Reasons to Vote "NO"

[heater31]

I have no issue with footy park as a stadium but I have issues with getting there and home again with out going insane

[Lightning McQueen]

Interesting may-z

My first preference would be to leave AO and build new roof stadium in west pArklands.

Do you believe if the opposition was elected they could come through with a new stadium?

I don't so guess I'm looking for the band aid solution.
Something needs to change though the lower crowds is because AAMI is a hole.

Can I ask why you think it's a hole??

[Dutchy]

Well Adelaide has lost the Rugby 7's, to the Gold Coast......

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-loses-world-series-to-gold-coast/story-fn34oii8-1226038376199

They knew they had no chance of getting AO during April when footy has it

[Dutchy]

Interesting may-z

My first preference would be to leave AO and build new roof stadium in west pArklands.

Do you believe if the opposition was elected they could come through with a new stadium?

I don't so guess I'm looking for the band aid solution.
Something needs to change though the lower crowds is because AAMI is a hole.

Go ahead with AO and we wont get another shot at a 2nd stadium, we will be stuck with one and this will ensure we miss major events.

Say No to Adel Oval and other options will be looked at...

[MAY-Z]

Interesting may-z

My first preference would be to leave AO and build new roof stadium in west pArklands.

Do you believe if the opposition was elected they could come through with a new stadium?

I don't so guess I'm looking for the band aid solution.
Something needs to change though the lower crowds is because AAMI is a hole.

Really if your a true fan you will go watch your team play anywhere, and to be honest you spend the majority of your day in a seat, the seats arent that bad!!

thats it - tehre has been so much money spent improving the satdium becuase teh crowds kept saying tis is what they wanted
the bucket seats, the northern stand the replay screens, better and free public transport links and depsite this teh crowds have still fallen

who is to say that the footy fans wont feel the same at adelaide?

[Lightning McQueen]

thats it - tehre has been so much money spent improving the satdium becuase teh crowds kept saying tis is what they wanted
the bucket seats, the northern stand the replay screens, better and free public transport links and depsite this teh crowds have still fallen

who is to say that the footy fans wont feel the same at adelaide?

Do you think prices, the economy and playing times might have something to do with the attendance drops, oh, perhaps the fact that both Adelaide teams have had moderate success in the past few seasons might play a part too.

[whufc]

thats it - tehre has been so much money spent improving the satdium becuase teh crowds kept saying tis is what they wanted
the bucket seats, the northern stand the replay screens, better and free public transport links and depsite this teh crowds have still fallen

who is to say that the footy fans wont feel the same at adelaide?

Do you think prices, the economy and playing times might have something to do with the attendance drops, oh, perhaps the fact that both Adelaide teams have had moderate success in the past few seasons might play a part too.

Your probably right,

the exact same things will be a factor with a re-developed adelaide oval.

A re-developed Adelaide Oval does not automatically mean larger football crowds.

[Footy Smart]

thats it - tehre has been so much money spent improving the satdium becuase teh crowds kept saying tis is what they wanted
the bucket seats, the northern stand the replay screens, better and free public transport links and depsite this teh crowds have still fallen

who is to say that the footy fans wont feel the same at adelaide?

Do you think prices, the economy and playing times might have something to do with the attendance drops, oh, perhaps the fact that both Adelaide teams have had moderate success in the past few seasons might play a part too.

Your probably right,

the exact same things will be a factor with a re-developed adelaide oval.

A re-developed Adelaide Oval does not automatically mean larger football crowds.

Exactly, and currentl public transport goes right to the gate of AAAMII i cant see that happening straight away at AO. Still if you catch the bus/train to the city its a fair walk to the oval.

[Gingernuts]

thats it - tehre has been so much money spent improving the satdium becuase teh crowds kept saying tis is what they wanted
the bucket seats, the northern stand the replay screens, better and free public transport links and depsite this teh crowds have still fallen

who is to say that the footy fans wont feel the same at adelaide?

Do you think prices, the economy and playing times might have something to do with the attendance drops, oh, perhaps the fact that both Adelaide teams have had moderate success in the past few seasons might play a part too.

Your probably right,

the exact same things will be a factor with a re-developed adelaide oval.

A re-developed Adelaide Oval does not automatically mean larger football crowds.

BUT - it means more people in the city, spending more money in bars, cafes, pubs and restaurants, and creating a more vibrant capital city.

This debate to me is about how a public facility can be best used to maximise community and economic benefit. Unfortunately this overall aim frequently get's lost in a black hole of historical differences, conservatism, and scaremongering.

[Lightning McQueen]

Exactly, and currentl public transport goes right to the gate of AAAMII i cant see that happening straight away at AO. Still if you catch the bus/train to the city its a fair walk to the oval.

Living near Gawler there is no way in the world that I'd catch two modes of public transport to get to West Lakes, it usually costs my work $160 to get me to AAMI and back, I would consider catching a train to the CDB though.

[MAY-Z]

thats it - tehre has been so much money spent improving the satdium becuase teh crowds kept saying tis is what they wanted
the bucket seats, the northern stand the replay screens, better and free public transport links and depsite this teh crowds have still fallen

who is to say that the footy fans wont feel the same at adelaide?

Do you think prices, the economy and playing times might have something to do with the attendance drops, oh, perhaps the fact that both Adelaide teams have had moderate success in the past few seasons might play a part too.

Your probably right,

the exact same things will be a factor with a re-developed adelaide oval.

A re-developed Adelaide Oval does not automatically mean larger football crowds.

BUT - it means more people in the city, spending more money in bars, cafes, pubs and restaurants, and creating a more vibrant capital city.
This debate to me is about how a public facility can be best used to maximise community and economic benefit. Unfortunately this overall aim frequently get's lost in a black hole of historical differences, conservatism, and scaremongering.

but this is a debateable point in itself - as was mentioned in teh private stadiums public money book in teh US this didnt really happen as people only have so much money to spend.

people dont suddenly have more money in their wallet because the game is at adelaide oval

[Hondo]

Go ahead with AO and we wont get another shot at a 2nd stadium, we will be stuck with one and this will ensure we miss major events.

Say No to Adel Oval and other options will be looked at...

Things have changed since the Liberals went into the last election promising that new stadium. Mainly the new RAH now committed to which was where the Libs were going to find the spare money for their stadium (savings from redeveloping the old RAH instead). As a direct switch from Health to Sport that would have been an interesting debate on the use of public monies based on what we have seen in this thread.

The state budget seems to have worsened since then too.

So, while the option remains open it's a case of how long do we wait and how much money is it worth letting go from the POV of the State, SACA & the SANFL by maintaining the 2 current stadiums in the meantime given that one needs major infrastructure works (transport and stands). OK we delay $535m but how long does that last if we need to reinvest into AAMI and force both organisations to maintain their own ovals as they are.

It's a whole different debate I know but I don't believe the new CBD Stadium will directly follow from a NO vote in the near future and I don't believe the AFL will wait that long with dwindling Crows and Power crowds at AAMI.

[whufc]

Do you think prices, the economy and playing times might have something to do with the attendance drops, oh, perhaps the fact that both Adelaide teams have had moderate success in the past few seasons might play a part too.[/quote]

Your probably right,

the exact same things will be a factor with a re-developed adelaide oval.

A re-developed Adelaide Oval does not automatically mean larger football crowds.[/quote]

BUT - it means more people in the city, spending more money in bars, cafes, pubs and restaurants, and creating a more vibrant capital city.
This debate to me is about how a public facility can be best used to maximise community and economic benefit. Unfortunately this overall aim frequently get's lost in a black hole of historical differences, conservatism, and scaremongering.[/quote]

but this is a debateable point in itself - as was mentioned in teh private stadiums public money book in teh US this didnt really happen as people only have so much money to spend.

people dont suddenly have more money in their wallet because the game is at adelaide oval[/quote]

with the cost of entry/food/drinks etc etc the average family wont be able to afford a meal at an inner city cafe or pub.

add to that alot of people go to the football purely for the football and arent interested in the entertainment aspect in the city.

to be honest i think its a very small portion of people who will wine and dine in the city before and after games

[Ecky]

BUT - it means more people in the city, spending more money in bars, cafes, pubs and restaurants, and creating a more vibrant capital city.
This debate to me is about how a public facility can be best used to maximise community and economic benefit. Unfortunately this overall aim frequently get's lost in a black hole of historical differences, conservatism, and scaremongering.

but this is a debateable point in itself - as was mentioned in teh private stadiums public money book in teh US this didnt really happen as people only have so much money to spend.

people dont suddenly have more money in their wallet because the game is at adelaide oval

It could well mean less money, as the government has to find the $535million++++++++++ from somewhere. Plus you need to factor in the revenue lost from West Lakes.

Plus how many people will spend money in the city before or after a 12:40 Sunday AFL game? We aren't likely to get any more than 2 Friday night games a season, and this is the vision most people have - a Federation Square style atmosphere with people everywhere spending money, but we will never have the population, or the footy fanaticism or atmosphere there is in Melbourne.
The people and money don't suddenly appear out of nowhere.

So why not focus on preserving what Adelaide is famous for and what we SHOULD be proud of - the best cricket ground in the world, instead of potentially ruining it. Instead everyone thinks that the grass is always greener on the other side and we need to compete against Sydney and Melbourne and somehow be better or as good as them, however that is defined...

[Dutchy]

Go ahead with AO and we wont get another shot at a 2nd stadium, we will be stuck with one and this will ensure we miss major events.

Say No to Adel Oval and other options will be looked at...

Things have changed since the Liberals went into the last election promising that new stadium. Mainly the new RAH now committed to which was where the Libs were going to find the spare money for their stadium (savings from redeveloping the old RAH instead). As a direct switch from Health to Sport that would have been an interesting debate on the use of public monies based on what we have seen in this thread.

The state budget seems to have worsened since then too.

So, while the option remains open it's a case of how long do we wait and how much money is it worth letting go from the POV of the State, SACA & the SANFL by maintaining the 2 current stadiums in the meantime given that one needs major infrastructure works (transport and stands). OK we delay $535m but how long does that last if we need to reinvest into AAMI and force both organisations to maintain their own ovals as they are.

It's a whole different debate I know but I don't believe the new CBD Stadium will directly follow from a NO vote in the near future and I don't believe the AFL will wait that long with dwindling Crows and Power crowds at AAMI.

Labor havent considered other options and a No vote would make them do this, cant tell me AAMI cant be used for another 10/15 years while we make the right decision not just a knee jerk one.

[smac]

Knee jerk? 18 months of planning that is known publicly, is hardly knee jerk.

[whufc]

Knee jerk? 18 months of planning that is known publicly, is hardly knee jerk.

yet they still cant answer pretty basic questions

[Ecky]

Knee jerk? 18 months of planning that is known publicly, is hardly knee jerk.

Then why are there so many questions which the SACA haven't (and presumably are unable to) give us answers for?

Still no response from the SACA after 6 days to ANY of our questions, and we haven't even started on the car parking issue, which is a long way from being settled, as seen by the article in yesterday's Advertiser.

[pipers]

Iain Evans has cred in this debate being a huge cricket tragic and his son plays SANFL.

Terrible umpire though.

[Gingernuts]

BUT - it means more people in the city, spending more money in bars, cafes, pubs and restaurants, and creating a more vibrant capital city.
This debate to me is about how a public facility can be best used to maximise community and economic benefit. Unfortunately this overall aim frequently get's lost in a black hole of historical differences, conservatism, and scaremongering.

but this is a debateable point in itself - as was mentioned in teh private stadiums public money book in teh US this didnt really happen as people only have so much money to spend.

people dont suddenly have more money in their wallet because the game is at adelaide oval

It could well mean less money, as the government has to find the $535million++++++++++ from somewhere. Plus you need to factor in the revenue lost from West Lakes.

Plus how many people will spend money in the city before or after a 12:40 Sunday AFL game? We aren't likely to get any more than 2 Friday night games a season, and this is the vision most people have - a Federation Square style atmosphere with people everywhere spending money, but we will never have the population, or the footy fanaticism or atmosphere there is in Melbourne.
The people and money don't suddenly appear out of nowhere.

So why not focus on preserving what Adelaide is famous for and what we SHOULD be proud of - the best cricket ground in the world, instead of potentially ruining it. Instead everyone thinks that the grass is always greener on the other side and we need to compete against Sydney and Melbourne and somehow be better or as good as them, however that is defined...

I never said anything about trying to be like Melbourne. I think it's about maximising the best of Adelaide. Who wouldn't want to catch the bus in with the kids on a Sunday, catch a game of footy, then trundle up to Nth Terrace to the museum and art gallery, and maybe grab some tea down Rundle St or somewhere in Nth Adelaide. Sounds like a great day out to me.

You're right too, Adelaide Oval is on of the best sporting arenas in the world, I totally agree with you. So then tell me - why should we limit it's use for top level sport to just a few times a year? Just doesn't make sense to me.