Reasons to Vote "NO"

[whufc]

Since 2006, both clubs have had sliding attendances at AAMI Stadium. Crows home attendances have fallen every year, from an average of 42,455 in 2006 to 35,766 last season. Power home crowds have not averaged more than 30,000 since 2006 and fell to a record low of 23,044 last year.

just to bring up the attnedances again

why do we need a 50,000+ seat stadium - based on last season the crows would need a 40% increase on the average crowd to get to 50,000 and the power a 116% increase.

surely these are not feasable targets thereofre all the financial modelling about how much money that will bring to the city is way out of line

thats what i dont get, we currently have AAMI which holds 50K and gets sold out once a year if we are lucky, yet they want to spend millions of dollars upgrading another ground to 50K and we will still only sell out 1-2 a year depending on how well the Crows are going.

People who think we will start getting crowds of 35-40K for Port games if they move to the city are sadly mistaken imho.

[Hondo]

Most Crows games are sold out or very close to it. It's no-shows of up to 10,000 per game that drag the final attendance figure down. I am all for a refresh of the membership base so that those that have become bored with going or whatever their excuse is can be swapped for some new blood who are prepared to get out there to games.

I don't think Port will need or expect 35-40,000 people at their games to make a hell of a lot more money than they do now. 25,000 would probably be enough. However, I don't want to debate Port's break even point on attendance.

Back to the discussion, you've got to have the 50,000 seat stadium because we know it will fill up for the right games during the season and definitely for finals.

[White Line Fever]

The vote SACA makes will have no bearing in what eventually ends up happening.

It's just a consultation process to see where they stand.

Once the big guns weigh in ... Federal Government , State Government, AFL, SANFL & SACA ... who ALL want it, then it will happen.

Then in 5-10 years time we can decide if we want another second stadium.
SACA members come down from Cloud 9

that is the stupidist comment i have read from anyone about this topic

so you are proposing that 535 million dollars get spent on 14,000 seats then in a few years tim you want another probably $600-$700,000 spent on a brand new stadium?

Take your tunnel vision glasses off.

It's not about 14000 more seats its about an entire precinct in the city, footbridges, lifestyle, going to dinner, more people through the doors.
Did Melbourne not re-do the Southern stand @MCG & build Etihad at the same time?
Look bigger MAY-Z.

While I agree it is highly unlikely as we can't even get one off the ground but we should always be going forward, developing, improving not just sit on our hands and say let's do nothing and IF we can do something in 5-10 years lets do it then.

[MAY-Z]

Take your tunnel vision glasses off.

It's not about 14000 more seats its about an entire precinct in the city, footbridges, lifestyle, going to dinner, more people through the doors.
Did Melbourne not re-do the Southern stand @MCG & build Etihad at the same time?
Look bigger MAY-Z.

While I agree it is highly unlikely as we can't even get one off the ground but we should always be going forward, developing, improving not just sit on our hands and say let's do nothing and IF we can do something in 5-10 years lets do it then.

you can have all those lifestyles at a new stadium, as has been said before melbourne is a completely market to adelaide so to spend $535million 1 year then spend it all again and more a couple years later makes absolutely no financial sense at all

[whufc]

The vote SACA makes will have no bearing in what eventually ends up happening.

It's just a consultation process to see where they stand.

Once the big guns weigh in ... Federal Government , State Government, AFL, SANFL & SACA ... who ALL want it, then it will happen.

Then in 5-10 years time we can decide if we want another second stadium.
SACA members come down from Cloud 9

that is the stupidist comment i have read from anyone about this topic

so you are proposing that 535 million dollars get spent on 14,000 seats then in a few years tim you want another probably $600-$700,000 spent on a brand new stadium?

Take your tunnel vision glasses off.

It's not about 14000 more seats its about an entire precinct in the city, footbridges, lifestyle, going to dinner, more people through the doors.
Did Melbourne not re-do the Southern stand @MCG & build Etihad at the same time?
Look bigger MAY-Z.

While I agree it is highly unlikely as we can't even get one off the ground but we should always be going forward, developing, improving not just sit on our hands and say let's do nothing and IF we can do something in 5-10 years lets do it then.

so we are building a 50k stadium in the city so the crows fans can have a precinct to go to, there is no reason the Power couldnt play selected games at Adelaide Oval as it currently stands and cricket games arent going to get any larger crowds than they did this summer no matter what you put around the ground.

[Hondo]

May-Z the thing is the current location of the AO is the ideal location for the new stadium in terms of developing the riverfront around North Terrace and KW Street. Anywhere else doesn't achieve the same benefit IMO. Now the railyards are gone where does this new stadium go? At the old RAH site? Bonython Park? Imagine fighting with the parkland preservation society compared to the SACA members!

[whufc]

May-Z the thing is the current location of the AO is the ideal location for the new stadium in terms of developing the riverfront around North Terrace and KW Street. Anywhere else doesn't achieve the same benefit IMO. Now the railyards are gone where does this new stadium go? At the old RAH site? Bonython Park? Imagine fighting with the parkland preservation society compared to the SACA members!

very true, i guess thats why this debate topic becomes even more challenging.

has there been an official decision on what will happen to AAMI if the redevelpoment goes ahead.

