General The Battle for Mt Smart Stadium

Should the Warriors remain at Mt Smart?

  • Yes

    Votes: 62 79.5%
  • No

    Votes: 12 15.4%
  • Move to another province

    Votes: 4 5.1%

  • Total voters
    78

Horriors2014

1st Grade Fringe
Mar 16, 2014
1,315
sure, but theyll build it OVAL to accomodate for the 2 x domestic cricket games a year
The article stated 'rectangle stadium'. But you're right-it's only words right now. Words that will no doubt be added to and changed in time.

I was reading an article yesterday about Queen's wharf being under-utilized even though it'seems meant to be more public space. I think now that things are stabilizing we can start planning that. In fact, if the council are serious about it, they need to start now.

There are the most major building projects kicking off over the next 6 mths. High rise buildings and other developments on Victoria Street, Quay St, Queen St, city rail along Albert, K'Rd etc. Downtown shopping mall is getting an upgrade. QE2 square is being leased or sold to property developers.

It's best IMO to coordinate with those projects so that everything is spaced out appropriately and so we don't miss out yet again on a window of opportunity.

What happened to the people's wharf?
Saturday, 05 December 2015
SCCZEN_231115HOSMCMCQUEENS10_480x270.jpg

Connie Clarkson says Auckland’s front yard could do with a makeover. Photo / Michael Craig.

It's been six years since Aucklanders were promised a new vision of open spaces and access to harbour views on the city's waterfront gateway, Queens Wharf.
By Geoff Cumming

Remember the sense of breakthrough when Queens Wharf in downtown Auckland was secured as the people's wharf?

For a city whose finest assets are its harbour and gulf setting and volcanic field, this was a big deal. For generations, the thousands who visit and work in the city centre caught only fleeting glimpses of those views thanks to the physical and political sway of the port. Opening up Queens Wharf at the foot of Queen St was the holy grail.

Six years on, the imported cars and bananas have gone but the port's preference to berth giant cruise ships there still overshadows the evolution of the people's wharf.

"Auckland's stunning waterfront sets the scene for what should be one of the world's most attractive downtown precincts," says one of many Auckland Council (and predecessors') reports on the area. The countless consultations and master plans have long promised low-intensity, high-quality public spaces and promenades providing the downtown-waterfront access that Wellingtonians and Sydneysiders enjoy.

The Downtown Framework talks of "rethinking ferry and cruise ship berthing options ... to open up more of the harbour's edge for people to enjoy". It's about "establishing a welcome mat and celebrated harbour edge. Transformation of Quay St, [opening] the red fence and redevelopment and new water-edge public spaces."

What's there now, even the council concedes, is a long way short. And making sense of the 3ha of public space is on hold until a raft of surrounding developments and obstacles are sorted.

"Interdependencies between projects in the area are extensive and changes in one aspect or area can result in compounding effects elsewhere which are not obvious," says one of the jargon-heavy documents.

For much of summer, the main activity is not people connecting with the harbour but tour buses, goods vehicles and taxis servicing the cruise ships, cars dropping and collecting ferry passengers and airport buses arriving and departing. The council estimates about 120,000 people come into the CBD each day; between 300 and 400 saunter on to Queens Wharf, on average.

Granted, quayside promenades have been developed to the west - around the Viaduct and Wynyard Quarter; public seating around the ferry basin. But the 400m-long wharf promised not only an up-close experience of the "theatre" of the water - ferries, yachts, ships and tugboats coming and going - but connection to world-class harbour views: a panorama sweeping from the harbour bridge to Stanley Point, Rangitoto, Devonport's twin cones and down the harbour to Waiheke and Browns Island. These views define Auckland.

In 2009, the Government and the Auckland Regional Council paid the council-owned port company $40 million to free up the wharf for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. "Party central" is a faded memory but the "people's wharf" remains a prize the city can't quite grasp.

The wharf's eastern strip, from where the best views unfold, is off limits behind a steel grate fence as the port company's preferred cruise ship terminal. Shed 10 - the sole surviving cargo shed which cost $18.6 million to restore - appears effectively privatised as the cruise ship gateway, though it's available for hire when no boat is tied up. The wharf takes most of the 100 ships that visit over summer. It was billed as a temporary terminal until other options were developed - with an extended Captain Cook Wharf next door the preferred option. But once it opened, Mayor Len Brown and his council rather dropped the ball.

A licence to occupy the wharf perimeter and close off areas for Customs purposes costs the port company just $1 a year. (It pays, however, for sub-structure maintenance and cruise-related operating costs.)

As for the public realm - it's shambolic. For first-timers, there's no coherence to the visitor experience - no sense of arrival, where to go nor what the wharf has to offer. For repeat visitors, there's only bemusement at the possibilities going begging. And, for three years while the Downtown Shopping Centre is rebuilt into a three-level mall and office tower, some displaced tenants will operate from "pop-up retail" containers on Queens Wharf near the entrance. Services such as shoe repair, dry cleaning, banking and food and beverages are envisaged, says the council - "not a high street-style shopping mall or a souvenir market".

The Cloud, a $10 million "temporary" addition, built to leverage trade opportunities during the Rugby World Cup, is badly under-utilised. The length of two football fields, it serves mainly to block the view.

SCCZEN_A_250913NZHRGRCLOUD01_620x310.jpg

The Cloud, Queens Wharf. Photo / Richard Robinson

$20 million is set aside in the council's 10-year plan for redeveloping Queens Wharf but the vision remains a blank. The only significant development on the books is the Barfoot and Thompson-funded Michael Parekowhai "Lighthouse" sculpture, to be positioned by mid-2016 among the panoramic views near wharf's end.

Back in 2009, a rushed design competition turned up myriad ideas for creating a high-quality public environment: sunken swimming pools, a cultural whare, produce market, performance amphitheatre, steps leading down to the water ... Aucklanders have since made it clear they favour high-amenity public spaces - not "iconic" buildings nor a Wynyard Quarter-style restaurant/bar strip. The overwhelming wish is to see harbour views.

The cash-strapped Auckland Council has other priorities. With major works scheduled for the downtown area and the headscratching over the future of the port, it's a wharf tied up in strategic knots. There's the Auckland Plan, the Waterfront Master Plan, the Central City Master Plan, the Downtown Framework and the Central Wharves Strategy. All talk up the transformative potential of connecting city and harbour via the Queen St-Queens Wharf "spine".

Urban planner Joel Cayford says the various plans contain all the right words and the public's preferences for the type of development are well-established. But there's no sign of implementation - just further consultation.

"Public open space is always the last cab off the rank and we've had 40 years of that," Cayford says. "Gradually it just gets appropriated or encroached on."

SCCZEN_A_181010NZHSMARC10_620x310.jpg

Joel Cayford speaks at the final meeting of the Auckland Regional Council. Photo / Steven McNicholl

Cayford is completing a PhD comparing Auckland's waterfront redevelopment with Wellington, where traffic diversion paved the way for people-friendly promenades and wharf amenity. He says divided management is a factor in Auckland's failure to make similar progress.

"There's not been a coherent plan for the whole area. There's no detail in the central city and waterfront master plans in terms of implementation."

It probably doesn't help that the property is managed by arms-length CCO Panuku Development Auckland and, since the admirable, but expensive, Shed 10 renovation, the wharf hasn't been a priority for lame-duck Mayor Len Brown.

Cayford sees worrying parallels with past projects approved on the promise of public access and amenity benefits - examples include Princes Wharf and the failed Chase Plaza, in the middle of a high-rise office development, in mid-town. "We've had this recurring theme where public space is used as the carrot and then it is either not delivered or taken away and privatised."

It's happening again, Cayford notes, with the sale of nearby Queen Elizabeth Square to Precinct Properties for the Downtown Mall development. With past councils allowing high rise towers to turn the square into a windswept canyon, the current council depicts it as a failed space.

The council promises to spend the $27.2 million it gains from the deal to extend the seawall and enhance public spaces in the ferry basin (between Princes Wharf and the Ferry Building) and upgrade the Admiralty Steps, east of Queens Wharf, but not on the wharf itself.

Cayford warns that neglect of Queens Wharf risks a similar scenario of a future council declaring the area, or part of it, a failed space. "They could say a few people sitting under umbrellas or trying to catch a fish on a 3ha space in that location is unsuccessful so let a private sector developer do something. This is what's happened with Queen Elizabeth Square."

He adds that "temporary" facilities - such as The Cloud, the cruise ship terminal and the new "pop-up retail" area can assume permanence unless the public is vigilant.

So many dominoes need to fall it could be another five to 10 years before the wharf offers the high-quality environment for so long envisaged. These "interdependent" projects include: construction work for the City Rail Link; the Downtown Mall redevelopment; lower Queen St pedestrianisation, with buses diverted to a new interchange in lower Albert St; changes to Ferry Terminal operations and the new ferry basin seawall; turning Quay St into a pedestrian-friendly boulevard ...

