Should the Adelaide Oval redevelopment go ahead?

[AFLflyer]

I guess the members have got what they want, so screw the rest. Sad to see that once again, a vocal minority in Adelaide fail to see the big picture.

Maybe the vocal minority can see the bigger picture, a 2 stadia town, why the rush all of a sudden to cram 2 sports into one stadium?

Don't see the point either reducing 2 stadia to 1. With the rise of the AFL's necessity to have a pre season competition it forces the two sports to overlap more and more. Perth has discussed for ages about the next generation Football stadium and the WACA and their ground have stayed well out of the equation. Why should Adelaide downsize to 1 Stadium? It is this type of thing that when one sport or the other would like to gain early access to the stadium that will make us the laughing stock of the nation and be a backwater for only having the one venue for 2 major sports

All Football want is the location and crush the other into the oblivion because 40 years ago they couldn't co habit the very same venue and moved to a difficult location. No sympathy for the SANFL from me because you chose the wrong location and can't convince the public purse to help you out with decent public transport options to service your stadium

but the SACA want this, don't you get it?

[heater31]

All the SACA Board see is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. With the current debacle of the on field side of things of recent years I have very little faith in what they would do with said $$$$$. The Board have said they heaven forbid that this doesn't go ahead that the financial position is something that they can handle. Instead of the instant fix the On Field SACA team will have to wait a bit longer.


I have voted for change in the board in every election since I became a full member in 2004. I think one one candidate that I voted for has been elected in my time and that was only last year.

[Hondo]

The SACA have said the freed up cash flow will go into junior / grass roots cricket development in this state. I think it was the SACA CEO I heard being interviewed. So it seemed a choice of going as is with seemingly tighter, but manageble, cash flows or take the windfall this deal sounds like it is.

I am not close enough to the local cricket scene to know, so would the state team be improved if more money was pumped into cricket development?

[Hondo]

Also, I think the AO redevelopment should be looked at in the broader context of the redevelopment of that whole riverfront area which I think will benefit the CBD and the state. That area is completly under-utilised currently and if it gets developed in line with the glossy pictures I think that area will become a focal point hub for the city. We are like Perth in that we just don't make use of our waterfront land like Melbourne and Sydney do. In fact according to Perth people Adelaide is really well developed and that's saying something.

A second CBD Stadium in another part of the city doesn't achieve the some broader goals. It's just a sports stadium then alongside a some commercial buildings. In fact if that riverfront area gets developed properly and pumps up the economy then maybe down the track the next stadium can be close to AO and run by the same SMA. I see the future of the second stadium more likely if we get our prime located stadium upgraded properly exactly the same way other capital city cricket grounds have been renovated. I don't undertstand why us Adelaideans make these things harder than they seem to be in other states.

[Dirko]

The SACA have said the freed up cash flow will go into junior / grass roots cricket development in this state.

They always say things like that. Can anyone recall the AFL saying the money they make from the replayed Grand Final would be invested back into junior footy etc.

How much do you think has been injected into junior footy in this state ? Zip. That's how much.

I'd like to see the plan on how junior sport of both codes would benefit.

[Jim05]

I guess the members have got what they want, so screw the rest. Sad to see that once again, a vocal minority in Adelaide fail to see the big picture.

Maybe the vocal minority can see the bigger picture, a 2 stadia town, why the rush all of a sudden to cram 2 sports into one stadium?

Why have 2 stadia sit idle for 6 months of the year. The MCG, SCG and GABBA manage to cram 2 sports into one stadium. The MCG even throws in a couple of other sports now and then. Not sure what the problem is there Dutchy.

Yeah but those other stadiums dont kick the cricket out to play crappy NAB cup games.
Im all for the development if we get equal time share of oval. Football gets it from the day after the last shield game until the day after the last match played here, its not hard. Dont know why footy wants to take over ground in Feb and force cricket out, they can play NAB cup at AAMI

[dedja]

Whilst I think the whole redevelopment is a waste of taxpayers money, SACA members would be mad to vote this down.

Mmmmmm, let see ... we can either be $85M in debt or get a $535M gift from the government

[smac]

The SACA have said the freed up cash flow will go into junior / grass roots cricket development in this state.

They always say things like that. Can anyone recall the AFL saying the money they make from the replayed Grand Final would be invested back into junior footy etc.

How much do you think has been injected into junior footy in this state ? Zip. That's how much.

I'd like to see the plan on how junior sport of both codes would benefit.

The difference is SACA exists purely for the development of cricket in this state, from grassroots to Redbacks. Take away the need to manage a stadium (SMA will now do this), there is nothing else to spend the money on but cricket development. SANFL would be in the same boat once they don't have to manage AAMI stadium on the same scale they do now.

