SA Footy

Following is the front page story from this weeks Guardian Messenger

Tigers v city

Kym Morgan

25Mar08


NIGHT football will be allowed at the Bay next year only if Glenelg Football Club can prove the floodlights will use 100 per cent renewable energy.

The condition, placed on the project by Holdfast Bay Council, has been labelled ludicrous by Glenelg's chief executive Darren Chandler and criticised by Mayor Ken Rollond, who says it was done to block the project rather than to help the environment.

Cr Tim Looker, who is currently petitioning against night football at Glenelg Oval, said the condition would set an example to the community, claiming the lights could be powered using wind energy for an extra $6 an hour.

"This is not in any way an attack on the Glenelg Football Club," Cr Looker told the March 11 council meeting.

"All this does is set an example to the community about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which we as a council need to be doing."

Cr Looker said energy providers now offered wind energy, which could power the lights at virtually the same cost as non-renewable energy.

At a council meeting last month, the Tigers gained in principle support to put up new floodlights after a survey of 141 residents neighbouring the oval found that 65 per cent supported night football.

Mr Chandler said he was unsure how much extra the project would now cost but it had reduced the club's chances of playing SANFL night matches at the Bay next year to "50-50".

He called on the council to now set similar conditions on all future projects.

"The environment is a key aspect to consider so as long as that is the stance that they are going to take with every project that is put forward, in every area, then fine," he said.

Dr Rollond said the condition set a double standard and those councillors opposed to night football at Glenelg were deliberately placing "hurdles" in front of the project.

"Why would we pick on the Glenelg Oval, one of the few areas where the lighting will produce an income?" he said

Hopefully the club can jump the hurdle.
T'would be a good thing to light up the Bay for football!

The stupid thing is, as I understand it, the councillors or the majority of councillors representing the Glenelg Ward (that encompasses Glenelg Oval) are actually for the proposal.

It is the tree hugging hippies from the wards not affected by the lights that are actually against this or as they claim want to set an example environmentally for sustainable council development ....

we could all take candles and light the ground up.

Sounds a bit familiar!

me thinks a few pubs down the bay might be calling the council tomorrow....

Just going by what I read in the local Messenger about the constant back-pedaling, bickering and infighting amongst Holdfast Bay councillors, they are a complete joke - as emphasised by this ridiculous ruling. Crikey, they have been bitch fighting about who is going to build a dunny for eons - and they are obviously going to put every obstacle in the path of getting lights too.

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:It is the tree hugging hippies from the wards not affected by the lights that are actually against this

That'll be Punk Rooster then.

topsywaldron wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:It is the tree hugging hippies from the wards not affected by the lights that are actually against this

That'll be Punk Rooster then.

Doubt it, its on public record that Punky wants to see Glenelg Oval illuminated, the fact that, that illumination will be from the flames of the club rooms burning down is a moot point.....

I'd assume the same Councillor petitioned to ensure that the Holdfast Shores set up was powered by renewed energy, the water slide in the entertainment area used recycled water, the Pat is cleaned properly so people can use it, the square down the end of Jetty Road operating carbon neutral....FFS WADH (thanks Grub)...

No shite, if this was at any other oval I'd react the same. The lights are for the people of the Glenelg area and supporters of SANFL footy, to enjoy night footy, and the $$$ it brings to the surrounds. I'm sure the Jetty Road traders would be right behind it as would the Holdy, Broady and the other pubs around the area...

PhilH wrote:Following is the front page story from this weeks Guardian Messenger

NIGHT football will be allowed at the Bay next year only if Glenelg Football Club can prove the floodlights will use 100 per cent renewable energy.

Cr Tim Looker, who is currently petitioning against night football at Glenelg Oval,

Key point highlighted in bold

Has Cr Looker actually costed the capital investment required under his alternative proposal .... its one thing for the on-going energy costs to be only $6 per hour more but what's the set up cost versus normal lights? Has he investigated if such a condition has been applied anywhere else lights have gone up?

Is he even technically qualified on such matters to be able to set this condition? Or at least does he have a technical proposal from qualifed engineers to back up the realism of it?

If he can't answer these questions then it sounds like a ridiculous attempt to block the proposal while trying to appear not to be doing so.

Retractable lights anyone?

What a lot of BS !
A typical example of small minded people with a bit of power and wielding it like children. Where the hell did they pull this one from ?
Its time we got rid of these Councils continually blocking progress......look at the Adelaide City Council what a disgrace.
I think all the councilors should ride bikes to Council chambers to cut down on CO2 emissions.
What possible difference would this make to the environment when China and India pump tons of filth into the atmosphere every minute !

Has anyone actually looked into whether his claims of only costing $6 extra per hour are correct? Sounds like the messenger didn't, sounds like the footy club didn't make any comment to the contrary. Perhaps before we light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks and burn the councillors at the stake we first find out if his claims are true. If it really will only cost $6 more per hour and that was all, then it seems utterly ridiculous to even consider not doing so. I would even have thought the club itself would jump at the chance. Besides the obvious positive of getting the project done, plus the carbon emission saving, there would surely be an enormous PR boost just when the bays are finally looking at the good end of the ladder.

Grahaml wrote:Has anyone actually looked into whether his claims of only costing $6 extra per hour are correct? Sounds like the messenger didn't, sounds like the footy club didn't make any comment to the contrary. Perhaps before we light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks and burn the councillors at the stake we first find out if his claims are true. If it really will only cost $6 more per hour and that was all, then it seems utterly ridiculous to even consider not doing so. I would even have thought the club itself would jump at the chance. Besides the obvious positive of getting the project done, plus the carbon emission saving, there would surely be an enormous PR boost just when the bays are finally looking at the good end of the ladder.

Fair points, but the Councillor in question was against the idea in the first place, Glenelg Oval sits right in the middle of his ward, and he's petitioning against Night Football at the Oval. With all the other developments that happened down the Bay area, did he ensure that the same conditions applied ?
IMO, I believe it's nothing more than grandstanding, after having the council vote in FAVOUR for it, when the Councillor in question was against it.
Are the lights at Elizabeth carbon neutral and run on green energy ?

Grahaml wrote:Has anyone actually looked into whether his claims of only costing $6 extra per hour are correct? Sounds like the messenger didn't, sounds like the footy club didn't make any comment to the contrary. Perhaps before we light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks and burn the councillors at the stake we first find out if his claims are true. If it really will only cost $6 more per hour and that was all, then it seems utterly ridiculous to even consider not doing so. I would even have thought the club itself would jump at the chance. Besides the obvious positive of getting the project done, plus the carbon emission saving, there would surely be an enormous PR boost just when the bays are finally looking at the good end of the ladder.

Good points.
Another thing is that the more people that use something like solar energy, the cheaper it becomes. The amount of houses in Japan that have solar cells on their rooves now has skyrocketed, and this is because the price is falling with the extra yen the companies have to invest in better technologies which makes it more affordable, so more people buy it, then they have more yen to invest etc.
I know it looks like an unnecessary hurdle created by an agitator at the moment, but good things may come of it.

At the moment in Aust. it takes about 12 - 15 years to recoup the extra money outlayed to put in solar hot water (I'm not sure on the time to recoup solar electric cells), the life expectancy of your solar hot water system................15years.
It also takes more than 15 years to nuetralise the extra green house emissions used to produce solar cells over a more traditional gas or electric system. In theory solar is fantastic for the envirinment, in reality, at best it is carbon nuetral when production emissions etc. are all accounted for.
We still have a way to go to make solar hot water/energy truly envirinmentally freindly, production methods, and total cost need to be seriously looked at to make it attractive when all things are considered.

The State Government did not have a problem in donating to the Airport a set of solar panels for the roof, so maybe Glenelg and the SANFL could apply for a grant for the same thing for the roof of the Grandstand at the Bay oval.

Alternitivley Glenelg could do what Sturt did when they wanted to get back to Unley Oval and in the council elections nominate a list of preffered candidates and campaign to knock this guy out of his ward, if enough Glenelg and SANFL supporters go and actually vote in the election it wouldent be that hard to make sure that he does not get re-elected considering nortouriously low voter turnout in council elections.

What are the reasons behind the objection to having lights?

smac wrote:What are the reasons behind the objection to having lights?

smac I sent the councillor an email which I posted on the Louts website. He has replied and here is a quote from his email

"We held a community meeting of nearby residents 2 week ago and the footy club was present. The residents made it clear it is not the lights that are the problem and are quite happy for the footy club to put them up.

It is the issue associated with the crowds that are the main problem for residents. Parking, crowded streets, drunks, vandalism and so on. These problems happen now and are worse at night and Councils who have night matches now are trying to deal with the increased problem. These are well documented and not disputed.

From the public meeting the footy club now have a clearer idea of what concerns the residents and have committed to doing the best they can to reduce the problems. The Police and private security will be involved and the situation well monitored. Council will also insist on strict controls and night matches will only happen on limited occasions."

Interesting mmmm...only two clubs have night games so who'd he referring too ?

Must be Norwood, as Centrals have not been informed of any problems after night games at Elizabeth.

However it is interesting that the residents are OK with drunks from Jetty Road.