Adelaide has to build a NEW stadium for 2018/2022 World Cup

[adam_stuckey]

I’d say they’d be a better chance of 2022 I can’t really see USA getting it straight after Brazil although they are different confederations I think FIFA wouldn’t want to be seen catering to one area of the globe

Agreed. Likewise with us, after 2010 and 2014 both being in in the Southern Hemisphere it will go north in 2018. Realistically any country not in Europe has next to no chance of hosting 2018. I'm sure the other nations bidding will see 2022 as their real hope.

Now i'm not saying that Australia is no chance for 2018 but I would say that someone like Russia is probably in the favorites position

But i could see FIFA saying that Australia is another South Africa and that has been a rush job since day one so they would probably want to give us more time (2022). But i guess we wouldn't have to build an entire public transport system like South Africa just imporve it and than look at the stadiums needed.

[adam_stuckey]

Interesting I was reading a Melbourne Victory forum where the members were discussing Adelaide’s lack of stadiums and all of them showed concern that Adelaide would bring Australia’s World Cup bid down with the fact that we’ve made zero plans to do anything about a football stadium. One member made a very good point, that if Adelaide United did happen to host the A-league Grand Final the FFA has to power to play that game wherever they feel would do the best.

Now I don’t know about you but Adelaide United hosting Melbourne Victory in Melbourne leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. But I believe that this probably needs to happen to get us to wake up and smell the roses!

[monotonehell]

Adam, you are pretty much having a conversation with yourself in this thread.

Bottom line; the current facilities are underused for the local comp. The Government aren't going to expand on Hindmarsh unless there's call for it. And they certainly are not going to build bigger one 'just in case' we host the World Cup. However, Rann has said publicly that IF we do win the World Cup, then they will build the facilities.

Either we find a business case and get a stadium built privately, or we win the World Cup and build the facilities publicly.

What more needs to be said?

[Shuz]

Mono; the trouble is. Several business cases have been put forth already to build such a stadium privately. The trouble? All proposals stand to be built on the railyards site. With the State Government so hell-bent on building the new RAH there, they've all backed off. However; the new RAH continues to find new issues about its locality, construction, etc. They still haven't sorted out the issue of flight path conflicts between emergency helicopters and planes flying in from the NE! We're all just hoping that it'll fall over, State Government seeks alternative location, business cases resume and a new stadium can be built.

[Prince George]

Mono; the trouble is. Several business cases have been put forth already to build such a stadium privately.

Business case as in "I want to build a stadium using my own money and I can operate it at a profit", or as in "If you give me the land for next to nothing and subsidise the development and operation, I can run a stadium at a profit"? I don't recall any of the first kind, and even that report from the Liberal party said that it was highly unlikely that a stadium could be developed without significant help from the public sector (their most likely case: public money builds the stadium and then leases it to an operator).

[monotonehell]

Instead of reposting the whole article:
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... ead#p64427

[Prince George]

And that is likewise still not a business case supporting a privately funded stadium. In the middle of that article we have:

Crucially needed government support would be about $700 million less than that needed to build a new, $1 billion stadium proposed by the Liberal Opposition.

The $350 million in that article's title refers to the money spent by the state government for the benefit of two (three if we count FFA) for-profit organisations, and their affiliated teams. And they're already downplaying how solid that figure is:

"The preliminary estimates say that we are probably talking in the vicinity of $350 million to $400 million"

[Brando]

Mono; the trouble is. Several business cases have been put forth already to build such a stadium privately.

Business case as in "I want to build a stadium using my own money and I can operate it at a profit", or as in "If you give me the land for next to nothing and subsidise the development and operation, I can run a stadium at a profit"? I don't recall any of the first kind, and even that report from the Liberal party said that it was highly unlikely that a stadium could be developed without significant help from the public sector (their most likely case: public money builds the stadium and then leases it to an operator).

In reality this is no longer about a stadium v's hospital anymore. I'm sure the liberal government will support a revamp of AO, with the support of AFL to be a major stakeholder in it's future and AAMI to fade away as it is best deemed.

Surely most members on here will agree this is the best outcome for all South Australians. I know of a few friends, nurses and paramedics and they all agree not to move the RAH. They care not about prime riverfront land, but what is best for the hospital, staff and it's patients.

This is where we, as concerned members with a vision come in to it, we do look into the future and we know that this prime piece of real estate, never to be repeated in our city's history, is best served left alone until the most exciting and purposeful outcome can be determined for all of us now and future generations.

Bottom line, keep the existing RAH, serve AO with the intention of playing AFL there soon and keep the railyards free till we come up with the best plan to make this the place to be everyday in Adelaide...


Sorry guys but i have had plenty to drink tonight...

[Wayno]

Instead of reposting the whole article:
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... ead#p64427

extracted from the above article:

Because Adelaide Oval is situated in the parklands, it cannot attract major project status. This means any development must first be considered by Adelaide City Council.

Noooooooo!! surely if it's over $10m then the DAC does the deed?

[adam_stuckey]

I don't understand why $250 million is too much for a new rectangular stadium but $350 million is fine for a couple of stands.

