't - Balmain never charged them to play there when they held the lease of the ground.
@mike said:
If WT play there it wouldn't be a lease situation, the Council own the ground and will now run it. Any WT use would be a hire of the ground, so that is the terms they are now working out with Council. Considering they haven't paid anything to play there previously, I'd be surprised if Council gave them the ground for free…..
@Benjirific said:
Not correct…
Mayer said it was a matter of reaching a reasonable hirer’s fee, and he “wouldn’t pay a cent higher than what we paid in 2014’’.
“It’s not under threat right now, and the ball is very much in the council’s court,’’ Mayer told The Daily Telegraph, when asked if Leichhardt was in danger.
>
“We’ve been working with them openly and honestly about fixing it. We’ve been waiting — and we’ve been waiting for some weeks now — for a confirmed lease under the same commercial terms as 2014.
For the Tigers to hire Leichhardt and Campbelltown Sports Stadium — the club’s other spiritual home out west — it costs them between $60,000 to $80,000 to hire. Because of a shake-up in occupational, healthy and safety standards, each ground can now only hold around 17,000 people, which impacts on the Tigers’ profit.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/wests-tigers-admit-the-nrl-club-could-leave-leichhardt-oval-over-funding-issues/story-fni2flhh-1227280041259
Benjirific
New member
@Geo. said:
I've spoken to BT directors about this before, up until this year (I'm unaware of any changes for this year), they haven't paid BT to hire the ground. Basically what Mayer is saying is he wants Council to give it to them for free
No ….Wests Tigers pay the Council to play there always have ...you are right they have never paid BT....the lease by Balmain is a totally separate Issue...
cqtiger
Well-known member
@Cultured Bogan said:
I'm not sure about gross mismanagement. They wanted to expand and modernise the club. Sound thinking. Council encouraged them to buy adjacent land, which they did. Council dilly-dallied because it was run by the greens. The only decision that crippled Balmain was vacating the old building. Why? Because the NSW government was going to put a rail-line through there.
Guess what? The government changed their mind.
Aligning with Elias and his cronies may not have been the best option in hindsight but at the time, not wrong. The plan for a high rise with units, shops and an expanded leagues not the problem - a greens council was.
Every project of this type has to be advertised and presented to the public for all objectors. It appears that the only real objections came from the greens in council the end.
Anyway as far as Leichardt oval goes it would appear that Balmain have decided if the council isn't playing ball, then why pay them $250k a year for the privilege?
No leagues club, no money for the oval. Wests Tigers are certain to reconsider playing there beyond this year. Council wouldn't be too popular right now.
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
DonnyBrasco
New member
@cqtiger said:
If you know people in the local community, you'd know that a large wack of them don't want that development in the area, and more than likely couldn't give a rats about a leagues club, or the Tigers.
It's not always just bad luck when things go wrong all the time…
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
Assuming Wests Tigers remain at Leichhardt into the future, isn't this a positive outcome? Surely this $250,000 is a saving for Balmain and assists with paying back the NRL loan?
Mayer on radio said he been dealing with leichhardt council last 6 weeks regarding taking over the ground. Playing hard ball over price, and wanting more upgrades. No deal yet, and could only confirm tigers round 7 and 13 games will be at leichhardt at the moment. He also said he would like to see eventually leichhardt used as game for members only.
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
AmericanHistoryX
Well-known member
Wests Tigers leaving Leichhardt - the first game will go ahead definately - same cant be said for the rest of the games this season
2GB radio 7.30 am Sydney time
_Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.3_
2GB radio 7.30 am Sydney time
_Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.3_
king_sirro
Well-known member
Anyone know what this means for junior league at Leichhardt oval? Wondering if the kids grand finals will still be there. It would be a huge shame if the kids didn't have playing the big one at Leichhardt as incentive…it's what it's all about when your a kid
@Gary Bakerloo said:
So the Wests group and the Weststigers will have to pay for the ground ,while again Balmain renege on there obligations to the Joint Venture so they might be able to save $250k…well I say enough is enough with this lot , time to move on to ANZ and Liechardt oval can be turned into an organic farm garden for all the green inhabitants of the area.I will be very annoyed if my club want to pick up the tab for this whole disaster
jirskyr
Well-known member
From what I understand, this is the kind of pressure Cronulla was under with their re-development - if it did not get approval to go ahead, they would have been rudderless and eventually folded. Lucky for them they worked something out.
Balmain LC are in the same situation, they are a business with no operations at their primary headquarters. They could sell the site to a developer to cover their losses, but that would be the end, no income from then on.
The only resolution is to have a partnership with someone to develop the site and allow the leagues club to resume operations. But it seems a tangled web of politics to get such a process approved.
From what I understand, and I've heard a little from council consultants, Balmain has to accept some blame for submitting proposals that were borderline acceptable. I understand that some parts of previous proposals were inadequately supported by data, or made assumptions about approvals being granted for things like pedestrian bridges and changed road systems, that council were not in favour of. I understand however that many developers do this, they try to push the maximum development through and then make negotiations with local council until it passes.
On the other hand, Leichhardt Council (LC) gave some assurances that there was room to negotiate, and included requests to acquire more land about the site. This gave Balmain the impression they could work out a result, despite the heavy anti-development lobby within Leichhardt (and I know from personal experience LC can be an absolute [This word has been automatically removed] when dealing with even private on-site developments). I understand Balmain believed they had the result they wanted when the NSW Govt took approval jurisdiction off the council as part of the Metro development plan.
Everything unravelled when the plug was pulled on the Metro. I can imagine other businesses also on tenterhooks right now over which party wins the March election, and exactly how much of the WestConnex is actually going to be built.
