AFL at Adelaide Oval - it will never happen

[feenix67]

After reading this, you will see that this deal is never going to happen.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26446860-2682,00.html

The SANFL, quite rightly, demands a no worse off situation. There is no way this is getting over the line. And the Govt is already distancing itself from the detail

Nice political stunt Mikey.

 

[SA Tricolours]

There are a number of areas where I think I would be worse off at Adelaide Oval compared with AAMI Stadium.

We like to drive to park on a lawn area near AAMI and have a picnic / BBQ – this is a major part of our football experience – doubt if this will happen at Adelaide.

Don’t really have any difficulty driving away from AAMI – would be a nightmare at Adelaide especially on the Saturday and Sunday day games when the city and North Adelaide is already crowded with shoppers.

AAMI stadium probably has a better playing surface than Adelaide and is the proper shape for a football oval (not long and skinny like Adelaide).

At Adelaide, only privileged groups will probably get to sit in the prime western grandstand. Most silver members (the majority) will be forced to sit in the new large eastern grandstand. The fly-by shows this to be very high and very steep (the top rows actually outside the perimeter of the oval). A long way from the top rows to view the action. It shows a sail type roof – but this will not protect very many from strong wind and rain coming from the southerly and western directions. Also little protection from the sun on midafternoon.

And all the above is only because there is no grandstand at the northern end. Instead, one end at a supposed stadium (?) will be kept open and exposed – how weird.

Adelaide Oval only has 50000 capacity and the Crows hope to get over 50000 members annually. At AAMI there is 3000 to 4000 available to the general public. Also at Adelaide you would think there would be pressure to create some membership to enable SACA members to go to the footy. This does not add up - unless the Crows reduce their membership because of the smaller capacity? Why would we allow this?

The Crows have the biggest attendances by far out of all potential users but it appears we have the most to lose due to the smaller capacity and poor design of the grandstands (three different shapes and heights) at Adelaide. If there is not much to gain why would we move to a crowded hotchpot at Adelaide Oval.

 

[Alex99]

Never say never, but from my perspective on how the events for this stadium redevelopment have unfolded, I would say this project would have about a very small chance at going ahead.


As i said in the other thread a few days ago, until the 15 page Memorandum Of Understanding is signed by all parties involved by the 1st of July I wouldn’t worry about it.

After listening to everyone involved Wednesday afternoon on 5AA, I got the feeling it’s simply a political stunt. The timing of it, let’s take some heat away from Mike Rann with his affair and the Liberal city stadium. If this was not a political stunt, why not wait until everyone has signed the deal and then announce it?

No one could actually give a concrete starting date or actually say if this would 100% go ahead. The SANFL and SACA (as far as I know) have not made any public comments about this on commercial radio - why wouldn’t they be the number one cheerleaders for it.

Graham Cornes made an observation regarding Steven Trigg and Rob Chapman’s body language that they were not overly happy with this deal, in the end Trigg gave a political answer by saying all the correct things like “if the MOU gets signed, the AFC will become a big winner” and their body language was just a coincidence and they were actually very happy about this deal. However as the AFC have the most to lose in this deal, it still looks like a lot of pork barrelling.


I’m all for this project to go ahead and think it’s a great thing BUT don’t believe it will see light of day. Come the 1st of July 2010 and the Memorandum Of Understanding has not been signed, the money will get removed. If not, a few weeks after the ALP win the 2010 election.

So i agree with you, I am not confident at all. Something smells funny. Will be very surprised if this plan goes ahead.

 

[Cap]

I think it all depends on the state election in March.

Labor gets back in the Kevin Foley will get it done, Libs get in then it will be interesting.

 

[Geoffa32]

I never thought the SANFL would take a cut in revenues. Why would they. They got the two licences to ensure their league exists at a strong level as the National League takes over. The revenues from Adelaide and Port enusre the SANFL remains independent of the AFL. The SANFL does not care about the Crows or Power. They will ensure their match day revenue is the same as now, PLUS they will reap the rewards of the zoining of the land around FP.

Now we have the SACA involved as well. They will want their cut.

