Fans want new stadium, not new lights.

[RussellEbertHandball]

It wouldn't only be 5-6 games, there would be a minimum of 12 games plus a quarter final and a qualifying final.

Yes it will be only 4 to 6 group games. There has to be 12 stadiums and as there are 64 games in total, Adelaide will not get 1/5th of the games.

On January 15th, FIFA sent a letter to all member associations setting out the basic bid conditions and the dates. The letter states that you need 12 x 40,000+ stadiums and one of at least 80,000 for the opening match and the final.

The formal letter is at
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...99/74/80/20182022invitationtobidcirculare.pdf

If you want to see the schedule for South Africa which was released in December 2007 go to:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/preliminarydraw/64/42/24/2010fwc_matchschedule_1103.pdf

South Africa is given the A1 slot and the rest will be filled out in December this year when the other 31 teams qualify.

You will note that SA have 10 stadiums. If you want to look at their capacity you'll find them at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup

In that schedule no stadium has more than 6 games for the 48 group matches + the 8 matches in the round of 16 knockout phase. If Adelaide had a 55k stadium it might get one 1/4 final game and maybe the 3rd v 4th play off as Suncorp would be used for one semi final and either ANZ or MCG for the other semi final and with either ANZ or MCG hosting the final but not the semi final, as FIFA wants minimum usage of grounds for the best playing surfaces to be availble from the 1/4 final stage.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

There are only 7 stadia in Australia that meet their requirements so they say to the SA government "build as a brand new soccer friendly stadium which will be the home of soccer in SA after the world cup."

My response to the FFA would be, "You want it, you need it, you build it".

Maybe they could use the enormous profits that Adelaide United are making to fund it

There were only 4 stadiums that met the minimum requirements in October 2007.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/football/world-cup-bid-gets-serious-for-biggest-show-on-planet/2007/10/30/1193618884203.html

Michael Cockerill
October 31, 2007
..........
As it stands, only four stadiums meet the minimum standards - the MCG, Telstra Dome (Melbourne), Telstra Stadium (Sydney) and Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane). The FFA is sure to use its bid for leverage in pushing for redevelopments of Bruce Stadium (Canberra), EnergyAustralia Stadium (Newcastle) and perhaps Sydney Football Stadium, with new venues in Perth and Adelaide to be built from scratch. The construction program would dwarf the costs associated with the 2000 Olympic Games.

Buckley's predecessor, John O'Neill, had canvassed the possibility of taking some games to New Zealand - where stadiums are going to be refurbished for the 2011 rugby World Cup, but Buckley said: "This is going to be an Australia-only bid."

Asked if he felt it was important for football to receive a legacy from the stadium redevelopments - unlike at the Olympics where cricket, rugby, AFL and league all gained from improvements made for the football tournament but football missed out - Buckley replied: "One, we'd like to make sure we get the right stadia built, and secondly we want to leave a legacy behind for the game … [but] most venues are multi-purpose, and if they[other sports] benefit, that's not a bad thing."

As the WC will be in our winter we will play as many games in Qld and NSW and look for roofed stadiums elsewhere.

Qld
Townsville - a $200mil upgrade from the feds
Suncorp - minor upgrades
Gold Coast - a $200mil upgrade from the fed

NSW
Newcastle - being upgraded to 30k now will get a $100mil to $200mil upgrade
ANZ - minor upgrade
SFS (Aussie stadium) - will get an upgrade maybe $50mil or so

ACT
Canberra - Bruce Stadium will get a $200mil upgrade from the feds

Vic
MCG - minor upgrade
New Bubble Stadium - $300mil paid by Vic govt will be ready early next year

SA
They will need a stadium in Adelaide to get to 12

WA
They will need a stadium in Perth to get to 12

That leaves Tassie and Central Coast - Gosford the possibility of getting a 40k stadium.

Currently the rule is only one city can have two stadiums but we might get away with both Sydney and Melbourne having two, otherwise both Tassie and Gosford will get a new stadium.

 

[PAFC04]

Yes it will be only 4 to 6 group games. There has to be 12 stadiums and as there are 64 games in total, Adelaide will not get 1/5th of the games.

I have just done my sums of how many games that are played. I come to the amount of 96 games, 16 Qualifying Games, 4 Quarter Finals and 2 Semi Finals which amounts 118 games....not including the Final.

Adelaide needs to hold a group for Australia to win the bid.

How did you work out 64games?

