[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Hooligan]

Hooligan, spending of half a billion dollars of public money is a very serious thing. When the object of expenditure is as unclear as this is, and is the subject of wide debate - not just here - then if the number and content of posts annoy you, I suggest you stop reading.

There are arguments for and against this project, and the background to the debate changes as more information becomes available. So on it goes.

You are clearly in favour of the proposal - if your way of defending your position in an argument is to say 'We've talked long enough. Now you must accept my view', then I suggest you google 'debate' and see what it means.

Tbh honest i just want to watch the power play whether it be football park, adelaide oval or on the moon.

[Hooligan]

We didnt miss you Hooligan. Were running an expletive- free thread here. It means you need a reasonable vocab and a few original ideas.

I need a few original ideas?

Jesus christ. This thread is just the same shit over and over again.

I'm just telling it like it is and i will not excuse my language.

[stumpjumper]

Tbh honest i just want to watch the power play whether it be football park, adelaide oval or on the moon.

At least you're honest, Hooligan. More than can be said for a lot of people. That the AO development will give a lot of people pleasure is a point in its favour, too. (Not a decisive one though...)

[Omicron]

Well, I'm rather fond of intelligent debate and I don't feel like either side has really offered much. Instead most everything collapses into "he said, she said" rubbish and bickering over daft minutia. Honestly, the shape of the oval, whose idea it was, where it is, none of these questions are the really big ones.

The state proposes to spend $535,000,000 for the more-or-less direct benefit of five organisations (the SACA, the SANFL, the AFL, the two clubs): the benefits that they receive hugely out-weigh the value of their own contributions (particularly considering how much of the money won't be used to actually build anything of value to the city, but instead is just paying the debts of one of these organisations). The proponents of this plan argue that the rest of the state will benefit in various indirect ways.

• Is this a suitable use of public money? Is it appropriate that the people receiving the greatest benefit contribute little beyond agreeing to receive public gifts? Bear in mind that the AFLs contribution is as yet unknown, but the $30M figure that's getting bandied about is only 5% of this project's cost.
• There are other times that public money is spent for the benefit of comparatively few people; for example, parks, libraries, and train-lines are generally only used by people living near them. Would it make sense to compare building the stadium to these other kinds of works?
• If your objective was to make the city centre a more vibrant location and you had $500m to throw at the problem, would Adelaide Oval be the most effective way of acheiving this? There is a list of other places that you might choose to put the money: Victoria Square, Rundle Mall, the Central Markets, Fred Hansen's Grenfell St, Hindley St. Is there another combination of places that you could spend this money for greater effect?
• If your objective was to improve employment in Adelaide and you had $500m to throw at the problem, would Adelaide Oval be the most effective way of acheiving this? What other options might we pursue to that end, and what effect might they have on the city's image?
• If the project didn't go ahead and we saw the SACA and/or Port Adelaide going into a crisis with their debt obligations, what effect would that have on the state? Is that worth $500M?
• The state doesn't have a good track record of meeting their cost predictions. Who should wear the cost of an overrun?

I love you.

[rhino]

I actually like Hooligan sticking his nose in every now and then.

Goodonyamate!

[silverscreen]

Latest from Kryztoff Raw:


"Those champion Adelaide teams just keep getting better. After an extraordinary week of media coverage (20 pages on Friday in The Advertiser alone), that will rank close behind only the impending spectacle that will fawn over Will and Kate in two weeks for being out of touch with reality, just 33,000 went to Showdown 30. So after four weeks, just one crowd has been bigger than the current Adelaide Oval configurations that the geniuses like The Advertiser’s Michelangelo Rucci say need to be increased to 50,000 at a cost of $535m – go figure. (Stay at AMMI I say and Crows and Power, get your s**t together.)

Speaking of the Showdown, a low point in Australian sport was reached when the SANFL put in ‘feral free zones’ so precious Crows fans with heir thermoses and rugs did not have to sit next to smelly bogans from the Port. Can you believe it? After 100+ years of VFL and SANFL crowds sitting side by side, even if sometimes uneasily, with the occasional spray and request for two more drinks to each other, we are now have to protect delicate Crows supporters – no wonder Craigy’s Princesses are playing more and more like their fans every week.

Always thought home teams got a better run with the umpires? Well now research in the US has confirmed it. According to a report in The Economist, ‘what the evidence does show .. is that referees favour home teams in judgment calls, particularly those that happen at a crucial stage in a game.’ For this the researchers blame the fact that ‘referees, like the rest of us, tend subconsciously to rely on crowdsourcing, picking up on the mood of the crowd when making their decisions. Take away the crowd and the home bias shrinks.’ (See The Full Article Here)

So anyone who has watched some Collingwood games with Joffa and friends screaming forever and thought they got a good run of it or watched Crows games and wondered why they get the raw end every time their supporters reach for the pate under the rug, now you know."

[stumpjumper]

Go the Power.

Interesting thoughts, PG.

I'd like to see a calculation of the benefits to the state in income, employment etc of the approx. $135,000,000 that's been spent on the Western Grandstand at AO, considering that the new proposal is essentially more of the same.

Generally only the local community uses each publicly funded train, oval, library etc, but then each local community has their own publicly funded collection of them. In contrast, most local sports grounds are either community or council owned, but are usually developed by the local sports clubs just as AO was.

To introduce some NEW MATERIAL into this discussion.

WA is building the Perth Arena!

