Todd Greenberg threatens to take NRL grand final interstate if Labor abandons stadium rebuildNRL CEO Todd Greenberg has

NRL and other Australian Rugby League Discussion
gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5786
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Re: Todd Greenberg threatens to take NRL grand final interstate if Labor abandons stadium rebuildNRL CEO Todd Greenberg

Post by gallagher » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 3:57 pm

The NRL should just focus on a new deal with the new govt on homebush.


User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6192
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 4:26 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 3:26 pm
It's a less than 20 year old stadium. We should just tear it down and start again every 20 years? The suggestion that health or education is an exact sum funding concept (I.e. that there is x amount of money that needs to be spent and any additional is wasted) is absurd. Just because the government allocates x amount of money for schools, hospitals or roads it doesn't follow than x + 5% isn't beneficial. That the stadium spend is what 5% of the total health spend is irrelevant. It's still $1.5B (assuming this is even accurate) that could be spent elsewhere.
If either the SFS or Homebush were crumbling structures in need of a big spend then fine. But the SFS knock down is only happening because Jones and the SCG trust are pushing it. There was no public outcry, no demand from the tenants.
Average rebuild for stadiums in US is 31 years, so for SFS, yes it's come to rebuild time.

I would only accept comments about "viability" of an aging stadium from experts, so any expert engineers who want to comment, fine, everyone else doesn't know. I am not aware of either facility being a crumbling stadium, and though you are being facetious, obviously once a stadium is crumbling it's far too late.

Personally if I had to vote for one or another, I'd wipe the SFS and put all the money into Homebush, because I don't think it's a priority for a second new rectangular stadium if WSS and Homebush are new and fully operational. I'd push all events to one or the other in the West, despite Central station proximity and the new light rail going past Moore Park.

But on the other hand, I haven't any impact analyses on business and access to Moore Park if you don't have the SFS there. For example businesses like NRL headquarters being there and the normal week-to-week use / occupancy of SFS.

Yes SCG Trust and Alan Jones lobbied for it, so they would be expected to do; doesn't change that the government assessed and implemented it. Similarly NRL and ANZ Trust are hugely in favour of a Homebush refurb, as the AFL was in support of the MCG upgrade a while back.

ANZ, no not old enough yet to justify a knock-down, hence refurbish decision. But the management decision about ANZ isn't about it's age or technology, it's about having an oval stadium built to accommodate an Olympic running track, that has permanent concessions to this format whilst being primarily used by rectangular sports.

What is the primary criticism of ANZ? Why does it not get filled near capacity more often? Some reasons include fans too far from the action and lack of atmosphere. What are the primary positives of places like SFS or Millennium Stadium in Cardiff? Fans close to action and tonnes of atmosphere. For rectangular sports, this is generated in part by by heavily-tiered seating close to the field, plus high enclosure to maximise sound / atmosphere. ANZ currently has neither of these.

So why not refurbish a stadium that is constantly being criticised for lack of specialisation and lack of atmosphere? How is the usage of Homebush going to increase, which is desired by everyone, if it has major deficits in design pretty much agreed by everyone?

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 3307
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm

Post by Pawsandclaws » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 5:08 pm

Why not refurbish ANZ? There is finite money with far higher priority areas in which to spend it

If the latest polls are accurate, Gladys is in a bit of strife. Perhaps voters are sick of public assets being flogged off and tolls being imposed on motorways. Could she be exiting at the same time as Shouty and his shower.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6192
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 7:39 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 5:08 pm
Why not refurbish ANZ? There is finite money with far higher priority areas in which to spend it
Well in that case, knock all the stadiums down. None of them are true necessities. Why even build WSS? Why host the Olympics? Why bid for the soccer World Cup?

Also cancel Melbourne Cup day and other such events, because there are higher priority areas to spend money.

Why build WestConnex? Not absolutely vitally necessary. Total acquisitions, development and operations costs for the Westconnex are estimated to be between 20 and 45 billion - plenty to sprinkle around on schools and hospitals.

Why did they rebuild the ICC at Darling Harbour? That and the surrounding facilities cost $3.4B - and the previous ICC was only as old as the SFS!

Yeah there is finite money, and if you want to take the argument that there is no capacity for non-essential infrastructure, then sure bury it in hospitals etc.