My biggest fear is that they will keep AAMI as a reduced capacity stadium like 25K and then essentially all you have done is reverse the 2 stadiums capacities and its cost 500M to do so.

For me if the redevelopment goes ahead then AAMI should be completely knocked down and sold for land to help fund the redevelopment, things such as the big screen could then be used at AO,

Adelaide has alot more important things/issues that 500M could be spent on.

[Hondo]

so we are building a 50k stadium in the city so the crows fans can have a precinct to go to

No, we aren't building a new stadium. We are renovating an existing stadium in a prime CBD location. Same as has happened at Subiaco, the MCG, the SCG and the Gabba. We aren't breaking the seal on original ideas by renovating the AO here. On your reasoning why did the Vic Govt upgrade the MCG?

Were you against the many millions that were spent on the G and will be spent again soon replacing a stand they built only 20 years ago?

[whufc]

so we are building a 50k stadium in the city so the crows fans can have a precinct to go to

No, we aren't building a new stadium. We are renovating an existing stadium in a prime CBD location. Same as has happened at Subiaco, the MCG, the SCG and the Gabba. We aren't breaking the seal on original ideas by renovating the AO here. On your reasoning why did the Vic Govt upgrade the MCG?

Were you against the many millions that were spent on the G and will be spent again soon replacing a stand they built only 20 years ago?

Sorry i used the wrong term, my mistake

im not a 100% for the G redevelopment only difference being is they have a world quality transport system in place already as well as inner city infrastructure that makes Adelaide look like we are still living in the 60's

[Hondo]

has there been an official decision on what will happen to AAMI if the redevelpoment goes ahead.

My biggest fear is that they will keep AAMI as a reduced capacity stadium like 25K and then essentially all you have done is reverse the 2 stadiums capacities and its cost 500M to do so.

For me if the redevelopment goes ahead then AAMI should be completely knocked down and sold for land to help fund the redevelopment, things such as the big screen could then be used at AO,

Based on plans released by the SANFL, AAMI Stadium will be all but knocked down and turned into parklands. To protect the investment the SANFL made in the early 70s (using their own money) the property will be put to commercial use as a future fund for footy in this state. That's completely reasonable IMO. The SANFL need the money (this helps all SANFL clubs including your own CDFC) and there's no sensible reason I can see why they have to now donate that entire asset they worked so hard for back to the government.

TBH, I would have preferred that a smaller stadium be retained out there to help with the cricket/footy season cross-over time.

[MAY-Z]

has there been an official decision on what will happen to AAMI if the redevelpoment goes ahead.

My biggest fear is that they will keep AAMI as a reduced capacity stadium like 25K and then essentially all you have done is reverse the 2 stadiums capacities and its cost 500M to do so.

For me if the redevelopment goes ahead then AAMI should be completely knocked down and sold for land to help fund the redevelopment, things such as the big screen could then be used at AO,

Based on plans released by the SANFL, AAMI Stadium will be all but knocked down and turned into parklands. To protect the investment the SANFL made in the early 70s (using their own money) the property will be put to commercial use as a future fund for footy in this state. That's completely reasonable IMO. The SANFL need the money (this helps all SANFL clubs including your own CDFC) and there's no sensible reason I can see why they have to now donate that entire asset they worked so hard for back to the government.

so the government has never put any funds into aami stadium?

[whufc]

Where does location of stadium sit in importance for you when attending sport, for me my importance is

1. The Event
2. The Time/Date
3. The Cost (entry/food)
4. Parking Availabilty
5. Inner Stadium Facilites
6. Weather
7. Location

That is why i travel to the G more times a year than i will travel to AO and AAMI combined.

I would much rather see 200M spent on AAMI stadiums inner facilites and the rest spent on WAY MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAN SPORT

[whufc]

has there been an official decision on what will happen to AAMI if the redevelpoment goes ahead.

My biggest fear is that they will keep AAMI as a reduced capacity stadium like 25K and then essentially all you have done is reverse the 2 stadiums capacities and its cost 500M to do so.

For me if the redevelopment goes ahead then AAMI should be completely knocked down and sold for land to help fund the redevelopment, things such as the big screen could then be used at AO,

Based on plans released by the SANFL, AAMI Stadium will be all but knocked down and turned into parklands. To protect the investment the SANFL made in the early 70s (using their own money) the property will be put to commercial use as a future fund for footy in this state. That's completely reasonable IMO. The SANFL need the money (this helps all SANFL clubs including your own CDFC) and there's no sensible reason I can see why they have to now donate that entire asset they worked so hard for back to the government.

TBH, I would have preferred that a smaller stadium be retained out there to help with the cricket/footy season cross-over time.

So you would keep a smaller stadium out at West Lakes that would be used for less than 1 month a year and have attendences of no more than 25K. WOW!!!!

[Hondo]

so the government has never put any funds into aami stadium?

Yes, they have

Did the SACA buy the land at AO?

I see the SANFL and SACA being about even so far on Govt contributions to their stadiums however the SANFL went one step further than the SACA and actually purchased land of their own and built their own stadium in the 1970s. Now you say they have to donate it back to the people of the state? Why?

On that argument the SACA should find $200m of their own and they both pay for the uprade. What will a $200m OUT of the SANFL and the SACA do to their financial positions?

It's too much to ask either organisation to do which is why Governments invest in these type of projects. Again, I refer you to the MCG upgrades as an example. This AO project is not a brand new idea.

[White Line Fever]

so we are building a 50k stadium in the city so the crows fans can have a precinct to go to

No, we aren't building a new stadium. We are renovating an existing stadium in a prime CBD location. Same as has happened at Subiaco, the MCG, the SCG and the Gabba. We aren't breaking the seal on original ideas by renovating the AO here. On your reasoning why did the Vic Govt upgrade the MCG?

Were you against the many millions that were spent on the G and will be spent again soon replacing a stand they built only 20 years ago?

Sorry i used the wrong term, my mistake

im not a 100% for the G redevelopment only difference being is they have a world quality transport system in place already as well as inner city infrastructure that makes Adelaide look like we are still living in the 60's

and not upgrading the AO will help this how?

[Hondo]

So you would keep a smaller stadium out at West Lakes that would be used for less than 1 month a year and have attendences of no more than 25K. WOW!!!!

That was the original idea put out by the SANFL but I guess the SANFL have since done their numbers on it and agree with you.

In fact, they would probably be better off doing a small upgrade as necessary on a current suburban SANFL ground.

Adelaide Oval number 2 is apparently getting an upgrade of some kind if this proposal goes ahead.

[White Line Fever]

Take your tunnel vision glasses off.

It's not about 14000 more seats its about an entire precinct in the city, footbridges, lifestyle, going to dinner, more people through the doors.
Did Melbourne not re-do the Southern stand @MCG & build Etihad at the same time?
Look bigger MAY-Z.

While I agree it is highly unlikely as we can't even get one off the ground but we should always be going forward, developing, improving not just sit on our hands and say let's do nothing and IF we can do something in 5-10 years lets do it then.

you can have all those lifestyles at a new stadium, as has been said before melbourne is a completely market to adelaide so to spend $535million 1 year then spend it all again and more a couple years later makes absolutely no financial sense at all

Are you worried more about $$ or losing SACA member privileges?
What angle are you representing the NO vote from?

[whufc]

so we are building a 50k stadium in the city so the crows fans can have a precinct to go to

No, we aren't building a new stadium. We are renovating an existing stadium in a prime CBD location. Same as has happened at Subiaco, the MCG, the SCG and the Gabba. We aren't breaking the seal on original ideas by renovating the AO here. On your reasoning why did the Vic Govt upgrade the MCG?

Were you against the many millions that were spent on the G and will be spent again soon replacing a stand they built only 20 years ago?

Sorry i used the wrong term, my mistake

im not a 100% for the G redevelopment only difference being is they have a world quality transport system in place already as well as inner city infrastructure that makes Adelaide look like we are still living in the 60's

and not upgrading the AO will help this how?

Adelaide Oval is fine, its a great ground, Adelaide's transport system on the other hand LOL

[whufc]

So you would keep a smaller stadium out at West Lakes that would be used for less than 1 month a year and have attendences of no more than 25K. WOW!!!!

That was the original idea put out by the SANFL but I guess the SANFL have since done their numbers on it and agree with you.

In fact, they would probably be better off doing a small upgrade as necessary on a current suburban SANFL ground.

Adelaide Oval number 2 is apparently getting an upgrade of some kind if this proposal goes ahead.

thats most definatly not the stupidest idea i have heard in a long time, off the top of my head would think Norwood/Glenelg would be the 2 most viable options.

[smac]

However; the members need some reason to vote yes or no on those constitutional changes. SACA do not want to be in the stadium management business and are asking members to allow this. Why would you? For the long term benefit of cricket in this state. See my previous post for some of this, see your members pack for all of the info. The agreements are waiting on the vote - a yes vote will bind the SANFL to Adelaide Oval as well as the Govt funding (election is too far off for it to matter).

so you are saying that if teh members vote no there will be no cricket in this state?

i see the saca are saying they will save around $18 million a year in repayments and will spend this money on grass roots cricket, now if the saca gave each grade club $1 million per year of the $18million so that each club could basically employ full time grade cricketers and effectively have the best 150 or so grade cricketers available playing in our comp then that would be a massive benefit for sa cricket but we all know that wont happen.

No, where did I say that? But the facts are that cricket in SA could utilise those funds to improve every aspect of cricket, from assisting Kadina CC to improve facilities to assisting Kangaroo Island in establishing a cricket academy with its own facility to improving the coaching and training facilities of the Redbacks and Scorpions.

Continually focussing in on Grade Cricket will not improve cricket in SA, it will detract from junior participation and development programs that create the base for Grade Cricket to live from. Grade Cricket will benefit, but giving 5% of the cricketers all of the funding is dangerous.