Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 61

Thread: SCG light towers go missing

  1. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by GoBloods View Post
    the scg didnt think that the removal of two light towers and installing of temporary lighting would be an issue.
    Well they certainly thought wrong, didn't they. From everything from the AFL discussing about the possabilty of moving the SCG night matches to FOX Studios refusing to give the SCG trust permission to erect lighting towers from crains until the DAY of the match, its clear the SCG Trust didn't think this one out as well as they SHOULD have.

    At least with the issue coming out when it did, it forced the AFL to act and get the answers as to what sort of quality the lighting the would be getting come this weekend, hence the match goes ahead as planned and at the SCG.

    The eastern side and randwick end of the scg backs on to fox studios.
    Fox own the land and therefore the scg trust do not have access to the exterior of these areas .so all work has to be done internally
    So why didn't the Trust come up with a plan that had temp light erected upon their own land and not somebody elses?? Wouldn't that of been a smarter move.
    Once was, now elsewhere

  2. #50
    Veterans List DeadlyAkkuret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,547
    Any chance we could just play in the dark next saturday? we might kick a winning score.

  3. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by GoBloods View Post
    what an inane comment - the swans had a major say on the design of the new grandstand.
    So your saying that the Swans had the biggest say of all interested parties in the building of the new stand?? Give me a brake. Should they would of been consulted as to what type of things they would of like in such as private boxes and dining rooms, but even if the Swans weren't consulted do you think those things wouldn't of been included?? No of could they would have. This stand was getting build without or without the Swans say so, but it goes without saying the Swans are more than happy with the fact its being built and the resulting faciltites that result from it.

    once the plans had been completed , all parties were informed of commencement date.
    No @@@@.

    by the way , the swans want all these new corporate facilities, but last week vs brisbane , more than a dozen private boxes were still available for season hire.
    That's a moot point in anycase because they have lost a total of zero corporate facilities in the redevlopment so far. All they have lost is seating on a hill basically.
    Once was, now elsewhere

  4. #52
    RWO Life Member ROK Lobster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Capital Hill
    Posts
    8,658
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by robbieando View Post
    Give me a brake.
    Sccrrreeeeeeech

  5. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by GoBloods View Post
    ok , to clarify one common mistake that non scg members make(ie that scg members get into matches for free ), the scg trust members ( that we share the ground with ) paid annual fees .their fees are then passed on the ground hirer whenever they attend a match...example, if 5000 members attend swans v brisbane, the scg trust plays the swans 5000 x whatever their (swans/scg) agreed price is.
    so the swans dont lose out here, which many of you believe...
    That's not the issue. Regardless of the fact if SCG Trust members get in for free or somewhere down the line end up paying the Swans via the Trust (though a % of their membership fee) my point was, because we have to accomadate them, along side our Sydney based members means that we have TWO problems this because of the limited capacity at the SCG which end up cost us money.

    1) We can't expand our membership base in Sydney too much higher as we can't find room for them (depsite the fact we were well under capacity last week, thats because members with seats didn't turn up)

    and 2) The normal General Admission allotment has been cut to basically nothing, thus meaning we can't make the same amount of money off GA tickets to people who go to odd game, rather than buy membership.

    That's what I have a problem with. The cut in capacity doesn't hurt the SCG Trust members or even the Club members themselves because we have enough seats for them (and as you pointed out still get the money from them), but forget trying to grow our membership base or get first timers to rock up and buy GA tickets (thats where we lose money this year).

    secondly , the scg trust greedy decision not to let the swans move their games to homebush.....why would ANY BUSINESS allow this to happen.
    Ah, yes. The MCG did during the redevelopment and during the 4 week of last season. They also did agreed to do away with the MCG Final each week of the finals agreement.

    the swans have an agreement to play at the scg. why should the trust allow them to break this agreement.
    Maybe because the Swans are one of their major tennents who are facing losing money by playing at the SCG this season, so if by agreeing to move just two of the 8 games from the SCG to Telstra Stadium (which in reality of only be braking the Swans/SCG contract by the one game) helps them over come those losses and then is able to use that next time both side come to the table to work out an agreement as a reason why the Swans should keep playing 8 games a season at the SCG then maybe they should look into it.

    the trust would lose plenty of revenue...the scg is not a CHARITY
    On the flip side the Swans are losing revenue by playing at the SCG. By that token are we a Charity??

    think with your head on this issue , not your heart....if you were in private business and a client/hirer were wanting to do the same thing you would stop it as well.
    If I was in private business (lets say I owned a major shopping centre) and I decided to redevlop the Shopping Centre, I would at least give the storeholders a lower rent during the time of the redevlopment to lessen the blow against the likely event that less shoppers come to the shopping centre because of the dispution to the Centre and the likelyhood the stores would be making less sales. That is common sense.
    Once was, now elsewhere

  6. #54
    RWO Life Member ROK Lobster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Capital Hill
    Posts
    8,658
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by robbieando View Post
    If I was in private business (lets say I owned a major shopping centre) and I decided to redevlop the Shopping Centre, I would at least give the storeholders a lower rent during the time of the redevlopment to lessen the blow against the likely event that less shoppers come to the shopping centre because of the dispution to the Centre and the likelyhood the stores would be making less sales. That is common sense.
    Hehehe. No you wouldn't. You would put a clause in their lease that said that if they could prove to you that they had lost revenue because of your redevelopment that you would compensate them for their loss.

  7. #55
    It's Goodes to cheer!! ScottH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
    Posts
    23,665
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by ROK Lobster View Post
    Hehehe. No you wouldn't. You would put a clause in their lease that said that if they could prove to you that they had lost revenue because of your redevelopment that you would compensate them for their loss.
    And put the rent up after the renovations (just like Westfield Doncaster are doing ATM)

  8. #56
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Northern Beaches
    Posts
    2,072
    ROK and Scott H are exactly right!..This is business ..whether it's football or selling hot dogs, it's about maximising profits and enforcing contracts..signage, corp boxes and existing contracts will mean the SCG wins....always! They have the ownership!

  9. #57
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    178
    Hope these work. Looks okay to me.




  10. #58
    Living in 2005
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,713
    First pic is OK.

    The second one, I am guessing none of the other lights are on??? (well hoping)

    Because that looks like lights good enough for training maybe, but not playing a Senior AFL match.

  11. #59
    The old Boiler! Wardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Goulburn NSW
    Posts
    6,676
    Quote Originally Posted by robbieando View Post
    If I was in private business (lets say I owned a major shopping centre) and I decided to redevlop the Shopping Centre, I would at least give the storeholders a lower rent during the time of the redevlopment to lessen the blow against the likely event that less shoppers come to the shopping centre because of the dispution to the Centre and the likelyhood the stores would be making less sales. That is common sense.

    You've never dealt with Business such as Westfield , Stockland or Lend Lease have you ? they dont give an inch, you will find the other bit players in that area of business are aspiring to be just like the big 3. Tenants are their by choice, they have to abide by the owners guidelines and contracts & hand over a percentage of their profits.

    The SCG Trust are , as per usual, holding the strings to maximize their return, like it or not - its business and the contract between them and the Swans is binding. Its by no means perfect, but its binding.
    I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure..................
    Chickens drink - but they don't pee!
    AGE IS ONLY IMPORTANT FOR TWO THINGS - WINE & CHEESE!

  12. #60
    Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes! Industrial Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Doughnuts don't wear alligator shoes
    Posts
    3,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ROK Lobster View Post
    Sccrrreeeeeeech
    I was nearly the vocab police on that post myself...

    As it stands, you're a bitch
    He ate more cheese, than time allowed

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO