Brisbane's Gabba not to be rebuilt!

[Cunnington Cartel]

Lions back 70k-seat Brisbane stadium plan in major step after $2.7bn Gabba rebuild falls apart

Cunnington Cartel if a 70k stadium does go ahead for the Lions, do you think they'd be able to fill it out by the 2040s with a growing waiting list to justify a 2nd Brisbane team for future expansion?

I have no clue as to whether they could achieve that but with a capacity that big potentially, the AFL would surely be keen for 1 game per week there.

A 70k venue could be awesome for the Lions. As you know, it was only a few years back when the Lions were regularly getting attendances of sub-20k. Being a good team that’s still in the process of drafting high-end talent through F/S selections, this will hopefully give the Lions a sustained period of success to build a bigger and more loyal fanbase that will front up, even when they have their next period down the bottom of the ladder. If this eventuates then a 70k venue could facilitate them in becoming a powerful club over the next decade.

My thoughts differ a bit from yours. I believe that a venue of that size might be an impediment towards a future Brisbane 2 club. You’d have to say that with the exception of derbies, most Brisbane 2 games would be guaranteed to run at a loss with less than 50% capacity. Also, if a decent percentage of Lions supporters become fickle with attending during a performance downturn, and they are rarely getting close to filling that 70k venue, then it would make it near impossible to justify the addition of a new team for the city.

I guess the design might cater for a 10-15k capacity reduction post-Olympics, although that level of extravagance and waste for a two-week event seems unlikely in the current climate.

 

[dave10]

If it was a 50k stadium I think that could be a different story in the timeframe we're talking, but the proposed 70k is a fair jump.

They could build a 50,000 seater with ~20,000 temporary build capacity for major events. The city does need, I suspect anyway, a bigger circular stadium to cater for growth if AFL, cricket and then there’s other usage ideas like major concerts (eg: Pink etc).

 

[Aussie in exile]

Lions back 70k-seat Brisbane stadium plan in major step after $2.7bn Gabba rebuild falls apart

Cunnington Cartel if a 70k stadium does go ahead for the Lions, do you think they'd be able to fill it out by the 2040s with a growing waiting list to justify a 2nd Brisbane team for future expansion?

I have no clue as to whether they could achieve that but with a capacity that big potentially, the AFL would surely be keen for 1 game per week there.

If we're honest the Lions have no other option than to back it and have no other option to play at the Gabba in the meantime.
We are probably looking at a cost of close to $4 billion in the end.

 

[Walshawk]

Let’s not get carried away. Everyone was rapt with a new 50k Gabba. So, surely a 50k Olympic stadium at Victoria Park is the go. It will be 53k - 55k post OGs, and even higher for concerts. Pushing for 70k just makes it unlikely to ever gain any traction. It is all about reducing costs.

 

[GCS in 11]

Let’s not get carried away. Everyone was rapt with a new 50k Gabba. So, surely a 50k Olympic stadium at Victoria Park is the go. It will be 53k - 55k post OGs, and even higher for concerts. Pushing for 70k just makes it unlikely to ever gain any traction. It is all about reducing costs.

A 70k stadium at Victoria Park will cost less than 50k at the Gabba. The Gabba has astronomically high demolition and site constraint costs. You’d be looking at around a $2B spend for 70k instead of $2.7B for 50k.

I think probably 60K at Vic Park for a bit less than thought will likely get the go ahead, but this is the reducing costs option by far.

EDIT: And if you add in the Brisbane Live Arena to the Vic Park Precinct, that goes from about $2.5B to $1B. Building it on top of Roma St is even more costly than trying to build something at the Gabba site. They can save around $2 Billion in total just by building them both on a clean site at Vic Park, with a bigger stadium capacity.

 

[M Malice]

Nice graphics and interactivity >
Archipelago Interactive – Brisbane BOLD

 

[threenewpadlocks]

A 70k stadium at Victoria Park will cost less than 50k at the Gabba. The Gabba has astronomically high demolition and site constraint costs. You’d be looking at around a $2B spend for 70k instead of $2.7B for 50k.

I think probably 60K at Vic Park for a bit less than thought will likely get the go ahead, but this is the reducing costs option by far.

