Fans want new stadium, not new lights.

[Macca19]

To me its all pushing shit up hill. We wont have a new stadium unless we win rights to the World Cup...and even then, we're probably holding back the rest of Australia in getting it anyway. The fact the government has spent multi million dollars on facility upgrades, a new stand, new scoreboards etc in the past 6-7 years means that there is no way known they are gonna go and spend half a billion on a new stadium. Just wont happen.

Would I love one? Yes, very much so. I think build one at Santos Stadium site and its perfect. Central, parking and loads of public transport available, great spot. Wont happen though.

We should get used to AAMI Stadium...as its not going anywhere any time soon.

 

[BlackDouglas]

Or there's always option C - the SACA and SANFL bury the hatchet and Adelaide Oval is expanded and updated to a 60k capacity with modern facilities. Theres almost zero parking there, but given it's 5 minutes walk from the train station, the trams and buses to every suburb it doesn't matter.

Then again the chances of the SANFL heirarchy pulling their egos out of their arses and doing that is so close to zero a new number may need inventing.

Even if the 2 parties join together for the greater good of sport in SA they will have a major fight to get any development plan through the Adelaide City council. Remember how long it took the light to be approved and now the Victoria Park grandstand.

Adelaide is 20 year behind for a reason.

 

[BlackDouglas]

Hence my point re: reducing parking. (or at least have discount available for those that dont have an option buty to drive)

I drive to every AFC home game and if we have 4 or more people in the car we receive a discount of 50% ($4 not $8), does this occur at Port home games?

 

[shaz63]

I drive to every AFC home game and if we have 4 or more people in the car we receive a discount of 50% ($4 not $8), does this occur at Port home games?

Yeah, from what I know it does.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Or there's always option C - the SACA and SANFL bury the hatchet and Adelaide Oval is expanded and updated to a 60k capacity with modern facilities. Theres almost zero parking there, but given it's 5 minutes walk from the train station, the trams and buses to every suburb it doesn't matter.

Then again the chances of the SANFL heirarchy pulling their egos out of their arses and doing that is so close to zero a new number may need inventing.

Could you imagine going to the SACA and telling them to tear down Adelaide Oval and start again? Because that's what it would take to make that a modern, world-class 60K seated stadium. Never mind the old fogey conservatism of the SANFL, with the SACA you'd be stepping back in time like the dude in the Heineken ad. They'd huff and puff and shake their heads to clear the cigar smoke and bang their fists so hard on the table in a resounding chorus of "Over my dead body" the brandy balloons would topple.

And that's before the North Adelaide residents get involved, followed by the Adelaide City Council and then the Adelaide Oval preservationists - led by KG. They want it preserved as the museum it is - albeit with some hideous additions they try to tell us satisfy form and function. Like the Chappell brothers circus tents. There'd be more chance of building a new stadium on the moon.

I agree with Macca. I'd love to see a TD type stadium built in the CBD, but it just ain't gonna happen. The ACC won't let parklands be sacrificed. Witness the Victoria Park grandstand farce. And that area's little more than a dustbowl - although I don't think something should be built there solely for the use of the corporate gray suits. And Adelaide Oval is already there - the justification for building another sporting arena right next door is minimal in a city the size of Adelaide. The railyards are committed to the Marj, contaminated soil and all. As for the Gerard Industries site - have you ever experienced the traffic on Port Road when there's any sort of event at the Ent Cent? It's chaos - the inconvenience with a football stadium on that corner block would be more than our inadequate arterial road system could bear - and Port Road is one of the good ones.

The location of Footy Park wasn't so bad 30 years ago when it went up. But the suburban sprawl of Adelaide does stretch it out of the reasonable travelling distance of many now. Mind you, living in the 20 minute city as we do, we are a bit pampered when it comes to road transport (unless you hit Marion or South Road heading south after 5pm). It's a discussion for another place, but that's the penalty you pay for the quarter acre block mindset - if every person on the world lived as we do, it would take at least 4 planets to accommodate the world's population.

As to the issue of no-shows, that's more a problem confined to ticketing than location. match-day ticket sellouts appear to turn up (for crows games) - the no shows are blamed on season-ticket holders who don't front. They already know where the stadium is when they buy their tickets, so their no-showing is not likely to be the result of Footy Park's location.

And sorry Shaz, but I don't get the country doctor equation either. That's not an issue of government funding to lure doctors out here, but rather the attractiveness of the location you want doctors to comes to, and the centralisation of hospital services in the country to create a more efficient hospital system, which is groaning under the weight of excess demand.

 

[Portia]

The best solution for location, and unfortunately the one that would cause the most bullshit, would be on the corner of King William St and South Terrace in the Parklands.

On the tram line, plenty of room to maneuver, and it'd open up the south side of the CBD for more development.

 

[shaz63]

And sorry Shaz, but I don't get the country doctor equation either. That's not an issue of government funding to lure doctors out here, but rather the attractiveness of the location you want doctors to comes to, and the centralisation of hospital services in the country to create a more efficient hospital system, which is groaning under the weight of excess demand.

What I was trying to get across with the hospitals etc is that there are far more important issues that we should be worried about then a new footy stadium.

We are currently going through one of the worsts droughts in history, there is a huge shortage of doctors and nurses in this state and not just in country towns.

I just feel that the new stadium isnt as important as trying to keep this state alive.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

What I was trying to get across with the hospitals etc is that there are far more important issues that we should be worried about then a new footy stadium.

We are currently going through one of the worsts droughts in history, there is a huge shortage of doctors and nurses in this state and not just in country towns.

I just feel that the new stadium isnt as important as trying to keep this state alive.

Yeah, fair enough. But it's a footy website and people want to discuss footy related issues. It's our escape from the pressure of the 'real-world'. (Says he who brought up the issue of the suburban sprawl and planet sustainability )

 

[Portia]

I'd also point out that getting a new stadium is about 100 times more likely than either the state or federal governments doing anything useful about water shortages.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

They were going to spend $100 mill on AAMI, the land would be worth about $300 million to a developer sponsorship and naming rights could add another $100mill. There is approx 500 mill just form the SANFL if they can come up with money from the AFL And the Commonwealth and State Governments they would have they required capital to do it, but the SANFL would never admit to this. I think the government needs to do what the WA gov is doing about the stadium there, I think its time someone took those cards that the SANFL are holding away from them and did something about it.

Where do you get the $300mil from for the land value?? Waverley Park was sold for $100mil in 2001 and the amount of land attached to that stadium is a lot more than Footy Park. Also land in Melbourne is worth a lot more than Adelaide. I know the price of land has gone up in Adelaide over the last 7 years but I reckon you are way off. What's a block of land without a waterfront view cost in West Lakes? What does it cost to develop a block $50k-$80k? How many blocks could you sell in that tract of land after developing it? 500 maybe? You aren't going to get a lot of units for medium to highrise density out there. I suspect it's a lot closer to $100mil than $300mil.

You say you could get naming rights of $100mil, what over 25 years? You wont get TD or TS naming rights value for any Adelaide based stadium. AAMI pay about $2mil a year from what I have read.

So if you start off with a $250mil funding gap which you have underestimated at the start of the project and given interest rates are around 9% you need to generate $20m+ a year just to pay off the interest on any loans. It was the debt that was attached to the TS in Sydney that killed it off. Only 1/3rd of the expected equity was subscribed to at the public float.

You also will have to pay interest on the $100mil+ you get from land sales portion for the couple of years between building the new venue and getting the $100mil+ cash for selling the old one. There's another $20mil interest payments racked up.

Go and re read my post about the finacing of the TD and TS and see why private consortiums wont be getting involved in ownership of any major stadiums in Oz for awhile. You don't have the number of sporting events in SA to provide cash flow to justify such an expensive stadium and also attract the members who are preprared to pay TD like membership fees.

You want a stadium that costs around the same price as a TD/TS, with 1/2 the events or provide medallion club type members with 1/4 of the events and have 1/3 to 1/4 the population. Do you reckon Adelaide people in great numbers would be prepared to pay the higher prices that go with a new stadium?? If footy ticket prices (and other sports) went up 50%+ would the same numbers still go to games?

If you are so confident that it is so easy and straightforward to do, why don't you put a consortium together and go and pitch the idea to the SA government and the SANFL. Pay yourself a 1% finders fee for the financing of the stadium and you could just about retire.

