[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1876 Post by stumpjumper » Sat May 28, 2011 10:06 pm

silverscreen wrote
so far noone is offering to build the underground car park
I think it's a matter of economics - underground carparks are very expensive to build. Check your mail, screensilver.

However, SACA claims that the public will earn 20% annual return on its $535 million investment in AO.
The Adelaide Oval redevelopment will generate a $111 million annual increase in economic activity in the City of Adelaide according to a new report commissioned by the Stadium Management Authority (SMA).

The report, compiled by The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (Adelaide & Flinders universities), found that a redeveloped Adelaide Oval will:

- Generate a direct impact of an extra $72 million per annum in spending within the City of Adelaide;
- Generate an additional impact of $39 million per annum in flow-on spending; and
- Create 405 full-time equivalent jobs associated with the total increase in expenditure of $111 million.

The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies report was based on figures showing a redeveloped Adelaide Oval will increase annual attendances at events by almost one million people (972,000).
That openness (admittedly about guesswork) is odd, because the return on investment of $81 million - $135 million in the just completed western grandstand is 'commercial-in-confidence'.

International project management firm Mott MacDonald has been appointed to manage the AO project. They are running the desal plant, which has blown out by at least $400 million so far; hopefully the new RAH job will be a tighter ship.

peas_and_corn
Legendary Member!
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:32 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1877 Post by peas_and_corn » Sun May 29, 2011 8:06 pm

crawf wrote:City of Tea Tree Gully has suggested building a large multi-level carpark at TTP, so that people could drive to TTP and then catch a bus to Adelaide Oval via the O'Bahn. Great idea!

I guess by the time the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is complete, the electrification and major upgrade of the train network will be complete so will make it far more attractive to the general public in the near future.
They're been pushing for one for years now, it's just their current reason. Their reason before was that people were being fined by the TTG council for parking in TTP.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1878 Post by stumpjumper » Mon May 30, 2011 1:34 pm

They're not bad up there. I used to sell real estate, and TTG council would collect real estate open inspection sandwich boards from the footpath claiming they were a public hazard, then they ring us up and ransom the boards back for cash.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1879 Post by stumpjumper » Mon May 30, 2011 2:36 pm

Last week the Adelaide Park Lands Authority (APLA) passed the following resolution:

The Adelaide Park Lands Authority advises the Government of South Australia that:
1. The Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill 2011 is unwarranted and unconscionable, and should be withdrawn as the purpose of this legislation
is to permit unfettered commercial development to the detriment of the Park Lands; and
2. The Authority supports the Adelaide City Council in its statutory right to remain the custodians and managers of the whole of Park 26.

APLA is the expert body set up by the Rann government to protect the Adelaide Park Lands from unwarranted development. The resolution was passed 7 in favour, 2 against. Even Penny Wong's mother, who sits on APLA, supported the motion. Those against were two government appointees - former Labor treasurer Frank Blevins and Labor committee hack Mary Marsland.

Despite APLA being set up by the Rann government to safeguard the Park Lands, its resolutions will now be ignored on the basis that Park 26 (Montefiore/Pennington/King William/War Memorial Drive) is no longer Park Lands and therefore APLA has nothing to say.

Warning: Do not play cards with these guys.

silverscreen
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:19 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1880 Post by silverscreen » Tue May 31, 2011 9:44 am

RAW: How The SANFL Is Also Being Stitched Up By The Adelaide Oval Deal

31st May 2011

That now near infamous telephone call placed by AFL Chief Andrew Demetriou with SACA President, Ian McLachlan, in August 2007 may well go down as the most pivotal moment in this State’s sport, if not ever, then certainly since the SANFL decided split from its co-tenancy at the Adelaide Oval 40 years ago.

The invitation communicated at that time was to the SACA to get top flight football back to Adelaide Oval, an intended boon to its members and football followers across the State. Suspiciously, those discussions were held in secret for near on two years, with the SANFL, runners of the local competition and owners of both the Port and Crows franchises, excluded from the forum negotiating the future of football in South Australia.

For the AFL, at its core, were three main objectives. Ostensibly, at the top of the list was a desire to get football back into the centre of the city, thus dealing with the decline in the remaining useful life of Football Park and regenerating interest in football in this State, then starting its period of decline.

The second objective, only just now making its appearance on the public stage was to rid the SANFL of those AFL team licenses and have them return to AFL ownership.

There has long been AFL antipathy towards the SANFL over the management of those licenses. The oval management deal at Football Park, in particular, means that profits from games held there have been mostly creamed off by the SANFL itself with a view to using those funds to prop up the nine clubs (Glenelg, Sturt, Norwood etc) that own it. The great brag that the local SANFL competition was the second best in Australia (after the AFL itself) was built on the amount of money clubs had available to them to pay players.