EDIT: And if you add in the Brisbane Live Arena to the Vic Park Precinct, that goes from about $2.5B to $1B. Building it on top of Roma St is even more costly than trying to build something at the Gabba site. They can save around $2 Billion in total just by building them both on a clean site at Vic Park, with a bigger stadium capacity.

I think it's more a bigger stadium is more expensive to operate while empty seats means that tickets and memberships will have to be cheap because there's no limitation of supply to push prices up.

 

[GCS in 11]

I think it's more a bigger stadium is more expensive to operate while empty seats means that tickets and memberships will have to be cheap because there's no limitation of supply to push prices up.

While that is true, I think specifically for Brisbane and AFL in Queensland, it’s better to drive accessibility in the short run than profits to grow the game here.

The Lions are approaching 60,000 members rapidly, in 9 years time when they would move into a new stadium that could be likely closer to 80,000 (or more). I think it’s better to future proof the stadium and take the hit on the short term profit margin that a 50,000 would generate immediately, for the benefit of being able to give more fans access to the games. And then in time, it’ll generate a higher total profit anyways with the Lions growth.

I agree 70k is large and maybe 60-65k would be more suitable, but 50k to me just seems way too small. 10 years into the lifespan of the new stadium would be 18 years away from now and the Lions would have already outgrown the stadium size nearly.

 

[Coolangatta]

While that is true, I think specifically for Brisbane and AFL in Queensland, it’s better to drive accessibility in the short run than profits to grow the game here.

The Lions are approaching 60,000 members rapidly, in 9 years time when they would move into a new stadium that could be likely closer to 80,000 (or more). I think it’s better to future proof the stadium and take the hit on the short term profit margin that a 50,000 would generate immediately, for the benefit of being able to give more fans access to the games. And then in time, it’ll generate a higher total profit anyways with the Lions growth.

I agree 70k is large and maybe 60-65k would be more suitable, but 50k to me just seems way too small. 10 years into the lifespan of the new stadium would be 18 years away from now and the Lions would have already outgrown the stadium size nearly.

Agreed. If you want Brisbane to stay a one city team, then the stadium's gotta be 70k. At 50 or even 60k there's gonna be too many Lions members who can't get access to games, although their growth may very well slow or decline if they don't have sustained success, which they won't. But they've been making inroads and capping the Gabba at 50k will be as short sighted as making Optus 60k, which really should've been 80k as a minimum given how big the Eagles are.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

$20,000 to $25,000 per seat is about the average cost to build a stadium in Oz given a bit of CPI type adjustments and that it probably wont start until 2026. However a greenfield site should be cheaper than a knockdown and rebuild stadium.

Adelaide Oval between 2011 and the first game 2014 cost $520m from the state government + $30m from the feds + $5m from the AFL. The feds money was all spent by 2017 as there was$18m for car park infrastructure and $12m for beautification of the gardens and parklands surrounding AO.

Under the Adelaide Oval Management Act, the Stadium Management Authority could spend the full $535m by 31st December 2019. The Auditor General produced a 6 monthly report, auditing the spending, up to 31st December 2019 and the last $49k of funding, was spent in December 2019.

However $85m was to payout the SACA loan and lease and the western stand, as they had spent $109m on build it between 2009 and 2010, and their loan with Westpac was $85m. That stand had 14,000 seats, there were some minor upgrades from the redevelopment.

So $450m from the state government was spent on a knockdown the old stands and providing 36,000 new seats + $30m from the feds, and $5m from AFL, means those 36,000 new seats effectively cost $13,500 per seat for 2012 and 2014 costs.

AO capacity is 50,000 seats + 3,500 standing on the hill.

Perth stadium cost is always quoted as $1.6bil, but that isn't the actual cost of construction. I wrote recently that it included railway ugrades, road up grades, cost of the bridge and remediation works to the Burswood dump which took the cost from $1bil to $1,6bil.

I was partly wrong. The $1.6bil includes the capital cost of building it by private contractors, the stadium was a PPP with the private contractors being paid lump sum + interest every year and it included the cost paid to operate the stadium for 25 years, plus the railway infrastructure.

From a 2015 Perth Stadium Fact sheet on the PPP between the state government and private consortium. DBFM = Design Build Finance Maintain.


This second PDP was approved by Government in December 2012, and was based on rail and bus capacity for 50,000 patrons (or around 83% of a 60,000 crowd) to leave by public transport within an hour of an event.

