Adelaide Oval plan

[heater31]

The most important part of a cricket field is the pitch and the Bay needs a lot of work in that department.

Have heard that they are relaying the square in a few weeks time. The SACA undertook an extensive survey of the surface and found that it sloped from the goal square at each end into the centre

Any way the new square will have 3 decks either side a strip of outfield grass to allow the football centre bounce to take place. Provided the slopes and drainage are top notch then Glenelg Oval will be in tip top shape all year round.

[Squawk]

Re the hill at the Northern end, it will be in jeapordy if we win the world cup for 2018 or 2022 as FIFA demands that stadiums be all seated stadiums. Whether they can get around that with temporary stands, I don't know.

Hazydog, there is no way that the announcement is anything but coincidental with Rann's recent dramas. However, there is some merit in the timing from another perspective - we have an election coming and this announcement is ultimately to say that the parties will need to sign up to their agreement to all being at Adelaide Oval by July 1 next year. Also, the announcement was a political announcement (ie Rann made it) - not one that was led by the sporting bodies.

[redandblack]

Spot on, squawk.

Politics it is, not scandals.

[smac]

The most important part of a cricket field is the pitch and the Bay needs a lot of work in that department.

Have heard that they are relaying the square in a few weeks time. The SACA undertook an extensive survey of the surface and found that it sloped from the goal square at each end into the centre

Any way the new square will have 3 decks either side a strip of outfield grass to allow the football centre bounce to take place. Provided the slopes and drainage are top notch then Glenelg Oval will be in tip top shape all year round.

Like I said, it needs a lot of work.

[sjt]

For the sake of debating whether or not we need a covered stadium it does matter. If the only one is Australia only hold +/- 55k then there cant be much of a call for such a venue.

The $450m the Government is offering would probably ( and no doubt one of you will come up with a more accurate figure than me ) need to be doubled ( or thereabouts ). Would it be worth it to keep a few pansies dry every now and then?

Nup.

I guess those "few pansies" that stay away have threatened the viability of the Port Power football club. Those pansies could consist of the elderly, families or neutral supporters that would otherwise attend the football if it weren't pouring with rain or bitterly cold. They'll still stay away faced with the same conditions. Personally I don't really give a stuff because I can put up with the cold and don't go to too many AFL games anyway (and dont support the Power).
If viable a new cutting edge stadium with a retractable roof would be my preferred option. The major difference between footy park and what's proposed is location and the loss of much of Adelaide Ovals character.
Is it worth it ? Don't know.
Sometimes it's worth knocking down a house or building at a new location, starting from brand new as opposed to rennovating, or undertaking interim measures.
Depending on the design Adelaide Oval could be less inviting than Football Park. On Anzac Day with the wind and rain blowing through, the "roof cover" on the outer wing stands, provided little shelter.
Having said that, on a "nice" Friday night I'd be more likely to attend a game after work at a inner city stadium than Football Park.

[Booney]

I guess those "few pansies" that stay away have threatened the viability of the Port Power football club. Those pansies could consist of the elderly, families or neutral supporters that would otherwise attend the football if it weren't pouring with rain or bitterly cold. They'll still stay away faced with the same conditions. Personally I don't really give a stuff because I can put up with the cold and don't go to too many AFL games anyway (and dont support the Power).
If viable a new cutting edge stadium with a retractable roof would be my preferred option. The major difference between footy park and what's proposed is location and the loss of much of Adelaide Ovals character.
Is it worth it ? Don't know.
Sometimes it's worth knocking down a house or building at a new location, starting from brand new as opposed to rennovating, or undertaking interim measures.
Depending on the design Adelaide Oval could be less inviting than Football Park. On Anzac Day with the wind and rain blowing through, the "roof cover" on the outer wing stands, provided little shelter.
Having said that, on a "nice" Friday night I'd be more likely to attend a game after work at a inner city stadium than Football Park.

Not IMO, marketing,games schedules and on field performances have hurt much more than any rainy day has.

If the powers that be had said a new stadium with roof would have been built, let's say for $1billion then there would have been an outcry of wasting money. In a no win situation ( that the government was in ) I think they have done very well.

I just dont see Adelaide having the need for such a Stadium.

[Hazydog]

Ok Guys - I'll concede the timing is probably more coincidental than anything - but either way it still is playing into Mr Rann's hand beautifully. I guess the real point I have been trying to make is that this political announcement still seems to have been hastily convened, for whatever reason, and is to tell us what? A memorandum of agreement, whatever that is??
From where I sit the SANFL have nothing to lose by continuing to keep the discussions going. If they cant get a deal with the SACA they like, they may just wait and get a better outcome with a change of government.

[Jimmy_041]

This has been planned for 18 months or so and was pushed hard by Andrew Demetriou.

Only Jimmy and Hazydog would credit Rann with that much brilliance that he could not only orchestrate the AFL, the SANFL and the SACA to have this ready to be announced, but also know 18 months in advance that the Chantelois saga and Isabel's announcement would be made public only a week or two before.

Anyone with that much foresight has got my vote

OK redandblack - I will bite

I haven't had time to do the necessary research through the Government's media releases, but here goes:

The government want to build a new hospital.

Liberals announce an alternative strategy including an inner city stadium and that they would get the parties together to try to get an agreement

Call for inner-city stadium
BRAD CROUCH, MICHAEL McGUIRE
February 17, 2008 01:15am

OPPOSITION Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith plans to host a conference of leading sports bodies to discuss plans for a new inner-city sports stadium.

After a series of one-on-one discussions during the week following the release of his Master Plan for Adelaide, Mr Hamilton-Smith has invited the leaders of football, cricket, soccer, rugby and other organisations to the meeting.
"I'm encouraged by the initial response," he said. "Leigh Whicker of the SANFL and Ian McLachlan of the SACA are two people who have made great steps forward for football and cricket.

"I'm looking forward to them sitting with representatives of international rugby, soccer and other sporting organisations."

Despite the State Government's negative response to the stadium idea, ministers also will be invited.

The AFL is also expected to be invited to the conference.

Foley says that a new stadium is unaffordable but the Liberals idea starts getting traction with the people Labor Government begins damage control

During this time, we SACA members are told that SACA have little hope of getting funds from the SA Govt for the upgrade of Adelaide Oval

In June 2008 Rann and Foley give a Press Conference at AAMI Stadium saying that they would contribute $100m towards its upgrade

State treasurer Kevin Foley said it was the view of the SANFL, the AFL and both the AFL clubs that "a redevelopment of AAMI Stadium is the best result for football in South Australia".

In December 2008, Foley announces that they will have to delay, then withdraw the AAMI investment due to a massive reduction in revenue due to the the global financial crisis.

Liberals resubmit an updated plan for Adelaide including the stadium

Suddenly, this week:

1. The GFC is over and we can now afford the money....but better still, it has passed so quickly we now have $450m to give them Not a bad turn around in 12 months. I sincerely hope WorkCover announce a similar spectacular result. I also expect a huge surplus in the budget......and flying pigs
2. AAMI is suddenly NOT the best choice anymore. WTF Kev - did you lie to us?
3. They now love the SACA
4. We have a new stadium in the city thanks to Mike and Kevin

So, in response redandblack

1. 18 months planning - my ass - this is all reactive again - the above are facts supported by media releases from this government. The 18 month planning was that done by the SACA
2. I have NFI what the Chantelois saga has to do with any of this or why you bring it up
3. Isobels announcement is new??? Where the #### have you been in the past 12 months? The Libs were banging on about redeveloping the city area with MHS. Where was the Labor plan for the city or stadium? Did I miss the release in the last 18 months other than the hospital? No - they have quickly put it together in the past month - trust me - I know because I know people who had a part in it
4. You really think that tram to West Lakes was ever going to happen? You'd get back to the City on a Friday or Saturday night at about 1am

You love this Labor Government and if you think 18 months foresight for this State is fantastic - gawd help us then. How many months to the next election is the only thing they think about

Oh hang on........they had the foresight to build a desal plant.....want me to start posting the media releases where they said we couldn't afford it when the Libs proposed it?

Unfortunately, you have such a blinkered view, you cant sort between the truth and the bullshit

But summing up - I am glad we are going to finally get a city stadium, but I wont be thanking Mike and Kev for it. As for crediting Mike with brilliance - I do - he is as slippery brilliant as I have ever seen from anyone

PS: Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me?

[Jimmy_041]

PS: The $450m is about as concrete as the AAMI $100M and Keating's famous L.A.W.

[SABRE]

I am no liberal supporter but surely what is needed is a fully enclosed, semi air-condititioned
stadium in all capital cities. Then footy could be played 12 months a year, particulary at night
through summer. How much revenue could be generated playing footy year round, especiallly
television rights. Perhap that is why they are retaining footy park.

I agree, but, frankly 'scarlet', they don't give a damn !

