Opinion New AFC HQ: Stalled Indefinitely

[FR0GGY]

Mate. You criticised 1990s perspective on Olsen's relationship with the SANFL and its impact on this deal. All I'm saying is that it's clearly plausible that it hasn't been an arms length negotiation. More likely than not, in my view.

As for the bigger question, unless we can do a deal to repurpose govt or council land, there is no way in hell we are getting within 10km of the CBD. Even 20km is a stretch, although you'd probably jag something at Gepps Cross.

As much as it blows my mind that a croquet club can have exclusive use to a piece of the parklands, rich farmers can park their horses in an inner urban parkland for reasons(?), SACA can build a structure on the parklands and turn part of it into a cricket ground, that netball SA can have a square kilometre of concrete down for courts, that a restaurant can have permanent structures on the parklands... yet the biggest sporting organisation in the state, that puts dollars into the ACC coffers and city businesses, can't get a slab of it to establish facilities that would be mostly open to the public... thebby really represents our final opportunity to get close to the CBD and, given how important that is to us, you would have thought we would have been far more diligent in covering off contingencies.

If anything his ties to the sanfl should have given us an insight to what they had done.
Sounds like the ball was dropped by both us and sanfl but not due to his ties.

 

[GrommoT]

That would be the end of Laird, he wouldn't be allowed to train.

On the bright, we'll have a part 2 of this thread

 

[George Kramer]

Mate. You criticised 1990s perspective on Olsen's relationship with the SANFL and its impact on this deal. All I'm saying is that it's clearly plausible that it hasn't been an arms length negotiation. More likely than not, in my view.

As for the bigger question, unless we can do a deal to repurpose govt or council land, there is no way in hell we are getting within 10km of the CBD. Even 20km is a stretch, although you'd probably jag something at Gepps Cross.

As much as it blows my mind that a croquet club can have exclusive use to a piece of the parklands, rich farmers can park their horses in an inner urban parkland for reasons(?), SACA can build a structure on the parklands and turn part of it into a cricket ground, that netball SA can have a square kilometre of concrete down for courts, that a restaurant can have permanent structures on the parklands... yet the biggest sporting organisation in the state, that puts dollars into the ACC coffers and city businesses, can't get a slab of it to establish facilities that would be mostly open to the public... thebby really represents our final opportunity to get close to the CBD and, given how important that is to us, you would have thought we would have been far more diligent in covering off contingencies.

If you think that you can be added to the paranoid bunch. I find it weird you actually agreed with all of my earlier post and yet now you’re not, seems odd.

Let’s assume for a moment that Olsen wasn’t the previous head of the SANFL, do you think anything would be different and if so, what?

So we don’t have any alternatives given we want to be close to the city, glad we got there. So given Thebby was our only option, what could we have done differently, found a new home for the SANFL? Bribed the Charles Sturt Council?

 

[feenix67]

If you think that you can be added to the paranoid bunch. I find it weird you actually agreed with all of my earlier post and yet now you’re not, seems odd.

Let’s assume for a moment that Olsen wasn’t the previous head of the SANFL, do you think anything would be different and if so, what?

So we don’t have any alternatives given we want to be close to the city, glad we got there. So given Thebby was our only option, what could we have done differently, found a new home for the SANFL? Bribed the Charles Sturt Council?

It seems odd to you because everything is black or white to you (or red or blue). You jump on 1990 as if he's questioning the moon landing, when in reality, his position is reasonable. It's his position, not mine, but I can see how a person could come to that position.

Frankly, we should have stayed at West Lakes. Once an inner city venue became a pipe dream, location no longer matters. We had a favourable long term lease and access to two ovals, facilities that only needed an upgrade and other existing infrastructure. The only way you leave that is if you can come up with something better. The only thing "better" we've come up with during this whole process is proximity to AO, but really, anything further than walking distance doesn't really represent much of a gain.

 

[George Kramer]

It seems odd to you because everything is black or white to you (or red or blue). You jump on 1990 as if he's questioning the moon landing, when in reality, his position is reasonable. It's his position, not mine, but I can see how a person could come to that position.

Frankly, we should have stayed at West Lakes. Once an inner city venue became a pipe dream, location no longer matters. We had a favourable long term lease and access to two ovals, facilities that only needed an upgrade and other existing infrastructure. The only way you leave that is if you can come up with something better. The only thing "better" we've come up with during this whole process is proximity to AO, but really, anything further than walking distance doesn't really represent much of a gain.

