[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[mattblack]

I cant wait for this to be all over. Ill be voting yes on monday and am still hopeful. You have to remember that the new members that have come on board since last year are mostly young and are keen to see development. Most are also not on this forum and will vote on face value only, not all the political crap that has gone on behind the scenes so that is also a positive. Only a vocal minority are really against this and lets all hope that there are enough older members out there with an open mind to get this over the line.

[Will]

I strongly feel that most future-loving South Australian's would vote 'yes'. Nevertheless, in a democracy it is very difficult to secure 75% of the vote, even if it was for free beer on a friday night. As a result I hope the state government overules the backwards SACA member's vote, and follows the same visionary decision as it did with the ACC and takes over the planning decisions and takes over this project for the greater good of South Australians.

[Prince George]

For a refreshing change, the 'Tiser squeezed out an article that wasn't just the opinions of some sports people of yore.

Adelaide Oval saga reaches last fork in the road
Richard Earle | From:The Advertiser | April 30, 2011 12:00AM


THE great stadium debate has changed the SA's sporting landscape forever - turning enemies into friends.

World-famous cricket mecca Adelaide Oval will convert to a fully fledged, 50,000-seat stadium if 75 per cent of South Australian Cricket Association members vote on Monday to relinquish control of the venue to football.

Debate over the merit of AFL fixtures at an inner-city stadium was kick-started by readers of The Advertiser in 2008.

This was a scenario requiring dialogue between cricket and football foes likened to managing "the Middle East peace process" by Premier Mike Rann.

Sir Donald Bradman's short-sighted banishment of the SANFL as an Adelaide Oval tenant to West Lakes sand fields 40 years ago denied cricket a crucial revenue stream and created enduring animosity.

Ultimately, it was former SACA chief executive Mike Deare who proved the game-changer in July 2009, revealing to The Advertiser secret plans for AFL fixtures to be played at a redeveloped Adelaide Oval from 2014.

Deare - accompanied by a SACA media minder during a 40-minute interview - calmly outlined the watershed vision for a 45,000-50,000 capacity Adelaide Oval that hosted AFL and international events.

Deare enshrined the public's right to know about a landmark plan it would fund.

The bitterness and distrust of a 40-year feud between cricket and football immediately surfaced with SANFL executive commissioner Leigh Whicker saying he was "insulted" by Deare's published revelations on July 25, 2009.

SACA president Ian McLachlan publicly admonished Deare for his transparency, saying: "It was not understandable why he did it."

Deare's resignation was ratified by the SACA board on August 3, becoming the first casualty of the stadium wars.

Notably, Deare had been chastised for predicting a $700 cost for combined AFL/cricket membership packages but this now appears accurate. Other development details would remain on a drip-feed public release.

The Adelaide Oval saga has been punctuated by conjecture over the exact project cost, timelines and simultaneous commitment of all parties - cricket, football and the State Government.

The Rann Government allocated $450 million in taxpayer funds to upgrade Adelaide Oval in December 2009 after an in-principle agreement between the SANFL and SACA to reunite in the city.

A binding agreement between the codes was not reached until last month.

The original $450 million pre-state election estimate blew out to $535 million - triggering an Upper House parliamentary committee investigation.

Key members of the $10 million government-funded Stadium Management Authority comprising football and cricket officials, including chairman McLachlan, were required to give evidence.

Former state treasurer Kevin Foley became the second "stadium" casualty last June, after admitting to misleading Parliament.

Foley was told about a cost increase - the day before the March 20, 2010, state election was called - but forgot about the meeting with Whicker where he received the information.

The need for a parliamentary investigation also added weight to calls from sports organisations, the State Opposition and former Labor senator Chris Schacht for an independent SMA to be established given the huge taxpayer contribution.

If Foley came off second best in his stadium scrap, the SANFL emerged the winner. Whicker had long advocated a two-stadium policy that would "make the state great".

The SANFL was eventually won over by the promise of a 50 per cent lease of Adelaide Oval and retention of its lucrative West Lakes asset while Whicker finished a rise from catering manager to appointment as SMA chief.

Moreover, Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon revealed to this newspaper last August footy's deal was a "Future Fund fortune". A tramlink to West Lakes from 2016 would also increase the value of an AAMI Stadium site with prime real estate potential.

AFL chief Andrew Demetriou's courting of the SACA also provided incentive to act. Whicker last July recorded being "angry and disappointed" by SACA and the AFL being involved in private talks on returning elite football to the city.

Regardless, SACA will not be basking in football's rivers of gold following a "yes" vote come Monday night.

Still, the SACA board will be spared responsibility for dealing with an $85 million debt after a western grandstand upgrade that cost $25 million more than the estimated $90 million.

Critically, SACA members will vote not knowing if the $535 million in state funds allocated will be enough and who will pay if not.

Director of major projects Rod Hook has indicated the final stadium cost won't be known for months. Economic modelling supporting the initiative also has been contested.

Regardless, the State Government will have met an election pledge designed to neutralise former Opposition leader Martin Hamilton-Smith's popular plan to build an inner-city, covered, multi-purpose stadium.

Test great Ricky Ponting "is sad to see Adelaide Oval go as we know it" while former AFL boss Wayne Jackson has warned against a one stadium "monopoly".

Former federal ministers McLachlan and Alexander Downer have, in contrast, called on SACA members to vote yes and not "deny the state a sporting future".

Ultimately, beauty will be in the eye of the beholder on Monday.

[kenget]

I strongly feel that most future-loving South Australian's would vote 'yes'. Nevertheless, in a democracy it is very difficult to secure 75% of the vote, even if it was for free beer on a friday night. As a result I hope the state government overules the backwards SACA member's vote, and follows the same visionary decision as it did with the ACC and takes over the planning decisions and takes over this project for the greater good of South Australians.

Yeah agreed, I think if people voted for what will be the best thing for cricket in this state, then they would vote yes.. but sadly I believe there will be at least 25 percent of members that end up voting against the development as they will only be thinking of themselves. Oh how I hope I am wrong.

[skyliner]

+1

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[stumpjumper]

RAW wrote: Well that is news Mr McLachlan and it is now incumbent upon you to produce those valuations so members and the tax paying public can scrutinise them. And that needs to happen now.

waewick wrote: sorry the general public does not have the right to view anything to do with the SACA or the SANFL

I think waewick is right. SACA and SANFL are private bodies and have no requirement to make public any of their documents.

Whether the government should make public its documents in connection with this, considering the public money involved, is a different question. I can't see whose interests need to be protected by the 'commercial confidentiality' claimed by the government.

If the proposal is built and performs as hoped, all will be well and any objections will blow over.

If the cost blows out, or the development doesn't produce the benefits claimed, then transparency during the process will become crucial in any enquiry as everyone tries to escape blame.

[Vee]

I strongly feel that most future-loving South Australian's would vote 'yes'. Nevertheless, in a democracy it is very difficult to secure 75% of the vote, even if it was for free beer on a friday night. As a result I hope the state government overules the backwards SACA member's vote, and follows the same visionary decision as it did with the ACC and takes over the planning decisions and takes over this project for the greater good of South Australians.

+2
The state government may need to let the public vent their spleen for a few weeks before taking action. The redevelopment was part of their election platform.
How can so few (SACA members) have so much power over a decision that affects all South Australians?

[Pikey]

Paid up SACA member who voted yes here.

[metro]

60% have already voted YES

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/reso ... 6047591067

[dsriggs]

...the article says it's 60% of the early votes, not 60% of the total people voting.

That's not good enough.

[silverscreen]

Re McLachlan article:
"In the final hours before tomorrow's crucial vote, SACA president Ian McLachlan made a late push for the yes vote, saying the development would boost tourism.

"I think people will drive from Melbourne, fly, and not just come over for the game and then go back," he said. "Collingwood versus the Crows, Collingwood versus Power - I'd love to see that."

I know he's getting desperate but he's in cloud cuckoo land

[crawf]

He is not in cuckoo land at all, there is major tourism potential.

Including the redevelopment of the casino and riverbank precinct.

[ricecrackers]

its all smiles around the house here as it looks like the NO vote will win through
an excellent result for the SA taxpayer

let the VFL fund their own new stadium and let the SACA finance their own debt

[metro]

exactly crawf, many people in Adelaide always say they're going over to Melbourne to visit the Casino and watch a game at the MCG or Cocklands, I bet Melbourne people will do the same and come to Adelaide

[dsriggs]

its all smiles around the house here as it looks like the NO vote will win through
an excellent result for the SA taxpayer

let the VFL fund their own new stadium and let the SACA finance their own debt