Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
MERCURY SAYS
The Dragons say the decision to move two of their home matches from Wollongong to Sydney is in line with “the NSW government’s planned future investment in major Sydney venues”.
Dragons CEO Peter Doust adds: “The NSW state government has made it clear that it will only invest in major venues, moving forward.”
Reading those comments, you might easily conclude that the state government has decided to direct future stadium investment to the major grounds in Sydney, away from smaller facilities such as Wollongong.
But you would be wrong.
For what Doust and the Dragons didn’t say is that the government’s stadium strategy specifically includes Wollongong Stadium, along with three other so-called Tier 2 stadiums, among the “major venues”.
The government’s plan for stadium investment is detailed in its “Stadia Strategy 2012” document.
The strategy divides NSW stadiums into three categories: Tier 1 stadiums, which can accommodate more than 40,000 fans; Tier 2 stadiums, which seat 10,000 to 20,000; and Tier 3 stadiums, with capacities below 10,000.
It identifies three Tier 1 stadiums: Stadium Australia, the Sydney Football Stadium and the Sydney Cricket Ground.
In addition, it identifies 11 Tier 2 stadiums, including WIN Stadium, and a further 26 Tier 3 stadiums.
And yes, as the Dragons have said, the strategy does indeed say that investment should be directed away from Tier 2 and Tier 3 stadiums to the major stadiums.
But it does so with four important exceptions.
Those exceptions are four Tier 2 stadiums: Hunter Stadium in Newcastle, the Sydney Showground Stadium, an unidentified stadium in Western Sydney — and our very own Wollongong Stadium.
Those stadiums, it says, are to be included in the strategy along with Stadium Australia, the SFS and SCG.
It is the other seven Tier 2 stadiums (most of them in Sydney) that would be downplayed in future, along with the 26 Tier 3 stadiums.
“It is important that the population centres of Wollongong, Newcastle and Western Sydney are appropriately considered in a NSW strategy,” the strategy says.
“The strategy includes seven stadia, comprising three Tier 1 and four Tier 2 venues, in two international sporting hubs and other venues in the population centres of Wollongong, Newcastle and Western Sydney.
“The government recognises that stadia with substantial capacity are required to service the major regional centres in Newcastle and Wollongong.
“Hunter Stadium and Wollongong stadium (both Tier 2) service large populations and have also received significant investment over the last five years.
“The strategy provides for the concentration of national and international games into a smaller number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 stadia (seven rather than 14), leading to higher utilisation rates, increased efficiencies, and more focused investment.”
So we’d like to know:
How does cutting the Dragons’ Wollongong schedule from six matches to four help to fulfil these goals?
How does it help to “service the major regional centre” of Wollongong?
Or lead to “higher utilisation” of Wollongong Stadium?
Or increased efficiencies?
We don’t know.
Nor do we know the answer to one other nasty question:
If the NRL and the Dragons have decided that axing matches from Wollongong does serve these objectives, then why are matches not also being cut from Hunter Stadium?
Why us and not them?
After all, the government’s strategy explicitly lumps the Newcastle and Wollongong stadiums together in the same category.
So what’s good for the Dragon, you might think, should also be good for the Knight.
But apparently not.