Well, I was in the minority campaigning for the Perth Super stadium to built for half the cost (half the cost was infrastructure due to location.)Where were you at when Optus Stadium was bult, with the stadium and environs costing 1.2 billion Where were you when Adelaide Oval was rebuilt at taxpayer expense for half a billion dollars .
If you analyse the situation, which you're supposed to have some experience with then you'd realise that these were really good builds.
Basically you have large crowds every week at the stadium.
Compare this to the scattergun approach of NSW where they have tiny crowds playing at large stadiums.
W.A. footy was happy financially to stay at Subiaco. The government built the stadium before arranging tenure.AND the taxpayer will be pay the WAFC 11 million a year for the next 2 decades.
W.A. footy does not have tenure of the new stadium like it did with Subiaco.
Again it was a government decision for cricket not footy.Where were you including paying off SACA's debt .
Well I know for fact, that the new stadium has a management company and charge through the roof (it was a major stumbling block).handing management and the profits of the stadium over to the SANFL and WAFL for the next 40 years. The public gets almost no return on their money here.
That arrangement sees the best mitigation of costs possible. Footy takes a huge loss compared to the situation before at Subiaco.
One wonders if other sports are charged the $500,000 per game rent that the AFL reportedly has to pay.
I doubt it, because that equates to a crowd of 30,000.