Tasmania United Fc Forum |
||
|---|---|---|
| DISCUSSIONS > Feasibility study | ||
| tassihatter | Date posted | Replies |
|
At last the study is ours to read (see new news story on home page) it's downloadable and only 77+ pages ! When we've all had time to read it, should prompt some interesting comment. Add comments |
20th July 2009 | 64 |
| Comment | ||
ntguyposted at 10:10AM on 8th Jul, 2009 Where can we send comment? The consultants obviously have no idea on how to orientate a football pitch. Tas_U_1posted at 10:47PM on 8th Jul, 2009 Maybe we could benefit from poor decision making by NRL players. LG recently severed its ties with Cronulla and now it appears Samsung may do the same, ending their 10 year sponsorship with the Roosters. These two great organisations have been truly commited to sponsoring all sporting codes in recent times and have global appeal. tufcposted at 3:35AM on 9th Jul, 2009
Chuqposted at 4:14AM on 11th Jul, 2009 Someone re-asked this question in a forum today, I said I wasn't sure but gave some possible answers:
- York Park offering a better financial deal
Of course we may end up with 14 home matches in our first season, or we could be 13th/14th team and end up with a longer season! Chuqposted at 5:49AM on 9th Jul, 2009 I haven’t had time to post my full “review” of the study yet ;) But some news coverage of the press conference is here: ABC News - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/08/2620409.htm Walter Pless’ blog - http://walterplessonsoccer.blogspot.com/2009/07/feasibility-study-into-tasmanian-league.html The Examiner - http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/sport/general/study-kicks-goal-for-state-team/1562929.aspx The Mercury – Not online for some reason – scan is here – http://users.on.net/~chuq/img/mercury-tufc-20090709.jpg FourFourTwo - http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/107302,tassie-vow-to-press-on.aspx ntguyposted at 9:43AM on 9th Jul, 2009 Just some points for whoever makes the decisions on pitch locations at Aurora and Bellerive. From FIFA Manual 2007. 1. No flood light towers are to be located at the ends of the pitch. 2. No flood light towers are to be located on the sides in a 15 degree arc from each corner flag. 3. No floodlight is to be below a line drawn, from the centre line of the long axis of the pitch, at an angle of 23 degrees from the horizontal. On these counts both the layout for Aurora and Bellerive are unacceptable if night games are proposed. 4. The pitch is to be oriented so that the sun does not shine into players eyes so disadvantaging one team. The East West orientation of Bellerive precludes playing games in the late afternoon. This may also be a problem at Aurora at certain times of the year. A sun study needs to be carried out when deciding on pitch orientation. In my view it could not have been possible to orient the pitches more poorly than has been done in the study.
adminposted at 11:17AM on 9th Jul, 2009 Please let us not get negative on some of the more trivial aspects of the study. There is a long way to go before we need to finalise how the pitch will sit - I don't know exactly how the logistics of the pitch positions were selected but I believe they only serve as recommendations that prove that usage of each venue is feasible. When we get to the stage of physically laying out our pitch, it will mean we have our A-League licence, so please let us focus on the positives, of which this study is loaded. ntguyposted at 11:43AM on 9th Jul, 2009 The problem with that Admin is that because the consultants have done an inadequate job in assessing the technical requirements for football one wonders whether the other parts of the consultancy has also been shoddily done. ntguyposted at 11:49AM on 9th Jul, 2009 By the way I did ask where I could provide feed back privately but you did not respond. As for your statements about negative comments about "trivial" issues we may as well give up now if anyone to do with the bid thinks that having suitable grounds is trivial. adminposted at 11:35PM on 9th Jul, 2009 The orientation of the pitch was only referred to as trivial as it is something the taskforce need not concern themselves about at this point in time. I hope people don't think of any part of the feasibility study as 'shoddy.' The firm that undertook the study has extremely high credentials and is well versed in dealings with the game of football and the FFA. They know what they are talking about. There is a contact point under the menu header 'About Us' where anybody can contact the club about any issue they like. ntguyposted at 12:51AM on 10th Jul, 2009 I repeat the first issue to be dealt with in deciding whether a venue is suitable for playing football is the orientation of the pitch. There is a suitable location for a pitch on the infield at Aurora but it is not where the Consultants show it. The Consultants have been remiss in not considering the issue of ground lighting unless the intention was to play in day time only. With regards to Bellerive Oval, I am at the moment confirming the location of the proposed ground lighting but on current information I can tell you that the Consultants indicative orientation and location for the pitch is not feasible and the pitch may not be able to be located anywhere near the Southern Stand. If this is the case then quite a number of the assessments in the report might need to be reviewed. In my working life I regularly briefed consultants and reviewed their work and I can tell you that extremely competent consultants stuff up and it is necessary that their work be reviewed critically to ensure its accuracy. This is normal procedure. Another point I will make is that if a report is going to be made public it is best if the consultants brief is also made public so that the report can be considered against what was asked for. ntguyposted at 11:40AM on 9th Jul, 2009 How can the consultants say that Aurora and Bellerive meet international competition standard when they have not measured them against any standard for international football. Just because a venue has held a World Cup Rugby Union match or a cricket Test match does not mean it is of an international competition standard for football. The consultants need to review the venues against the Asian Champions League venue requirements at least before they can make that statement. By the way, neither venue meets those requirements and the Feasibility Study should have said so. As for considering them against FIFA standards it would be a waste of time. Further, how is it possible for them to conclude that these two stadiums rate an M against the Rectangular criteria. Such a conclusion is an absolute joke. They are large format grounds on which a football pitch does not fit comfortably and FIFA says should not be used for football. They barely deserve an L. As for their observation that other A-League teams play on ovals it is interesting to note that Melbourne Victory can't wait to get away from Etihad and Adelaide play 1 game a year at Adelaide Oval. So although their comment is correct A-League sides shun them where possible. The problem with shoddy work like this is that Governments might believe that it is not urgent to provide proper grounds for our team. Chuqposted at 12:55PM on 9th Jul, 2009 I know you are very familiar with stadium design etc. ntguy, but it's obviously what you are going to focus on, but pitch location really is a minor thing. Broadly speaking, there are three possibilities here. 1. Someone spends $150m+ on a new rectangular stadium with no tenants 2. We play in existing oval stadiums 3. We don't have an A-League team We don't have a spare $150mill lying around, so it's oval stadia or nothing. (Although I would have liked to have seen the Domain Athletics Centre or a new rectangular stadium including in the SWOT analysis) Regarding international quality, I don't think that refers to FIFA approved - more like the venue meets AFC Champions League requirements. If Hindmarsh Stadium meets it, I'm sure YP and BO already do, or would be with minimal upgrades. Don't forget, from the date a successful licensee is announced, it will be almost 3 years before the club will have it's first opportunity to play an ACL game. Admin is right, there are a stack of positives to take out of of this study, the figures used to calculate predicted average crowds are sound (they don't include repeat attendances, intrastate travelling fans or interstate away fans), the stadium economics appear to be good, economic impact for the state is good, if anything WE the fans should be championing this information and not bagging it! ntguyposted at 2:08PM on 9th Jul, 2009 I disagree that pitch orientation is a minor issue. The document makes quite a number of statements based on orientation at say Aurora Stadium and its assumptions are incorrect. If the venue is to be used for night games the pitch will have to be right in the middle of the ground not tucked up on one side as they show. This makes watching football at the ground a pretty poor experience. The venue should not be considered as suitable long term and the report should say so. I accept that we have no other option at the moment but it is imperative that all stakeholders know the real situation. In using Aurora we will be using a venue that FIFA recommends is too big for football and should be avoided at all cost. By the way, it took me a total of 6 minutes to review the Lighting issue and produce an image that shows where the pitch has to be located and why. I would have expected that a consultant would have done this and a sun study before saying the venue is suitable. ntguyposted at 2:22PM on 9th Jul, 2009 You could get a 10,000 seat venue in Lonnie and a 15,000 seat venue in Hobart and have change from $100M by the way so even if we don't get an upgrade via the World Cup rectangular venues the standard of Aurora are well within the States capability to provide when the economy improves. But it needs to get the message from Day 1. ntguyposted at 2:32PM on 9th Jul, 2009 As I said previously the grounds do not meet ACL requirements as they would have to be all seater stadiums to start with. They also fail the test on quite a few other requirements. The AFC can waive these requirements if it wishes but at the very least it requires that only the seats be used. Chuqposted