#VIS: Inner-City Stadium/Riverbank Precinct

[Tyler_Durden]

I hope that it gets built in the inner city if funded by the Federal Government
and is independantly administered... It should be a stadium for all sports.
AFL, Football, Cricket, Rugby and if the SANFL doesnt like it well too bad they
can stay at run down old Football Park...

The Federal Government, State Governments and the Other Codes should build
it and then charge the SANFL scum a penalty for not getting on board earlier.

You've got no idea. Unless the SANFL do have control they will stay at AAMI Stadium. And if they stay at AAMI Stadium there is no possibility of a new stadium.

Lets go through this rationally, sport by sport.

Cricket - They have their own venue. They aren't leaving that. So you can forget cricket contributing to a new stadium.

Football (Soccer) - Adelaide United can't afford to play in a big venue on a regular basis because they just don't get big enough crowds. Even if cost wasn't an issue it is highly debatable whether they'd even want to play in a 3/4 empty stadium where the spectators sit a mile from the pitch when they have a boutique venue at Hindmarsh that satisifes their needs 90% of the time. The Socceroos might use it occasionally. And by occassionally I mean once every 2-4 years. So a big stadium would get occasional use by the Socceroos and AU but not regular enough to make the stadium viable.

Rugby - Do we really need to discuss this? It doesn't rate here. Attendances are minimal. Unless it's a major tournament or international fixture it's not going to require the stadium. Anyone who uses Rugby as a reason we need a new stadium is in fantasy land.

So there you have it, It's not much use withouth football, is it? Even if you ignore the costs of building the thing, the week to week running costs of a state of the art stadium are massive. Who's going to pay for that under your grand plan?

Face it, football is the most important tenent and without their commitment there is no use for a big capacity oval stadium in the city. No AFL/SANFL = no stadium.

[Cruise]

SA will not, if ever have a third AFL team. there just isn't enough support.

would introducing a 3rd AFL team in Adelaide make it easier to cost justify a new stadium?

I think an NRL team might be more viable.

Been there, failed that
Maybe getting a few exhibition games played here may be a good thing though.

[Tyler_Durden]

Before we jump into discussing (or as we already have) the need for a multipurpose stadium, I think we need to look at the tenants who would be using it, and how they interfere with one another so to justify who would be mos suited to using the facility.

Now, Adelaide Oval is a perfectly good venue for cricket matches, so cricket is out of the question.

A large majority of people are tired of AAMI Stadium for a number of reasons - poor facilities, bad accessibility and its location. Now whilst the SANFL may argue that its 'perfectly usable' they are talking from a business viewpoint (money) rather than its spectators concerns. Seeing as a multipurpose stadium is for all Adelaidians, our needs are put first. So AFL would be played, which takes place during late March - to late August. For this duration, the stadium would be used weekly, one match a week (Port or Adelaide playing) on either a Friday or Saturday or Sunday. The preseason fixture takes place from Feb-March, as do the finals, which is a variable factor, depending on how well the teams play to secure home finals games.

The A-League has already expressed interest in a new facility to host Adelaide United matches, and the season operates from late August to late Janurary, with finals played in Feburary. Over this period (generally) it would be used once a fortnight. This partially clashes (but again depending on the performance and success of our teams) with the AFL finals and pre-season fixtures. But the actual A-League and AFL seasons are at separate times from the other, which is no problem.

As for other entertainment purposes, concerts as such, are traditionally held in the summer, can be used in the off-week when Adelaide United does not play soccer at home. Seeing as they do not require a rectangular or ovular venue form, they are flexible to be held in the winter also, the day following or before a football match. Telstra Dome already operates in this matter, with two successive operations used after another.

As said, the stadium is entirely capable of being operated all-year round, minus the A-League and AFL clash in their 'finals' seasons, which I would ultimately propose that SACA in this case compromise for the use of Adelaide Oval as a backup venue for a maximum of 4 occasions if needed.

All good points that I agree with. But, I would suggest though that Hindmarsh stadium will still be kept and used for most AUFC games, at least in the forseeable future. And the A-League season clashes with the AFL as it is, with the season starting in August with the AFL in full swing and going through to Feb when the AFL is in preseason. Also, the A-League season is sure to expand, even as soon as next season, with more teams being admitted. There are calls for the A-League to eventually go as long as 28-30 rounds plus finals, which is an additional 7 - 9 weeks from what they have now. So basically, there will always be crossover.

This is further reason why the SANFL would want control over the stadium. If they lose AAMI Stadium they need to know they will always have first priority over fixturing because they won't have anywhere else to play.

[Tyler_Durden]

would introducing a 3rd AFL team in Adelaide make it easier to cost justify a new stadium?

No, because a third team could play at my old highschool oval (which has two benches for seating) and still not reach capacity.

I think an NRL team might be more viable.

Maybe, they might have to put a couple of picnic rugs next to the benches.


Soon we'll have people suggesting we have their school sports day carnivals be moved there. Seriously people, we're talking about a 50,000+ seat stadium here.

[Shuz]

I must have forgotten to say that Hindmarsh Stadium should be kept as a training facility/headquarters and back-up playing facility for Adelaide United. But yes, I do agree with everything else that you've said Tyler. The SANFL should be able to come to a compromise that, whilst they would not have control over the facility, they would be assigned first priority to all match fixtures, which is fair enough, because they want to keep themselves financially stable. Thats the only conclusive way that they'll support moving to a new stadium.

Actually, I've always believed a 70,000 capacity stadium is justifiable in Adelaide. We need to upgrade, not downgrade and that means going beyond the existing capacity of AAMI Stadium.

[Norman]

What I am sick of is people want things Now Now Now... they are so selfish these days, how about waiting a few years until we actually HAVE some money.

No wonder everyone is choking on their credit card bills.

[Brando]

What I am sick of is people want things Now Now Now... they are so selfish these days, how about waiting a few years until we actually HAVE some money.

No wonder everyone is choking on their credit card bills.

In this instance, i think most people are just after a vision and a plan. I would love to see a government commit and organise a feasability study into such a precinct rather than just dismiss the idea so arrogantly. A new stadium would still be years away even if all parties agreed.
This is about planning the future today.

Tyler is correct, as much as it does hold the city staduim ransom, but no AFL/SANFL, no stadium.

ICL 20/20 cricket has no commitment to SACA or Adelaide oval and could be played at an alternate venue.

[Ho Really]

There seem to be too many arguments against a Multi-Purpose Stadium on the railyards or anywhere else, even if there was land away from the parklands and close to public transport. It sounds and looks nice but will it satisfy everyone? Aussie Rules Football requires a large ground, Cricket the same, even Polo, but Football (Soccer), Rugby (League and Union), American Football, even Field Hockey require a rectangular surface. The grand majority of these codes of sport are played on natural turf which will be a problem for movable stands. In North America multi-purpose stadiums use artificial surfaces that can be removed to make the transition safe and easy. Imagine doing it on a waterlogged grass pitch. Also if you have a dome over the pitch and keep it closed for long periods of time (to save it from getting too much water) the grass would eventually suffer. I doubt most of those codes I mentioned will ever play on plastic. Besides, those watching sports on rectangular fields want to be close and on top of the action not low and further away, like AAMI or Adelaide Oval. Spectators should demand the best possible viewing angles for their sport or else they should refuse to go.

Cheers

P.S. Not to mention the damage to the grass surface by the different codes. There may be times when Rugby could ruin a pitch for Soccer, etc.

[Omicron]

I must have forgotten to say that Hindmarsh Stadium should be kept as a training facility/headquarters and back-up playing facility for Adelaide United. But yes, I do agree with everything else that you've said Tyler. The SANFL should be able to come to a compromise that, whilst they would not have control over the facility, they would be assigned first priority to all match fixtures, which is fair enough, because they want to keep themselves financially stable. Thats the only conclusive way that they'll support moving to a new stadium.

Actually, I've always believed a 70,000 capacity stadium is justifiable in Adelaide. We need to upgrade, not downgrade and that means going beyond the existing capacity of AAMI Stadium.