The Asset Investment Budget for the PTA outlined in the Transport PDP totals $358.6 million. This approved budget comprises:

• Stadium Rail and Bus Station, the Swan River Pedestrian Bridge and associated bus stands, and some road and bridge works – $339.2 million ($298.0 million at July 2012 plus $41.2 million escalation)
• PTA Project Management – $19.4 million.

The DBFM procurement model was identified as the best model to balance the control of project cost and risk with the achievement of project objectives, and the structure most likely to maximise value for money outcomes for the State. By including a 25 year facilities maintenance period in conjunction with a design and construct contract, the successful consortium has very strong incentives for whole-of-life cost considerations (for building systems such as fire, security, ICT backbone, lighting and lifts) as well as quality service outcomes (for services such as security, cleaning and waste management).

Part 4: Public Sector Comparator ​

A Public Sector Comparator has been used to determine the value for money from the DBFM procurement model.

The Public Sector Comparator for the DBFM project is a comprehensive document that calculates the risk adjusted cost to design, construct, partially finance and maintain the same infrastructure included in the DBFM scope of works and services, if undertaken by government agencies using traditional design, construct, and maintain procurement processes. This Public Sector Comparator was developed by the State Project Team in collaboration with its commercial advisor PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), supported by the State’s Quantity Surveyor and Facilities Management consultants.

The value of this Public Sector Comparator, as published in the Project Summary, is:

• Capital - $897.3 million (comprising $813.0 million construction sum plus $84.3 million capital risks)
• Operating - $639.6 million (comprising $554.5 million facilities maintenance and $85.0 million operating risks)

TOTAL Public Sector Comparator - $1.536 billion (net present cost in August 2014 dollars)

It has been developed broadly in accordance with National PPP Guidelines and additional State Policy guidance for Western Australian PPP projects prepared by Treasury.

The estimated cash flows (over the same period as the DBFM contract) are discounted in accordance with the National PPP guidelines to obtain the net present cost (NPC) of the Public Sector Comparator. The same approach is used to develop a NPC for the DBFM cash flows. Given the Westadium DBFM contract value is $1.212 billion, by utilising this DBFM procurement model, there is an estimated saving of around $324 million (or 21%) over the life of the DBFM contract. This represents outstanding value for money from the DBFM procurement strategy.

From a 2015 stadium document.


There was a $60m blow out in capital cost of building the actual stadium as well as increased costs for the pedestrian bridge and transport costs. If you add the 25 year maintenance contract you get $0.317.9bil + $1.373bil = $1.691bil


But $955mil for 60,000 seats = approx $16,000 per seat for costs between 2014-17.

From page 403 of The WA governments
Special Inquiry into
Government Programs and Projects
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 1 - FEBRUARY 2018

As at October 2017, the revised cost to complete the stadium and its associated transport and pedestrian
infrastructure is $955.4 million10 and $418.2 million11 respectively, totalling $1.37 billion.

This is an overall increase on the budget of $96.6 million or approximately 10 per cent of the proposed total cost. Compared to
the initial costs announced by the Premier in 2010, these final costs represent an increase of 37 per cent.
With the stadium’s first official event scheduled for 21 January 2018, the project will be delivered ahead of the originally projected completion date of March 2018.


10 Perth Stadium Steering Committee, Meeting Agenda, Report to Government, (September 2017), 99.
11 Public Transport Authority, response to Special Inquiry questions on notice, received 27 September 2017, 3.

Sydney Football Stadium or Alliance Stadium next to the SCG was a knockdown and rebuild like AO, not a greenfield site like Perth Stadium or the proposed Victoria Park in Brisbane.

Lendlease won the contract and they advised the government they could do the knockdown and rebuild for $729m. However near the end of the knockdown they pulled out saying the cant build it for that and they had signed a fixed price contract. John Holland took over and completed it and the final cost all up was $828m for 42,500 seats = $19,500 per seat for 2020-2022 costs.

Western Sydney Stadium was a knock down of Parramatta stadium and a rebuild between 2017 and 2019. Total cost was $360m for 30,000 seats = $12,000 per seat for 2017-2019 costs.

