R__
-
Posts
16,240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
238
About R__
Recent Profile Visitors
134,471 profile views
R__'s Achievements
Torch Bearer 10000 Club (15/16)
2.2k
Reputation
-
Yep, hardly worth commenting on placeholder images. It's the capacity that's an issue at the moment (if it even is an issue). Speaking of Manchester 2002, Sydney 2000 etc...I don't suppose it would be possible to do what they did here to create a temporarily higher capacity? I'm guessing the cramped nature of the site means that's unlikely, but...maybe something worth exploring?
-
Firstly, I think "redeveloped" is a bit of a euphemism here. They're basically talking about knocking it down and rebuilding it. Secondly, the Gabba looks to be in a cramped urban area, so I would assume capacity is limited by its surroundings, not by cost factors. Looking at Optus Stadium, it looks to be on a nice big piece of open flat land which means the build would be less complex and capacity not constrained. Lastly, Optus Stadium in Perth broke ground in 2014. A decade's worth of inflation needs to be taken into account when comparing the two. If you're saying a new stadium should've been built elsewhere because all these factors mean a Gabba redevelopment is going to be limited, you might have a point. But I don't know anywhere enough about the city or the stadium to argue for or against on that.
-
I don't quite understand how a $1bn redevelopment of a state owned stadium can be cost neutral to the state - at least in terms of getting the thing rebuilt. Sure, you can get naming rights sponsors and those kind of things, but not on this scale. Or perhaps you can get some contribution from the tenants but wouldn't they expect some ownership of the stadium in return for that? The state bid for these 2032 Games, it's ultimately going to have to step up and pay for this isn't it? Wouldn't it be better to simply say that it'll cost this amount, but the profits from the Games plus the long-term profits from a better stadium will more than cover it. Or would that argument be false?
-
The Trans Issue - IFs rule on transgender participation
R__ replied to Sir Rols's topic in General Olympics Discussion
And yet... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-athletes-likely-to-be-barred-from-female-classifications-jv7h7s5rq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1674764054 Probably least-worst option for balancing fairness and inclusion? -
Time to kick muddah-f*cking Russia out once & for all?
R__ replied to baron-pierreIV's topic in General Olympics Discussion
The neutral athletes, no flag thing again? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha -
That made me laugh more than it should've.
-
-
As is often the case, David Squires hits the nail on the head better than anyone else...
-
Sad news. I first became aware of him when he ran for FIFA President a decade ago in a stand against FIFA corruption... He's also the journalist who was stopped from entering a stadium a week or two ago for wearing a rainbow shirt And an all round decent football writer, above all. RIP
-
Iran surprisingly soft-bellied. Still, not complaining. That's a very nice start.
-
Joe Lycett shreds £10,000 over Beckham's controversial Qatar World Cup deal https://news.sky.com/story/will-joe-lycett-shred-10-000-today-over-david-beckhams-controversial-qatar-world-cup-deal-12751508 Or did he?
-
Yeah, same thing the world over when it comes to religious conservative leaders... https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/iranian-minister-rostam-qasemi-called-out-over-holiday-images-with-unveiled-girlified-in-malaysia/ar-AA13zRdl?ocid=weather-verthp-feeds
-
Looks like someone found somewhere that wasn't serving only Bud-zero.
-
Well, this is fairly comprehensive...
