AFL at Adelaide Oval - it will never happen

[Crow-mo]

Firstly, the building of a $1 bn piece of infrastructure would give a measurable boost to the local economy. Secondly, as in Bilbao, a show-piece facility draws the crowds which draws the events which draws the crowds. I would suggest that an act would be more likely to include Adelaide in it's tour if it was shown that it would play in a large all weather venue that has consistently drawn big crowds. This generates economic activity. People who come here to watch an event usually spend more money while they are here. I know I do when I go to Melbourne.

1. when you borrow money to fund short term economic activity that is the extremes of the most discredited Keynesian philosophy. it makes no sense, and its benefits are exaggerated to the point of being untrue.

2. an act that is touring other states, has no possibility for bringing economic benefits into the state. its just redistribution.

3. you need proportion against outlay.

Well, I had previously not heard of the place until I read about the museum in several magazines and newspapers.

so what? not trying to be rude, but if you don't pack up your passport and go visit what does it add up too?

Bilbao is the gateway to basque country, and it probably has given some tourists a reason to dwell a little bit - but that is *very* far from driving unique visitors to the region. a pit stop, is not the same as a destination.

"The decision we make will commit us for 30 or 40 years. If we stuff it up we will have to live with mediocrity and dwindling crowds for 30 years."

but that's just wank. empty rhetoric pure and simple.

What are these false assumptions? My reasoning is that many people, including some in government have stated that Adelaide cannot support two stadiums. Even now, Adelaide oval and Football Park will require government handouts for upgrades. If we invest in Adelaide oval or build a cut price stadium because we don't think we can afford anything better, how are we going to justify another building if this this proves inadequate?
Some have said that there is nothing wrong with Football park. Some have said that it is part of the footy culture to to stand in the rain to watch football. I think that there is a growing percentage of the football watching public that do not agree are are voting with their bums. 10 years ago Crows crowds were consistently reaching and surpassing 40,000. Even after the upgrades and increased capacity, our crowds have dwindled.

you have assumed a very limited set of outcomes; that the stadium is responsible for dwindling crowds, and there are a whole bunch of imaginary people who will suddenly appear.

My fear is that building a smaller 50,000 capacity open air stadium will be self fulfilling and will lead to smaller crowds. There may be an initial surge of crowds to a new stadium in the city but as they get older, people will choose to watch live football in the comfort of their own homes, sitting in their armchair in front of their big wide screen 3D TVs sipping their beer or wine.

but again, that's just spin isn't it. there is no evidence that there is even a 50,000 crowd waiting to happen; let alone this mystery 70,000 you are fixated on.

remember: "build it and they will come" is fictional fantasy.

 

[johnnypanther]

Interesting point Vader however isn't the quality of the experience at Etihad stadium (being so close to the city being a crucial part of that experience) one of the main draw cards bringing people outside of Melbourne to watch the game? How many of us would have made a trip to experience the dome and enjoyed it so much you planned a return trip?

Also to use an economic argument that building a city stadium will if anything only redistribute resources within the system is questionable as well. There would be a net benefit to the local economy if people spent their disposable income in a local Cafe/hotel in preference to spending it on an imported good wouldn't it?

The one and only reason i have attended the dome is that the Crows were playing there, and the one and only reason that i did return trips is that the Crows were scheduled there. The dome itself plays no part in my decision.... i would have gone to the MCG or some suburban derelict oval if need be, if that is where the Crows are scheduled to play.

 

[seanoff]

yeah, I guess there is something in those puff pieces. But a case study from some at the university of Bilbao, and a puff piece using lots of terms like "it is estimated..." written in something called the Arts Newspaper is not altogether definitive.

I actually spend money semi-regularly in Bilbao, usually on car hire to drive to San Sebastian.

I'd be guessing it would be pretty easy to measure the effect. It sounds like adding 100,000 tourists to Lajamanu. starting from such a low base makes it easy. measuring such effects into London/Sydney/New York/Paris would be a much more difficult exercise. I'll take these at face value atm.

but as the Forbes article points out, it's the exception rather than the rule and i couldn't see a stadium having that effect under any realistic (cost or event) circumstances.

 

[IddyBiddy]

The one and only reason i have attended the dome is that the Crows were playing there, and the one and only reason that i did return trips is that the Crows were scheduled there. The dome itself plays no part in my decision.... i would have gone to the MCG or some suburban derelict oval if need be, if that is where the Crows are scheduled to play.

Spot on.

Further, comparing arts and arts tourism with sport is like comparing apples and monkeys.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'd be guessing it would be pretty easy to measure the effect. It sounds like adding 100,000 tourists to Lajamanu. starting from such a low base makes it easy. measuring such effects into London/Sydney/New York/Paris would be a much more difficult exercise. I'll take these at face value atm.

but as the Forbes article points out, it's the exception rather than the rule and i couldn't see a stadium having that effect under any realistic (cost or event) circumstances.

Perhaps a fair point, there's prob something in that.

Fwiw - that's not a forbes article, its reprinted from an article in something called "the arts newspaper". Whatever that is.

 

[SouthAustralia]

I'll eat my invisible hat if this plan goes ahead

 

[Cap]

i'm looking forward to what everyone is going to do when this doesn't happen and we are left with nothing (the same thing would have happened it the libs go in no doubt)

 

[Crow-mo]

i'm looking forward to what everyone is going to do when this doesn't happen and we are left with nothing (the same thing would have happened it the libs go in no doubt)

Visit the Guggenheim?

 

[Cap]

probably, if they can afford it.

 

[Crow-mo]

probably, if they can afford it.

maybe the state government can take the $400M it saved, and run charter tours for local residents?

 

[ruscy002]

i'm looking forward to what everyone is going to do when this doesn't happen and we are left with nothing (the same thing would have happened it the libs go in no doubt)

No doubt SACA will cop the blame if it doesn't go ahead. I know people on here are saying that it's clear cut, that SACA members won't get a look in for AFL matches, but I have not yet met a SACA member (or member-in-waiting) that doesn't think they should be getting entry to AFL matches with their membership. Will this create enough pressure to stop the AO plans from going ahead??? I'm not sure it will, but it will be fun to watch.

Frankly now that it looks like Labor are in, I hope the only promise they break with this matter is over the costing, and that they throw an extra $200-300 million into the development to do this properly. If by 2012 we're playing in a horseshoe stadium then I'll bloody well move to Melbourne. There I can watch the Crows play half a dozen matches (in addition to all the AFL I want to watch) at world class stadiums and distance myself from one way expressways and horseshoe stadiums.

I love SA, but ****

 

[Cap]

No doubt SACA will cop the blame if it doesn't go ahead. I know people on here are saying that it's clear cut, that SACA members won't get a look in for AFL matches, but I have not yet met a SACA member (or member-in-waiting) that doesn't think they should be getting entry to AFL matches with their membership. Will this create enough pressure to stop the AO plans from going ahead??? I'm not sure it will, but it will be fun to watch.

Frankly now that it looks like Labor are in, I hope the only promise they break with this matter is over the costing, and that they throw an extra $200-300 million into the development to do this properly. If by 2012 we're playing in a horseshoe stadium then I'll bloody well move to Melbourne. There I can watch the Crows play half a dozen matches (in addition to all the AFL I want to watch) at world class stadiums and distance myself from one way expressways and horseshoe stadiums.

I love SA, but ****

Well that isn't going to help the rest of us who are stuck here.

It will be interesting to see who gets the blame when it falls through and what happens to any money that the LAbor Government set aside.

Surely to god if the AO redevelopment falls over AAMI must get upgrades and a tram?

 

[ruscy002]

Well that isn't going to help the rest of us who are stuck here.

It will be interesting to see who gets the blame when it falls through and what happens to any money that the LAbor Government set aside.

Surely to god if the AO redevelopment falls over AAMI must get upgrades and a tram?

Train has always been the better option for mine. Double the track from Woodville to Albert Park then build an elevated track down West Lake Blvd that loops around AAMI and back onto itself through to Woodville again. This would mean far less disruption to footy traffic than a tram service and I'm guessing there'd be a cost saving from not having to lay tram tracks all the way down Port Rd. That and the current fleet of trains would probably be sufficient to run this service, I'd imagine our tram fleet would need to be further expanded to be able to run this and those things are pricey.

 

[AFC1990]

I cannot believe the majority of South Australians actually rewarded this incompetent lot with another four years. This means another four years of censorship, beligerence and self serving policy.

I implore the AFC not to concur with a shift to Adelaide Oval. We are consigned to a generation of debt already, and only bad things can happen if Foley oversees the AO development. The only football entity to benefit will be the Rann and Foley fave, the PAPs. The treasurer already is dismissive of the notion that the AFC needs a considerable inducement to shift, or that the AFC will be the most important tenant at any new lodgings. Adelaide as a city desperately needs a makeover and to progress, and consigning us to an open air stadium for the next 30 years will continue to position us as a backwater.

As a small business owner I am at a loss to understand how anyone could return Rann et al to power. Truly. The cost of conducting business in this state is about to rise again now, and we will have to seriously investigate relocating interstate as a result. Unbeleivable.

 

[AFC1990]

Well that isn't going to help the rest of us who are stuck here.

It will be interesting to see who gets the blame when it falls through and what happens to any money that the LAbor Government set aside.

Surely to god if the AO redevelopment falls over AAMI must get upgrades and a tram?

I think it has become very clear, there is NO money for AAMI. Not now, not in the future. Rob Chapman the other night even acknowledged this. AAMI stadium has a short life expectancy, maybe four or five years max, and not one state gov. dollar will be spent there in the interim.

 

[ruscy002]

I cannot believe the majority of South Australians actually rewarded this incompetent lot with another four years. This means another four years of censorship, beligerence and self serving policy.

I implore the AFC not to concur with a shift to Adelaide Oval. We are consigned to a generation of debt already, and only bad things can happen if Foley oversees the AO development. The only football entity to benefit will be the Rann and Foley fave, the PAPs. The treasurer already is dismissive of the notion that the AFC needs a considerable inducement to shift, or that the AFC will be the most important tenant at any new lodgings. Adelaide as a city desperately needs a makeover and to progress, and consigning us to an open air stadium for the next 30 years will continue to position us as a backwater.

As a small business owner I am at a loss to understand how anyone could return Rann et al to power. Truly. The cost of conducting business in this state is about to rise again now, and we will have to seriously investigate relocating interstate as a result. Unbeleivable.

A few points...

At this stage, it looks like the majority did not vote Labor in. Liberal have a slight majority but not enough seats...somewhat quirky but not unheard of.

On your imploring of the AFC not to move...too late. Pre-election, the AFC stated that they'd be moving to the CBD, whether that's Adelaide Oval or a new stadium. I'm sure we would've preferred the latter but that's done and dusted now.

Finally, the fact that it's an open air stadium has no bearing whatsoever on the temporal validity of the AO development and how it affects SA's reputation. All of this would be far more adversely affected by its general half arsed-ness, not the presence of a roof or lack thereof...

 

[seanoff]

Adelaide as a city desperately needs a makeover and to progress, and consigning us to an open air stadium for the next 30 years will continue to position us as a backwater.

Does New York count as a backwater?? they have a brand new, very very expensive stadium, with no roof.

The Emirates looks world class, Old Trafford, Allianz in Munich, the Birds Nest, the planned LA NFL stadium, ion fact the NFL only has 9. most of the stadiums in the NFL are state of the art. (Green Bay is old)

Adelaide may need a makeover, but having a covered stadium is low on the list of things that it needs.

Anyone who voted for that idiot who was your AG is doing more damage to Adelaide than any stadium (or not) could ever do. read stuff from around the world, that guy is doing more damage than just about everything else combined.

 

[PortBrillance]

AO wont happen

people who have to agree are:

- SANFL (Power+Crows)
- SACA
- Government actually putting money where its mouth is
- North Adelaide Residents
- Adelaide City Council

Complicated things in politics dont work. And also the fact that this plan came in the lead up to the election, its all spin.

