New AFC Headquarters at the Aquatic Centre!!

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 27, 2004
29,931
13,595
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
It looks like the current Westlakes foot print is smaller than the aquatic centre in any case.

The question will be around training grounds. I know of plenty of Private Schools with agreement with Councils to cover up keep of sports fields but exclusive use at set times, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Lets also not forget, the ACC is looking at getting what 100 new workers move in, all on reasonable income and likely to use the cafes etc in the area.

This is a win for them.
 

GrommoT

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 7, 2015
5,968
9,283
AFL Club
Adelaide
Does anyone know if it would also be for training and if so , will there be an oval added? It would be great if we could train on an oval with mcg dimensions
I've assumed it's mainly going to be a replacement for the West Lakes facilities for the AFC so training and admin facilities only - wont be any actual matches.

I reckon they wont be building any stands around the training area(s) so providing they can clear away enough trees, they'd be able to mark out an oval matching the MCG (or any other oval if they want).
 

Crowbots are dead

Club Legend
Oct 11, 2012
2,991
3,865
AFL Club
Adelaide
Government in this state is so negative. The AFC is providing a solution to their money pit and they have the audacity to provide a stupid list of demands that make it unviable. What is councils plan for the aquatic centre if this fails? Arrogant tools!
 

GreyCrow

Hall of Famer
Mar 21, 2016
45,337
65,205
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
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.
This is the same tactic used by the previous Federal Government on the SSM. ''Oh wait what question should be asked, lets put it to a committee'' then delay delay delay

Its all it is. A delay tactic
 

CrowEater888

Club Legend
Mar 12, 2003
2,431
3,039
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
I've assumed it's mainly going to be a replacement for the West Lakes facilities for the AFC so training and admin facilities only - wont be any actual matches.

I reckon they wont be building any stands around the training area(s) so providing they can clear away enough trees, they'd be able to mark out an oval matching the MCG (or any other oval if they want).
The PPS and their drum beaters like Anne Moron will do everything in their power to prevent the construction of a permanent grandstand, as they did in Victoria Park, even if the benefits to the public are clear. God help you if a tree needs to be removed!

However, we all know that such a building would be shared by all of the users of the ground, that includes school children and their families who share it with the AFC at differing times. Why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to sit under some form of cover on a wet winters day??

If you listen to the dribble in the video that Moron and co espouse, they constantly try and use the argument that private businesses should not be allowed to set up facilities on the park lands and this reveals their real fear, the fear of precedent for development.

Private investment is not a bad thing, as long as it has clear rules and guidelines to follow and they are followed, yet some members of the ACC behave like it is.
 
Last edited:

CrowEater888

Club Legend
Mar 12, 2003
2,431
3,039
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
Government in this state is so negative. The AFC is providing a solution to their money pit and they have the audacity to provide a stupid list of demands that make it unviable. What is councils plan for the aquatic centre if this fails? Arrogant tools!
Don't confuse the ACC with State/Federal Government and their overwhelming desire to get things built!
 
Last edited:

CrowEater888

Club Legend
Mar 12, 2003
2,431
3,039
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
This is the same tactic used by the previous Federal Government on the SSM. ''Oh wait what question should be asked, lets put it to a committee'' then delay delay delay

Its all it is. A delay tactic
Agreed.
 

GrommoT

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 7, 2015
5,968
9,283
AFL Club
Adelaide
...
However, we all know that such a building would be shared by all of the users of the ground, that includes school children and their families who share it with the AFC at differing times. Why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to sit under some form of cover on a wet winters day??
...
But from the Crows' point of view, I don't think a grandstand is needed. In any case, you can see from the link below to one of the many pixes posted back around page 8-10 of this thread, the NE oval comes right up to the aquatic building and if the AFC can site their main building next to the oval, then either a roof top or balcony viewing area will give any elevated view they need.

Maybe even incorporate a grandstand like structure at that part of the building.


 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Truck25

Club Legend
Nov 9, 2007
1,430
2,283
adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Portland Trailblazers
  1. No increased footprint beyond the size what is currently there
  2. No significant change to public access to facilities already there
  3. Current tenants and users need to be included in the process
So put in 60 Mill, take care of future up keep, keep the same facilities and access but with no change in the footprint.
So the Crows and backers are paying 60 mill for what? closet space?
That is going to take some architectural genius to make that worthwhile, I'd be saying to the ACC, thanks but no thanks you can keep your white elephant and it's upkeep. Look elsewhere.
 

Elite Crow

Premium Platinum
Mar 21, 2008
49,857
65,641
adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
  1. No increased footprint beyond the size what is currently there
  2. No significant change to public access to facilities already there
  3. Current tenants and users need to be included in the process
So put in 60 Mill, take care of future up keep, keep the same facilities and access but with no change in the footprint.
So the Crows and backers are paying 60 mill for what? closet space?
That is going to take some architectural genius to make that worthwhile, I'd be saying to the ACC, thanks but no thanks you can keep your white elephant and it's upkeep. Look elsewhere.
And we have to go underground with the car park.

I’m all for it but these ****jeads can go **** themselves.

They need to demolish the council and give the city to the government, the city is a state asset not belonging to some stuck up ******s
 

hey shorty

Hall of Famer
Jun 15, 2005
42,682
32,632
Where the Hills have eyes
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
AUFC, Everton, Sturt
And we have to go underground with the car park.

I’m all for it but these ****jeads can go **** themselves.

They need to demolish the council and give the city to the government, the city is a state asset not belonging to some stuck up ******s
I don't mind the underground Carpark idea
 

hey shorty

Hall of Famer
Jun 15, 2005
42,682
32,632
Where the Hills have eyes
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
AUFC, Everton, Sturt
Fine if that’s what the Crows want, but given they’ve lived all these years without one when it belonged to the council, it’s a bit rich to now demand it when someone else has to pay for it.

Plus there is no doubt it will cost more.
Yeah I'd be interested in the costing.

Players park underground on game day too.
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 27, 2004
29,931
13,595
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
  1. No increased footprint beyond the size what is currently there
  2. No significant change to public access to facilities already there
  3. Current tenants and users need to be included in the process
So put in 60 Mill, take care of future up keep, keep the same facilities and access but with no change in the footprint.
So the Crows and backers are paying 60 mill for what? closet space?
That is going to take some architectural genius to make that worthwhile, I'd be saying to the ACC, thanks but no thanks you can keep your white elephant and it's upkeep. Look elsewhere.
The footprint is the same if not bigger than West lakes. They can go up!

On SM-A520F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Top Bottom