- Dec 15, 2002
- 7,849
- 6
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd :Adelaide United
- Thread starter
- #276
The more bums on seats, the more the AFL will get for tv rights. They go hand in hand.
Fans want new stadium, not new lights.
- Thread starter Paralowiepower
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The more bums on seats, the more the AFL will get for tv rights. They go hand in hand.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 77,602
- 184,412
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #277
I posted this in another thread, but it fits here too. One of my real concerns is that in 25 years (or even 10) we will no longer be Port Adelaide, but be marketed as the Power - like the Bulldogs, Kangaroos etc. Sure we'll still be the PAFC, but marketing- (and therefore perception-) wise, we will be considered a more non-geographic, universally appealing brand.
Think it won't happen? It's a question that was already posed by a Port Board member on another forum. It's in at least some of their thinking and if that's the direction the club moves in, then the PB guernsey will be consigned to the dusty annals of history as they break away to the new marketing focus. There are obviously concerns among the Port administration and links with international cities have been mooted to grow our membership base.
This is one reason why I think it's important for us to get a new inner city football stadium. We'll draw bigger crowds, granted more theatre goers, but who divides them up when you count crowd figures? And if we present a decent sporting spectacle we might get them more permanently on board.
My fear is we'll continue to wither at Footy Park, as it becomes less attractive as an attendance stadium and as the crows footprint grows there with rehab and entertainment facilities geared towards their club and membership base.
Think it won't happen? It's a question that was already posed by a Port Board member on another forum. It's in at least some of their thinking and if that's the direction the club moves in, then the PB guernsey will be consigned to the dusty annals of history as they break away to the new marketing focus. There are obviously concerns among the Port administration and links with international cities have been mooted to grow our membership base.
This is one reason why I think it's important for us to get a new inner city football stadium. We'll draw bigger crowds, granted more theatre goers, but who divides them up when you count crowd figures? And if we present a decent sporting spectacle we might get them more permanently on board.
My fear is we'll continue to wither at Footy Park, as it becomes less attractive as an attendance stadium and as the crows footprint grows there with rehab and entertainment facilities geared towards their club and membership base.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Ford, I share your concerns. I was involved in that discussion with our board member on the other forum.
Problem with a new stadium is if the ticket prices go up 50%. What will it do to our crowds? Yes a central stadium will mean more of our fans who don't like Footy Park will turn up plus other theatre goers will show up. But there is no guarantee the net result will be a hell of a lot different to what happens now.
I am also worried about the style of game we are playing. My brother in-law was in Sydney with work so I caught up with him. He said he he went to the Geelong game but refuses to go to another game until we stop "playing that rubbish unaccountable football." He has a season ticket so the club doesn't miss out this year, but next year, who knows? He's been going to games since 1965 when he was 7. Usually he has to be pretty crook or can't change his shifts to miss out on going to games.
There is several underlying concerns that the club has to sort out. If it is going for a younger demographics then a central stadium where the kids can catch public transport to the game, not needing to be driven or take 3 buses will help, but the trade off will be the cost of going to the footy.
Problem with a new stadium is if the ticket prices go up 50%. What will it do to our crowds? Yes a central stadium will mean more of our fans who don't like Footy Park will turn up plus other theatre goers will show up. But there is no guarantee the net result will be a hell of a lot different to what happens now.
I am also worried about the style of game we are playing. My brother in-law was in Sydney with work so I caught up with him. He said he he went to the Geelong game but refuses to go to another game until we stop "playing that rubbish unaccountable football." He has a season ticket so the club doesn't miss out this year, but next year, who knows? He's been going to games since 1965 when he was 7. Usually he has to be pretty crook or can't change his shifts to miss out on going to games.
There is several underlying concerns that the club has to sort out. If it is going for a younger demographics then a central stadium where the kids can catch public transport to the game, not needing to be driven or take 3 buses will help, but the trade off will be the cost of going to the footy.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 77,602
- 184,412
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #279
It's difficult to say what would happen with crowd figures. My gut feel is a new, centrally located stadium would draw more people to our home games, especially if we grabbed a weekday slot wherever possible and caught the office workers.