Or you realist that state and federal budgets cover many portfolios and that money can be allocated to more than just education and health.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9914
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 9:03 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 4:26 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 3:26 pm
It's a less than 20 year old stadium. We should just tear it down and start again every 20 years? The suggestion that health or education is an exact sum funding concept (I.e. that there is x amount of money that needs to be spent and any additional is wasted) is absurd. Just because the government allocates x amount of money for schools, hospitals or roads it doesn't follow than x + 5% isn't beneficial. That the stadium spend is what 5% of the total health spend is irrelevant. It's still $1.5B (assuming this is even accurate) that could be spent elsewhere.
If either the SFS or Homebush were crumbling structures in need of a big spend then fine. But the SFS knock down is only happening because Jones and the SCG trust are pushing it. There was no public outcry, no demand from the tenants.
Average rebuild for stadiums in US is 31 years, so for SFS, yes it's come to rebuild time.

I would only accept comments about "viability" of an aging stadium from experts, so any expert engineers who want to comment, fine, everyone else doesn't know. I am not aware of either facility being a crumbling stadium, and though you are being facetious, obviously once a stadium is crumbling it's far too late.

Personally if I had to vote for one or another, I'd wipe the SFS and put all the money into Homebush, because I don't think it's a priority for a second new rectangular stadium if WSS and Homebush are new and fully operational. I'd push all events to one or the other in the West, despite Central station proximity and the new light rail going past Moore Park.

But on the other hand, I haven't any impact analyses on business and access to Moore Park if you don't have the SFS there. For example businesses like NRL headquarters being there and the normal week-to-week use / occupancy of SFS.

Yes SCG Trust and Alan Jones lobbied for it, so they would be expected to do; doesn't change that the government assessed and implemented it. Similarly NRL and ANZ Trust are hugely in favour of a Homebush refurb, as the AFL was in support of the MCG upgrade a while back.

ANZ, no not old enough yet to justify a knock-down, hence refurbish decision. But the management decision about ANZ isn't about it's age or technology, it's about having an oval stadium built to accommodate an Olympic running track, that has permanent concessions to this format whilst being primarily used by rectangular sports.

What is the primary criticism of ANZ? Why does it not get filled near capacity more often? Some reasons include fans too far from the action and lack of atmosphere. What are the primary positives of places like SFS or Millennium Stadium in Cardiff? Fans close to action and tonnes of atmosphere. For rectangular sports, this is generated in part by by heavily-tiered seating close to the field, plus high enclosure to maximise sound / atmosphere. ANZ currently has neither of these.

So why not refurbish a stadium that is constantly being criticised for lack of specialisation and lack of atmosphere? How is the usage of Homebush going to increase, which is desired by everyone, if it has major deficits in design pretty much agreed by everyone?
America has both competition between cities for franchises and a much higher population. Plus the money an NFL franchise generates is monumental.

We were talking primarily about the SFS. I probably have more sympathy for a revamp or rebuild of Homebush. The SFS knockdown is moronic.

The criticisms of Homebush are valid. Whether a revamp triggers a rise in attendance is not clear. I think the relative low crowds are more reflective of Sydney sporting culture than a boycott over the ground design.


User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9914
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 9:43 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 7:39 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 5:08 pm
Why not refurbish ANZ? There is finite money with far higher priority areas in which to spend it
Well in that case, knock all the stadiums down. None of them are true necessities. Why even build WSS? Why host the Olympics? Why bid for the soccer World Cup?

Also cancel Melbourne Cup day and other such events, because there are higher priority areas to spend money.

Why build WestConnex? Not absolutely vitally necessary. Total acquisitions, development and operations costs for the Westconnex are estimated to be between 20 and 45 billion - plenty to sprinkle around on schools and hospitals.

Why did they rebuild the ICC at Darling Harbour? That and the surrounding facilities cost $3.4B - and the previous ICC was only as old as the SFS!

Yeah there is finite money, and if you want to take the argument that there is no capacity for non-essential infrastructure, then sure bury it in hospitals etc.

Or you realist that state and federal budgets cover many portfolios and that money can be allocated to more than just education and health.
Again not a fair comparison. The ICC was perfectly fine structurally but it’s competing with other convention sites globally. It’s not like the All Blacks or the NY Giants are going to base themselves out of Homebush.

I agree you can’t have the mindset that any non essential spending is wasteful but there has to be a reasonable argument to spend money. Homebush maybe. SFS, no.