 

[PAFC04]

There were only 4 stadiums that met the minimum requirements in October 2007.


As the WC will be in our winter we will play as many games in Qld and NSW and look for roofed stadiums elsewhere.

Qld
Townsville - a $200mil upgrade from the feds
Suncorp - minor upgrades
Gold Coast - a $200mil upgrade from the fed

NSW
Newcastle - being upgraded to 30k now will get a $100mil to $200mil upgrade
ANZ - minor upgrade
SFS (Aussie stadium) - will get an upgrade maybe $50mil or so

ACT
Canberra - Bruce Stadium will get a $200mil upgrade from the feds

Vic
MCG - minor upgrade
New Bubble Stadium - $300mil paid by Vic govt will be ready early next year

SA
They will need a stadium in Adelaide to get to 12

WA
They will need a stadium in Perth to get to 12

That leaves Tassie and Central Coast - Gosford the possibility of getting a 40k stadium.

Currently the rule is only one city can have two stadiums but we might get away with both Sydney and Melbourne having two, otherwise both Tassie and Gosford will get a new stadium.

Also note that its just not only stadiums to win a world cup bid, you also need hotels, transport and training facilities..........for the Teams, plus tourists who WILL come to watch a world cup game......1 group could potentionally bring 50,000 tourists to our city.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I have just done my sums of how many games that are played. I come to the amount of 96 games, 16 Qualifying Games, 4 Quarter Finals and 2 Semi Finals which amounts 118 games....not including the Final.

Adelaide needs to hold a group for Australia to win the bid.

How did you work out 64games?

Firstly look at the schedule from South Africa I linked which confirms 64 games.

Ok there are 8 groups of 4 teams.

Each group plays each other once ie 4 teams play 3 opponents but that only is 6 games
Group A
Team 1 plays 3 games
Team 2 plays 3 games
Team 3 plays 3 games
Team 4 plays 3 games
That is 12 but as there are 2 teams per game that is 6 games played in that group.

8 groups x 6 games per group = 48 +
8 round of 16 teams (ie 16 teams participate in 8 games) +
4 1/4 finals +
2 semi finals +
1 semi final 1 loser v semi final 2 loser +
1 final
= 64

You have just added up the total games per team for the group phase and round 16 phase. It is half that.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Also note that its just not only stadiums to win a world cup bid, you also need hotels, transport and training facilities..........for the Teams, plus tourists who WILL come to watch a world cup game......1 group could potentionally bring 50,000 tourists to our city.

Yeah, so what. It just confirms that Adelaide is not going to miss out.

 

[PAFC04]

Firstly look at the schedule from South Africa I linked which confirms 64 games.

Ok there are 8 groups of 4 teams.

Each group plays each other once ie 4 teams play 3 opponents but that only is 6 games
Group A
Team 1 plays 3 games
Team 2 plays 3 games
Team 3 plays 3 games
Team 4 plays 3 games
That is 12 but as there are 2 teams per game that is 6 games played in that group.

8 groups x 6 games per group = 48 +
8 round of 16 teams (ie 16 teams participate in 8 games) +
4 1/4 finals +
2 semi finals +
1 semi final 1 loser v semi final 2 loser +
1 final
= 64

You have just added up the total games per team for the group phase and round 16 phase. It is half that.

Yeah...my bad......i questioned someone who is an expert on stats....

 

[Steve Dore]

There were only 4 stadiums that met the minimum requirements in October 2007. .....

Even more reason for the State Government to tell the FFA that they are dreaming.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Even more reason for the State Government to tell the FFA that they are dreaming.

There is so much bullshit associated with this whole stadium reporting

http://sportal.com.au/football-news-display/buckley-denies-stance-70330

Buckley denies SA stadium stance
13/05/2009 2:48 PM
Sportal

FFA CEO Ben Buckley has denied giving an ultimatum to the South Australian government about the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval or AAMI Stadium.

Buckley met with South Australian sports minister Michael Wright this week to discuss the possibility of Adelaide hosting matches at either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup should Australia win the hosting rights to either tournament.

There is an existing plan to extend Adelaide Oval to 36,000 capacity, but Buckley has told Wright that would not be big enough to be part of any bid. The SA government has ruled out any chance of building a new stadium for the event.

But Buckley denies the discussions involved an ultimatum to the SA government to either build a suitable stadium or miss out.

"At no stage did we issue an ultimatum," Buckley said. "It has always been our view that the bid for the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup is a national one and we want to ensure Adelaide is part of it."

