Will the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment go ahead?

[Booney]

The problem ca, as I see it, is the vote is for the proposal put forward at that point in time ie: the current design.

Many may say yes, I would like to redevelop but not that design. I want a roof / I dont want a roof. I want to keep the Northern Hill / I dont want to keep the Northern Hill etc..

It isn't simply a yes / no vote but confirmation of acceptance of the actual proposal being put forward. Not everyone will like what hte current design is, perhaps?

[ca]

The problem ca, as I see it, is the vote is for the proposal put forward at that point in time ie: the current design.

Many may say yes, I would like to redevelop but not that design. I want a roof / I dont want a roof. I want to keep the Northern Hill / I dont want to keep the Northern Hill etc..

It isn't simply a yes / no vote but confirmation of acceptance of the actual proposal being put forward. Not everyone will like what hte current design is, perhaps?

Fair point, you are never going to please everyone with any design. There are also reasons often financial why some things are done the way they are. The hill will go within a few years and so it should and people are living in fantasy land if they ever think we will get a stadium with a roof.

You raise a good point I hadn't thought off. Although I still think it would be a huge yes from me and all the members I know.

[Hondo]

I think the SACA who badly want this to go ahead will present their members with an offer too good to refuse

I think the propaganda about the members' vote is just to stop an early revolt against the Board. The vote will go ahead but the SACA will somehow ensure there is no chance of a no vote via the proposal they put forward.

Some SACA members think they now have the casting vote and are using it to push for free access to AFL games included in their current membership which is pure fantasy. When push comes to shove however I expect both SANFL & SACA members to vote yes.

[ca]

I think the SACA who badly want this to go ahead will present their members with an offer too good to refuse

I think the propaganda about the members' vote is just to stop an early revolt against the Board. The vote will go ahead but the SACA will somehow ensure there is no chance of a no vote via the proposal they put forward.

Some SACA members think they now have the casting vote and are using it to push for free access to AFL games included in their current membership which is pure fantasy. When push comes to shove however I expect both SANFL & SACA members to vote yes.

I think your right. No one is going to get too much for free in all of this. I'm a member of SACA and AAMI and if the move goes ahead I'd expect to be paying around the same price for both in some form. The benefit being I believe I would enjoy the experience better at AO than at AAMI.

[Shark_Hunter]

Won't happen now, just heard that the Federal Government has pulled all funding for the redevelopment of the oval.....

[Rik E Boy]

The hill will go within a few years

Why does the Hill have to go again? Adelaide Oval way ahead of the Gabba for that very reason.

regards,

REB

[smac]

Won't happen now, just heard that the Federal Government has pulled all funding for the redevelopment of the oval.....

They were never providing any.

[Shark_Hunter]

Won't happen now, just heard that the Federal Government has pulled all funding for the redevelopment of the oval.....

They were never providing any.

"The Federal Government says its contribution will depend on whether Australia wins the World Cup soccer rights and needs Adelaide Oval to stage games."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 908942.htm

It has been said that this federal support may not happen now...

[smac]

Has never been part of the current SMA project.

[heater31]

I think the SACA who badly want this to go ahead will present their members with an offer too good to refuse

I think the propaganda about the members' vote is just to stop an early revolt against the Board. The vote will go ahead but the SACA will somehow ensure there is no chance of a no vote via the proposal they put forward.

Some SACA members think they now have the casting vote and are using it to push for free access to AFL games included in their current membership which is pure fantasy. When push comes to shove however I expect both SANFL & SACA members to vote yes.

As a SACA, member I expect to pay a little more to use it during the winter months for the premier winter code. But if they use the numbers quoted in the recent SACA members survey then they can stick it up their jumper (some options in excess of $900 ) and I will just use it for the summer months again...

[Dirko]

Good to see the ACC start having their demands now.

No naming rights and full control of the carparks in the Parklands.

[Dogwatcher]

The latest from the Libs on the oval debate, press release from Shadow Treasurer Iain Evans (former Sturt player).

Foley dumped while overseas

Before any signed agreement between SACA and SANFL has been reached Treasurer Kevin Foley has been dumped from being the Minister responsible for the Adelaide Oval Up-grade.

Shadow Treasurer Iain Evans said that the project described by Kevin Foley as “my baby” was only to be handed over to the Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon on 31 August 2010 once the Stadium Management Authority had signed off on the project.

In The Advertiser 21 June 2010 Kevin Foley said:

"Once we get this signed off, hopefully within the next month or so, we will be moving in and we're already starting to put the framework in place…That'll be headed up by Pat Conlon as Infrastructure Minister …

“But with the project descending into total disarray under Kevin Foley, Premier Rann has been forced to dump the Treasurer while he is overseas in an attempt to thwart any further bungling and embarrassments,” Mr Evans said.

“The project has been dogged by budget blow-outs, time-line blow-outs, cuts to design plans and a lack of transparent information.

“The Treasurer’s incompetence has enraged many within the Labor Caucas who have pressured to have Foley axed prematurely and install Pat Conlon to take control of the runaway shambles that has become the Adelaide Oval Up-grade.

“Yet only a couple of weeks ago the Premier demonstrated his confidence in the Treasurer by voting against a “No Confidence” Motion against the Treasurer.

“I understand that SANFL C.E.O Leigh Whicker was told by the government on or before the 6 July 2010 that Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon was to oversee the Adelaide Oval upgrade project and that Kevin Foley had been dumped.

“Yet on 14 July 2010 when asked if Pat Conlon would be taking over the project Premier Rann answered that there was “no decision on that what-so-ever”.

“How can we believe anything that this Government says?

‘The Premier wants us to believe that Kevin Foley is not capable of handling a $535 Million project but are capable of handling a $14 billion budget”.

[stan]

Good to see the ACC start having their demands now.

No naming rights and full control of the carparks in the Parklands.

Yeah I was reading that as well, its funny because im not really surpirsed about any of there demands. I guess most people wouldnt too surprised. AS for the pending question about whether the redevelopment will go ahead, you only really need to look at past ventures. The lights debacle which put Adelaide on the map as a laughing stock and of course the replay screen as well, who can forget the famous quote by someone who knows noghting about sport. So really if the ACC get invloved with anything other than making demands about controlling the car parking then the redevelopment is in trouble.

[Sojourner]

Maybe the ACC should stick with handling the responsibility for the rubbish collection and the occasional street sweeping of the guttering in the car park, they have proven many times over that anything beyond that is outside of their capacity for management!

[Psyber]

The park lands are public property for the whole community, not for the 2 or 3% who go to football matches.
Of course the ACC should control them - it has a reasonably good record of preventing them being whittled away bit by bit for exclusive use by various minority interest groups.

[Dirko]

The park lands are public property for the whole community

Good, explain that to the several "Parkland Groups" then....

[The Dark Knight]

With the Election coming up on the 21st of Aug the Redevelopment of Adelaide oval will be a big talking point for both the Liberals and Labour. I'm hopeful whoever ends up in power can come to the right conclusion about it and the redevelopment can go ahead without any major stuff ups or problems.

[Wedgie]

Maybe the ACC should stick with handling the responsibility for the rubbish collection and the occasional street sweeping of the guttering in the car park, they have proven many times over that anything beyond that is outside of their capacity for management!

That's still an improvement on the SACA. They couldn't manage that IMHO.

[Psyber]

The park lands are public property for the whole community

Good, explain that to the several "Parkland Groups" then....

Agreed, I don't think any minority group should hog bits of them.
[And I don't think large slabs should be fenced off for car races for the few who like them either..]

[dedja]

The park lands are public property for the whole community, not for the 2 or 3% who go to football matches.
Of course the ACC should control them - it has a reasonably good record of preventing them being whittled away bit by bit for exclusive use by various minority interest groups.

Nearly chocked on my weeties on that quote ...

Ever heard of the North Adelaide Society aka Anne Moran and her mates?

Tennis courts and road closures to keep out the western suburbs scum readily come to mind.