❓ Mr Marshall questions the government's plan to spend $3.4 million relocating the Subiaco Football Club to Leederville Oval, given the previous government's $38 million redevelopment of Subiaco Oval and the club's existing lease and revenue streams at Subiaco Oval. Mr Carpenter defends the plan, citing the club's desire to move and criticising the previous government's approach to sporting facility development.
AnsweredQoN 540Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE SPORTING FACILITY PLAN, SUBIACO FOOTBALL CLUB
I refer the minister to the recently tabled state sporting facility plan, which states that the design for the redevelopment of Leederville Oval will allow for the relocation of the Subiaco Football Club from Subiaco Oval. The proposed project will cost about $3.4 million. Given that the previous Government spent $38 million redeveloping Subiaco Oval, that the Subiaco Football Club has a lease entitling it to occupy and play at the oval until 2011, and that the Subiaco Football Club receives a commission from all signage at the oval, why is this Government spending taxpayers’ funds on the unnecessary relocation of the club? Mr CARPENTER
I refer the minister to the recently tabled state sporting facility plan, which states that the design for the redevelopment of Leederville Oval will allow for the relocation of the Subiaco Football Club from Subiaco Oval. The proposed project will cost about $3.4 million. Given that the previous Government spent $38 million redeveloping Subiaco Oval, that the Subiaco Football Club has a lease entitling it to occupy and play at the oval until 2011, and that the Subiaco Football Club receives a commission from all signage at the oval, why is this Government spending taxpayers’ funds on the unnecessary relocation of the club? Mr CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
In my discussions with the Subiaco Football Club over a couple of years the club has recognised the inevitable; that is, that it must leave Subiaco Oval. A couple of years ago it was looking at the prospect of moving to Warwick or Wanneroo. It needs a long-term home, and it is looking for one. It has gone cold on the idea of moving to the northern suburbs. The club believes it is better off in an inner-city environment, and Leederville Oval is a short distance from its current home at Subiaco. I understand that the Subiaco Football Club is enthusiastic about the prospect of having a long-term base at Leederville Oval, and that it has been involved in discussions with the people who put together the sports facility plan with a view to providing a secure location. The State Government will not spend money developing facilities that people do not want. That is contrary to the previous Government’s approach, especially when one considers the commitment that it made about the proposed soccer stadium on Wellington Street. As it turned out, the only prospective tenant - Perth Glory - decided it did not want to be based at that site. What a stupid way to develop facilities! It is unbelievable. Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
Mr CARPENTER replied: In my discussions with the Subiaco Football Club over a couple of years the club has recognised the inevitable; that is, that it must leave Subiaco Oval. A couple of years ago it was looking at the prospect of moving to Warwick or Wanneroo. It needs a long-term home, and it is looking for one. It has gone cold on the idea of moving to the northern suburbs. The club believes it is better off in an inner-city environment, and Leederville Oval is a short distance from its current home at Subiaco. I understand that the Subiaco Football Club is enthusiastic about the prospect of having a long-term base at Leederville Oval, and that it has been involved in discussions with the people who put together the sports facility plan with a view to providing a secure location. The State Government will not spend money developing facilities that people do not want. That is contrary to the previous Government’s approach, especially when one considers the commitment that it made about the proposed soccer stadium on Wellington Street. As it turned out, the only prospective tenant - Perth Glory - decided it did not want to be based at that site. What a stupid way to develop facilities! It is unbelievable. Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
In my discussions with the Subiaco Football Club over a couple of years the club has recognised the inevitable; that is, that it must leave Subiaco Oval. A couple of years ago it was looking at the prospect of moving to Warwick or Wanneroo. It needs a long-term home, and it is looking for one. It has gone cold on the idea of moving to the northern suburbs. The club believes it is better off in an inner-city environment, and Leederville Oval is a short distance from its current home at Subiaco. I understand that the Subiaco Football Club is enthusiastic about the prospect of having a long-term base at Leederville Oval, and that it has been involved in discussions with the people who put together the sports facility plan with a view to providing a secure location. The State Government will not spend money developing facilities that people do not want. That is contrary to the previous Government’s approach, especially when one considers the commitment that it made about the proposed soccer stadium on Wellington Street. As it turned out, the only prospective tenant - Perth Glory - decided it did not want to be based at that site. What a stupid way to develop facilities! It is unbelievable. Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
