Sensational-Adelaide.com

capitalist wrote:just imagine if they had of acted a bit quicker and we would have had construction and completion at an earlier timeframe.

saying that - given the general population can't agree it isn't suprising that those boards couldn't either.

Imagine if we hadnt had the State Bank ball and chain for 20 years. Its not about 'what could have been' but 'what could be'.

A few points and questions:

SACA management has recently pushed through a change to the SACA constitution. It used to be that the only votes which counted in SACA votes were those cast by members in person at meetings at the oval. Now, it's possible to vote by proxy, and certain members of the committee cary very large numbers of proxies. Many ordinary members did not understand the implications of this change, and the recently expanded membership, until now.

The government's own Park Lands Act 2003 restricts leases on Park Lands to 21 years. Mr Demetriou wants a much longer lease than that for the Stadium Management Authority. I wonder what they'll do?

I've seen some figures quoted for the daily operating cost of the revamped oval, and they're frighteningly large. It's a pity that the proposal doesn't contain AO Lite - a capacity for the new oval to host rugby, hockey, soccer etc. We could then have 7s, a soccer grand final (if Adelaide ever gets up) and so on.

I'm still wondering who will be paying for the carpark? 1200 spaces at around $40K per space.

Name a government project that hasn't run over budget, and remember that SMA has burned through $10 million already and wants more money. For that money, incidentally, SMA has produced a set of drawings, and a lot of lunches have been had by guys in suits criss-crossing the nation. Who will pay for the any blowout beyond the most recent 'not one cent more' budget of $535 million?

A correction to my earlier post: SACA wants two of its leases brought into line with each other, which I think is fair enough. One lease is for the oval. another is for the strip of land to the east (not as I said to the west) over which the oval extended when the Chappell Stand was built and the old entry gate and ticket box were moved a few metres.

We already have SA Tourism Commission and Australian Major Events which is now folded into SATC as Events South Australia as well as Adelaide Convention and Tourism Authority Ltd - why did we have to set up another little empire in Adelaide Stadium Management Authority just to run the oval, especially when the AFL has already set down that the oval will belong to football 7 months of the year and to cricket for 5 months? We're only a small city, after all, and given the expensive SMA's predeliction for utter secrecy, wouldn't it be better to have it all run from one office?

The position of Tourism SA, and the government, is emphatically that the city of Adelaide is NOT a tourism destination. The tourist attractions in SA are: The Barossa Valley, Kangaroo Island and festivals - that much was drilled into me in a recent conversation with SDA boss Peter Manilauskas' office. That, and the need for shop assistants to have Christmas dinner with their families, are the reasons why we can't have extended trading hours in Adelaide. Isn't the revamped oval going to be a significant tourist draw, even given the impossibility of hosting sports other than cricket or football?

Tourism SA is closing its only public shopfront, in King William Street 'on the way' to the oval. All access to information for tourists to SA will now be via the internet. Should the Tourism SA office stay open at least until the oval is completed and running, to see if there is extra demand?

^^^ some interesting points there. Is it an actual fact that other "one off" sporting events (e.g soccer, sevens etc) will not be hosted at the oval any longer or is this just a conclusion drawn from the 7months football-5 months cricket division that has been talked about? I find it hard to believe that they would completely close off such a great sporting facility to all other possibilities outside of these sports. Take Etihad for example, the AFL owns 100% of the rights to that ground but it still hosts it's fair share of other sporting events and concerts.

some interesting points there. Is it an actual fact that other "one off" sporting events (e.g soccer, sevens etc) will not be hosted at the oval any longer or is this just a conclusion drawn from the 7months football-5 months cricket division that has been talked about?

I don't know if use by other sports will definitely not be allowed, but it's a concern that no one seems to have suggested specifically that they will be able to use the oval. If I represented one of those other sports - rugby, soccer, hockey, baseball etc, I'd try to get the sports together to put some pressure on to ensure occasional use.

On the other hand, I doubt that SMA would knock back a dollar if the oval were available and a sport, or a concert promoter for that matter, wanted to hire it.

Then there's the question of training, if the Crows or the magnificent Port Adelaide outfit were to use the main oval for training. Training requirements could interfere with 'outside' hires.

I wonder when the details will be released? I'm a member of both SACA and SANFL - I would have hoped to get an atleast an email at the same time as the official release.

Unsure as to whether this is new or not... if not, feel free to delete, moderators

Lack of roofs on the western grandstand suggests that it may be an old model - or maybe all the roofs have been left off the model on purpose?

lack of roofs must be to show seating etc.

i am suprised by the size of the new "bradman" stand...

For those that have seen the new western stand in person, you'd know it's q fairly tall structure. Those other two proposed stands must be of epic proportions!

so is that the "realease" mentioned yesterday?

I thought we would get a bit more detail on WTF they have been doing for the last 6 months.

capitalist wrote:so is that the "realease" mentioned yesterday?

I thought we would get a bit more detail on WTF they have been doing for the last 6 months.

Of course a lot more detail will be released than just a photo taken by a member of the media.

Matt wrote:

Unsure as to whether this is new or not... if not, feel free to delete, moderators

I don't think that's been posted before, thanks for sharing.

stumpjumper wrote:I've seen some figures quoted for the daily operating cost of the revamped oval, and they're frighteningly large. It's a pity that the proposal doesn't contain AO Lite - a capacity for the new oval to host rugby, hockey, soccer etc. We could then have 7s, a soccer grand final (if Adelaide ever gets up) and so on.

Can we see those figures too?

And what makes you think rugby 7's, or soccer wont be played at the ground once redeveloped?
Every time it's used, they make money. Why would they stop this?
The two A League games held there this year did not clash with any AFL Pre-Season matches, nor any Cricket scheduling.

And when has hockey ever been played at AO? Why not complain they haven't included law balls too?

stumpjumper wrote:I don't know if use by other sports will definitely not be allowed, but it's a concern that no one seems to have suggested specifically that they will be able to use the oval.

Of course other sports will be allowed to use the Oval provided they come to an arrangement with the stadium manager. Which is exactly the situation that currently exists. The only change will be that instead of hiring it from the SACA they will hire it from the SMA and the available dates will be a bit tighter obviously.

Although, Rucci did mention today in the paper that major event, such as World Cup, Olympics, Commonwealth Games for example, will get number 1 priority. That's right, number 1 priority. Which means that other sports, as long as they are major actually get more guarantees to the Oval than they currently do.

Tyler_Durden wrote:

capitalist wrote:so is that the "realease" mentioned yesterday?

I thought we would get a bit more detail on WTF they have been doing for the last 6 months.

Of course a lot more detail will be released than just a photo taken by a member of the media.

I meant that in a light hearted way but the response was well deserved

@Rev - the only thing that disappoints me is that this stadium is for Cricket and AFL only which means it is likely that in 5-10 years we will be having a discussion on how to ensure other sports are catered for as well.

I have to say, that model looks impressive, and yes spiller, those new stands would be massive. Seeing that makes me even more excited, although I am trying to contain my excitement knowing the conservative and closed minded will probably vote this down.