[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[spiller]

As a SACA member I paid a $60 building levy on top of my annual membership fee for 2009/10 season and will pay the same fee for the next 3 years. So will every other SACA member. Don't forget, that SACA and SANFL members pay taxes too, just like everyone else

[rev]

So your contribution is $240 over four years? Wow, impressive. You aren't reimbursing us, the majority of tax payers, so why should we care how much SACA charge you?
How many members does SACA actually have? A couple thousand? Your $240 "building levy" contribution wouldn't even cover 2% of building costs. Yet half the (seated)stadium is gong to be off limits to the general public.

Am I supposed to sympathize that you have to pay an extra $60 a year?

The taxes of all SACA members combined wouldn't meet the cost of the members facilities being built and to be built.

SACA members are a minority.
It's the majority of tax payers who will pay for the redevelopment, yet we wont be able to use key features like dining rooms over looking the playing field.
Of course, I'm not against members only facilities. But don't pretend like you are being bleed dry for the facilities you will enjoy.

[spiller]

Firstly, calm down. There's no need for your rant. Secondly, who said I was "pretending like i'm being bled dry"? I happily pay the building levy as the upgraded facilities (referring to just the western stand here) will be well worth it. But dont sit there and cry a river about how the general public misses out on access to half of the ground when a) it not half of the ground, its approx 1/3 and b) SACA and SANFL members are ALSO tax payers (as I said above).

tax payer's money = access to 2/3 of a redeveloped stadium
tax payer's money + SACA/SANFL membership fees = exclusive access to members only facilities.

It's pretty clear cut, this oval is for everyone. There are always going to be members only facilities wherever you watch sport, and you say that you arent complaining about the fact, when actually you are. Quit your whinging about what your missing out on already and start backing what is going to be one of the best additions to Adelaide in its history.

EDIT: And I love how people are already complaining about how poor the facilities are going to be going by a couple of youtube fly throughs. Typical complete lack of faith and utter skepticism shown towards just about every proposal that ever came to light in this city. As someone said previously, what do you want, leather arm chairs and table service? if so, then either stay at home and watch it on TV or harden up a little.

Also, FWIW, I became a SACA member 8 years ago when watching the cricket at Adelaide oval as a non-member meant sitting on a grass hill under the blazing hot summer's sun. If this redevelopment was proposed now, and the "outer" facilities were as good as those proposed today, I would not have become a SACA member.

[mattblack]

I too am a SACA member and a student to boot. I too am more than willing to spend my money on the advantages that membership gives me. I must say that up till this time it has not been much - run down and elderly facilities. I cant wait for these facilities to come on line. If you feel agrieved then become a member and enjoy them with us, everybody that is on the waiting list will be accepted when the stand is finished . I must also say that when the whole stadium is done it will not just be the 'privilaged' members that will enjoy the benifits. Im sure that if you ask any restaurant, cafe or pub within the CBD they cant wait, add this on top of all the extra staff they will need to employ. Benifits to Adelaide far exceed the bounday of AO.

[adam73837]

adam73837, I believe that is this the old proposal for Perth.

New plan is to redevelop Subiaco Oval if Australia is successful.

http://www.australiabid2022.com.au/aust ... adium.aspx
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/world ... -y21a.html
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 5808805034

"So it will happen, and we will probably end up spending a lot more than $450 million. Now that will probably be a progressive rebuild of Subiaco, and by a rebuild, I mean complete demolition and rebuilding an entirely new stadium.
"That’s, I think, the way the state can afford it. You know, you can do it in stages... Adelaide’s doing a progressive rebuild of Adelaide Oval, they’re not going out and building an entirely new stadium, they’re building it section by section," he said.

Mr Barnett said he expected WA's new stadium to seat more than 50,000 people, in order to comply with FIFA's requirements for hosting a World Cup game. Semi-finals would require seating for more than 60,000, he said.

I understand that WA are in a better financial position than we are, but with the upcoming mining boom, you'd think we'd want to wait for the royalties to start coming in. I'd rather wait and get a very decent stadium, than do this rash section-by-section rebuild and get something not nearly as good. Besides, perhaps we should wait until December when the World Cup Host is announced (don't underestimate our chances). If we get it, then we'll have until 2022 to come up with something grand; if not, then there's even less pressure on us to go ahead with this patch-up.

Personally I don't see the need at all for a roof. That said, I think the majority of seats should be under some sort of cover.

...And people (it's not just you, Adelaide Now's brim full of people saying the same thing) asking for roofs, concrete bowls in the face of potentially one of the most unique grounds in the world, 70,000 seats and undercover walkways to the ground etc have seemingly lost their grip on it.

I'm sorry to single you out in this Pants, but could people please stop these claims that AO is "one of the most beautiful grounds in the world". It really isn't. Sure, its surrounds are pleasant, but come on, we're building a stadium here, not a sculpture. If you like the surrounds, get up during half time and go for a refreshing walk before returning to your seat to watch the sporting event that is taking place.

And sorry to bring this up, but what is the deal with the gaps on either side of the Southern Stand? If people want grand, old separate stands, go to one of the suburban grounds for a good ol' SANFL match!

You poor delicate petal. Should the new stadium also have reclining leather seats, a machine which makes warm cocoa for you and a private ensuite?

Please don't be that sarcastic Will, if people want that sort of comfort, they can either stay home or go to one of the corporate boxes.

[rev]

blah blah blah.

Nobody is whining or ranting but you.

What was your point in telling us you have to pay an extra 240 dollars as a member to enjoy your privileges?

At the end of the day, the tax payers, the majority of whom are not SACA members and never will be, are the ones who are paying for the new facilities.
Whether you & the rest of the SACA members pay their taxes or not, doesn't really matter.
Because your contribution in taxes, as well as your membership fees + building levy don't even come close to covering the costs of the new western grand stand.
The majority who aren't members, are the ones paying for it.

I've got no problem with my taxes being spent on a new stadium.

But I do have a problem with snobs acting like their 240 dollar contribution over four years is something the rest of us should give a shit about.

Firstly, calm down. There's no need for your rant. Secondly, who said I was "pretending like i'm being bled dry"? I happily pay the building levy as the upgraded facilities (referring to just the western stand here) will be well worth it. But dont sit there and cry a river about how the general public misses out on access to half of the ground when a) it not half of the ground, its approx 1/3 and b) SACA and SANFL members are ALSO tax payers (as I said above).

tax payer's money = access to 2/3 of a redeveloped stadium
tax payer's money + SACA/SANFL membership fees = exclusive access to members only facilities.

It's pretty clear cut, this oval is for everyone. There are always going to be members only facilities wherever you watch sport, and you say that you arent complaining about the fact, when actually you are. Quit your whinging about what your missing out on already and start backing what is going to be one of the best additions to Adelaide in its history.


EDIT: And I love how people are already complaining about how poor the facilities are going to be going by a couple of youtube fly throughs. Typical complete lack of faith and utter skepticism shown towards just about every proposal that ever came to light in this city. As someone said previously, what do you want, leather arm chairs and table service? if so, then either stay at home and watch it on TV or harden up a little.

Also, FWIW, I became a SACA member 8 years ago when watching the cricket at Adelaide oval as a non-member meant sitting on a grass hill under the blazing hot summer's sun. If this redevelopment was proposed now, and the "outer" facilities were as good as those proposed today, I would not have become a SACA member.

[Hooligan]

How many SACA members are there? About 12,000 iirc

So those people all pay an extra $240 and get a stand worth $85 million?

There are about 30,000 PAFC members. Can we all just pay an extra $240 and then redevelop Alberton Oval into a 30,000 seat oval for $200 million?

SACA members will be allowed to attend games, We'll let them sit on a muddy hill.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[stumpjumper]

Hooligan:

How many SACA members are there? About 12,000 iirc

There are currently about 16,500 members. As well as the advantages members have at AO, they also enjoy a 10% discount at Northside Pets on Prospect Rd. Not to be sneezed at.

I heard this at lunch last week, during a discussion about Paul Demetriou's adamant position that it was 'the Adelaide Oval redevelopment or nothing':

'As if Demetriou wants to see anything like a decent arena for soccer or rugby in Adelaide!'

[Hooligan]

Hooligan:

How many SACA members are there? About 12,000 iirc

There are currently about 16,500 members. As well as the advantages members have at AO, they also enjoy a 10% discount at Northside Pets on Prospect Rd. Not to be sneezed at.

My Argument is still valid

[Splashmo]

At the end of the day, the tax payers, the majority of whom are not SACA members and never will be, are the ones who are paying for the new facilities.
Whether you & the rest of the SACA members pay their taxes or not, doesn't really matter.
Because your contribution in taxes, as well as your membership fees + building levy don't even come close to covering the costs of the new western grand stand.
The majority who aren't members, are the ones paying for it.

I've got no problem with my taxes being spent on a new stadium.

But I do have a problem with snobs acting like their 240 dollar contribution over four years is something the rest of us should give a shit about.

Not to mention that once the stadium is finished, it's not free to walk in and see AFL or cricket matches. We have to pay for those too, even though we already funded the venue where they make their money.

Give us a great facility, but at least chip in, seriously...

[cruel_world00]

I don't know when it happened, but suddenly people are calling him Paul. His name is Andrew Demetriou.

[stumpjumper]

It is of course Andrew Demetriou. I stand corrected.

It's interesting that Pat Conlon will soon be in charge of the project. The excuse is that public land (the government likes to call it 'State-owned land') may be involved for carparks.

It's surprising that it's taken until now to move control of this huge publicly-funded project from the football and cricket administrators who make up AOSMA to the state's professional infrastructure management department. It's hard to believe that the issue of carparks is the sole reason. Given the level of politicisation of the project, it could be speculated that there is damage control going on. Perhaps the government wants to distance Treasurer Foley, who once said of this project 'I'm in charge!' from the project, prior to Foley's expected mauling in Parliament tomorrow. In any case, once the project is firmly placed with the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, the government will be able to control the flow of information about what's going on at Adelaide Oval. Whatever the reason, it's an indictment of the system of procuring development by giving hundreds of millions of public dollars to self-interested amateurs to spend.

As a matter of interest, the sudden proposal of a few weeks ago to fit the oval redevelopment into a larger redevelopment of the Torrens River Precinct is no more than a re-announcement of a project from 11 years ago - the Foster-Hassell-Woodhead-Walker proposal for “extraction and reconnection”— including new walkways from the city to the river, a wide footbridge connecting the Festival Centre with Memorial Drive and the Adelaide Oval, a waterside promenade, a floating stage, removing part of the Festival Centre plaza, terracing the embankment down to the river and so on. The proposal was discussed in Architecture Australia, July/August 1999 and is on the net at:

http://www.architecturemedia.com/aa/aai ... 5&typeon=1

[spiller]

blah blah blah.

Nobody is whining or ranting but you.

What was your point in telling us you have to pay an extra 240 dollars as a member to enjoy your privileges?

At the end of the day, the tax payers, the majority of whom are not SACA members and never will be, are the ones who are paying for the new facilities.
Whether you & the rest of the SACA members pay their taxes or not, doesn't really matter.
Because your contribution in taxes, as well as your membership fees + building levy don't even come close to covering the costs of the new western grand stand.
The majority who aren't members, are the ones paying for it.

I've got no problem with my taxes being spent on a new stadium.

But I do have a problem with snobs acting like their 240 dollar contribution over four years is something the rest of us should give a shit about.

Your making the assumption that I'm a snob and concluding that I am against the building levy. You dont even know me, and I dont know you for that matter. Once again, you claim that you dont have an issue with taxpayer's money being spent on the stadium, but in actual fact you are crying like a 2 year old who had his lolly pop taken away. No one in this thread cares to put up with your typical tall-poppy australian attitude. As has been said, if it bothers you that much that you are missing out, then pull your finger out and sign up for SACA membership, pay the fees and then you can be entiltied to your precious facilities like you so sincerely deserve, since you are paying tax. Ive got news for you, EVERYONE pays tax. That's life. If you have a problem with what tax money is being spent on, become a politician, if it makes you feel better. Ranting on sensational-adelaide isn't going to ease your troubles pal.

[Wayno]

This thread is edging closer to being locked, and some individuals being banned from S-A. Go ahead, make my day!

Stay on topic please, and keep posts civil!

[stumpjumper]

Agreed. The politics, construction and management of this project are interesting enough without spicing it up with personal insults.

I've just returned from a meeting attended by some DTEI guys. The meeting concerned maintenance of a small government property which is used by a third party, whom I was representing. First interesting point - DTEI has 'no budget' for anything but the most essential work. 'Funding is very tight across Government.' Yeah, ok.

This led naturally to discussion about Adelaide Oval. The DTEI guys were of the opinion that Conlon had been given the job because he's retiring next year, meaning that he can wear any disasters - further blowouts or even cancellation of the project - without damage to anyone who stays on, as Foley may.

btw, both DTEI guys were in favour of building a new stadium at the railyards with that site's excellent road, rail, bus and tram access, proximity to the city and available land for carparking, and selling AAMI if we had to. In their opinion, the AO project was decided on not because it was sensible but because it was necessary to counter the Libs' proposal to built a new stadium.

Foley has admitted knowing about cost blowouts at AO from Feb 19th last year. Foley continued to quote incorrect (ie un-blown out) figures in Parliament until the March election 'by inadvertent error'. It is now up to the Speaker to decide whether Foley deliberately misled Parliament. The answer will be no, and there will be some sort of diversionary good news announcement made simultaneously with the Speaker's announcement.