by Sojourner » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:08 am
by Wedgie » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:27 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Bluedemon » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:29 am
Wedgie wrote:Doesnt sound like a friendly relationship with the council which is a shame as councils should realise how important a SANFL club is to an area but a lot dont.
Im assuming its a different council at Wayville?
Would love to see Sturt there.
by Dirko » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:31 am
some one funny said wrote:'the club wasn't missed the last time that they left and they wouldn't be missed again if they left,'
by Psyber » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:43 am
by smac » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:53 am
kookas wrote:Wedgie wrote:Doesnt sound like a friendly relationship with the council which is a shame as councils should realise how important a SANFL club is to an area but a lot dont.
Im assuming its a different council at Wayville?
Would love to see Sturt there.
I think it is still the Unley Council in the Wayville area. They are a hard council to deal with.
by Dutchy » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:57 am
SJABC wrote:Wayville is a Unley council area, so one would think the same applies for Wayville too !some one funny said wrote:'the club wasn't missed the last time that they left and they wouldn't be missed again if they left,'
Ouch !
by Dirko » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:02 pm
Dutchy wrote:A few thousand people coming into the area every second week is surely good for the local economy?
by Psyber » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:08 pm
The local businesses are geared to providing what the locals want and may loose ground if they change their pitch to suit a different and transient market.Dutchy wrote: The businesses around the oval wouldnt feel the same I feel.
A few thousand people coming into the area every second week is surely good for the local economy?
by Dirko » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:19 pm
Psyber wrote:The local businesses are geared to providing what the locals want and may loose ground if they change their pitch to suit a different and transient market.
They may also lose local regulars by supporting something the locals don't like.
When I lived near Hahndorf the locals did not like the commercialisation of the main street and referred to the week end visitors as "Terrorists" not "Tourists".
Part of the problem at Hahndorf was that few of the business owners were "locals" - even if they had moved into the area to live once the had the business, so they were seen as destroying the amenity and lifestyle to persue money.
by LPH » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:27 pm
by Psyber » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:42 pm
I really don't think you can compare those spots with Unley, which is much less commercially orientated. You may find the Unley clientele is more in favour of good quiet restaurants than pubs too.SJABC wrote: LOL, or more like they had more business sense that what the locals did and capitalised ?
So you're saying the local cafes & pubs in the area wouldn't appreciate seeing a few more people frequent there abode. Bullshit. Why would they need to change their pitch ? Can't see the Holdy down at the Bay changing anything to suit football goers, nor the Broady, nor the Jetty, nor the numerous cafes.
Also I would be surprised if Sturt weren't sponsored in some way by the "Unley Rd Traders" or what ever name they go by. Glenelg have a healthy sponsorship with the "Jetty Rd Traders" which encompass all the shops on Jetty Rd, as well as every pub in the area. Why wouldn't they sponsor the club, and therefore encourage football goers to use their facilities ?
Also explain why the Unley council spend millions on the "Tour Down Under" then. Yeah like all those extra people really upset the "local" shop holders by pumping in more $$$.
by Pseudo » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:57 pm
Psyber wrote:Although I do follow football myself, if I lived in Unley now I would support the council's position. I wouldn't want my peaceful environment invaded regularly.
I had enough of that when I lived in Prospect years ago.
by Ronnie » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:02 pm
by purch » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:04 pm
Psyber wrote:Part of the problem at Hahndorf was that few of the business owners were "locals" - even if they had moved into the area to live once the had the business. So, they were seen as destroying the amenity and lifestyle for mere money. Long-term Unley residents may see it that way too.Dutchy wrote: The businesses around the oval wouldnt feel the same I feel.
A few thousand people coming into the area every second week is surely good for the local economy?
SJABC wrote:LOL, or more like they had more business sense that what the locals did and capitalised ?
by Dirko » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:07 pm
Psyber wrote:I really don't think you can compare those spots with Unley, which is much less commercially orientated. You may find the Unley clientele is more in favour of good quiet restaurants than pubs too.
It is about lifestyle not money in areas where ther is old money about..
I admit my experience may suffer from some bias here in that my acquaintanceship with Unley is derived from mixing with families who have lived there for generations through my wife's friendship with the McLeay family, and through a cousin who lived in Unley Park. None of them had much interest in football.
Although I do follow football myself, if I lived in Unley now I would support the council's position. I wouldn't want my peaceful environment invaded regularly.
I had enough of that when I lived in Prospect years ago.
by Psyber » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:11 pm
True, I made the mistake in my youth of thinking Barker Rd was far enough from Prospect Oval but it wasn't.Pseudo wrote:Come on Psyber - you come across as a fairly intelligent chap; you wouldn't live in Unley in the first place if your desire for weekend peace was paramount. Anyone who buys property across the road from a footy club knows what they are letting themselves in for. To complain about the noise after moving in is akin to drinking from the toilet bowl then complaining that the water tastes funny.Psyber wrote:Although I do follow football myself, if I lived in Unley now I would support the council's position. I wouldn't want my peaceful environment invaded regularly.
I had enough of that when I lived in Prospect years ago.
Admittedly some Unley denizens may have moved into the area during Sturt's hiatus from the ground, but the point remains, only slightly weakened.
by Wedgie » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:17 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Dogwatcher » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:17 pm
by Psyber » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:21 pm
Valid SJABC!SJABC wrote: I think you've been out of the Unley food chain for too long. Less commercially orientated. LOL. You know how many cafes are open on Unley Rd nowadays ? Not too many restaurants round Unley way, just cafes and a lot of them.
OK so how long have Sturt been playing at Unley Oval ? 1901 or something similar. So over 100 years apart from the sojourn to Adelaide Oval. I doubt there would be anyone old enough who lives in Unley that can't remember Sturt not being based there. So if the football club has been based in the suburb over 100 years, what right does that give some resident who's been living there for 10 years for example, to have Sturt relocated and kick up a fuss when Sturt need council help.
If you move into a area, and a football club is located there, then enjoy it. Don't complain about noise or whatever. Live somewhere else.
And unless you're a freak of nature, I'd say Prospect Oval was well and truly in use before you moved or lived in Prospect, so why complain about noise when it was your choice to live there ?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |