new stadium capacity?

[free at last]

I've been debating with my mates on what will be the ideal seating capacity, for the new Perth stadium.I reckon 70 to 75,000.I just read that Barnett is suggesting around 60,000 seems a bit short sighted to me.Burswood appears to be the favoured site and rightly so,great location and much more.Thoughts.

 

[prattsta]

As long as the capacity can be increased simply and cheaply (relatively speaking) at a later point I reckon 60-65k will be fine initially.

 

[Kram]

60,000 is plenty but it would be a good idea to have an option to be upgradeable to 65-70. Will probably we only filled a couple of times a year and stadiums look terrible with thousands of empty seats and it ruins the atmosphere.

 

[Nickos66]

60,000 is plenty but it would be a good idea to have an option to be upgradeable to 65-70. Will probably we only filled a couple of times a year and stadiums look terrible with thousands of empty seats and it ruins the atmosphere.

AAMI stadium being a prime example.

 

[Sman-21]

60-65 is perfect.
But must have ability to be upgraded to 80,000+ .

As Kram Said build it too big an it kills the atmosphere an ends up driving fans away instead of attracting them.

If it could magiclly be built an ready right now.
I doubt we would see many 60,000+ crowds in the next few years, even for finals i think we would just get close to 60,000.

An when they finally decide where to build it, they will take forever to actually make it, there will be a billion delays an it will take 3times longer an cost 3times more than expected.
If AFL keeps messing with the rules an ruining the game, we could struggle to get 40,000 by the time its finally built.

Dont forget it wont just be for AFL though im sure there will be some Union games Aus vs someone an they will draw big crowds.

If Burswood get the stadium.
Will be interesting to see if they do what they planned the first time the stadium talks started.
There plan was to turn it into the place to go for all sports.
Building a purpose built rectangle stadium for rugby/soccer
An also an indoor stadium for basketball,tennis concerts etc.

Think it would be great an would save the govt heaps in things like public transport etc.
As they just have to focus on 1 area, insttead of several diff areas throughout the state.

 

[greatgatsby]

60K capacity sounds about right to me. The Americans tend to have stadiums with maximum capacity of about 75-80K, despite surrounding populations that are often very large. The benchmark modern stadium, Meadowlands, is about 80K, despite servicing a population area in the tens of millions. A bit of competition for seats is way better than empty ones. A modern multi-purpose stadium with quality seating and amenities is the priority.

 

[prattsta]

Whatever it ends up being, WC and Fremantle will need to have a cap placed on their reserved seat memberships. If the capacity is 60-65k but there are still 15-20k seats available to the general public every week I think it's a pretty good balance.

Most weeks non-members should be able to just rock up on gameday, for the big games they'll need to book in advance.

 

[Clay Davis]

200,000

 

[Alfonz]

I think some are really overestimating how many people would go to the football each week if they made a massive stadium. Like has already been said, if places like NYC only have 80k stadiums (and 52k for the Yankees), then why do we need to go enormous?

Whether it be 60k or 75k, I wouldn't be surprised if our crowd figures actually dropped compared to a smaller stadium. Especially if we started losing and/or they don't decrease the ridiculous cost (e.g. compared to AFL or MCC memberships) of a season ticket.

Instead of 40k members buying a season ticket because they had to in order to go ... you'd find that might drop a fair % in terms of season ticket holders, a few thousand Eagles supporters wouldn't buy Freo memberships, and many would just make a decision week-to-week or buy smaller 3 or 5 game packages. If we were losing or it was bad weather, we could quickly drop to crowds around 30k, which would be horrendous in a 75k stadium. I guess I'm not factoring in how many extra people would decide to go compared with Subiaco because it was a better stadium.

There might be some growth in our supporter base with time, but I don't think it will be exponential and it will be a very, very long time before we have anything close to approaching 50-60k people who genuinely want to go every week.

I think 60k might be about right when you consider WC's supporter base, but still too big for us. The main priority is to build a quality modern stadium with good viewing/seating/amenities. Building it at 55-60k instead of 75-80k might make it easier/cheaper to do this.

 

[yakamoto]

I hear that once you get above 50-60000 capacity it costs about $10000 for each additional seat. Takes a long time to get that back if such seats are occupied once or twice a year. Even if you argue that you don't need to get the money back there are probably better ways to spend the additional dollars.

 

[moomba75]

I talk to a lot of families who would like to be able to just rock up to the games. I think 60 thou sounds a bit small for long term. I reckon go 70,000. I have seen plenty of footy matches all over australia, even at the G when 20,000 are there for Kangaroos games.

I know why they wanna build it at 60, ooo max. So they can try to retain members.

I would rather be able to rock up on the day. Why do I wanna pad some Ceos bonus by joining up if dont need to? Going to footy at Subi a lot of the fun is taken out of going to that place.

I would think too that Eagle memberships would certainly go up and down according to how their going. Our membership should stay steady cos were used to lean years and still go the footy.

 

[yakamoto]

A couple of additional thoughts:
If the demographic where I sit is representative the AFL has a bit of a problem for the future with regard to oval capacity. In my area there are very few children. Maybe it's just oldies and yuppies who can afford the seat prices. But it looks like a large proportion of football following children are going to grow up without experiencig AFL games live. This could impact on crowd numbers down the track. Perhaps a large stadium with more affordable seats might mitigate this potential problem.
A problem presently encountered is the infiltration of the regular seat holding population by bogans who slop beer everywhere, swear continually, and abuse MJ and all things Fremantle. This could be easily solved at the new oval by creating a standing room area where such types could be corralled. Seats could only be occupied by the designated seat holder under this system.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

60ish k, with the option to upgrade to the new Sardine Seating hybrid technology.