The biggest wildcard is the Future Port Study which aims to cater for growing trade and longer ships without encroaching further into the harbour. Consultancies were appointed last month but they have only six months and a $600,000 budget to weigh up the options.

City Centre Integration spokesman Oliver Roberts says it's recognised that the wharf is not fulfilling its potential and improvement is needed. But a long-term wharf plan must await decisions on the port's future configuration, including any scope to move the cruise ship terminal.

Editorial: Queens Wharf latent under the Cloud

Former regional council chairman Mike Lee was instrumental in securing the wharf for the people. Now chairman of the Auckland Council infrastructure committee and a Waitemata ward councillor, Lee is far from disappointed by what's unfolded since. "I saw it as an opportunity to open up the waterfront - simply for people to get close to ships again. We've got 26 regional parks with high conservation and landscape values - I never saw Queens Wharf in that light.

"It's about people and recreation places and it's a working place - it's bustling. My only concern is that it needs somehow to be made more inviting at the Queen St end."

Lee opposes shifting cruise ships to an extended Captain Cook Wharf. "There are so many things we need to do in this town - we've got a working terminal, it's good enough. Queens Wharf will evolve over time - it's up to future generations to do with it what they will."

Making a place for the people
SCCZEN_231115HOSMCMCQUEENS08_620x310.jpg

Connie Clarkson, manager of Queens Wharf. Photo / Michael Craig.

The long walk to wharf's end and back is as puzzling as the wharf itself. Approaching from the Queen St canyon, there's the bus interchange in lower Queen St and the heavy traffic of Quay St to negotiate. While the famous Red Fence has been prised open, the wharf entrance itself is a busy thoroughfare when a cruise ship is in. The public square in front of Shed 10 is given over to tour bus boarding and disembarking.

When a boat is tied up on Queens or a car carrier on adjacent Captain Cook, views to Devonport's cones and down-harbour are hidden until the wharf's end. The ferry terminal and placement of The Cloud alongside Shed 10 add to the sense of enclosure.

In the midst of all this is a public seating area - where fluoro-coloured shade umbrellas match the garishness of the fake grass - with barely a glimpse of the harbour.

An information kiosk staffed by volunteers draws a few curious tourists. Office workers make use of the deck-slab furniture to eat lunch.

Surely a bit of paving of the pockmarked concrete surface and other landscape touches would leaven the industrial feel?

Even the effervescent wharf manager, Connie Clarkson, agrees the front yard could do with a makeover.

"It's a concrete wharf and a working wharf but it needs some softening, which can be flexible," Clarkson says.

Upstairs in Shed 10 is a wonderful space when available: chunky floorboards, exposed steel trusses and timber sarking, with windows giving elevated views of the harbour and port. But it is primarily off-limits since the decision to use Queens, rather than Princes Wharf, for most ship visits.

SCCZEN_A_140615NZHNRFAIR1_620x310.jpg

Large crowds at the Auckland Fair at Shed 10. Photo / Nick Reed

To its left, The Cloud - built as a trade venue for RWC2011 - has become a white elephant. Yet the "temporary" facility has taken on an air of permanence.

The venues, and the wharf itself, come into their own on weekends and public holidays for major events such as the Block Party, many of them free. Last summer (from October to February) the wharf hosted 89 events drawing 142,000 people. Venue hire generates around $800,000 a year, which covers operating costs and free events including sunrise yoga and art exhibitions.

Those with time can stroll the 400m to wharf's end where there's more public seating and stunning views of the harbour. One or two try their luck fishing. There's a piano to tinker on in an open container. It's a great relaxation spot - but then what?

At the far end of The Cloud, the deck off the mezzanine lounge offers stunning views of harbour and gulf. Surely these wasted hospitality spaces could be put to better use, enticing more people to wharf's end? No, the council has ruled out commercial lease of the venues - other than for functions.

Why not open the steel fence along the eastern wharf when ships aren't in port? Clarkson says there's a safety problem with young people using the cruise ship gantry for "bombing". Couldn't that be less-drastically managed?

Clarkson is a boundless optimist who sees little wrong with the public's interaction with the wharf.

"The public have rediscovered what it's like to come here," she says.