Buckley said the purpose of the meeting was to inform the Government of some key timelines related to the bid and to brief them on FIFA's technical requirements.

"I also advised that FIFA's technical requirements include a minimum capacity of in excess of 40,000 spectators," he said.

FFA has to decide on the cities and stadiums which will be included in their bid by the end of this year.

"This does not mean the stadium has to be built or even has to be commenced in that timeframe," he said.

"It simply means that there needs to be a commitment to a FIFA compliant option on the basis that the bid is successful."

"We've always been committed to a solution in Adelaide to ensure it is part of a successful bid, and we look forward to continuing to work constructively with the South Australian government to make that happen."

The FFA cannot give the SA government an ultimatum. They need a stadium in SA and WA for the World Cup bid to succeed as i pointed out above. If a new stadium is not built, expect an agreement for the Adelaide oval to be increased to 40,000 and what ever technical requirements needed, then it will be part of the government guarantee in the bid documents in May next year.

 

[Steve Dore]

There is so much bullshit associated with this whole stadium reporting ......

I'm shocked

The media not accurately reporting the facts, what next?

 

[Wash]

This is a great thread, thanks for the information.

For what it is worth, Australia has almost zero chance of getting the 2018 WC because it is very hard to imagine Europe not hosting a WC three times in a row. Sepp Blatter hinted as much to Frank Lowy, telling Australia to concentrate on 2022.

Wikipedia page on the bidding process

If a European bid is successful in 2018, the candidates for 2022 are

Australia
Indonesia
Japan
Mexico
USA
Qatar
South Korea

Australia has a good chance. FIFA likes to expand into greenfield territory, it is safe, prosperous and is good at hosting international events of this scale. The national football team does well considering soccer's lowly place in the sporting pecking order here and FIFA would like to host it here to encourage the game- not so much for the A-League, but to keep on churning out players for the big leagues in Europe.

Indonesia has next to no chance- it is relatively poor, and has infrastructure issues and a very weak national team.

Japan has a good case, except that it hosted in 2002, which counts against it, and the same applies for South Korea.

Qatar has a better chance then Indonesia, but is still a real outsider.

Mexico has hosted the event twice but not for a while now and is a strong soccer nation. A real chance.

USA is of course where FIFA dreams of going and making heaps of money, and I think is favourite for 2022. Anything that boosts the game in the USA means more TV rights money for the European leagues.

So in order, the likelyhood in my view is

USA
Mexico
Australia
Japan
South Korea
Qatar
Indonesia

So given all this, I think it is very doubtful that Australia will win a WC bid this time around- so in reference to the thread, there is no real need for a stadium in Adelaide to consider soccer.

In general, I am with REH- a new stadium would be wonderful, but it is totally uneconomical. I'm afraid we're stuck with Footy Park for the forseeable future.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The way I see it if FIFA vote for a 2018 Euro World cup, I reckon it will be a USA vs Australia bid for 2022.

Once the Euro countries are knocked out you are left with

CONCACAF
USA
Mexico
--------
ASIA
Japan
Sth Korea 2022 only
Australia
Qatar 2022 only
Indonesia

I don't think Japan will get to host world cups 20 years apart. The vote is only 8 years after they hosted the WC. They are bidding for 2016 Olympics and 2015 Rugby world cups. Don't be surprised if they win the 2016 Olympics voted in October this year, if they pull out.

Sth Korea same deal 8 years after hosting the WC the vote will take place.

Unless Qatar buy the votes, which is possible I, can't see a country of 800k winning the bid.

Indonesia wont get the vote. Haven't made a world cup by the Dec 2010 vote and have plenty of infrastructure and political concerns as well as money involved.

Australia get to the 2010 world cup, which now is a formality, then I reckon Asian confederation will eventually get behind us to lobby the FIFA executive committee.

Mexico have twice hosted the world cup very successfully. But 2022 vs 1986 and 1970, there is a lot more technical requirements and money involved. You also have political concerns, the drug wars going on at the moment and swine flu doesn't help.

The USA would have a 28 year gap between hosting the WC. It will be the USA's superior infrastructure, time zone benefits and commercial incentives for FIFA and its sponsors vs Australia's boast of having hosted big events successfully, taking the game to a new frontier and Asian support.

I would give us less than a 50% chance of beating the Yanks but we have a fighting chance.