It would probably be at the expense of the more traditional supporter base though. Port's figures show that Port and the crows' demographic spread is quite similar, so we'd have traction in the upper echelons that would spend more (just not the gross numbers). Of course if a recession, inflation and interest rates bite, and if the novelty of the shiny new stadium wears off, then that traction could slip. But it'll slip at Footy Park too.
Just on the other point re your brother in law's view, yeah that's concerning, and I understand where he's coming from. I guess that's a discussion for another thread, but it worries me that we don't look like the Port I grew up with, we don't play like that Port, and in the long term we may not be known as Port Adelaide. It's a sobering thought.
It would probably be at the expense of the more traditional supporter base though. Port's figures show that Port and the crows' demographic spread is quite similar, so we'd have traction in the upper echelons that would spend more (just not the gross numbers). Of course if a recession, inflation and interest rates bite, and if the novelty of the shiny new stadium wears off, then that traction could slip. But it'll slip at Footy Park too.
Just on the other point re your brother in law's view, yeah that's concerning, and I understand where he's coming from. I guess that's a discussion for another thread, but it worries me that we don't look like the Port I grew up with, we don't play like that Port, and in the long term we may not be known as Port Adelaide. It's a sobering thought.
- Dec 15, 2002
- 7,849
- 6
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd :Adelaide United
- Thread starter
- #280
REH I respected your posts, but I can't see how a new stadium would put ticket prices up 50%, the AFL would simply not allow it.
As I said before, sell Football Park, sell Hindmarsh stadium, no millions to spend on fixing transport costs, a new stadium is the only way to go.
With all the millions spent ungrading the MCG, the surcharge on a ticket went up by a dollar.
The first national football code into the city, would be the big winner.
As I said before, sell Football Park, sell Hindmarsh stadium, no millions to spend on fixing transport costs, a new stadium is the only way to go.
With all the millions spent ungrading the MCG, the surcharge on a ticket went up by a dollar.
The first national football code into the city, would be the big winner.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
The AFL set a minimum ticket price they don't set a maximum. How come it costs me $33 for a general admission ticket to Stadium Australia and last year $29 for the SCG? I got the tickets for the Port game a few weeks ago for $20 but that was thru the cheer squad/supporters group. I reckon if I walked up next week to the SCG it would still be $29. How come the AFL let that happen when if I walk up to the gate at the MCG or Telstra Dome it only costs me $19?
How come the AFL set price for a club membership Adult 11 for $131 for clubs in Victoria yet if you are an adult member/season ticket for Freo or West Coast you are looking at $350 for the cheap seats and about $500 for the best seats.
Look at page 708 of AFL 2008. The basic prices to watch footy in Victoria are there. How come the AFL let non Vic clubs charge so much more to watch a game? Because they have no say on the maximum prices than can be set, they only set the minimum.
Membership prices will have to go up, just as rent and game day costs will have to go up if a new stadium is built. Why else do you think the break even point for clubs playing at Waverley Park was 15,000 and Telstra Dome is 30,000?
Match day tickets might only go up a few $$ but they will move closer to what you have to pay in Sydney. It is memberships that will be driven up at a faster rate.
Why? Well one reason is the new ground wont have 59,000 full members paying over $500 per season and another 38,000 restricted who pay part of that $500.
Have a good read of the MCC annual report and see the income streams they have to pay for their share of the MCG improvement, ie $357mil . An SA stadium wont have these income streams.
Melbourne Cricket Club Annual Report 2006/07
The AFL want to keep the crowds up in Victoria and as they have access to their 22,000 members reserve at the MCG, they can jack up those prices faster than the general admin prices as well as jack up finals ticket prices faster than general admin to cover their $6mil annual contribution to the MCG redevelopment.
The MCG has 40+ games, any new stadium in SA would have 22. The big games are played there. Look at last years attendances.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2007.html
MCG 2,123,400 + 412,560 finals
FP 768,482 + 82,703 finals
Just do the basic maths. If the new stadium is able to attract 1,000,000 attendees each year then if:
$1bil has to be borrowed @ 9% or or private equity wants that return then $90mil or $90 per attendee has to be charged just to cover the interest costs every year.
