[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#151 Post by mattblack » Wed May 26, 2010 2:04 pm

Stumpjumper,
a flexible stadium for rugby codes, hockey, athletics
Um, Id hate to tell you but the reason we dont need a rectangular sadium is because we have non of the things. I hate comparing Adelaide to Melbourne but here goes.

They have only just completed a purpose built stadium and the reason - 2 x A league teams, 1 x NRL team, 1 x super 14 team. Adelaide 1 x A league team.

Case CLOSED
So, sport politics and political politics aside, we should spend about $300 million on a stand alone stadium
+ land is pretty open ended !!, your also adding on $400M for AAMI stadium upgrade. Thats $700M + land and counting.
Adelaide Oval presents expensive problems on all counts. Older but still sound buildings, limitations on parking, heritage constraints, a broke lessee, poor transport despite CBD location.
Poor P/T? what drugs are you on. Becuse you need to walk 5 mins to a tain station or bus stop to go anywhere in Adelaide. Whats good P/T? Something that takes you to your seat, makes you a hot cup of milo and knits you a blanky to keep your legs warm :roll:
My suggestion, before we commit our future to the experts who blew out the Western Grandstand development from $50 million to $135 million, is to take a very deep breath, put the present dispute aside, forget sports politics and Labor/Liberal politics and make a rational decision about what to do.
Looks like you've already made an irrational decision.
Last edited by mattblack on Wed May 26, 2010 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ricecrackers
Banned
Banned
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:47 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#152 Post by ricecrackers » Wed May 26, 2010 2:11 pm

the Crows must be turning a profit at AAMI otherwise how could they afford to build their elaborate new $16 million training facility?
they may have made a one off loss this year simply due to that investment..but overall the club is doing very nicely at AAMI

as for Melbourne's rectangular stadium...that has cost far more than it needed to due to their ridiculously over designed roof structure..even so it still only cost $268 million.

now if money for a FIFA compliant stadium in Adelaide will largely come from the Federal Govt.

whereas here in Adelaide we're looking at our State Govt paying $535 million for a stadium that wont be FIFA compliant. On top of that our state govt/stadium management authority will need to pay x million dollars per year in compensation to the AFL clubs for perpetuity in order to get them to move there.

where is the economic sense in that?
If 50 million believe in a fallacy, it is still a fallacy..." Professor S.W. Carey

User avatar
spiller
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:13 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#153 Post by spiller » Wed May 26, 2010 3:01 pm

mattblack wrote:Stumpjumper,
a flexible stadium for rugby codes, hockey, athletics
Um, Id hate to tell you but the reason we dont need a rectangular sadium is because we have non of the things. I hate comparing Adelaide to Melbourne but here goes.

They have only just completed a purpose built stadium and the reason - 2 x A league teams, 1 x NRL team, 1 x super 14 team. Adelaide 1 x A league team.

Case CLOSED
Thank you! I've said it once and ill say it again, a World Cup does not jwarrant spending 270m on a rectangular stadium that will have no econnomic justifcation in the future! That extra 270 million is better off put towards AO to make it FIFA compliant becauxse IT will be viable in many, many years to come. Adelaide DOES NOT NEED two, three, four, stadiums to cater for each individual sport. A "multipurpose arena" is what's viable and if that's what Adelaide Oval must become, then so be it.

User avatar
spiller
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:13 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#154 Post by spiller » Wed May 26, 2010 3:10 pm

ricecrackers wrote:the Crows must be turning a profit at AAMI otherwise how could they afford to build their elaborate new $16 million training facility?
they may have made a one off loss this year simply due to that investment..but overall the club is doing very nicely at AAMI
I think you'll find a significant sum of the money for the Westpac Centre of Excellence came from Government grants. No, the Crows are not "doing just fine" at AAMI Staidum. They are one of the most advantageous off-field clubs in the AFL, given the fact that they are 1 of only 2 teams (and a composite team representing the greater SA at that) in a state that is predominantly Aussie Rules mad, however their shocking stadia return errodes that advantage year after year.

ricecrackers, ive seen you come down on other members for being ignorant towards "the world game" a number of times within this discussion thread, however seemingly, you're fairly ignorant towards Australian Rules Football (not AFL, AFL is the professional league in which the code is played, not the code itself). FWIW, i'm a fan of all sports, "the world game included" and regardless of bias, hypocrisy is never a good thing.