at 12:57PM on 9th Jul, 2009 PS. Wellington's stadium Westpac Stadium is also oval. ntguyposted at 12:18PM on 13th Jul, 2009 The "Caketin" is 10m shorter and 18m narrower than Aurora. ntguyposted at 12:37PM on 9th Jul, 2009 My final comment is that neither of the grounds selected are technically suitable for football/football watching for anything other than a than an interim measure that needs to be replaced by proper venues within 5 years. tassihatterposted at 9:18PM on 9th Jul, 2009 Good to see robust discussion is alive and well ! Chuq comment about an oblong stadium in 5 years is right on the money . How's this for a positive out look - Auroa/Bellerivie for first 2 years; 2010 Oz gets World cup hosting rights; Government money (both state and federal) allocated to WCH, TUFC well supported in first years; demand for oblong stadium grows (enlist help from both rugbies, lacrose and, now this stretching it I know ! wait for it - Grid Iron!). Anyway all the above plus at least hosting one WC participating nation and with entrepanurial (sorry it's late at night here, and can't get spell check to work) vision surely a centrally located suitable venue will become a reality ? Discuss ! ntguyposted at 11:06PM on 9th Jul, 2009 The image below indicates the orientation and location of a football pitch at Aurora Stadium if night games are to be played. Just in case any of you are ever involved in the design of a football ground the very first thing to be done is a site study so that the orientation of the pitch can be determined. All other design issues and solutions follow on from this.
ntguyposted at 11:11PM on 9th Jul, 2009 The image above shows the areas in which a ground lighting source cannot be located. It can be seen that large format ovals reduce the area in which lighting can be installed. Willyposted at 1:31AM on 10th Jul, 2009 Can someone please enlighten me as to how you can become a 'foundation member'? Chuqposted at 2:26AM on 10th Jul, 2009 I'd like to know this too. It sounds like it is something different to a "member" in a traditional football club sense, I would say they are looking for contributions of $2k-$10k from individuals (yes I did randomly pull those numbers out of nowhere) in return for... apart from helping to start the club, I don't know what else a "foundation member" gets! ntguyposted at 3:32AM on 10th Jul, 2009 The Canberra A-League bid currently has 2052 individuals/organisations on its Foundation Members list on its website and the website gives details of what you get for your money. The cost there is $200.
http://www.a-league4canberra.com.au/site/member.php Chuqposted at 1:40PM on 10th Jul, 2009 Further discussion about "Foundation Membership" here - http://www.tasmaniaunited.com.au/forum/topic/view/89/
TC_CValeposted at 2:43AM on 10th Jul, 2009 To all detractors of the feasibility study report, put up the $100-150 million needed for a purpose built stadium and we will all be happy, otherwise stop bagging what is a very difficult project. Beggers belief that people are bemoaning a report that says WE CAN SUPPORT a team in the A League, for christ sake what do you really want. For me, I want a team in the A League and after we PROVE we have the support and the club is financially viable we may need to look at a new stadium, but not before the club has proven it can stand on it's own two feet. A shiny new stadium is not what we need at the moment, we need sponsors and financial backers. The majority of Tasmanians who support this bid will be happy to use Aurora & Bellerive until such time as the club NEEDS a bigger home, not the other way round. If as stated by NTGuy the pitch direction or lighting towers are all wrong, then FFA wont grant us a licence, then so be it, but until FFA say's otherwise this feasibility study ticks all the boxes and we are further down the track than we were 2 months ago. I take it that the detractors wont be going to the MCG (a big oval) in May for the Socceroo's clash against either Brasil/England/Argentina that has been proposed before next year's WC as the pitch is too far from the fence, I dont think so. Well done TUFC one more box has been ticked. ntguyposted at 3:20AM on 10th Jul, 2009 I want an A-League team here just as much as anyone else but to improve the chances of getting a licence off the FFA I want to see a feasibility study that deals with the issues carefully and accurately and where there are problems it suggests ways to overcome them. I have no issues with the majority of the study but in the area of the technical assessment of the venues it is deficient and therefore its conclusions in this area are subject to debate. In my view it wouldn't take the Consultant long to rework the document and it shouldn't cost anything to have that review done. The nature of your comments on this and by Admin make me want to bypass this forum and direct my comments to the Minister and the FFA. Chuqposted at 6:10AM on 10th Jul, 2009 I understand your frustration but I would expect doing that would damage the bid! We want to be showing a united (no pun intended) front. Perhaps we should organise a casual chat/meeting, "football in the pub" session with the TUFC guys?