Firstly, having been on a spy mission to Docklands/Telstra Dome/Etihad (or whatever else
the ‘mexicans’ are calling it this week) while a freezing Smellbourne rain storm raged outside,
we sat inside enjoying a pleasant 17 C. Something you can do all year long. Honestly, it’s the
only way to go. Looking to the future, if a capital city’s major stadium hasn’t got 60,000+ seats
under an all weather roof, it’s a monumental waste of time, money and effort!
IT’S THE 21ST CENTURY PEOPLE! HELLLOOOO?!!!
If we’re gonna do it, why not do it properly? For the future. Just look at how quickly Footy Park
became inadequate.

Regarding Adelaide Oval …IMHO, Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!
The current Southern Stand is a joke and an insult to the name Bradman. Who is the pin-head
who designed this stand where patrons fry in summer and get deluged in winter ?
And now the artist’s impression of the next disaster shows nearly all of Adelaide Oval will be a
similar useless design. We’d better build 2 new hospitals first. One for skin cancers and another
for pneumonia patients. Who the hell is pushing these crappy designs? Is it crooked medicos,
drumming up new business? Why does the name Edelstone suddenly come to mind ?

OK, go ahead and do it. Be a pity to destroy Adelaide Oval, but anything that helps kill off the
Vic’s AFL is fine by me.

Forgetting the political chest beating, this smacks of SACA prostituting themselves and Adelaide
Oval to get their snouts into the AFL money trough any way they can. The SANFL and our 2
pretend clubs will be led by the rings in their subservient noses anywhere the ‘so-called AFL’
decides.

Victoria steals our water and we eat their excrement, they steal our footballers then impose
their half baked state league on us and call it the AFL. And don’t get me started on the Grand
Prix! Wake up SA and stop taking it up the fundamental. Refuse to be a gutless traitor. Boycott
ALL things pro-Victorian and pro-AFL. Sponsors, products, politicians, players, everything!
Grab your rifles, get down to the border and start shooting at anything dodgy coming our way.
Show some backbone S.A. & make a f*****g ‘stand’ NOW !

You know it makes sense.
But you don't know enough to come in out of the bloody rain !

[redandblack]

Jimmy, what a great effort. That deserves a considered response, which I'll put up as soon as I can find a spare week or two

However, I will respond in some detail, but a few points first:

My reply was also in response to posters other than you who suggested the recent scandals have had something to do with this announcement. Far from thinking Rann is brillaint, I specifically said he wasn't that smart to be able to orchestrate this. I actually said it was a political stunt.

I've never mentioned anything about trams to West Lakes either and the only comment I've made about the Libs is that Isabel's plan was new. My apologies if that's wrong - to be honest, it was never going to happen and I've never given her idea much thought.

I certainly don't love this Government and you'd be very hard pressed to find much I've written in all my posts that praise them. I usually only defend them from what I think are obvious misstatements. If you'd said the Federal Government, that's a different matter:)

I think I can fairly say that my bias is no more than yours. I'm not sure why those on one side of the argument only see bias in their opponents

[sjt]

I guess those "few pansies" that stay away have threatened the viability of the Port Power football club. Those pansies could consist of the elderly, families or neutral supporters that would otherwise attend the football if it weren't pouring with rain or bitterly cold. They'll still stay away faced with the same conditions. Personally I don't really give a stuff because I can put up with the cold and don't go to too many AFL games anyway (and dont support the Power).
If viable a new cutting edge stadium with a retractable roof would be my preferred option. The major difference between footy park and what's proposed is location and the loss of much of Adelaide Ovals character.
Is it worth it ? Don't know.
Sometimes it's worth knocking down a house or building at a new location, starting from brand new as opposed to rennovating, or undertaking interim measures.
Depending on the design Adelaide Oval could be less inviting than Football Park. On Anzac Day with the wind and rain blowing through, the "roof cover" on the outer wing stands, provided little shelter.
Having said that, on a "nice" Friday night I'd be more likely to attend a game after work at a inner city stadium than Football Park.

Not IMO, marketing,games schedules and on field performances have hurt much more than any rainy day has.

If the powers that be had said a new stadium with roof would have been built, let's say for $1billion then there would have been an outcry of wasting money. In a no win situation ( that the government was in ) I think they have done very well.

I just dont see Adelaide having the need for such a Stadium.

It just seems like Adelaide is duplicating football park in the city. May as well get it right now. Whatever the costing difference it wont be any cheaper in the future.
I understand the surplus land around AAMI will generate future income. Can't by selling part of this asset or retaining it to generate income, these funds help bridge the cost toward achieving an improved complex (at the rail yard), not just a stadium location transplant? Hopefully, the SANFL would be no worse off as the end asset is of greater value, with greater income earning potential and useability. It would be right by the rail line so have the public transport access. Car parking could also be provided without the problems encountered at Adelaide Oval. The SANFL wouldn't have to make any concessions to the SACA.
With the added bonus that we haven't destroyed what is described as one of the greatest most picturesque cricket grounds in the world.
Of course the obvious response to the above is what about the hospital ?
Why can't we have a stadium as good as they have in Victoria ?

[Psyber]

Well here is a completely unbiased viewpoint, but it does explain the sudden change of policy..
http://www.saliberal.org.au/index.php/h ... ader-again

[Spideroncall]

Question? Why did a senior SANFL person address the staff at West lakes prior to the announcement of the proposed move from West lakes to Adelaide oval and advised them "what ever you hear in the media over the next month don’t believe it"!

[Dog_ger]

Can't ever see this happening in a $billion years.

[Jimmy_041]

The SA Govt will pull out of this sometime around 131 days from now - as soon as they can find an excuse like the bankruptcy of some bank in a third world country

[dedja]

Well here is a completely unbiased viewpoint, but it does explain the sudden change of policy..
http://www.saliberal.org.au/index.php/h ... ader-again

LOL, from someone who has never been to Footy Park or has embraced or gained approval from the key stakeholders as the SACA, SANFL or AFL.

Neither proposal will be a reality ... it's all vapourware.

[supercoach]

Intersting topic this and everybody is missing the point - was it in early september that Mr Whicker and his boys club came out and said again as he always has that Aami was the one. In reality what happened was that Mr D from over at the AFL came over and TOLD Leigh that Port would be playing out of Adelaide Oval as early as 2011 and he (Leigh) and the SANFL had one chance to rectify the past, bury the hatchet with SACA or lose out. As the provider of the licence they have the power (pardon the pun) to dictate what the holder must do. Leigh has been forced to take his head from his arse and eat a little humble pie otherwise he is in danger of his boys club starting to crumble. The big fish in a small pond has some cracks starting to appear in it. There is absolutely no doubt that Port will be at Adelaide oval and I would say good chance thru sheer crows pigheadedness as a sole tennant. They are the real winners here as are the SACA and footy followers. The AFL rest assured only want Port at Adelaide at adelaide oval and what they want they normally get. That will benefit port and the AFL and destabilize the SANFL. This has all come about due to Mr W failing to act on the stadium revenue splits with the power. As his SANFL clubs struggle to make money, his empire is being disbanded by big brother and there is not a thing he can do about it. The decisions he and the SANFL made when the crows where formed are now going to come back and haunt him. The good thing is that footy supporters will now will be in a position to get a better deal. Mr Trigg at the crows has been sooking all week as his little empire is being forced through no fault of his to compromise. Media Mike as always with his smugness tries to make good news of this as is his way. Their 15 page reference document is just that trash and won't be acted on. Interesting to see that also $180m of the so called $450m grant is dependant on the FIFA getting a world cup - you can already see where that is going.

The Power at Adelaide by itself - I even though I don't like them would like to see that.

[Jimmy_041]

Well here is a completely unbiased viewpoint, but it does explain the sudden change of policy..
http://www.saliberal.org.au/index.php/h ... ader-again

LOL, from someone who has never been to Footy Park or has embraced or gained approval from the key stakeholders as the SACA, SANFL or AFL.

Neither proposal will be a reality ... it's all vapourware.

What she is saying is true though

This State Govt is bereft of both ideas and credibility - Thank you Pyne, Chapman, Evans & Co - you have lumped us with 4 more years of this crud

One has to question why the Liberals released their city plan so early - they should have stalled it til the election campaign when these idiots couldnt copy it

[Zathrus]

However I don't think shield cricket will return to AO, it will be a larger event stadium catering for larger crowds with an alternate venue for small crowds, such as Glenelg will possibly become in the near future.

There is no reason a reduced capacity Footy Park can't be used for all sorts of other events such as the Sheild games and any other sporting events currently at Adelaide Oval, so there shouldn't be any conflict between the SACA and SANFL.

Its got the second best surface in the state and the SACA, same as the SANFL would not want the embarressment of the 3,000 crowd at a 50,000 seat Adelaide Oval The only cricket games that must be played at Adelaide Oval are the Test matches and the international one day games.

Also is there any mention of the shape of the ground. Adelaide Oval has always been said to be narrow and has a straight boundary down the members side. The artist impression shows a nice oval shape that doesn't currently exist.

As they say the new stands they are building will be staying has any mention been of the ground shape.

Will it be the narrowest ground used by the AFL