[COM] Adelaide Oval Hotel

[Waewick]

Its is interesting that the Libs are getting picked up on it being an unsolicited bid.

I never would have connected something like this to Gillman given the circumstances.

[Patrick_27]

If they are looking for further revenue streams and the State government want to assist with a loan, incorporate Tennis SA into the SMA and get moving on an extensive upgrade of Memorial Drive and there you have it. Considering the consistently good attendance to events and the price of food and drinks at the stadium I don't see how they could ever claim to be struggling, seems to me there is financial mismanagement if anything...

[Algernon]

They could make a few million pure cash profit with 0 costs, over night, by selling the stadium naming rights.

[Nort]

They could make a few million pure cash profit with 0 costs, over night, by selling the stadium naming rights.

They didn't pay to build the oval, it's not theirs to name.

[how good is he]

There are already two quasi-naming rights with the Telstra Plaza out front and the CBA roof climb...

[SRW]

Apparently the SMA wants a zipline from the Oval over the Torrens. Cool idea. That news and the council's latest salvo at the hotel to read on: ABC News

[LMB]

Leon Byner and Mike Smithson (Ch 7) on 5AA this morning said something along the lines of : Under the Adelaide Oval Act the SMA is not allowed to spend one more cent on the Oval until 1st Dec 2019. Apparently the SMA need to start construction of the Hotel by June 2019 to be ready for the T20 World Cup. In order to avoid delays SMA has gone to the CBA and been granted a bridging loan, which will enable them to commence building earlier than Dec 2019. ( I don't fully understand this scenario, if someone could please explain why?)

Mike Smithson was implying that it is a double standard, you can't have it both ways. They initially had to go to the government for the loan because no bank would offer them a loan. All of sudden, a bank is providing them with a loan...so why didn't the CBA offer them a loan initially? Did they even try? Or was it easier to go through the government?

Stephen Mulligan then went on to say that the council should pursue this line of enquiry to check that the bridging loan is even legal.....it may not be.

Sorry I am not quoting word for word, I haven't been able to find an article online of the discussion this morning. Smithson should have a report on Ch 7 news tonight.

From what I heard this morning from Sandy Verschoor, Stephen Mulligan and Mike Smithson, this Adelaide Oval Hotel gets stinkier and stinkier by the day.....I suspect there will be more revelations to follow.

Sincerely hope this project stalls until we get some transparency.

If both the SMA and Libs give us some transparency, start being honest about why they have kept this project (and it's finances) so secretive....I'm sure more people will buy in....

[Waewick]

I don't really understand what isn't clear here?

SMA wanted to build a hotel on site, the State Government agreed and gave them funding, that is completely crystal clear. the whole secrative part is a bit laughable though, why would the SMA tell people what it wants to do before it has things approved?

What is going on now is people against the development are trying to find ways in which to stop it if the State Government have been sloppy in their approval process (which is what oppositions to things do and is perfectly fine.).

In terms of a loan from a Bank, I can't speak for them but it would be incredibly difficult for SMA to get money because it is isn't the income earning entities that own it (that is SACA and SANFL).
But CBA would be able to approve a short term limit given there is a defined clearance source which is impeccable.

But lets be completely honest here, the only reason Labor are interested is because they are looking for a political win, nothing more nothing less (which is exactly the same as the Liberals in opposition) and the ACC is simply trying to regain some power that it has lost after decades of inaction.

I still can't see why people are getting so upset about this Hotel though, it really shouldn't be this big of a deal.

[Nort]

I still can't see why people are getting so upset about this Hotel though, it really shouldn't be this big of a deal.

Is this hotel a unique one of a kind thing that doesn't set any precedent? If so then it's fair to be asking if this one chance for doing this is being used wisely.

Is it setting a precedent for commercial development in the parklands? If so then it's definitely fair for people to be digging deep into the merits of it and if it benefits the State.

[Nathan]

I've stated before, that the SMA seems to want it's cake and eat it too. They want to compete against other city hotels, but enjoy not having to pay for the land nor council rates like everyone else has to. IMO if they want to pursue this avenue, then they should forgo those concessions.

[Waewick]

I still can't see why people are getting so upset about this Hotel though, it really shouldn't be this big of a deal.

Is this hotel a unique one of a kind thing that doesn't set any precedent? If so then it's fair to be asking if this one chance for doing this is being used wisely.

Is it setting a precedent for commercial development in the parklands? If so then it's definitely fair for people to be digging deep into the merits of it and if it benefits the State.

I fail to see howe it sets a precedent at all.

[Waewick]

I've stated before, that the SMA seems to want it's cake and eat it too. They want to compete against other city hotels, but enjoy not having to pay for the land nor council rates like everyone else has to. IMO if they want to pursue this avenue, then they should forgo those concessions.

Do you really think council rates give them a competitive advantage?

[Nathan]

I've stated before, that the SMA seems to want it's cake and eat it too. They want to compete against other city hotels, but enjoy not having to pay for the land nor council rates like everyone else has to. IMO if they want to pursue this avenue, then they should forgo those concessions.

Do you really think council rates give them a competitive advantage?

Council have stated that it's about $40,000 that they're not collecting. The value of the land that they get for free would be very significant.

Regardless of the amounts though, it's still being gifted things which all of their commercial competitors have to pay for. If it's such a small amount, why not pay it?

[wilkiebarkid]

I don't really understand what isn't clear here?

SMA wanted to build a hotel on site, the State Government agreed and gave them funding, that is completely crystal clear. the whole secrative part is a bit laughable though, why would the SMA tell people what it wants to do before it has things approved?

What is going on now is people against the development are trying to find ways in which to stop it if the State Government have been sloppy in their approval process (which is what oppositions to things do and is perfectly fine.).

In terms of a loan from a Bank, I can't speak for them but it would be incredibly difficult for SMA to get money because it is isn't the income earning entities that own it (that is SACA and SANFL).
But CBA would be able to approve a short term limit given there is a defined clearance source which is impeccable.

But lets be completely honest here, the only reason Labor are interested is because they are looking for a political win, nothing more nothing less (which is exactly the same as the Liberals in opposition) and the ACC is simply trying to regain some power that it has lost after decades of inaction.

I still can't see why people are getting so upset about this Hotel though, it really shouldn't be this big of a deal.

Spot on!

[Honey of a City]

I don't really understand what isn't clear here?

SMA wanted to build a hotel on site, the State Government agreed and gave them funding, that is completely crystal clear. the whole secrative part is a bit laughable though, why would the SMA tell people what it wants to do before it has things approved?

What is going on now is people against the development are trying to find ways in which to stop it if the State Government have been sloppy in their approval process (which is what oppositions to things do and is perfectly fine.).

In terms of a loan from a Bank, I can't speak for them but it would be incredibly difficult for SMA to get money because it is isn't the income earning entities that own it (that is SACA and SANFL).
But CBA would be able to approve a short term limit given there is a defined clearance source which is impeccable.

But lets be completely honest here, the only reason Labor are interested is because they are looking for a political win, nothing more nothing less (which is exactly the same as the Liberals in opposition) and the ACC is simply trying to regain some power that it has lost after decades of inaction.

I still can't see why people are getting so upset about this Hotel though, it really shouldn't be this big of a deal.

No it shouldn’t be such a big deal. But the secrecy, haste, contempt for other stakeholders and downright ugliness of the design have made it up bit uphill for them so far. The implementation of this plan in the public sphere to date has been appallingly managed. Perhaps if the SMA and Government has been a little more consultative, and called for competitive tenders for the design, and been more upfront about the financing, it would have a bit more support.