ricecrackers
Banned
Banned
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:47 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#155 Post by ricecrackers » Wed May 26, 2010 3:27 pm

spiller wrote:
ricecrackers wrote:the Crows must be turning a profit at AAMI otherwise how could they afford to build their elaborate new $16 million training facility?
they may have made a one off loss this year simply due to that investment..but overall the club is doing very nicely at AAMI
I think you'll find a significant sum of the money for the Westpac Centre of Excellence came from Government grants. No, the Crows are not "doing just fine" at AAMI Staidum. They are one of the most advantageous off-field clubs in the AFL, given the fact that they are 1 of only 2 teams (and a composite team representing the greater SA at that) in a state that is predominantly Aussie Rules mad, however their shocking stadia return errodes that advantage year after year.

ricecrackers, ive seen you come down on other members for being ignorant towards "the world game" a number of times within this discussion thread, however seemingly, you're fairly ignorant towards Australian Rules Football (not AFL, AFL is the professional league in which the code is played, not the code itself). FWIW, i'm a fan of all sports, "the world game included" and regardless of bias, hypocrisy is never a good thing.
so rather than the state govt tip a few million dollars a year into the Crows and Power...as it seems they are already doing, you're suggesting that it makes better economic sense for our state govt to tip $535 million into Adelaide Oval, plus the same million dollars per year in compensation to those same clubs?

The Federal govt have pledged $250 million for SA to develop a FIFA compliant stadium should Australia win a world cup bid. Thats enough to build a new stadium at no cost whatsoever to the SA govt.

The Adelaide Oval solution that has been settled on will provide zero benefit for soccer despite millions in economic benefits provided to the state economy should Australia win the bid. Adelaide United have already stated they cannot accommodate any more corporate sponsors at Hindmarsh Stadium. There is certainly a case for them to move to a bigger stadium for corporate boxes alone, not to mention the increased interest in the sport generated by holding such an event.

That is not an issue for the Crows or Power, there is plenty of space at AAMI stadium.

From my viewpoint I cannot see any business case for the state govt spending $535 million on Adelaide oval, which wont even be FIFA compliant. They've admitted this now.

There is just so much pissant thinking in this town its unbelievable.
If 50 million believe in a fallacy, it is still a fallacy..." Professor S.W. Carey

Stubbo
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:47 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#156 Post by Stubbo » Wed May 26, 2010 3:34 pm

spiller wrote:
mattblack wrote:Stumpjumper,
a flexible stadium for rugby codes, hockey, athletics
Um, Id hate to tell you but the reason we dont need a rectangular sadium is because we have non of the things. I hate comparing Adelaide to Melbourne but here goes.

They have only just completed a purpose built stadium and the reason - 2 x A league teams, 1 x NRL team, 1 x super 14 team. Adelaide 1 x A league team.

Case CLOSED
Thank you! I've said it once and ill say it again, a World Cup does not jwarrant spending 270m on a rectangular stadium that will have no econnomic justifcation in the future! That extra 270 million is better off put towards AO to make it FIFA compliant becauxse IT will be viable in many, many years to come. Adelaide DOES NOT NEED two, three, four, stadiums to cater for each individual sport. A "multipurpose arena" is what's viable and if that's what Adelaide Oval must become, then so be it.
No one is advocating for separate stadiums for separate codes. The main theme appears to be cricket and AFL in one ground (reducing the main oval count from 2 to 1) and maintaining a quality rectangle ground that is more viable than Hindmarsh, eg including hockey and athletics with the ability to have a temporary capacity of 40k to cater for the WC if we get it.

If we don't get the world cup, we wont have a FIFA compliant stadium thats it. As it stands, we will definately have some sort of CBD 50k oval that hopefuly caters for cricket and AFL. The question is, what happens if Aust is successful with its WC bid, where is the rectangle stadium going, or is AO going to be further modified.

My opinion (which is worth a pint of beer - good beer, no VB or Westend mind you) is that we need two quality stadiums, an oval and a rectangle. At present we have two oval and one rectangle. It should (in theory) be relatively straight forward to have a good rectangle stadium of max capacity approx 20-30 (probably low 20) to cater for anything a rectangle stadium is good for, mainly soccer, rugby 7s, athletics and hockey (eg replace Santos Stadium in the process). Then, have a good, world class (whatever that means) oval of 55 - 65 for AFL and Cricket. No major stuffing around, no retractable seating, simpler design issues and constraints, two main stadiums not three.

Stubbo
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:47 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#157 Post by Stubbo » Wed May 26, 2010 3:39 pm

From my viewpoint I cannot see any business case for the state govt spending $535 million on Adelaide oval, which wont even be FIFA compliant. They've admitted this now.

