Opinion New AFC HQ: Send in the Bulldozers! Thebarton is Happening!

[CrowsB4hoes]

Well that's interesting. Rowie tonight reckons SASI are buying us out of the Footy Park lease and will take it over ~ about $20m coming our way for it.

Thank you independent, impartial, arms-length Liberal State Government.

 

[Cap]

Well that's interesting. Rowie tonight reckons SASI are buying us out of the Footy Park lease and will take it over ~ about $20m coming our way for it.

Thank you independent, impartial, arms-length Liberal State Government.

So that's $35m so far for new training ground if true

 

[Golumless]

You may see it differently, maybe I am the only one who thinks the Crows can encompass the history of the SANFL. I agree there is a difference between the direct history you are wedded to and the greater, rich football past of SA. As I recall, the Crows were hastily thrown together in response to the magpoos greater vision, and they were thrown together to represent the best of the SANFL at the time. I am older now so maybe I have distorted that.

Ergo, it seems to me like a natural progression to assume the mantle of the Aussie rules team for all South Australians, and embrace the (indirect) history that encompasses.

But I also believe Craig Bradley is the AFL games record holder, even though he was a mongpie. None of the other clubs in the AFL have discarded their pre AFL history, and I see no reason why the Crows (lor for that matter the Power) should either.

The difference between a club like Essendon and a club like us is Essendon existed in the VFL prior. We did not.

Whilst we are born of the SANFL, we were not born out of any one club in the SANFL (this is the grey area with Port in that they kind of have claim to the Magpies history, but the way they swiftly discredited it in the 90s does hollow out such a claim). West Torrens for instance are not the SANFL. Central Districts are not the SANFL. North Adelaide are not the SANFL etc. The players who starred for West Torrens are their own and no one else. No matter what our role is in the SA football ecosystem, those players and feats are not ours to celebrate.

The usable history we have with the SANFL is we can wear a heritage state jumper every now and then to honour them, and that's really about it. From the moment we begin to exist in the AFL, we are completely separate, unless you want to parade around with the 1985 annual report?

 

[hey shorty]

Well that's interesting. Rowie tonight reckons SASI are buying us out of the Footy Park lease and will take it over ~ about $20m coming our way for it.

Thank you independent, impartial, arms-length Liberal State Government.

Ahhhh Mr Olsen, very good.

 

[GrommoT]

Well that's interesting. Rowie tonight reckons SASI are buying us out of the Footy Park lease and will take it over ~ about $20m coming our way for it.

Thank you independent, impartial, arms-length Liberal State Government.

Yes, this is interesting.

If it is true, I wonder if this would be a bit of an up you to the SANFL and their ultimatum to make a decision on Thebby by this weekend? Are the SANFL keen for us to get out of West Lakes early (as they could get some $$$ from the developers) or are they neutral on that?

Would our selling of our lease from the SANFL to SASI be an unexpected turn of events to the SANFL? (and can we do that?) - it would allow us to look at other new location options.

Also, is ~$20M for 27 years at West Lakes a good deal for SASI?

 

[Racheles Pocket]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

Adelaide Crows new headquarters: Why Adelaide Oval and its surrounds may work

Could the answer to Adelaide’s quest for a new home be right under the Crows’ nose?
Crows chairman John Olsen has ruled out the Aquatic Centre in North Adelaide, while the council nursery at Park 10 is not being pursued unless the Adelaide City Council changes its tune.

So why can’t the Crows establish new headquarters at Adelaide Oval?

It might just work.

The Crows want to set up a new base within the city and its parklands - with Thebarton Oval seen as a fallback option.

Some guy from The Advertiser suggesting we move into Adelaide Oval, because it gets around the city council and we could use Oval #2 as a second training oval. I'm sure Port and SACA would be very happy with the idea. Would be a good troll move but entirely unfeasible.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Yes, this is interesting.

If it is true, I wonder if this would be a bit of an up you to the SANFL and their ultimatum to make a decision on Thebby by this weekend? Are the SANFL keen for us to get out of West Lakes early (as they could get some $$$ from the developers) or are they neutral on that?

Would our selling of our lease from the SANFL to SASI be an unexpected turn of events to the SANFL? (and can we do that?) - it would allow us to look at other new location options.

Also, is ~$20M for 27 years at West Lakes a good deal for SASI?

I'm not sure the SANFL have any interest at West Lakes anymore. They sold to Commercial & General and left us with a peppercorn lease to use the land until 2048. I imagine we would have the ability to assign that to another, and so SASI would take up this assignment and pay us for the privilege.

I imagine our Lessors are C&G, not SANFL.

Other option would be Commercial & General buy us out of the lease so they can use the land now and not wait until 2048 but I expect they like the idea of some commercial activity at the site.

 

[GrommoT]

I'm not sure the SANFL have any interest at West Lakes anymore. They sold to Commercial & General and left us with a peppercorn lease to use the land until 2048. I imagine we would have the ability to assign that to another, and so SASI would take up this assignment and pay us for the privilege.

I imagine our Lessors are C&G, not SANFL.

Other option would be Commercial & General buy us out of the lease so they can use the land now and not wait until 2048 but I expect they like the idea of some commercial activity at the site.

I thought the SANFL still held the lease after selling off F.P. and "on-leased" to us - or something to that effect? (unless I'm mixing in the Thebby stuff into this)

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I thought the SANFL still held the lease after selling off F.P. and "on-leased" to us - or something to that effect? (unless I'm mixing in the Thebby stuff into this)

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't see why they would have. No point the SANFL being involved in that land at all once C&G took over.

 

[brucetiki]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

Some guy from The Advertiser suggesting we move into Adelaide Oval, because it gets around the city council and we could use Oval #2 as a second training oval. I'm sure Port and SACA would be very happy with the idea. Would be a good troll move but entirely unfeasible.

12 years ago I never thought we’d end up with a world class stadium at Adelaide Oval (despite it being so obvious it was the best option for an inner city stadium) so never say never - and it would make quite a sporting precinct with our facilities, Adelaide Oval, and Memorial Drive about to get a significant upgrade.

Plus having our training facilities at the ground would be a perfect opportunity to remind the cousins down the road that this is Adelaide’s Oval

Reality is that the site would be even more compromised than the Aquatic Centre and I can’t see it working.

 

[MarcusP2]

I can't imagine the melts from Port if after 'finally getting out of the Crows oval' at West Lakes we took over Adelaide Oval. Would be amazing to see.

However that's one of the reasons we shouldn't do it. It's not our oval, I'd rather get something that can fully be our own.

 

[flashcrow]

Why don't we dream big, and go Park 12? Not all of it, just a bit...

 

[relapse]

I thought the SANFL still held the lease after selling off F.P. and "on-leased" to us - or something to that effect? (unless I'm mixing in the Thebby stuff into this)

From what I am aware.

The SANFL still owns the pacel of land for the Moasic Hotel and they're still owner/operator.

The oval itself is now owned by the council and will be retained as a green space area

The Crows have a rent free lease over their location until 2048, but the land itself was part of the sale so the SANFL do not own it anymore.

 

[Sanders]

So if our Esports sub venture ever takes off will we be vultures and blood suckers for expecting a return from it

will they be denying their heritage

 

[glengowan]

The difference between a club like Essendon and a club like us is Essendon existed in the VFL prior. We did not.

Whilst we are born of the SANFL, we were not born out of any one club in the SANFL (this is the grey area with Port in that they kind of have claim to the Magpies history, but the way they swiftly discredited it in the 90s does hollow out such a claim). West Torrens for instance are not the SANFL. Central Districts are not the SANFL. North Adelaide are not the SANFL etc. The players who starred for West Torrens are their own and no one else. No matter what our role is in the SA football ecosystem, those players and feats are not ours to celebrate.

The usable history we have with the SANFL is we can wear a heritage state jumper every now and then to honour them, and that's really about it. From the moment we begin to exist in the AFL, we are completely separate, unless you want to parade around with the 1985 annual report?

The Crows basically ran on from the success of the SANFL State teams of the 80’s and that kick a vic attitude, which was around decades prior as well. They were born from a majority of SANFL players, which culminated in the premierships of 97/98, and the first chapter of the AFC closed then.

I think it’s the responsibility of the Adelaide Football Club, and I think it would do them well commercially and culturally, to promote the entire history of football in South Australia and represent that (except for Port), in conjunction with the 30 years they’ve been the Adelaide Crows.

They are the biggest sporting entity in SA and one of the biggest clubs in the AFL because of the groundwork laid out by those individuals and clubs who came before them, prior to the professional AFL era.

 

[Sanders]

The Crows basically ran on from the success of the SANFL State teams of the 80’s and that kick a vic attitude, which was around decades prior as well. They were born from a majority of SANFL players, which culminated in the premierships of 97/98, and the first chapter of the AFC closed then.

I think it’s the responsibility of the Adelaide Football Club, and I think it would do them well commercially and culturally, to promote the entire history of football in South Australia and represent that (except for Port), in conjunction with the 30 years they’ve been the Adelaide Crows.

They are the biggest sporting entity in SA and one of the biggest clubs in the AFL because of the groundwork laid out by those individuals and clubs who came before them, prior to the professional AFL era.

agreed. It’s bizarre to me how many people think an entity created by, spun off by a parent entity owes nothing to its owner, creator and founder

can’t imagine Lexus corp bitching about Toyota the same way

 

[Large 1]

agreed. It’s bizarre to me how many people think an entity created by, spun off by a parent entity owes nothing to its owner, creator and founder

can’t imagine Lexus corp bitching about Toyota the same way

A more appropriate analogy is the US and England. One founded by the other!

how did that work out?

 

[DJ75]

Why don't we dream big, and go Park 12? Not all of it, just a bit...

View attachment 1064290

Pretty sure that was high on the list and Adelaide Uni said no. Would be perfect.

 

[flashcrow]

I would have been awesome!

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Pretty sure that was high on the list and Adelaide Uni said no. Would be perfect.

The Adelaide Uni that’s broke?

Id be asking again.

 

[DJ75]

The Adelaide Uni that’s broke?

Id be asking again.

Me too. I'd be dangling a brand new facility, coordinating with some of their Uni programs (Physio? Sports Science etc..) and really making it a big development. Would be hard for the Uni to turn it down I'd have thought.

 

[relapse]

agreed. It’s bizarre to me how many people think an entity created by, spun off by a parent entity owes nothing to its owner, creator and founder

can’t imagine Lexus corp bitching about Toyota the same way

I have no problem with the club acknowledging its historical links to the SANFL, but the club under no circumstances should ever be a financial crutch for the SANFL especially if it's to the determent of it's core function.

Is our existence about serving as a cash cow to the SANFL or is it to be a successful football club?

From my perspective they're mutually exclusive stances.

 

[Golumless]

The Crows basically ran on from the success of the SANFL State teams of the 80’s and that kick a vic attitude, which was around decades prior as well. They were born from a majority of SANFL players, which culminated in the premierships of 97/98, and the first chapter of the AFC closed then.

I think it’s the responsibility of the Adelaide Football Club, and I think it would do them well commercially and culturally, to promote the entire history of football in South Australia and represent that (except for Port), in conjunction with the 30 years they’ve been the Adelaide Crows.

They are the biggest sporting entity in SA and one of the biggest clubs in the AFL because of the groundwork laid out by those individuals and clubs who came before them, prior to the professional AFL era.

The first chapter of Adelaide closes before our premierships. The side born from the SANFL, made from players who truly made their name in that league and weren't just highly promising youth sniped away from their respective clubs ends when Blight culled the list in '96. That cull is the break point from us being the pseudo state side from the SANFL, to us being our own club, which just happens to have an SA flavour. By the time you get to our premierships, the person who has spent the most time in the SANFL is as much a Hawks legend as he is a Roosters one. We have begun to push towards what is, now, the normal. That we are not a representation of the SANFL. We are a representation of the AFL as a whole, and you begin to see us bring in more interstate players, after all there were 3 in our '97 and 6 (or 7, but I'm willing to count Thiessen as an SA player) in our '98 premiership squad.

It's not our responsibility at all to look after SA football history. Our responsibility in this regard is just to keep adding to the richness of the SA football tapestry. The role of promoting the entire SA history is the SANFL, and SANFL alone. In part because where SA football history is being written is as much by other teams in the AFL as it is by us, and in part because the role of protecting history goes to the club that created it. Adding to the tapestry, and continuing on from where they left off is all we can do to honour those who came before, not ripping away what made them great and pretending it is ours.

Ask yourself, how comfortable do you feel about us promoting Warren Tredrae, Michael O'Loughlin, Andrew Mckay, Mark Williams, Gavin Wanganeen, Matt Primus etc? That is what promoting the entire history of SA football entails (and everyone I listed are in the SA football hall of fame). I can tell you how I feel about that idea and it's a non-starter because it's plastic as *.

 

[Sanders]

I have no problem with the club acknowledging its historical links to the SANFL, but the club under no circumstances should ever be a financial crutch for the SANFL especially if it's to the determent of it's core function.

Is our existence about serving as a cash cow to the SANFL or is it to be a successful football club?

From my perspective they're mutually exclusive stances.

my point exactly. Baffling

 

[NTRabbit]

The Adelaide Uni that’s broke?

Id be asking again.

Adelaide Uni leases the oval from the council, they don't own anything to sell there, and paying them to leave their lease still faces the problem of getting the ACC to agree to lease it to us and let us build on it, same as the Aquatic Centre site.