If its $500mil that has to be borrowed then that is a $45mil interest bill so that's $45 per attendee just to pay for the interest costs.
Now of course its not that simple and there are other revenue streams and you would have corporate memberships, maybe some medallion type club memberships, but you can't charge Victorian rates as those members get 40+ games at Telstra Dome plus 40+ games at the MCG plus first 2 weeks of finals plus rights to PF and GF tickets. No SA stadium could offer this, so can't charge the same membership fees, so you have a huge funding hole.
Look at it this way, if the new ground had 50,000 members who had rights to every game and they paid $500 for that membership. That would raise $25mil membership fees, the ground would be sold out every game and this would still be $20mil short of providing the monies to cover the interest bill on a $500mil loan.
Now for Footy Park category 1 members who pay $400, that's only a 25% increase, but those port and crows season ticket holders who pay between $180 and $300 and the SANFL cat 2 or 3 members who pay $300, they have had a 50%+ increase in their footy ticket price.
Someone has to pay. That some one is the footy public as they will be the biggest users of the ground.
That's why a proper feasibility study / business plan has to be done that properly costs the building of a stadium and the running costs and how they would get their money back and what patrons should expect to pay, to convince people that if you want world class facilities, expect to pay world class prices, but on SA wages, unless someone is dumb enough to provide a massive subsidy. Once people see this they might actually ask themselves if they are prepared to pay for the luxury of a new stadium.
How come the AFL set price for a club membership Adult 11 for $131 for clubs in Victoria yet if you are an adult member/season ticket for Freo or West Coast you are looking at $350 for the cheap seats and about $500 for the best seats.
Look at page 708 of AFL 2008. The basic prices to watch footy in Victoria are there. How come the AFL let non Vic clubs charge so much more to watch a game? Because they have no say on the maximum prices than can be set, they only set the minimum.
Membership prices will have to go up, just as rent and game day costs will have to go up if a new stadium is built. Why else do you think the break even point for clubs playing at Waverley Park was 15,000 and Telstra Dome is 30,000?
Match day tickets might only go up a few $$ but they will move closer to what you have to pay in Sydney. It is memberships that will be driven up at a faster rate.
Why? Well one reason is the new ground wont have 59,000 full members paying over $500 per season and another 38,000 restricted who pay part of that $500.
Have a good read of the MCC annual report and see the income streams they have to pay for their share of the MCG improvement, ie $357mil . An SA stadium wont have these income streams.
Melbourne Cricket Club Annual Report 2006/07
The AFL want to keep the crowds up in Victoria and as they have access to their 22,000 members reserve at the MCG, they can jack up those prices faster than the general admin prices as well as jack up finals ticket prices faster than general admin to cover their $6mil annual contribution to the MCG redevelopment.
The MCG has 40+ games, any new stadium in SA would have 22. The big games are played there. Look at last years attendances.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2007.html
MCG 2,123,400 + 412,560 finals
FP 768,482 + 82,703 finals
Just do the basic maths. If the new stadium is able to attract 1,000,000 attendees each year then if:
$1bil has to be borrowed @ 9% or or private equity wants that return then $90mil or $90 per attendee has to be charged just to cover the interest costs every year.
If its $500mil that has to be borrowed then that is a $45mil interest bill so that's $45 per attendee just to pay for the interest costs.
Now of course its not that simple and there are other revenue streams and you would have corporate memberships, maybe some medallion type club memberships, but you can't charge Victorian rates as those members get 40+ games at Telstra Dome plus 40+ games at the MCG plus first 2 weeks of finals plus rights to PF and GF tickets. No SA stadium could offer this, so can't charge the same membership fees, so you have a huge funding hole.
Look at it this way, if the new ground had 50,000 members who had rights to every game and they paid $500 for that membership. That would raise $25mil membership fees, the ground would be sold out every game and this would still be $20mil short of providing the monies to cover the interest bill on a $500mil loan.