tufcposted at 3:35AM on 10th Jul, 2009 I agree. I'm definitely not happy about TUFC playing on an oval ground (especially Bellerive), but what other option do we have? Unless someone can come up with the funding for a 10-15K capacity rectangular stadium, our AFL/cricket ovals are all we've got to go with in our bid. As for placement and orientation of the pitch, I'm not saying it's not important, and I agree that what's been proposed in the feasability study seems to have a number of flaws (as pointed out by ntguy). So it should definitely be vigorously debated/discussed at some point, but please lets not worry about it until AFTER the bid has been accepted!!!! ntguyposted at 4:09AM on 10th Jul, 2009 I agree that we have no other option, unfortunately, but the study needs to serve two purposes in my view. It needs to show the FFA that we can support an A-League side and it needs to have a subtle political message that the venues chosen are not appropriate for football playing and watching in the long term. Pointing out the latter will in no way diminish the quality of our bid as far as the FFA are concerned. They understand the issues of compromising on venues as they are dealing with it in the WC bid. Leaving the study as it is with its rosy picture of the venues is a fatal political mistake long term. This Government already believes that Aurora Stadium is suitable for development into a WC stadium so they are not going to see the need for rectangular stadiums for football unless they get the message now and often. TC_CValeposted at 3:04AM on 10th Jul, 2009 Chuq, foundation members normally are the members who for a better term, buy a brick that is used in the foundations of a new club. Small local businesses and local supporters who do not have the resources to be a major sponsor, can at a minimal cost be involved in the founding of the club. Normally supporters pay about $50, families $100 while small businesses are expected to pay a bit more @ $200 for each brick that they wish to sponsor. When the clubrooms are finished and open all foundation members names are placed on bricks in the club bar to show who has supported the club from the very start. Foundation members usually recieve 1st option on hard to get tickets or events that the club is organising. This sort of thing has been great for smaller sporting clubs and would be a winner for TUFC.
Chuqposted at 6:24AM on 10th Jul, 2009 Hmm, it may be slightly different in this case - in John McGirr's interview on Monday, he said they had signed up two foundation members and sounded rather pleased about it. If it was $200 a pop I wouldn't think it would be worth mentioning!