Stadiums wont be the no.1 criteria that FIFA will look at. It's a bigger political animal than the IOC and more corrupt so, stadiums wont be the be all and end all.

But you can't deny the huge advantage the USA have in this criteria. The USA's no. one advantage over every single country bidding including any Euro countries, even Germany or UK is it's stadium.

Anyway the US stadiums do bring in more $$ as they have bigger ground capacities. They would average 25,000 more people per game over the Oz stadiums. So over 64 games and say an average ticket price of $100USD per ticket, then that's $160USDmil more than Oz would generate for the organising committee and FIFA.

But if South Africa don't get their stadiums ready on time and stuff up things for broadcasters at the stadiums, it will be a factor 4 or 5 months later when FIFA vote for the world cups.

This recent article from US Soccer in April makes it very clear where their advantage lies with 58 stadiums who have expressed an interest to host WC matches.

http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_14155776.html

USA Bid Committee Receives Confirmation From 58 Venues Interested in Holding FIFA World Cup Matches in 2018 or 2022

Las Vegas, Raleigh-Durham and Rice-Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City Express Interest

NEW YORK (April 23, 2009) – Public officials and executives representing 58 major stadiums in the U.S. last week formally confirmed interest in playing host to FIFA World Cup™ matches in 2018 or 2022, the USA Bid Committee announced today.

The respondents represent 58 venues in 49 metropolitan markets, ranging in size from New York City, where the new Meadowlands Stadium will open in 2010 in nearby East Rutherford, N.J., to college town markets from coast to coast. Three new candidates also reached out to the USA Bid Committee to express their interest, including Las Vegas, Nev., which currently does not offer a suitable stadium but requested to be included as a market for consideration.

“We are very pleased by the impressive response, and are certainly gratified by the enthusiasm and thorough understanding everyone has shown for this unique opportunity,” said David Downs, the Executive Director for the USA Bid Committee. “The benefits to a host nation, and particularly to the venue cities where the matches could be played, are numerous and lasting. Tourism, economic impact, meaningful global exposure and a legacy of being at the center of a FIFA World Cup™ competition await host venues and cities if we are fortunate enough to stage the tournament here in 2018 or 2022.”

Earlier this month, the USA Bid Committee mailed letters to public officials and executives representing 70 stadiums in more than 50 metropolitan markets. The letters outlined FIFA’s bid process and criteria for venue selection, which includes the candidate host nation providing a minimum of 12 stadiums capable of seating 40,000 or more spectators. Stadiums with a minimum capacity of 80,000 are required by FIFA for consideration to play host to the Opening Match and Final Match.

....................

Highlights among the stadiums that have confirmed interest in playing host to matches in 2018 and 2022 include:

* Thirty of the 31 stadiums in the National Football League have confirmed interest. Candlestick Park, home of the San Francisco 49ers, was not listed as a candidate, meaning 100 percent of the NFL stadiums contacted by the USA Bid Committee have confirmed their candidacy.

* More than 20 stadiums have confirmed interest that are either on college campuses or serve as the primary venue for NCAA Division I college football teams.

* Two confirmed stadiums are currently home to Major League Soccer teams in the U.S. – Gillette Stadium (New England Revolution) and Qwest Field (Seattle Sounders).

* All continental United States time zones are represented by stadiums in 28 states and the District of Columbia.

 

[Steve Dore]

Liberals never had Adelaide stadium plan

ONE of the contenders for the state Liberal leadership says the party never had a policy to build a new stadium in Adelaide.

Mitch Williams told ABC Radio this morning that "I don't think we ever had a policy to build a stadium".

This is despite former leader Martin Hamilton-Smith announcing a stadium as the centrepiece of a bold western CBD redevelopment plan. ......

He suggested the Liberals had only planned to build a stadium if Australia was host of the World Cup soccer tournament, if Adelaide was the host of the Commonwealth games, and if a large amount of federal funding was "in the mix". .....

 

[Hooligan87]

So has anything else came from the talks the SANFL, AFL, and SACA were having?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Not really, but Ian McLachan SACA president last week acknowledged he had to give up some control for the next step to progress.

McLachlan delivers Oval concession

MICHELANGELO RUCCI
July 02, 2009 12:00am

SA Cricket Association president Ian McLachlan has made the first meaningful concession - relinquishing control of Adelaide Oval - to lure the SANFL, Power and Crows to the city ground.

And AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou is keenly watching Saturday's Liberal Party leadership spill hoping Martin Hamilton-Smith remains the Opposition leader.