Here's a report from the West Australian, 11 March 2010:

The shambolic Perth Arena project could be delayed further, costing WA taxpayers even more money while struggling to attract the major events it was built to host. The arena is already $323 million over the original budget of $160 million land three years overdue, with Auditor-General Colin Murphy warning the completion date of January 2011 is itself three months behind schedule, while the timing of the building fit-out has not been finalised. An independent audit recommends the Department of Housing and Works be investigated for breaching the State Records Act, while lambasting the way the now $483 million project was announced, tendered, resourced and run. The taxpayer will make up the budget blow-out of more than $300 million.

The Perth Arena is still not finished, and the cost has blown out further.

The completion date, now 4 years overdue, is 'mid 2012' and the cost has now blown out to over $500 million. The incoming Liberal government installed Appian Group, professional project managers, to take over management of the job from the combination of VenuesWest (WA's version of SMA) and DHW (their version of DTEI), in an effort to contain costs and speed up construction.

As far as I can discover, no-one from the government, SMA or SACA has been sent to WA to have a close look at what is going wrong there.

[AtD]

As far as I can discover, no-one from the government, SMA or SACA has been sent to WA to have a close look at what is going wrong there.

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

A taxpayer funded junket stumpy? Sounds like fun!

In this thread I get the feeling you want to have your cake and eat it too. You denounce the pre-project costs and also demand more investigations and the publication of every inane detail imaginable. It's bad governance because they're spending too much on research and consultation, and it's bad governance because they're not doing enough research and consultation.

One consistency in this thread is your opposition to this project, but your hyperventilating as to why seems to change with the moment.

The only person in this thread IMO providing rational arguments against the project is Prince George.

[Pants]

I havent checked this shit thread in about 3 weeks and i see 9 new pages of the same shit.

Please people, Agree to disagree for the good of humanity.

Can you uphold the forum's standards when you post please? There was no need for the capital "A" in your second sentence.

[stumpjumper]

AtD, I think the development is unnecessary and will not deliver the extent of the benefits promised. It is not of no benefit at all, but is a hugely expensive way of delivering what it does.

Like many people, I also have issues with the funding, ownership and management of the development.

However, it seems that we're going to have it, like it or not.

If that's the case, I'd like to see it done in a business-like way. Hence the post about the stuff-up in WA.

So yes, I'm against it, but if we have to have it, it should be done properly. The omens don't look good though, starting with the level of secrecy and unanswered questions, and the questionable management structure.

[AtD]

The economic debate IMO is valid. But what shits me is in every other post you say there's some massive secrecy, implying without accusing, that there's shonky back room deals going on.

I don't see how you can say there's a massive amount of secrecy around this project. It would be the same as the NBN and the weekly council garbage collection. Break commercial confidentiality and the government may find itself in court at the cost of the taxpayer.

You can't imply there's something to hide because they’re not releasing every minute, not reporting on every cent and not letting you rummage though their garbage. If they did and ended up in court over it, you would probably complain about that too.

[Waewick]

a article from the rag

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6018056880

Demetriou confirmed AFL funding for the Oval to SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker last Wednesday. But the dollar value of the support is still to be decided by the AFL Commission.

"I can't (reveal the level of AFL funding), other than to say we will (be funding it)," he said, dismissing reports the AFL already has signed a $15 million cheque.

that in itself has to be a positive - the AFL putting cash in ensures that if the development goes forward we get a contribution from the biggest benefactor (or so we are led to believe)

[rev]

I was going to write out another lengthy reply to stumpjumper, you know pointing out how one week he argues about something then the following week pretends that information doesn't exist..but I thought screw it I've got better thing's to do today like service my car.

So I'll see you all at Port Adelaide's first home game at the new Adelaide Oval in 2014/15.

[stumpjumper]

rev, that's incorrect. I am trying to look at the development objectively, though.

AtD, the lack of transparency I'm referring to is especially in relation to a publicly funded project. There also seems to be a lot of secrecy around this. Perhaps the traditional secrecy of sports administrators has overflowed into this, starting with the former SACA CEO's sacking for making the development public.

Considering that the taxpayer is likely to be paying any cost blow-out, and because of the secrecy, numerous questions could be asked. I've asked them before. Please feel free to answer them:

Who pays for cost blow-outs?
Who will ultimately control the land?
Why is the Treasury running this, not Transport, Energy and Infrastructure or Recreation, Sport and Racing?*
Will the building contract be fixed price or cost plus?
Why are the taxpayer funded SMA's meetings, operations and records all in confidence?
Will SMA ever release the taxpayer funded report showing a benefit of $111 million per year to SA from AO?
What is the benefit to SA of the existing $135 million development at AO?
Will ACC be compensated for any loss of income from AO?
Whop will own and operate the proposed carparks?
What are the physical limits of the proposed leaseholds?
What will lease payments be?
What documents about this development are open to public view?

and so on.

So I'm not flip-flopping, just trying to see both sides and to understand what is going on.

Break commercial confidentiality and the government may find itself in court at the cost of the taxpayer.

That's fair enough when the commercial confidentiality is legitimate in the first place. Apart from a competitive tender process, what is so confidential about a publicly funded sports stadium, for god's sake? Where public funds in a democracy are concerned, openness must be the default, not confidentiality. Otherwise, how can the opposition scrutinise the operations of government? How do taxpayers assess how their taxes are being spent? Those questions are part of a wider argument, but have relevance here.

*Treasury have advised that DTEI gave me wrong advice - DTEI is actually running the development.

[ghs]

I can see what's going to happen here.

There will be a lot of nimby's voting no on May 2, which will mean that they won't get the
75% vote which is needed. Then there will be a big issue about how people in Adelaide are
backward - the media will love it.