TC_CValeposted at 4:11AM on 10th Jul, 2009 Sorry if my comments upset you ntguy, but as someone who has lived in Tas all my life and as such, having missed out on top level sport being played in our state, the chance to have a team in a national comp is something all Tasmanians have been waiting for. I agree with you that the stadia are not ideal, but in the short term (5 years) we should be happy with just getting a licence and go from there. Push for a new stadium after the announcement in Dec 2010 of the World Cup hosts (16 months away), we will have 8 - 12 years to get it in place if we have the winning bid, even then when the winning bid is awarded TUFC will still be a couple of years away from having a team on the park. To me, pushing for a couple of new stadiums now is like building a shopping centre before the houses are built and the people have moved in. ntguyposted at 4:51AM on 10th Jul, 2009 It would be absolutely stupid to push for new stadiums now. 5 years time would be great as I said in a previous post. My issue is that the study paints a rosy picture of Aurora and Bellerive and they aren't so rosy. The FFA will know that whatever the study says but the politicians might believe the spin. As for the study missing the effect of lighting on the orientation of the pitch it may have just been an oversight on the Consultants part but it has resulted in scores higher for the grounds than they should be. By the way I will be going to Melbourne for the WC farewell game again next May but I make sure I get a lower bowl seat or the front row of the first tier so I have an "acceptable view". The MCG is third rate on world standards as a football venue. I will also be going to the Holland game in Sydney in October where the view of the pitch is spectacular compared to the MCG so long as you aren't up in nose bleed territory. Chuqposted at 6:13AM on 10th Jul, 2009 The MCG is another discussion altogether, I'm a supporter of them installing movable seating into the lower tier so it can be perfect not just for the World Cup but all future Socceroos (or other football) matches! Considering that Docklands Stadiums movable stands will never be moved again I think its a fair trade. tassihatterposted at 7:24AM on 11th Jul, 2009 Well what a difference a day (or two) make. I did ask for discussion and sure as hell got it! NTGUY-Whilst we all,I'm sure, appreciate your in put, to lapse into "jock" for a moment 'givus a wee break Jimmy'. Yes I know consultants don't always get it right, but these guys did get it right for the second Melbourne bid, so there's no reason why they shouldn't get it right for us. As others have stated we are on our hopefully UNITED way, it took time and energy by the taskforce, and let's face it tried the patients of us fans, but at last things are moving. A good turn out on the 26 th. at Auroa will help the cause, irrespective of pitch orientation (opps sorry NT person) only wish I could be there too. Keep smiling ( NT, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, you are not by any chance related to the old guy on the typewriter featured on "The Chaser War on Everything" are you, sorry but if you can't laugh at that what earthly chance will you have when at TUFC away games, or even with visiting fans when the chants about double headed strikers and the like begin ? Because begin they will, and that's all part of the rich tapestry of our wonderful world game ! Cheers.
ntguyposted at 12:55PM on 11th Jul, 2009 So you are wanting the bid to go forward without the correction of a fundamental error in the assessment of the proposed venues. I guess I will have to take up the issue with the Consultant myself. ntguyposted at 2:36PM on 11th Jul, 2009 Just for those like Tassihatter who want me to give it a break I have included below an image of Bellerive Oval with the proposed light poles shown (yellow dots) and an overlay of a football pitch with the areas that lighting cannot be located shown translucently. As it can be seen a pitch can be fitted onto the infield roughly in the orientation shown by the consultant but a bit further North. The centre sideline is 50m from the Southern Stand which is not ideal. ie 10m further away than at the MCG. The major issue raised by this orientation is the setting sun so I have also marked that direction. As it can be seen the sun poses a problem for the whole A-League season. To overcome this problem games would either finish before the sun gets below 25 degrees above the horizon or after sunset. At the spring and Autumn solstice games would have to be completed before 4pm or start after 6pm. At the summer solstice games would have to finish by 6pm or start after 8.40pm. In my view these limitations are critical and should be acknowledged and dealt with in the study. The TUFC proponents would be highly embarrassed and the bid look amateurish if this is not addressed and it comes out during FFA's consideration of the bid.
ntguyposted at 3:16PM on 11th Jul, 2009 PS. I have tried to find a North South orientation that that does not conflict with the proposed ground lighting but I can't find one. The two light poles at the southern end always end up in the zone that provides an unfair advantage to attacking players at the taking of a corner. Chuqposted at 10:39PM on 11th Jul, 2009 Just for the record I do think the issues you raise are valid points, and the images you have been providing are very insightful ... I just don't think that the rest of the fantastic results of the feasibility study should be completely ignored because of it. If we play games during the day it would make lighting issues a moot point. Likewise can we play with 3 out of 4 (at Bellerive) or 4/5 out of 6 (at York Park) lights operational? BTW - I can only see three lights in that Bellerive pic - nothing up the top left of the image? ntguyposted at 12:31AM on 12th Jul, 2009 The fourth light at Bellerive is there but it appears as a little blur on the left hand side of of the far left hand line behind the goal line. The pitch cannot come further south because its is "hooked up" by the two lights at the northen end. My question on Bellerive is, can the lighting be redesigned to accommodate the better siting of a football pitch or is it too late? The issue at Aurora is similar to Bellerive. With the pitch orientation shown by the consultant no night games are possible and early season games are affected by the setting sun. This can be overcome by re-orientating the pitch as I have shown but this makes the viewing experience for the spectator significantly worse. By the way my criticisms of the report are in no way meant to be a criticism of any of the work done by the TUFC Executive in fact I take my hat off to them. My criticism is directed at the consultant who even if it was not included in the brief should have known that stadium lighting and sun position are critical issues when assessing the suitability of a stadium. The issue of where lighting sources can and can't be is one of safety and fairness for the players. ntguyposted at 1:20AM on 12th Jul, 2009 Below is a snapshot of the northern end of the image to help identify the pole locations Chuq. The poles are numbered 1 to 4 in a clockwise direction and a plan is available of Cricket Tasmania's website. Pole No 3 is shown to be located along an arc near where I have shown it on my image and I don't know whether the actual location on that arc has been determined yet neither do I know whether the locations shown on JMG's drawing are the final approved locations.
