Will the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment go ahead?

[Dirko]

GOOD!

That's the spirit Psyber.

[Hondo]

Psyber the $50m shortfall relates to the car park as I heard it. Pat Conlon was confident there was a financial return there for a private operator to fund it. The AFL have also indicated they are prepared to pitch in for specific parts of the development. The word is also that once the competitive tenders come in for the construction the price may turn out to be less than expected. So again the media are just speculating on final costs (to stir us up). They haven't seen the tenders as they haven't been submitted!

RC, the start date for the redeveloped stadium has been pushed out for 2015 which gives them from after the Ashes test (Dec 2013) until March 2015 to finish. They'll work around it somehow. One cricket match on the wrong date won't stop such a big project. Whatever major cricket games were scheduled between now and 2014 (now 2015) will have the same issue so they would have plan B's worked out by then. The simple fact is that for a period of time the ground will be at less capacity which is no different to how the redevelopments at the MGC, SCG, Gabba were all done. Workarounds are nothing new.

Guys, this thing is happenning like it or not!

[Royal City]

Psyber the $50m shortfall relates to the car park as I heard it. Pat Conlon was confident there was a financial return there for a private operator to fund it. The AFL have also indicated they are prepared to pitch in for specific parts of the development. The word is also that once the competitive tenders come in for the construction the price may turn out to be less than expected. So again the media are just speculating on final costs (to stir us up). They haven't seen the tenders as they haven't been submitted!

RC, the start date for the redeveloped stadium has been pushed out for 2015 which gives them from after the Ashes test (Dec 2013) until March 2015 to finish. They'll work around it somehow. One cricket match on the wrong date won't stop such a big project. Whatever major cricket games were scheduled between now and 2014 (now 2015) will have the same issue so they would have plan B's worked out by then. The simple fact is that for a period of time the ground will be at less capacity which is no different to how the redevelopments at the MGC, SCG, Gabba were all done. Workarounds are nothing new.

Guys, this thing is happenning like it or not!

one cricket match on the wrong cricket date won't stop a big project ???

I hope they use that line to us saca members is all I can say

[Hondo]

Are you all going to knock back a free ground upgrade worth $535m just because there might be some cranes and scaffolding around when the Ashes test is on?

I think there's a bigger picture ... if everyone thought like that then the MCG would be as it was in 1950! Imagine someone back in 1950 saying "hey come on, don't redevelop the G for the Olympics because don't forget there's an Ashes test in 1953".

[dedja]

I love my cricket and footy but I still think it's sheer lunacy for the State Government to kick in half a billion dollars for this project.

[Hondo]

I was a sceptic originally but as I hear various stakeholders including city traders have their say I think it will be a big leg up for the CBD. One way or another the Govt will get some return on their $535m I reckon in terms of economic growth. I don't see it as wasted money. How much did the Victorian Govt kick into Docklands and how well has that gone for the CBD since then? I don't have the figures but everyone raves about how close the stadium is to transport, shops, restaurants, etc. West Lakes unfortunately will never be able to replicate that as hard as they have tried over the years.

[AFLflyer]

Well said Hondo.
The neative people on here and everywhere through out our great state, i simply dont understand. How can you doubt this proposal, it is going to light up the ciy and make it a place you want to go! Think of the positives, look to the future (the bigger picture) and stop whinging.
who cares about the disruption it will cause when it's being built. Of coarse this will take time!
People are still saying it won't happen, it will!! move on!!

[Royal City]

Are you all going to knock back a free ground upgrade worth $535m just because there might be some cranes and scaffolding around when the Ashes test is on?
I think there's a bigger picture ... if everyone thought like that then the MCG would be as it was in 1950! Imagine someone back in 1950 saying "hey come on, don't redevelop the G for the Olympics because don't forget there's an Ashes test in 1953".

No not all. Just 26% of us have to knock back the free upgrade...............

Losing control of our ground for 7 months of the year, having to face a possible reduced capacity at the major cricketing events at a cricket oval for the next 4 years. Membership cost rise to cover the costs.

Advantage to us SACA members. Port Adelaide "might" become profitable.

Ill take it under advisement but doubt it will change my vote.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/ade ... 6013810434

I wonder how the MCC members would vote for soccer to be played at Lords for 7 months of the year.

Can anyone else guess who the wealthy local business man is who is against it ????

[Dirko]

I was a sceptic originally but as I hear various stakeholders including city traders have their say I think it will be a big leg up for the CBD. One way or another the Govt will get some return on their $535m I reckon in terms of economic growth. I don't see it as wasted money. How much did the Victorian Govt kick into Docklands and how well has that gone for the CBD since then? I don't have the figures but everyone raves about how close the stadium is to transport, shops, restaurants, etc. West Lakes unfortunately will never be able to replicate that as hard as they have tried over the years.

For a NEW stadium. If we were getting a new stadium I'd be all for it too.

[Royal City]

I was a sceptic originally but as I hear various stakeholders including city traders have their say I think it will be a big leg up for the CBD. One way or another the Govt will get some return on their $535m I reckon in terms of economic growth. I don't see it as wasted money. How much did the Victorian Govt kick into Docklands and how well has that gone for the CBD since then? I don't have the figures but everyone raves about how close the stadium is to transport, shops, restaurants, etc. West Lakes unfortunately will never be able to replicate that as hard as they have tried over the years.

For a NEW stadium. If we were getting a new stadium I'd be all for it too.

100% agree.

[AFLflyer]

I was a sceptic originally but as I hear various stakeholders including city traders have their say I think it will be a big leg up for the CBD. One way or another the Govt will get some return on their $535m I reckon in terms of economic growth. I don't see it as wasted money. How much did the Victorian Govt kick into Docklands and how well has that gone for the CBD since then? I don't have the figures but everyone raves about how close the stadium is to transport, shops, restaurants, etc. West Lakes unfortunately will never be able to replicate that as hard as they have tried over the years.

For a NEW stadium. If we were getting a new stadium I'd be all for it too.

100% agree.

but kids, if we dont get this, we get nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what would you rather?

[D14]

I was a sceptic originally but as I hear various stakeholders including city traders have their say I think it will be a big leg up for the CBD. One way or another the Govt will get some return on their $535m I reckon in terms of economic growth. I don't see it as wasted money. How much did the Victorian Govt kick into Docklands and how well has that gone for the CBD since then? I don't have the figures but everyone raves about how close the stadium is to transport, shops, restaurants, etc. West Lakes unfortunately will never be able to replicate that as hard as they have tried over the years.

For a NEW stadium. If we were getting a new stadium I'd be all for it too.

100% agree.

2 city stadiums would not work in Adelaide.

[Hondo]

Well, how much do you think the Victorian Govt kicked into the upgrades to the MCG? How many have there been? One of the new stands from the 90s is getting smashed down and rebuilt soon I think.

But what about the test matches?

[Royal City]

Well, how much do you think the Victorian Govt kicked into the upgrades to the MCG? How many have there been? One of the new stands from the 90s is getting smashed down and rebuilt soon I think.

But what about the test matches?

Yet again Hondo. It is cricket fans you need to make your pitch to and get the final say.

Not football. And do you know how much test matches/ashes/first world cup in 20 odd years mean to cricket fans ????

Buiding at the MCG worse case losing 10000 fans off your capacity due to construction. At an Oval that holds 110000 fans isnt to much of an inconvenience.

But when your stadium only holds 35000. Thats just under 1/3 of your revenue gone.

Yet again to everyone 1 saca members that votes against this.

More than 3 have to vote in favour.

[smac]

So as a SACA member, you would be prepared to vote "NO" just because the non-members area is going to be redeveloped? Or is it because it might help Port out? Or is it because you don't understand it all properly?

Improved funding for two junior sports, to the point where they are not reliant on funding from national bodies is a good enough reason to vote yes. The other benefits Hondo outlined earlier are cream, IMO.

Plus this video is really cool!

http://www.adelaideovalredevelopment.com.au/

[Hondo]

Yet again Hondo. It is cricket fans you need to make your pitch to and get the final say.

I think some SACA members feel they have more power than they probably do. Yes, there's some sort of vote going to happen sometime. But do you really believe the SACA will let this opportunity slip, an opportunity they have craved for years (an opportunity to make sure no rival stadium gets built that could take their 20-20 games) because 25.1% of SACA members vote no?

Ok, sorry everyone. Um, see we had this vote and, um, 5001 people out of a tiny pool of 20,000 (yes, that's a lot less than the 1.4m population of Adelaide) voted no. Here's your $535m back. Sorry AFL. Sorry SANFL you'll just have to skulk back to AAMI Stadium. Sorry the rest of Adelaide. Sorry CBD business owners. Sorry Adelaide City Council. You know, what can we do ...?

(Note: I am guessing at the number of SACA members)

Not -- going -- to -- happen. The State Govt would step in if they had to and write new legislation. Either that or the SACA will word the vote in some legally clever way. In fairness, a lot of SACA members that phone into to 5AA seem to support it. I think there's a noisy minority.

[AFLflyer]

So as a SACA member, you would be prepared to vote "NO" just because the non-members area is going to be redeveloped? Or is it because it might help Port out? Or is it because you don't understand it all properly?

Improved funding for two junior sports, to the point where they are not reliant on funding from national bodies is a good enough reason to vote yes. The other benefits Hondo outlined earlier are cream, IMO.

Plus this video is really cool!

http://www.adelaideovalredevelopment.com.au/

see looks awesome, looking forward to the development around the Torrens, too long this area has been wasted.

[Royal City]

Yet again Hondo. It is cricket fans you need to make your pitch to and get the final say.

I think some SACA members feel they have more power than they probably do. Yes, there's some sort of vote going to happen sometime. But do you really believe the SACA will let this opportunity slip, an opportunity they have craved for years (an opportunity to make sure no rival stadium gets built that could take their 20-20 games) because 25.1% of SACA members vote no?

Not -- going -- to -- happen. The State Govt would step in if they had to and write new legislation. Either that or the SACA will word the vote in some legally clever way. In fairness, a lot of SACA members that phone into to 5AA seem to support it. I think there's a noisy minority.

On your first Point : I guess it depends on whether SACA board members want to keep their jobs. Cos AFl fans dont vote on the SACA board elections . GUess who does and there is one soon.

Even if there is a noisy minority of 27% Hondo. Guess what motion is denied ?????

I do love how confident you are on the reactions youve gaged via a talk back radio station that labels itself 5AAFL.


YOu boys are making AFl arguments to cricket fans. Ive noticed how much you AFl fans cared about destroying Rugby and Soccer fans dreams by not building a new stadium ie. not at all.

But if a Cricket fan doesnt care about your dreams . Its just pure in-justice to the state???

There Always seems to be a contradiction with you AFl fans I have noted.

If you want to talk about bringing money into the stae/local business owners. How does 7000 english supporters travelling to Adelaide for the test match equate ?????

BTW what is the SANFl number one assett securing all its debt currently ??????

How much will that be de-valued.

How many people will go to watch footy in the city. Then head back after the game to the crows/power clubrooms at West Lakes and Alberton respectively ????. And how much will that help the clubs finances.

[Mr Beefy]

Yet again Hondo. It is cricket fans you need to make your pitch to and get the final say.

I think some SACA members feel they have more power than they probably do. Yes, there's some sort of vote going to happen sometime. But do you really believe the SACA will let this opportunity slip, an opportunity they have craved for years (an opportunity to make sure no rival stadium gets built that could take their 20-20 games) because 25.1% of SACA members vote no?

Ok, sorry everyone. Um, see we had this vote and, um, 5001 people out of a tiny pool of 20,000 (yes, that's a lot less than the 1.4m population of Adelaide) voted no. Here's your $535m back. Sorry AFL. Sorry SANFL you'll just have to skulk back to AAMI Stadium. Sorry the rest of Adelaide. Sorry CBD business owners. Sorry Adelaide City Council. You know, what can we do ...?

(Note: I am guessing at the number of SACA members)

Not -- going -- to -- happen. The State Govt would step in if they had to and write new legislation. Either that or the SACA will word the vote in some legally clever way. In fairness, a lot of SACA members that phone into to 5AA seem to support it. I think there's a noisy minority.

Would they also get to keep their debt for the new members stand?

[AFLflyer]

Keeping in mind that there is NO OTHER OPTION and the State government WILL pull their $'s back if it doesnt go ahead (which they have made clear)
Can we change the Vote on this thread to:

Do you want the Adelaide Oval re-development to go ahead?
A simple Yes or No the only options.. Lets see what the Safooty poster want.