[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Stubbo]

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!

Awwww!!! I was just going for the popcorn!!!

[ricecrackers]

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.

I think we need to be careful here about confusing opinions with facts.

My opinion is that the Liberals quickly cobbled together stadium plan was not an original idea, and not even budgeted for (remember the previous Liberal leader retracting and stepping away from it just prior to Redmond taking charge).

One thing we do know is that the FFA signaled its intention to bid for the World Cup quite some time before the Libs stadium plan was introduced. We also had the AAMI upgrade plan, McLachlan's courting of Port Power to AO and an Advertiser campaign to build a city stadium for 'footy'.

So this painting of the Liberals in this visionary light I have seen in this thread is somewhat amusing.

FWIW I think the AO upgrade is a shambles and neither side in state politics appear to have the necessary skills to manage such a sizable project.

[SRW]

Foley has admitted knowing about cost blowouts at AO from Feb 19th last year.

You've confused yourself. This proposal hadn't been made at that time.

[stumpjumper]

Ricecrackers, 'sensible' is a bit of a loaded term.

As to the Libs' stadium proposal - I don't like it either. It was a rush job that ignores realities - eg multi storey residential on the north side of the Torrens in the restaurant carpark?? I believe the render (that's all there is of it) is the work of a certain architecture student with a locally famous architect dad.

But the concept is logical and appealing. If you put out of your mind anything to do with the hospital, forget that the North Tce stadium is a proposal of the bastard Liberals, and think 'new football stadium, best location', where does your mind take you?

Leave cricket at Adelaide Oval, sell AAMI, use the existing transport connections and build a stadium on the railway land.

The economics are better too - SANFL/AFL could even put up AAMI as their share (instead of zero as now), but regardless, the cost and trouble of retrofitting a new stadium into AO don't make sense, especially when you include the cost of demolition and replacement with similar of the Bradman stand (only 19 years old) and the 'new' eastern stands (7 years old).

Instead, we have an expensive, undersized problematic solution that happens to suit certain vested interests.

It suits SACA because it bails them out of the debt their Western Grandstand has created.

It suits the government because it neutralised the Libs' stadium proposal and got them across the line at the March election,

It suits SANFL/AFL (management at least) because the government's eagerness for the proposal due to the election meant that the government agreed to let football on board for no payment at all. It also means that it will be many, many years before a decent soccer stadium is built in Adelaide. Win win - and as an added bonus, it gives the SANFL bureaucracy beautiful new offices in the Adelaide Parklands, for which they'll pay half rent at best (being half 'owners' of the building). No more driving to West bloody Lakes. Why wouldn't you want to move?

Fantastic. The only people whose needs aren't met by the AO proposal are the SA public and any footy fan who likes AAMI, assuming that a brand new full sized 52,000 seat stadium in the city would be an acceptable swap for AAMI whereas a dodgy, undersized compromised horseshoe shared with a bunch of cricketers won't cut it.

It's like cars - instead of trying to turn a long ago paid for 1950's Morris Minor into a new Commodore, using borrowed money, buy a new Commodore and keep the Morris Minor for short trips in summer.

[ricecrackers]

well AO could be workable for Aussie rules if they use drop in pitches like the MCG...however cricket will be the loser as a spectacle if not financially as they stand to gain from the bail out and rents...that said they never stopped playing SANFL at AO despite the permanent cricket pitch.

as for AAMI...I think its become a bit like the basketball stadium, where primarily those living within easy access of the ground are regular attendees..and a lot of elderly people who are more hardy when it comes to such outdated inconveniences

i can see the logic of the AO solution for AFL but it wont be much use for soccer...but at least gives us some chance of hosting a WC, but only if they complete the stadium at the Northern end

[stumpjumper]

Agreed, ricecrackers. Although even with the northern end filled in, AO would still be badly compromised for soccer even compared with a hybrid stadium where sightlines etc are adjusted for temporary seating in rectangular format. I mentioned it before, and I may be too cynical, but one of the advantages for the AFL of the AO development is that it puts soccer in SA back a decade or so. They'll have to make do with Hindmarsh until political forces coincide again as they have to make AO a goer.

Even for the AFL, a new round stadium without silly gaps in the roof or antique lighting towers would have to be better wouldn't it, especially at zero cost? Plus a train connection (nearly) to Melbourne! What's more, without cricket you wouldn't nee the expense and space consumption of dropin wickets.

Funny about old people being tougher than us soft younger generations. Last time I was at Alberton it was cold, windy and p*ssing down but there they were, plenty of senior citizens out in the open with only plastic raincoats and umbrellas at most for protection.


And 'fraid not, SRW

The Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority was incorporated in Dec 23rd 2009. Labor had had it in mind for a long time that if the Libs came up with a railways site stadium scheme, Labor would counter with an Adelaide Oval scheme to negate it.

The tactic was a product of the inner cabinet (Rann, Foley, Conlon plus advisers). Neither the Minister for Sport nor the Member (and Minister) for Adelaide had anything to do with it.

That's why Foley had the running of the project.

On 19th February, Foley attended a meeting of AOSMA on his own at Leigh Whicker's office at AAMI. At that meeting Whicker was told Foley that costs would be over the government's $450 million 'not one cent more' budget.

Foley told Parliament in mid May that he definitely had no knowledge of any cost overrun. It was only when Leigh Whicker publicly contradicted him that Foley began his wind up for an apology and avoidance of the charge of deliberately misleading Parliament.

"It was my honest and genuine belief that I provided the most accurate information possible. I take my obligation to provide the House with accurate and complete information very seriously," he whined to Parliament today.

It's not the first of Foley's 'lapses', 'miscalculations' or 'inadvertent errors'.

Foley's only real excuse is that the ever-grateful (for the $535 million gift) AOSMA shouted him a boozy lunch after the meeting and the grog wiped his already battered memory banks.

Otherwise he's lying and should resign. It will be interesting to see who is prepared to support him after this.

[rhino]

Foley has admitted knowing about cost blowouts at AO from Feb 19th last year.

You've confused yourself. This proposal hadn't been made at that time.

The Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority was incorporated in Dec 23rd 2009.

This was 10 months after Feb 19th last year.

[stumpjumper]

Sorry - Foley was told in some detail about the blowout on Feb 19th this year. I'm living in the past.

On March 3rd Foley told a government steering committee that he had been told in detail that the cost had blown out.

He then requested that AOSMA not tell him anything about budget blowouts until after the election, then he denied knowledge of the blowout in Parliament.

Then, when pressed in Parliament, Foley partially fessed up, saying the he had only heard a fleeting reference to a blowout. Rann claimed that it was impossible for him to have deliberately misled Parliament, because he had confessed.

It was then left to the Labor Speaker to decide Foley's fate (thus avoiding the embarrassment of every Labor parliamentarian having to accept that confession after being caught red-handed eliminates guilt).

The Speaker has ruled that Foley had not deliberately misled Parliament.

Apparently it was just another one of Foley's 'lapses', this time concerning tens of millions of dollars.

In all the fuss, Local Government Minister Gail Gago slipped in the announcement that the corruption investigation into the Burnside Council would be delayed another for 10 months.

[stumpjumper]

For what it's worth, 87% of respondents to an Adelaide Now poll think Foley should resign immediately. The total number polled was 7556.

[spiller]

Funny about old people being tougher than us soft younger generations. Last time I was at Alberton it was cold, windy and p*ssing down but there they were, plenty of senior citizens out in the open with only plastic raincoats and umbrellas at most for protection.

From what I gather, the eldery population (and I deal with many of the elderly in my line of work, at times) wants to stay at AAMI stadium because for them, its easier and more convinient to catch a free football shuttle from their local bus stop, to the ground, and back again, rather than have to catch a train into the city station and potentially wait for another train home, in the city, late at night (after night games obviously) in an area which is usually polluted with young, drunken hooligans on a friday and/or saturday night. The elderly population doesn't buy into the whole "football at AO will boost the atmosphere of the game in SA and the city of Adelaide itself" theory. Unfortunately for that population however, they wont be around to benefit in the future. They are not a minority though.

[Will]

Ricecrackers, 'sensible' is a bit of a loaded term.

As to the Libs' stadium proposal - I don't like it either. It was a rush job that ignores realities - eg multi storey residential on the north side of the Torrens in the restaurant carpark?? I believe the render (that's all there is of it) is the work of a certain architecture student with a locally famous architect dad.

But the concept is logical and appealing. If you put out of your mind anything to do with the hospital, forget that the North Tce stadium is a proposal of the bastard Liberals, and think 'new football stadium, best location', where does your mind take you?

Leave cricket at Adelaide Oval, sell AAMI, use the existing transport connections and build a stadium on the railway land.

The economics are better too - SANFL/AFL could even put up AAMI as their share (instead of zero as now), but regardless, the cost and trouble of retrofitting a new stadium into AO don't make sense, especially when you include the cost of demolition and replacement with similar of the Bradman stand (only 19 years old) and the 'new' eastern stands (7 years old).

Instead, we have an expensive, undersized problematic solution that happens to suit certain vested interests.

It suits SACA because it bails them out of the debt their Western Grandstand has created.

It suits the government because it neutralised the Libs' stadium proposal and got them across the line at the March election,

It suits SANFL/AFL (management at least) because the government's eagerness for the proposal due to the election meant that the government agreed to let football on board for no payment at all. It also means that it will be many, many years before a decent soccer stadium is built in Adelaide. Win win - and as an added bonus, it gives the SANFL bureaucracy beautiful new offices in the Adelaide Parklands, for which they'll pay half rent at best (being half 'owners' of the building). No more driving to West bloody Lakes. Why wouldn't you want to move?

Fantastic. The only people whose needs aren't met by the AO proposal are the SA public and any footy fan who likes AAMI, assuming that a brand new full sized 52,000 seat stadium in the city would be an acceptable swap for AAMI whereas a dodgy, undersized compromised horseshoe shared with a bunch of cricketers won't cut it.

It's like cars - instead of trying to turn a long ago paid for 1950's Morris Minor into a new Commodore, using borrowed money, buy a new Commodore and keep the Morris Minor for short trips in summer.

Using your analogy of cars, your proposal of having a cricket only stadium and a footy only stadium is the equivalent of being a single person and having 2 cars in the garage. Yet this person only drives one of their cars during summer, and when the weather gets cold decides to use the other, leaving the 'summer' car in the garage. Despite this, the person still has to pay registration for both, insurance for both and maintenance for both. Unless this person is rich, such a situation is economically silly. Likewise having 2 stadiums, each of which will sit idle for half the year is the same as they have to be maintained, upgraded and so on is silly for a smaller city like us.

[stumpjumper]

Using your analogy of cars, your proposal of having a cricket only stadium and a footy only stadium is the equivalent of being a single person and having 2 cars in the garage. Yet this person only drives one of their cars during summer, and when the weather gets cold decides to use the other, leaving the 'summer' car in the garage. Despite this, the person still has to pay registration for both, insurance for both and maintenance for both. Unless this person is rich, such a situation is economically silly. Likewise having 2 stadiums, each of which will sit idle for half the year is the same as they have to be maintained, upgraded and so on is silly for a smaller city like us.

And there lies the problem. The car analogy isn't perfect, but it sort of works.

I suggest that the best solution can only be arrived at by doing the following: leave out of the picture politics and the RAH. 'Politics' includes football politics where AFL wants soccer to curl up and die...

We then define our goal - what do we want - and consider our present assets: AAMI, AO and cash.

Surely an ultimate goal would be excellent, well-located facilities for all uses - AFL/SANFL, cricket, rectangular sports and 'event use'? That seems like a good ideal, especially since large amounts of public funds are to be used (it's a question of equity). I suggest that a single, new stadium providing all that might cost about 1 billion, excluding any land cost. However, it would require a compromise stadium design and drop-in wickets and maybe a clash in schedules. It would also orphan AO unless the new compromise stadium replaced AO on the AO site.

I suggest that the single new facility option is not viable. So let's look at the other options.

Option 1: Further develop AAMI for AFL/SANFL for about 400 million. Leave AO as is for cricket. Build a clone of one of the South African WC stadia for rectangular sports and event use for about 600 million. (Option 1.1: Rectangular sports stadium conditional on WC 2022 funding)
Option 2: Further develop AAMI for AFL/SANFL for about 400 million. Leave AO as is for cricket. Ignore rectangular sports.
Option 3: Redevelop AO for AFL/SANFL/cricket. Keep AAMI as is for some AFL/SANFL. Ignore rectangular sports.
Option 4: Redevelop AO for AFL/SANFL/cricket. Sell AAMI. Sell Hindmarsh. Build a stadium for rectangular sports. (Option 4.1: Rectangular sports stadium conditional on WC 2022 funding)
Option 5: Build a new stadium for AFL/SANFL. Sell AAMI. Leave AO as is for cricket. Sell Hindmarsh and build a clone of one of the South African WC stadia for rectangular sports and event use. (Option 5.1: Rectangular sports stadium conditional on WC 2022 funding)

Those seem to be the options, stripped of our local politics. Take your pick. Now it comes down to which option gives the best result, modified by budget, viability and 'achievability' given the various constraints in Adelaide, including the question of site.

It's difficult. In the opinion of Theo Maras, the new management guru for Rundle Mall said, the infusion into the city of sports crowds would do wonders for the city. If that is the case, my options 3 and 4 will come at a cost - the extra cost and problems of retrofitting AO including transport connections, plus the compromises of a footy/cricket facility. Extra parking at AO would not help Maras' case.

Options 1 and 2 would not help the city, but otherwise they seem rational in terms of using what we've got an they look like the cheapest. They are apparently the options preferred (given the proposed tram extension) until the 2010 election campaign and the Libs' strategy to trump Labor's RAH move.

Option 5 is basically the Libs' proposal, which seems ok to me (ignoring politics - just on practical grounds). AO would be left to cricket (which is the case right now) with SACA free to redevelop within its capabilities, and we wouldn't have to endure the hassle of development in the Park Lands. However, the most logical site for a new stadium (the railyards site earmarked for the new RAH) won't be available at least while Labor is in government. So this option would have to be considered in relation to another site... which can lead you back to West Lakes and the pre-election thinking!

[ricecrackers]

as an exercise this evening I compared exact scaled images of Royal Bafokeng Stadium in Rustenberg RSA with Adelaide Oval using google maps images and photoshop.

to my surprise the dimensions of each ground are practically identical (and even moreso with the boundary re-alignment at AO)

so taking into account the distance of the stands from the playing field, virtually the same from side on and each end

so if you want to get an idea of how Adelaide Oval will be configured in WC soccer mode, have a look at that stadium on TV. (it was the one where Australia drew 1 all with Ghana at)



in fact the AO redevelopment will be superior as the top of the stands will be steeper than those at Rustenberg
my dimensions were taken from the closest seating to the field at Rustenberg

[ginger-geordie]

when people say that adelaide is too small for 2 stadiums, and other people say that it will help adelaide grow, is it just me thinking that adelaide would grow into a bigger city that could put 2 stadiums to great use? its not like theres 2 camp nous next door to each other, but 2 smaller stadiums for different uses. how about leaving AO as it is, building a small rectangle stadium (like melbournes bubble) on the railyards which can be expanded to 40000 for WC?

also, call me daft or whatever but couldnt the golf course be used as like a sports park (if adelaide got the commonwealth games, for example). its a huge space, and in my opinion it would make adelaide more than competitive with other cities. but thats a more "what if" idea

[spiller]

when people say that adelaide is too small for 2 stadiums, and other people say that it will help adelaide grow, is it just me thinking that adelaide would grow into a bigger city that could put 2 stadiums to great use? its not like theres 2 camp nous next door to each other, but 2 smaller stadiums for different uses. how about leaving AO as it is, building a small rectangle stadium (like melbournes bubble) on the railyards which can be expanded to 40000 for WC?

also, call me daft or whatever but couldnt the golf course be used as like a sports park (if adelaide got the commonwealth games, for example). its a huge space, and in my opinion it would make adelaide more than competitive with other cities. but thats a more "what if" idea

that doesnt solve the issue with AAMI stadium and football. Remember, both AFL clubs (and even the SANFL) have stated they cannot stay at AAMI in the current situation. Adelaide oval at 36,000 is not sufficinet for an AFL stadium.