[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Stubbo]

Geez it frustrates me when politicians change there tune as they have obviously stuffed the original quote.

The 450, now 535 million to support the AO development seriously irritates me. This just proves without a doubt that they made a policy decision without any reference to facts or figures for support.

Now it looks as though SACA may need even more than 85 mill to support the redevelopment. Is this redevelopment for the benefit of everyone or just SACA?

[Ben]

I'm just disappointed all this money is being spent and we're getting a half assed 50,000 seat stadium when AAMI holds more. We should be going forward not backward. At a minimum it should be 60,000 but realistically 70,000 would be ideal. One would assume having games in the city will boost numbers as the biggest complaint with AAMI was the difficulty in getting there.

[Waewick]

this is going to get worse by the month

i'm looking forward the extension of time that will no doubt be granted until the end of the year.

by then something will have happened to make it unfeasable (economic downturn, no WC) and we'll end up with nothing.

[ghs]

Would they sell off the name to generate extra funding......... Even if they did it would only
generate a few million.

How about 'AAMI Oval' ?

[stumpjumper]

I'd rather not be a focus of this thread either.

I'm male, and I work in the (private) construction industry. I'm basically a project manager. Most of my work involves modifying existing buildings, and I get most of my projects completed on time, on budget. I have no political affiliations. What I write is based on what I read and conclude (based on evidence). I have been getting calls from journalists. I used to be a journalist once but the calls I get are not from people I used to work with. As for the time, well, my job is finding time. I do have a few very good contacts here and there whom I can't name, and I have a good memory.

Back to the business at hand.

It now appears that SACA's $85 million debt arose from the 14,000 seat Western Grandstand project: "...SACA will receive $85m of the state government's $450m to help pay a debt incurred by its new 14,000 seat western grandstand."

That means that the Western Grandstand work cost at least $16 million + $9 million from the state government, $25 million from the federal government, plus the $85 million, which adds up to $135 million, or $9643 per seat - about 50% more than current world average for similar work, adjusted to 2010 $AUD (for time, purchasing power parity and real wages, AtD!)

A serious question there: Assuming minimal changes in scope and design, and that the project is on time, what sort of contract did SACA have such that SACA and not the contractor incurred a loss of 150% of the original cost (as we are being told), before it's even finished?? Most contracts give the client a bit more protection. The taxpayers of SA should sue whoever advised SACA.

The well-known blowouts in time and cost at Wembley didn't send the client broke, they sent the contractor, Multiplex, to the wall. Wembley's final seat cost, by the way, was in 2010 $AUD, $6472, for a total cost, with 90,000 permanent seats and a semi-closable roof of AUD$582,500,000, still way below our (presently estimated) seat costs.

The Adelaide Oval Western Grandstand development will make an ideal case study in 'how not to do it' for anyone studying project delivery. Yet the government trusts the same people with procuring the '$450 million' project. Now it's the '$535 million' project I suppose. And not a brick's been laid yet.

Foley said today he was unaware of any cost blowout until a week ago. I cannot believe that. Three weeks ago I wrote here

there have been strong rumours of a further $100,000,000 blowout in cost

and Foley is far better informed than I. After all, he's the one who said about this project: "I'm in charge."

[Kal El]

Sorry we do not need a 60-70k stadium in this city and people need to do some math on this stadia returns before they make statements like this. Just have a look at West Coasts returns on a smaller stadium and an average of 2000 less per game than the Crows. All stadia deal reports of recent times actually tell you that bigger aren’t always the best out come when it comes to stadia yield.

My point is why pay for a stadium with 60-70k seats when AAMI is very rarely filled to 52K when the Crows are in form. The Crows averaged nearly 39k in 2009 its highest being 45K in 2003 so why would we want an average of 20k odd seats empty?

[stumpjumper]

Tonight 7pm. Foley admits that the completed Adelaide Oval project will not be FIFA compliant. If Australia wins the World Cup for 2018 or 2022, then additional work at unknown cost will be required.

Rann said before the election that there was "$450 million on the table and not a cent more". That is now $585 million, plus unknown further funds from somewhere to make the oval FIFA compliant.

Rann in parliament today blamed the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority for the cost increase, adding for good measure that the SMA "is chaired by former federal Liberal minister Ian McLachlan". Why didn't he refer as well to the former Labor premier John Bannon's presence on the SMA, or the presence of Creagh O'Connor, right hand man to Robert de Crespigny, former head of Rann's economic development authority?

Leigh Whicker, head of the SANFL's contingent on the SMA, said tonight that the project was not initiated by SANFL - that he was approached by others.

Back to early May:

Mike Rann's media adviser Jill Bottrall has stated: "The Government will help where it can but it's not really our responsibility. They're the ones who came to us and said that they wanted to do this. We're helping, but we're not the parties involved because they're not our assets. We're just there to facilitate."

Kevin Foley's media adviser Rik Morris follows up with: "The AFL came to us. They worked closely with the SANFL and SACA and came to us with a plan … and said it could be done for $450 million … and nobody has told us otherwise.”

So, whose idea was it?

[ricecrackers]

Tonight 7pm. Foley admits that the completed Adelaide Oval project will not be FIFA compliant. If Australia wins the World Cup for 2018 or 2022, then additional work at unknown cost will be required.

Rann said before the election that there was "$450 million on the table and not a cent more". That is now $585 million, plus unknown further funds from somewhere to make the oval FIFA compliant.

Rann in parliament today blamed the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority for the cost increase, adding for good measure that the SMA "is chaired by former federal Liberal minister Ian McLachlan". Why didn't he refer as well to the former Labor premier John Bannon's presence on the SMA, or the presence of Creagh O'Connor, right hand man to Robert de Crespigny, former head of Rann's economic development authority?

Leigh Whicker, head of the SANFL's contingent on the SMA, said tonight that the project was not initiated by SANFL - that he was approached by others.

Back to early May:

Mike Rann's media adviser Jill Bottrall has stated: "The Government will help where it can but it's not really our responsibility. They're the ones who came to us and said that they wanted to do this. We're helping, but we're not the parties involved because they're not our assets. We're just there to facilitate."

Kevin Foley's media adviser Rik Morris follows up with: "The AFL came to us. They worked closely with the SANFL and SACA and came to us with a plan … and said it could be done for $450 million … and nobody has told us otherwise.”

So, whose idea was it?

this is so messy

seriously they should just cut their losses..halt the AO project at the completion of the Western Grandstand and let the Federal Govt fund a 40->27k rectangular stadium if the WC bid is a success

the Crows dont want to move to Adelaide Oval
Cricket doesnt need a bigger stadium than what is currently there

only Port Power want this and Foley is a Port Power supporter

Port could still move to AO even after the Western stand development...AO would still fit many more people than Port ever get to any of their home games

SACA get their extra tenant...everybody's happy and we save ~$300 million in State Govt funds and hence our taxes

[Kal El]

Tonight 7pm. Foley admits that the completed Adelaide Oval project will not be FIFA compliant. If Australia wins the World Cup for 2018 or 2022, then additional work at unknown cost will be required.

Rann said before the election that there was "$450 million on the table and not a cent more". That is now $585 million, plus unknown further funds from somewhere to make the oval FIFA compliant.

Rann in parliament today blamed the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority for the cost increase, adding for good measure that the SMA "is chaired by former federal Liberal minister Ian McLachlan". Why didn't he refer as well to the former Labor premier John Bannon's presence on the SMA, or the presence of Creagh O'Connor, right hand man to Robert de Crespigny, former head of Rann's economic development authority?

Leigh Whicker, head of the SANFL's contingent on the SMA, said tonight that the project was not initiated by SANFL - that he was approached by others.

Back to early May:

Mike Rann's media adviser Jill Bottrall has stated: "The Government will help where it can but it's not really our responsibility. They're the ones who came to us and said that they wanted to do this. We're helping, but we're not the parties involved because they're not our assets. We're just there to facilitate."

Kevin Foley's media adviser Rik Morris follows up with: "The AFL came to us. They worked closely with the SANFL and SACA and came to us with a plan … and said it could be done for $450 million … and nobody has told us otherwise.”