Something like $500M was spent on the metro plan, I know some engineers who were surprised it died but happy to have pulled a wage whilst it meandered about.
So Balmain have closed their premises but now lost front footing, because they have limited income and now have to go back to LC to negotiate what can be done with the site.
I have no real information about what happened since then, I don't know why LC and Tigers still couldn't come to a compromise about what to do with the premises. Maybe the Balmain plans were just too big, and Balmain did not think a reduction would be cost effective.
However what I truly cannot understand is, how there is such resistance to a large development in the area. Just trot down to the old Balmain power station and Birkenhead on the water, tell me Rozelle doesn't already have a precendent for high-density, large-scale developments.
Take a wander around the inner west and inner south Sydney, tell me there aren't 100 other large-scale developments done or in progress. I can rattle of 10 just off the top of my head - 3 developments on Wattle St Ultimo (including Meriton's on William Henry St), about 6 buildings on Abercrombie at Central Park, Harold Park, the complex at Annandale behind Parra Rd at Booth St, the old Summer Hill flour mills about to go up, Meriton's labyrinth of structures at Moore Park and Victoria Park Zetland, $8 billion spending at Green Square, several buildings along Gardener's Rd and O'Riordan St Mascot/Alexandria.
Inner Sydney cannot permanently be kept as "local villages", there is just too much demand for housing and the population continues to rise. I don't really understand why Tigers simply cannot go ahead, but these huge works are happening everywhere else. Don't tell me Victoria Rd is worse or more sensitive to increased traffic than South Dowling St, or Parramatta Rd, or Wattle St, or Botany Rd. FFS.
Rant over.
Balmain LC are in the same situation, they are a business with no operations at their primary headquarters. They could sell the site to a developer to cover their losses, but that would be the end, no income from then on.
The only resolution is to have a partnership with someone to develop the site and allow the leagues club to resume operations. But it seems a tangled web of politics to get such a process approved.
From what I understand, and I've heard a little from council consultants, Balmain has to accept some blame for submitting proposals that were borderline acceptable. I understand that some parts of previous proposals were inadequately supported by data, or made assumptions about approvals being granted for things like pedestrian bridges and changed road systems, that council were not in favour of. I understand however that many developers do this, they try to push the maximum development through and then make negotiations with local council until it passes.
On the other hand, Leichhardt Council (LC) gave some assurances that there was room to negotiate, and included requests to acquire more land about the site. This gave Balmain the impression they could work out a result, despite the heavy anti-development lobby within Leichhardt (and I know from personal experience LC can be an absolute [This word has been automatically removed] when dealing with even private on-site developments). I understand Balmain believed they had the result they wanted when the NSW Govt took approval jurisdiction off the council as part of the Metro development plan.
Everything unravelled when the plug was pulled on the Metro. I can imagine other businesses also on tenterhooks right now over which party wins the March election, and exactly how much of the WestConnex is actually going to be built.
Something like $500M was spent on the metro plan, I know some engineers who were surprised it died but happy to have pulled a wage whilst it meandered about.
So Balmain have closed their premises but now lost front footing, because they have limited income and now have to go back to LC to negotiate what can be done with the site.
I have no real information about what happened since then, I don't know why LC and Tigers still couldn't come to a compromise about what to do with the premises. Maybe the Balmain plans were just too big, and Balmain did not think a reduction would be cost effective.
However what I truly cannot understand is, how there is such resistance to a large development in the area. Just trot down to the old Balmain power station and Birkenhead on the water, tell me Rozelle doesn't already have a precendent for high-density, large-scale developments.
Take a wander around the inner west and inner south Sydney, tell me there aren't 100 other large-scale developments done or in progress. I can rattle of 10 just off the top of my head - 3 developments on Wattle St Ultimo (including Meriton's on William Henry St), about 6 buildings on Abercrombie at Central Park, Harold Park, the complex at Annandale behind Parra Rd at Booth St, the old Summer Hill flour mills about to go up, Meriton's labyrinth of structures at Moore Park and Victoria Park Zetland, $8 billion spending at Green Square, several buildings along Gardener's Rd and O'Riordan St Mascot/Alexandria.
Inner Sydney cannot permanently be kept as "local villages", there is just too much demand for housing and the population continues to rise. I don't really understand why Tigers simply cannot go ahead, but these huge works are happening everywhere else. Don't tell me Victoria Rd is worse or more sensitive to increased traffic than South Dowling St, or Parramatta Rd, or Wattle St, or Botany Rd. FFS.
Rant over.
jirskyr
Well-known member
One other thing… I reckon plenty of residents of Balmain and Rozelle don't give a toss if Tigers go under. It's not like it used to be, there are so many nouveau-riche who buy expensive terraces down at Birchgrove, or who snap up pokey redevelopment on Lilyfield Rd.
These people are not old-school Balmain supporters, they aren't really interested in a local club to have a pint, a punt and a $18 chicken schnitzel. They want cafes, organic fruit shops, fair-trade coffee distributors and artisan bakeries.
It's not like Wests Ashfield's local area, the demographic has totally changed.
These people are not old-school Balmain supporters, they aren't really interested in a local club to have a pint, a punt and a $18 chicken schnitzel. They want cafes, organic fruit shops, fair-trade coffee distributors and artisan bakeries.
It's not like Wests Ashfield's local area, the demographic has totally changed.
Benjirific
New member
@Snake said:
Ah what obligations to the JV have the Tigers reneged on by handing back the lease to Council? The obligation to give the ground to the club for no fee? Clearly Wests don't meet that obligation….