Gee if the WA government is struggling to commit to financing a new stadium, asking for federal government assistance and private sector help, with all it's riches from mininig royalties then SA government isn't even going to get close to considering the idea.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

To me its all pushing shit up hill. We wont have a new stadium unless we win rights to the World Cup...

And on cue in today's tiser it's reported that FIFA have approved AAMI for a Socceroo World Cup qualifier in June 2008.

Where do you get the $300mil from for the land value?? Waverley Park was sold for $100mil in 2001 and the amount of land attached to that stadium is a lot more than Footy Park. Also land in Melbourne is worth a lot more than Adelaide. I know the price of land has gone up in Adelaide over the last 7 years but I reckon you are way off. What's a block of land without a waterfront view cost in West Lakes? What does it cost to develop a block $50k-$80k? How many blocks could you sell in that tract of land after developing it? 500 maybe? You aren't going to get a lot of units for medium to highrise density out there. I suspect it's a lot closer to $100mil than $300mil.

Just for comparison, the government just released an 88ha parcel of land near Munno Para which could take 1000 homes. This land is valued at $40 million.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22873090-2682,00.html

It's also worth remembering that in September 2006 it was announced AAMI Stadium would receive a $70 million facelift over the next five years in one of the biggest redevelopments of the arena since it opened in 1974. The discussion of the need for the construction of a new state of the art facility was around then, but the commitment to Footy Park is strong, as is the querying of the economic viability of a new superstadium.

http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=287

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And on cue in today's tiser it's reported that FIFA have approved AAMI for a Socceroo World Cup qualifier in June 2008.

Just for comparison, the government just released an 88ha parcel of land near Munno Para which could take 1000 homes. This land is valued at $40 million.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22873090-2682,00.html

So given the tract of land from Fredricks Road upto the shopping centre is probably 1500m x 500m = 750,000 sqm and a hectare is 100m x 100m = 10,000 sqm and the SANFL owns all of that land (ie none owned by the SA govt) then thats 75 ha site vs 88 ha site out at Munno Para. So it's a similiar size. But I would think the land at West Lakes would fetch 3 maybe 4 times the Munno Para value not 7 or 8. Thanks Ford, right on cue.

Does the SANFL definitely own the land where the Shed is, or did they do a pepercorn rent deal with the SA government??

It's also worth remembering that in September 2006 it was announced AAMI Stadium would receive a $70 million facelift over the next five years in one of the biggest redevelopments of the arena since it opened in 1974. The discussion of the need for the construction of a new state of the art facility was around then, but the commitment to Footy Park is strong, as is the querying of the economic viability of a new superstadium.

http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=287

Yeah in the recent stories Whicker has talked about turning the $70mil guaranteed upgrade into maybe $100mil worth of upgrades.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22505092-12428,00.html

$100m AAMI Stadium pledge
SANFL boss Leigh Whicker has vowed to spend as much as $100 million upgrading AAMI Stadium even though the league's request for funding by the Federal Government was rejected last week

Despite his disappointment at missing out on the much-needed funding, Mr Whicker said the upgrade of AAMI Stadium would continue even though it may now take longer to complete than originally planned.

The SANFL announced last year it would spend $70 million over five years improving a raft of player and spectator facilities at AAMI.

Mr Whicker said the SANFL was now also considering spending even more on improving AAMI.

"It might take longer but we just see it as another challenge," he said. "$70 million may not be enough, it might go as high as $100 million."

He highlighted improved traffic management as one area where more money might need to be spent. "That is part of the service, getting people into and out of AAMI," he said.

While neither Mr Whicker nor federal Finance Minister Nick Minchin would confirm how much the SANFL had sought, it is believed to be between $20 million and $30 million.

 

[relapse]

The best solution for location, and unfortunately the one that would cause the most bullshit, would be on the corner of King William St and South Terrace in the Parklands.

On the tram line, plenty of room to maneuver, and it'd open up the south side of the CBD for more development.

I agree, the south parklands would be a great location there is so much wasted area there and most of it isnt even utilised and looks ugly now that we have water restrictions.