"There are not many places in any city where you can buy a burger, walk across the road and enjoy just being here - for nothing. People cannot believe there's a facility like this in the heart of the city ..."

She points to the variety of low-key activities: an exhibition by amateur photographers along the steel-grille fence; more exhibits inside a "digibox" container.

051215DOWNTOWN.jpg


When The Cloud isn't booked (which is most days) punters can amble in to play table tennis, badminton or move the giant chess pieces, or just sit. The council calls this "placemaking".

Clarkson's official title is commercial place operations manager for Panuku Development Auckland (formerly Waterfront Auckland).

The wharf's slow evolution leaves scope to try things, she says, to make changes "as simple as shifting furniture into the right place and the people will come".

"It doesn't matter whether we have to wait a long time for the place to be redefined. What placemaking does is allow us to redefine it as we go."

User-friendly wins the day

Last Anniversary Weekend, the council closed off lower Queen St and Quay St and laid out beanbags, deck chairs and children's playthings on fake grass matting - an experiment to see what the public made of a car-free waterfront. They loved it.

The over-riding preference was to get close to the water and see the harbour. Those surveyed liked "fun, quirky spaces" and play areas for children as well as shelter. Environment, including green spaces, and setting were paramount. Arts and culture came in second, ahead of recreation facilities, with hospitality and retail down the track. A landmark tourist attraction wasn't a priority for most. There was enthusiasm for trams or light rail to connect the waterfront with Wynyard Quarter and the eastern bays. Cycle lanes were also important. In short, the same vision that 15 years of consultations and plans have produced.
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
History will show how ridiculous his plan was to have two unused cricket ovals, demolish the East Stand at Mt Smart to accomodate the speedway track and move the Warriors to QBE.

Yes it was ridiculous and obviously so but I ask the question would it not have been better back in 1992 for some wise head somewhere to see that Carlaw Park was going to be more central, closer to nightlife and transport hubs than Mount Smart?

The same situation occurred in Brisbane when the Broncos went out to Mount Gravatt (QEII) from Lang Park. I watched some games there and you needed binoculars to see the bloody wingers on your side of the field. In Auckland the council took the easy option and bribed the Warriors to go to Mount Smart by mowing the east grandstand to the touchlines. In Brisbane they built one of the best rugby or league stadiums in the world for the Broncos to go back into the city.

I accept that the railway embankment at Carlaw posed problems but they had two league fields there plus parking and the area under the terraces. Mount Smart has an amazing atmosphere and the parking is easy on the weekends but things are changing in sport.

People don't have as much spare time these days. Twenty years ago I was an original season ticket holder and traveled two hours each way to the ground. There were thousands doing the same thing. How many are doing that now? They don't have the time. Also 4 pm kickoff on Sunday is a nightmare when you have a 5.30 start in the morning.

Back then you would have a drink during and after the game. If you drink now it has to be two stroke:banghead::banghead: if you could walk to a bus or railway station downtown you could make a great day out, except at 4 pm on Sunday.

I don't think they are ever going to get those big crowds back again.

I reckon a 15000 stadium would have been fine for the Warriors. It would have been an amazing atmosphere every game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mt.wellington

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Jun 21, 2012
22,510
Mt. Wellington, Auckland
I don't think they are ever going to get those big crowds back again.

I reckon a 15000 stadium would have been fine for the Warriors. It would have been an amazing atmosphere every game.
15,000 wont be enough. Not unless you made tickets $100. Warriors get 11,000 fans to the park on the worst day. The lowest attendence numbers for Mt Smart last year was 12,481 against the Sharks.

Mark my words. When, or if, the Warriors start playing some consistent winning footy even Mt Smarts 30,000 capacity seating wont be enough. The bandwagon will be well and truly full with the 'been loyal since 1995' party get back on board.

You'd fall into that category wouldnt you lol :p;):D...
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
Mark my words. When, or if, the Warriors start playing some consistent winning footy even Mt Smarts 30,000 capacity seating wont be enough. The bandwagon will be well and truly full with the 'been loyal since 1995' party get back on board.
You may well be right, and I hope so. I have been weighing up getting a season ticket for next year and the killer was those 4pm Sunday kickoffs. I accept that if I don't take a season ticket and the team roars the fans will be back in droves and trying to book a decent game day ticket will be impossible, but I will only be sad on Friday and Saturday, not 4 pm Sunday. I will be sad because the Warriors fans at Mount Smart these days are a breed of their own and the atmosphere is something special.
 

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Jun 21, 2012
22,510
Mt. Wellington, Auckland
You may well be right, and I hope so. I have been weighing up getting a season ticket for next year and the killer was those 4pm Sunday kickoffs. I accept that if I don't take a season ticket and the team roars the fans will be back in droves and trying to book a decent game day ticket will be impossible, but I will only be sad on Friday and Saturday, not 4 pm Sunday. I will be sad because the Warriors fans at Mount Smart these days are a breed of their own and the atmosphere is something special.
Dont forget you get first dibs on the sell out Finals games we will be playing at Mt Smart next year ;)...
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
All gate takings from the Finals games go to the NRL anyway so it makes sense they would want to go to the bigger venue...
Eden Park is ok when full. That only happens with All Black tests these days. I agree with the butcher, the places is jinxed for league. I was there in 1988 when we were beaten by the Kangaroos. The only thrill was watching Tony Iro break Wally Lewis's arm.
 

snake77

Warriors 1st Grader
Jul 12, 2013
8,908
Before he left Domm actually tried to rush through the final stages of his RFA recommmendations and get the thing fully rubber stamped and enacted.
Seen a lot of guys over my working life try and pull this one. They then get to move on and tell their next employer they achieved the following while the people they left at their last role pick up the pieces.

A move to either QBE or Eden Park would have crippled the club financially. Remaining at Mt Smart is the best way forward for the club. The fans also benefit from not having to watch the game from afar in an oval stadium or suffer the distance and poorer facilities over the shore.
The financial side was the main part which got me against any move. The club needed to increase it's attendances if it moved to Eden Park and they would have lost out on the corporate box revenue they get at Mt Smart. Some of the press initially were painting it as the Warriors being the issue but that soon turned around to the whole plan being ridiculous.

The move to Eden Park didn't stack up and North Harbour has been a half built stadium since 1997. Now all of a sudden North Harbour is going to invested heavily in a short time frame.

In Australia the clubs get incentives to use the big stadiums over here we would have got the council putting on free public transport to Eden Park. This should have been done anyway.
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
In Australia the clubs get incentives to use the big stadiums o
If you mean ANZ Stadium, because the ANZ own the unpaid mortgage on it, another white elephant built for a one off Olympics. It is killing the atmosphere there for ordinary club games. Allianz is a great stadium to watch league, even if it is too small form the really big games.
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
North Harbour has been a half built stadium since 1997
Funny how there was no mention of taking speedway there. They have plenty of spare space and no close neighbours for noise complaints. It just shows what a dog of a place it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mt.wellington

snake77

Warriors 1st Grader
Jul 12, 2013
8,908
If you mean ANZ Stadium, because the ANZ own the unpaid mortgage on it, another white elephant built for a one off Olympics. It is killing the atmosphere there for ordinary club games. Allianz is a great stadium to watch league, even if it is too small form the really big games.
There were a few articles in the Australian papers a few years ago which mentioned the Olympic Stadium giving the clubs better rent etc compared to SFS. There may have been other incentives as well.

Now compare that to the officials in Auckland who come to the Warriors with basically. We need to you move as we have this white elephant and your crowds are bigger than the other tenants but your attendance would still need to increase for you to break even. Oh yeah and you'll loose the corporate box revenue you currently get. That's a great deal eh, now help us out.

Funny how there was no mention of taking speedway there. They have plenty of spare space and no close neighbours for noise complaints. It just shows what a dog of a place it is
A few posters on here have mentioned why could North Harbour be used for speedway. The one grandstand would probably be enough and they can develop the rest of the stadium for the track. The lack of parking probably wouldn't be an issues as they can use the mall and mega centre parking as most of their events are at night when the shops are closed.

North Harbour is used by an NPC team you have to wonder if we were sharing our stadium with another side say if the old Kings/z football team was still around or another NPC side would the council have tried to move the club?
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
A few posters on here have mentioned why could North Harbour be used for speedway. The one grandstand would probably be enough and they can develop the rest of the stadium for the track. The lack of parking probably wouldn't be an issues as they can use the mall and mega centre parking as most of their events are at night when the shops are closed.

North Harbour is used by an NPC team you have to wonder if we were sharing our stadium with another side say if the old Kings/z football team was still around or another NPC side would the council have tried to move the club?
The NPC team is probably the reason. With the crowds they get they could go to any suburban park and make them stand on the sidelines. The Warriors trial games there have got decent crowds though. That is probably why they had the brilliant idea of taking the Warriors there. Contrary to popular belief support for the Warriors does not just come from South Auckland.
 

Miket12

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 20, 2012
8,864
Are there any proposed plans for the upgrade of Mt Smart or only what the Warriors said was needed in dollar terms?
Judging by the very little I've been able to find out (because the negotiations are still taking place and, as we know, Lord Jim plays with his cards close to his chest) and a lot of guess work on my part, I'd expect that the work to be done will be pretty much the minimum that will be required by the NRL. If I remember correctly, that would be about $8-10 mil. How that cost is going to be split between the club and RFA, I'd guess the club will probably be paying less than half the cost since they are only leasing the stadium. I think they were looking at improving the toilets, re-roofing the western stand and resealing the car parking area. Most likely that the southern and partial northern stands will remain temporary.

Things like replacing broken/worn seating to the western stand should be met as part of the RFA maintenance contract and not part of the upgrade.

It's certainly not going to a "gold standard" stadium but at least it's still Mt Smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jonno and snake77

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
It's certainly not going to a "gold standard" stadium but at least it's still Mt Smart.
If I have it correct:
they upgraded the old Mount Smart for the 1990 games (Number 1),
they upgraded it again in 1995 by building a new eastern stand and bringing the touchline closer to the western stand (Number 2)
they upgraded it again about ten years ago with the new Eastern Stand and changing rooms underneath (Number three)

That means the Western Stand is well overdue for an upgrade and the Eastern Stand will be in another five years. Is that correct?
 

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Jun 21, 2012
22,510
Mt. Wellington, Auckland
The NPC team is probably the reason. With the crowds they get they could go to any suburban park and make them stand on the sidelines. The Warriors trial games there have got decent crowds though. That is probably why they had the brilliant idea of taking the Warriors there. Contrary to popular belief support for the Warriors does not just come from South Auckland.
The last trial game at QBE Stadium in 2014 was attended by an estimated 7,000 people. 2012 had 10,500. Thats pathetic seeing as the trial in Rotorua last year had 9,000. The trial matches in 2013 at Waikato Stadium and Forsyth Barr Stadium drew 12,000 and 15,000 respectively.

Makes more sense for the club to promote the game outside of Auckland and also gain more revenue as stadiums would be tripping over themselves to host them.

South Auckland may not be the Warriors only support base but its certainly NZ Rugby Leagues heartland. I believe a tally of season members in 2013 found that most members came from West Auckland...
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
The last trial game at QBE Stadium in 2014 was attended by an estimated 7,000 people. 2012 had 10,500. Thats pathetic seeing as the trial in Rotorua last year had 9,000. The trial matches in 2013 at Waikato Stadium and Forsyth Barr Stadium drew 12,000 and 15,000 respectively.
Interesting stats thanks. What is shows is that the Warriors got more to QBE than either union or football which probably impressed the council...but the ground is also a dog...mainly because of transport issues.
I believe a tally of season members in 2013 found that most members came from West Auckland...
More interesting stats, do you have any more information on where the members are from?
 

Miket12

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 20, 2012
8,864
If I have it correct:
they upgraded the old Mount Smart for the 1990 games (Number 1),
they upgraded it again in 1995 by building a new eastern stand and bringing the touchline closer to the western stand (Number 2)
they upgraded it again about ten years ago with the new Eastern Stand and changing rooms underneath (Number three)

That means the Western Stand is well overdue for an upgrade and the Eastern Stand will be in another five years. Is that correct?
I guess the upgrades to the existing stands (esp. the western stand) will depend mainly on what is required to bring the facility up to NRL standards again and what should have been/is required to be undertaken as part of the maintenance program/work that the Council/RFA should do as part of the role as owner of the stadium.

It would be great, say, to have a proper concourse and members/clubrooms and food/merchandising stores stands under the stands but neither the Council or the Warriors would most likely be prepared to pay for that. Also, permanent seating to the north and south of the ground - but again it wouldn't be considered a priority.
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
16,061
I guess the upgrades to the existing stands (esp. the western stand) will depend mainly on what is required to bring the facility up to NRL standards again
Apart from the roof on the western stand what other issues are below the NRL standard?
 

Upcoming Match

Gold Coast Titans Central Coast Stadium

Last Game

27 Sep

40 - 28
6.5 Total Avg Rating
0.0 Your Avg Rating

Highest Rated Player

Lowest Rated Player

Compiled from 19 ratings