AFL at Adelaide Oval - it will never happen (Part 3)

[birdmanptr]

What does happen if the SACA members do vote this down?

Where do we go from there?

For all those that complained about AAMI - from a meteorological basis - Adelaide is wetter and slightly colder (in winter) than West Lakes.

Well and truly back to the drawing board but it would be hard seeing it get up once the vote was NO.

 

[Geoffa32]

What does happen if the SACA members do vote this down?

Where do we go from there?

For all those that complained about AAMI - from a meteorological basis - Adelaide is wetter and slightly colder (in winter) than West Lakes.

We wait for all those old fogies scared of change die out and start again. Not to mention give those East of the border more to laugh at.

Do all those members that got their membership this year get a vote? Daresay most of them would vote yes, given the reason they got a membership was a new stadium.

 

[birdmanptr]

We wait for all those old fogies scared of change die out and start again. Not to mention give those East of the border more to laugh at.

Do all those members that got their membership this year get a vote? Daresay most of them would vote yes, given the reason they got a membership was a new stadium.

I aint that old, but i am a fogie and I don't think they do get a vote but considering the plea in the powertiser Friday I would say they are a bit concerned.

I guess it will come down to how the NO voters speak at the meeting.How well they sell their case.

 

[Geoffa32]

I aint that old, but i am a fogie and I don't think they do get a vote but considering the plea in the powertiser Friday I would say they are a bit concerned.

Are drop in pitches the one stumbling block? Anything else and the SACA members are hypcrits. Happy to get their new stand werent they?

The look of the Adelaide Oval is gone now with that new stand, which does not even replicate the old members stand but is a new design. With the red roof etc.

If they were fair dinkum about keeping the look of Adelaide Oval they would have build the new stand to a similar, but modern, design. Same goes with the other three stands.

 

[birdmanptr]

Are drop in pitches the one stumbling block? Anything else and the SACA members are hypcrits. Happy to get their new stand werent they?

The look of the Adelaide Oval is gone now with that new stand, which does not even replicate the old members stand but is a new design. With the red roof etc.

If they were fair dinkum about keeping the look of Adelaide Oval they would have build the new stand to a similar, but modern, design. Same goes with the other three stands.

Drop in pitches is one but all the SACA members I have spoke to have said the costs.I read to become a member and get the lot it's around a $1000 well they can shove that.

 

[Geoffa32]

Drop in pitches is one but all the SACA members I have spoke to have said the costs.I read to become a member and get the lot it's around a $1000 well they can shove that.

I can see a problem there. Especially when you compare it to the MCC membership, which is cheaper and 10 times the values.

I dont think the SMA want too many people to have access to everything. Bit ahrd to oversubscribe as they do at the MCC as there is only one game a week and two clubs. Plus some cricket.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Ridiculous and naive. There is not, and never has been one entire point. Multiple agendas - personal and groups.

Come on Carl, in 1890, 23 people one horse and a goat lived in Adelaide.

Should have left Adelaide oval as was. - a pretty little ground suitable for cricket and its clientele. Get rid of AAMI and have some foresight, get into this century and build a new one. End of story.

I personally dont think this point is relevant to the debate.

AO is a bought and paid for public facility that just cost about $100M to upgrade for cricket and second tier sporting events. It's a perfect size for this in it's current state and, whilst its in a wildly underutilised prime location, it's not costing us anything to run and is one of the state's iconic sporting and tourist attractions.

AAMI is a bought and paid for privately owned facility requiring about $100M to upgrade but remains an excellent stadium for football. It's owned and run by the most viable sporting organisation in the state and generates enough revenue to remain viable and help sustain two AFL clubs and a state league.

So we want to go from that scenario to a state funded $800M upgrade of a stadium with a design already constrained by budget and every local lobby group and thus likely to be compromised. A stadium with a reduced capacity compared to the current facility. A stadium which will still only be used for 5 minutes every summer anyway. And no budgeted provision for parking, even though it is desired to attract 30 - 40K people there every weekend in winter.

So chuck a couple of smallish grants/loans at existing stadiums to keep them up to date and viable, and spend some $ on public transport infrastructure that is much needed for that area anyway and which will be used 24/7, or chuck $800M at a stadium to do a patchwork rebuild of an icon and tourist attraction, for no particular reason other than some half arsed dream about boosting crowds for a mathematically challenged football team and the long forgotten once off World Cup bid?

Look, if neither of you can see the economic rationale for operating one stadium for 12 months of the year rather than two stadiums for six months of the year apiece, then let's not bother. Pay the $$$ now to bring the sports together and we will effectively save 50% every single time the ground needs to be updated in the future.