 

[Admiral Byng]

As long as the capacity can be increased simply and cheaply (relatively speaking) at a later point I reckon 60-65k will be fine initially.

Exactly.

As long as we don't make the same mistake as they did in Melbourne with their new rectangular stadium. That was built with foundations of a 55,000 seater but built to 30,000 initially. Then they forgot to tell the bloke who designed the roof. The roof is so fancy and expensive they are pretty much locked in now to the smaller capacity. We just need to avoid that particular mistake.

 

[free at last]

does anyone know what the ETHIAD'S seating capacity is?

 

[Admiral Byng]

does anyone know what the ETHIAD'S seating capacity is?

About 55,000 I think.

 

[free at last]

i guess the 60,000 would be just about on the money then ,considering the dome is around 55,000.

 

[peppy la pew]

I don't give a monkeys what the capacity it is,

Just build the ****ing thing, two faced slimy politicians

 

[Scotland]

There's no real need for 70k or 80k for a city the size of Perth - there's no guarantee an 80k stadium would even be filled for derbies every year.

What I'd like to know is what are the design and cost implications of moving from say 60k to 80k and what are the implications on the atmosphere in the ground when there are 30-40k people there.

If the stands have to move back a few metres to accommodate 20k more fans the ground would become more open and would lose atmosphere with smaller crowds. If there is the possibility of having say a small 10k upper deck then that's something that should be looked into.

 

[Admiral Byng]

There's no real need for 70k or 80k for a city the size of Perth - there's no guarantee an 80k stadium would even be filled for derbies every year.

What I'd like to know is what are the design and cost implications of moving from say 60k to 80k and what are the implications on the atmosphere in the ground when there are 30-40k people there.

If the stands have to move back a few metres to accommodate 20k more fans the ground would become more open and would lose atmosphere with smaller crowds. If there is the possibility of having say a small 10k upper deck then that's something that should be looked into.

My best guess would be something along the lines of a three tier main grandstand along the wing, and two tiers around the rest of the ground. But the two tier sections should be built strong enough to support a third tier if required. The expansion capacity would be a matter of adding the extra tier without the need to demolish the existing structure.

 

[basashi]

Whatever it ends up being, WC and Fremantle will need to have a cap placed on their reserved seat memberships. If the capacity is 60-65k but there are still 15-20k seats available to the general public every week I think it's a pretty good balance.

Most weeks non-members should be able to just rock up on gameday, for the big games they'll need to book in advance.

But would it? If a 60k seat stadium was available tomorrow, West Coast would still have a waiting list for membership. You certainly wouldn't have 15 -20k seats left for the public.

 

[basashi]

There's no real need for 70k or 80k for a city the size of Perth - there's no guarantee an 80k stadium would even be filled for derbies every year.

What I'd like to know is what are the design and cost implications of moving from say 60k to 80k and what are the implications on the atmosphere in the ground when there are 30-40k people there.

If the stands have to move back a few metres to accommodate 20k more fans the ground would become more open and would lose atmosphere with smaller crowds. If there is the possibility of having say a small 10k upper deck then that's something that should be looked into.

At the moment, the market in WA is horribly underdone and it is going to cost us in the long run.

If you look at seats available per 1000 residents per week:
Melbourne 85
Adelaide 39
Perth 25

That is the reason why nearly every high school kid in Melbourne has been to the footy.
It is the reason why the majority of Perth high school kids have never been and will never go.
It is the reason why you can go to the footy for 20 bucks in Melbourne.

In small markets like Australia, you need a high percentage of the population to be followers - unlike the US where the cities and regions are so populous that you only need a small percentage of followers. They can get away with relatively small stadiums. Adult "followership" is founded on childhood and teenage attendance. WA footy administrators have firmly ditched the idea of childhood and teenage attendance. The implications for the long term are not good.

The future development options:
a 60k stadium brings us to 35 seats per 1000 residents per week.
an 80k stadium brings us to 47 seats per 1000 residents per week.
a 60k stadium plus a third team brings us to 53 seats per 1000 residents per week.

All of the options still leave as a long way behind Melbourne on a PER CAPITA basis. Not only in outright numbers but a LONG way behind PER CAPITA.

Going to the footy at Subi is

• expensive, compared to other states
• inconvenient, as facilities and access are very poor
• involves accepting an uncomfortable seat
• involves accepting poor viewing position from an unacceptably high % of seats

All of these things costs us attendees. If a decent stadium fixed any of those four, then more people would be likely to come. I think the AFL is keenly watching this from a distance and they are worried about the market penetration in WA.

Whichever way you look at it, for a population of 1.7 m and only 2 teams, 60k is not enough. If we had a 60k stadium, West coast would have50k members sitting on members seats and there wouldn't be enough seats for visitors and walkups. It would just be a simple progression of the current bad situation.

Whether it is the size of the stadium or the number of teams, something has to happen for the good of footy.

 

[Quokka]

Like most people I'd be happy with 60k with expansion planned into it but a lot of how successful it will be imo is all the stuff outside the ground. I'm not over that way much and so I dont really know how much is there already apart from burswood itself but parking, public transport, pubs and places to eat all add to the day and encourage people to come back.

 

[CursoryMercenary]

60,000 is great. New stadiums are easier to expand too, I'd imagine within 15 years we will have a 70,000 seat stadium. Imagine having the 3rd largest football stadium in Australia it would be great.

 

[Sman-21]

The way things get built here it will take 15 years for them to finish the thing