SA Footy

Slightly tweaked poll question in light of the progress of the proposal.

Any off topic posts will be deleted.

I've deliberately said nothing about this topic for a number of reasons until now, but just one thing that I'm struggling to understand...

Why is there this need to push for the SANFL to abandon an asset they have poured millions upon millions into over the years; with a surface acknowledged by many AFL players as one of the best in the country; a stadium that, while a little way out of the CBD, still has many facilities that are among the best in the state, for a proposal that MAY lead to increased crowds and MAY bring people back to the AFL?

There seems, from the outside looking in, a reasonable degree of assumption from a number of quarters, that the Adelaide Oval proposal will suddenly draw a large number of people back to AFL and will bring the crowd numbers up. Playing at Adelaide Oval or AAMI Stadium isn't going to change the actual product being shown out there. There isn't going to be a sudden change in game style at Adelaide Oval, that will automatically make the AFL enormously different to watch.

One issue that keeps getting raised by a number of fans, is that a) the game is too expensive for the average family, when entrance/parking/catering etc is accounted for and b) the game itself is not as attractive as it was. Unless both of these things are going to change markedly at Adelaide Oval, I'm just struggling to find enough reasons to shift from AAMI Stadium.

Mods - if this is considered off-topic, please feel free to delete. I've just been thinking for a long time about this issue and am still trying to find the pros to match the cons, IMHO.

Spot on CK ... well said

Some good points, CK.

As far as bigger crowds going to Adelaide Oval, it generally stacks up. Soccer games at AO usually draw much bigger crowds than a half-empty Hindmarsh. Going back decades, it was generally recognised that crowds at AO would be bigger than for the same game elsewhere.

I'm in favour of the shift, as IMo to pass up half-a billion dollars for a city stadium would be strange. I'm also a cricket lover, but I think it's a win-win for both footy and cricket.

It would also be nice to see something in Adelaide actually get under way.

However, I generally agree with you about AAMI and I think the crowd problem isn't necessarily solved by nshifting grounds.

Part of the problem is Footy Park isn't easily accessible to half the people living in Adelaide. Public transport is woeful and driving there can be a nightmare. Those people who can't be bothered traveling will find it more appealing to travel to the city.

Let's not forget the AFL heavies have indicated there preferred location for footy is Adelaide Oval. No one at the SANFL is going to argue with them.

The AO development will go ahead.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Part of the problem is Footy Park isn't easily accessible to half the people living in Adelaide. Public transport is woeful and driving there can be a nightmare. Those people who can't be bothered traveling will find it more appealing to travel to the city.

I wouldn't say that public transport to Footy Park is woeful - I live in the hills and can catch a single Footy Express bus there with no problems. SANFL presents more difficulties - I and most others need to catch a second bus to get to the ground.

The city stadium location would be much better for public transport - most residents of Adelaide will be able to catch a single bus/train/tram to the ground and back again and would have options for getting to the city early or staying later after the game for a drink or meal.

For those that persist in driving I suggest the U-Park carparks be made available at a discounted rate for those with tickets, and a free shuttle bus service be run from the CBD to the Oval. I'm not in favour of car-parking on the parklands.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Part of the problem is Footy Park isn't easily accessible to half the people living in Adelaide. Public transport is woeful and driving there can be a nightmare. Those people who can't be bothered traveling will find it more appealing to travel to the city.

Couldn't disagree with you more as public transport to Footy Park is very good ... the free buses that feed into West Lakes are great.

Driving a nightmare ... how is Adelaide Oval going to be better in that regard?

redandblack wrote:As far as bigger crowds going to Adelaide Oval, it generally stacks up. Soccer games at AO usually draw much bigger crowds than a half-empty Hindmarsh.

That's true, but remember they are generally one-offs ...

The point is that bigger crowds won't be needed.

The premise of sharing the Oval should mean same income for SACA (and a reduction on their debt by a considerable amount) and SANFL, minus a fair whack of expenses .. That financially improved situation then also extends to the AFL clubs who earn much greater income after expenses, and then provide a much greater dividend to the SANFL clubs (until such time as the Crows and Power own their own licenses, at which time the land at West Lakes generates the replacement dividend).

That's my understanding of the situation, and would appear to hold more benefit for the SANFL than the SACA.

As always, happy to be corrected.

Trains are easier than buses. Obahn also. Driving from Modbury was never easy. Where do you live again dedja.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Trains are easier than buses. Obahn also. Driving from Modbury was never easy. Where do you live again dedja.

I dunno ... you tell me?

Can't you read TSG - dedja lives in Uranus.

easy for you to say ...

I love football.
I play footy and I live and breathe footy.
I love the crows.

YET i've been to AAMI about 5 times my whole life to watch them.
I'm not going to waste a whole day or night on a road trip to West Lakes.
I live South.
I want to go to the pub and have dinner, a few beers, watch a footy game, have a few more beers etc in the city.. ALA Melbs
And i speak for a majority of GEN Y.

A city stadium would pack out... anyone can get to the city with ease from anywhere.
So many people work in the city.
For the future of the city we desperately need footy in the CBD.

I just cannot see any government giving out $$ for new stadium with the new hospital and desal fiasco.

Therefore my point is the AO has to be brought up to a 50k standard for AFL.

MAKE ADELAIDE A PLACE PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO.

Constance_Perm wrote:The point is that bigger crowds won't be needed.

The premise of sharing the Oval should mean same income for SACA (and a reduction on their debt by a considerable amount) and SANFL, minus a fair whack of expenses .. That financially improved situation then also extends to the AFL clubs who earn much greater income after expenses, and then provide a much greater dividend to the SANFL clubs (until such time as the Crows and Power own their own licenses, at which time the land at West Lakes generates the replacement dividend).

That's my understanding of the situation, and would appear to hold more benefit for the SANFL than the SACA.

As always, happy to be corrected.

That's how I have heard it too. Apparently even with only slightly better crowd figures both the SANFL are substantionally better off financially.

SMAC has explained this previously as being driven to a large extent by the two organisations sharing the costs of the one ground (ie, one ground being used 12 months of the year).

As you say, then there's the alternative commercial use the SANFL can put to some of the West Lakes land to earn a 12 months per year return rather than 7 months.

I would expect some uplift in crowd numbers with the CBD location and that sounds like cream on top. AAMI needs at least $150m in upgrades itself if persisted with. There's no escaping that some investment is needed somewhere.

One downside with the new stadium plan is that the ground is only used 7 months of the year and the SANFL would be forced to sell everything it currently owns to take up a < 50% stake in the new stadium.

Hondo wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:The point is that bigger crowds won't be needed.

The premise of sharing the Oval should mean same income for SACA (and a reduction on their debt by a considerable amount) and SANFL, minus a fair whack of expenses .. That financially improved situation then also extends to the AFL clubs who earn much greater income after expenses, and then provide a much greater dividend to the SANFL clubs (until such time as the Crows and Power own their own licenses, at which time the land at West Lakes generates the replacement dividend).

That's my understanding of the situation, and would appear to hold more benefit for the SANFL than the SACA.

As always, happy to be corrected.

That's how I have heard it too. Apparently even with only slightly better crowd figures both the SACA and the SANFL are substantionally better off financially.

SMAC has explained this previously as being driven to a large extent by the two organisations sharing the costs of the one ground (ie, one ground being used 12 months of the year).

As you say, then there's the alternative commercial use the SANFL can put to some of the West Lakes land to earn a 12 months per year return rather than 7 months.

I would expect some uplift in crowd numbers with the CBD location and that sounds like cream on top.

One downside with the new stadium plan is that the ground is only used 7 months of the year and the SANFL would be forced to sell everything it currently owns to take up a < 50% stake in the new stadium.

This is among the points I'm making. Why sell existing assets that are owned by the SANFL to acquire less than half a new stadium? . Makes as much sense to me as a previous government selling income producing assets.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Part of the problem is Footy Park isn't easily accessible to half the people living in Adelaide. Public transport is woeful and driving there can be a nightmare. Those people who can't be bothered traveling will find it more appealing to travel to the city.

Let's not forget the AFL heavies have indicated there preferred location for footy is Adelaide Oval. No one at the SANFL is going to argue with them.

The AO development will go ahead.

Yep put some decent public transport to Footy Park and more people will be prepared to go there. The Stadium once there is not at all bad, Sure parts of it are 30+ years old and need a facelift. Just trying to get there is horrid

The SANFL and AFL are convinced that current attendance crisis will be solved with this move but it just paints over the larger underlying cracks that the AFL brand is out of touch with Joe Average. The style of football is garbage and people have other financial pressures to service before attending an overpriced football match.