So a 60k stadium on Victoria Park greenfield site will probably cost around $1.2bil to $1.5bil. A lot less than the $2.7bil Gabba upgrade and a hell of a lot less traffic problems, compared to a 4 year knockdown and rebuild of the Gabba.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

While that is true, I think specifically for Brisbane and AFL in Queensland, it’s better to drive accessibility in the short run than profits to grow the game here.

The Lions are approaching 60,000 members rapidly, in 9 years time when they would move into a new stadium that could be likely closer to 80,000 (or more). I think it’s better to future proof the stadium and take the hit on the short term profit margin that a 50,000 would generate immediately, for the benefit of being able to give more fans access to the games. And then in time, it’ll generate a higher total profit anyways with the Lions growth.

I agree 70k is large and maybe 60-65k would be more suitable, but 50k to me just seems way too small. 10 years into the lifespan of the new stadium would be 18 years away from now and the Lions would have already outgrown the stadium size nearly.

But there's no particular evidence that Brisbane's popularity will grow that quickly, rather than just being a continued slow burn. Attendances still haven't yet recovered to the period immediately after the four grand finals, even as this year was also a grand final year and a few years of being a winning team with a very strong home record. That's coming up 20 years ago. I doubt that attendances (not memberships, which outgrow the pace in growth in attendances in the 21st century) but actual demand for bums in seats gets to beyond 50k in 20 years time, given the evidence of the last 20 years.

I find it far more likely that 25,000 people looking ridiculous sitting in a 70,000 seat stadium in 10 years time if Brisbane have a couple of losing seasons in a row in a home game vs. Fremantle, St. Kilda or Tasmania or whoever, rather than suposed 80,000 members all demanding to go to every home game. If that were true, the current 60,000 members would ensure that the 42,000 seat stadium gets close to selling out ever game, rather than just averaging 33k.

 

[GCS in 11]

But there's no particular evidence that Brisbane's popularity will grow that quickly, rather than just being a continued slow burn. Attendances still haven't yet recovered to the period immediately after the four grand finals, even as this year was also a grand final year and a few years of being a winning team with a very strong home record. That's coming up 20 years ago. I doubt that attendances (not memberships, which outgrow the pace in growth in attendances in the 21st century) but actual demand for bums in seats gets to beyond 50k in 20 years time, given the evidence of the last 20 years.

I find it far more likely that 25,000 people looking ridiculous sitting in a 70,000 seat stadium in 10 years time if Brisbane have a couple of losing seasons in a row in a home game vs. Fremantle, St. Kilda or Tasmania or whoever, rather than suposed 80,000 members all demanding to go to every home game. If that were true, the current 60,000 members would ensure that the 42,000 seat stadium gets close to selling out ever game, rather than just averaging 33k.

The Gabba’s maximum stadium capacity right now is 36k, not 42,000. There were 6 sellouts last year, this year there’s a chance every game is a sellout. Their opening round game had the last tickets sold for $220 under Ticketmaster dynamic pricing (which while good for the club I hate for fans). They are 8000 members ahead of the same time last year.

They would be averaging 40,000+ in a 50,000 stadium this year. In 9 years time and with the growth of the city of Brisbane, that potential will be much higher.

Yes they’ll have down years again, but overall they need a much larger stadium to grow, and one that will service them for the next 30 years before there’s another opportunity to expand the stadium.

 

[Aussie in exile]

While that is true, I think specifically for Brisbane and AFL in Queensland, it’s better to drive accessibility in the short run than profits to grow the game here.

The Lions are approaching 60,000 members rapidly, in 9 years time when they would move into a new stadium that could be likely closer to 80,000 (or more). I think it’s better to future proof the stadium and take the hit on the short term profit margin that a 50,000 would generate immediately, for the benefit of being able to give more fans access to the games. And then in time, it’ll generate a higher total profit anyways with the Lions growth.

I agree 70k is large and maybe 60-65k would be more suitable, but 50k to me just seems way too small. 10 years into the lifespan of the new stadium would be 18 years away from now and the Lions would have already outgrown the stadium size nearly.

70k is large and generally this new builds go over budget.
I suspect that IF the new build look like going over budget a compromise will be found where the capacity is around 60k

 

[Professor Knowall]

70k is large and generally this new builds go over budget.
I suspect that IF the new build look like going over budget a compromise will be found where the capacity is around 60k

Regardless of any budget considerations, I think 60k capacity is about right - maybe, like Perth Stadium, it can be designed for future expansion if needed.