So, whose idea was it?

this is so messy

seriously they should just cut their losses..halt the AO project at the completion of the Western Grandstand and let the Federal Govt fund a 40->27k rectangular stadium if the WC bid is a success

the Crows dont want to move to Adelaide Oval
Cricket doesnt need a bigger stadium than what is currently there

only Port Power want this and Foley is a Port Power supporter

Port could still move to AO even after the Western stand development...AO would still fit many more people than Port ever get to any of their home games

SACA get their extra tenant...everybody's happy and we save ~$300 million in State Govt funds and hence our taxes

Well that will never happen as the AFL will not sign off on that nor the SANFL as it's revenue loss of 11 games to AAMI will impact on the SANFL coffers too much. So nowhere near everybody is happy.

I also wouldn’t say the Crows do not want to shift they are very hesitant at it but they also know they cannot afford to stay at AAMI under current stadia deals that I cannot see the SANFL doing much about due to the cash cows that both clubs are in revenue for the SANFL.

That makes no sense to build a rectangular stadium if we win the WC (which I think is very doubtful) economics tell you that

[stumpjumper]

My point is why pay for a stadium with 60-70k seats when AAMI is very rarely filled to 52K when the Crows are in form. The Crows averaged nearly 39k in 2009 its highest being 45K in 2003 so why would we want an average of 20k odd seats empty?

Agreed, Kal El. Every extra seat adds to cost in use. Larger facilities, extra cleaning, more lighting, more parking etc etc.

Given the demonstrated incompetence to date of the 'managers' of this business, I'll bet my autographed Russell Ebert footy that no proper cost-in-use analysis exists for the enlarged Adelaide Oval/Stadium. Not when they can't even tell you who will be playing there.

What an embarrassment.

So, whose idea was it?

Perhaps I can answer my own question.

"I'm in charge." - Kevin Foley a few days ago.

Maybe you're right about Port being behind the whole thing, ricecrackers. That's new to me. Have you got any reason to say that, or are you guessing? I think it's more likely that the whole fiasco has its genesis in Rann's election strategists. They grasped at the idea to neutralise the Libs' suggestion of a cheap, FIFA compliant 40K/27K stadium, but they didn't bother to think it through.

We will now watch the painful birth of one of the biggest white elephants ever seen - a hugely expensive, badly configured, expensive and inefficient to use stadium, which will leave AAMI as an outdated semi-orphan and will have cost us, as minor point, a beautiful, functional cricket ground.

My guess is that once this gigantic heavily subsidised balls-up is completed, then it will only be operable with continuing subsidy, and that won't be coming from the AFL.

Perhaps ricecrackers is right:

Seriously they should just cut their losses..halt the AO project at the completion of the Western Grandstand and let the Federal Govt fund a 40->27k rectangular stadium if the WC bid is a success

That only leaves the future of AAMI to resolve...

[Hooligan]

only Port Power want this and Foley is a Port Power supporter

Port could still move to AO even after the Western stand development...AO would still fit many more people than Port ever get to any of their home games

I just love how you assume moving Adelaide united into the city means bigger crowds but you then assume moving the PAFC (they're not called Port Power you clown) will have no effect on current crowd numbers at all.

[ricecrackers]

Maybe you're right about Port being behind the whole thing, ricecrackers. That's new to me. Have you got any reason to say that, or are you guessing? I think it's more likely that the whole fiasco has its genesis in Rann's election strategists. They grasped at the idea to neutralise the Libs' suggestion of a cheap, FIFA compliant 40K/27K stadium, but they didn't bother to think it through.

after the AO redevelopment was announced several months ago, I tuned into AustraliaLiveTV (the internet site) and Foley was talking to "KG and the General" about it. (this was the only time i listened to that show as i wanted to know more about the AO FIFA compliance...they also have a show on that site called TwoUpFront which i do watch occasionally)

..anyway Foley was like an excited schoolboy about the whole thing...it was quite concerning
he even suggested shutting down AO for a couple of years so they could expedite the development and he couldnt wait until it was completed.
they basically talked about AFL at the AO for the whole show and how absolutely fantastic that would be

Nothing suggested to me that Foley was acting as a responsible project sponsor who had weighed up different options before deciding on the one they chose

it was all about getting "Fuudee" back in the city

[Kal El]

I have no doubt Port will get better crowds in a CBD stadium and Crows grow again. The fact of the matter is AAMI stadium is on the nose not only here but also with interstate travellers and this is showing in the rapidly declining numbers.

