SA's Triple AAA Credit Rating

[cruel_world00]

Will, I'd hazard to say when it comes to our interstate folk, there's two types of reactions regarding Adelaide Oval.

One is the "Wow, something is actually being done/built/changing in Adelaide" kind of reaction. Vague, but enough to make us feel good about ourselves.

The other is the "Wow, that looks like shit, but any progress is still progress, right?" reaction. Harsh, but true - because of the second-rate mentality around here, it's like telling a three year old kid that their drawing of a house looks really pretty when it's just crayon scribbles all over the paper, The kid doesn't know it, but the adults do.

I'd venture to say that most 'interstate' commentators are saying the first thing, but are really thinking the second.

This is the most ludicrous thing I have read in a long time. How can you make such wide ranging generalisations? One of your Victorian friends came over and made a snide remark and therefore that means the entire Eastern Seaboard of Australia thinks we are backwards because of the Adelaide Oval development??

Have you checked News Limited lately? The various state based ABC sites? The Age? The SMH? Adelaide barely even rates a mention, not because we are backwards and inferior but because these cities are too busy worrying about their own shit to care about us.

I'm sick of this mentality that somehow Adelaide everything we do is being scrutinised and judged by other states. We have what we have and we do it well. And they have what they have and it's nice to visit. Constantly knocking everything that is proposed here or somehow labelling it as a reason the other states laugh at us is getting old... real old.

[[Shuz]]

Please, I invite you to ask your interstate friends next time.

[cruel_world00]

Most of my interstate friends have never been here but always want to come.

My interstate family love coming home and have only left here for a job or a change of scenery.

So in my experience and with your logic, no one hates Adelaide. Ever.

[crawf]

Will, I'd hazard to say when it comes to our interstate folk, there's two types of reactions regarding Adelaide Oval.

One is the "Wow, something is actually being done/built/changing in Adelaide" kind of reaction. Vague, but enough to make us feel good about ourselves.

The other is the "Wow, that looks like shit, but any progress is still progress, right?" reaction. Harsh, but true - because of the second-rate mentality around here, it's like telling a three year old kid that their drawing of a house looks really pretty when it's just crayon scribbles all over the paper, The kid doesn't know it, but the adults do.

I'd venture to say that most 'interstate' commentators are saying the first thing, but are really thinking the second.

This is the most ludicrous thing I have read in a long time. How can you make such wide ranging generalisations? One of your Victorian friends came over and made a snide remark and therefore that means the entire Eastern Seaboard of Australia thinks we are backwards because of the Adelaide Oval development??

Have you checked News Limited lately? The various state based ABC sites? The Age? The SMH? Adelaide barely even rates a mention, not because we are backwards and inferior but because these cities are too busy worrying about their own shit to care about us.

I'm sick of this mentality that somehow Adelaide everything we do is being scrutinised and judged by other states. We have what we have and we do it well. And they have what they have and it's nice to visit. Constantly knocking everything that is proposed here or somehow labelling it as a reason the other states laugh at us is getting old... real old.

+1!

Seriously that is the biggest load of rubbish you've posted in a long time Shuz. I wouldn't bother asking my friends interstate because they wouldn't care in the slightest unless if they are into Urban Development or coming to visit.

[mshagg]

Please, I invite you to ask your interstate friends next time.

Just checked in with some footy-mad victorians and they had no idea what i was talking about lol.

Is this thread now about the adelaide oval?

The AAA credit rating is probably more meaningful now than it ever has been. The number of soveriegns and banks who have been downgraded in recent history boggles the mind. People actively seek out AAA government paper.

That said, it wont be the end of the world if we end up AA+....it's still fairly strong paper.

[[Shuz]]

Ah, Crawfie, six years on and still every post of yours one big load of rubbish after the next.

I find it interesting to note people's reluctance to talk about urban planning/design issues (such as this) (or even any other matter which passionately interests them) with their friends, whether they be interstate or local. Isn't the whole point of having friendships with people to share with one another the things that interest you and the things that interest them. Even if my friends don't like the subject of urban planning or design, I still talk about it and they may offer an insight or two on things.

I make no point of exagerrating, but I have had this conversation about Adelaide Oval several times with at least 100 people and told them what I think of the project, and asked them what they think of the project and the pros and cons, etc. Many have said that they support the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval 'in-principle'. Many agree that we just want to see something done with the stadium. But when we discuss the detail of it, I have heard many variations of what they visualise should be done with the stadium itself - from archiecture, design, capacity, heritage, services, amenities, etc. Many of those whom I've spoken with, do no agree nor share the same thoughts views between what is actually being proposed and what they think it could or should be. I am simply carrying that message through to this forum.

What's also fascinating is how people treat this redevelopment as some sort of Holy Grail for Adelaide and that it's the be all and end all of everything - the jewel in the crown for the city, and make wild assumptions that it's going to be "the best stadium in Australia". Boy, I can't wait until the damned thing is built and the novelty wears off and people fall hard when they come back down to Earth and really see it for what it is, a second-rate stadium with second-rate design and second-rate facilities. But hey, it's better than the third-rate facilities we currently at AAMI right? Better than nothing - That's the attitude I'm sick of. We can and we should strive for the absolute best.

Thread relevance; Lose the AA rating for a bit - spend another $500m and make it the absolute best - because we can.

[cruel_world00]

Ah, Crawfie, six years on and still every post of yours one big load of rubbish after the next.

I find it interesting to note people's reluctance to talk about urban planning/design issues (such as this) (or even any other matter which passionately interests them) with their friends, whether they be interstate or local. Isn't the whole point of having friendships with people to share with one another the things that interest you and the things that interest them. Even if my friends don't like the subject of urban planning or design, I still talk about it and they may offer an insight or two on things.

I make no point of exagerrating, but I have had this conversation about Adelaide Oval several times with at least 100 people and told them what I think of the project, and asked them what they think of the project and the pros and cons, etc. Many have said that they support the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval 'in-principle'. Many agree that we just want to see something done with the stadium. But when we discuss the detail of it, I have heard many variations of what they visualise should be done with the stadium itself - from archiecture, design, capacity, heritage, services, amenities, etc. Many of those whom I've spoken with, do no agree nor share the same thoughts views between what is actually being proposed and what they think it could or should be. I am simply carrying that message through to this forum.

What's also fascinating is how people treat this redevelopment as some sort of Holy Grail for Adelaide and that it's the be all and end all of everything - the jewel in the crown for the city, and make wild assumptions that it's going to be "the best stadium in Australia". Boy, I can't wait until the damned thing is built and the novelty wears off and people fall hard when they come back down to Earth and really see it for what it is, a second-rate stadium with second-rate design and second-rate facilities. But hey, it's better than the third-rate facilities we currently at AAMI right? Better than nothing - That's the attitude I'm sick of. We can and we should strive for the absolute best.

Thread relevance; Lose the AA rating for a bit - spend another $500m and make it the absolute best - because we can.

I know this debate is slightly off topic, but I did begin the thread with how the Advertiser was being less negative about the state so here goes.

Hey Shuza, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Have you used the new stand at all?

I have. It's great. All the feedback I've heard has been positive. So who do we trust, your negative nellies or my happy positives?

I'm pretty sure I never said anything about the Adelaide Oval being any kind of jewel in the crown, nor did I say the thing was perfect. Do you think everyone was happy when they proposed Etihad/Telstra/Colonial/Docklands etc? How's about the pitch itself... a complete farce and a joke amongst players... so I guess that makes Melbourne a backwater does it?? What about the MCG upgrade... I'm sure there were wowsers who didn't want it to "lose the magic".

I'm not entirely sure why you are so gleefully anticipating a failure for this proposal. And I also don't understand what you would do differently...

If they went the whole hog and dumped the hill, the trees and the scoreboard, there would be an uproar and NOTHING would get done. We'd be stuck with the horrendous AAMI and a half complete Adelaide Oval. This current proposal is a compromise... but it's the best we can look for and if it's anything like the new stand... I'm all for it.

[Will]

Ah, Crawfie, six years on and still every post of yours one big load of rubbish after the next.

I find it interesting to note people's reluctance to talk about urban planning/design issues (such as this) (or even any other matter which passionately interests them) with their friends, whether they be interstate or local. Isn't the whole point of having friendships with people to share with one another the things that interest you and the things that interest them. Even if my friends don't like the subject of urban planning or design, I still talk about it and they may offer an insight or two on things.

I make no point of exagerrating, but I have had this conversation about Adelaide Oval several times with at least 100 people and told them what I think of the project, and asked them what they think of the project and the pros and cons, etc. Many have said that they support the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval 'in-principle'. Many agree that we just want to see something done with the stadium. But when we discuss the detail of it, I have heard many variations of what they visualise should be done with the stadium itself - from archiecture, design, capacity, heritage, services, amenities, etc. Many of those whom I've spoken with, do no agree nor share the same thoughts views between what is actually being proposed and what they think it could or should be. I am simply carrying that message through to this forum.

What's also fascinating is how people treat this redevelopment as some sort of Holy Grail for Adelaide and that it's the be all and end all of everything - the jewel in the crown for the city, and make wild assumptions that it's going to be "the best stadium in Australia". Boy, I can't wait until the damned thing is built and the novelty wears off and people fall hard when they come back down to Earth and really see it for what it is, a second-rate stadium with second-rate design and second-rate facilities. But hey, it's better than the third-rate facilities we currently at AAMI right? Better than nothing - That's the attitude I'm sick of. We can and we should strive for the absolute best.

Thread relevance; Lose the AA rating for a bit - spend another $500m and make it the absolute best - because we can.

Have you actually used the new stand?

Or is this another 'expert' opinion like the one you made about driving, when you don't actually drive yourself?

[[Shuz]]

Have you actually used the new stand?

Yes.

[Will]

Have you actually used the new stand?

Yes.

Then how can you say it is a second rate facility?

Having been to other stadiums interstate, the facilitites at the new Western grandstand are amongst the best if not the best I have experienced.

[Nort]

I make no point of exagerrating, but I have had this conversation about Adelaide Oval several times with at least 100 people and told them what I think of the project, and asked them what they think of the project and the pros and cons, etc. Many have said that they support the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval 'in-principle'. Many agree that we just want to see something done with the stadium. But when we discuss the detail of it, I have heard many variations of what they visualise should be done with the stadium itself - from archiecture, design, capacity, heritage, services, amenities, etc. Many of those whom I've spoken with, do no agree nor share the same thoughts views between what is actually being proposed and what they think it could or should be. I am simply carrying that message through to this forum.

Amazing coincidence if all the people you are talking to have exactly the same views on what they would ideally prefer to see instead.

Or are there a range of views? If so then there will be disagreement no matter what is done and what you just wrote is basically meaningless.