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5786
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 9:58 pm

leaving the SFS as a hole in the ground would only hurt the chooks, the waratahs and Sydney FC.
I'm all for it..

goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 6449
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm

Post by goldcoast tiger » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 10:11 pm

Most people will never set foot in any of the big stadiums and there’s already enough of them anyway .
if the SCG members want another luxurious palace to Park their fat butts and drink their G&T,s, let them pay for it.,
Plenty of better things to get the dollars,
How come we can’t build a stadium that can last a decent length of time?

User avatar
hammertime
Member
Member
Posts: 2606
Joined: Sat 26 Sep, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Rozelle, NSW

Post by hammertime » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 10:22 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 5:08 pm
Why not refurbish ANZ? There is finite money with far higher priority areas in which to spend it

If the latest polls are accurate, Gladys is in a bit of strife. Perhaps voters are sick of public assets being flogged off and tolls being imposed on motorways. Could she be exiting at the same time as Shouty and his shower.
I think it's more that most voters are too dumb to distinguish federal and state. If people had a longer term memory of labors efforts in this state, or had a look at the fact their leader was just ejected, they should get nowhere near holding power in NSW.

As for the stadiums, Homebush doesn't need it. SFS probably does. But it's not a bad thing to be funding considering the number of boomers hitting retirement soon with a whole lot of time and money on their hands.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6192
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 11:33 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 9:43 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 7:39 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 5:08 pm
Why not refurbish ANZ? There is finite money with far higher priority areas in which to spend it
Well in that case, knock all the stadiums down. None of them are true necessities. Why even build WSS? Why host the Olympics? Why bid for the soccer World Cup?

Also cancel Melbourne Cup day and other such events, because there are higher priority areas to spend money.

Why build WestConnex? Not absolutely vitally necessary. Total acquisitions, development and operations costs for the Westconnex are estimated to be between 20 and 45 billion - plenty to sprinkle around on schools and hospitals.

Why did they rebuild the ICC at Darling Harbour? That and the surrounding facilities cost $3.4B - and the previous ICC was only as old as the SFS!

Yeah there is finite money, and if you want to take the argument that there is no capacity for non-essential infrastructure, then sure bury it in hospitals etc.

Or you realist that state and federal budgets cover many portfolios and that money can be allocated to more than just education and health.
Again not a fair comparison. The ICC was perfectly fine structurally but it’s competing with other convention sites globally. It’s not like the All Blacks or the NY Giants are going to base themselves out of Homebush.

I agree you can’t have the mindset that any non essential spending is wasteful but there has to be a reasonable argument to spend money. Homebush maybe. SFS, no.
Fair enough, and if it came down to choosing one or another, I agree with you that Homebush is superior argument.

But also these stadiums do compete with others, they compete for all the various clubs that Sydney hosts. Proof in pudding - Tigers have played home games at them all at one time or another, depending on the deal offered.

Ideally IMO you could have a master cutting-edge stadium that all clubs in Sydney use all the time, and it's constantly in use and full. Homebush should fit that bill due to its size and central location. I loved the SFS but it was built when Homebush didn't exist and Parra Stadium only held 27K. I'm not against it being redone, but it's the weakest argument IMO when WSS is not far off being finished.

In fact they could hold off SFS, knock down ANZ and rebuild, play existing games out of SFS, then knock down (or retain) SFS when new ANZ is up and running.

"Home grounds" are dandy but personally I think that's a thing of the past for Sydney teams, because already many play at the same venue.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6192
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 04 Dec, 2018 11:39 pm

One other point - has anyone costed the price reduction of the State Govt's new policy to abandon other Sydney suburban grounds in favour of only developing the big 3 stadiums as central assets?

How much money saved there over time?

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9914
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Wed 05 Dec, 2018 11:24 am

jirskyr wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 11:33 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 9:43 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 7:39 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 5:08 pm
Why not refurbish ANZ? There is finite money with far higher priority areas in which to spend it
Well in that case, knock all the stadiums down. None of them are true necessities. Why even build WSS? Why host the Olympics? Why bid for the soccer World Cup?

Also cancel Melbourne Cup day and other such events, because there are higher priority areas to spend money.

Why build WestConnex? Not absolutely vitally necessary. Total acquisitions, development and operations costs for the Westconnex are estimated to be between 20 and 45 billion - plenty to sprinkle around on schools and hospitals.

Why did they rebuild the ICC at Darling Harbour? That and the surrounding facilities cost $3.4B - and the previous ICC was only as old as the SFS!

Yeah there is finite money, and if you want to take the argument that there is no capacity for non-essential infrastructure, then sure bury it in hospitals etc.

Or you realist that state and federal budgets cover many portfolios and that money can be allocated to more than just education and health.
Again not a fair comparison. The ICC was perfectly fine structurally but it’s competing with other convention sites globally. It’s not like the All Blacks or the NY Giants are going to base themselves out of Homebush.

I agree you can’t have the mindset that any non essential spending is wasteful but there has to be a reasonable argument to spend money. Homebush maybe. SFS, no.
Fair enough, and if it came down to choosing one or another, I agree with you that Homebush is superior argument.

But also these stadiums do compete with others, they compete for all the various clubs that Sydney hosts. Proof in pudding - Tigers have played home games at them all at one time or another, depending on the deal offered.

Ideally IMO you could have a master cutting-edge stadium that all clubs in Sydney use all the time, and it's constantly in use and full. Homebush should fit that bill due to its size and central location. I loved the SFS but it was built when Homebush didn't exist and Parra Stadium only held 27K. I'm not against it being redone, but it's the weakest argument IMO when WSS is not far off being finished.

In fact they could hold off SFS, knock down ANZ and rebuild, play existing games out of SFS, then knock down (or retain) SFS when new ANZ is up and running.

"Home grounds" are dandy but personally I think that's a thing of the past for Sydney teams, because already many play at the same venue.
Which would have made a lot more sense. Getting rid of your two biggest grounds at the same time is just foolish.

Agree with the last point. And do doing just that was a major catalyst for the AFL to really boom.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6192
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 10 Dec, 2018 12:17 pm

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/reveal ... 50l5j.html
Revealed: Rival states offer $10 million to lure grand final away from Sydney
Roy Masters


10 December 2018 — 12:00am


The NRL can more than double the money it makes from the Sydney grand final and Origin matches if these big games are taken interstate, according to data which demonstrates the value of major sporting events to rival cities.

Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and New Zealand are willing to pay the NRL to move the big games away from Sydney because their economic impact justifies the outlay.
Stadium stoush: The future of Allianz Stadium is key to the NRL's long-term plans for the grand final.

Stadium stoush: The future of Allianz Stadium is key to the NRL's long-term plans for the grand final.Credit:Peter Rae

NSW Opposition Leader Michael Daley has declared he will not be bullied by NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg, who has said he will shift Sydney’s big games interstate if an incoming Labor government cancels plans for stadium rebuilds.

Daley clearly believes the NRL will continue to stage the grand final at ANZ Stadium because it is unaffected by his freeze on funding of a rebuild of Allianz Stadium at Moore Park. However, two figures demonstrate Greenberg is not making an idle threat.

Firstly, the NRL receives about $4 million from the NSW government to stage the grand final in Sydney. Greenberg’s office has already fielded bids from Queensland, Victoria and New Zealand to take the game to their capitals or country. Their initial offers are around $10m to shift the grand final away from Sydney for the first time.

Secondly, a Sydney grand final generates about $20m economic benefit to the NSW capital while a State of Origin match staged in Melbourne impacts $40m on the Victorian economy. In other words, if a state receives twice as much benefit in hotel, restaurant and transport use, as well as the jobs they create, then the government of that state can afford to pay the sport twice as much to win hosting rights to these big games.

An NRL grand final played at the MCG may not attract as much interest in Victoria as an Origin match but a Queensland government would lodge a high initial bid for the NRL decider, allowing Greenberg to auction the game.

Melbourne prides itself on being the sporting capital of the known universe and is willing to pay for the privilege of the title. Its citizens seem to consider it their civic duty to attend sporting events, particularly those held in the city for the first time. Remember 87,000 at the first Origin match at the MCG in 1994?

A quarter century later, Origin still draws that attendance. Based on recent Victorian data an estimated 30 per cent are interstate and international visitors who specifically travel to the event. This year’s match at the MCG remains the No.1 television program in 2018 with 3.4m plus viewers.
Related Article

The brand halo effect for a city which also boasts it is the capital of the country’s most attended sport (AFL) is not lost on Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas, who ironically is an NRL supporter.