 

[GCS in 11]

The Olympic review seems to have leaked, it is recommending the Gabba rebuild be scrapped in favour of a 50,000 seat stadium being built at VIC Park instead!!



We will find out more tomorrow when the review is fully revealed.

 

[kranger]

And the Victoria Park Stadium is dead already:

New direction for Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games sports venues has community sport at its heart

Statement by the government on which recommendations it accepts or rejects:

• Miles Government accepts 27 of 30 recommendations from the independent Sport Venue Review for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
• Go ahead for new Brisbane Arena in a different location at Roma St precinct.
• Upgrades planned for the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre (QSAC) and Suncorp Stadium, subject to due diligence and consultation with games partners.
• Exploring legacy transport opportunities to link QSAC, QEII hospital, and Griffith University with connected precincts in the city.
• Proposed new stadium for Victoria Park ruled out.
• Gabba rebuild will not proceed.

 

[The Educator]

Hopefully Cricket Australia start depriving Brisbane of tests

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Hopefully Cricket Australia start depriving Brisbane of tests

Similar that a BBL team may no longer be viable in the city without a much-improved stadium.

Lions could also threaten (if not realistic) further improving their Springfield base and playing some games there.

It's an own goal for the Qld government. Given that the Gabba has to have money spent on it, merely for maintenance, for a stadium that is less appealing than a new stadium would, it's weird that the new stadium just wasn't built.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Qld government have rejected knocking down the Gabba and have backed it staying as a long term venue and will do some redevelopment. From the premier's presser today, $500m buys a decent redevelopment.

$1b to spend on Suncorp and redeveloping the Gabba​

Mr Miles says they're still working on exactly how much will be spent, depending on the QSAC upgrades, but it will still leave in the order of $1 billion to spend between Suncorp and the Gabba - "roughly half-half".

 

[Rob]

Haha Brisbane are going for the jetstar Olympics....let's see how that works out for them.

$3.4 billion for a greenfields stadium seems utterly insane though.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Call me crazy, but given the importance and cost of the athletics stadium in hosting an Olympics, you would think this issue would have already been determined before they bid and at least before the bid was accepted.

Spending $1.6b on QSAC is insane.

That's politicians and the IOC for you.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I haven’t followed this too closely but $1.6bil at QSAC seems insane and will be the biggest white elephant this country has ever seen.
$3.4b at Greenfield, just crazy numbers. I wonder if they would’ve made any of that back by demolishing and selling off the GABBA but. Either way $3.4b is near impossible to justify

 

[weewilly]

QLD apart from Tassie has always been the most backward of the Australian states and once again they are proving that with the Olympic venues stuff ups and we now the new Labor Premier (who will get the flick at the October election later in the year) is now saying that they don't have the money to build a new greenfield stadium and are just going to tart up Suncorp Stadium which will be no way a fit for purpose as an Olympic Main Venue because it is the wrong shape and size so they will now have to build a new Athletics Stadium as well and it looks s like these two projects will still cost $3 - 5 billion to do and looks like the Gabba will also get some sort of el cheapo upgrade as well

This should have been sorted out well before they won the bid!

.

 

[weewilly]

I haven’t followed this too closely but $1.6bil at QSAC seems insane and will be the biggest white elephant this country has ever seen.
$3.4b at Greenfield, just crazy numbers. I wonder if they would’ve made any of that back by demolishing and selling off the GABBA but. Either way $3.4b is near impossible to justify

I'm with you 100%!

QLD apart from Tassie has always been the most backward of the Australian states and once again they are proving that with the Olympic venues stuff ups and we now the new Labor Premier (who will get the flick at the October election later in the year) who is now saying that they don't have the money to build a new greenfield stadium and are just going to tart up Suncorp Stadium which will be no way a fit for purpose as an Olympic Main Venue because it is the wrong shape and size so they have to build a new Athletics Stadium as well and it looks s like these two projects will still cost $3 - 5 billion to do and it looks like the Gabba will maybe also get some sort of el cheapo upgrade as well

This should have been sorted out well before they won the bid!

 

[kalex6251]

the rugby league fix was always going to win .... hopefully the penny has dropped in afl HQ