Deaneus!
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
decided i needed a laugh... and the video has been removed by user
BOOOOO!!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Blighty mentioned something last night on Sportsday SA and how he had a chat to Steven Marshall about this at a recent party. My walkman ended up switching off for some reason so I missed what he said about the move to the aquatic centre . . Did anyone hear this and what was said ?
Sorry to bump the thread with no news, but i was channel surfing and heard the end of Rowie and Bicks talking about the move.
Was there an update or something or just general chat?
Sorry to bump the thread with no news, but i was channel surfing and heard the end of Rowie and Bicks talking about the move.
Was there an update or something or just general chat?
Yeah they said its a win for the community who get a new aquatic centre, a win for the schools who get upgraded ovals, and a win for the council who no longer have to pay $800k pa to maintain the aquatic centre.General chat, basically a caller brought up about the parklands preservation association and gave them a whack about their campaign against the move and the way they’re using the elderly lady who the park’s named in honour of in their video campaign against a Crows move to the aquatic centre. Rowey and Bicks both agreed with the caller, Bicks though did bring up about concerns the residents may have about the new facility having a potential liquor license/ late night events.
Anyone against the Crows aquatic centre move IMO is delusional.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah they said its a win for the community who get a new aquatic centre, a win for the schools who get upgraded ovals, and a win for the council who no longer have to pay $800k pa to maintain the aquatic centre.
Given that we are basically just upgrading the existing facilities and ovals that are already there, I don't really see what objections anyone has, even the APLA?
Sounds like everyone is keen to get the current eyesore fixed up at someone elses expense.Article on Adelaide Now. State Govt have new draft planning rules which seem to be written to help the Crows
Compare the rules:
Current Adelaide City Council Development Plan
Extensions to or new buildings at the Adelaide Aquatic Centre should be restricted unless they consolidate and replace existing buildings with structures more appropriate to the Parklands environment and with no increase in total floor area. Other than this, no additional buildings should be permitted.
Draft Planning and Design Code
Development at the Adelaide Aquatic Centre site to consolidate and replace existing buildings with recreational sporting clubrooms, facilities and associated administrative functions.
*The code has no definition of recreational sporting clubrooms
[/qoute]
Which is exactly why we should be there pushing to see if we can get a great outcome for the club.Sounds like everyone is keen to get the current eyesore fixed up at someone elses expense.
From the article
Not sure the SMA will allow that.Which is exactly why we should be there pushing to see if we can get a great outcome for the club.
However, I noted that Bickley has been put on a committee to look at a redeveloped Riverbank multisports proposal. Does this mean they will look at the area next to AO, and revamp the whole tennis/NextGen area? Could that be a better option?
SMA shouldn’t get a say in anything but the oval.Not sure the SMA will allow that.
Of course they shouldn't.SMA shouldn’t get a say in anything but the oval.
What leverage do they have though?The SMA has the leverage to kill anything between Montefiore, King William, Pennington, and the Torrens. Shouldn't doesn't come into it.
The $550m they owe the government for the upgrade.What leverage do they have though?
Is that even the SMA’s?The $550m they owe the government for the upgrade.
I could be wrong, but from memory the 550M was intended to be repaid by the SMA at a commercial return plus upkeep of the stadium.Is that even the SMA’s?
They weren’t around then were they?
Surely that’s the opposite to leverage if they were?
That was the 48mill for the hotel,I could be wrong, but from memory the 550M was intended to be repaid by the SMA at a commercial return plus upkeep of the stadium.
The government can't afford SMA to fail, so that gives SMA useful leverage when complaining about things.
A bit like China can't afford US to default.
Who does the SANFL answer to?I could be wrong, but from memory the 550M was intended to be repaid by the SMA at a commercial return plus upkeep of the stadium.
The government can't afford SMA to fail, so that gives SMA useful leverage when complaining about things.
A bit like China can't afford US to default.
Who does the SANFL answer to?
Can’t they be kicked out?
Sorry I meant SMA not SANFLYou could, but that would leave the SACA in charge, and we'd end up back in the bad old days when Bradman was screwing over football in SA (which resulted in Football Park being built).
You'd have to kick the SMA out as an entity, not just take the SANFL or SACA out of the SMA. Also, if you remove the SMA, then you'd have to get another organisation in to manage the ground. That could be anyone from AVM (who run the AEC, ACC and Coopers Stadium) through to a multinational (such as AEG Ogden, who run most arenas in the country), or someone like Spotless.
SMA is accountable to SANFL and SACA.Sorry I meant SMA not SANFL
SMA is accountable to SANFL and SACA.
You'd think the Government too, but I've never seen their constitution.