TOPIC:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: Who cares 42 it is currently being built in the best location end of story!

agreed BH....Barney got a whole lot right and even more wrong but he was on the money with the Burswood site. Driving past it I've gotta admit it looks fantastic and is one of the first things visitors will see coming from the airport into the CBD.

BC so Langoulant was wrong was he?

Yep absolutely 100% wrong.

the recommendation he came up with got what it deserved - straight out the window.

Barnett can be knocked for a lot of things but giving the arse to the Subi plan and moving it to Burswood as others have said is the best thing he did , the product we have now is in a VASTLY superior location and is a VASTLY superior product than would could ever have been produced at a crap location like Subi.

If it is a choice between you and Langoulant who was better qualified to work out the appropriate site for the new stadium it most assuredly not you. I will also point out that Langoulant is far from a leftie.

The simple fact Langoulant unbelievably overlooked the best possible greenfields site in the City in Burswood for the quite laughable rebuild at the current Subiaco & Kitchener Park site would show he wasnt up to the task!

On the one hand we have BH and on the other side we have the former Under-secretary of the Treasury. Now who would be more qualified?

Seeing as I would have chosen the site where it is now almost completed rather than a site that can barely handle 40k now let alone an increase to 60k than BH is the preferred choice...and I would have come a whole lot cheaper too!

It is hard to be humble when you are perfect in every way.

Only a fool would suggest upgrading a stadium on its existing site to 60,000 when it can barely handle its current 40,000 capacity and with zero transport upgrades to accommodate the extra traffic!

Who suggested that they should upgrade Subiaco Oval? Most assuredly the Langoulant report did not suggest that Subiaco Oval should be upgraded.

I take it 42 (much like McGowan should) that you will never ever set foot inside the new Perth Stadium then (even if SD somehow make a GF in the next decade or 2) as you are so adamant that Langoulant was right in his misdirected judgement?!

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: Who cares 42 it is currently being built in the best location end of story!

agreed BH....Barney got a whole lot right and even more wrong but he was on the money with the Burswood site. Driving past it I've gotta admit it looks fantastic and is one of the first things visitors will see coming from the airport into the CBD.

BC so Langoulant was wrong was he?

Yep absolutely 100% wrong.

the recommendation he came up with got what it deserved - straight out the window.

Barnett can be knocked for a lot of things but giving the arse to the Subi plan and moving it to Burswood as others have said is the best thing he did , the product we have now is in a VASTLY superior location and is a VASTLY superior product than would could ever have been produced at a crap location like Subi.

If it is a choice between you and Langoulant who was better qualified to work out the appropriate site for the new stadium it most assuredly not you. I will also point out that Langoulant is far from a leftie.

Not necessarily, god knows how much they paid a self serving western suburbs patsy to come up with the facrical recsult he did, any half wit could of seen that Subi was a dead duck location. Langoulant and his ecpensive report are ancient history, rightfully forgotten and probably in the same bin as the Boston report..or should be ..most assuredly.

Burswood is the obvious location as part of a growing entertainment precinct. Subi was no good given Subi Council were under enormous pressure from their rate payers to restrict night events there, there were strict limits already in place on how many night events there could be and a curfew on finishing times. That's no way to get the joint paying for itself, it has to be in a location like Burswood so there are no restrictions on when and how long events can take place. As for parking, why on earth would you drive to an event with 60k people going, public transport is ideal for these situations and when the new bridge is done there'll be plenty who take the walk across from east perth, similar to the 10's of thousands who walk along the Yarra from Fed square to the G. This joint will be a massive asset to WA for decades to come.

And S42 if your not happy with how this has turned out, maybe you can drop $6k for a ticket to have a private meeting with Sneakers and his ministers to see if you can get things changed.

Senior Seagull wrote: Burswood is the obvious location as part of a growing entertainment precinct. Subi was no good given Subi Council were under enormous pressure from their rate payers to restrict night events there, there were strict limits already in place on how many night events there could be and a curfew on finishing times. That's no way to get the joint paying for itself, it has to be in a location like Burswood so there are no restrictions on when and how long events can take place. As for parking, why on earth would you drive to an event with 60k people going, public transport is ideal for these situations and when the new bridge is done there'll be plenty who take the walk across from east perth, similar to the 10's of thousands who walk along the Yarra from Fed square to the G. This joint will be a massive asset to WA for decades to come.

And S42 if your not happy with how this has turned out, maybe you can drop $6k for a ticket to have a private meeting with Sneakers and his ministers to see if you can get things changed.

Remarkably SS and BH I give more credit to the right of centre Langoulant that he was diligent in investigating the best placed for the new stadium. I am glad to see that there has been no questioning that the footings were going to cost $200 million to build the new stadium where it is currently being built.

No doubt they'll make that money back over time by the additional number of events that can be staged at the Burswood stadium compared to the Subi option. Having a 60k stadium in the middle of normal residential areas is ridiculous, the only residential at Burswood is high density apartments and townhouses and they are not across the road from the stadium as would be the case at Subi. Don't let your hatred of all things liberal blind you to the fact that, long term, Burswood is the best location for all reasons, cost, access, income potential etc etc etc.

Senior Seagull wrote: No doubt they'll make that money back over time by the additional number of events that can be staged at the Burswood stadium compared to the Subi option. Having a 60k stadium in the middle of normal residential areas is ridiculous, the only residential at Burswood is high density apartments and townhouses and they are not across the road from the stadium as would be the case at Subi. Don't let your hatred of all things liberal blind you to the fact that, long term, Burswood is the best location for all reasons, cost, access, income potential etc etc etc.

Let me out it as simply as I can. Langoulant (I.e. the person who wrote the report) is a Liberal. I DIDN'T WRITE the report. I didn't make the recommendation.

swan42 wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: No doubt they'll make that money back over time by the additional number of events that can be staged at the Burswood stadium compared to the Subi option. Having a 60k stadium in the middle of normal residential areas is ridiculous, the only residential at Burswood is high density apartments and townhouses and they are not across the road from the stadium as would be the case at Subi. Don't let your hatred of all things liberal blind you to the fact that, long term, Burswood is the best location for all reasons, cost, access, income potential etc etc etc.

Let me out it as simply as I can. Langoulant (I.e. the person who wrote the report) is a Liberal. I DIDN'T WRITE the report. I didn't make the recommendation.

Langoulant stuffed it up completely as Burswood was chosen and is the best location..end of story 42..get over it!

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: No doubt they'll make that money back over time by the additional number of events that can be staged at the Burswood stadium compared to the Subi option. Having a 60k stadium in the middle of normal residential areas is ridiculous, the only residential at Burswood is high density apartments and townhouses and they are not across the road from the stadium as would be the case at Subi. Don't let your hatred of all things liberal blind you to the fact that, long term, Burswood is the best location for all reasons, cost, access, income potential etc etc etc.

Let me out it as simply as I can. Langoulant (I.e. the person who wrote the report) is a Liberal. I DIDN'T WRITE the report. I didn't make the recommendation.

Langoulant stuffed it up completely as Burswood was chosen and is the best location..end of story 42..get over it!

BH with respect perhaps you might like to check out what this topic is about. I believe I have spoken to the topic by highlighting the hypocrisy of what Barnett did in scrapping the Langoulant recommendation.

Build a bridge and get over it Swan - just don't order it from Malaysia...lol