SA Footy

We were passing through Unley today so I called into Unley Oval so my daughter could play on the playground equipment on the far side of the oval. I have been to Unley Oval many times for football games, but never during the week without the fencing there as such.

There was a number of families there having BBQ's and Picnics, various people were jogging around the oval and even running up and down the stairs on the Grandstand for fitness. It was from there that I realised why people on here make the remarks about dog faeces on the oval all the time . Yet after seeing how the local community are using the oval as public space I think that it is highly unlikely that Sturt will ever get permission from the council to put up a fence or be able to excersize any type of ownership or gaurdianship over the property.

I am told that Sturt do not have a lease on Unley Oval currently which leaves the venue available as a match to match proposition at the will of the council.

The issue for me is the vast amount of history that is Unley Oval, so many great moments of SANFL footy have been played out at that venue and many great memories of matches packed out and atmospheres that make AFL at Football Park look pretty tame!

On the other side of the slate though, I realised today that the current situation at Unley is doing the club some serious damage, people are holding out hope that suddenly the council are going to move their focus to one of support for the Sturt footy club, yet I feel this isnt ever going to be the case and if anything the relationship is only likely to worsen as people wish to excersize their rights to public land ownership in the area - the Parklands and the Goodwood Orphanage Oval are two cases where small groups of people dominate and get their way.

Perhaps then it is time for Sturt to have a look at another venue, Mt Barker has been mentioned, yet I would be concerned about the perception people have in their minds about how far it is to get there etc etc. Wayville is another suggestion yet one that does not do much towards increasing the clubs interest in the Adelaide hills area either.

Sturt should have the right to a proper home ground that is there own fitted out with a modern training and recovery facility for thier players, to deny the club causes various problems for the club. I realise that there may well be a member backlash against the proposal, yet I am not convinced that the option of hoping that the council changes its mind is going to be any better realistic option!

this has been discussed at length at www.doubleblue.org/forum

to summarise those points, basically the club is open to finding a more suitable long term option.

What happened to the rumours about Wayville?

Time will tell whether House Brothers Oval is the most beneficial home to the SFC.

Why dont Sturt look at playing home games at Norwood Oval or sharing facilities there ?
I believe North considered playing a few night games at Norwood.
Say what you will about Norwood Oval...Coopers Stadium....but the best atmosphere is at this ground.
The cost of erecting and pulling down a temporary fence would suggest dont put it up...let people in for nothing and just ask for a donation.

Interesting suggestion SDK. I guess first of all you'd need to see how much it actually costs to get the fence up and down and then compare that to the expected change in revenue if people were allowed to just walk in and out of the ground at will. Probably there'd be a couple of security issues with alcohol coming into the ground or crowd control if people could leave anytime they wanted. The other thing that springs to mind is I think the home side has to distribute the gate takings with the visiting side or return some of it to the SANFL. If Sturt start letting people in on a donation only basis to avoid paying for the erection of a fence would mean that the SANFL as a whole would in effect be paying for that decision. Sturt and the SANFL would then need to arrive at some solution to gauge how Sturt would need to compensate the league for what is in essence Sturt's problem... at the end of the day it would probably be easier to keep putting up and taking down the fence. But I am guessing all of that...

At the bottom line an SANFL team is a business - sentiment has to be put aside if it costs too much.
If the Unley City Council can't be done business with, the team and SANFL need to work out a plan to walk away.

Originally the local teams were seen by local councils as adding something to the district, like they do to country towns.
However, as the inner suburbs move upmarket the percentage of people living in the area with an active interest in football reduces and the football teams become a liability interfering with the local amenity for most residents, and that shows up in the local council's attitude. Unley may be the most extreme case of this effect in Adelaide.

Sure, the Sturt membership can make a bid to wrest control of the council, but they can't just do it for one year. It has to be a sustained effort that mobilises sympathy with enough of the local residents and voters over time. They wouldn't get enough candidates up in the first year, and the other interest groups would counter-mobilise next time around.

I've been on both sides of the situation. I attended Norwood matches at all ovals from 1958 to 1968, and knew all the best parking spots.
My sister and I were always careful not to park so as to inconvenience local residents. But not everyone does that!

In the mid-1970s my then girlfriend, who became my second wife, lived near Unley Oval and her driveway being blocked on match days by inconsiderately parked cars was a pain to both of us. Later, we lived together at Prospect and had the same problem. By then, I was too busy in my profession to get to matches, and my wife's interests were musical, not football, so not being able to get in and out of one's own driveway became only an irritation - especially if I was on call as I treated patients in hospitals in those days and not being able to get my car out was a real problem.

therisingblues wrote:The other thing that springs to mind is I think the home side has to distribute the gate takings with the visiting side or return some of it to the SANFL.

I had thought - with little certainty, I admit - that all gate takings are pooled and split equally among the clubs. Proceeds from home match tickets go entirely to the issuing club, as does the home match component of season tickets, but money taken at the gate goes to the SANFL.

Am happy to be proven wrong by someone who knows the truth.

SDK wrote:The cost of erecting and pulling down a temporary fence would suggest dont put it up...let people in for nothing and just ask for a donation.

I like this lateral thinking, although I'd still charge full price. People who care about the SANFL and the entertainment factor will still pay it. Sure, there'll be free loaders but this would be offset by gains in catering revenue.

I think the major downfall with this suggestion is as trb mentioned, security would be the main problem and Unley has a set capacity, how could that be policed if the fences are down?

Pseudo wrote:

therisingblues wrote:The other thing that springs to mind is I think the home side has to distribute the gate takings with the visiting side or return some of it to the SANFL.

I had thought - with little certainty, I admit - that all gate takings are pooled and split equally among the clubs. Proceeds from home match tickets go entirely to the issuing club, as does the home match component of season tickets, but money taken at the gate goes to the SANFL.

Am happy to be proven wrong by someone who knows the truth.

I'd guess that gate takings aren't the main revenue source for clubs. I'd like to see the breakdown of income.

Just a few corrections and/or updates here...

Sturt does have a lease arrangement with the council. At the Sturt FC AGM a couple of weeks back, General Manager Matt Benson confirmed that the club has a lease that has several years more to run. I think it doesn't expire until 2012-13 or something like that, so it's a number of years off. It is definitely not a game to game proposition...

Unley Council has 12 councilors plus a mayor and it is understood that the current split on the council is 5 pro-Sturt, 4 anti-Sturt and 3 neutrals, with the Mayor being pro-Sturt (but he only votes in a 6-6 tie on matters). The position Sturt is in with regards relations with the council are certainly much better than in previous years.

Fencing. No chance permanent fencing will ever be put back up at Unley Oval. The club accepts this is a dead issue.

I believe Unley can stay our home for the next 25 plus years.

Negotiations with Unley Council are vital but deep down our biggest mistake was leaving Unley in 1985.

sturtpeter wrote:I believe Unley can stay our home for the next 25 plus years.

Negotiations with Unley Council are vital but deep down our biggest mistake was leaving Unley in 1985.

If Sturt did move to Mt Barker would you be looking at shifting there SP?

sturtpeter wrote:I believe Unley can stay our home for the next 25 plus years.

Negotiations with Unley Council are vital but deep down our biggest mistake was leaving Unley in 1985.

a lesson perhaps nearly lost on the NAFC...

No way mate.

I am a City person now and always.

sturtpeter wrote:No way mate.
I am a City person now and always.

Mt Barker is definitely a suburb rather than a country town these days.

csbowes wrote:Fencing. No chance permanent fencing will ever be put back up at Unley Oval. The club accepts this is a dead issue.

No permanent fencing... got it.
I wonder if the cost/time involved with temporary fencing could be reduced somehow by putting in some permanent bollards or fancy poles that the fencing could be attached to come match days?
Probably not, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

If you wanted to go down that pathway it would be relitivley easy to make a case for the playground to be have fencing put up between it and the road for the purposes of saftey for the kids that play on it to create a buffer between the playground and the road. Fencing that area could be quite a saving for the club in terms of minimising the amount of temporary fencing required.

Sojourner wrote:If you wanted to go down that pathway it would be relitivley easy to make a case for the playground to be have fencing put up between it and the road for the purposes of saftey for the kids that play on it to create a buffer between the playground and the road. Fencing that area could be quite a saving for the club in terms of minimising the amount of temporary fencing required.

Someone on db.org proposed this last year with diagrams and everything...can't remember who, maybe Barto remembers. But it was so logical any council would have rocks in its head to knock it back. Oh...

I don't remember that thread, but I'm intrigued by the idea.