Will the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment go ahead?

[Royal City]

Keeping in mind that there is NO OTHER OPTION and the State government WILL pull their $'s back if it doesnt go ahead (which they have made clear)
Can we change the Vote on this thread to:

Do you want the Adelaide Oval re-development to go ahead?
A simple Yes or No the only options.. Lets see what the Safooty poster want.

so just to clarify. the people in charge currently will be in charge forever and a day ?????.

you are honestly putting out the notion if we knock this back we will never ever ever have another option ever again!!!. hahahahaha!!! hilarious bit propaganda i must say.

Boutique Stadium anyone ?????

Nearly as funny as the theory saca is broke.

[AFLflyer]

Keeping in mind that there is NO OTHER OPTION and the State government WILL pull their $'s back if it doesnt go ahead (which they have made clear)
Can we change the Vote on this thread to:

Do you want the Adelaide Oval re-development to go ahead?
A simple Yes or No the only options.. Lets see what the Safooty poster want.

so just to clarify. the people in charge currently will be in charge forever and a day ?????.

you are honestly putting out the notion if we knock this back we will never ever ever have another option ever again!!!. hahahahaha!!! hilarious bit propaganda i must say.

Boutique Stadium anyone ?????

Nearly as funny as the theory saca is broke.

Yeah, maybe one day something might happen, 10 years away, maybe 20 or 30 years away. It's people like you that hold this state back, just look at the Victoria Park fiasco. That's one example of many in this state, too many poeple whinge about nothing and it holds everything back. Look at the lights at Glenelg oval getting delayed and delayed, cause of whinning locals. Heaps of stuff at the bay always gets knocked back! we are a laughing stock, it needs to change.

[Dirko]

Improved funding for two junior sports, to the point where they are not reliant on funding from national bodies is a good enough reason to vote yes.

Got anything to back this statement up smaccer? Would like a read.

[Royal City]

Keeping in mind that there is NO OTHER OPTION and the State government WILL pull their $'s back if it doesnt go ahead (which they have made clear)
Can we change the Vote on this thread to:

Do you want the Adelaide Oval re-development to go ahead?
A simple Yes or No the only options.. Lets see what the Safooty poster want.

so just to clarify. the people in charge currently will be in charge forever and a day ?????.

you are honestly putting out the notion if we knock this back we will never ever ever have another option ever again!!!. hahahahaha!!! hilarious bit propaganda i must say.

Boutique Stadium anyone ?????

Nearly as funny as the theory saca is broke.

Yeah, maybe one day something might happen, 10 years away, maybe 20 or 30 years away. It's people like you that hold this state back, just look at the Victoria Park fiasco. That's one example of many in this state, too many poeple whinge about nothing and it holds everything back. Look at the lights at Glenelg oval getting delayed and delayed, cause of whinning locals. Heaps of stuff at the bay always gets knocked back! we are a laughing stock, it needs to change.

I like most People against this want two stadiums in the city not one. Like Perth Queensland Melbourne Sydney etc.... currently have.

Can you Please define how people like me are the ones holding the state back ??

[AFLflyer]

Keeping in mind that there is NO OTHER OPTION and the State government WILL pull their $'s back if it doesnt go ahead (which they have made clear)
Can we change the Vote on this thread to:

Do you want the Adelaide Oval re-development to go ahead?
A simple Yes or No the only options.. Lets see what the Safooty poster want.

so just to clarify. the people in charge currently will be in charge forever and a day ?????.

you are honestly putting out the notion if we knock this back we will never ever ever have another option ever again!!!. hahahahaha!!! hilarious bit propaganda i must say.

Boutique Stadium anyone ?????

Nearly as funny as the theory saca is broke.

Yeah, maybe one day something might happen, 10 years away, maybe 20 or 30 years away. It's people like you that hold this state back, just look at the Victoria Park fiasco. That's one example of many in this state, too many poeple whinge about nothing and it holds everything back. Look at the lights at Glenelg oval getting delayed and delayed, cause of whinning locals. Heaps of stuff at the bay always gets knocked back! we are a laughing stock, it needs to change.

I want like most People against this want two stadiums in the city not one. Like Perth Queensland Melbourne etc.... Have currently.

Can you Please define how people like me are the ones holding the state back ??

oposing everything and anything for trivial reasons. Not you personally, just attitudes like yours, which are really common around here. just having a rant really

[Jim05]

As a SACA member i have been speaking to friends,family and workmates who are also SACA members, while the majority want this to go ahead a fair few are going to vote NO unless football concedes some ground. The biggest bugbear ive heard is that football want AO for up to 8 months and leave cricket with only 4 months. As the current tennants most of us feel that football can have the ground when we say so. I dont want shield cricket at glenelg and i think cricket should control the oval from after AFL grand final to end of shield final. If that means no NAB or no training on AO until the middle of march then bad luck. If football agrees to these compromises then i will vote YES. Remember its our oval and football is supposed to be coming to share not take over

[spell_check]

I was a sceptic originally but as I hear various stakeholders including city traders have their say I think it will be a big leg up for the CBD. One way or another the Govt will get some return on their $535m I reckon in terms of economic growth. I don't see it as wasted money. How much did the Victorian Govt kick into Docklands and how well has that gone for the CBD since then? I don't have the figures but everyone raves about how close the stadium is to transport, shops, restaurants, etc. West Lakes unfortunately will never be able to replicate that as hard as they have tried over the years.