Did you read his rationale? Come on, his rationale was not reasonable. He couldn’t build an argument if he tried “just look at Adam Kelly and how he got his job” “Olsen bent over backwards to help SANFL and that’s how we got into this mess” “We are just an extension of the SANFL not a real club”

Come on, that’s the ramblings of a mad man.

I asked a question, assuming Olsen had no ties with the SANFL, what would be different about our current position?

The decision to move from West Lakes was before Olsen. Maybe back then we should looked at staying, but we really don’t know all the ins and outs behind that decision, but again that wasn’t under Olsens watch and as chairman if it’s a board decision to move, could he come in and veto it? When did the SANFL enter into agreement to sell land to Commercial and General? Pretty sure it was before Olsen therefore staying wasn’t an option.

 

[Scorpus]

Because our alternative is the real issue. If we didn’t have an alternative option what other option did we have but go with this one and assume that the SANFL moving to West Lakes would go through? You said we didn’t even ask if they could move, you’re making that up, you don’t know.

No I am not missing the point, the SANFL are the ones with the negotiating power, we are the ones wanting to kick them out. Again what alternative did we have to but to expect they’d be able to move to West Lakes? Do we pull out of Thebby? Which brings me back to my main point, what alternative did we have?

None of you who are critical are able to come up with one that doesn’t see us being out bid by developers, having to deal with a council and NIMBYs.

In the end, the SANFL will get to move to West Lakes, we will get Thebby, unfortunately the delays have cost us a shitload, but again what are the alternatives besides wait it out?

A competent organization wouldn't spend all that money developing plans for a new HQ that hinged on an assumption with no contingencies. That's completely amateur.

The Crows have significantly underestimated the difficulty of getting it done. In fact they've done it twice now, first with the Aquatic Center plans which they pulled out of due to opposition and are now facing the exact same issue with their "easier" Thebarton plan

They just assumed the SANFL would be able to move back to West Lakes? Why the * would they do that after every part of the process they went through twice?! Every plan they've had has been opposed. It was stupid to think this part of the process would just sail through.

Sure, they might be pursuing the best available option and the other options aren't as good. But they way they've gone about pursuing that "best" option includes being bullied out of a usable second oval by all of 10 people and apparently just assuming a key part of the plan would be approved without opposition. And you're saying the club doesn't look a bit incompetent out of that?

 

[George Kramer]

A competent organization wouldn't spend all that money developing plans for a new HQ that hinged on an assumption with no contingencies. That's completely amateur.

The Crows have significantly underestimated the difficulty of getting it done. In fact they've done it twice now, first with the Aquatic Center plans which they pulled out of due to opposition and are now facing the exact same issue with their "easier" Thebarton plan

They just assumed the SANFL would be able to move back to West Lakes? Why the * would they do that after every part of the process they went through twice?! Every plan they've had has been opposed. It was stupid to think this part of the process would just sail through.

Sure, they might be pursuing the best available option and the other options aren't as good. But they way they've gone about pursuing that "best" option includes being bullied out of a usable second oval by all of 10 people and apparently just assuming a key part of the plan would be approved without opposition. And you're saying the club doesn't look a bit incompetent out of that?

Because they had no alternative. What other option did they have but to pursue Thebby and this meant riding its risks. I’m not going to rehash my points again. Contingencies rely on having alternatives.

I believe the SANFL will get to move to West Lakes and we will get to Thebby. The delays are going to cost us but without a viable alternative we had no choice. None of this will be because Olsen is screwing us and trying to look after the SANFL.

 

[1990crow]

If you think that you can be added to the paranoid bunch. I find it weird you actually agreed with all of my earlier post and yet now you’re not, seems odd.

Let’s assume for a moment that Olsen wasn’t the previous head of the SANFL, do you think anything would be different and if so, what?

So we don’t have any alternatives given we want to be close to the city, glad we got there. So given Thebby was our only option, what could we have done differently, found a new home for the SANFL? Bribed the Charles Sturt Council?

How dare anyone criticise an ex Lib!!
That’s you.

 

[George Kramer]

How dare anyone criticise an ex Lib!!
That’s you.

I see the quality of your argument has improved.

I’ll give you a chance to show the depth of your position. Assume Olsen wasn’t a Lib and he wasn’t the old chairman of the SANFL, what would be different?

 

[Scorpus]

Because they had no alternative. What other option did they have but to pursue Thebby and this meant riding its risks. I’m not going to rehash my points again. Contingencies rely on having alternatives.

I believe the SANFL will get to move to West Lakes and we will get to Thebby. The delays are going to cost us but without a viable alternative we had no choice. None of this will be because Olsen is screwing us and trying to look after the SANFL.