I think that for the SANFL its win - win either they stay at AAMI or come to Adelaide Oval but still have a good say in either.
For the SACA its not a huge win because they lose some of their control over the ground while only gaining another 10,000 seats (after the members stand is done)
And the only football games that will be played there are probably just the World Cup and a few games in the lead up.

And this is after the SANFL will just be finished doing up AAMi to the nicest it ever been.


I think this scenario should be used as a last resort if a purpose built football stadium becomes impossible.

[adam73837]

For a moment, let's put soccer aside. At the moment we have AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval. On one hand we have the SACA, who is at fault for us now being stuck with AAMI Stadium, yet they now want AFL matches played there (by releasing their control of the venue). On the other hand, we have the SANFL, who have AAMI Stadium and although they can sell AAMI and pocket most of that money then use the rest of it to transform AO into something of which they will benefit for years to come (said it before), refuse to do so. The fact is that no matter how much money they waste on it, it will not have the advantages of the same sort of money being spent on Adelaide Oval.
I know people that attend matches at AAMI Stadium fortnightly and I also read many articles around the place; and it can be concluded that one of the major things holding back the sort of development described above is one man: Leigh Whicker. He may be the man that "saved" football, but surely he doesn't want to do something that contradicts everything he's worked for. Leigh Whicker must overcome his emotional attachment to AAMI Stadium and realise that the best for football is to do something similar to what I highlighted above.

Meanwhile, we have the State Government. Now forget the Opposition, there is little to no chance of them winning the next election, so we can kiss a vision like Riverside good-bye :wank: ; however what really gets me is the Government's approach on this issue. If you would all cast your minds back to May when it was announced that the SACA and SANFL were entering talks on AO with Andrew Demetriou, Furious Foley was putting his support (and thus you would assume the Government's, given his position) behind such a development. Things looked good...
But now those of you that read the Sunday Mail would have seen this on Page 4:

A spokeswoman for Premier Mike Rann said a redeveloped AAMI Stadium remained the Government's preference.

...which interestingly seemed to come to fruition on the day that the SANFL expressed outrage on the article in the Saturday Advertiser. When the SANFL is open to talks on an AO redevelopment, the Government's backing it; when the SANFL isn't, the Government isn't. Shouldn't the opposite be happening (like in 1990s Victoria)? NO, because this is typical of Adelaide and this has all just become a mess. I hate to repeat myself, but what we need is a Kennet (or a stronger stance by the State Government on doing what is right for the people, not Leigh Whicker) to come in and sort out this mess. At the moment it seems that Demetriou is our only hope...

In conclusion, my opinion (on the soccer stadium issue) right now is this:
•Upgrade Adelaide Oval to a World Class standard, with moveable seating for the World Cup and other BIG sporting events to occur afterward for Rugby (eg the Rugby 7s/ International Matches) and Soccer (eg A-League Finals/ International Matches). The rest of the time, the ground can remain oval shaped, with 21st Century standard seating (like other stadiums around the World)
•Meanwhile, keep Hindmarsh Stadium for A-League and the occasional Cronulla Sharks matches. At the moment, Adelaide United doesn’t need the capacity of a 60 000 seat AO, however if the Eastern tier grandstand were to be built, it could serve for any increase in crowd numbers, at the same time leaving AO for BIG matches (see above).
I’m not saying that MY plan is THE plan, I’m just giving an example of how things could be managed if we put politics and the past behind us so that we can have an exciting future.

[adam_stuckey]

I think there are a few problems with all of this

Why would SANFL leave AAMI stadium which is not that bad just 10 times farther away from the city then it should when they're going to lose around 10,000 in capacity amd a large amount of control.
The reason Leigh Whicker doesn't want to leave AAMI is because its shows that in the end it was a bad move to go all the way out there (West Lakes) when the SACA and SANFL could have worked something out originally.
The SACA doesn't really need 45,000 seats unless another sport is involved.

I can see if this SANFL - SACA fight goes on too long someone's hand will be forced. The FFA has set October as the cut off date for Adelaide to be included in the World Cup bid. I think the state govenment will say if you can't work something out then you get nothing and they just build a Rectangular stadium that neither of them can use. Because if they do that the Federal Govenment will surely pay a large percentage of it, since its their bid.
Or the SANFL and SACA will just kiss and make up the day before the dead line and it'll all be a rush job with the agreement and one or the other will go crying to the Advertiser by the end of the year and then we could be back at square one.

[rhino]

The SACA doesn't really need 45,000 seats unless another sport is involved.

The SACA does need more capacity (amongst other things like better player facilities) in order to keep the better test matches, or we'll lose them to Brisbane or Perth.

[adam_stuckey]

The SACA doesn't really need 45,000 seats unless another sport is involved.

The SACA does need more capacity (amongst other things like better player facilities) in order to keep the better test matches, or we'll lose them to Brisbane or Perth.

Once the new stand is complete it'll be interesting to see how crowds at the cricket go Adelaide Oval is supposed to hold 33,500 but I've never seen anymore than 28,000.

Also....

Rectangular stadium for Perth

The State Government says it intends to run a new rectangular sports stadium for WA itself, after turning down a council proposal to upgrade Member's Equity Stadium and instead announcing its own plan for a $160 million dollar upgrade.

Sports minister Terry Waldron revealed today his intention to build a rectangular stadium for rugby and soccer after rejecting the Town of Vincent's plan for a $75 million revamp of the former Perth Oval.

With negotiations to start with the council, the Force and the Perth Glory which are likely to continue at least into the middle of next year, the Force were granted a $2 million interest free loan so they could continue their plans to move to Member's Equity next season.

And Mr Waldron flagged a potentially fiery negotiation with current rights holder Allia - saying if the government was going to pay for the new facility, it would also want to run it.

"If the state is putting in the funding then we would like to have some control over the facility, but we have got to work through that," Mr Waldron told the ABC.

"If the state is putting in we will want to have governance. That is a process that we will go through now. I think we can work through that issue."

Western Force chief Vern Reid today promised the club will help to deliver a stadium for the state, not just for rugby, with the interim upgrade likely include upgraded lighting, extra corporate boxes and more seats

"It is great news for rugby and we are delighted the government has moved to this position to identify the site at Member's Equity Stadium and for us to be part of the planning to deliver the stadium for WA," Mr Reid said.

Mr Waldron said while he had ruled out the Town of Vincent plan in its entirety, elements of it could be incorporated.

"We want a complete rectangular stadium … and want to finalise that by the middle of next year, and it would be a staged rebuild of Member's Equity," Waldron said.

"It is not the proposal as put forward by the Town of Vincent, we will be looking to incorporate aspects of the Town of Vincent proposal so we can deliver a complete rectangular stadium that will meet the long-term, future needs of the sport.

"Well they'll be looking at things like corporate boxes, lighting and general improvements to just improve the ground to what it is at the moment, but rugby won't be spending that on things we'll incorporate in a new completed stadium.

Waldron said today the $160 million multi-purpose Skilled Park rectangular stadium on the Gold Coast - which holds about 27,000 spectators - was a good model for Perth - It was built in two years and designed for rugby and soccer.

Temporary corporate suites at the northern end of the ground, a corporate marquee for match day functions and an extra 900 seats will make up part of the $2 million makeover.

Perth Oval revamp gets council's support

The plan to develop a rectangular stadium at Perth Oval is getting wholehearted support from the Town of Vincent.

The Mayor Nick Catania says the council's original proposal was to add one grandstand and more corporate facilities.

But the State Government has gone much further and committed to building a rectangular stadium to cater for rugby and soccer.

Mr Catania says he is hoping it will be built by the end of 2012.

He says it will require at least a year of planning.

"The Town of Vincent certainly has a lot of work to do to address the parking issue, to address how we ensure that the people who live in, and around, the stadium, will not be adversely affected." he said.

It seems like even though Perth are in the same boat as us they're moving forward with a purpose built stadium although they do have a Super 14 team, i think the main focus is the World Cup bid. Although i hear that Member's Equity Stadium is a bit like Adelaide Oval as far as heritage goes so i don't think this is a done deal yet!

[adam_stuckey]

Blow to Aussie World Cup bid

Australia's bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup has taken a huge blow after FIFA President Sepp Blatter revealed the 2018 World Cup will be hosted by either Europe or North America, unless Executive Committee members have a huge change of heart.

Blatter told United States Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati this week that FIFA Executive Committee members are torn between Europe and North America for 2018 ­- a position that may knock Australia out of contention for both tournaments.

Blatter told Gulati after a meeting with US President Barack Obama that if the rotation policy were still in place, North America would be granted hosting rights for 2018.

"If FIFA were following a policy of rotation then it would in fact be North America's turn [in 2018]," Blatter said, according to Gulati.

Gulati, speaking on a conference call with reporters, added Blatter believes other Executive Committee members, who will vote next year on the hosts for 2018 and 2022 simultaneously, want a return to Europe after South Africa in 2010 and Brazil in 2014.

"There are some within the Executive Committee that would like [North America in 2018] to be the case and that there are other members of the Executive Committee that would prefer every third World Cup should be in Europe, in which case 2018 will be more likely for Europe," said Gulati, relaying Blatter's views.

"But at this point [the US is] still very much bidding for 2018 and 2022 [but] I think there are a number of members within the Executive Committee, certainly the European members, who think Europe should go first."

Blatter met Obama at the White House in Washington DC earlier this week and presented the US President with a football.

Blatter described the meeting as 'a great encounter' and invited Obama and his family, including his football-playing daughters, to attend next year's World Cup in South Africa.

If you go on the World Game website you can see video but Sepp Blatter can't make it anymore clearer that USA will get one of the World Cup spots which doesn't look good due to Europe wanting 2022 probably so that's either England or Russia.

On a side note England just won the right to host the 2015 Rugby World Cup so that gives them the 2012 Olympics, the 2014 Commonwealth Games (Glasgow) and the 2015 Rugby WC so with all that on the Britions plate would that go for or against them in relation to the Football WC?