There is just so much pissant thinking in this town its unbelievable.
There is good justification if it is for AFL and Cricket ONLY. I cant see how the stadium wont make bucket loads of money. AFL will have increased attendance purely based on a central location with excellent public transport and Cricket is planning for an expanded 20 20 league which is likely to see average crowds in the 000's!!!!

I do agree if the money is being spent to prepare for the world cup, however...

ricecrackers
Banned
Banned
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:47 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#158 Post by ricecrackers » Wed May 26, 2010 3:41 pm

yes glad you made the point about retractable seating. I wish we would just forget that idea.
this has been proven to be an expensive waste of time. they rarely use it at Etihad because of the cost involved with moving the seats together with the problems it causes with the turf.

as far as getting a return on investment is concerned...I'm not sure the AFL have gotten a return on their investment at Etihad yet even after 10 years.

$500+ million takes a long time to pay off and even then you're not going to get much bigger crowds at AO than AAMI as it will be no bigger
the margins that these AFL clubs make are not great at the best of times. its not like Europe where you can sell a couple of players and make $20 million dollars.
If 50 million believe in a fallacy, it is still a fallacy..." Professor S.W. Carey

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#159 Post by mattblack » Wed May 26, 2010 3:53 pm

Stubbo wrote:
My opinion (which is worth a pint of beer - good beer, no VB or Westend mind you) is that we need two quality stadiums, an oval and a rectangle. At present we have two oval and one rectangle. It should (in theory) be relatively straight forward to have a good rectangle stadium of max capacity approx 20-30 (probably low 20) to cater for anything a rectangle stadium is good for, mainly soccer, rugby 7s, athletics and hockey (eg replace Santos Stadium in the process). Then, have a good, world class (whatever that means) oval of 55 - 65 for AFL and Cricket. No major stuffing around, no retractable seating, simpler design issues and constraints, two main stadiums not three.
[/quote]

But your also saying that having an athletics track between the playing surface and the fans is non FIFA compliant? Spack filler needed to fill holes in argument please.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#160 Post by rhino » Wed May 26, 2010 4:04 pm

Stubbo, athletics does not belong in a rectangular stadium. An 8-lane 400m oval track requires more space than a soccer pitch, and you can't have an athletics stadium without that.
cheers,
Rhino

Stubbo
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:47 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#161 Post by Stubbo » Wed May 26, 2010 4:10 pm

ricecrackers wrote: $500+ million takes a long time to pay off and even then you're not going to get much bigger crowds at AO than AAMI as it will be no bigger
the margins that these AFL clubs make are not great at the best of times. its not like Europe where you can sell a couple of players and make $20 million dollars.
Ahh, but they wouldnt be paying it off, we would be... :lol:

With a long term view, it should be worth a significant amount of revenue to the state with people more likely to spend money before and after games and hopefully increased interstate supporters visiting.

Also, wont be much bigger total crowds, but I bet there is a significant bump in average attendance.

Stubbo
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:47 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#162 Post by Stubbo » Wed May 26, 2010 4:22 pm

rhino wrote:Stubbo, athletics does not belong in a rectangular stadium. An 8-lane 400m oval track requires more space than a soccer pitch, and you can't have an athletics stadium without that.

Yeah, only reason I suggested it is due to seeing some games played on SBS with an athletics track arouns the pitch so I assumed there would be 'off the shelf' ways of getting around it, as opposed to make a rectangle out of an oval.

Lots of compromise anyway you look at it, I just hope that whatever happens, it benefits AFL, Cricket AND Soccer/Football

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5527
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#163 Post by crawf » Wed May 26, 2010 4:53 pm

Promising news from Foley.
Now it's $535m Oval upgrade
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/now-its-5 ... 5871073484
THE Adelaide Oval redevelopment has not become a bottomless pit, despite revelations it will cost at least another $85 million, Treasurer Kevin Foley says.

Mr Foley said during a fiery interview on 891 ABC Adelaide this morning that he was first formally advised of the cost blowout in a minute from Treasury a week ago.

"We want to deliver to the people of SA an outstanding stadium," Mr Foley said. "Whatever the price ultimately is, there is a limit to what the Government will put into it."

The Government has been forced to put an extra $85 million into the redevelopment which was a key election issue with the Liberals promising a $800 million covered stadium on the railyards site.

Mr Foley said the Government had made the original commitment of $450 million based on the advice of the SANFL, SACA and the AFL - three very responsible bodies.

"That was there best estimate at the time and we considered it to be a correct estimate," Mr Foley said.

"It is what it is. We had a choice.

"We could either walk away from the project and it would have collapsed or we had, as a Government, had to make it work."

Mr Foley denied the Government had intentionally misled the people of SA over the stadium costs and rejected any claims the cost blowout had been known before the March 20 state election.

SACA chairman Ian McLachlan said the Stadium Management Authority, which is overseeing the project, had become progressively aware over March, April and May that the redevelopment could be delivered for $450 million.

He said the authority was still looking at a series of options - "some of which will stay, some of which will be pared, and some of which will go out the door".

"It became obvious we could not do it for the original $450 million," he said. Mr Mclachlan said the Government had been notified formally in the last week and "prior to that we said it was tough"

"It still is damn tough," Mr McLachlan said.

Mr McLachlan rejected suggestions that the the stadium cost was a key election issue.

"Neither party brought this to the fore in any great way during the election," he said.


The extra money means the State Government now will pay $535 million to help rebuild the oval. That is a major backdown by Mike Rann's Government, which had pledged to cap its contribution at $450 million.

The $535 million does not include $20 million to build a footbridge over Torrens Lake.

The State Government also has extended the timeline for the authority to finalise its design and costings by two months to August 31.

Mr Foley yesterday told Parliament that "to all intents and purposes, it will be a FIFA-compliant stadium".

Mr McLachlan, however, said the new money would "not necessarily" guarantee a stadium able to host games if Australia won the right to host the World Cup in 2018 or 2022.

"Whatever happens, the World Cup has got nothing to do with this authorisation by the Government to fund the $535 million," he said.

The Federal Government will contribute $250 million if Australia wins the right to host a World Cup. SACA chief Mr McLachlan said: "If we have to wear the blame for underestimating the cost of a concept which has changed in scope, then we will wear the blame."

The Advertiser has been told Mr Foley became aware of the need for more funding in a memo from the SMA about five days ago.

He and the Premier met SANFL officials Rod Payze and Leigh Whicker on Monday. He told Mr McLachlan, Mr Payze and Mr Whicker yesterday morning that Cabinet and the Labor Caucus had agreed to increase the Government's contribution by $85 million.

Asked why the Government had agreed to the extra funding after originally saying there was "no bottomless pit", Mr Rann said the SMA had told him they could not do it for $450 million.

Mr Foley said the money would be contained in the State Budget, due in September. "We will leave a legacy no other government has left; we will have transformed the heart of the city," he said.

Liberal treasury spokesman Iain Evans said the people of SA had been "conned".

"The Government wanted a political fix for the election and conned the SA public into voting for them. Now they are running 100 miles from the costings," he said.

flavze
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:38 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#164 Post by flavze » Wed May 26, 2010 5:29 pm

Stubbo wrote:
rhino wrote:Stubbo, athletics does not belong in a rectangular stadium. An 8-lane 400m oval track requires more space than a soccer pitch, and you can't have an athletics stadium without that.

Yeah, only reason I suggested it is due to seeing some games played on SBS with an athletics track arouns the pitch so I assumed there would be 'off the shelf' ways of getting around it, as opposed to make a rectangle out of an oval.

Lots of compromise anyway you look at it, I just hope that whatever happens, it benefits AFL, Cricket AND Soccer/Football
it depends on what ya regard as FIFA compliant, FIFA have a *star* rating for stadiums, goes up to 5 star for what it considers perfect. I think that an athletics/football stadium can be 5 star rated if the stands are built big enough. It's all to do with capacity and sightlines and spectator cover.
Alot of older football stadiums are dual use with athletics, especially in italy and south america. Most clubs would like to play in dedicated football stadiums if possible but due to various reasons don't or can't.
There's not many stadiums getting built for football with athletics tracks, and for the WC FIFA have stated they want to keep stadiums with tracks to a minimum.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread

#165 Post by rev » Wed May 26, 2010 5:34 pm

ricecrackers wrote: so rather than the state govt tip a few million dollars a year into the Crows and Power...as it seems they are already doing, you're suggesting that it makes better economic sense for our state govt to tip $535 million into Adelaide Oval, plus the same million dollars per year in compensation to those same clubs?

The Federal govt have pledged $250 million for SA to develop a FIFA compliant stadium should Australia win a world cup bid. Thats enough to build a new stadium at no cost whatsoever to the SA govt.
Firstly, the state government will continue to provide some sort of funding to both AFL teams, regardless of new stadiums or were they play.

Secondly, build me a FIFA compliant stadium for 250 million dollars, and I'll convince people you are the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Melbourne may have built a new rectangular stadium for 250 million or there abouts, but that stadium isn't FIFA compliant. Firstly, it's too small capacity wise.
Therefore they need to spend more to expand it to be FIFA compliant for a WC.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests