by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:38 pm
saca answers in brackets
1 - What is the estimated total budget for the estimated entire budget for the project?
(The Budget for the Oval redevelopment is $535 million. This does not include the pedestrian bridge or any works in the River Precinct.)
2 - How was this budget determined, and how confident are the projections?
(A lot of detailed work has been done on the design and construction of the stands and other parts of the redevelopment. If the Members vote in favour of the development allowing it to proceed, more work, including a tendering process and further value engineering will be undertaken to ensure the work is within Budget.)
3 - What exactly does the above budget include? Does it include all of the oval upgrade, River
Torrens crossings and precinct areas etc?
(See the answer to 1 above.)
4 - What happens if the budget exceeds the money that the state government have offered for the project, especially as they have said that they will contribute no more than the $535 million I believe and the SACA and SANFL have said they will not contribute any more funds to the project.
(The State Government is not only funding the project but is undertaking the build itself and therefore will ultimately control the final budget.)
5 - If in point 3 the answer is private funds how is the repayment of funds going to be managed? Do the private investors get precedence on funds over the SMA/SACA/SANFL? For instance last season The Kings of Leon concert clashed with a domestic game of cricket and the concert was moved. Would this happen with private investors involved who would clearly see a bigger return in
having the concert as opposed to the domestic cricket?
(See above.)
6 - How much say will the private investors have in the running of the oval? If it is their money being used they will want a reasonable return on their investment so can they enforce more profitable oval use age/design by altering grandstands or pushing for more development on the northern mound?
(See above.)
7 - It is said numerous times that the savings on the loan repayments will be spent on cricket
development in South Australia. How much of the $18 million will be spent on game development
and in what areas will it be spent?
(Those detailed plans have not yet been made for two reasons: the first is that we do not yet know if the redevelopment will go ahead and the second is that SACA will make sure a detailed strategic plan is developed so that any money spent creates the best possible return for cricket. We are looking at improving facilities for clubs etc around the state, putting more resources into coaching around the state from grassroots to elite levels, creating regional centres and schools programmes. But as I said, this detailed work will be done once it is known that the money will be available. It is worth remembering that SACA is a not for profit organisation that exists to promote and develop the game of cricket in South Australia and to look after the interests of its Members. Therefore the focus of the association’s efforts will continue to be in these areas. If the proposal goes ahead the difference will be that SACA will not have to take as much time dealing with the day to day running of a venue, ie the Oval.)
8 - Does our membership in the new world entitle us to entry into the next cricket world cup or will
we simply get priority booking options?
(My understanding is that our memberships would not include the cricket world cup. This is controlled by the ICC and normally has separate ticketing.)
9 - Whether it is fair that 5000 SANFL members will be able to purchase these ultimate AO memberships and gain admittance to the members area during cricket season
1) ahead of any people on the SACA members waiting list and
2) without paying the SACA joining fee (currently $299)
(The AO Ultimate product is based the findings of research among football and cricket members and the number is based on the anticipated demand.. SACA believes the increased capacity of the venue and the increased size of the Members’ Enclosure will continue to provide opportunities to increase the Membership over time.)
10 - Shield Final - still no guarantee it would be held at Adel Oval, we would have to negotiate with SANFL/AFL, I cant see that going well in early March leading into a footy season. This is a potential deal breaker IMO, why couldnt they agree that if SA qualified they could extend crickets rights to the oval for the 5 days required? This alone is likely to get many members offside.
(For the clash to occur, Cricket Australia would have to agree in advance with the AFL to schedule the Shield final and the opening round of the AFL on the same weekend. It is in the interests of neither to do so….and indeed if they did, the same problem would exist just about everywhere….MCG, SCG, Gabba etc. This is why we believe that we will be able to negotiate a successful outcome.)
11 - Major Events - It talks about AO allowing events such as Soccer WC, Rugby WC, Commonwealth Games but we all know these events require a full seated stadium which AO isn't, unless they get rid of the hill, which they say in the document will stay - Am I the only one who can see the issue here???! Sure it might not be an issue this decade but 20/30 years time?
(There is a very important difference between fully seated and fully enclosed. While Adelaide Oval will not be fully enclosed it will have around 50,000 seats.)
12 - How much has been spent on both Football Park and Adelaide Oval over the last ten years that this proposed plan(s) wipe out - the bus lane and terminal at Footy Park, the 7,000 seat northern stand built in 2000/01, the bucket seats, the second video screen at the southern end; Adelaide Ovals' Chappell Stands, the Clem Hill stand and relocation of the Victor Richardson Gates. All will
have proven to be just band-aids. How will we know this is the most responsible way to spend a
vast sum of money when all of these projects are quickly superseded?
(As I am sure you can appreciate, SACA cannot speak for Footy Park or the SANFL but in terms of Adelaide Oval, the proposal has a couple of key elements in respect of this. The first is to create capacity that is appropriate for multiple sports and of course primarily cricket and football. For SACA, the style and scope of the project gives us the opportunity to grow our Membership and attendances by the general public in higher quality facilities. This goes to SACA’s core objective which is to promote and develop cricket in South Australia. Your point about longevity is a good one and has been a key consideration. The trend for some time now around the world has been to build stadia around the 45,000 to 50,000 mark. This is considered the optimal size in terms of cost, maintenance and operation versus revenue. Stadia of the size of the MCG are increasingly rare. So we and the designers believe that what is proposed in Adelaide has the best chance of long term success.)
13 - Why not leave the Oval as is, and do the other things in the precinct to "brighten the scene up". There seems to be no test to see if Port can get more to Adelaide Oval by scheduling three matches for each of the next three years. The first couple will be a novelty, but when the novelty
wears off, what will the crowds be like?
(I understand your point, and although this is really a question for the football authorities, we believe that Adelaide Oval is a more convenient location for more people to attend matches and after the redevelopment would have better facilities, thereby attracting more people.)
14- As per point 13, 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. So all this development seems a bit wasteful with no proof that enough
people want to attend AFL matches.
(See 13 above.)
15- Finally there seems to be a lot of public money at stake for 14,000 extra seats, surely the government could use this money better at a time when they are cutting public service jobs and selling forests etc so why should the whole state subsidise this relatively few patrons.
(This is really a question for the State Government rather than SACA, but we firmly believe that the long term benefits to the State from having a world-class multi-sport facility in the best position of any Australian capital will be substantial. Sport and its associated areas of activity, like tourism, are a huge global business and this redevelopment would put us in a much stronger position to be involved in that business.)