A fresh start more accessible stadium for local and interstate supports will be the best thing for footy n this state

You can argue form, weather etc but history is point directly away from the normal arguments and looking at the state of AAMI as an outdated and beyond rebirth cost wise place to watch football.

I am yet to see anyone prove the worth of a 27k plus rectangular stadium for this state when the Reds will be its only regular tenant. Unless we ended up with two A League teams and or an NRL team it is just no a viable option when it would have to compete with AO and AAMI for events.

[Vee]

I have no doubt Port will get better crowds in a CBD stadium and Crows grow again. The fact of the matter is AAMI stadium is on the nose not only here but also with interstate travellers and this is showing in the rapidly declining numbers.

A fresh start more accessible stadium for local and interstate supports will be the best thing for footy in this state.

AAMI Stadium is a relic of the past - outdated, uncomfortable, wrong location, poor access to public transport and no nearby amenities (that appeal) for crowds to linger before/after an event.

It surely factors in the somewhat disdainful approach shown by interstate footy supporters (and some commentators) to SA, in much the same way as the old, dilapidated Adelaide Airport did before the new one came into operation. It also adds to the cringe factor of locals.

Our two AFL teams are falling behind other states with their superior stadium deals and this must threaten their viability and their ability to attract and retain quality recruits.
I would love to see a new, central and accessible, covered multi-purpose stadium built.

Adelaide Oval is a great cricket oval. I can't see the (extenxive) redevelopment as the answer. Re-building and heritage constraints and accommodating multiple demands must add significantly to costs. Time for a re-think?

[stumpjumper]

Part of the present difficulties stem from the configuration decided on for West Lakes all those years ago. Melbourne had the economic power to get rid of Waverley after they'd built it. Further responsibility for the mess should rest on the shoulders of the decision makers - principally the man with the chequebook, Treasurer Kevin Foley.

"I'm in charge," he said not long ago.

Foley's role must be open to question. He wields more power than Rann, McLachlan and the AOSMA, or Demetriou for that matter.

Yet Foley seems to lack insight into the realities of his role. He plays with money which is not his, has the title to numerous parcels of publicly-owned land and he has the entire development industry sucking up to him. He doesn't seem to understand that a joint development with a landowner does not mean that the landowner simply gives up land to a developer. The landowner (the taxpayer in Foley's case) is entitled to a return of the value of the land and a share of the profit.

Foley surely had the ability to steer the Newport Quays project, but it proceeded with possibly fatal flaws: a single developer and insufficient mix of uses. The huge site was cherry picked - transport and industry got what they wanted, as did the residential developer. The rest of the site is just blank space on a map. The community, despite basically bogus consultation, ended up with a stand alone development in its midst. There was never a proper overall plan, but plenty of (taxpayer funded) ad hoc moves like the boat berths and the boardwalk; the huge old mills have never been included in any plan. The taxpayer has seen little return, not even the decade of 4000 jobs Foley promised.

Foley and Rann head the management structure of DefenceSA. At least in that position, Foley has steadying influences, but he pays their salaries. Is TechPort really $120 million over-budget? Is it really poorly tenanted? How good was the fundamental decision-making behind the whole project? Again, little return yet at least for the taxpayer.

Now to the Adelaide Oval...

I have nothing personal against Foley, but his performance must raise questions about his ability to perform the role of Treasurer along with his de facto role of development impresario to the SA government with its attractive sites and bucketfuls of taxpayers' cash.

A final, sad word on the Adelaide Oval saga, from Ian McLachlan, chair of the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority, when asked on Channel 9 news about FIFA compliance of the finished project:

"If it isn't FIFA compliant, then so be it. Football has nothing to do with this."

It's the same problem that has crippled 'iconic government-funded projects' through the ages. Plenty of people lining up to spend the money, and to receive it, but not enough prepared to undertake proper analysis and planning.