John Morrison goes on a massive rant about the problem with the Stadum depsite him being on the Board of the stadium for the previous 6 years.
$40-45 Million Soccer Specific Stadium - Petone Phoenix
As a semi casual attendee I must admit I'd think twice about going to Newtown or Petone. I often go to games where I'm driving as then heading out IN TOWN afterwards or I jump on the train at Plimmerton and I don't want to be adding extra time on to my trip home or have to drive Plimmerton to Petone then into town then home late. Sure that might make me a not very dedicated sports fan but I attend fairly regularly and are the one in my mates that talks others into coming along spur of the mo
Sure the stadium has probs but I quite like walking the concourse and esp love sitting in the sun for many a game plus the ease of walking out and going straight to my train or into town is great. My vote would be to work on what they have or put something in the same area
what we need on the waterfront ( in AK) ....wonder if Len would be keen , if we called it the " Schwang Stadium "...that actually has a nice ring to it ... ( ooooerrrr )
John Morrison goes on a massive rant about the problem with the Stadum depsite him being on the Board of the stadium for the previous 6 years.
Haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been said before, but my first thought is Gareth is just upping his negotiating position with the RoF. He's said they are an arrogant monopoly. The best way to deal with that is to make them and the Council think they just might not be the monopoly they thing they are. If Gareth can get a better price, temp stands close to the sideline, better food, fans allowed on pitch post game etc, etc., all at the RoF, he may be happy.
So if he's got Morrison on the hop already, then all good.
So because it is an oval and seats 35k you won't come down from Palmy to see a game?
You make a good point J82. But at the same time, atmosphere is probably the one point of difference of watching sport live at the ground vs watching it on TV. a smaller stadium would produce a better atmosphere, which would get more people interested in coming to games.
Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once.
So because it is an oval and seats 35k you won't come down from Palmy to see a game?
So because it is an oval and seats 35k you won't come down from Palmy to see a game?
You make a good point J82. But at the same time, atmosphere is probably the one point of difference of watching sport live at the ground vs watching it on TV. a smaller stadium would produce a better atmosphere, which would get more people interested in coming to games.
As a semi casual attendee I must admit I'd think twice about going to Newtown or Petone. I often go to games where I'm driving as then heading out IN TOWN afterwards or I jump on the train at Plimmerton and I don't want to be adding extra time on to my trip home or have to drive Plimmerton to Petone then into town then home late. Sure that might make me a not very dedicated sports fan but I attend fairly regularly and are the one in my mates that talks others into coming along spur of the mo
Sure the stadium has probs but I quite like walking the concourse and esp love sitting in the sun for many a game plus the ease of walking out and going straight to my train or into town is great. My vote would be to work on what they have or put something in the same area
So because it is an oval and seats 35k you won't come down from Palmy to see a game?
You make a good point J82. But at the same time, atmosphere is probably the one point of difference of watching sport live at the ground vs watching it on TV. a smaller stadium would produce a better atmosphere, which would get more people interested in coming to games.
But it stands to reason that better atmosphere = more attraction.
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium. Plus it's easier and cheaper. Stadiums therefore need to find a point of difference to get people to games, it's usually atmosphere (or bouncy castles)
Another point of difference is the 'I was there when...' Which explains why big games tend to sell better - plus the atmosphere tends to be better in those games too.
It's all well and good saying people should just turn up instead of grooming their ponies, but you have to give them a reason to do so. Why should someone pay to travel and watch the game at the stadium, when they can watch the game at home?
Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once.
I've gotta be honest I think the atmosphere I've experienced every time in Wellington has been great. Gotta be playing the football to go with it, but Ifill, Smeltz, Daniel...these are guys who make you excited because you know you are going to see something special happen in a game- I think we can now add to that- Huysegems and Cunningham, with good support from the rest.
You know how we are always near the top of the ease of doing business surveys, but there is always a constant stream of people complaining about tax and red tape etc etc.? Well that helps keep things the way they want it, so I hope that this is putting pressure on the stadium to cut Welnix a deal and hopefully things will all work out. But as an Aucklander who has a few times made the trek to Albany, don't underrate having a stadium in or near town and in the thick of things.
Sure the stadium has probs but I quite like walking the concourse and esp love sitting in the sun for many a game plus the ease of walking out and going straight to my train or into town is great. My vote would be to work on what they have or put something in the same area
Summed up nicely. It really would be easier to just move seating closer to the sideline, all around the pitch. Make those seats a few dollars cheaper to encourage people to actually sit in them. They might not be covered but I doubt this new proposed midget stadium out of the city would have a roof either.
