Opinion New AFC HQ: Stalled Indefinitely

What should we do?


  • Total voters
    153

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't think there's any sense of football rivalry with how either government has handled things.

In the end the club was the one who pulled out of the Aquatics Centre proposal.

We initially shelved the plans due to financial uncertainty surrounding COVID and we had the option to revisit things, but I suspect we were spooked by the public opposition to the plans so we elected to pull the pin and not go back to it.

We didn't win the tender for the Gas Works site, it sucked because that was the best plan as we would have actually owned the site. Even after a review, they determined that our tender wasn't strong enough even with adjusted weighting to selection critera.

The current government has been 100% adamant from Day 1 that they want the club in a venue and will do everything they can to ensure that it happens. I have no doubt at all that the previous government had the exact same mindset as the current government do.
There’s also the council voting to not allow the club to build anything on the parklands shortly after we revisited it. Olsen met with them and it was made clear we weren’t getting anything in the parklands.
 
I don't think there's any sense of football rivalry with how either government has handled things.

In the end the club was the one who pulled out of the Aquatics Centre proposal.

We initially shelved the plans due to financial uncertainty surrounding COVID and we had the option to revisit things, but I suspect we were spooked by the public opposition to the plans so we elected to pull the pin and not go back to it.

We didn't win the tender for the Gas Works site, it sucked because that was the best plan as we would have actually owned the site. Even after a review, they determined that our tender wasn't strong enough even with adjusted weighting to selection critera.

The current government has been 100% adamant from Day 1 that they want the club in a venue and will do everything they can to ensure that it happens. I have no doubt at all that the previous government had the exact same mindset as the current government do.

But they haven't done anything. So if thats what they've said, its been 2 years and we still don't have a place. Not sure thats doing everything they can.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It says we have west lakes until 2048 so these hecksticks are saying no a change which gives them a lot of access to the oval where they currently have none and will not until 2048.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The crows have exclusive use of the oval until 2048. SANFL moving there gives them access
What about the 2026 clause that no one seems to know about.


I reckon after 2026 public access is increased, hence our need to move before then.



On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
If we are still at the shithole that is football park in 2048 we would have completely failed as a football club.
 
There’s no mention of that on the feedback form


Code:
the SANFL has asked if it can return to Football Park when the land vests back in the City of Charles Sturt in 2026
.






Football Park".

Background


Code:
Football Park oval is to be vested with Council on completion of the West development, which is expected to occur as early as 2026. When Football Park is vested with Council, we are proposing that the land be retained as open space and designated as “community land”. Under the Local Government Act 1999 a Community Land Management Plan (CLMP) must be established to set out how the community land can be used, and how it must be managed by Council.




It becomes council land in 2026.


This is why we need to be out by 2026. Not 2048.

Sure we have a lease for 2048, but in 2026 it becomes open use.


Which, somewhat, works for the SANFL given they only need the actual oval a few hours a week.

But not an AFL club.



On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Back
Top