There are also non-pecuniary benefits to a sport. The NRL is committed to expansion and promoting itself as a national code. It has already scheduled Origin matches in Perth and Adelaide, as well as transferring one entire NRL round next season to Brisbane’s Suncorp Stadium. Furthermore, it does not have to endure the annual anguish over Sydney’s notoriously fickle market and whether it will fill ANZ Stadium.

An interstate game can sell out in days. The house full sign to next year’s Origin match in Perth’s new stadium is close to going up and the game is six months away. However, the NRL is willing to accept $4m, or less than half what other states will bid, to retain the grand final and one Origin match in Sydney for the next 25 years, provided the NSW government honours a binding memorandum of understanding to proceed with stadium rebuilds.

The code is locked into a deal to stage the NRL grand final at Homebush for 2019 but can then take the best offer.

If an embarrassed NSW government countered with say $15m to beat off rival cities, then who would pay? The NSW taxpayer, the same guy who is being fed the bluster there is no long-term economic gain in state-of-the-art sporting facilities.

Detail is not available on the economic impact NRL major events have on the Queensland economy but last season’s other big games, including the Perth double-header, generated more than $80m in the rest of Australia. The Sydney Origin match and the 2018 grand final impacted half of that total.

The trend is clear. As rival capitals build new stadiums and the transport networks to integrate them, Sydney will lose major events in other codes as well. Rugby union has promised to play Bledisloe Cup matches in Sydney for the next 10 years and FFA has undertaken to stage its major games in the NSW capital for the next 12 years if stadium rebuilds proceed.

However, rugby league, which began in Sydney 110 years ago, will be the first to take its annual decider interstate, accepting the big fee while simultaneously promoting itself as a national code.

colmcd
Member
Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed 04 Jan, 2017 11:38 pm

Post by colmcd » Mon 10 Dec, 2018 12:25 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Wed 05 Dec, 2018 11:24 am
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 11:33 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 9:43 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 04 Dec, 2018 7:39 pm

Well in that case, knock all the stadiums down. None of them are true necessities. Why even build WSS? Why host the Olympics? Why bid for the soccer World Cup?

Also cancel Melbourne Cup day and other such events, because there are higher priority areas to spend money.

Why build WestConnex? Not absolutely vitally necessary. Total acquisitions, development and operations costs for the Westconnex are estimated to be between 20 and 45 billion - plenty to sprinkle around on schools and hospitals.

Why did they rebuild the ICC at Darling Harbour? That and the surrounding facilities cost $3.4B - and the previous ICC was only as old as the SFS!

Yeah there is finite money, and if you want to take the argument that there is no capacity for non-essential infrastructure, then sure bury it in hospitals etc.

Or you realist that state and federal budgets cover many portfolios and that money can be allocated to more than just education and health.
Again not a fair comparison. The ICC was perfectly fine structurally but it’s competing with other convention sites globally. It’s not like the All Blacks or the NY Giants are going to base themselves out of Homebush.

I agree you can’t have the mindset that any non essential spending is wasteful but there has to be a reasonable argument to spend money. Homebush maybe. SFS, no.
Fair enough, and if it came down to choosing one or another, I agree with you that Homebush is superior argument.

But also these stadiums do compete with others, they compete for all the various clubs that Sydney hosts. Proof in pudding - Tigers have played home games at them all at one time or another, depending on the deal offered.

Ideally IMO you could have a master cutting-edge stadium that all clubs in Sydney use all the time, and it's constantly in use and full. Homebush should fit that bill due to its size and central location. I loved the SFS but it was built when Homebush didn't exist and Parra Stadium only held 27K. I'm not against it being redone, but it's the weakest argument IMO when WSS is not far off being finished.

In fact they could hold off SFS, knock down ANZ and rebuild, play existing games out of SFS, then knock down (or retain) SFS when new ANZ is up and running.

"Home grounds" are dandy but personally I think that's a thing of the past for Sydney teams, because already many play at the same venue.
Which would have made a lot more sense. Getting rid of your two biggest grounds at the same time is just foolish.

Agree with the last point. And do doing just that was a major catalyst for the AFL to really boom.
^ Yoss, just so well said.
Why on earth are we planning to rebuild 2 stadiums and do it at once!

Todd don't get political, especially when you turn and back what may be a loosing side.

Post Reply