It is not just the slicing of revenues but the grounds capacity. It will be 50,000. Which means there will need to be room for SANFL and SACA members and also the AFL set General Admission. Which could leave us with less ticketed members than we have now.

I agree it will never happen. The more I read and think about it, it is nothing but a pre-election stunt. I dont think the ALP are interested in a city stadium at all. But they have come up with this plan. A plan they know will fall through because the demands of both the SANFL and SACA. However to Joe Average and the media driven "We need Football in the CBD" campaign the Government, if re-elected can say they tried. I expect that the negotiaions will fall down just after the election. They will then pull their funding from Football in this state. Which casts doubt over any redevelopment at Footy Park.


I reckon I will vote for the Libs plan, as the SACA are not invovled. Let the SANFL control that stadium in Footy Season and let them rezone FP. Cut the SACA out of it. Better to have one master than two.

 

[Allbetsroff]

If it does happen.

SACA members should not get tickets to games. If they do it will be a joke.

 

[Geoffa32]

If it does happen.

SACA members should not get tickets to games. If they do it will be a joke.

They will. Why else would the SACA wont Footy there, if it is not to add value to its membership.

 

[Allbetsroff]

They will. Why else would the SACA wont Footy there, if it is not to add value to its membership.

Money. I'd think the one and only reason is money.

Allocating tickets to SACA members is simply unacceptable, **** them.

As I said in another thread, SACA needs us, not the other way around.

 

[Geoffa32]

Money. I'd think the one and only reason is money.

Allocating tickets to SACA members is simply unacceptable, **** them.

As I said in another thread, SACA needs us, not the other way around.

I agree with you, just think they will get access to AFL as well.

Perfect world they wouldnt. In a perfect world the Stadium would be clean and our club would reap all the benefits. Like the WCE do at Subi. We actually generate more revenue than they do on match day. Yet have to give the SANFL their cut. At AO we will also have to give the SACA theirs.

 

[birdmanptr]

Hopefully it won't but considering it really disadvantages us then it's a sure thing

 

[SouthAustralia]

They will. Why else would the SACA wont Footy there, if it is not to add value to its membership.

Why would the SACA want the SANFL to move to Adelaide Oval.


Lets think, they get an upgraded stadium...for free. They get increased capacity for cricket matches, they will be able to attract more events. to which they will earn a 50% cut.


That is why they want football there.

 

[Alex99]

Money. I'd think the one and only reason is money.

Allocating tickets to SACA members is simply unacceptable, **** them.

As I said in another thread, SACA needs us, not the other way around.

This is why any redevelopment had to be 75,000 minimum.

15,000 for current SACA members
15,000 for current SANFL members
35,000 current AFC members
and an extra 10,000 for future growth and availability.

 

[afc1991]

This is why any redevelopment had to be 75,000 minimum.

15,000 for current SACA members
15,000 for current SANFL members
35,000 current AFC members
and an extra 10,000 for future growth and availability.

The question of how they'll fit everyone in draws a rather comical "errr...errr, thats one detail we really have to think about"

 

[Mego Red]

They will. Why else would the SACA wont Footy there, if it is not to add value to its membership.

Well, to actually get the place used more that a dozen days a year and get some revenue would seem a blindingly obvious reason.

 

[Macca19]

After listening to everyone involved Wednesday afternoon on 5AA, I got the feeling it’s simply a political stunt. The timing of it, let’s take some heat away from Mike Rann with his affair and the Liberal city stadium. If this was not a political stunt, why not wait until everyone has signed the deal and then announce it?

If it was just a political stunt, why would Demetriou fly over and announce it. Why would Andy D give two shits about Mike Ranns extra-curricular activities and putting heat off that?

I think its something that has been legitimately talked over, but whether it will go ahead im not sure.

 

[Alex99]

The question of how they'll fit everyone in draws a rather comical "errr...errr, thats one detail we really have to think about"

Exactly, this is another reason why this new development will not happen because the only party that will come out of this looking bad will be the AFC. Potentially the Crows have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Port Adelaide FC gets everything they want and desire – city location, clean stadium and a stronger revenue stream (good on them as this is their job to get what is best for there club), the SANFL get a free stadium by keeping AAMI Stadium and their members gets tickets.

Hypothetically I cannot see the SACA agreeing to any deal that doesn’t guarantee there members get tickets to AFL games – why would they?

So, if this happens who misses out? In all likelihood, it will be the average Gold and Silver member of the AFC who don’t have any SANFL membership.
So this won’t go ahead, the current configurations of the stadium is not big enough to fit everyone (SACA members, SANFL members and gold and silver members) in and $450 Million won’t be close to enough money to build an extra 25,000 seats on what they are talking about now.

Reading between the lines of what Steven Trigg said on 5AA, if every point in the MOU is not agreed to in full and the AFC have to turn one current member away, they won’t agree to it. It won’t happen.

 

[*PAF]

Nothing like having your turnover/profit linked to inflation irrespective of how "your industry" is faring. Not greedy at all are they?

 

[Alex99]

If it was just a political stunt, why would Demetriou fly over and announce it. Why would Andy D give two shits about Mike Ranns extra-curricular activities and putting heat off that?

I think its something that has been legitimately talked over, but whether it will go ahead im not sure.

Because one politician (mike Rann) can talk more s**t than another (Andrew Demetriou) and is taking the gullible one for a ride.

I agree, somewhere deep down, everyone wants this to occur. But everyone involved knows full well it won’t. Too many variables have to occur for this deal to get done.

If this wasn’t politically lead, why wouldn’t they just wait until the MOU is signed by Port Adelaide, Adelaide Crows and the SANFL and then announce it? Why, too many variables and this redevelopment will never see light of day.

 

[aneale]

Why would the SACA want the SANFL to move to Adelaide Oval.


Lets think, they get an upgraded stadium...for free. They get increased capacity for cricket matches, they will be able to attract more events. to which they will earn a 50% cut.


That is why they want football there.

They want AFL football there so they can start getting their members of their back about value for money. SACA membership is $340, which gets you hopefully 5 days of test cricket, a one dayer and a whole lot of rubbish you don't want anyway. International cricket is the only reason to have it.

That's pretty high considering what a season ticket to an AFL club is, given footy doesn't run the risk of games ending early or washout days.

There is more to the issue than the SACA thinking they can get a cut on other events. They are a slave to their members just like anyone else is.

 

[birdmanptr]

It's day 3 now and just having chats to other members here the over whelming thought is SACA members get to go to everything or Football Can go and jump.

History shows the SACA look after their members

Interesting times ahead

 

[Geoffa32]

It's day 3 now and just having chats to other members here the over whelming thought is SACA members get to go to everything or Football Can go and jump.

History shows the SACA look after their members

Interesting times ahead

Bingo.

A couple of posters pointed out to me some other reasons why the SACA wont AFL footy at AO. All were valid.

But the key element is for SACA members to go to all games. It wont go forward till that occurs. Why would they have games at their oval yet not allow its members to attend as part of their membership. Remember for all intents and purposes it is their oval. SANFL, Crows and Port will be tennants.

 

[afc1991]

Compromise? SACCA members can go to all port matches and perhaps even get paid for the ordeal.

 

[aneale]

Whicker: We have 15,000 members and 35,000 Crows ticketholders to fit in the ground.

McLachlan: Well our 15,000 members are demanding entry to all AO sporting events as part of their membership.

Whicker: We can't fit them in, so bad luck.

McLachlan: It's a deal breaker, SACA members get in and have full access to the Western Stand. Take it or head back down to the swamp.

Whicker: Compromise?

McLachlan: Joint membership, SANFL members get the Eastern stand and we can charge $700 for full entry to all sporting events at AO.

Whicker: Sweet.

AFC: *facepalm*

 

[birdmanptr]

Compromise? SACCA members can go to all port matches and perhaps even get paid for the ordeal.

 

[NTRabbit]

It's day 3 now and just having chats to other members here the over whelming thought is SACA members get to go to everything or Football Can go and jump.

History shows the SACA look after their members

Interesting times ahead

I'm almost certain this whole affair will have to go to a vote of the SACA members, and without complete access to the ground the vote will resoundingly fail to pass - I know I'll vote against it.