[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Kal El]

The reality is Labor is putting its money into AO therefore will not spend $535 million and then have to spend $125 million on a rectangular stadium. The dollar for dollar spend which is need for any WC federal money is in AO.

So if for unknown reason AO cannot be made FIFA compliant it will cost SA tax payers $125 million minimum for a sport that is nowhere near the attendance of AFL. Do you honestly think Soccer will be bigger than the AFL leading up to and after 2018/22 WC if we got one of them seriously?

We will not be saving $400 million of tax payers money as it is well known to the people who live in the real world that AAMI is past its used by date and Adelaide needs a new stadium for AFL.

Adelaide cannot afford to run two stadiums/oval of similar ilk hence why AO redevelopment for Cricket and AFL is a better outcome than staying with the status quo

[Splashmo]

Adelaide cannot afford to run two stadiums/oval of similar ilk hence why AO redevelopment for Cricket and AFL is a better outcome than staying with the status quo

Adelaide has managed just fine with *three* stadiums in use - AAMI, Hindmarsh and Adelaide Oval.
Why not leave Adelaide Oval as it is, and shift both codes of football to a new, multipurpose, FIFA-compliant stadium? Don't spend a cent more on Adelaide Oval.

[Kal El]

Adelaide has not managed fine with, Adelaide Oval needs to get more happening at the ground for it to be viable and that it’s a well known fact, part of the reason for years they have been chasing a Victorian club to play a home game there against the Crows or Port. It needs either have this happen or get more concerts etc at the venue. To all those who want a “multipurpose stadium” built we are getting that with AO redevelopment so what is the issue?

If it is because it doesn’t have a roof or Melbourne has this and has that who cares we are Adelaide and let’s build something that can be great for this state and become more Iconic than the over rated icon status of AO at the moment.

The Facts are a new stadium in the rail yards isn’t going to happen as Rann has that for the new RAH. To build it anywhere else will require parklands to be taken up and we all know we couldn’t even get one grandstand built for the Clipsal without upsetting the “save a whale hug a tree” people of this state who most don’t know the real reason behind the parklands.

AAMI is past its date and requires a lot of money to be pumped into it and the SANFL know they cannot do it alone as they know there is no money from the government. Where ever the SANFL and AFL sign the rights for AFL games to be played both AFL clubs will be playing there so the stupid suggestions of Port going to AO and the Crows to stay at AAMI are a waste of time.

no the scoreboard isn't going to be shifted and that is in a press release on ther SACA website

[spiller]

i'm advocating building a stadium IF we win the world cup bid

so IF we win the world cup bid we build a $250 million stadium and if what some have said above is correct half of that is funded by the state govt and half is matched by the Federal govt (money might I add that is being budgeted in goodwill for the World Cup bid)
total cost $125 million for the SA taxpayer IF we win the world cup bid. need I remind you all of the millions in economic benefits that would be brought to the state should the bid be successful.

total cost from SA govt (SA taxpayers) if we dont win it = $0

again IF we win the world cup bid we are then left with the legacy of a rectangular stadium than can sufficient accommodate corporate sponsors and allow the club that uses it to grow.

There you go, you said it yourself. Your ENTIRE arguement is based on a bunch of "if's and buts". I believe the title of this thread is "Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread". To clarify, this thread rgeards the discussion of the ALREADY proposed redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, laregely surrounded by the $535m put forward by the State Government for AFL football and international/domestic cricket matches. Just so you know, that $535m figure does NOT include the $250m figure for the World Cup bid (which was pulled from where I might add? What because Canberra is getting funding?)

ricecrackers, your argumenment (and going by your very own words) is not relevant to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment at this point in time. The $535m will be going towards AO if an agreement is made between the SACA and the SANFL irregardless of the potential World Cup situation. That is the bottom line! The sooner you can get your head around this and accept what is the present, the sooner this discussion can continue in a more relevant manner.

Whilst ON TOPIC, I received an email from SACA this morning regarding the second survey, this time it is about proposed membership packages for the Oval if football and cricket were to come together. It's good to see that this development is being taken seriously and hopefully in the years to come, the people of Adelaide will be thankful that they can enjoy their favourite sports within updated, impressive facilities whilst in a central city location, rather than bitch and moan about where the money could have been better spent.

[ricecrackers]

i'm advocating building a stadium IF we win the world cup bid

so IF we win the world cup bid we build a $250 million stadium and if what some have said above is correct half of that is funded by the state govt and half is matched by the Federal govt (money might I add that is being budgeted in goodwill for the World Cup bid)
total cost $125 million for the SA taxpayer IF we win the world cup bid. need I remind you all of the millions in economic benefits that would be brought to the state should the bid be successful.

total cost from SA govt (SA taxpayers) if we dont win it = $0

again IF we win the world cup bid we are then left with the legacy of a rectangular stadium than can sufficient accommodate corporate sponsors and allow the club that uses it to grow.

