I can't see why they would move the Aftermatch from the Magarey Room to the new facility. Why would you bother.
I am sure the players really want to be carted down the road just to.do their little presentation and why would you walk down there for such a thing. Or want the club to go to the expense of transport from AO to North Adelaide......"did I hear you say Monorail"
Any players that are heading back to the club are doing so as part of recovery due to a knock or injury maintainence.
I reckon the capacity to have away game events could be good. But we can already do this now if we really wanted to.
This is why I never cared where the Facilty was located. It will have no bearing whatsoever on us supporters match day experience.
In SA unless they have Pokies they struggle to exist, And most have shut down. Or run on temp licence with limit open hours like the RSL.
There no way the Crows will want a licenced venue at there training ground as it would be a money pit base on current economics not viable,
Attach a swimming centre open to the public with most of the users under age and a licenced venue become even further away from there planning.
Pretty sure most sporting clubs, RSL's, etc run on a limited liquor licence (different category to pubs). Can't remember the name for it, but it means they don't need security guards and are fairly restricted as far as opening hours and serving areas go.
You can also get temporary ones for special occasions (ie open training on the week of the GF).
I am listening to the video as I type. Those who are opposed can't even agree on what they disagree upon.
However, it's clear that the opposition to the development all wanted a dumbed down public vote on the question: ‘Should the Crows take over the AC? Yes/No’, whilst providing the voting public absolutely no information on the proposals design, or intended purpose.
If the amendment motion had passed the North Adelaide NIMBY brigade would surely have voted the proposal down before it had even begun, despite the fact that the park lands don't just belong to them, but all South Australians.
As long as the Crows adhere to the proposed guidelines I see no reason why their should/would be any opposition to the development at all.
I reckon the greatest return will be only opening a shed type venue on match days and perhaps a couple of other special events during the year. There's so much competition around that area and existing pubs are struggling enough as it is. I like the idea of purchasing The Caledonian and turn that into our regular pub, but without a second story I can't see how there's enough room for all our office space requirements. But we'd be more likely to buy a pub if our offices were housed across the road. I really think that a large F&B venue in the parklands would be a financial drain on the club.
Guideline 2 is interesting and could be a key consideration:
2. No increased footprint beyond the size what is currently there
What do they include in "what is currently there"?
Presumably the existing aquatic building & facilities and the carpark would be included but what about the main oval/field in the north-east part of the park? And the oval/field to the south part of the centre?
I would presume it is understood AFC would need to use at least one of those oval/field areas and would likely need to develop the area to some degree.
Will they look at developing a giant building containing both aquatic facilities and AFC office/training facilities?
I wonder if it would be allowable/feasible cost-wise to build an underground carpark under the oval area to be used. This would allow the existing carpark to build office/training facilities for the AFC separate from new aquatic facilities.