The reason I am so strong in my view that the issues I have raised need to be addressed now is that should the limitations at Bellerive be of such a concern to the FFA and its broadcast partner that it is not considered a viable venue the whole business case would change and the numbers might not stack up. All games at Aurora is not an option as far as I am concerned and I live in Lonnie.
Determining which venue is fair and safe for a football match at what time on what day is a complicated process so I am not prepared to answer your question at this time other than to say the calculations can be made.
TC_CValeposted at 3:11AM on 12th Jul, 2009 I may be wrong ntguy, but I was under the impression that if games were played at Bellerive that they would be placing the pitch as close as possible to the southern stand, which will keep the Football pitch off the cricket centre square, not centralised as you have shown. Cant see Tas Cricket allowing football matches to be played on the centre wicket as the players footwear will ruin the cricket pitch. Not sure on the size of the pitch you have used in your examples, but they do vary in size and maybe the consultants have used a smaller pitch size when doing this study to allow for the positioning of the football pitch as close as possible to the Southern stand Presently these are the only venue's that are capable of holding an A League game at the moment, maybe the TUFC are working to strike a deal with the HCC for the upgrade of Nth Hobart Oval which has always been the prefered venue in Hobart, this I think is the number one goal of the TUFC taskforce, we will just have to wait and see what happens over the next few months. We cannot expect TUFC to get the HCC to announce any upgrading of NHO before we have our licence. No major sporting events are held in the HCC area and I am sure they dont want our Football code going over the river, hopefully TUFC & HCC will come to an agreement and NHO will be upgraded. ntguyposted at 3:56AM on 12th Jul, 2009 The pitch location closer to the Southern Stand that the consultants have shown and was talked about months ago on here cannot be used if the the stadium lights are to be used. The location of the light towers at the northern end of the ground stop the ground being moved any further south than I have shown it (give or take a metre or two for drawing and image accuracy). If the consultants indicative location is to be used then the issues with sun location are still the same. Not only can night games not be played but with East West orientation the games have to be completed before the sun dips to the point that provides an unfair advantage to the team running with the sun behind it in the second half. tufcposted at 7:49AM on 12th Jul, 2009 None of the lighting issues will be relevant if games are played during the day. I think we should have 2pm kick-off anyway as it allows those travelling from the opposite end of the state to be home by dinner time!!! ntguyposted at 9:41AM on 12th Jul, 2009 This is a solution but it would need to be in the Feasibility Study Report so FFA know what they are dealing with in the bid. ntguyposted at 4:04AM on 12th Jul, 2009 The consultants said they were using a 105 x 68 m pitch which is the standard size of a pitch. I have used the same and represented it by the inner lighter green rectangle. My understanding is that this size is preferred by the FFA. The outer darker green rectangle represents the area that FIFA recommends should be clear of all obstructions for player safety, team benches, media use, and signage etc. This is 125 x 85 m. |
||
| Who's online |
|---|
| Our users have posted a total of 2032 posts We have 1009 registered users The newest registered user is rossaj |
Taswegian
posted at 9:25AM on 8th Jul, 2009
Yeah it's good to see. I only skimmed through it I must admit but it all seems pretty positive.
» Reply to this comment