Now for Footy Park category 1 members who pay $400, that's only a 25% increase, but those port and crows season ticket holders who pay between $180 and $300 and the SANFL cat 2 or 3 members who pay $300, they have had a 50%+ increase in their footy ticket price.
Someone has to pay. That some one is the footy public as they will be the biggest users of the ground.
That's why a proper feasibility study / business plan has to be done that properly costs the building of a stadium and the running costs and how they would get their money back and what patrons should expect to pay, to convince people that if you want world class facilities, expect to pay world class prices, but on SA wages, unless someone is dumb enough to provide a massive subsidy. Once people see this they might actually ask themselves if they are prepared to pay for the luxury of a new stadium.
Steve Dore
International Trade Facilitator
- Aug 30, 2004
- 36,121
- 64,973
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Vikings, Canadiens, Sharks
Actually they don't. What the networks are willing to bid for TV rights are based on what return they can get from advertising sales, in the case of the free-to-air channels, which is directly related to TV audience. If you are sitting on your bum in a stadium you can't be sitting on your bum on your sofa watching the live, or almost live, telecast on the box at the same time.
- Moderator
- #283
Ford I think you are on the money, I believe that both clubs would benefit from far more attendees in a CBD based stadium. The AAMI defenders will claim for proof to substantiate it, but to me it is just common sense. Petrol is continuing to get more and more expensive, ontop of that you have to pay nearly $10.00 to park the car or be prepared to walk 15-20 minutes there and back from your car. Even though there is the free buses it still isnt an ideal situation. You get there and basically sit in the outer of an old stadium that offers little to no protection from the elements. People say "thats footy", while I do agree what you have to keep in mind is that it could cost $50 to take a family to the footy you add in the expensive SANFL catering, petrol, parking etc and it will most probably add up to over $100.00 so when you factor in $100.00 to sit there in poor conditions versus watching it live at home you begin to see the lack of appeal with football park.
At the end of the day I believe it will cost more in the long run to keep football park than to bite the bullet while it is still affordable to upgrade and the benefits that a CBD stadium will offer will far outweigh the benefits remanining in an isolated suburban location.
- Moderator
- #284
I dont believe that to be the case, at the end of the day its about the television ratings that will determine the price. The ratings are the most important thing to the station, the higher the ratings the more they can charge the advertisers etc.
- Dec 15, 2002
- 7,849
- 6
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd :Adelaide United
- Thread starter
- #285
Would you rather watch a game with a half empty stadium, or a full stadium with cracking atmosphere.
Steve Dore
International Trade Facilitator
- Aug 30, 2004
- 36,121
- 64,973
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Vikings, Canadiens, Sharks
If I can't get to a Port game I will watch it on TV. I watch the game because I want to see Port play. Games in which Port are not involved I will watch if the game is interesting. I could not give a rats toss bag about the size of the crowd or any atmosphere they may create.
Carefully placed effects mics can easily create the illusion of atmosphere at the crowd for the home audience. Crowd shots can easily be stage managed.
I agree that a game with a big crowd probably comes over much better to the casual football watcher but I doubt that the networks factor to much into their bids based on anticipated crowd sizes.
Just stepping back a bit, looking at it as a 'does a stadium stack up' argument only is missing a chance to get a new stadium AND get a bit of 'buzz' back into the city.
Building on top of the railyards and along the Torrens gives an opportunity to look beyond just a stadium. Rather then just looking at it as 'Does a stadium add up', look at giving a developer the right to make the stadium the centre piece of a whole entertainment / residential complex - something like southbank in Melbourne - restaurants, cinemas, some apartments overlooking the Torrens. All the things to make the ACC scream, 'Quick, to the 1950's mobile!'. If the stadium alone isn't going to be a big money earner, or even profitable in the medium term (10-20 years), but the whole precinct would be, then finding funding won't be such an issue.
Of course, given how the ACC were arguing over the old Le Cornu's site when I went to Melbourne 7 years ago and still don't want anything higher then a hotdog stand the chances of even a mildly visionary ACC making the city how a bit more 'buzz' is about the same as me winning $40 million tomorrow night - without buying a ticket.