The SANFL doesn't just want financial stability - it has that already because it owns hundreds of millions of dollars worth of land and buildings over which it has exclusive claim on all revenues generated. This doesn't mean that the SANFL is in financial trouble if it becomes merely a tenant, or majority tenant of a new stadium - but what it does mean is that it has to accept a decreased percentage of revenues, lesser negotiating power with financial institutions, fewer assets, and so on.

In effect, for them to give up their AAMI Stadium land and use the money for the new stadium is effectively a several-hundred million dollar contribution, and I highly doubt any potential contribution from Adelaide United or the SACA would be anywhere near this amount. Why then ought the SANFL be damned with all the compromises it would have to make to sports that cannot bring the same crowds/revenue/contribution to the new stadium?

I sound grumpy. I'm sorry.

[Norman]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

AAMI Stadium may be bulldozed for footy's new home
EXCLUSIVE: THE SA National Football League is prepared to bulldoze AAMI Stadium and rebuild it to meet modern standards.

It is also ready to move to a new, billion-dollar sporting venue in the city centre – but only if it keeps total control of football's headquarters.
The SANFL yesterday declared there were only two options to consider for the future of AFL and major sports in Adelaide.

They were:

A NEW stadium costing at least $800 million at West Lakes, or $1 billion in the city centre. The new arena would be built to meet the modern demands for multi-sport venues as was Telstra Dome in Melbourne.

A REFIT of the 34-year-old AAMI Stadium costing at least $150 million. This could reach as much as $200 million if the West Lakes arena is to host World Cup soccer matches in 2018.

The SANFL's preferred option is the upgrade of AAMI Stadium.

The league wants state and federal government support in upgrading AAMI Stadium to be the centrepiece of any SA bid for major sporting events such as the soccer World Cup and Commonwealth Games.

"Football cannot do it on its own," said SANFL executive commissioner Leigh Whicker yesterday in an exclusive interview with The Advertiser.

The SANFL investment plan for AAMI Stadium is significantly less than the $1 billion needed to build a new venue in the city centre to keep Adelaide in line with new stadiums in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.

The league yesterday became the first SA-based sporting authority to release a clear strategy paper on meeting Adelaide's need for a world-class sporting venue.

The 14-point paper – backed by the league's "Future Options for AAMI Stadium" – concludes:

THE preferred option is to retain AAMI Stadium but "commit a significant redevelopment of the venue targeting all known areas of deficiency".

But, significantly, the SANFL is open-minded on leaving AAMI Stadium, the ground the league opened in 1974, saying:

AN alternative and major option is "to either demolish and rebuild a stadium on the West Lakes site or alternatively relocate to a modern, best-practice iconic venue in a central location, similar to Telstra Dome in Melbourne".

The league says there are two conditions to it leaving AAMI Stadium – the venue built in the early 1970s to end the conflict between Australian football and cricket which had been sharing Adelaide Oval.

LAND at AAMI Stadium would have to be rezoned to allow the maximum commercial return.

This could be $350 million today if the arena and adjoining grounds were turned into a residential development.

TOTAL "rights to and control over all sporting, corporate, commercial and marketing activities at any new development" be handed to the SANFL on at least a 99-year term.

Point 11 of the SANFL strategy paper states: "As a matter of policy the SANFL will not relinquish control of its assets and management of AAMI Stadium.

"(The SANFL will not) invest in another sporting stadium without having the same ownership in or control over a new stadium as it currently has at AAMI Stadium."

Mr Whicker yesterday revealed the SANFL had spent $53 million since 1992 in a "piecemeal" approach to upgrading AAMI Stadium. "Now we need to do it in one hit," he said.

Mr Whicker identified major work to be done throughout the venue.

Also costed in this investment plan is a light-rail link to AAMI Stadium and extended to service the nearby West Lakes shopping centre, local beaches and the new Port Adelaide residential projects.

SANFL president Rod Payze, an expert in urban planning and transport, said yesterday any redevelopment of AAMI Stadium or a new venue had to be serviced by rail.

Transport Minister Patrick Conlon yesterday rejected extending the Grange rail line solely to service AAMI Stadium.