[Hondo]

They always say things like that. Can anyone recall the AFL saying the money they make from the replayed Grand Final would be invested back into junior footy etc.

How much do you think has been injected into junior footy in this state ? Zip. That's how much.

I'd like to see the plan on how junior sport of both codes would benefit.

Don't quote me but I thought I read that the AFL kick a fair bit of money into junior football across the country, including here. It's come up on here before. Anyway, that's not really the topic so I don't want to distract this off into a debate about the AFL.

What else would the SACA do with the spare money?

[Hondo]

Yeah but those other stadiums dont kick the cricket out to play crappy NAB cup games.
Im all for the development if we get equal time share of oval. Football gets it from the day after the last shield game until the day after the last match played here, its not hard. Dont know why footy wants to take over ground in Feb and force cricket out, they can play NAB cup at AAMI

Football will have it for 6 months and 3 weeks I thought which we worked out was late March to early October which fits in with the current cricket schedule. I don't know where the NAB Cup would be played?

[Pottsy]

Football will have it for 6 months and 3 weeks I thought which we worked out was late March to early October which fits in with the current cricket schedule. I don't know where the NAB Cup would be played?

Football would have it initially for that period.

In the long run, the likelihood is that footy would be able to erode the time given to the cricket, due to their greater dollar power. The stadium would be run by people purely to make dollars (of course), and they'll be able to milk more dollars out of footy than cricket.

If you were running it, which sport would you put first? I'd go footy, coz that's how I'd get my bonus.

[Dutchy]

Football will have it for 6 months and 3 weeks I thought which we worked out was late March to early October which fits in with the current cricket schedule. I don't know where the NAB Cup would be played?

Football would have it initially for that period.

In the long run, the likelihood is that footy would be able to erode the time given to the cricket, due to their greater dollar power. The stadium would be run by people purely to make dollars (of course), and they'll be able to milk more dollars out of footy than cricket.

If you were running it, which sport would you put first? I'd go footy, coz that's how I'd get my bonus.

And SACA members lose all control over their stadium...

[smac]

So it gets down to "I don't want to share"? No wonder they're searching for loopholes with a selfish and ignorant membership.

[Jim05]

I have no problem sharing but the AFL want more than their share. Eventually the footy season proper will be extended and the NAB cup will be scrapped. Round 1 will either start early march or finals will go later, either way cricket gets punted to glenelg

[smac]

These comments are all based on heresay and assumption - Shield finals would be a priority event I imagine, just like an AFL final would be. The two organisations have come to what they believe are fair arrangements (the time share was agreed on about 1 week after the December 2009 announcement of negotiations I believe). Do people really believe either sport would 'sell the farm'?

[JK]

So it gets down to "I don't want to share"? No wonder they're searching for loopholes with a selfish and ignorant membership.

Im not wading into the would or shouldn't debate (preference is should) specifically, but to be fair to the SACA membership .. Whichever avenue of thought process they decide to take should be fair enough, given afterall, they are the ones that have swapped their hard earned for exclusive rights like this ability to vote on the matter at hand.

[smac]

But to have membership of an association whose charter is to develop and grow cricket in this state implies that should form at least part of the decision process, I would have thought. The membership is supposed to keep SACA accountable to its charter, not pop their snouts out of the trough long enough only to make certain that no one else comes near the trough.

[JK]

But to have membership of an association whose charter is to develop and grow cricket in this state implies that should form at least part of the decision process, I would have thought. The membership is supposed to keep SACA accountable to its charter, not pop their snouts out of the trough long enough only to make certain that no one else comes near the trough.

Yeah fair points mate, but I think the old saying of "I paid my money, I'll do what I want" probably exists and none of us non-members can really complain about it.

[Pottsy]

These comments are all based on heresay and assumption - Shield finals would be a priority event I imagine, just like an AFL final would be. The two organisations have come to what they believe are fair arrangements (the time share was agreed on about 1 week after the December 2009 announcement of negotiations I believe). Do people really believe either sport would 'sell the farm'?

Assumption, yes. Not sure about hearsay, personally I haven't heard many rumours about it.

The fact is that control of the Oval would pass out of the hands of cricket. Another fact is that footy is a bigger money spinner than cricket in this state. I believe that in the long run the money would win out, as it's the imperative that drives any administrator of a commercial enterprise.

Selfish? Yes. Blind negativity? Don't think so.

[smac]

And cricket is happy with it - they get to focus entirely on cricket, not being stadium managers (that's a job for SMA).