Without Hamilton-Smith, the AFL's Plan B to draw elite football from West Lakes and back to the city - with a billion-dollar, multi-purpose 50-000-seat arena with a roof - is doomed.

Hamilton-Smith's rival, Vickie Chapman, is unlikely to maintain the Liberals' voice in Adelaide's long-running stadium debate.

Phase 2 of the AFL-sponsored talks between the SACA and SA National Football League on resuming their partnership at Adelaide Oval are still weeks away.

The SANFL is understood to be refining its position, particularly after revisiting the stadium yield needs of its two AFL licences, Adelaide and Port Adelaide. It also is updating - in light of the global financial crisis - revenue projections developed by studies in August last year.

The SACA's diary is complicated by its leading officials' commitments to visit Wimbledon and the Ashes Test tour in England.

But the prospect of the SACA mending bridges with the SANFL - which left Adelaide Oval at the end of 1973 to build AAMI Stadium - have been enhanced by McLachlan's willingness to concede total control of the city ground.

McLachlan also dismissed the prospect of Power and Crows games being split between AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval. This is in line with the belief held by the SANFL, Crows and Power that if one SA-based AFL team moves to Adelaide Oval, both will.

"The discussions we are having with the SANFL and AFL are moving from AAMI Stadium to Adelaide Oval all games," McLachlan said on ABC Radio.

"In the past, I was quite aggressive (to) have AFL footy (at Adelaide Oval). I have come off that view. I have come to the conclusion it has to suit them (football) and it has to suit us.

"Both sides will be giving up. We have control of the Adelaide Oval. We will have to give away control if the SANFL and SACA become 50-50 (partners) in this deal.

"They will have to give away their control of a stadium. That is going to be a monumental decision for both sides.

"In the end, it is a matter of whether it is of benefit to the SANFL and the AFL - and to the SACA - as to whether you solidify this in a ground next to the CBD."

Regardless of the Liberal vote at the weekend, McLachlan says the Hamilton-Smith plan for a new city stadium on the CBD's western fringe is virtually dead.

"The AFL, the SANFL and ourselves (the SACA) at our meeting (in Melbourne) a couple of months ago agreed it won't happen from our point of view in the foreseeable future," said McLachlan.

"One thing I can tell you is cricket will never be moving from Adelaide Oval. And if we ever suggest it, they'll line us against the wall and shoot us.

"We're talking to the AFL and SANFL right now. If the AFL and SANFL want Australian football at the top level at the Adelaide Oval - and the arrangements suit both sides, football and cricket, it will happen.

"If it does happen, we will have to have the Adelaide Oval expanded to 50,000," added McLachlan whose current $90 million upgrade of the city ground will increase capacity to 35,000. "The Bradman Stand, which was built over 20 years ago, will have to be changed and upgraded because you cannot get them in otherwise.

"And all the northern end, for those who are worried about the Moreton Bay fig trees and the cathedral view and the old scoreboard, all that will stay."

 

[Hooligan87]

I sometimes wonder if we will be worse off at Adelaide Oval.

Does a 50 50 split in ownership mean a 50 50 split in revenue from the venue?

Where would that leave PAFC and AFC's share of the pie?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The SACA don't own Adelaide Oval. They have a 99 year crown lease from the Adelaide City Council rather that the state government I believe. The SACA own the buildings on the land, they are the SACA's leasehold improvements.

They would have to have 50/50 management rights with the SANFL or some sort of set similar up. It will be a bit messy compared to the situation if an independant government trust owned the land and buildings and managed the stadium, but gave control of the fixturing to each body for x number of weeks per year and offered a clean stadium deal to both the SACA and the SANFL. If the government trust option is removed, then a new parternship/ joint venture/ company would have to be formed for this 50/50 deal to happen. There is still a fair bit of work to be done for this to become a reality.

Where would that leave the share of the pie? How long is a piece of string?

 

[Relativity]

Not really, but Ian McLachan SACA president last week acknowledged he had to give up some control for the next step to progress.

"And all the northern end, for those who are worried about the Moreton Bay fig trees and the cathedral view and the old scoreboard, all that will stay."

As much as I love the "quaintness" of the country style feel of the "hill", the figs and the scoreboard I think it's time to "cut the cord" with these historical aspects as they present too many barriers to designing a "state of the art", multi purpose stadium. But realistically there's as much chance of that happening as the SA Liberal Party becoming a united cohesive opposition.

 

[Hooligan87]

Adelaide Oval will never be a "state of the art" multi purpose venue. seeing as Soccer season is now during cricket season could you imagine the cost of removing the pitch every single week? (assuming it is a drop in pitch ofcourse)

 

[Relativity]

Adelaide Oval will never be a "state of the art" multi purpose venue. seeing as Soccer season is now during cricket season could you imagine the cost of removing the pitch every single week? (assuming it is a drop in pitch ofcourse)

A damn site cheaper than building a soccer only stadium I would have thought. Besides, cricket isn't played on AO every week. 5 home shield matches, maybe the same number of state one-dayers (usually piggybacking the shield match), one test and one weekend of ODI's.

 

[Hooligan87]

Also look at Docklands, it has been found unviable to move the seating for the soccer season.

So in the the best interests of the SANFL and the AFL, they should move to Adelaide Oval. Because it would kill all this talk about a new stadium.
Leaving soccer to wither and die, only to become popular every 4 years due to the WC.

 

[Relativity]

Also look at Docklands, it has been found unviable to move the seating for the soccer season.

So in the the best interests of the SANFL and the AFL, they should move to Adelaide Oval. Because it would kill all this talk about a new stadium.
Leaving soccer to wither and die, only to become popular every 4 years due to the WC.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Hooligan87]

Rucci had an article in today's advertiser under his 'roast'. It was about the State of football in SA, It also mentioned that the SANFL, AFL, SACA and the SA Government will be having a meeting next monday (27/07/09) in regards to a shared Adelaide Oval for Football and Cricket. He also mentioned Foley may offer more funding than the $100 million promised to upgrade Football Park for an Adelaide Oval upgrade as a carrot to persuade the SANFL to come to the party.

I take the last point with a grain of salt though.

 

[relapse]

Rucci had an article in today's advertiser under his 'roast'. It was about the State of football in SA, It also mentioned that the SANFL, AFL, SACA and the SA Government will be having a meeting next monday (27/07/09) in regards to a shared Adelaide Oval for Football and Cricket. He also mentioned Foley may offer more funding than the $100 million promised to upgrade Football Park for an Adelaide Oval upgrade as a carrot to persuade the SANFL to come to the party.

I take the last point with a grain of salt though.

I have given up hope. At the end of the day the SANFL will do what they do best which is create a total quagmire to ensure that they can continue to go against public opinion.

This whole situation stinks like the fiasco that the SANFL created about joining the VFL/AFL basically creating this ridiculous list of demands that would never be met and create a scare campagn to try and have the masses blindly support the SANFL's plans.

I have said it time and time again if Port didnt press the issue the SANFL would never have joined the AFL. They didnt want to join even though they knew the public wanted it and they knew it would be a big financial windfal. The reason was all about ego, the SANFL believed that they were the equal to the VFL and the SANFL refused to acknowledge the VFL as the superior competition. If Basheer and Whicker had their way we would still only have the SANFL comp here and the SANFL would still be trying to tell people that the AFL only want the SANFL to join so that they can send the league bankrupt.

Leight Whicker was part of the group that made the decision originally on football park, he wont turn around and say that they got it wrong. There is no chance that ground is Whicker and Basheer's legacy and they will fight to keep it.

 

[Hooligan87]

This whole situation stinks like the fiasco that the SANFL created about joining the VFL/AFL basically creating this ridiculous list of demands that would never be met and create a scare campagn to try and have the masses blindly support the SANFL's plans.

See this

In 1982 the SANFL made a presentation to the VFL about a team in the VFL. Max Basheer and then SANFL CEO Don Roach gave the presentation. The Vics rejected it because they thought the team would be too strong. This made the SANFL smug. There was talk of a combined Port and Norwood side being the SA side, but that fell by the wayside quickly.

I have said it time and time again if Port didnt press the issue the SANFL would never have joined the AFL. They didnt want to join even though they knew the public wanted it and they knew it would be a big financial windfal. The reason was all about ego, the SANFL believed that they were the equal to the VFL and the SANFL refused to acknowledge the VFL as the superior competition. If Basheer and Whicker had their way we would still only have the SANFL comp here and the SANFL would still be trying to tell people that the AFL only want the SANFL to join so that they can send the league bankrupt.

Did Port press the issue? or were they courted towards the VFL on the false hope of riches beyond their wildest dreams in a plan to get the SANFL to join the A(V)FL?