[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[stumpjumper]

So who's putting up the money for the car-park?

Interesting question. SACA can't afford to. One of the 'commercial sensitivities' that ACC closed the meeting to protect is SACA's financial position, which is not good despite its careful public statements. In short, SACA needs the full development to get out of debt.

The Stadium Management Authority has spent millions and got nowhere, and wants more money to waste.

The question of 'commercial sensitivities' is debatable. Public money is being spent on a public asset. What's to hide? Where is the competition who could benefit from a leak? The in camera meetings are as dodgy as the whole phantom project. It's a scandal that should be investigated.

ACC wants to retain control of the oval as landlord. The carpark is essential to the convention centre (and sports) facility, but someone has to pay for it. AFL/SANFL don't want to put up a cent but want control over the carpark as well as the oval. The government would love to be given a way out of spending at least $535 million.

A minor point - SACA has two leases: one over the western stand and one over the rest of the oval. It wants these two leases given similar terms.

I suggest that the whole thing, if it hasn't been hijacked by the hard men of the AFL to gain a valuable income-producing asset, is a poorly thought out political gambit that has backfired big time and is an outrageous waste of taxpayer's money. Meanwhile, Conlon has been interstate 'just seeing Demetriou as an aside during another trip'. A lie, I suggest. The meeting with Demetriou was the real purpose of his meeting.

In short, I think King is right. The whole thing will just die. Now how good does the Libs' stadium idea look? At least it might have happened. Instead, we get no stadium, and a hospital which over the 35 years of the PPP will cost the public not $1.8 billion, but an unspecified amount more.

Worse, the Oval project is tied up with the infamous strip of land between West Tce and the hospital. It's outside the old Trans Adelaide lease, but is essential for the project. No-one in the PPP was competent enough to pick it up, so now it's a bargaining chip.

The horrible, votes driven mess of the AO should be axed immediately.

ACC will make an announcement on 23rd February.

[AtD]

As a privately run organisation (I think), SACA has no obligation to make any of its financial affairs available to anyone except its members, creditors and the tax man. If any level of government want to discuss the financial affairs of a private entity, it's commercial-in-confidence purely by protocol - not (just) because it might be bad news; it's a legal liability thing. Otherwise they may be reluctant to paint a full and honest picture. It's not a conspiracy, it's how the system works.

Imagine if Mr SACA man is trying to be extra helpful and generates for the ACC range of financial statements as at the day of the meeting, or some specialised statements beyond the consolidated P/L and so on. These numbers would not have gone through the audit process (as it takes time and money) and may contain fat-figure human errors (not because they're incompetent, it's just the reality of ad-hoc reporting in any organisation). If they were released publicly and it was found there was the tiniest of mistake in them, SACA could be in the shit legally.

That being said, I hope the car park is kept in the hands of the ACC.

[softgrow]

The Lord Mayor is holding a press conference at Lights Vision (Montefiore Hill) at 2pm....

[Waewick]

tell you what - if Yarwood is making an announcement that it is all going to happen I reckon he'll become the most famous Lord Mayor this generation...not that he would have had a great deal to do with it but hopefully the perception of a can do council filters through to all the members

[stumpjumper]

Agreed, AtD, but if the private organisation has been given half a billion of taxpayers' money to play with, then I think some reporting is required.

Adelaide Stadium Management Authority has burned through millions in a few months, but SMA's financials are 'commercial-in-confidence' as well. It's just a cloak for not showing the cost of lunches.

SACA and SANFL should report on how they have used the grant, just like any other recipient of government money even if they haven't spent it all yet.

There are two hurdles - who controls the oval and carpark, and who pays for the carpark. Rann has said 'not another dollar', so that leaves SACA/SANFL or ACC or a private investor to pay for the carpark.

SACA is broke (in my opinion), SANFL/AFL have indicated an unwillingness to pay anything at all. If they did, they would require in return full control of at least the carpark, which neither ACC nor SACA would wish.

Above all this, even if the carpark is a cash cow, there is no way the redeveloped oval will pay anything like a realistic return on the investment.

So what's the answer?

[silverscreen]

What's the answer?

Sadly, probably a lemon

[rhino]

The latest word is that the secret ACC meeting tonight ......

Remind me never to share any secrets with you!

[stumpjumper]

Heh. Secret as in 'in camera'.

It's remarkable how much 'secret' business the ratepayers' and residents' representatives in ACC are involved in. I sit on a committee unrelated to ACC with a couple of AC councillors, and there seems to be almost nothing that goes in in council that they are able to talk about. It would be funny if it weren't such a hindrance to getting sound information in order to get things done.

[Waewick]

The Lord Mayor is holding a press conference at Lights Vision (Montefiore Hill) at 2pm....

I gather no coverage from anyone online means it isn't much of a presser?