People who I know and are SACA members the majority of them are against it as it has currently been laid out to the membership. The SACA has developed the Oval using its own funds thus far and has been able to service its debts up to this point it will just take a little longer to re-develop the City end of the Ground if everything stays as is.

For me the main sticking points are:

1. The Time share agreement why does Football get more 'use' out of the stadium?
2. Costs of memberships How can you justify a potential increase of $1200 per year just to watch Football
3. Implications on the Local Cricket competition - what happens to the pinnacle events of the SACA Grade Cricket Program (A Grade Grand Finals/Adelaide No.2 )
4. As a member of a SACA Grade Cricket Club who in its formative years called the Oval 'home'
5. Still not convinced on the use of Drop in wickets - probably never will be either

Hondo wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:The point is that bigger crowds won't be needed.

The premise of sharing the Oval should mean same income for SACA (and a reduction on their debt by a considerable amount) and SANFL, minus a fair whack of expenses .. That financially improved situation then also extends to the AFL clubs who earn much greater income after expenses, and then provide a much greater dividend to the SANFL clubs (until such time as the Crows and Power own their own licenses, at which time the land at West Lakes generates the replacement dividend).

That's my understanding of the situation, and would appear to hold more benefit for the SANFL than the SACA.

As always, happy to be corrected.

That's how I have heard it too. Apparently even with only slightly better crowd figures both the SANFL are substantionally better off financially.

SMAC has explained this previously as being driven to a large extent by the two organisations sharing the costs of the one ground (ie, one ground being used 12 months of the year).

As you say, then there's the alternative commercial use the SANFL can put to some of the West Lakes land to earn a 12 months per year return rather than 7 months.

I would expect some uplift in crowd numbers with the CBD location and that sounds like cream on top. AAMI needs at least $150m in upgrades itself if persisted with. There's no escaping that some investment is needed somewhere.

One downside with the new stadium plan is that the ground is only used 7 months of the year and the SANFL would be forced to sell everything it currently owns to take up a < 50% stake in the new stadium.

And if the SANFL don't own the Power and Crows licenses some day, then how could they ever guarantee that their new oval would receive the tenanting it would require?

I have had my say on the other thread, but i will put it down again for the sake of the new thread
Adelaide needs this to succeed for the city!
This will bring life, entertainment, excitement to the heart of Adelaide! Tourists will flock here, Port will sell out games, cricket 20/20 will be massive!!
Businesses will prosper, precints will get bigger, patrons will get used to the idea and flock in their thousands.
The spectators who go to AAMi are older in demographic. Footy in the city will bring back the 18-30 year olds in big numbers.
few drinks with your mates, dinner, walk accross the bridge soaking in the atmosphere and then to the game. That would be perfect, just look at our neighbours at how they enjoy their own city.

Adelaide needs this stadium or we WILL be a laughing stock!!
lets move forward and look at this positively and stop being so pesimistic. There is NO other feasible option, Sports lovers will lose this money. SACA and AFL in this state will all continue to struggle if this falls over, but worse we will continue to be laughed at from a far.

AFLflyer wrote:I have had my say on the other thread, but i will put it down again for the sake of the new thread
Adelaide needs this to succeed for the city!
This will bring life, entertainment, excitement to the heart of Adelaide! Tourists will flock here, Port will sell out games, cricket 20/20 will be massive!!
Businesses will prosper, precints will get bigger, patrons will get used to the idea and flock in their thousands.
The spectators who go to AAMi are older in demographic. Footy in the city will bring back the 18-30 year olds in big numbers.
few drinks with your mates, dinner, walk accross the bridge soaking in the atmosphere and then to the game. That would be perfect, just look at our neighbours at how they enjoy their own city.

Adelaide needs this stadium or we WILL be a laughing stock!!
lets move forward and look at this positively and stop being so pesimistic. There is NO other feasible option, Sports lovers will lose this money. SACA and AFL in this state will all continue to struggle if this falls over, but worse we will continue to be laughed at from a far.

Not meaning to take the piss, but are there any facts in there? Is it worth blowing half a billions dollars to find out that crowds won't increase, tourists wont change their habits, and business will hardly notice the difference?