[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Will]

$85!

What a rip-off!

Considering all these factors, the game actually got a really good crowd.

[Alyx]

THE Opposition has decided to support the Government's legislation allowing the Adelaide Oval redevelopment to proceed but under a series of conditions.

The party room decided on the position after a debate of nearly three hours which Liberal sources described as "robust".

Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond and Treasury spokesman Iain Evans said that the proposed amendments to the Bill would ensure transparency and accountability for the $535 million of SA taxpayer's funds that would be spent on this project.

They said the Liberals would support the redevelopment subject to a number of conditions including:

THE legislation cap the state contribution to the project to $535 million

THE Auditor General be given powers to audit the project on a regular basis

NORMAL planning processes applies and that the project also was considered by Parliament's Public Works Committee.

"After consulting with the Adelaide City Council we will introduce conditions to leave Lights Vision, Pennington Gardens and Creswell Gardens under the care and control of the council," Ms Redmond and Mr Evans said in a joint statement.

"The licence areas covering the proposed car parking to the north of the oval and over Adelaide Oval number two will be subject to a Community Land Management Plan to be agreed with the ACC."

A spokesman for Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon said the proposals would be considered and debated in State Parliament as early as tomorrow.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6070520308

[Will]

That is a good outcome. Parliament should be about reaching the best outcome for the people of this state, and not just childish negativity towards your opponents.

Congratulations to the liberals for showing some maturity, and deciding to act in the state interest.

[stumpjumper]

. .

[stumpjumper]

A few charts from the Centre for Economic Studies Report. If anyone wants a full copy of the report, PM me and I'll forward one.











You can see what spooked the AFL clubs .

I suggest that part of the problem is with the AFL business model. AFL sells to the same market simultaneously two conflicting products: first, it wants supporters to pay to watch the match at a sportsground; second, it continually improves the timing and quality of TV coverage to encourage supporters to stay at home and watch games drinking and eating cheaply in the comfort of their own lounge rooms in order to boost the value of its digital content product.

If you're not actually attending games, club membership may become less important. Similarly, the increasing transfer of players among clubs works against old-fashioned 'club identity' to an extent.

All the figures suggest that the 'watch at home' option is winning. It's a figure the AFL must have, but won't release.

[mattblack]

RAW: Socceroos Crowd Farce

So here it was. The show piece clash that would prove once and for all that Adelaide Oval needs to be made into a stadium to hold 50,000.

For the first time in seven years, international soccer was back in town. The Socceroos, ‘fresh from their triumph against the world beating Germans’ were playing New Zealand.

Three weeks out from the game The Advertiser’s soccer writer, from Sydney, told us 20,000 tickets had been sold. Really? Then on 26th May, the SACA made a bonus members’ offer for reduced price tickets (which were then available to all and any punter) on an unlimited basis. Reports also had it that 10,000 tickets had been given away for free. Steps that suggested the much hoped for sell out was not on its way.

This morning the Sunday Mail told us 30,000 were going to the game and nothing short of a media blitz played its way across commercial radio before noon promoting the game. Final crowd – about 22,000, the same as the Reds drew in their game against Melbourne Victory earlier in the year. Does this matter?

Well sure. The issue is not that none of the big four Socceroo stars – Schwarzer, Neil, Kewell and Cahill – took to the pitch or that the game was televised live on Foxtel or that the original ticket prices for an off-season friendly were up to $80 (who thought this was a good idea?).

What counts is the fiction we were told about how everyone was going and the motives behind it. That being to once again try to justify this fiscal madness that Adelaide Oval needs to have its capacity lifted from 38,000 to 50,000 for a cost to taxpayers of $535m+.

Jim Hancock, the author of the now infamous Centre for Economic Studies report used by the SMA to justify this great self indulgence, went on ABC Breakfast during the week and revealed that the gain in economic activity to the Adelaide CBD from the redeveloped Oval was in fact a mere $33m (and that in an Ashes year) after deducting that expenditure being transferred from West Lakes – down from the $114m figure that had been widely used by those too caught up in the cheer leading who should have known better and checked.

The average expected crowds for Port and Crows games were those provided to him by SMA and the CES didn’t bother to check out the credentials of those figures. While the Socceroos entertained 22,000 at Adelaide Oval, about the same number (23,192 allegedly) went to Football Park to watch Port play Carlton. That crowd was some 4,000 less than the lowest crowd for this clash in the past six years and about 7,000 below last year’s crowd (30%) and the average for those past five clashes.

Port CEO Mark Haysman was also on radio this week spruiking a crowd of about 30,000 and again the match enjoyed the usual sad pleadings and cajoling of Michelangelo Rucci throughout the week.

So, if Port survives long enough to go to Adelaide Oval it needs crowds to increase by nearly 50% to meet Jim Hancock’s average. Based on tonight’s turn-up, we will also need about three soccer internationals to reach those projected annual figures each year and still we are shy the 65,000 in rugby crowds assumed (with the 23,000 from the Rugby Sevens gone) again each and every year.

As many are now increasingly asking, why can’t all these events happen on the Adelaide Oval as presently configured? Port games, all soccer games all cricket matches and so on are just fine in a venue that holds 38,000. The way the Crows are going they too will manage quite happily there as well.

When you deduct the interest cost on the cost of the stadium ($40m) you are already behind and then if you take into account that Jim’s figures are gross revenues and not net economic benefit (after deducting the costs involved of generating the revenue), one realises that Adelaide Oval is now a dog of a deal.

Hopefully when the Liberals decide tomorrow to also oppose this legislation the voices of reason will start to prevail and the idiocy of a government on a financial death wish for this state is noticed and acted upon.

Sadly The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail, supposedly our guards against the excesses of the political class, just don’t seem to get how wrong they are and have been and how out of step with their readers they have become.

Is it any wonder their readership numbers continue to plummet?

Really makes you appreciate the well constucted, researched arguments that Stumpjumper puts forward. Although I dont always agree with his sentiments and posting basically the same argument numerous times I would much rather see someone with passion and intellect rather than this moron.

[stumpjumper]

I don't know whether to thank you or punch you in the nose, mattblack. As to 'intellect' in my posts, I just stopped using adjectives.

There's a bit of repetition from all sides, as far as I can see.

[silverscreen]

There's a bit of repetition from all sides, as far as I can see.

I'll second...second that.

[Will]

The crowd at tonight's Australia vs. Serbia friendly at the enclosed Etihad Stadium was 28 149.

Yes, that's right, just 28 149. So even though the game was enclosed, against a better opponent and in a city almost 4 times larger than ours...

This proves that having an enclosed stadium is just an expensive gimmick, that has only a marginal influence (if any) on crowd attendances.

[mattblack]

"stumpjumper" wrote

I don't know whether to thank you or punch you in the nose, mattblack.

Fair call. If I ever meet you ill buy you a beer and we'll discuss the matter

[[Shuz]]

I think that all things considering that these matches have been only just friendlies, a crowd of 20,000+ is pretty respectable, especially in Australia.

Had it been an actual game of noteworthy importance, in competetition, then the crowd figures would have been much higher. It's got nothing to do with stadiums or anything.

[Maximus]

This isn't good...

Rain cloud over Oval's western stand

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/cri ... 6072125223

Also: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/sog ... 6070573747

THE South Australian Cricket Association faces pressure to reveal repair costs of its leaky grandstand.

The flow of the Adelaide Oval development legislation through Parliament stands to be checked by a state Opposition seeking confirmation of taxpayer liability for the venue upgrade and transparency on the SACA member vote that approved it last month.

Upset fans have contacted The Advertiser complaining about poor sight lines and being drenched in Sunday night's Socceroos game against New Zealand despite paying $85 to sit in the new $115 million western stand.

Some were forced to use umbrellas in the stand which opened last December.

Opposition sports spokesman Terry Stephens said a stand built with $50 million in taxpayer funds should have met basic requirements. The deal bringing AFL to the city was sealed in 2009. "What is a retrofit going to cost and who is going to pay for that?" Mr Stephens said.

"They (SACA/Government) have supposedly been burrowing away since 2007 with the AFL. No more than $535 million is meant to be spent on the Oval redevelopment. Is there any contingency to have to go back and deal with a stand that was supposedly finished and completed?"

SACA chief John Harnden said the stand's "design and steel work was finalised" before any agreement was inked with football.

Harnden said it was a "bit hard" to pinpoint a time line and cost for weather-proofing a western stand that also required modifications including installation of toilets in the members' bar, and new media and coaching facilities.

''We are looking longer term for the redevelopment on providing a better, full rain solution," Harnden said. "I think the stand is up to standard but was designed predominantly for summer to provide ventilation."

The SACA member vote that ceded control of Adelaide Oval to football in an 80 per cent verdict, first queried by former federal Labor MP Rod Sawford, is now attracting scrutiny from the Liberals.

SACA last month said it "had no plans" to release details of the ballot, particularly the number of undirected proxy votes that were - automatically and crucially - counted in favour of the development.

"I'm sure this will be discussed in Parliament. You want transparency. This kind of secrecy only creates suspicion," Mr Stephens said.

[rev]

I was at AAMI watching Port on Sunday. And let me tell you, the only thing that would have kept people dry, would have been a roof over the entire stadium.

Not only did it rain, but it was windy.
So I find the complaints about getting wet while its raining and windy, while the only cover you have is over your head, to be pathetic. It's not like the wet and windy weather rolled up on us by surprise, it was forecast for several days in advance.
It's been mentioned already, the weather we got on Sunday is rare.

People need to harden up. Seriously, what is with all this complaining? I know people in this state like to whinge a lot, but it's getting ridiculous.
Pretty soon they'll be complaining they have to walk in the sun in summer and demand the government build roofs over all the footpaths.


Another quality article from our favorite media outlet btw.

First line...

THE South Australian Cricket Association faces pressure to reveal repair costs of its leaky grandstand.

Implies the stand is leaking, ie the roof.

Third and fourth line...

Upset fans have contacted The Advertiser complaining about poor sight lines and being drenched in Sunday night's Socceroos game against New Zealand despite paying $85 to sit in the new $115 million western stand.

Some were forced to use umbrellas in the stand which opened last December.

It appears there is nothing wrong with the roof, it is not leaking. But that in fact, rain was 'pushed' under the roof, because it was windy.

[crawf]

It was a very poor decision not to rain-proof the back of the Western Grandstand, considering it does rain time to time during the warmer months.

Glad this concept isn't being included in the proposed two grandstands.

[skyliner]

It was a very poor decision not to rain-proof the back of the Western Grandstand, considering it does rain time to time during the warmer months.

Glad this concept isn't being included in the proposed two grandstands.

In answer to the bold - I mentioned this as a significant flaw when we first saw the renders - linked with wind problems from the west. Funny how we all see these things and yet they they are not done by the professionals. Now a bad reputation for the stand is afoot.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATERC CITY SKYLINE