[King]

This is probably one of the few instances in which I support the City Council to carry forth a motion that would set to block the redevelopment proposal in any way or form. It's an extraordinary $535 million white elephant, that stood no chance in the first place. And quite ironically, Rann may actually have struck the right chord by saying that the money will be withdrawn if no agreement can be reached and invested in other infrastructure which would be more of a vote-winner IMO as $535m could really get the ball rolling in starting construction on the South Road Tunnel under Port & Grange roads, for instace - a crying priority towards North-South road infrastructure, as opposed to a half-baked concept of a city stadium circus-tent thingy that is AO.

[Waewick]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6010855324

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said the council voted to support football at Adelaide Oval at a council meeting last night, but would not give up the lease to the parklands .

[contractor]

.

[stumpjumper]

The ACC press release for today's Montefiore Hill press conference:

Released: 23 Feb 2011

Adelaide City Council confirms its commitment to see Adelaide Oval redeveloped for world class sports and entertainment.

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said that at its meeting on Tuesday night Council voted unanimously to work with all parties for a redevelopment that delivers maximum benefit to the City and all South Australians.

“Council wants Capital City footy, it’s a game changer for Adelaide’s future” Stephen said.

People want to come to the City for their footy, a few beers, a bite to eat and a day or a night on the town. “It’s good for the City, good for the game and good for the fans.”

Stephen said that at their meeting Councillors agreed on a set of principles to guide Council as it works with all other parties to ensure that a redeveloped Adelaide Oval is delivered. Council resolved that it:

Welcomes the AFL at Adelaide Oval and what this will mean for vibrancy in the City
· Is keen to work with the State Government and the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority (AOSMA) to bring AFL to the City and looks forward to receiving redevelopment proposal details from them

Will consider the details of the proposed redevelopment and commits to work with the Government and AOSMA to make the redevelopment happen and ensure that the legitimate interests of Council and the South Australian community are protected
· Recognises the irreplaceable historical value of the ‘Adelaide Oval’ name to both the City of Adelaide and South Australia

· Supports State Government plans for a stadium with a capacity of 50,000 people for the City home of both cricket and AFL

· Looks forward to significant economic benefit to Adelaide and the State, with the Centre for Economic Studies estimating extra revenue generation of up to $104m a year

· Supports a redevelopment that integrates with the river front through the master planning process and encourages greater linkages between Adelaide Oval and the city centre

· Believes that effective governance of Adelaide Oval is best supported through a leasing arrangement

· Is committed to appropriate, genuine and meaningful community consultation because Adelaide Oval is an asset that belongs to all South Australians


· that the overall Park Lands footprint should not be reduced through the redevelopment

· Encourages maximisation of public transport for easy and sustainable access that benchmarks against the best-performing inner sports stadia in Australia

· Supports a sustainable level of car parking within the precinct that minimises impact on the Park Lands, nearby residents and pedestrians

· Supports the significant investment by the State Government for Adelaide Oval and encourages management of the asset that maximises the public benefit

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said success comes down to three things.

“One, Council wants capital city footy and first class cricket that is fun and easy to get to… it’s what being Australian is all about”.

“Two, it’s the huge economic benefit to the City and all those who invest here – it will be the place to be when the footy is in town, just as it is now when the Test cricket is on.

“Three, it’s the opportunity and the need to come up with smart, efficient and sustainable transport to link the stadium seamlessly to the city centre.”

Stephen said, “It will be important to learn from the success of leading sports stadia around the world. We’ve got to benchmark public transport targets with other stadia in Australia, otherwise we’ll never compete.”

Stephen tomorrow heads up a Council team visiting the Melbourne Cricket Ground to assess experiences and qualities that could be applied to the Adelaide Oval precinct.

Council looks forward to negotiating with the State Government and other stakeholders and will seek formal public consultation at the earliest opportunity.

At the press conference, Mayor Yarwood did not add to the media release.

Neither the media release nor the press conference referred specifically to a major point of dispute: If the development goes ahead, it will require a carpark, most likely under the existing Memorial Drive tennis courts. The land involved is presently leased by the Memorial Drive tennis club. This club in turn seems to have been 'bought' or merged in some way with the private Next Generation facility next door.

The carpark will operate 365 days per year and will be attractive to city workers. The revenue it generates, for a building cost of around $40 million for about 1000 cars could be around $10,000 per day or $3,650,000 per year, close to 9% gross on (probably the public's) investment.

The AFL is demanding all income from the carpark (for its investment of $0). ACC also demanding all income from the carpark.

Both the development and the carpark will require development approval. By legislation, there is no option for declaring a Major Project in the Park Lands.

Other points of interest:

It seems to have been accepted that soccer will not be accomodated.

SACA seems to have been silent, possibly because it is in such debt (I really think it is...).

[Waewick]

2 things which stick out to me.

you don't earn $10k a day from 1000 carparks 365 days a year.

quite simply the AFL do not deserve the income, I would be happy for them to get a share of game day income but that is it.

If the SANFL/AFL want to play hardball then I think we can tell the to go jump.

Despite popular belief the SACA is not in that dire straits it NEEDS this development.

I am all for the development, but be fucked if I'm willing to pick up the tab for the AFL to reap the money.

[flavze]

the AFL should only get income if it puts money in, otherwise it can piss off.