A new Canberra Stadium

[greeneyed]

Yeah, I just don’t think taking the Raiders away from Canberra is an election winner for the federal government. The NSW government isn’t interested in stadiums in Sydney. They’re not touching a 30,000 seat stadium (which is what we need) which will primarily benefit another jurisdiction.

Besides which, Queanbeyan is a really bad location for stadium for the region’s population. Transport links are terrible. Infrastructure in Queanbeyan is poor. Parking and traffic nightmares assured. It’s why the Raiders knew they had to move into Canberra in the first place.

[Seiffert82]

I agree. It'll be fine as long as the drip line covers the majority of the crowd and there's shelter from the wind.

If they are going with an enclosed stadium it will need a retractable roof, retractable pitch, or grow lights, all of which are prohibitively expensive.

Location is much more important. No matter how it's built it'll be a waste of money if it's built in Bruce or Epic.

Do you think people won't use the stadium if it's in Bruce, or EPIC (it won't be in EPIC)?

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

[Billy Walker]

Isn’t there an old quarry on Mugga Lane we could convert into a coliseum style stadium? Get everyone to park their teslas around the top of it and leave the headlights on the save $ on light towers.

[Badger17]

I agree. It'll be fine as long as the drip line covers the majority of the crowd and there's shelter from the wind.

If they are going with an enclosed stadium it will need a retractable roof, retractable pitch, or grow lights, all of which are prohibitively expensive.

Location is much more important. No matter how it's built it'll be a waste of money if it's built in Bruce or Epic.

Do you think people won't use the stadium if it's in Bruce, or EPIC (it won't be in EPIC)?

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

That's a strange way to frame the question.

Of course some people will use it, but it won't be anywhere near as beneficial for the community either economically or as an experience as it could have been if it was built in a better location and nothing will have been done to address the accessibility issues. Basically it'll be a white elephant.

Building in Bruce fails to address the biggest problems with the stadium, namely the lack of reliable transport links and entertainment options in the stadium precinct. Add to that the increased rent and operational costs associated with a new stadium and you'll end up in a situation where the cost of attending events at Bruce stadium will jump significantly for the customer, but there'll be little to no significant improvements to their gameday experience and accessibility to justify those increased costs.

It's all academic anyway as there's no political impetus to actually build the thing and the discussion bubbling below the surface is all about upgrading Manuka to attract a BBL and potentially AFL side. The NRL and Raiders would have to do something radical to change those circumstances, but they're too scared of the public backlash to even consider going down those routes.

[BJ]

Was interesting when Yvette Berry ACT Sports Minister was on ABC Radio with Ross Solly she said she was fighting for the new stadium to be built in her Belconnen electorate.

[greeneyed]

Was interesting when Yvette Berry ACT Sports Minister was on ABC Radio with Ross Solly she said she was fighting for the new stadium to be built in her Belconnen electorate.

Shouldn't she, as the Sports Minister, be fighting for it to be in the best location possible?

[Badger17]

Was interesting when Yvette Berry ACT Sports Minister was on ABC Radio with Ross Solly she said she was fighting for the new stadium to be built in her Belconnen electorate.

Shouldn't she, as the Sports Minister, be fighting for it to be in the best location possible?

The Belconnen town centre would be a much better outcome than Bruce or Epic.

Civic is a pipedream that's never going to happen, Continuing to flog that horse is just allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Belco or any of the other town centres would be a good compromise.

[BJ]

Was interesting when Yvette Berry ACT Sports Minister was on ABC Radio with Ross Solly she said she was fighting for the new stadium to be built in her Belconnen electorate.

Shouldn't she, as the Sports Minister, be fighting for it to be in the best location possible?

I was pretty shocked when he didn’t pull her up about it.

[reptar]

Minister for Sport or Against Sport?

[Raider Azz]

Admitting out loud to attempting a pork barrel certainly is an interesting choice

[Colk]

Admitting out loud to attempting a pork barrel certainly is an interesting choice

Haha well it didn’t work out for Stuart Ayres.

[Azza]

Was interesting when Yvette Berry ACT Sports Minister was on ABC Radio with Ross Solly she said she was fighting for the new stadium to be built in her Belconnen electorate.

Shouldn't she, as the Sports Minister, be fighting for it to be in the best location possible?

Molonglo, near the wetlands?

[Seiffert82]

I agree. It'll be fine as long as the drip line covers the majority of the crowd and there's shelter from the wind.

If they are going with an enclosed stadium it will need a retractable roof, retractable pitch, or grow lights, all of which are prohibitively expensive.

Location is much more important. No matter how it's built it'll be a waste of money if it's built in Bruce or Epic.

Do you think people won't use the stadium if it's in Bruce, or EPIC (it won't be in EPIC)?

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

That's a strange way to frame the question.

Of course some people will use it, but it won't be anywhere near as beneficial for the community either economically or as an experience as it could have been if it was built in a better location and nothing will have been done to address the accessibility issues. Basically it'll be a white elephant.

Building in Bruce fails to address the biggest problems with the stadium, namely the lack of reliable transport links and entertainment options in the stadium precinct. Add to that the increased rent and operational costs associated with a new stadium and you'll end up in a situation where the cost of attending events at Bruce stadium will jump significantly for the customer, but there'll be little to no significant improvements to their gameday experience and accessibility to justify those increased costs.

It's all academic anyway as there's no political impetus to actually build the thing and the discussion bubbling below the surface is all about upgrading Manuka to attract a BBL and potentially AFL side. The NRL and Raiders would have to do something radical to change those circumstances, but they're too scared of the public backlash to even consider going down those routes.

The stadium itself will yield an economic loss, irrespective of its location.

My position on this is pretty clear. I haven't seen a single objective study that articulates the real economic advantages of building a stadium in the city centre over one in Bruce - only people's personal opinions.

I've suggested the economic benefits of a world class convention centre in the city would be significantly higher than a stadium. Funnily enough the vast majority of football fans disagree (again with zero evidence). Big surprise.

The simple fact is, people will use a brand new stadium wherever it is. In greater numbers than the current stadium is used. It's also Canberra, so the stadium needs good parking facilities, road access and to be at a distance from residential areas.

Canberra's population will top 550,000 by the time a stadium is finalised and most of the population growth will be in North Canberra, Gungahlin and Belconnen. Make of that what you will.

[greeneyed]

The population growth is mostly in Gungahlin. And you also need to factor in Molonglo, which is to the south. South of Belconnen, granted.

I doubt a convention centre in Canberra is going to deliver positive economic benefits either, if the CBA is done properly. A new theatre won't and a new music venue won't. Small city is the reason.

Would a stadium have the best economic returns in Civic? Very likely, as the transport routes converge on it. And it has the best chances of attracting the biggest crowds, consistently.

[Badger17]

I agree. It'll be fine as long as the drip line covers the majority of the crowd and there's shelter from the wind.

If they are going with an enclosed stadium it will need a retractable roof, retractable pitch, or grow lights, all of which are prohibitively expensive.

Location is much more important. No matter how it's built it'll be a waste of money if it's built in Bruce or Epic.

Do you think people won't use the stadium if it's in Bruce, or EPIC (it won't be in EPIC)?

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

That's a strange way to frame the question.

Of course some people will use it, but it won't be anywhere near as beneficial for the community either economically or as an experience as it could have been if it was built in a better location and nothing will have been done to address the accessibility issues. Basically it'll be a white elephant.

Building in Bruce fails to address the biggest problems with the stadium, namely the lack of reliable transport links and entertainment options in the stadium precinct. Add to that the increased rent and operational costs associated with a new stadium and you'll end up in a situation where the cost of attending events at Bruce stadium will jump significantly for the customer, but there'll be little to no significant improvements to their gameday experience and accessibility to justify those increased costs.

It's all academic anyway as there's no political impetus to actually build the thing and the discussion bubbling below the surface is all about upgrading Manuka to attract a BBL and potentially AFL side. The NRL and Raiders would have to do something radical to change those circumstances, but they're too scared of the public backlash to even consider going down those routes.

The stadium itself will yield an economic loss, irrespective of its location.

My position on this is pretty clear. I haven't seen a single objective study that articulates the real economic advantages of building a stadium in the city centre over one in Bruce - only people's personal opinions.

I've suggested the economic benefits of a world class convention centre in the city would be significantly higher than a stadium. Funnily enough the vast majority of football fans disagree (again with zero evidence). Big surprise.

The simple fact is, people will use a brand new stadium wherever it is. In greater numbers than the current stadium is used. It's also Canberra, so the stadium needs good parking facilities, road access and to be at a distance from residential areas.

Canberra's population will top 550,000 by the time a stadium is finalised and most of the population growth will be in North Canberra, Gungahlin and Belconnen. Make of that what you will.

Again your framing is cynical at best, especially considering your plea for objectivity.

Of course the stadium is going to run at a loss, but that doesn't mean that economic concerns are irrelevant. You're also totally ignoring the potential impacts to the local economy more broadly. A well placed stadium can be huge for the local hospitality and retail industry.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the standard of evidence you'd need to change your mind is an independent academic study specifically into whether the stadium would produce better economic results if it was built in Civic over Bruce. I'm not even proposing Civic as an alternative, a Civic stadium is a pipedream.

Why are you pitting a convention centre against the stadium? It isn't an either or, that's just a false dichotomy.

I worked in the music and festival industry for years and I can categorically state that location and accessibility are huge when it comes to stadium/arena patronage. Convenience, cost, and experience is everything, especially when you're forced to compete with people having the ability to watch the same event from the comfort of their home. The days of new stadiums being built in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a giant carpark around them are gone for good reason.

[Seiffert82]

The population growth is mostly in Gungahlin. And you also need to factor in Molonglo, which is to the south. South of Belconnen, granted.

I doubt a convention centre in Canberra is going to deliver positive economic benefits either, if the CBA is done properly. A new theatre won't and a new music venue won't. Small city is the reason.

Would a stadium have the best economic returns in Civic? Very likely, as the transport routes converge on it. And it has the best chances of attracting the biggest crowds, consistently.

My population growth assumptions are based on the ACT governments 2022-2060 population growth forecasts.

I don't think public transport will have a huge bearing on crowd numbers. Most punters in Canberra will continue to drive to stadium events, like they do for everything else.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

[Seiffert82]

I agree. It'll be fine as long as the drip line covers the majority of the crowd and there's shelter from the wind.

If they are going with an enclosed stadium it will need a retractable roof, retractable pitch, or grow lights, all of which are prohibitively expensive.

Location is much more important. No matter how it's built it'll be a waste of money if it's built in Bruce or Epic.

Do you think people won't use the stadium if it's in Bruce, or EPIC (it won't be in EPIC)?

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

That's a strange way to frame the question.

Of course some people will use it, but it won't be anywhere near as beneficial for the community either economically or as an experience as it could have been if it was built in a better location and nothing will have been done to address the accessibility issues. Basically it'll be a white elephant.

Building in Bruce fails to address the biggest problems with the stadium, namely the lack of reliable transport links and entertainment options in the stadium precinct. Add to that the increased rent and operational costs associated with a new stadium and you'll end up in a situation where the cost of attending events at Bruce stadium will jump significantly for the customer, but there'll be little to no significant improvements to their gameday experience and accessibility to justify those increased costs.

It's all academic anyway as there's no political impetus to actually build the thing and the discussion bubbling below the surface is all about upgrading Manuka to attract a BBL and potentially AFL side. The NRL and Raiders would have to do something radical to change those circumstances, but they're too scared of the public backlash to even consider going down those routes.

The stadium itself will yield an economic loss, irrespective of its location.

My position on this is pretty clear. I haven't seen a single objective study that articulates the real economic advantages of building a stadium in the city centre over one in Bruce - only people's personal opinions.

I've suggested the economic benefits of a world class convention centre in the city would be significantly higher than a stadium. Funnily enough the vast majority of football fans disagree (again with zero evidence). Big surprise.

The simple fact is, people will use a brand new stadium wherever it is. In greater numbers than the current stadium is used. It's also Canberra, so the stadium needs good parking facilities, road access and to be at a distance from residential areas.

Canberra's population will top 550,000 by the time a stadium is finalised and most of the population growth will be in North Canberra, Gungahlin and Belconnen. Make of that what you will.

Again your framing is cynical at best, especially considering your plea for objectivity.

Of course the stadium is going to run at a loss, but that doesn't mean that economic concerns are irrelevant. You're also totally ignoring the potential impacts to the local economy more broadly. A well placed stadium can be huge for the local hospitality and retail industry.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the standard of evidence you'd need to change your mind is an independent academic study specifically into whether the stadium would produce better economic results if it was built in Civic over Bruce. I'm not even proposing Civic as an alternative, a Civic stadium is a pipedream.

Why are you pitting a convention centre against the stadium? It isn't an either or, that's just a false dichotomy.

I worked in the music and festival industry for years and I can categorically state that location and accessibility are huge when it comes to stadium/arena patronage. Convenience, cost, and experience is everything, especially when you're forced to compete with people having the ability to watch the same event from the comfort of their home. The days of new stadiums being built in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a giant carpark around them are gone for good reason.

Why is wanting an independent economic analysis on the benefits of a stadium vs convention centre a 'ridiculous' concept?

I've been through all of this many times. Putting economic feasibility aside, there is limited land in the city to host this type of infrastructure. It's one or the other.

If you think a stadium would be used as consistently as a convention and entertainment centre, then that's also a personal opinion that I certainly do not agree with and I think you'd struggle to find me an objective analysis that supports your view.

[gerg]

Do you think people won't use the stadium if it's in Bruce, or EPIC (it won't be in EPIC)?

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

That's a strange way to frame the question.

Of course some people will use it, but it won't be anywhere near as beneficial for the community either economically or as an experience as it could have been if it was built in a better location and nothing will have been done to address the accessibility issues. Basically it'll be a white elephant.

Building in Bruce fails to address the biggest problems with the stadium, namely the lack of reliable transport links and entertainment options in the stadium precinct. Add to that the increased rent and operational costs associated with a new stadium and you'll end up in a situation where the cost of attending events at Bruce stadium will jump significantly for the customer, but there'll be little to no significant improvements to their gameday experience and accessibility to justify those increased costs.

It's all academic anyway as there's no political impetus to actually build the thing and the discussion bubbling below the surface is all about upgrading Manuka to attract a BBL and potentially AFL side. The NRL and Raiders would have to do something radical to change those circumstances, but they're too scared of the public backlash to even consider going down those routes.

The stadium itself will yield an economic loss, irrespective of its location.

My position on this is pretty clear. I haven't seen a single objective study that articulates the real economic advantages of building a stadium in the city centre over one in Bruce - only people's personal opinions.

I've suggested the economic benefits of a world class convention centre in the city would be significantly higher than a stadium. Funnily enough the vast majority of football fans disagree (again with zero evidence). Big surprise.

The simple fact is, people will use a brand new stadium wherever it is. In greater numbers than the current stadium is used. It's also Canberra, so the stadium needs good parking facilities, road access and to be at a distance from residential areas.

Canberra's population will top 550,000 by the time a stadium is finalised and most of the population growth will be in North Canberra, Gungahlin and Belconnen. Make of that what you will.

Again your framing is cynical at best, especially considering your plea for objectivity.

Of course the stadium is going to run at a loss, but that doesn't mean that economic concerns are irrelevant. You're also totally ignoring the potential impacts to the local economy more broadly. A well placed stadium can be huge for the local hospitality and retail industry.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the standard of evidence you'd need to change your mind is an independent academic study specifically into whether the stadium would produce better economic results if it was built in Civic over Bruce. I'm not even proposing Civic as an alternative, a Civic stadium is a pipedream.

Why are you pitting a convention centre against the stadium? It isn't an either or, that's just a false dichotomy.

I worked in the music and festival industry for years and I can categorically state that location and accessibility are huge when it comes to stadium/arena patronage. Convenience, cost, and experience is everything, especially when you're forced to compete with people having the ability to watch the same event from the comfort of their home. The days of new stadiums being built in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a giant carpark around them are gone for good reason.

Why is wanting an independent economic analysis on the benefits of a stadium vs convention centre a 'ridiculous' concept?

I've been through all of this many times. Putting economic feasibility aside, there is limited land in the city to host this type of infrastructure. It's one or the other.

If you think a stadium would be used as consistently as a convention and entertainment centre, then that's also a personal opinion that I certainly do not agree with and I think you'd struggle to find me an objective analysis that supports your view.

Shirley one of the dozen or so government feasibility studies has investigated the (short and long term) economic differences between a city and suburban stadium?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Seiffert82]

That's a strange way to frame the question.

Of course some people will use it, but it won't be anywhere near as beneficial for the community either economically or as an experience as it could have been if it was built in a better location and nothing will have been done to address the accessibility issues. Basically it'll be a white elephant.

Building in Bruce fails to address the biggest problems with the stadium, namely the lack of reliable transport links and entertainment options in the stadium precinct. Add to that the increased rent and operational costs associated with a new stadium and you'll end up in a situation where the cost of attending events at Bruce stadium will jump significantly for the customer, but there'll be little to no significant improvements to their gameday experience and accessibility to justify those increased costs.

It's all academic anyway as there's no political impetus to actually build the thing and the discussion bubbling below the surface is all about upgrading Manuka to attract a BBL and potentially AFL side. The NRL and Raiders would have to do something radical to change those circumstances, but they're too scared of the public backlash to even consider going down those routes.

The stadium itself will yield an economic loss, irrespective of its location.

My position on this is pretty clear. I haven't seen a single objective study that articulates the real economic advantages of building a stadium in the city centre over one in Bruce - only people's personal opinions.

I've suggested the economic benefits of a world class convention centre in the city would be significantly higher than a stadium. Funnily enough the vast majority of football fans disagree (again with zero evidence). Big surprise.

The simple fact is, people will use a brand new stadium wherever it is. In greater numbers than the current stadium is used. It's also Canberra, so the stadium needs good parking facilities, road access and to be at a distance from residential areas.

Canberra's population will top 550,000 by the time a stadium is finalised and most of the population growth will be in North Canberra, Gungahlin and Belconnen. Make of that what you will.

Again your framing is cynical at best, especially considering your plea for objectivity.

Of course the stadium is going to run at a loss, but that doesn't mean that economic concerns are irrelevant. You're also totally ignoring the potential impacts to the local economy more broadly. A well placed stadium can be huge for the local hospitality and retail industry.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the standard of evidence you'd need to change your mind is an independent academic study specifically into whether the stadium would produce better economic results if it was built in Civic over Bruce. I'm not even proposing Civic as an alternative, a Civic stadium is a pipedream.

Why are you pitting a convention centre against the stadium? It isn't an either or, that's just a false dichotomy.

I worked in the music and festival industry for years and I can categorically state that location and accessibility are huge when it comes to stadium/arena patronage. Convenience, cost, and experience is everything, especially when you're forced to compete with people having the ability to watch the same event from the comfort of their home. The days of new stadiums being built in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a giant carpark around them are gone for good reason.

Why is wanting an independent economic analysis on the benefits of a stadium vs convention centre a 'ridiculous' concept?

I've been through all of this many times. Putting economic feasibility aside, there is limited land in the city to host this type of infrastructure. It's one or the other.

If you think a stadium would be used as consistently as a convention and entertainment centre, then that's also a personal opinion that I certainly do not agree with and I think you'd struggle to find me an objective analysis that supports your view.

Shirley one of the dozen or so government feasibility studies has investigated the (short and long term) economic differences between a city and suburban stadium?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I'm posing the question of the economic benefit of a city based convention centre vs stadium, not a suburban vs city based football stadium.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

[gerg]

The stadium itself will yield an economic loss, irrespective of its location.

My position on this is pretty clear. I haven't seen a single objective study that articulates the real economic advantages of building a stadium in the city centre over one in Bruce - only people's personal opinions.

I've suggested the economic benefits of a world class convention centre in the city would be significantly higher than a stadium. Funnily enough the vast majority of football fans disagree (again with zero evidence). Big surprise.

The simple fact is, people will use a brand new stadium wherever it is. In greater numbers than the current stadium is used. It's also Canberra, so the stadium needs good parking facilities, road access and to be at a distance from residential areas.

Canberra's population will top 550,000 by the time a stadium is finalised and most of the population growth will be in North Canberra, Gungahlin and Belconnen. Make of that what you will.

Again your framing is cynical at best, especially considering your plea for objectivity.

Of course the stadium is going to run at a loss, but that doesn't mean that economic concerns are irrelevant. You're also totally ignoring the potential impacts to the local economy more broadly. A well placed stadium can be huge for the local hospitality and retail industry.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the standard of evidence you'd need to change your mind is an independent academic study specifically into whether the stadium would produce better economic results if it was built in Civic over Bruce. I'm not even proposing Civic as an alternative, a Civic stadium is a pipedream.

Why are you pitting a convention centre against the stadium? It isn't an either or, that's just a false dichotomy.

I worked in the music and festival industry for years and I can categorically state that location and accessibility are huge when it comes to stadium/arena patronage. Convenience, cost, and experience is everything, especially when you're forced to compete with people having the ability to watch the same event from the comfort of their home. The days of new stadiums being built in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a giant carpark around them are gone for good reason.

Why is wanting an independent economic analysis on the benefits of a stadium vs convention centre a 'ridiculous' concept?

I've been through all of this many times. Putting economic feasibility aside, there is limited land in the city to host this type of infrastructure. It's one or the other.

If you think a stadium would be used as consistently as a convention and entertainment centre, then that's also a personal opinion that I certainly do not agree with and I think you'd struggle to find me an objective analysis that supports your view.

Shirley one of the dozen or so government feasibility studies has investigated the (short and long term) economic differences between a city and suburban stadium?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I'm posing the question of the economic benefit of a city based convention centre vs stadium, not a suburban vs city based football stadium.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

We've been through this many times before old friend let's not dance again. Hope something can be sorted soon so planning can commence.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Seiffert82]

Again your framing is cynical at best, especially considering your plea for objectivity.

Of course the stadium is going to run at a loss, but that doesn't mean that economic concerns are irrelevant. You're also totally ignoring the potential impacts to the local economy more broadly. A well placed stadium can be huge for the local hospitality and retail industry.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the standard of evidence you'd need to change your mind is an independent academic study specifically into whether the stadium would produce better economic results if it was built in Civic over Bruce. I'm not even proposing Civic as an alternative, a Civic stadium is a pipedream.

Why are you pitting a convention centre against the stadium? It isn't an either or, that's just a false dichotomy.

I worked in the music and festival industry for years and I can categorically state that location and accessibility are huge when it comes to stadium/arena patronage. Convenience, cost, and experience is everything, especially when you're forced to compete with people having the ability to watch the same event from the comfort of their home. The days of new stadiums being built in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a giant carpark around them are gone for good reason.

Why is wanting an independent economic analysis on the benefits of a stadium vs convention centre a 'ridiculous' concept?

I've been through all of this many times. Putting economic feasibility aside, there is limited land in the city to host this type of infrastructure. It's one or the other.

If you think a stadium would be used as consistently as a convention and entertainment centre, then that's also a personal opinion that I certainly do not agree with and I think you'd struggle to find me an objective analysis that supports your view.

Shirley one of the dozen or so government feasibility studies has investigated the (short and long term) economic differences between a city and suburban stadium?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I'm posing the question of the economic benefit of a city based convention centre vs stadium, not a suburban vs city based football stadium.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

We've been through this many times before old friend let's not dance again. Hope something can be sorted soon so planning can commence.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Absolutely. I'd love a new stadium in the city, or almost anywhere. Just make it happen!

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

ACT Chief Minister seeks stadium co-funding amid location dispute

Chief Minister Andrew Barr has asked the Prime Minister to co-fund the proposed new stadium in Bruce; but opposition leader Elizabeth Lee has urged the PM not to tie any federal funding commitment to any specific location, given the election is barely six months away.

“It is essential that any much-needed funding by the Federal Government for a stadium in the ACT be available to be utilised at a location determined by the ACT government of the day,” Ms Lee wrote.

Read more: https://canberradaily.com.au/act-chief- ... n-dispute/

Show me the money: Barr asks Albanese for 50-50 partnership on stadium: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14280

[Dr Zaius]

Didn't the Feds ask them to make a proposal about 18 months ago, and Chairman Barr said "yeah, na, we're fine thanks"?

[greeneyed]

Stadium letter stoush: Libs seek guarantee from Albo on venue funding

The Canberra Liberals have fired a shot in the battle of stadium letters, sending their own message to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to insist any funding for a new venue be applicable to multiple location options.

Liberals leader Elizabeth Lee and Senator David Pocock were critical of the timing of Barr's request months before the ACT election, saying it was too late to be included in the federal budget this year and it still lacked a business case or exact location for plan to build at Bruce.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... m-funding/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mickey_Raider]

If Barr is re-elected there is very little doubt in my mind we will be here in April 2028 on page 272 of this tread having this exact same discussion.

This whole thing became a farce many many years ago and the bloke is simply not engaging in this issue in good faith.

[BJ]

Too right Micky. I can see the headline now in 2028.

“ACT Government announces exciting new feasibility study into future Canberra stadium and plans for the Tuggeranong ice rink continue to progress”.

[gerg]

Too right Micky. I can see the headline now in 2028.

“ACT Government announces exciting new feasibility study into future Canberra stadium and plans for the Tuggeranong ice rink continue to progress”.

And tram extension to Weston Creek, worth 5 trillion dollars.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[reptar]

Too right Micky. I can see the headline now in 2028.

“ACT Government announces exciting new feasibility study into future Canberra stadium and plans for the Tuggeranong ice rink continue to progress”.

And tram extension to Weston Creek, worth 5 trillion dollars.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

At the cost of 5 trillion dollars

[Seiffert82]

Too right Micky. I can see the headline now in 2028.

“ACT Government announces exciting new feasibility study into future Canberra stadium and plans for the Tuggeranong ice rink continue to progress”.

And tram extension to Weston Creek, worth 5 trillion dollars.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

At the cost of 5 trillion dollars

Zing!

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

If Barr is re-elected there is very little doubt in my mind we will be here in April 2028 on page 272 of this tread having this exact same discussion.

This whole thing became a farce many many years ago and the bloke is simply not engaging in this issue in good faith.

You think Barr is not reading this thread?

[reptar]

If Barr is re-elected there is very little doubt in my mind we will be here in April 2028 on page 272 of this tread having this exact same discussion.

This whole thing became a farce many many years ago and the bloke is simply not engaging in this issue in good faith.

You think Barr is not reading this thread?

No. He’d have flunkies for that

[BJ]

If Barr is re-elected there is very little doubt in my mind we will be here in April 2028 on page 272 of this tread having this exact same discussion.

This whole thing became a farce many many years ago and the bloke is simply not engaging in this issue in good faith.

You think Barr is not reading this thread?

The GH no way. It’s not an AFL fanboys page.

[Billy Walker]

Pavilion earmarked for Civic Pool site as ACT seeks 50-50 funding

The ACT is again pushing for a large indoor entertainment pavilion on the site of the ageing Civic Pool, calling for the Commonwealth to pay for half a new convention and entertainment precinct in Canberra's city centre. Chief Minister Andrew Barr has written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to request a 50-50 funding agreement for the development of the precinct. The territory also requested in the same letter to Mr Albanese a funding deal for a new stadium in Bruce.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14329

[Seiffert82]

Haha. I surely must be the only person here not in the slightest way miffed by this 'revelation'.

I appreciate that the footy fans here will absolutely hate it, but it's finally a very smart government investment decision.

[greeneyed]

I can’t see how it’s any smarter as an investment decision than a decision to build a stadium. A “pavillion” will have a negative benefit cost ratio.