Reasons to Vote "NO"

[smac]

Why would cricket say no?

Just like why would footy say no to a shield final?

[whufc]

Why would cricket say no?

Just like why would footy say no to a shield final?

Because its not in their sports best interest, would be the obvious reason.

[Bulls forever]

:lol:

You have to admit that our concerns about footy dominating are starting to be realized, first they couldn't guarantee the shield final and now they are talking up AFL preseason games at the Oval.

I'll admit I didn't think it would take under a month to happen

Sung to the tune of War of the Worlds. "The chances of the redbacks hosting the shield, are a million to one, but still they whinge"

Worry about it in 3 years time.

Good news TSG, SACA have booked the new Stadium for the Shield final for March 21, 2024. What is everyone whinging about, we haven't hosted since 95/96, 15 years ago, if by some chance we actually get to host one, footy will say, ah well, once very 15 years is not bad. And just so you know, they have always said that the stadium will have 70 odd % cover, so why is it such an issue now. I would hate to imagine what the EPL supporters would say to you mob, it rains every second day over there and they still turn up in their droves. TTFU.

If the Crows were due to have a home final against Melbourne would they happily play the final at another ground if cricket wanted the oval for that period of time.

Obviously the times wouldnt overlap but that would be a simliar case.

Good analogy - NOT.

[Dutchy]

Avoiding my question BF?

[Bulls forever]

Avoiding my question BF?

Dutchy, as much as I would love to answer your questions, I am doing my best to avoid this forum, it is tired, boring and serving no relevance at all. As from page 1, it is absolutely full of mis information, conspiracy theories and retoric based on no factual information. Which is exactly what your question is.

If you believe that the SACA Board are full of idiots, that have no business acumen, then your question has relevance, but unfortunately (for You), the richest man in this State actually heads that board and I would back him to definately know a lot more about business than me, and I know you will complain but you, Pipers, Mayz, heater and all the sceptics that have posted on this subject.

AND there is your answer.

[Dutchy]

[Bulls forever]

Another classical response, so typical of the naysayers on this forum.

[whufc]

BUMP

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/n ... 1fpby.html

Also something someone mentioned at the football. Has it been announced anywhere what Port Powers break even crowd figure would be at Adelaide Oval.


We all know its 28K at AAMI but what would it be at AO?

[brod]

BUMP

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/n ... 1fpby.html

Also something someone mentioned at the football. Has it been announced anywhere what Port Powers break even crowd figure would be at Adelaide Oval.


We all know its 28K at AAMI but what would it be at AO?

Off topic, but interesting article about John Fidge on that link

[Ecky]

As predicted by MayZ in 2010 http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30601, the new Western Stand is useless when it rains...

Are you sure you wanted this, AFL fans?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/sog ... 6070573747

Also would someone like to do a summary of all the negative events that have happened since the vote which have reinforced the fears of us no voters
There seems to be something new every day...

[Gingernuts]

All I've seen regularly is a local rag milking a major project of all it's worth to sell more newspapers.

When it comes to the crunch there's been nothing in most news relating to AO (see today's speculation about the Casino pulling out, and news of the opposition supporting the project - two more beat ups to add to the list).

[Hondo]

Ecky the Western Stand and any problems it has or will have can't be used as an argument against the redevelopment seeing as it's already there. I think footy fans in this state are pretty used to the rain I would have thought? We know it isn't a covered stadium. Richard Earle must be getting his own back for being gagged?

[heater31]

Ecky the Western Stand and any problems it has or will have can't be used as an argument against the redevelopment seeing as it's already there. I think footy fans in this state are pretty used to the rain I would have thought? We know it isn't a covered stadium. Richard Earle must be getting his own back for being gagged?

Point taken but if people bitch about the rain and wind when they visit the Oval now imagine what they will be like when its turned into a toilet seat Couldn't think of anything worse sitting at the river end with all that wind and rain howling down the field and hitting you in the face


Also for those that complain about the lack of facilities for the members bar, there is a very valid reason for its design and you have two options : learn to hold it in or get a drink down stairs and be done with it.

[whufc]

Very interesting

According to poster On the Rails (whose info is correct 99.9999999% of the time) the Powers break even at AO according to SMA Analysis will be 31K.

Even playing at their best they will struggle to get these kind of crowds.

Every week that goes by the AO re-develepment is looking more suspect!

[Hondo]

whufc, don't you think whatever the break even figures are, that they were already known by all parties 12 months ago who still wanted the development to go ahead? It may be news to you but it wouldn't be to the AFL, SANFL, SACA, etc. So clearly it's no show stopper. It just sounds like more negative noise.

With profit takes out of the AFL games by Port first, then the SMA and then the SANFL in their quasi-landlord role (I don't fully understand what fee they will get) I think if Port's break even is 31000 then the ultimate break even for the SANFL would be well below that for ALL 22 AFL games.

Remember too the SANFL get to turn their West Lakes property into commercial development on which they have very low debt so I think there's enough financial impetus to get the redevelopment going. Yes, $27m can sound big when the SANFL use it to get the AFL to kick money in Port but it's low when compared to a $200m property value.

[smac]

31,000 is the figure for making a profit to the level that Port would like, not the break even figure. I guess this was part of the 0.0000001% of the time that OTR is not correct.

[Hondo]

I thought so

try again whufc

[heater31]

31,000 is the figure for making a profit to the level that Port would like, not the break even figure. I guess this was part of the 0.0000001% of the time that OTR is not correct.

What Port Adelaide would like and what they will get are two very different things....

[smac]

They've run out of credibility, that's for sure.

[Ecky]

I don't think those break even figures mean very much anyway, as the equation would be much more complicated than that as it also depends on how many of those attending are season ticket holders vs pay at the gate, and the day/time/weather would effect the profits from catering etc. So I don't know why people go on about them so much.

I know there are times when I go to the footy or cricket and don't spend a single cent (as I have season tickets/membership) so whether I am there or not doesn't affect the profitability of anyone at all.