Building on top of the railyards and along the Torrens gives an opportunity to look beyond just a stadium. Rather then just looking at it as 'Does a stadium add up', look at giving a developer the right to make the stadium the centre piece of a whole entertainment / residential complex - something like southbank in Melbourne - restaurants, cinemas, some apartments overlooking the Torrens. All the things to make the ACC scream, 'Quick, to the 1950's mobile!'. If the stadium alone isn't going to be a big money earner, or even profitable in the medium term (10-20 years), but the whole precinct would be, then finding funding won't be such an issue.
Of course, given how the ACC were arguing over the old Le Cornu's site when I went to Melbourne 7 years ago and still don't want anything higher then a hotdog stand the chances of even a mildly visionary ACC making the city how a bit more 'buzz' is about the same as me winning $40 million tomorrow night - without buying a ticket.
It almost makes too much common sense for the ACC to even come close to actually consider let alone approve.......will be interesting to see if they are still stuck in the 60's and 70's as these stories generate into some discussion.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 77,602
- 184,412
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #289
Can we build a temporary stadium? 
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23613511-5006301,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23613511-5006301,00.html
Can we build a temporary stadium?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23613511-5006301,00.html
I've got some Lego and Meccano you can have to start with.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Can we build a temporary stadium?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23613511-5006301,00.html
In the words of the great Ted Bullpit, "someone ought to blow up the ACC."
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 77,602
- 184,412
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #292
Haha laugh it up ... someone's done a Lego model of the AllianzArena! OK it'd have to be scaled up ...
http://haha.nu/amazing/lego-stadium/
http://haha.nu/amazing/lego-stadium/
by relocating its hq/stadium to the cbd, the sanfl admits that 30 years ago they stuffed up...not a good look leigh, just after corporate suites, northern stands & big screens.....
& saca wouldnt allow the new stadium in the adelaide oval proximity anyway for the fear that the new stadium will show up their oval's inadequacies.
with those 2 old boys clubs & the acc thrown in for good measure, i reckon the new stadium is not going to happen unfortunately - i mean, they couldnt even rebuild on the (then) vacant "house of chow" site!
& saca wouldnt allow the new stadium in the adelaide oval proximity anyway for the fear that the new stadium will show up their oval's inadequacies.
with those 2 old boys clubs & the acc thrown in for good measure, i reckon the new stadium is not going to happen unfortunately - i mean, they couldnt even rebuild on the (then) vacant "house of chow" site!
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 77,602
- 184,412
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #294
There's been talk of putting in a monorail from the airport to the city. Could you imagine that? It would probably run from the airport to the edge of the parklands and terminate so you would have to catch a Burbridge Road shuttle bus to take you through the parklands and catch the resumption of the monorail that runs from West Terrace along Grote St to Victoria Sq. Of course the two monorails would not be synchronised so there'd be a ten minute wait at West Tce and the monorail would overpass the tramline at Vic Square forcing passengers to walk back in the rain (where services would also be unco). Then there'd be a 10 year debate on a covered walkway from the monorail station to the tram stop. After the covered walkway was built the monorail service would cease because it was unprofitable and didn't add to the ambience of the Vic Sq precinct. Then the tunnel option would be reignited ... wheee I'm getting dizzy!
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
This is biggest load of bullshit I have read on matters in this debate. The SANFL paid just over $48,000 for the land at West Lakes in 1972 when the average wage was $2,500p.a!!!!
Building West Lakes and moving away from Adelaide Oval gave SA footy a great strong financial base. Unlike WA that had to lease Subi oval it meant SA clubs didn't have to sell players to survive on transfer fees received from Victoria. 7 of the 8 WA clubs were techincally insolvent by 1983 because the WAFL didn't have a strong financial base.
Bill Mitchell, the bloke who the WA government appointed in 1983 to do a full review of WA footy and his recommendations lead to the forming of the WAFC to run footy, said on the Headliners doco about the Birth of the Eagles said that "We revered the South Australians" because of the financial stability Footy Park provided to SA footy. It meant that SA didn't have to cow tow to the Vics and join their comp straight away and pay $4mil up front to join their comp. Do you reckon Port could have afforded to pay $4mil in 6 weeks of signing the heads of agreement in 1990 with the AFL like the WA and Brisbane consortium were forced to do in 1986??
Like them or not, because the SANFL were financially strong, the AFL had to offer us 10 year instalments to pay for the licence to get us in.
Yes times have moved on, but to say that the decision the SANFL made in 1972 was a stuff up is just stupid and has no regard for reality.
& saca wouldnt allow the new stadium in the adelaide oval proximity anyway for the fear that the new stadium will show up their oval's inadequacies.
with those 2 old boys clubs & the acc thrown in for good measure, i reckon the new stadium is not going to happen unfortunately - i mean, they couldnt even rebuild on the (then) vacant "house of chow" site!
i feel for the people of adelaide
I agree with you 100% on all these sentiments.
ok, well, i meant the west lakes location was a stuff up (not the decision to build) - the debate we have on our hands today proves this - hardly news, i know
& i am (safely) assuming that, since all the monies recently poured into the "redevelopment" of the stadium, there's no way the sanfl will move.
ok, well, i meant the west lakes location was a stuff up (not the decision to build) - the debate we have on our hands today proves this - hardly news, i know
& i am (safely) assuming that, since all the monies recently poured into the "redevelopment" of the stadium, there's no way the sanfl will move.
They won't move, the SANFL are so fixed on AAMI they can't see anything else. I'd love to see a new soccer stadium built if thereis not going to be any multipurporse stadium. As mentioned the problem they face is getting around the old boys club of the SACA and SANFL. They would lose any chance of getting concerts and events like the Rugby sevens.
As much as I love my football I can see the appeal of attending a soccer game in the city after work over the experience of attending AAMI stadium.
This may throw a spanner in the SANFL plans to redevelop AAMI Stadium.
Adelaide Oval lines up for World Cup
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23613933-2682,00.html
April 29, 2008 12:20am
Lets stop kidding ourselves on this subject, the only way the South Australian or Federal government will hand out a few hundred million dollars to upgrade any sporting facility is for a one off event like a World Cup or Olympic games.
Unless the SACA change there veiw on Adelaide Oval and have continuous grandstand seating there is no way the Adelaide Oval will be a viable option for a world cup. If Adelaide United can find a way of funding the development of a new city based stadium, AAMI Stadium will be like it is for ever and the SANFL will have missed the boat.
Adelaide Oval lines up for World Cup
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23613933-2682,00.html
April 29, 2008 12:20am
Lets stop kidding ourselves on this subject, the only way the South Australian or Federal government will hand out a few hundred million dollars to upgrade any sporting facility is for a one off event like a World Cup or Olympic games.
Unless the SACA change there veiw on Adelaide Oval and have continuous grandstand seating there is no way the Adelaide Oval will be a viable option for a world cup. If Adelaide United can find a way of funding the development of a new city based stadium, AAMI Stadium will be like it is for ever and the SANFL will have missed the boat.
Can we start thinking of the future!!! PLEASE...lets stop thinking that its going to be a one of event.
The only way forward sometimes is to grab the opportunity when it passes by and the opportunity is about to pass by.
We need to start thinking of what the "BEST" really means, and we have a chance to show the WORLD and the rest of Australia we plan to build a stadium that will be the BEST in the country. The amount it holds doesn't necessarily mean its the best.
Those who think we are kidding ourselves have lost the battle to even think of what our state can be.
IMO, the upgrading of Adelaide Oval would be the best option, this way all sports, Soccer, Cricket, Football and Rugby share the BEST stadium in Australia.
South Australians, politicians, SANFL board members, SACA and ACC members do whats right for the state, get together at a round table and put a proposal to Federal Government to show that Adelaide want to be a part of the 2018 World Cup, lets take the opportunity to really put Adelaide on the map of the World.
Yeah leave the Cows at AAMI and relocate Port to Adelaide Oval. Done deal. I'm sick of looking at all the freakin' cows' stuff at West Lakes every time I go there anyway.