The State Government will not spend money developing facilities that people do not want. That is contrary to the previous Government’s approach, especially when one considers the commitment that it made about the proposed soccer stadium on Wellington Street. As it turned out, the only prospective tenant - Perth Glory - decided it did not want to be based at that site. What a stupid way to develop facilities! It is unbelievable. Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
Mr CARPENTER replied: In my discussions with the Subiaco Football Club over a couple of years the club has recognised the inevitable; that is, that it must leave Subiaco Oval. A couple of years ago it was looking at the prospect of moving to Warwick or Wanneroo. It needs a long-term home, and it is looking for one. It has gone cold on the idea of moving to the northern suburbs. The club believes it is better off in an inner-city environment, and Leederville Oval is a short distance from its current home at Subiaco. I understand that the Subiaco Football Club is enthusiastic about the prospect of having a long-term base at Leederville Oval, and that it has been involved in discussions with the people who put together the sports facility plan with a view to providing a secure location. The State Government will not spend money developing facilities that people do not want. That is contrary to the previous Government’s approach, especially when one considers the commitment that it made about the proposed soccer stadium on Wellington Street. As it turned out, the only prospective tenant - Perth Glory - decided it did not want to be based at that site. What a stupid way to develop facilities! It is unbelievable. Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
In my discussions with the Subiaco Football Club over a couple of years the club has recognised the inevitable; that is, that it must leave Subiaco Oval. A couple of years ago it was looking at the prospect of moving to Warwick or Wanneroo. It needs a long-term home, and it is looking for one. It has gone cold on the idea of moving to the northern suburbs. The club believes it is better off in an inner-city environment, and Leederville Oval is a short distance from its current home at Subiaco. I understand that the Subiaco Football Club is enthusiastic about the prospect of having a long-term base at Leederville Oval, and that it has been involved in discussions with the people who put together the sports facility plan with a view to providing a secure location. The State Government will not spend money developing facilities that people do not want. That is contrary to the previous Government’s approach, especially when one considers the commitment that it made about the proposed soccer stadium on Wellington Street. As it turned out, the only prospective tenant - Perth Glory - decided it did not want to be based at that site. What a stupid way to develop facilities! It is unbelievable. Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
The State Government will not spend money developing facilities that people do not want. That is contrary to the previous Government’s approach, especially when one considers the commitment that it made about the proposed soccer stadium on Wellington Street. As it turned out, the only prospective tenant - Perth Glory - decided it did not want to be based at that site. What a stupid way to develop facilities! It is unbelievable. Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
Over the years, this State has suffered as a result of the previous Government’s ad hoc approach to sporting facility development and its inability to make a decision. The decision about the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval has caused more problems than it has solved. It has created a huge debt for the West Australian Football Commission, which it is having great difficulty servicing. The State Government contributes $1.5 million a year for the principal, and the commission pays the balance plus the interest. The oval’s size has also created a problem in that it seats fewer than 50 000 people. Major international sporting events - such as athletics meetings, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games - require seating capacity for more than 50 000 people. Thanks to the planning approach taken by the previous Government, there is no prospect in the short term of Western Australia’s being able to attract such international events. The development of sporting facilities was badly mishandled by the previous Government. This Government has addressed the issue in a rational way. It has looked at what facilities are required, what facilities exist in the State and what financial capacity it has to develop the facilities it needs. Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
Every person I have spoken to in the sports community thinks that the State’s sporting facility plan released about six weeks ago is the best plan for sports development Western Australia has ever had.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.