How long does a grandstand last? The G has been redeveloped 13 times (IIRC) to stay relevant and up to date. If the state government are going to be paying for stadium upgrades in the future then they would (and have been) derelict in their duty to allow the two sports to exist separately and needlessly soak up public dollars.

Meanwhile, we're shutting down vital community facilities, downgrading health and education funding and paying for Foley's phone bill (for which he should be sacked). Im struggling to understand how this proposal even got past first base to be honest.

No, what you should be struggling with is the original decision back in the 70's when the move to West Lakes occured. What is amazing was that at the time no one said... Hey, won't this eat up twice as much (state and sport) money for all eternity if we operate two stadiums for sports which are currently housed by one stadium?

We shouldn't be having this debate because we shouldn't have a shitbox, white elephant, dated stadium sitting out among the crappy western suburbs that is hard to get to and is empty all summer.

 

[seanoff]

I personally dont think this point is relevant to the debate.

AO is a bought and paid for public facility that just cost about $100M to upgrade for cricket and second tier sporting events. It's a perfect size for this in it's current state and, whilst its in a wildly underutilised prime location, it's not costing us anything to run and is one of the state's iconic sporting and tourist attractions.

but it doesn't look like the AO any more. it retains a scoreboard and some trees. the red roof signature has been replaced by sails. about the only thing remaining is the brick wall and only the members will see it.


AAMI is a bought and paid for privately owned facility requiring about $100M to upgrade but remains an excellent stadium for football. It's owned and run by the most viable sporting organisation in the state and generates enough revenue to remain viable and help sustain two AFL clubs and a state league.
it remains an excellent surface for football, as a spectator facility it is 30 - 40 yrs behind. compare AAMI to the AO plans, there is no real comparison in space and facilities back of house. and front of house everyone will be closer to the action, with better leg room and sightlines. Honestly, upgrading AAMI to modern standards would cost as much or more than the AO upgrade


So we want to go from that scenario to a state funded $800M upgrade of a stadium with a design already constrained by budget and every local lobby group and thus likely to be compromised. A stadium with a reduced capacity compared to the current facility. A stadium which will still only be used for 5 minutes every summer anyway. And no budgeted provision for parking, even though it is desired to attract 30 - 40K people there every weekend in winter.

So chuck a couple of smallish grants/loans at existing stadiums to keep them up to date and viable, and spend some $ on public transport infrastructure that is much needed for that area anyway and which will be used 24/7, or chuck $800M at a stadium to do a patchwork rebuild of an icon and tourist attraction, for no particular reason other than some half arsed dream about boosting crowds for a mathematically challenged football team and the long forgotten once off World Cup bid?
we are in a pretty good position for 2022.

"This brings me to the bid that survived the inspection visits with the brightest prospects.

Asian-facing but with ties to world football's Oceania region, Australia ticks a lot of boxes. Infrastructure, track record, sporting tradition, nice weather, decent food, it's hard to pick holes. The country's politicians even called a time-out during the recent election campaign to show Mayne-Nicholls and co a united front. He seemed to approve.

It is still too early to talk about hot favourites and rank outsiders - more will be known when Fifa releases the technical reports next month - but Down Under is looking a decent bet for 2022.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2010/09/why_its_advance_australia_fair.html



Meanwhile, we're shutting down vital community facilities, downgrading health and education funding and paying for Foley's phone bill (for which he should be sacked). Im struggling to understand how this proposal even got past first base to be honest.

it also has some chance of getting some sort of return, i don't expect it to profit it will certainly at least pay for its running costs + a bit.

you could easily spend the entire state budget on health and not solve all the problems or treat everybody. Occasionally it's not so bad to invest in other things and since most of the state live in adelaide, maybe actually doing something in Adelaide is not the worst thing. this seems to be an upgrade of the whole Torrens precinct. They went thru this is Brisbane a little with Southbank (not so much) but Southbank is massively popular now and heavily used, 1000s of % more than previously.

 

[feenix67]

Look, if neither of you can see the economic rationale for operating one stadium for 12 months of the year rather than two stadiums for six months of the year apiece, then let's not bother. Pay the $$$ now to bring the sports together and we will effectively save 50% every single time the ground needs to be updated in the future.

How long does a grandstand last? The G has been redeveloped 13 times (IIRC) to stay relevant and up to date. If the state government are going to be paying for stadium upgrades in the future then they would (and have been) derelict in their duty to allow the two sports to exist separately and needlessly soak up public dollars.


No, what you should be struggling with is the original decision back in the 70's when the move to West Lakes occured. What is amazing was that at the time no one said... Hey, won't this eat up twice as much (state and sport) money for all eternity if we operate two stadiums for sports which are currently housed by one stadium?

We shouldn't be having this debate because we shouldn't have a shitbox, white elephant, dated stadium sitting out among the crappy western suburbs that is hard to get to and is empty all summer.

Hey you asked for my opinion - I gave it

I get that we're on opposite sides of this debate and thats fine and Im enjoying your perspective. I think you are generalising a bit though, because your argument would be valid if the govt/public owned and ran the two stadia, but they dont. There are stacks of organisations - sporting and otherwise - that gain govt grants and loans. Given the revenue football brings into this state, you'd be hard pressed to convince me the SANFL arent entitled to a bit of coin every once in a while to keep Footy Park up to date. Aside form that, I think you'll find that the net revenue brought into this state from Football is written in black numbers, not red.

You need to do more research on the original decision to go to West Lakes. It wasnt the SANFL's preference, it was a move forced on us by that wonderful cricketer but horrible administrator Sir Don Bradman. Go do some reading and you'll soften your stance on that score.

As I said to you before, I have a lot of trouble with the fact that there are so many agendas associated with this issue, and that football has been dragged to the table against it's best judgement. We had some $ on the table from the Govt to upgrade facilities at Footy Park, enough $ in the kitty to help Port while they restructured themselves into a more viable concern, a fantastic freehold facility and a pretty healthy local comp. Footy didnt need to do much more than stay the course.

Too much self interest by too many third parties who all want to leech off the good financial state of the SANFL. Cant be good for football if you ask me.

PS Foley needs to go to the Women's and Children's Hospital and explain why he can spend 22k on the phone but cant upgrade MRI equipment, leaving it to charities like Little Heroes. The guy is a snake and deserves to be kicked out of parliament.

 

[NTRabbit]

PS Foley needs to go to the Women's and Children's Hospital and explain why he can spend 22k on the phone but cant upgrade MRI equipment, leaving it to charities like Little Heroes. The guy is a snake and deserves to be kicked out of parliament.

The W&C is the best funded hospital in the state by a considerable margin - with a name like that they can basically emotionally and politically blackmail a dollar out of anyone. If they still can't afford a brand new MRI, then maybe they ought to think about managing their own budget a little better, or waiting and saving another few years instead of draining even more funds away from the other hospitals.

 

[feenix67]

The W&C is the best funded hospital in the state by a considerable margin - with a name like that they can basically emotionally and politically blackmail a dollar out of anyone. If they still can't afford a brand new MRI, then maybe they ought to think about managing their own budget a little better, or waiting and saving another few years instead of draining even more funds away from the other hospitals.

wow

I think you missed the point, which was a statement about Foley's phone bill rather than one about the funding split between hospitals. In any case, Im quite happy if the W&C is well funded - so it bloody should be.

 

[footy4ever]

The guy is a snake and deserves to be kicked out of parliament.

Amen to that. I'm quite impartial Libs/Labor, but this man needs sorting out.

 

[SouthAustralia]

Drop in pitches is one but all the SACA members I have spoke to have said the costs.I read to become a member and get the lot it's around a $1000 well they can shove that.

And why would that matter?


price wise, it should only be what you currently have to what you will pay in the future for those same rights?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Hey you asked for my opinion - I gave it

I get that we're on opposite sides of this debate and thats fine and Im enjoying your perspective. I think you are generalising a bit though, because your argument would be valid if the govt/public owned and ran the two stadia, but they dont. There are stacks of organisations - sporting and otherwise - that gain govt grants and loans. Given the revenue football brings into this state, you'd be hard pressed to convince me the SANFL arent entitled to a bit of coin every once in a while to keep Footy Park up to date. Aside form that, I think you'll find that the net revenue brought into this state from Football is written in black numbers, not red.

It's great that SANFL is travelling well, but it's irrelevant. As a taxpayer, our money is being needlessly split between two stadiums. Separate summer and winter stadiums is an extravagance for a small city. And we don't (and will never) have the money to keep either of them anywhere near the cutting edge. I know I'm repeating myself but that's as simple as it is.

You need to do more research on the original decision to go to West Lakes. It wasnt the SANFL's preference, it was a move forced on us by that wonderful cricketer but horrible administrator Sir Don Bradman. Go do some reading and you'll soften your stance on that score.

It doesn't matter what the reasons were for the split. The SACA was 100% responsible... fine. The only thing that matters was that there was a split and it was wrong for it to happen. We either continue with the error for heaven knows how long, or fix it.

