1Eyed Eel

Parramatta Eels Supporters Website

Views: 832

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Looks the same as the old one. Same capacity 40k. What a waste
Definetly a waste. I understand a roof for a stadium is expensive but with the life span of stadiums over 25 years it is lacking foward thinking if Sydney doesn't have an indoor stadium for next 30 years.
Once again the govt goes with set agenda to make a handful of people happy without proper planning or forethought.
Why not make a Stadium which allows for adding of a roof in years time when more funds are available if not doing it now.

 I said before The new stadium at Parramatta was started that it required a retractable roof. This was  poo-pood by the "experts" Now that the stadium is flooded they have gone rather quiet. The company building the new More Park stadium refused on the weekend to say that fans seated under the roof would remain dry during rain.!  These stadiums are being built to get the conservative state government elected in 2019. That is the plan. Let us hope that the law of unintended consequences prevails.

Mate the stadium isn't flooded. Work had recommenced last week.
Once the cranes are removed and the state of the art drainage installed there'll be absolutely no issues. There actually an automated drainage system going in that will be like none other in this country

LOL Robbie theres no drainage yet.

This idiot still going on about the flooding. SMH
There was nothing wrong with The SFS. It's a complete waste of time and money rebuilding a new stadium.
If you female trying to get to the toilet, or if you had to design an evacuation plan to current requirements you may differ. And that is just the start...
There was nowt wrong with it, the stadium needed a renovation, not to be torn down like.

Here is the Business Case from Infrastructure NSW... unless you know otherwise.

Infrastructure NSW has summarised the Final Business Case for the development of the SFS at Moore Park.

The Business Case considered three options for the redevelopment of the SFS, against a "do minimum” Base Case. The three options include (1) refurbishment of the existing stadium, (2) “new build” with 40,000 seats, and (3) “new build” with 45,000 seats.

In summary, the Business Case clearly demonstrates that rebuilding the SFS, with either 40,000 or 45,000 seats is a better option than refurbishing the existing venue. The quantifiable economic benefits of a new stadium fall slightly short of the economic costs.

However, the unsustainable nature of the alternative to do only enough work to keep the stadium open, suggests that rebuilding is an acceptable option. Click here to view it in full.

I hope it’s as good as the old SFS.  I loved that ground, so many fond memories. The 98 preliminary final wasn’t one of them. 

Agree , it’s one of the best stadiums to this day to watch NRL at . 

RSS

© 2018   Created by 1Eyed Eel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service