For a NEW stadium. If we were getting a new stadium I'd be all for it too.

100% agree.

but kids, if we dont get this, we get nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what would you rather?

The State government not to sell off the SE forest industry
Mental health to get funds - too many nutcases living in housing trust homes without supervision
Spur line/tram line to West Lakes - not just for footys sake but for West Lakes Mall
Other public transport upgrades

[Psyber]

As a SACA member i have been speaking to friends,family and workmates who are also SACA members, while the majority want this to go ahead a fair few are going to vote NO unless football concedes some ground. The biggest bugbear ive heard is that football want AO for up to 8 months and leave cricket with only 4 months. As the current tennants most of us feel that football can have the ground when we say so. I dont want shield cricket at glenelg and i think cricket should control the oval from after AFL grand final to end of shield final. If that means no NAB or no training on AO until the middle of march then bad luck. If football agrees to these compromises then i will vote YES. Remember its our oval and football is supposed to be coming to share not take over

Which takes us back to why Football Park was built at West Lakes in the first place...
I said it would fall over from the start.

[RustyCage]

More details to be announced tomorrow

[Voice]

As a SACA member i have been speaking to friends,family and workmates who are also SACA members, while the majority want this to go ahead a fair few are going to vote NO unless football concedes some ground. The biggest bugbear ive heard is that football want AO for up to 8 months and leave cricket with only 4 months. As the current tennants most of us feel that football can have the ground when we say so. I dont want shield cricket at glenelg and i think cricket should control the oval from after AFL grand final to end of shield final. If that means no NAB or no training on AO until the middle of march then bad luck. If football agrees to these compromises then i will vote YES. Remember its our oval and football is supposed to be coming to share not take over

Sheffield Shield? You want to hold back the oval for games that get about 150 people in attendance? No wonder people think the SACA are a backwards mob a 4 day game that probably costs more to put on than it makes. Lucky somebody invented 20/20 cricket for you otherwise you guys would be cactus! (and yes I'm still )

[Jim05]

Mate its only fair. Split ground use 50/50. Works with MCG, they dont have any NAB cup games and the ryobi cup final was held there on sunday. Im sure football can play the NAB cup somewhere else after all they are still keeping AAMI arent they? With our recent record we wont make a ss final anyway so you guys can have the keys to the joint as soon as we are knocked out.

[Wedgie]

If the SACA members don't vote it in I'll be eternally in their debt.

[Dutchy]

Going to be very hard for SACA members to vote for this when they already have what they wanted, ESP when you need 8 out of 10 votes for it to proceed

[Footy Smart]

If the SACA members don't vote it in I'll be eternally in their debt.

Wedgie how much is my vote worth to you?

Personally as a SACA member and AFC Silver Member i:

1 - Dont mind AAMI Stadium
2 - Dont mind Adelaide Oval the way it is
3 - would hate port to be better off

BUT I would love to see international sports in Adelaide eg. Soccer, Union and if this upgrade alows that, my vote will be for it!

However No 3. keeps me awake at night

[Wedgie]

How many beers would it take mate?

[Footy Smart]

As a SACA member i have been speaking to friends,family and workmates who are also SACA members, while the majority want this to go ahead a fair few are going to vote NO unless football concedes some ground. The biggest bugbear ive heard is that football want AO for up to 8 months and leave cricket with only 4 months. As the current tennants most of us feel that football can have the ground when we say so. I dont want shield cricket at glenelg and i think cricket should control the oval from after AFL grand final to end of shield final. If that means no NAB or no training on AO until the middle of march then bad luck. If football agrees to these compromises then i will vote YES. Remember its our oval and football is supposed to be coming to share not take over

Sheffield Shield? You want to hold back the oval for games that get about 150 people in attendance? No wonder people think the SACA are a backwards mob a 4 day game that probably costs more to put on than it makes. Lucky somebody invented 20/20 cricket for you otherwise you guys would be cactus! (and yes I'm still )

Voice, your pig headed reply is exactly why the SACA members who don’t want this to go head.

Moving the SACA to Glenelg would be terrible for the state. You don’t see the Vics moving their best 11 cricketers in the country to play on a suburban oval for every home SS game and they play SS in front of the same amount of people at the MCG.

One of the most prestigious things a cricketer in this state can do apart from wear the baggy green is play on Adelaide Oval. Kids growing up don’t want to strive to play on an oval they can play on if they play A/B grade District. Respect must be shown by the football codes.

You aren’t going to please everyone with the decisions that made that’s a fact, but the deal must be equitable.

[Royal City]

Going to be very hard for SACA members to vote for this when they already have what they wanted, ESP when you need 8 out of 10 votes for it to proceed

Plus the fact saca can make revenue from the oval currently for 12 months of the year.
But cover the costs of running A/Oval for 12 months of the year.

Under the new deal they collect revenue for 5 months. Whilst paying half the cost of running A/Oval in those 5 months.

Then football picks up revenue for 7 months of the year

Whilst SACA foots half the running costs in that time.

Not a great deal IMHO!!!!

[AFLflyer]

Going to be very hard for SACA members to vote for this when they already have what they wanted, ESP when you need 8 out of 10 votes for it to proceed

Plus the fact saca can make revenue from the oval currently for 12 months of the year.
But cover the costs of running A/Oval for 12 months of the year.

Under the new deal they collect revenue for 5 months. Whilst paying half the cost of running A/Oval in those 5 months.

Then football picks up revenue for 7 months of the year

Whilst SACA foots half the running costs in that time.

Not a great deal IMHO!!!!

If your such an expert and think this is not a good idea, please tell me why the SACA are gagging for this to go through? It's Just a FEW of you memebers having a whinge. Why do you really care who makes what money and when?

[Voice]

As a SACA member i have been speaking to friends,family and workmates who are also SACA members, while the majority want this to go ahead a fair few are going to vote NO unless football concedes some ground. The biggest bugbear ive heard is that football want AO for up to 8 months and leave cricket with only 4 months. As the current tennants most of us feel that football can have the ground when we say so. I dont want shield cricket at glenelg and i think cricket should control the oval from after AFL grand final to end of shield final. If that means no NAB or no training on AO until the middle of march then bad luck. If football agrees to these compromises then i will vote YES. Remember its our oval and football is supposed to be coming to share not take over

Sheffield Shield? You want to hold back the oval for games that get about 150 people in attendance? No wonder people think the SACA are a backwards mob a 4 day game that probably costs more to put on than it makes. Lucky somebody invented 20/20 cricket for you otherwise you guys would be cactus! (and yes I'm still )

Voice, your pig headed reply is exactly why the SACA members who don’t want this to go head.

Moving the SACA to Glenelg would be terrible for the state. You don’t see the Vics moving their best 11 cricketers in the country to play on a suburban oval for every home SS game and they play SS in front of the same amount of people at the MCG.

One of the most prestigious things a cricketer in this state can do apart from wear the baggy green is play on Adelaide Oval. Kids growing up don’t want to strive to play on an oval they can play on if they play A/B grade District. Respect must be shown by the football codes.

You aren’t going to please everyone with the decisions that made that’s a fact, but the deal must be equitable.

I suppose you want a 50/50 split of the money generated when you wouldn't even get 1/10 of the crowds coming through the gates in a season and btw, NSW play SS games at North Sydney Oval, doesn't seem to be a problem there with the kids not playing on the SCG. They seem to kick the Redbacks off the park most of the time.

[Footy Smart]

As a SACA member i have been speaking to friends,family and workmates who are also SACA members, while the majority want this to go ahead a fair few are going to vote NO unless football concedes some ground. The biggest bugbear ive heard is that football want AO for up to 8 months and leave cricket with only 4 months. As the current tennants most of us feel that football can have the ground when we say so. I dont want shield cricket at glenelg and i think cricket should control the oval from after AFL grand final to end of shield final. If that means no NAB or no training on AO until the middle of march then bad luck. If football agrees to these compromises then i will vote YES. Remember its our oval and football is supposed to be coming to share not take over

Sheffield Shield? You want to hold back the oval for games that get about 150 people in attendance? No wonder people think the SACA are a backwards mob a 4 day game that probably costs more to put on than it makes. Lucky somebody invented 20/20 cricket for you otherwise you guys would be cactus! (and yes I'm still )

Voice, your pig headed reply is exactly why the SACA members who don’t want this to go head.

Moving the SACA to Glenelg would be terrible for the state. You don’t see the Vics moving their best 11 cricketers in the country to play on a suburban oval for every home SS game and they play SS in front of the same amount of people at the MCG.

One of the most prestigious things a cricketer in this state can do apart from wear the baggy green is play on Adelaide Oval. Kids growing up don’t want to strive to play on an oval they can play on if they play A/B grade District. Respect must be shown by the football codes.

You aren’t going to please everyone with the decisions that made that’s a fact, but the deal must be equitable.

I suppose you want a 50/50 split of the money generated when you wouldn't even get 1/10 of the crowds coming through the gates in a season

No, never said that!