 

[relapse]

Where do you get the $300mil from for the land value?? Waverley Park was sold for $100mil in 2001 and the amount of land attached to that stadium is a lot more than Footy Park. Also land in Melbourne is worth a lot more than Adelaide. I know the price of land has gone up in Adelaide over the last 7 years but I reckon you are way off. What's a block of land without a waterfront view cost in West Lakes? What does it cost to develop a block $50k-$80k? How many blocks could you sell in that tract of land after developing it? 500 maybe? You aren't going to get a lot of units for medium to highrise density out there. I suspect it's a lot closer to $100mil than $300mil.

You say you could get naming rights of $100mil, what over 25 years? You wont get TD or TS naming rights value for any Adelaide based stadium. AAMI pay about $2mil a year from what I have read.

So if you start off with a $250mil funding gap which you have underestimated at the start of the project and given interest rates are around 9% you need to generate $20m+ a year just to pay off the interest on any loans. It was the debt that was attached to the TS in Sydney that killed it off. Only 1/3rd of the expected equity was subscribed to at the public float.

You also will have to pay interest on the $100mil+ you get from land sales portion for the couple of years between building the new venue and getting the $100mil+ cash for selling the old one. There's another $20mil interest payments racked up.

Go and re read my post about the finacing of the TD and TS and see why private consortiums wont be getting involved in ownership of any major stadiums in Oz for awhile. You don't have the number of sporting events in SA to provide cash flow to justify such an expensive stadium and also attract the members who are preprared to pay TD like membership fees.

You want a stadium that costs around the same price as a TD/TS, with 1/2 the events or provide medallion club type members with 1/4 of the events and have 1/3 to 1/4 the population. Do you reckon Adelaide people in great numbers would be prepared to pay the higher prices that go with a new stadium?? If footy ticket prices (and other sports) went up 50%+ would the same numbers still go to games?

If you are so confident that it is so easy and straightforward to do, why don't you put a consortium together and go and pitch the idea to the SA government and the SANFL. Pay yourself a 1% finders fee for the financing of the stadium and you could just about retire.

Gee if the WA government is struggling to commit to financing a new stadium, asking for federal government assistance and private sector help, with all it's riches from mininig royalties then SA government isn't even going to get close to considering the idea.

Dont forget that WAFL do not have an asset like the SANFL do that they can sell for a large sum that would cover a fair amount of the capital. I am pretty sure that Subiaco is a council owned ground so a new stadium needs to be started financially from scratch so they are a good few hundred million behind the position SA would be in.

My calculations into the value of the land were only rough, but lets not forget also that Waverley achieved heritage status which meant that the oval and part of the stand had to be retaining which decreased the overall value of the land (it was also sold about 7 - 8 years ago and property prices have nearly doubled over the last 10 years), I worked out that a land sale price of $300,000-$500,000 over about 1500 blocks of land would work out to be $600,000,000 as a rough idea of the value of the final project which you would think that the SANFL would pass that land through for around the $300,000,000 mark to a developer.

West Lakes is prime land in a prime location some of the blocks could even sell higher than 500K, people are paying nearly that much in Mawson Lakes alone.

I am not saying it will be easy, but I do think it is possible and I think it is a smarter thing to do, the longer it is left the harder it will be in the future to do.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Dont forget that WAFL do not have an asset like the SANFL do that they can sell for a large sum that would cover a fair amount of the capital. I am pretty sure that Subiaco is a council owned ground so a new stadium needs to be started financially from scratch so they are a good few hundred million behind the position SA would be in.

Subiaco was definitely owned by the council before the early 1990's. When the WA government put in monies thru loans and grants to develop the ground I think it went into a trust set up a bit like MCG Trust or SCG Trust. I could be wrong, but both in WA and SA any land surrounding the old stadium would be sold to put the monies into the funding pool. Whoever owns Subi doesn't own much land outside the oval perimeter like the SANFL does. Perth land is more expensive, but I would say the SANFL would bring in higher sales proceeds.

My calculations into the value of the land were only rough, but lets not forget also that Waverley achieved heritage status which meant that the oval and part of the stand had to be retaining which decreased the overall value of the land (it was also sold about 7 - 8 years ago and property prices have nearly doubled over the last 10 years), I worked out that a land sale price of $300,000-$500,000 over about 1500 blocks of land would work out to be $600,000,000 as a rough idea of the value of the final project which you would think that the SANFL would pass that land through for around the $300,000,000 mark to a developer.