But as Port crowds, in particular, started plummeting, the impact on the AFL competition was becoming obvious. Port games played at Football Park cost it an estimated $750,000 in 2010, causing the Power to enter a period of financial crisis and lose touch with the major clubs around the country in terms of spend, on and off the field.

With this history, this morning’s news that Port is broke and needs to be taken over is neither a surprise nor contrary to the plot.

By participating in the Adelaide Oval deal, cheered on by a desperate Port Adelaide, itself supported by the likes of Ian McLachlan himself and Treasurer, Kevin Foley, and The Advertiser (after its conversion about the oval on the road to Damascus after last year’s State election), the SANFL has now exposed itself and is caught out hopelessly in no man’s land.

Behind it is Football Park, admitted during the SACA members’ debate and in every corner since as clapped out and out of date. After the State Government withdrew its $100m promise of upgrade money in favour of the Adelaide Oval idea and FIFA and FFA made it plain it had no interest in that place, the SANFL ran out of options about how to bring that oval back up scratch, especially with both the Crows and especially Port, on the back of declining attendances, costing it money to support.

Before it is their interest in the SMA but its tenure on that is fragile. With no sign of any party being willing presently to put up the extra cash needed to fund the Adelaide redevelopment works when the costs blow out, they are left vulnerable, especially as the SMA is a company limited by guarantee meaning (amongst other things) the shareholdings have no value and profits generated by the SMA cannot be distributed out. (As pointed out previously, the SMA is no joint venture when it comes to ownership and profits between the SACA and the SANFL at all.)

To its flanks it has the prospects of the sale of Football Park and the present offer of the State Government to build one of its tram lines to its door, an offer that experts suggest will add around $100m to the lands’ value.

Thus, their problem. The AFL will contribute next to nothing to the Adelaide Oval project, firstly because of the poor negotiating position taken by Foley and Conlon and secondly because the AFL will do nothing to help the SANFL while it retains ownership of the Crows and Power licenses.

When the costs start to blow out, a government already in the deepest financial hole, will embrace the AFL’s new offer but it will be one predicated on the transfer of the Crows and Power licenses back to it.

If the SANFL does not play ball, then not only may the Adelaide Oval not happen (how then will it revive Football Park?) but the Government may also see fit to withdraw its commitment to the tram line, worth $100m to the value of its West Lakes land. How then also to finance the black hole at Alberton?

With the licenses gone, so too its raison detre for being involved in the move to Adelaide Oval at all. Further, the AFL will not stand for a repeat of the SANFL creaming off profits in management deals for catering, booze and the like as it has at Football Park. Hence, SACA’s stakeholders in the SMA will become representatives of the Crows and Port, then owned by the AFL and it will be they who control the profits (including the car park revenue) and not the SANFL.

With the AFL firmly in control of the Adelaide Oval, then the only decently sized stadium in the State, it can dictate which if any and profit handsomely from any fixtures contemplated in this State by the other football codes – rugby league or union or soccer.

And so these are the reasons why the club licence debate has suddenly been kicked off now, post the SACA members’ voter and before the legislation is approved by Parliament.

So at the end of this, the SANFL will likely be a wealthy football association running a tin pot local feeder league for the AFL clubs to poach from. Its status in the world of Australian football as a big player gone and its hubristic name, the South Australian National Football League, a bigger joke than it has been for very many years. The ultimate humiliation will be that forty years after securing its own future by establishing its own home, now it will no longer have one. Max Basheer must be grimacing watching all this and Don Brebner turning in his grave.

As for the end game, four years hence, well that leads back to the AFL’s third objective for wanting the SACA to embrace the AFL on Adelaide Oval and that is the advancement of its league as the national football code. If, upon returning major league football to Adelaide Oval, Port crowds don’t pick up as that silly South Australian Centre of Economic Studies report assumed (to an average of 30,000 per game – around double the last Port home crowd and 50% greater than its season average to date), then the AFL will simply move the franchise elsewhere – to Canberra, Darwin or perhaps, given Port’s suitable history, to Port Arthur, just south of Hobart.

This will give the AFL with little additional cost, the sort of national competition that the NRL and FFA can only dream about.

Of course at that point, Port Adelaide cheer leaders Michelangelo Rucci, Graham Cornes, KG and their ilk, along with Foley (long gone to Sydney) and McLachlan will realise they too have been duped. And The Advertiser and Sunday Mail, faithful and superb supporters of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, already with falling readership, will see that their last hold over the rank and file Port supporters as readers gone as well.