 

[Fritzorro]

Hi,

The possibility of a leadership spill in the Labor party can't be dismissed, yet. If Rann goes, then the slate may be wiped clean. A new hospital, but not at the Railyards and the scrapping of the Adelaide Oval revamp could be on the cards.

As someone else said, the Stadium proposal was more electioneering than considered policy.



BTW, really like this thread. It's good to hear a spread of opinions, so much to consider.

 

[Hondo]

Why would they abandon either policy now? What sign is there that Rann is going against the party? The AO thing seems to be more Foley than Rann and they are close to signing contracts on the new RAH as I understand.

It's time to let these dreams go I'm sorry

 

[NTRabbit]

Hi,

The possibility of a leadership spill in the Labor party can't be dismissed, yet. If Rann goes, then the slate may be wiped clean. A new hospital, but not at the Railyards and the scrapping of the Adelaide Oval revamp could be on the cards.

As someone else said, the Stadium proposal was more electioneering than considered policy.



BTW, really like this thread. It's good to hear a spread of opinions, so much to consider.

Rann will stay on as leader until it's time to start winding up for the next election, 2 to 3 years from now.

The Hospital is going to be built, and built where they have been planning to build it since the announcement. Let it go.

 

[ruscy002]

Rann will stay on as leader until it's time to start winding up for the next election, 2 to 3 years from now.

The Hospital is going to be built, and built where they have been planning to build it since the announcement. Let it go.

Yup. Those who are excessively optimistic and still hoping for a new city stadium if AO falls through should turn their attention to other areas for the development...old EWS/SA Water site? My understanding is that it's going to be reverted to "urban woodlands", do we really need more waste...err...parklands???

 

[ruscy002]

Why would they abandon either policy now? What sign is there that Rann is going against the party? The AO thing seems to be more Foley than Rann and they are close to signing contracts on the new RAH as I understand.

It's time to let these dreams go I'm sorry

The AO redevelopment isn't policy, it's a proposal and it's as airy fairy as the Liberal's new stadium proposal. I do think that there's still a good chance the AO redevelopment will go ahead but there will be a lot of soul searching within the Labor party in the coming weeks. If in review they believe that the AO redevelopment was something that really hurt them at the polls then they will not hesitate to do a full 180 on this one.

But yeah as a few have said, if by sheer **** up of fate a new stadium eventually results from this it won't be on the railyards site.

 

[NTRabbit]

Yup. Those who are excessively optimistic and still hoping for a new city stadium if AO falls through should turn their attention to other areas for the development...old EWS/SA Water site? My understanding is that it's going to be reverted to "urban woodlands", do we really need more waste...err...parklands???

I still think there is space where the amateur fields are near Mile End railway station on Sir Donald Bradman Drive, though I don't know who currently owns the land.

Whack it there, and then run a tram spur past it - a tram spur that should already be planned to run from the Hotel strip of North Terrace to Adelaide Airport. I don't know about you, but adding an alternative to Taxis, which are the only way to get out of Adelaide Airport with luggage at the moment, seems like a far better use of money than any of the other currently proposed tram extensions.

The ground then occupies plenty of open space, can still use the busses, is additionally linked South and North via the railways and an upgrade to convert Mile End from the elevated concrete slab it currently is to something resembling the new Oaklands interchange, within walking distance of the city for those who aren't lazy or a short tram ride for those who are, and is linked to the hotels, the night life streets, and the airport via the tram.

It doesn't need a bloody roof either.

Can anyone see anything wrong with my suggestion?

 

[kirky]

AO wont happen

people who have to agree are:

- SANFL (Power+Crows) they will AAMI is dead in the water
- SACA do they have to abide by the decision of the members and can they override it if necessary? Can the government stipulate its major project status and get it done?
- Government actually putting money where its mouth is pressure from public and AFL will ensure this happens
- North Adelaide Residents ALP don't have to worry about upsetting them as they have just kicked out their local member. I say payback/karma
- Adelaide City Councilcan the government overrule

Complicated things in politics dont work. And also the fact that this plan came in the lead up to the election, its all spin.

I think there will be sufficient pressure from the AFL and the fact no more money will be spent on AAMI will ensure this gets done.

Lets stop procrastinating and get it done. End of debate.