There was an alternative to caving to the nimbys, which is not caving to the nimbys. We continually bent over for them expecting the next move to appease them, then the next move, then the next move, then the next move. Was the council ever seriously going to take their side? Judging from the council reports that I read, no, they weren't.

Now, feeling empowered by our weakness and continual caving, they're continuing to find avenues of resistance - which includes by the looks of things, going after our "assumed" ability to send the SANFL to West Lakes

I don't know whether Olsen is deliberately screwing us to favor the SANFL, but all of the opposition so far, the issues we've faced... all of them just so happen to primarily affect the Crows and not the SANFL. As you've pointed out, the SANFL are the ones with the negotiating power here. As we get more desperate to close the deal, it's likely the SANFL will get an even better outcome, because they hold the cards.

You're saying that's not on Olsen, and maybe it would be the same if he had no ties to the SANFL. I dunno, maybe a better chair and board without ties and with our best interests at heart would have undergone better due diligence around the matter, not fallen for the nimby trap and not made assumptions.

I don't think it's as unreasonable as you're making it out that Olsen's ties to the SANFL would have "assisted" in negotiations, and maybe due to having a few mates there, a bit of due diligence was passed over, a few assumptions made, taking the word of some old friends at face value, because it's all good, everyone's friends, it'll just get done. That's maybe not a conscious effort to screw us and look after the SANFL, but any sloppiness with the process was much more likely to hurt the Crows than the SANFL.

 

[George Kramer]

There was an alternative to caving to the nimbys, which is not caving to the nimbys. We continually bent over for them expecting the next move to appease them, then the next move, then the next move, then the next move. Was the council ever seriously going to take their side? Judging from the council reports that I read, no, they weren't.

Now, feeling empowered by our weakness and continual caving, they're continuing to find avenues of resistance - which includes by the looks of things, going after our "assumed" ability to send the SANFL to West Lakes

I don't know whether Olsen is deliberately screwing us to favor the SANFL, but all of the opposition so far, the issues we've faced... all of them just so happen to primarily affect the Crows and not the SANFL. As you've pointed out, the SANFL are the ones with the negotiating power here. As we get more desperate to close the deal, it's likely the SANFL will get an even better outcome, because they hold the cards.

You're saying that's not on Olsen, and maybe it would be the same if he had no ties to the SANFL. I dunno, maybe a better chair and board without ties and with our best interests at heart would have undergone better due diligence around the matter, not fallen for the nimby trap and not made assumptions.

I don't think it's as unreasonable as you're making it out that Olsen's ties to the SANFL would have "assisted" in negotiations, and maybe due to having a few mates there, a bit of due diligence was passed over, a few assumptions made, taking the word of some old friends at face value, because it's all good, everyone's friends, it'll just get done. That's maybe not a conscious effort to screw us and look after the SANFL, but any sloppiness with the process was much more likely to hurt the Crows than the SANFL.

Don’t cave to the nimbys and just get it approved, interesting take. Especially given we didn’t get government backing without saving more trees!

But that’s not an alternative to Thebby and not having to deal with the consequences of negotiating with a party who holds the upper hand, with 2 councils and 2 lots of nimbys.

Whats the alternative to Thebby? Whats the viable contingencies? You seem to have bypassed that to conspiracy theories.

 

[Mostyn]

Sure, get all of that. But we've already spent a fair bit of cash on this project, yet it seems we were arrogant enough to think that paying the SANFL out of their lease was enough, without one person saying "umm what if they can't find an alternative?".

To be fair, I'm sure there was a lot of interest and soft commitments from Charles Sturt. I'm sure everyone involved thought this was very safe.

But Adelaide is NIMBY capital of Australia. You should always assume nothing is going to happen, right up until the moment the first truckload of cement is poured.

 

[Mostyn]

Mate. You criticised 1990s perspective on Olsen's relationship with the SANFL and its impact on this deal. All I'm saying is that it's clearly plausible that it hasn't been an arms length negotiation. More likely than not, in my view.

As for the bigger question, unless we can do a deal to repurpose govt or council land, there is no way in hell we are getting within 10km of the CBD. Even 20km is a stretch, although you'd probably jag something at Gepps Cross.

As much as it blows my mind that a croquet club can have exclusive use to a piece of the parklands, rich farmers can park their horses in an inner urban parkland for reasons(?), SACA can build a structure on the parklands and turn part of it into a cricket ground, that netball SA can have a square kilometre of concrete down for courts, that a restaurant can have permanent structures on the parklands... yet the biggest sporting organisation in the state, that puts dollars into the ACC coffers and city businesses, can't get a slab of it to establish facilities that would be mostly open to the public... thebby really represents our final opportunity to get close to the CBD and, given how important that is to us, you would have thought we would have been far more diligent in covering off contingencies.

I think we shouldn't underestimate how much resentment there is towards the AFC from others in Adelaide.

 

[FR0GGY]

I think we shouldn't underestimate how much resentment there is towards the AFC from others in Adelaide.

And currently from members

 

[Mostyn]

A competent organization wouldn't spend all that money developing plans for a new HQ that hinged on an assumption with no contingencies. That's completely amateur.

The Crows have significantly underestimated the difficulty of getting it done. In fact they've done it twice now, first with the Aquatic Center plans which they pulled out of due to opposition and are now facing the exact same issue with their "easier" Thebarton plan

They just assumed the SANFL would be able to move back to West Lakes? Why the * would they do that after every part of the process they went through twice?! Every plan they've had has been opposed. It was stupid to think this part of the process would just sail through.

Sure, they might be pursuing the best available option and the other options aren't as good. But they way they've gone about pursuing that "best" option includes being bullied out of a usable second oval by all of 10 people and apparently just assuming a key part of the plan would be approved without opposition. And you're saying the club doesn't look a bit incompetent out of that?

You're massively underestimating how difficult it is to get ANY developments up.

The level of planning and expense we've gone through is the absolute minimum you need to do to get a project this size approved.

There's no version of solving every possible eventuality before you get a plan together. Government wouldn't even have the conversation with us until a lot of this work is done.

 

[Scorpus]

You're massively underestimating how difficult it is to get ANY developments up.

The level of planning and expense we've gone through is the absolute minimum you need to do to get a project this size approved.

There's no version of solving every possible eventuality before you get a plan together. Government wouldn't even have the conversation with us until a lot of this work is done.

I don't think I'm downplaying how difficult it is. I know it's difficult. Did the club?

Did the club expect the level of roadblocks there have been? Based on the timelines they've said publicly, either they underestimated the amount of consultation steps required, or their initial estimates were a pure lie.

Was their plan for nimby resistance seriously to just bow to their demands and cut one of the key reasons to actually move to the site in the first place (versus remaining at West Lakes) which was more space for more ovals? If you knew there would have to be concessions due to resistance you'd want to make sure you had a few reasonable fallback positions.

I don't know for sure whether they actually just assumed the SANFL would easily move back to West Lakes but come on. A city that as you say is the nimby capital of Australia, where we've faced resistance at every step, with every plan we've had. I'd be seriously disappointed if we were blindsided by the latest developments in that area.

 

[relapse]

Because our alternative is the real issue. If we didn’t have an alternative option what other option did we have but go with this one and assume that the SANFL moving to West Lakes would go through? You said we didn’t even ask if they could move, you’re making that up, you don’t know.

No I am not missing the point, the SANFL are the ones with the negotiating power, we are the ones wanting to kick them out. Again what alternative did we have to but to expect they’d be able to move to West Lakes? Do we pull out of Thebby? Which brings me back to my main point, what alternative did we have?

None of you who are critical are able to come up with one that doesn’t see us being out bid by developers, having to deal with a council and NIMBYs.

In the end, the SANFL will get to move to West Lakes, we will get Thebby, unfortunately the delays have cost us a shitload, but again what are the alternatives besides wait it out?

That's not exactly true though, we pulled out of the Aquatic Centre proposal to push forward with Thebarton.

Claiming that Thebarton was the only option isn't accurate IMO

The club made a decision to move towards Thebarton as a preference over the Aquatic Centre and the only reason now that Thebarton is a last resort is because we've painted ourselves into a corner.

 

[Scorpus]

Don’t cave to the nimbys and just get it approved, interesting take. Especially given we didn’t get government backing without saving more trees!

But that’s not an alternative to Thebby and not having to deal with the consequences of negotiating with a party who holds the upper hand, with 2 councils and 2 lots of nimbys.

Whats the alternative to Thebby? Whats the viable contingencies? You seem to have bypassed that to conspiracy theories.

There's a huge difference between negotiating with another party you have few previous connections with, and negotiating with your mates and ex-colleagues. You're suggesting it's a conspiracy there would be a difference? Come on.

You'd think that someone who was previously involved with one of the main negotiating parties, and was an ex-politician, would help us dealing with the main party and the various councils. Has that been the case?

As for alternatives and contingencies, I'm just pointing out the club doesn't have any, which is their failing. They had three options, one of them they chose not to continue with (the Aquatic Center), one of them should probably be viable but for whatever reason isn't (remaining at West Lakes), and the other is sputtering along. The fact they ruled out two options and are currently on option 3 with no other choice is their decision. It's totally fair to criticize them for that. The club hasn't just found itself in a position by chance where Thebarton is the best viable choice remaining, they actively went down that path.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

That's not exactly true though, we pulled out of the Aquatic Centre proposal to push forward with Thebarton.

Claiming that Thebarton was the only option isn't accurate IMO

The club made a decision to move towards Thebarton as a preference over the Aquatic Centre and the only reason now that Thebarton is a last resort is because we've painted ourselves into a corner.

I never understood the attraction of Thebarton .....not exactly a prime location

That said, if you continue with a project, when the piranha's are nipping away at you .....you have to know when to walk away, and put the onus for the projects' completion on others .....in this case the Councils and State Govt

Watch people jump into action if the project is threatened .....but continue on the approach of "we'll work thru all the obstacles" .....just invites the piranha's who can sense blood in the water

Every project has a walk away point

 

[AFCCroweater]

I wonder if the South parklands would be an option?

There's an athletics club there plus a bunch of ovals used by Pulteney school, plus hockey pitches, tennis courts, bmx tracks, tree climb

All nice enough but fairly basic in regards to amenities. A "Sporting Hub" overhaul could meet the needs of a lot of groups

Lovely concept but with the amount of development that the AFC need to implement (gym/pool/admin etc) it’s absolutely impossible from the “no net loss of parklands” policy which is being tightened by the ACC. Most of those parklands are also tenanted and as a user of that area of the parklands through a community sports club, I can guarantee that any tenant who had their lease ended so the AFC can move in would be absolutely furious and would fight tooth and nail against it. I’m a firm believer that we shouldn’t be kicking out a current user group in the process of building a home.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Lovely concept but with the amount of development that the AFC need to implement (gym/pool/admin etc) it’s absolutely impossible from the “no net loss of parklands” policy which is being tightened by the ACC. Most of those parklands are also tenanted and as a user of that area of the parklands through a community sports club, I can guarantee that any tenant who had their lease ended so the AFC can move in would be absolutely furious and would fight tooth and nail against it. I’m a firm believer that we shouldn’t be kicking out a current user group in the process of building a home.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

There's difficulties everywhere

The users in the parklands largely have to make do with derelict facilities, ancient microscopic changerooms, no amenities, no shelter, no clubrooms.

They are all screaming out for something better. But by themselves are small voices.

It's why councils everywhere are going down the sporting hub concept. One large multi-purpose facility, catering for a huge number of community groups.

If the council's local tenants can get more bang for their buck by piggy-backing on a large corporation with development funding behind them they should

 

[AFCCroweater]

There's difficulties everywhere

The users in the parklands largely have to make do with derelict facilities, ancient microscopic changerooms, no amenities, no shelter, no clubrooms.

They are all screaming out for something better. But by themselves are small voices.

It's why councils everywhere are going down the sporting hub concept. One large multi-purpose facility, catering for a huge number of community groups.

If the council's local tenants can get more bang for their buck by piggy-backing on a large corporation with development funding behind them they should

Agree the concept is fantastic but the prospect of sharing with a powerhouse like the AFC would be quite daunting for a lot of small community clubs who would be worried about being bullied by the bigger entity for facility use / availability.

Personally I think the triangle of land west of Sir Lewis Cohen Ave would be awesome but I’m pretty sure they ruled that out for the police horses so pigs will fly before the AFC get it.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[hugecannon]

What about the old (?)Victoria Park racecourse at the end of south terrace ?

Is that still sitting idle and unused?

 

[Mostyn]

Agree the concept is fantastic but the prospect of sharing with a powerhouse like the AFC would be quite daunting for a lot of small community clubs who would be worried about being bullied by the bigger entity for facility use / availability.

Personally I think the triangle of land west of Sir Lewis Cohen Ave would be awesome but I’m pretty sure they ruled that out for the police horses so pigs will fly before the AFC get it.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I think the problem is some people still consider AFC to be a powerhouse.

 

[George Kramer]

That's not exactly true though, we pulled out of the Aquatic Centre proposal to push forward with Thebarton.

Claiming that Thebarton was the only option isn't accurate IMO

The club made a decision to move towards Thebarton as a preference over the Aquatic Centre and the only reason now that Thebarton is a last resort is because we've painted ourselves into a corner.

Yes but that was before Olsen and the discussions been how Olsen is a SANFL stooge