With Adelaide Oval ruined, a hideous footbridge leading to the door of the casino, Port playing in Darwin, the SANFL without much purpose in life and the SACA unable to afford playing its teams on what had been its home for 130 years, all those who sought a ‘game changer’ in town will have every cause to feel very pleased with themselves.

User avatar
Matt
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: London

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1881 Post by Matt » Tue May 31, 2011 3:58 pm

"With Adelaide Oval ruined, a hideous footbridge leading to the door of the casino, Port playing in Darwin, the SANFL without much purpose in life and the SACA unable to afford playing its teams on what had been its home for 130 years, all those who sought a ‘game changer’ in town will have every cause to feel very pleased with themselves."


What an absolute load of baseless, speculative bullshit.

This daily Krystoff cut-and-paste job is wearing incredibly thin.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1882 Post by Pants » Tue May 31, 2011 4:45 pm

It's hyperbolic, cringe-worthy nonsense.

Is anyone other than silverscreen interested in it? I'd much rather people be left to read it on that site rather than this one, but if people find it interesting/useful/a good balance on here, I'm happy to keep trying to ignore it rather than delete it.

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1883 Post by mattblack » Tue May 31, 2011 5:47 pm

Moderators, can we please have a discussion thread on this, this continous posting of CRAP is getting mightily annoying.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1884 Post by Pants » Tue May 31, 2011 5:48 pm

This is the discussion thread mate.

We'll no doubt start up a construction thread if/when this thing gets moving.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1885 Post by stumpjumper » Tue May 31, 2011 6:06 pm

The opinions of Krystoff, and silverscreen's move in posting them, are directly relevant to the very complex and interesting AO saga. Whether they are correct or not, time will tell, but to reject them on the basis that they aren't majority opinion is not right.

First, minority views are sometimes right and second, it's not as if everyone is looking at the politics of the project as Krystoff is. A Project like the AO is highly political, which makes consideration of the games being played as valid as consideration of the design.

If your interest in such projects is limited to the bricks and mortar, then you should educate yourself by reading stuff like Krystoff's - whether he's right or wrong. A thread on the AO development rather than just the building should consider the unseen aspects of the building as well.

If nothing else, Krystoff's contribution throws some light on why things are as they are.

Think too how thin a thread based only on the building would be: despite spending millions to date, we have no detailed design, no costings, no idea of materials etc.

Krystoff simply asks questions about that sort of thing and attempts to give answers. His opinion has a place, and actually gives the thread wider interest and probably, readership. If you don't like it, use the scroll wheel.
Last edited by stumpjumper on Tue May 31, 2011 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dsriggs
Legendary Member!
Posts: 522
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:18 am

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1886 Post by dsriggs » Tue May 31, 2011 6:07 pm

What is this RAW, and why should we put any stock in their ramblings?

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1887 Post by stumpjumper » Tue May 31, 2011 6:13 pm

It's a relevant, divergent opinion in a topical debate.

Another divergent opinion here - one that came from the Liberal member for Adelaide, whether you like it or not - that AFL footy should be played at AO immediately to see how it goes, is now getting an airing on the TV news. So much for relevance.

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3826
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1888 Post by Nathan » Tue May 31, 2011 6:17 pm

dsriggs wrote:What is this RAW, and why should we put any stock in their ramblings?
A guy who's deluded himself into thinking he runs Adelaide's "only" online street mag.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1889 Post by stumpjumper » Tue May 31, 2011 9:23 pm

Look up 'ad hominem', Nat...

The following comment is about the causes rather than the symptoms we're seeing here. A large part of the reason for the AO redevelopment is to improve the financial position of Port and the Crows.

AFL's TV rights earn it $250 million pa. Other earnings are about $370 million pa, so the AFL operates on about $14 million per week. Player payments average about $220,000 pa each for about $140 million, under $3 million per week.

These are huge numbers, yet at least 5 clubs are struggling. The AFL is a complex business, but on the other hand the basics of it are fairly simple, and on these figures you have to ask whether the business model is working if so many clubs are in difficulty despite the wealth flowing through the AFL, and whether the financial demands of running a high quality nationwide competition are straining the business model.

I wonder if anyone outside the well-paid administration has assessed the costs of the way the AFL does its business, and whether serious savings can be made.

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3826
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

#1890 Post by Nathan » Tue May 31, 2011 9:52 pm

stumpjumper wrote:Look up 'ad hominem', Nat...
No ad hominem argument there. I wasn't commenting on his prose so nicely copy and pasted for us all to enjoy, but merely answering dsriggs question of who/what is kryztoff/raw.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 4 guests