by Q. » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:09 pm
by CK » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:39 pm
by dedja » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:47 pm
by redandblack » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:17 pm
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:54 pm
by fish » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:36 pm
I wouldn't say that public transport to Footy Park is woeful - I live in the hills and can catch a single Footy Express bus there with no problems. SANFL presents more difficulties - I and most others need to catch a second bus to get to the ground.The Sleeping Giant wrote:Part of the problem is Footy Park isn't easily accessible to half the people living in Adelaide. Public transport is woeful and driving there can be a nightmare. Those people who can't be bothered traveling will find it more appealing to travel to the city.
by dedja » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:40 pm
The Sleeping Giant wrote:Part of the problem is Footy Park isn't easily accessible to half the people living in Adelaide. Public transport is woeful and driving there can be a nightmare. Those people who can't be bothered traveling will find it more appealing to travel to the city.
by dedja » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:42 pm
redandblack wrote:As far as bigger crowds going to Adelaide Oval, it generally stacks up. Soccer games at AO usually draw much bigger crowds than a half-empty Hindmarsh.
by JK » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:46 pm
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:50 pm
by dedja » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:52 pm
The Sleeping Giant wrote:Trains are easier than buses. Obahn also. Driving from Modbury was never easy. Where do you live again dedja.
by fish » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:53 pm
by dedja » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:54 pm
by White Line Fever » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:06 pm
by Hondo » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:07 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:The point is that bigger crowds won't be needed.
The premise of sharing the Oval should mean same income for SACA (and a reduction on their debt by a considerable amount) and SANFL, minus a fair whack of expenses .. That financially improved situation then also extends to the AFL clubs who earn much greater income after expenses, and then provide a much greater dividend to the SANFL clubs (until such time as the Crows and Power own their own licenses, at which time the land at West Lakes generates the replacement dividend).
That's my understanding of the situation, and would appear to hold more benefit for the SANFL than the SACA.
As always, happy to be corrected.
by CK » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:09 pm
Hondo wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:The point is that bigger crowds won't be needed.
The premise of sharing the Oval should mean same income for SACA (and a reduction on their debt by a considerable amount) and SANFL, minus a fair whack of expenses .. That financially improved situation then also extends to the AFL clubs who earn much greater income after expenses, and then provide a much greater dividend to the SANFL clubs (until such time as the Crows and Power own their own licenses, at which time the land at West Lakes generates the replacement dividend).
That's my understanding of the situation, and would appear to hold more benefit for the SANFL than the SACA.
As always, happy to be corrected.
That's how I have heard it too. Apparently even with only slightly better crowd figures both the SACA and the SANFL are substantionally better off financially.
SMAC has explained this previously as being driven to a large extent by the two organisations sharing the costs of the one ground (ie, one ground being used 12 months of the year).
As you say, then there's the alternative commercial use the SANFL can put to some of the West Lakes land to earn a 12 months per year return rather than 7 months.
I would expect some uplift in crowd numbers with the CBD location and that sounds like cream on top.
One downside with the new stadium plan is that the ground is only used 7 months of the year and the SANFL would be forced to sell everything it currently owns to take up a < 50% stake in the new stadium.
by heater31 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:10 pm
The Sleeping Giant wrote:Part of the problem is Footy Park isn't easily accessible to half the people living in Adelaide. Public transport is woeful and driving there can be a nightmare. Those people who can't be bothered traveling will find it more appealing to travel to the city.
Let's not forget the AFL heavies have indicated there preferred location for footy is Adelaide Oval. No one at the SANFL is going to argue with them.
The AO development will go ahead.
by JK » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:13 pm
Hondo wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:The point is that bigger crowds won't be needed.
The premise of sharing the Oval should mean same income for SACA (and a reduction on their debt by a considerable amount) and SANFL, minus a fair whack of expenses .. That financially improved situation then also extends to the AFL clubs who earn much greater income after expenses, and then provide a much greater dividend to the SANFL clubs (until such time as the Crows and Power own their own licenses, at which time the land at West Lakes generates the replacement dividend).
That's my understanding of the situation, and would appear to hold more benefit for the SANFL than the SACA.
As always, happy to be corrected.
That's how I have heard it too. Apparently even with only slightly better crowd figures both the SANFL are substantionally better off financially.
SMAC has explained this previously as being driven to a large extent by the two organisations sharing the costs of the one ground (ie, one ground being used 12 months of the year).
As you say, then there's the alternative commercial use the SANFL can put to some of the West Lakes land to earn a 12 months per year return rather than 7 months.
I would expect some uplift in crowd numbers with the CBD location and that sounds like cream on top. AAMI needs at least $150m in upgrades itself if persisted with. There's no escaping that some investment is needed somewhere.
One downside with the new stadium plan is that the ground is only used 7 months of the year and the SANFL would be forced to sell everything it currently owns to take up a < 50% stake in the new stadium.
by AFLflyer » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:58 pm
by dedja » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:05 pm
AFLflyer wrote:I have had my say on the other thread, but i will put it down again for the sake of the new thread![]()
Adelaide needs this to succeed for the city!
This will bring life, entertainment, excitement to the heart of Adelaide! Tourists will flock here, Port will sell out games, cricket 20/20 will be massive!!
Businesses will prosper, precints will get bigger, patrons will get used to the idea and flock in their thousands.
The spectators who go to AAMi are older in demographic. Footy in the city will bring back the 18-30 year olds in big numbers.
few drinks with your mates, dinner, walk accross the bridge soaking in the atmosphere and then to the game. That would be perfect, just look at our neighbours at how they enjoy their own city.
Adelaide needs this stadium or we WILL be a laughing stock!!
lets move forward and look at this positively and stop being so pesimistic. There is NO other feasible option, Sports lovers will lose this money. SACA and AFL in this state will all continue to struggle if this falls over, but worse we will continue to be laughed at from a far.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |