$40-45 Million Soccer Specific Stadium - Petone Phoenix

Closed for new posts
Starting XI
1.6K
·
2.6K
·
almost 17 years
2ndBest wrote:

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.
First Team Squad
5
·
1.7K
·
over 14 years

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

Must try harder
96
·
1.5K
·
about 17 years

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 )

Appiah without the pace
6.7K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years
mjp2 wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

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.
John Fellet's mouth piece
6
·
190
·
about 11 years
Tegal wrote:
Junior82 wrote:

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. 

Now that someone with a high post count has said what I have been saying the whole time. He might not reply with snark.
Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years

Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once. 

Trialist
0
·
12
·
about 12 years
Junior82 wrote:

So because it is an oval and seats 35k you won't come down from Palmy to see a game?



Not as straight forward as that, but to be honest, the atmosphere is part of the experience and therefore definitely more appealing At an intimate ground. Went to the Madejski for a few years and  can't wait for a similar buzz. Looking at plastic seats and away from the action had me feeling a but empty and not helped me to convert others.
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Tegal wrote:
Junior82 wrote:

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. 

Undoubtedly it would create a better atmosphere than current arrangements.  
I don't think it is a draw card but it might help maintain a larger group of tragics.

Our first game was 2008 vs Bling - not a huge crowd and we sat in the family zone.  As far away from the Fever Zone as possible.  Still loved the atmosphere and we haven't looked back since. 

But if you use the current stadium as an excuse not to attend a game I would suggest that you have an extremely large flat screen tv at home and otherwise are too busy grooming your stable of ponies.

a.k.a AJ13
520
·
1.5K
·
over 14 years
stealthkiwi wrote:

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

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 
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Goonertron wrote:
Tegal wrote:
Junior82 wrote:

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. 

Now that someone with a high post count has said what I have been saying the whole time. He might not reply with snark.

I just reserve it for those that deserve it matey.

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years

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? 

John Fellet's mouth piece
6
·
190
·
about 11 years
Tegal wrote:

Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once. 

Yes I have multiple times. Like you said read before you type. 
Legend
7.4K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

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.

Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
AJ13 wrote:
stealthkiwi wrote:

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

John Fellet's mouth piece
6
·
190
·
about 11 years
Junior82 wrote:
AJ13 wrote:
stealthkiwi wrote:

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


Well to be fair Wellington this season did win 2 games away from home back to back and even that didn't get bums on seats.
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Tegal wrote:

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? 

If we had a small rectangular stadium last season would we have had a better atmosphere and more attraction?
When in the super duper eggball early days Canty played the Blues did people rock up because Eden Pork or Lancaster Park had atmosphere?

Look to the performance on the pitch first.  Everything else is just padding (unfortunately).

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years
Goonertron wrote:
Tegal wrote:

Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once. 

Yes I have multiple times. Like you said read before you type. 
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 Fellet's mouth piece
6
·
190
·
about 11 years
Tegal wrote:
Goonertron wrote:
Tegal wrote:

Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once. 

Yes I have multiple times. Like you said read before you type. 

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. 

Smaller stadium, closer to the crowd = better atmosphere. Mr clutch at straws =P
Starting XI
1.6K
·
2.6K
·
almost 17 years
2ndBest wrote:
mjp2 wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

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.

Yes, I heard him interviewed - just after he arrived here, I think.  Seemed to have the right attitude.  But the bigger gun you have in a knife fight the better.  Even if the other guy is a half decent chap his job is still to maximize  the outcomes overall for the stadium.  We still have crap food and none of those other things that Gareth has mentioned as desirable.  And as far as I know they aren't getting any substantial discount for adding ten to thirteen plus events to the stadium's account book every year?   

You never want to rely on the other guy being a nice guy.

All theory and speculation, but it will be interesting how it plays out.
Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years
Goonertron wrote:
Tegal wrote:
Goonertron wrote:
Tegal wrote:

Actually, you never mentioned atmosphere being the only point of difference once. 

Yes I have multiple times. Like you said read before you type. 

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. 

Smaller stadium, closer to the crowd = better atmosphere. Mr clutch at straws =P
I don't really see how being closer to the pitch makes the atmosphere better (except for the players, but they're already there :p). But if that's what you meant, then I apologise! 
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Tegal wrote:

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).

Phoenix Academy
120
·
270
·
about 17 years
Tegal wrote:

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. 

A thousand times this!

 

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. 


Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years
Junior82 wrote:
Tegal wrote:

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. 

Starting XI
1.6K
·
2.6K
·
almost 17 years
Tegal wrote:

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.

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years
mjp2 wrote:
Tegal wrote:

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. 
John Fellet's mouth piece
6
·
190
·
about 11 years
Junior82 wrote:
Tegal wrote:

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).


The Yellow fever are great. But if you had a smaller stadium everyone would be shoulder to shoulder and the chants from the faithful would get around the stadium a lot easier. Think of it like a Mexican Wave you know it's going to die once it reaches the spread out part of the crowd. Anyway thanks for the discussion I spent way too much time in here today. Guess I just got all giggity when Gareth Morgan mentioned Petone as an option. Even though this is probably just a ploy to get cheaper match day costs from the Cake Tin.
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years

A bit like Kiwitea street you mean?

Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Tegal wrote:
mjp2 wrote:
Tegal wrote:

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. 


You can watch the game on TV and not get wet (unless you want to) and get up and make yourself a bovril and a buttie at half time.

Starting XI
1.6K
·
2.6K
·
almost 17 years
Junior82 wrote:

A bit like Kiwitea street you mean?

lols
A whole thread of inadvertant Auckland envy

They don't know what they're doing, they don't know what they're doing :) ;)

Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Goonertron wrote:

The Yellow fever are great.

No they're not.  The twunts can't even get "Stand Up" right after 6 seasons.

John Fellet's mouth piece
6
·
190
·
about 11 years
Junior82 wrote:
Goonertron wrote:

The Yellow fever are great.


No they're not.  The twunts can't even get "Stand Up" right after 6 seasons.


"stand up for penis"?
Starting XI
1.6K
·
2.6K
·
almost 17 years
Goonertron wrote:
Junior82 wrote:
Goonertron wrote:

The Yellow fever are great.


No they're not.  The twunts can't even get "Stand Up" right after 6 seasons.


"stand up for penis"?
Stand up for Fritz's Weiner, maybe.
Opinion Privileges revoked
4.9K
·
9.9K
·
over 14 years

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.

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

When you get your new/renegotiated stadium please ask for a modern standing zone.

Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years

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.

Early retirement
3.1K
·
34K
·
over 17 years
Early retirement
3.1K
·
34K
·
over 17 years
Early retirement
3.1K
·
34K
·
over 17 years

A little over budget

WeeNix
40
·
600
·
almost 14 years

Apparently the 'temp' chch stadium was 20 mill - what is the difference in facilities that makes it temporary.. anyone know? Never been there

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years

It's made of cardboard. 

Closed for new posts

$40-45 Million Soccer Specific Stadium - Petone Phoenix