There you go, you said it yourself. Your ENTIRE arguement is based on a bunch of "if's and buts". I believe the title of this thread is "Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread". To clarify, this thread rgeards the discussion of the ALREADY proposed redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, laregely surrounded by the $535m put forward by the State Government for AFL football and international/domestic cricket matches. Just so you know, that $535m figure does NOT include the $250m figure for the World Cup bid (which was pulled from where I might add? What because Canberra is getting funding?)

ricecrackers, your argumenment (and going by your very own words) is not relevant to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment at this point in time. The $535m will be going towards AO if an agreement is made between the SACA and the SANFL irregardless of the potential World Cup situation. That is the bottom line! The sooner you can get your head around this and accept what is the present, the sooner this discussion can continue in a more relevant manner.

Whilst ON TOPIC, I received an email from SACA this morning regarding the second survey, this time it is about proposed membership packages for the Oval if football and cricket were to come together. It's good to see that this development is being taken seriously and hopefully in the years to come, the people of Adelaide will be thankful that they can enjoy their favourite sports within updated, impressive facilities whilst in a central city location, rather than bitch and moan about where the money could have been better spent.

the reason this thread exists is to have a no holds barred open debate on the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.
part of that includes making AO part of the WC bid. so in my view it is relevant and every point i have made is relevant, unlike some of the points scoring that many have immaturely resorted to rather than provide valid counterpoints to my discussion.

there is a separate thread to talk about just Adelaide Oval's construction.

[crawf]

Here is photos of the current setup of Adelaide Oval (excluding the western stand) - All photos taken by aceman







And that horrid thing in the western suburbs

[ricecrackers]

I'd have to say this is a concern of mine as well. I think what we'll get is one of two things:
1. a 'B-grade' oval
2. a cost blowout

'B-grade' warning on oval
Michael Owen From: The Australian May 27, 2010 12:00AM


INAUGURAL Adelaide Football Club boss Bill Sanders has warned that South Australia is in danger of a B-grade AFL experience as fears mount over the viability of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

Mr Sanders said yesterday that SA sports enthusiasts had experienced what venues such as Etihad Stadium in Melbourne had to offer, and would not be satisfied with a "pared back" Adelaide Oval revamp forced on them by a desperate AFL and state Labor government.

The Crows chief executive from 1990-2001 rubbished claims by state Treasurer Kevin Foley that the Rann government could deliver "the most outstanding stadium in Australia, outside of the MCG", after committing an extra $85 million to the original $450m proposal promised before the March state election.

"The amount of money offered by the state government to redevelop Adelaide Oval never seemed enough," Mr Sanders told The Australian. "I would still question whether another $85m is going to be enough.

"It would seem to me that if you look at what Etihad and other stadiums have cost, the amount of money that's been put up is clearly not enough to build a stadium that's going to satisfy the football public."

Mr Sanders said the proposal, which the state's warring cricket and football bodies must sign off on by the end of August or lose all government funding, "looks like a band-aid treatment on the only city sports venue just to satisfy the AFL and perhaps Port Adelaide to have football in the city".

Mr Sanders said football had had "a gun held to its head".

A spokesman for AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou rejected Mr Sanders' criticism, saying the AFL expected to get an "outstanding result for Adelaide Oval" with the extra $85m

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 5871768362

[crawf]

So AAMI Stadium is a world class stadium offering fans A-grade AFL experience with fantastic public transport?

[Waewick]

that really has nothing to do with it

[stumpjumper]

Mike Rann has declared the Adelaide Oval redevelopment to be an integral part of a wider plan involving the riverside precinct and and new hospital, including even the proposed research facility next to the hospital.

Whether or not that means anything, what happens at Adelaide Oval certainly does affect other places and projects, eg the future of AAMI stadium, and any proposal to build a rectangular stadium.

The trouble is, despite Rann's claim that it's all part of one big picture, the management of the various parts of the project is disconnected.

The government set up the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority, not to manage the full scope of the project, but only to deliver a development at Adelaide Oval that suits SACA and SANFL. It was given $5,000,000 to ‘initiate’ this work and it engaged local architects Hassell together with experienced interstate firm Cox Architects.

But AOSMA has no remit for soccer or FIFA compliance (according to Phil Martin of Michels Warren Pty Ltd – spokesman for AOSMA). Further, AOSMA knows nothing about the footbridge and the sudden blowout in its cost from $20 million to $38 million, nor does it have any idea what the footbridge will look like. In fact, the government has gone to Associate Professor Mike Griffith of the University of Adelaide School of Civil Engineering for the footbridge design.

Are you starting to feel worried?

AOSMA's ignorance of the footbridge design is just an example. AOSMA is not looking at transport connections, for example. They are 'outside its remit'.

Whatever happens to AAMI is not AOSMA’s business either, according to AOSMA’s spokesman.

It seems that the various groups at work - those hoping for a FIFA compliant arena, the riverside enhancers, the transport planners, AAMI and the various parts of government involved are relying for coordination and coherence on....

Kevin Foley. Mr 'I Am In Charge'. Despite neither Foley or his office being set up for project delivery, especially complex clusters of projects like this.

So this mega project rumbles on in its unique manner.

Where's the analysis of growth and need for a rectangular stadium and likely usage over say 20 years? Don't worry about it.

Are we trying to build at AO a FIFA compliant replacement for AAMI? Ian McLachlan doesn't think so. When asked about FIFA compliance he said in a TV interview:

"Football (ie soccer) has nothing to do with this."

Foley made very clear on radio yesterday his resentment at having to conduct government business in the open, referring several times to the need to keep decisions and figures from the public.

Why should this be the case? We are talking about investment of public money in a public asset. There is no competition or commercial advantage at stake. Why the secrecy?

I for one would like to see clearly set out the goals of this project, the options available and the costs.

With Foley's abysmal track record in project delivery (Newport Quays, stalled; TechPort, 100% over budget), I'd be very worried about the costs of this complex project. The chances for duplication and waste seem high, and the management looks incompetent.

PS - Rann announced earlier this year that 'he' had given AOSMA $5 million to initiate work on whatever the project is. It may be a coincidence, but on page 35 of SACA's annual report for 2008-9 there is a cash flow entry: 'Donation from federal government $5,500,000'. That looks like $5 mill plus GST. What's that all about?

[stumpjumper]

What exactly does the $85 million buy?

It was reported that SACA had accumulated debts of at least $85 million, probably including a 150% blowout of the $50 million Western Grandstand redevelopment. If SACA's debt were due to a cost blowout in the Western Grandstand project, the question arises why the client is liable. Were SACA's representatives managing the development incompetent? Too bad if they were - they're now SACA's representatives on the AOSMA, whose project has blown out before it's even started!

Foley said that the $85 million would go to 'debt retirement'.

Then we were told we would be 'buying assets' with the $85 million. The assets were not specified.

'Treasurer Kevin Foley has promised "the most outstanding stadium in Australia, outside of the MCG", after committing an extra $85 million to the original $450m proposal promised before the March state election.'

If the $85 million has gone to 'retire debt', how can it be spent to enhance the $450 million project?

The only way that works is if SACA were able to subtract $85 million from the grant and apply it to their debts rather than the building program. But the government denied that was happening.

So, a typical SA story. Lots of secrecy, lots of lunches and important meetings, some sweet contracts, and a very average result. The other constants are that any flaws are due to external circumstances, and every single cent spent shall be public money.

So, current cost to taxpayer of Adelaide Oval redevelopment (in millions): $50 Western Grandstand + $85 'debt retirement' + $450 'not one cent more' payment + $38 bridge (up from $20) = $623 million for 50,000 seats non-FIFA compliant.

SA Third Party motor reg up 7% 'because of Global Financial Crisis'

'Mr Rann absolutely ruled out any extension from the June 30 deadline handed to the Stadium Management Authority.'

Mr Foley extends the SMA's deadline to August 31st.

A few comparisons of recently built stadia (adjusted to 2010 $AUD):

Adelaide 50K $623M (so far)
ANZ, Sydney 83K (part enclosed) $460M
Munich (part enclosed) 69K $410M
Sapporo Dome (fully enclosed) 42K $406M

I've decided that rather than wory about the abuse of taxpayers funds etc, I'm just going to treat the whole unfolding fiasco as entertainment. It is likely to cost each SA taxpayer about $2,000, so I'm going to try to get as many laughs as I can.

I've already had a good laugh at the ridiculous figures of Rann, Foley and McLachlan as they squirm and lie to journalists.

I'm expecting a lot more of the same.

[ricecrackers]

consultancy fees and insurance i'd suggest have appreciated a lot in recent years

[Splashmo]

Adelaide has not managed fine with, Adelaide Oval needs to get more happening at the ground for it to be viable and that it’s a well known fact, part of the reason for years they have been chasing a Victorian club to play a home game there against the Crows or Port. It needs either have this happen or get more concerts etc at the venue. To all those who want a “multipurpose stadium” built we are getting that with AO redevelopment so what is the issue?

Since when is Adelaide Oval not viable - why would they be building the western grandstand if it's not viable? It's our premier cricket venue and hosts the SANFL and Rugby Sevens in addition to this. The new Twenty20 domestic competition is starting up this year too.

[Kal El]

It has been requested by the ACC to get more events to be viable...... therefore it is not returning at its max ...... not viable.

[stumpjumper]

Adelaide Oval viability - go to SACA's website and download the most recent annual report. The oval pays its way and makes between 1 and 2 million surplus, although depending whom you believe the famous '$85 million debt' is in there somewhere.

Personally, I've given up.

I've just spoken to a senior Labor staffer.

Why don't you just leave AO at the Western Grandstand stage for current uses and use the $450 mill to build a nice new multipurpose lit stadium and get both FIFA compliance and federal subsidy?

'We can't do that,' the staffer said.

'Why not? It would be a popular move and it would save a lot of money we could spend elsewhere,' I said.

'Yes it would, but it would be too much of a backflip,' was the answer.

That left me feeling that the present government has completely lost sight of what it is there to do.