Or we could just start winning games, bring back that undefeated streak at ROF that spanned 2 seasons or whatever it was. That would fix attendance right? Perhaps even a marque from EPL or something? Would be cheaper than a new park
Sure the stadium has probs but I quite like walking the concourse and esp love sitting in the sun for many a game plus the ease of walking out and going straight to my train or into town is great. My vote would be to work on what they have or put something in the same area
Summed up nicely. It really would be easier to just move seating closer to the sideline, all around the pitch. Make those seats a few dollars cheaper to encourage people to actually sit in them. They might not be covered but I doubt this new proposed midget stadium out of the city would have a roof either.
Or we could just start winning games, bring back that undefeated streak at ROF that spanned 2 seasons or whatever it was. That would fix attendance right? Perhaps even a marque from EPL or something? Would be cheaper than a new park
Thanks.
So - a casual and a tragic both coming to the same conclusion.
Throw in Ballane (who is a foundation member).
No further evidence required m'lud, I rest my case.
IBTL
But it stands to reason that better atmosphere = more attraction.
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium. Plus it's easier and cheaper. Stadiums therefore need to find a point of difference to get people to games, it's usually atmosphere (or bouncy castles)
Another point of difference is the 'I was there when...' Which explains why big games tend to sell better - plus the atmosphere tends to be better in those games too.
It's all well and good saying people should just turn up instead of grooming their ponies, but you have to give them a reason to do so. Why should someone pay to travel and watch the game at the stadium, when they can watch the game at home?
Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once.
Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once.
Nope. I've read your posts. I even read them again before writing the above post. And now triple checked them before writing this posts.
Your complaint was of being far away from the pitch.
John Morrison goes on a massive rant about the problem with the Stadum depsite him being on the Board of the stadium for the previous 6 years.
Haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been said before, but my first thought is Gareth is just upping his negotiating position with the RoF. He's said they are an arrogant monopoly. The best way to deal with that is to make them and the Council think they just might not be the monopoly they thing they are. If Gareth can get a better price, temp stands close to the sideline, better food, fans allowed on pitch post game etc, etc., all at the RoF, he may be happy.
So if he's got Morrison on the hop already, then all good.
Very likely.
Just like to point out that the Stadium has a new CEO. Who has been far more engaging with us that the previous guy.
Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once.
Nope. I've read your posts. I even read them again before writing the above post. And now triple checked them before writing this posts.
Your complaint was of being far away from the pitch.
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium. Plus it's easier and cheaper. Stadiums therefore need to find a point of difference to get people to games, it's usually atmosphere (or bouncy castles)
It's all well and good saying people should just turn up instead of grooming their ponies, but you have to give them a reason to do so. Why should someone pay to travel and watch the game at the stadium, when they can watch the game at home?
In an ideal world it'd be across from the stadium, where all those logs are. 15000 and rectangular. Big games we just shift across the road. I'm sure the lions would use it too.
So many obstacles to overcome for that to happen though. But in a dream world, it would be brilliant.
Surely there is money to be made if you tie in Bars/Restaurants for the cruise ships because its currently an ass welcome to Wellington over there. But yes dreamworld stuff, if only things were done right from the start.
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium. Plus it's easier and cheaper. Stadiums therefore need to find a point of difference to get people to games, it's usually atmosphere (or bouncy castles)
It's all well and good saying people should just turn up instead of grooming their ponies, but you have to give them a reason to do so. Why should someone pay to travel and watch the game at the stadium, when they can watch the game at home?
As per my earlier post, if atmosphere is going to be a big pull - it will be down to how much noise FZ and other nutters make. Not that they are 3k in a 35k stadium.
Granted we've been a bit dour recently but do you think punters are saying "I'm not going to watch poof ball games because the Fever Firm aren't letting off flares and glassing each other". More likely it will be because we are losing (and possibly as a consequence the Yellow Ultras are leaving their flares at home).
I think both contribute.
People won't even watch the game on TV if we are losing.
What we want though is to get people from watching on TV, to watching at the stadium. You therefore need a point of difference that they don't get watching the game on TV.