West Lakes is prime land in a prime location some of the blocks could even sell higher than 500K, people are paying nearly that much in Mawson Lakes alone.

I am not saying it will be easy, but I do think it is possible and I think it is a smarter thing to do, the longer it is left the harder it will be in the future to do.

The hertitage issue in Waverley is meaningless to the value of the land. The AFL was always going to keep the oval and the keeping a small part of the Sir Kenneth Luke grandstand to satisfy the heritage order did nothing to devalue land prices.

You sums are wrong. You are not going to get 1,500 blocks to resell on that tract of land. As the Munno Parra story shows they are going to get 1,000 blocks on 88ha and the Footy Park site is about 75ha with the Shed area which may or maynot be owned by the SANFL. West Lakes blocks are not going to be 500sqm blocks like the ones at Munno Parra, people will want the 700/800 sqm blocks like the rest of the neighbourhood to get the prices you suggest. But that means you are going to get closer to 500 blocks and closer to $100m than $300m for the land.

You also ignore the time value of money. As I said before $100m naming rights will not be paid up front but over 25 years. I just see a gaping $250m+ funding shortage based on these two items alone at the start of the project.

 

[Paralowiepower]

Better now with so much money in football, than in 20 years time when everything is what, 10 times higher?

Look and plan to the future, like the state government has done with the airport and now Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Buy the land and plan now, otherwise like South Road trying to turn it into a freeway people will say too hard, should of been done years ago.

 

[BlackDouglas]

And on cue in today's tiser it's reported that FIFA have approved AAMI for a Socceroo World Cup qualifier in June 2008.

I don’t doubt what you are saying but can you provide a link to that article – I cannot find it.

Just for comparison, the government just released an 88ha parcel of land near Munno Para which could take 1000 homes. This land is valued at $40 million.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22873090-2682,00.html

I could be wrong but didn’t the SAJC only get something like $85,000,000 for the sale of Cheltenham racecourse and that is just down the road from AAMI stadium

 

[roger explosion]

turns out that article was a load of tripe. 5AA rang the FFA to confirm the story today, according to KG, and they said that nothing was confirmed. nothing. just another load of bullshit from Val.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I could be wrong but didn’t the SAJC only get something like $85,000,000 for the sale of Cheltenham racecourse and that is just down the road from AAMI stadium

Yeah but how many hectares of land was it for to make a decent comparison? I would expect West Lakes to be more expensive per block/hectare than Cheltenham. IIRC didn't about 25% or more have to stay as fields and parks?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I don’t doubt what you are saying but can you provide a link to that article – I cannot find it.

Wasn't online, but it was on the front page of the print edition of the tiser ... altho if Roger is correct it has been debunked (wouldn't be the first bit of nonsense from Val ... like his Socceroo coach tips).

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Yeah but how many hectares of land was it for to make a decent comparison? I would expect West Lakes to be more expensive per block/hectare than Cheltenham. IIRC didn't about 25% or more have to stay as fields and parks?

$85M for 48.88ha and AV Jennings and Urban Pacific were looking at 900 homes on the site. 15ha (30%) had to be committed to open space.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22790985-910,00.html

http://www.sajc.com.au/files/LMC_Chelt_Fact.pdf

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Get rid of the Adelaide Brighton and built it on that land. Train line runs behind and will be doing the environment a favor. A perfect solution, even if I may be a bias

 

[relapse]

Subiaco was definitely owned by the council before the early 1990's. When the WA government put in monies thru loans and grants to develop the ground I think it went into a trust set up a bit like MCG Trust or SCG Trust. I could be wrong, but both in WA and SA any land surrounding the old stadium would be sold to put the monies into the funding pool. Whoever owns Subi doesn't own much land outside the oval perimeter like the SANFL does. Perth land is more expensive, but I would say the SANFL would bring in higher sales proceeds.

The hertitage issue in Waverley is meaningless to the value of the land. The AFL was always going to keep the oval and the keeping a small part of the Sir Kenneth Luke grandstand to satisfy the heritage order did nothing to devalue land prices.

I definately dont agree that the heritage agreement had no effect on the value of the site.

