SMA - the lies now start to surface

[Footy Smart]

Don't mean to be rude guys, but why on earth would you be boasting that you voted no? Seriously, I know you boast about heritage, etc, etc but do 50,000 people attend the footy/cricket to look at the cathedral/CBD skyline? no

Boasting that you voted no is like saying you voted liberal in the 2007 federal election, no one cares?

I'm sorry but at least be happy that Adelaide is coming in the 21st century of world class sport!

I wasnt boasting, I voted no because of many other factors rather than heritage, skyline etc etc Im more than happy watching AFC at AAMI Stadium and love'd' Adelaide Oval as it was ('modern' in its own right after the members stand and Chappel Stands were complete). Now i have to deal with ticketing debacles and the stupid foot bridge which will cost tax payers millions for nothing.

What i will say, is now its done and half built, I will deal with it, frequent the venue and deal with the concequences of the people that voted 'yes'

[The Patriach]

Don't mean to be rude guys, but why on earth would you be boasting that you voted no? Seriously, I know you boast about heritage, etc, etc but do 50,000 people attend the footy/cricket to look at the cathedral/CBD skyline? no

Boasting that you voted no is like saying you voted liberal in the 2007 federal election, no one cares?

I'm sorry but at least be happy that Adelaide is coming in the 21st century of world class sport!

I wasnt boasting, I voted no because of many other factors rather than heritage, skyline etc etc Im more than happy watching AFC at AAMI Stadium and love'd' Adelaide Oval as it was ('modern' in its own right after the members stand and Chappel Stands were complete). Now i have to deal with ticketing debacles and the stupid foot bridge which will cost tax payers millions for nothing.

What i will say, is now its done and half built, I will deal with it, frequent the venue and deal with the concequences of the people that voted 'yes'

How was waiting 10 years to use a toilet/get food in general admission in the chappell stands modern?

Having a ticketing debacle for 1 year is a million times better for the 25,000 people that wouldve otherwise missed out on seeing live cricket.

The footbridge will cost a bit of taxpayers money but would you build a hospital without a front door? no

[heater31]

I voted no on the basis that South Australia could not afford it!

I was satisfied that SACA could service their debt with out government help and continue to develop the oval.

Also a factor is the season overlap for both sports. We are now downsizing to 1 stadium and have placed pressure on where big Outdoor stadium bands can play. I can't wait to see the front page of the Advertiser when an AC/DC or Foo Fighters type act bypass Adelaide because of the lack of a venue.

[The Patriach]

I voted no on the basis that South Australia could not afford it!

I was satisfied that SACA could service their debt with out government help and continue to develop the oval.

Also a factor is the season overlap for both sports. We are now downsizing to 1 stadium and have placed pressure on where big Outdoor stadium bands can play. I can't wait to see the front page of the Advertiser when an AC/DC or Foo Fighters type act bypass Adelaide because of the lack of a venue.

They already did in the past when we had 2 stadiums!

[The Sleeping Giant]

Big acts bypass Adelaide now, with 2 outdoor stadiums.

[UK Fan]

I voted no on the basis that South Australia could not afford it!

I was satisfied that SACA could service their debt with out government help and continue to develop the oval.

Also a factor is the season overlap for both sports. We are now downsizing to 1 stadium and have placed pressure on where big Outdoor stadium bands can play. I can't wait to see the front page of the Advertiser when an AC/DC or Foo Fighters type act bypass Adelaide because of the lack of a venue.

They already did in the past when we had 2 stadiums!

Pearl jam acdc foo fighters and kings of Leon in the last 2-3 years is a great get.

I was happy for the sanfl to lease our stadium for 7 months not own it!!!

Interesting so many saca members voted no. But the "official" result was 4-1 members voted yes.

If only the anti corruption wing of the gov was set up 2 years ago.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Pearl jam, acdc and foo fighters have never skipped Adelaide previously.

[UK Fan]

Pearl jam, acdc and foo fighters have never skipped Adelaide previously.

Either had rugby 7s or international cricket on Aus day. What's your point ??

[The Sleeping Giant]

That big bands that have no interest in playing adelaide like Iron Maiden, Stones etc. skip adelaide regardless of venues.

Where are Black Sabbath playing?

[UK Fan]

That big bands that have no interest in playing adelaide like Iron Maiden, Stones etc. skip adelaide regardless of venues. ?

Apart from acdc foo fighters pearl jam Metallica tool etc.......


Sabbath in Adelaide May 7th.

[Dutchy]

Foo fighters tried to skip Adelaide but ended up squeezing in a gig at Thebby due to public pressure

[heater31]

Foo fighters tried to skip Adelaide but ended up squeezing in a gig at Thebby due to public pressure

The promoter underestimated the Adelaide Audience for that tour...

IIRC Dave said that would never happen again........


Does any one else get the feeling that cricket is going to get shafted in all of this. AFL Football is not even there yet and SACA is already being forced to look at alternatives for the biggest First Class game played in this City since 1996.

[am Bays]

.

[UK Fan]

Foo fighters tried to skip Adelaide but ended up squeezing in a gig at Thebby due to public pressure

The promoter underestimated the Adelaide Audience for that tour...

IIRC Dave said that would never happen again........


Does any one else get the feeling that cricket is going to get shafted in all of this. AFL Football is not even there yet and SACA is already being forced to look at alternatives for the biggest First Class game played in this City since 1996.

I've always had that feeling

[The Sleeping Giant]

Foo fighters tried to skip Adelaide but ended up squeezing in a gig at Thebby due to public pressure

The promoter underestimated the Adelaide Audience for that tour...

IIRC Dave said that would never happen again........


Does any one else get the feeling that cricket is going to get shafted in all of this. AFL Football is not even there yet and SACA is already being forced to look at alternatives for the biggest First Class game played in this City since 1996.

Is that football's fault, or bad planning from saca?

[RustyCage]

http://www.indaily.com.au/#folio=1

Auditor wants Oval money back

AROUND $2.43 million paid to the South Australian National Football League and SA Cricket Association for legal and PR work on the Adelaide Oval project should not have come from the project’s government funds, the Auditor-General says.

While retrospective approvals were made to authorise two payments of $1.965 million, Auditor-General Simon O’Neill has identified another payment of $466,000 that exceeds strict approvals relating to the project.

And he wants it refunded.

The $535 million Adelaide Oval Redevelopment is price-fixed by an Act of parliament and the funds are administered through the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).

Monies spent by DPTI must relate to the project and not the administrative operations of the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority (AOSMA) or the SANFL and SACA.

Under the Act the Auditor-General reports to parliament every six months on the project’s progress.

“…Audit had identified expenditure by DPTI that was aligned to the operations of AOSMA and not directly associated with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment,” his latest report, released yesterday noted.

The payments were made in February 2012 to the SANFL (approximately $960 000 excluding GST) and SACA (approximately $1 009 000 excluding GST), the report said.

“The payments … were made on the basis of invoices and … related to the cost of legal and public relations services and reimbursement of salary costs for SANFL and SACA staff.

“I wrote to the Chief Executive, DPTI noting my view that these payments appeared to relate to AOSMA and not the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

“In response DPTI advised that it would seek the Treasurer’s approval for the payments to be approved as ex gratia payments…

“In June 2012 the Treasurer retrospectively ratified these payments and up to $300,000 of further expenditure by DPTI on behalf of AOSMA.”

Having tidied up the books relating to the $1.965 million and a further ex gratia allowance of $300,000, it appears the lines were breached again.

[Bulls forever]

Foo fighters tried to skip Adelaide but ended up squeezing in a gig at Thebby due to public pressure

The promoter underestimated the Adelaide Audience for that tour...

IIRC Dave said that would never happen again........


Does any one else get the feeling that cricket is going to get shafted in all of this. AFL Football is not even there yet and SACA is already being forced to look at alternatives for the biggest First Class game played in this City since 1996.

Heater, steady on, firstly we need to qualify for final, then the right to host it. Don't get me wrong I love Adelaide Oval, but not being a heritage person, love what they are doing. They spent $20 mil bringing two Pandas here for however many years, so this was me time, being a member and looking to enjoy both sports in what will arguably be the best stadium, with a bit of grass in Aus. I am not a Board person, but they will look after the big cricket events which are Aussie and Strikers games whether we like it or not. If we get the chance to host a Shield Final, I will be all for looking after the 37 people that regularly attend Shield games, chaffeur them to the game, give them a corporate tent, free piss, whatever, but no sympathy for those that will attend, should we make the final without seeing a ball bowled all year. Play it at St Peters college if you still want heritage, couldn't get a better setting in world cricket I reckon.

[dedja]

The numbers don't look like they stack up ... who'd have thunk it?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6592730178

THE Crows and Port Adelaide fear escalating Adelaide Oval management costs will eat into their future profits, eroding a key reason for switching to the new stadium.

The Oval's new administration - the Stadium Management Authority - is ballooning from a $2 million operation to needing as much as $9m annually with 75 staff to manage the venue.

By comparison, the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs combined are to make an extra $8m on entry to the new Adelaide Oval next year when compared to returns at AAMI Stadium.

The SMA's need for more money is measured by its grab of the premium tickets at the Oval - the exclusive "Stadium Club" memberships.

The SMA originally was to take 600 of the 1455 "Stadium Club" memberships that sell at $4500 and offer the best seats, best dining options and car parking at Adelaide Oval.

The SMA has now has claimed 1000 of these elite memberships. The difference of 400 seats adds $1.8m to the SMA's coffers - money the Crows and Power want to boost their returns from the Oval.

Both Port and the Crows are mystified as to why the SMA has grown into a $9m body.

Power chief executive Keith Thomas said yesterday: "The original Adelaide Oval model put to us in 2009 was for a lean SMA to maximise the returns to the sports playing on the new Oval, in particular footy. We're asking why has that changed?"

Crows chairman Rob Chapman added: "The original intent was for a lean SMA that managed the Oval and its precinct - and maximised the return to football and cricket. That was always the intention.

"There must be fairness and equity in how money is distributed at Adelaide Oval."

SMA chief executive Andrew Daniels was at meetings in Melbourne yesterday and unavailable for comment.

The authority told The Advertiser: "There is pressure on the SMA to deliver a lean stadium management model - and a great product at the Oval."

Chapman on Wednesday for the first time took suspended Crows chief executive Steven Trigg's seat at the joint SMA meetings and argues "common sense can prevail" on the carve up of Adelaide Oval's returns.

"We reached a compromise on one key issue on Wednesday because there is goodwill and good relationships between all the parties," he said.

"I'm still confident we can get the right outcomes. But there is a long way to go."

The major intent of football's return to the city - after setting up AAMI Stadium at West Lakes in 1974 - was to generate more money for both the Crows and Power so the AFL clubs would move from the bottom half of AFL stadia return to the top quarter.

Adelaide's non-negotiable stance on leaving AAMI Stadium was Adelaide Oval had to deliver a $3m uplift in returns - a figure met in the 2009 projections.

The 2009 figures were based on the new Oval delivering more fans, more members and more sponsors than at AAMI Stadium where there has been a recent downturn in all these categories.

But Thomas says the 2009 budgets sold to the Crows and Power no longer stack up in 2014 and need to be re-assessed before the clubs sign 20-year leases at the Oval.

The AFL clubs may need as much as an extra $3m from the Oval in 2014 to keep pace with their interstate rivals.

"Three years after those original numbers were put to us, they now look insufficient," he said.

"Adelaide Oval can produce money to meet everyone's needs. But we need an open mind on how that money is distributed."

The biggest problem for the two SA-based AFL clubs in this debate is having no direct representation on the SMA.

The authority has eight directors - four appointed by the SANFL and four by the SA Cricket Association, the original leaseholder of the Oval from the Adelaide City Council.

There is no AFL representative. There is no appointee from the State Government which is pumping more than $500m into the redevelopment of the Oval and its precinct.

Baulderstone in October, 2011, was awarded the construction contract to redevelop Adelaide Oval - a $535 million State Government project expected to be completed for the start of next year's AFL season.

The SMA, however, is answerable to the government on construction issues at the Oval.

The blind point for the Crows and Power is not having a seat on the SMA is being denied transparency on how the authority operates - and how it manages the overheads at Adelaide Oval.

[UK Fan]

The numbers don't look like they stack up ... who'd have thunk it?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6592730178

THE Crows and Port Adelaide fear escalating Adelaide Oval management costs will eat into their future profits, eroding a key reason for switching to the new stadium.

The Oval's new administration - the Stadium Management Authority - is ballooning from a $2 million operation to needing as much as $9m annually with 75 staff to manage the venue.

By comparison, the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs combined are to make an extra $8m on entry to the new Adelaide Oval next year when compared to returns at AAMI Stadium.

The SMA's need for more money is measured by its grab of the premium tickets at the Oval - the exclusive "Stadium Club" memberships.

The SMA originally was to take 600 of the 1455 "Stadium Club" memberships that sell at $4500 and offer the best seats, best dining options and car parking at Adelaide Oval.

The SMA has now has claimed 1000 of these elite memberships. The difference of 400 seats adds $1.8m to the SMA's coffers - money the Crows and Power want to boost their returns from the Oval.

Both Port and the Crows are mystified as to why the SMA has grown into a $9m body.

Power chief executive Keith Thomas said yesterday: "The original Adelaide Oval model put to us in 2009 was for a lean SMA to maximise the returns to the sports playing on the new Oval, in particular footy. We're asking why has that changed?"

Crows chairman Rob Chapman added: "The original intent was for a lean SMA that managed the Oval and its precinct - and maximised the return to football and cricket. That was always the intention.

"There must be fairness and equity in how money is distributed at Adelaide Oval."

SMA chief executive Andrew Daniels was at meetings in Melbourne yesterday and unavailable for comment.

The authority told The Advertiser: "There is pressure on the SMA to deliver a lean stadium management model - and a great product at the Oval."

Chapman on Wednesday for the first time took suspended Crows chief executive Steven Trigg's seat at the joint SMA meetings and argues "common sense can prevail" on the carve up of Adelaide Oval's returns.

"We reached a compromise on one key issue on Wednesday because there is goodwill and good relationships between all the parties," he said.

"I'm still confident we can get the right outcomes. But there is a long way to go."

The major intent of football's return to the city - after setting up AAMI Stadium at West Lakes in 1974 - was to generate more money for both the Crows and Power so the AFL clubs would move from the bottom half of AFL stadia return to the top quarter.

Adelaide's non-negotiable stance on leaving AAMI Stadium was Adelaide Oval had to deliver a $3m uplift in returns - a figure met in the 2009 projections.

The 2009 figures were based on the new Oval delivering more fans, more members and more sponsors than at AAMI Stadium where there has been a recent downturn in all these categories.

But Thomas says the 2009 budgets sold to the Crows and Power no longer stack up in 2014 and need to be re-assessed before the clubs sign 20-year leases at the Oval.

The AFL clubs may need as much as an extra $3m from the Oval in 2014 to keep pace with their interstate rivals.

"Three years after those original numbers were put to us, they now look insufficient," he said.

"Adelaide Oval can produce money to meet everyone's needs. But we need an open mind on how that money is distributed."

The biggest problem for the two SA-based AFL clubs in this debate is having no direct representation on the SMA.

The authority has eight directors - four appointed by the SANFL and four by the SA Cricket Association, the original leaseholder of the Oval from the Adelaide City Council.

There is no AFL representative. There is no appointee from the State Government which is pumping more than $500m into the redevelopment of the Oval and its precinct.

Baulderstone in October, 2011, was awarded the construction contract to redevelop Adelaide Oval - a $535 million State Government project expected to be completed for the start of next year's AFL season.

The SMA, however, is answerable to the government on construction issues at the Oval.

The blind point for the Crows and Power is not having a seat on the SMA is being denied transparency on how the authority operates - and how it manages the overheads at Adelaide Oval.

Hahaha!!

Some people are so stupid it's funny.

Thankyou Renault for the justification.

Isn't this thread about to grow legs.

[RustyCage]

too many snouts in the trough

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/11.29.2012.pigs_.jpg