As an example, a packed out basin reserve has a way better atmosphere than watching cricket at the stadium with a similar crowd. Morempeople enjoy watching cricket at the basin. Yes, i also realise the basin has other points of difference, a day out in the sun on the bank etc.
but I do agree, winning is important as it leads to us being in those important games at the end of the season (and finals), which is when we get the 'I was there when...' Point of difference that I mentioned earlier coming in to play. And that is a huge one.
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium.
Overall, while I accept your point, I personally don't see that as a winning argument for the TV experience. You might get more replays and angles, but I think you get a much, much better feel for the game by being there, seeing the whole pitch and being able to select what you focus in on. TV limits what you can see and frequently can't pick out runs before they are played to, nor runs off the ball that drag defenders, players' positioning off the ball to receive and support, player tracking etc, etc. You just don't get anything like the same appreciation for what is going on, imho, no matter how big your TV is or how many ponies you have.
I think nothing is better live than seeing the big run get put in, waiting with anticipation to see if the guy on the ball is going to spot it, and then having some sort of appreciation from your wider field of view (vs TV) about whether the timing is going to be right and the guy will be played in. TV mostly misses all of that and the anticipation of watching to see how it will pan out. Each to their own, but I'd much rather be there.
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium.
Overall, while I accept your point, I personally don;t see that as a winning argument for the TV experience. You might get more replays and angles, but I think you get a much, much better feel for the game by being there, seeing the whole pitch and being able to select what you focus in on. TV limits what you can see and mostly will not pick out runs before they are played to and runs off the ball that do not come into play, players positioning off the ball to receive and support, player tracking etc, etc. You just don't get anything like the same appreciation for what is going on, imho, no matter how big your TV is or how many ponies you have.
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium. Plus it's easier and cheaper. Stadiums therefore need to find a point of difference to get people to games, it's usually atmosphere (or bouncy castles)
It's all well and good saying people should just turn up instead of grooming their ponies, but you have to give them a reason to do so. Why should someone pay to travel and watch the game at the stadium, when they can watch the game at home?
As per my earlier post, if atmosphere is going to be a big pull - it will be down to how much noise FZ and other nutters make. Not that they are 3k in a 35k stadium.
Granted we've been a bit dour recently but do you think punters are saying "I'm not going to watch poof ball games because the Fever Firm aren't letting off flares and glassing each other". More likely it will be because we are losing (and possibly as a consequence the Yellow Ultras are leaving their flares at home).
A bit like Kiwitea street you mean?
You can watch the game on TV with better angles, replays etc than you get at the stadium.
Overall, while I accept your point, I personally don;t see that as a winning argument for the TV experience. You might get more replays and angles, but I think you get a much, much better feel for the game by being there, seeing the whole pitch and being able to select what you focus in on. TV limits what you can see and mostly will not pick out runs before they are played to and runs off the ball that do not come into play, players positioning off the ball to receive and support, player tracking etc, etc. You just don't get anything like the same appreciation for what is going on, imho, no matter how big your TV is or how many ponies you have.
Actually yeah I agree. And that is one point of difference.
I'm more speaking from the point of view of the casual punter, who just wants to see the game. Which they can do at home. Rather than us tragics who enjoy analysing off the ball runs.
A bit like Kiwitea street you mean?
The Yellow fever are great.
The Yellow fever are great.
No they're not. The twunts can't even get "Stand Up" right after 6 seasons.
The Yellow fever are great.
No they're not. The twunts can't even get "Stand Up" right after 6 seasons.
Goonertron keeps saying that this would be the only big sporting thing in the Hutt Valley since the speedway. Er, I'm old enough to remember the Hutt Valley Lakers playing at the Walter Nash Stadium, featuring "Crosstown" Tony Brown. (You could also include the year that all first-class cricket was played at the Hutt Rec while the Basin was being refurbished.)
But I'd have to agree with all those people who say that a great stadium won't be worth a damn if it's a bitch to get to. Three letters: N, H, S. One easy, serious quick fix is to rope off the upper half of the RoF so we can get "capacity" with a crowd of 15,000. It'll look better on TV.
When you get your new/renegotiated stadium please ask for a modern standing zone.
The upper half is under cover. When it rains everyone wants those seats.
If you want a TV crowd just use the Hard News masks and stick them on the empty chairs.
A little over budget
Apparently the 'temp' chch stadium was 20 mill - what is the difference in facilities that makes it temporary.. anyone know? Never been there
It's made of cardboard.