"I cannot support a rail link for use one day of the week in half of the year," Mr Conlon said. "It needs to be part of a rail corridor that is used for the whole year."

The SANFL's "Future Options" papers this year revised the cost of upgrading AAMI Stadium from $70m to $150m.

Mr Whicker says this could reach $200m after world football's organising body, FIFA, this year completes an audit of Australia's readiness to host the 2018 World Cup.

"That national audit will give us a template for what AAMI Stadium needs to be a World Cup venue," Mr Whicker said.

"Once we have those specifications we can cost the project."

[monotonehell]

This is certainly encouraging. The devil's in the details of course, but the right people have started to make the right noises.

[Pants]

This govt. is one of the most populous in recent memory. I'd be very surprised if they don't do a backflip on a city stadium and say that 'the people have spoken' or some sh!t like that. If the SANFL puts in the money it would make from selling the AAMI stadium land and private investors are also sought, the costs wouldn't be prohibitive, especially in context of the long term benefits to the state.

Of course, if the new stadium were over the railway yards and the govt. sold off or leased the rest of the land to developers for a cultural/residential/retail precinct, they'd probably come out in front.

As for people suggesting this could be a white elephant of (pre-A-league) Hindmarsh or Docklands proportions - our two current major football venues, AAMI and Hindmarsh, are not white elephants. If these were combined and a new stadium was used for AFL and marquee A-League and Socceroo matches, it will be used more than enough to be viable. The SANFL is the key. Without the Crows or Power there, a new stadium would be useless. The SANFL's willingness to entertain the idea is a big step.

[Wayno]

wow! this is good news, but still very early days...Will be interested to hear Rann's response

Some basic sums:
* SANFL receives $350m for sale of land at west lakes
* SANFL was willing to spend $200 on upgrading AAMI stadium
==> that's $550m towards a new stadium!!!

[Tyler_Durden]

This issue has come a long way in a short time. This is without doubt the best news we've ever heard on the subject. The SANFL were always the major hurdle in this.

[Maximus]

wow! this is good news, but still very early days...Will be interested to hear Rann's response

Some basic sums:
* SANFL receives $350m for sale of land at west lakes
* SANFL was willing to spend $200 on upgrading AAMI stadium
==> that's $550m towards a new stadium!!!

They are indeed basic sums, but it's a very good start. I think the idea is likely to be more financially viable than some would have us believe. The SANFL coming on board is a major step. However, also consider this from today's paper:

Govt prefers roads to new stadium

COMMENT: GREG KELTON
March 07, 2008 12:25am

INFRASTRUCTURE Minister Patrick Conlon made it clear yesterday why the state would not build a sports stadium – it costs too much and the Government has other priorities.

Mr Conlon told a media conference on plans for a new transport corridor: "It may not be as sexy as a football stadium but what it does do is grow the wealth of the state and we believe that is a very good thing because you can't have football grounds unless you have something to pay for them.
"If the public prefer a footy stadium, then someone can offer it to them at an election and if they want a footy stadium instead of a hospital, then they can do that."

Senior Labor sources also told The Advertiser yesterday there was no way the Government would put money into a new stadium.

So despite opinion polls showing people support a new stadium and calls from some sporting bodies for the move, the Rann Government will not change its mind.

The state's finances are under pressure and already borrowings for major infrastructure are at high levels. Any more borrowings and the AAA credit rating could be put under pressure.

With federal Labor likely to hand down a horror Budget in May, the Rann Government is bracing itself to cut expenditure in several areas.

Labor has already set its spending priorities – health (especially the new $1.7 billion Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital), education and law and order – and that mantra is not going to change.

The Government believes the city is already well serviced for sport through AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval.

Another significant reason for the Government's reluctance to become involved in a new stadium closer to the city is the political and financial problems which beset the Olsen Liberal government over the Hindmarsh Soccer Stadium redevelopment.

The costs and problems associated with that development were used as bludgeon by the then Labor Opposition led by Mr Rann and Kevin Foley to harass the Olsen government about wasteful expenditure. They do not want the Liberals mounting the same sort of attacks.