As I said to you before, I have a lot of trouble with the fact that there are so many agendas associated with this issue, and that football has been dragged to the table against it's best judgement. We had some $ on the table from the Govt to upgrade facilities at Footy Park, enough $ in the kitty to help Port while they restructured themselves into a more viable concern, a fantastic freehold facility and a pretty healthy local comp. Footy didnt need to do much more than stay the course.

We're not going that well are we? Crows and Power both losing money this year (Port again), one SANFL club about to fall over and several others who have been in dire financial trouble recently. The SANFL may have been dragged in to the stadium debate against their better judgment, but the SANFL and football are not synonymous.

Too much self interest by too many third parties who all want to leech off the good financial state of the SANFL. Cant be good for football if you ask me.

Two of those third parties are the Crows and the Power.

PS Foley needs to go to the Women's and Children's Hospital and explain why he can spend 22k on the phone but cant upgrade MRI equipment, leaving it to charities like Little Heroes. The guy is a snake and deserves to be kicked out of parliament.

Well, let's hope the public agrees with you.

 

[birdmanptr]

And why would that matter?


price wise, it should only be what you currently have to what you will pay in the future for those same rights?

$1000 compared to now $760.

Any more than $550 tops and i am out of there and will be bringing it up when we vote.SANFL are commimg to the AO us AO members have to be looked after.

If enough agree with me then the NO vote should get up Fingers crossed.

 

[Crow-mo]

it also has some chance of getting some sort of return, i don't expect it to profit it will certainly at least pay for its running costs + a bit....

where does "unlisted" intend to play their matches?

 

[seanoff]

where does "unlisted" intend to play their matches?

TIO Stadium in Darwin if that ever happens.

unlikely to be in my lifetime tho, unless i win lotto, stumble on an investment that returns me 3 or 4000% and i can fund my own team. they'll wear bright pink and have my image on the front. that should be enough to scare other sides, it certainly does me.

until then. St Mary's in Darwin

 

[kirky]

$1000 compared to now $760.

Any more than $550 tops and i am out of there and will be bringing it up when we vote.SANFL are commimg to the AO us AO members have to be looked after.

If enough agree with me then the NO vote should get up Fingers crossed.

How do you justify a reduction of some 30% of the current memberships ($760 to $550)?

Why do they have to be looked after? If this doesn't happen, the SACA is in big trouble financially - it has a debt of some $115m with no possible way of servicing it without a government bailout or alternatively jacking up the membership rates.

Why would you want this to fail?

 

[Crow-mo]

TIO Stadium in Darwin if that ever happens.

unlikely to be in my lifetime tho, unless i win lotto, stumble on an investment that returns me 3 or 4000% and i can fund my own team. they'll wear bright pink and have my image on the front. that should be enough to scare other sides, it certainly does me.

until then. St Mary's in Darwin

lol fair enough

good to see the Port bandwagon is alive and well.

 

[Natman]

Drop in pitches is one but all the SACA members I have spoke to have said the costs.I read to become a member and get the lot it's around a $1000 well they can shove that.

I would have thought that $1000 to have access to or rights for - 22 footy matches, 10 or so days of top class cricket and potential for soccer, rugby, concerts etc - pretty good value at less than $30 per event.

 

[birdmanptr]

I would have thought that $1000 to have access to or rights for - 22 footy matches, 10 or so days of top class cricket and potential for soccer, rugby, concerts etc - pretty good value at less than $30 per event.

I get all that now for $760 and they want to bump it up to a $1000.

I dont get concerts for free but i get a 2 week opening before public sales.Except the big ones eg:AC/DC.

Fair to say Soccer and Rugby will phase out if Football goes there.

It will be interesting on vote night will be a few nervous people.

 

[Redline]

I am currently a member of both AAMI and Adelaide Oval and I'd be happy with a $1000 combined membership. I think I would get more value from my AAMI membership if games were played at Adelaide Oval rather than AAMI as I would go to more games.

 

[FlyingCrow]

How much are your SACA + SANFL tickets now.

Is it far off $1,000 now? Any extra is a premium for the new stadium. Is it worth the extra? Bear in mind you get your new stand this cricket season.

 

[Vader]

Pssst. Vader, time for Part 4

Also, I for one am sick of all of this.

Nothing that is being discussed hasn't already been discussed at several different junctures in the last 3000 posts.

That one snuck up on me. Don't think we've ever had 2 threads go sailing through the 1000 post limit on the same day before.

Thread close. Part 4 will open for business shortly.

EDIT: Part 4 is now open for business: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=765341