Do you really mean to tell me that the land with a requirement to keep a large sized football oval and a partial stand wouldnt have changed the price ??? do you know how many extra blocks could have been put in the place of that oval of course it would have changed the price, it took a long while for the AFL to find a buyer, due to constraints like that being upon the site. The AFL were furious when it happened and tried to fight it, the whole reason people were trying to get it done (from memory) was in an effort to make the land harder to sell and worth far less in the hope that the AFL would then consider the sale to not be viable.

BTW from the info I have read the AFL never retained ownership of the oval, after the sale Mirvac took control of it and were lumped with an oval and stand that they couldnt get rid of, but have now done a deal with Hawthorn and Hawthorn are on a rent to buy type lease where eventually they will own 60% of the oval and stand and Mirvac will retain the other percentage.

You sums are wrong. You are not going to get 1,500 blocks to resell on that tract of land. As the Munno Parra story shows they are going to get 1,000 blocks on 88ha and the Footy Park site is about 75ha with the Shed area which may or maynot be owned by the SANFL. West Lakes blocks are not going to be 500sqm blocks like the ones at Munno Parra, people will want the 700/800 sqm blocks like the rest of the neighbourhood to get the prices you suggest. But that means you are going to get closer to 500 blocks and closer to $100m than $300m for the land.

You also ignore the time value of money. As I said before $100m naming rights will not be paid up front but over 25 years. I just see a gaping $250m+ funding shortage based on these two items alone at the start of the project.

I used the 1,500 figure because they had that many blocks from the waverley site even though they had to retain the ground. The site of Waverley was 86 hectres including the oval itself. I would honestly say that if they are able to use the oval itself as well as the surrounding land for housing land I dont see why why it wouldnt be close to the waverley figure as far as the amount of blocks go.

As for your comment on block sizes, they just dont have 700-800 sqm blocks anymore thats a thing of the past and developers wont waste land like that anymore, its far more financially beneficial to maximise the amount of available blocks. People are paying 550k + for a 600 sqm block at Mawson Lakes. If you think for a second that a limited release of 1,000 to 1,500 500 sqm approx blocks at West Lakes which will be a once in a lifetime opportunity for new land there wont get snapped up very quickly for anywhere between 400-500k + per block then I would be very interested into your reasons why.

I could be totally off the mark with my calculations and maybe the figures from Waverley that I have seen are wrong.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

$85M for 48.88ha and AV Jennings and Urban Pacific were looking at 900 homes on the site. 15ha (30%) had to be committed to open space.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22790985-910,00.html

http://www.sajc.com.au/files/LMC_Chelt_Fact.pdf

I found this last night
http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/lmc/projects/cheltenham.cfm

Government Decision

On the October 18, 2006, Hon Mike Rann MP, Premier and Hon Patrick Conlon MP, Minister for Infrastructure announced the conditions the State Government will enforce on any sale of the Cheltenham Park Racecourse site.

The State Government announced that it would be prepared to give approval for the SA Jockey Club to sell the Cheltenham Park Racecourse only if developers allow for 20 hectares of open-space (which equates to 40.6 per cent).

Outcomes of community consultation

Download the Cheltenham Park Racecourse site consultation report.
http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/lmc/projects/downloads/Consultation_Report.pdf

What this suggests is that there will be a lot of units. 900 homes divided by 29 ha is about 320sqm per house with no roads. So therefore lots of units. A bloc of land will sell for more if the seller knows the buyer is going to build flats/units on it

I don't know if West Lakes would be redeveloped with that many units on it. The NIMBY's might complain too much. I know that when the SANFL purchased Max Basheer Reserve from the government for $1mil they had to agree for it to be a permanent open space. I think this is the bit by the shed not the grass area. Government can rezone park areas, with some difficulty, but I would expect a decent chunk of any land sale to have to stay a green fields area.

 

[mb2326]

And on cue in today's tiser it's reported that FIFA have approved AAMI for a Socceroo World Cup qualifier in June 2008.

This all sounds good but it will more than likely be a game against the Solomon islands or fiji, no way SA would get the final qualifier (ie the game thats gets us in the world cup) over Sydney or Melb. The SANFL surely can't use this to justify the wasted $5m on new light.