[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Pants]

I didn't delete what you wrote, but I'll say something anyway...

I'm not as offended by you as some others are, I actually find you amusing, inasmuch as I find keyboard warriors who back down from intelligent debate amusing.

There was nothing wrong with what Spiller said. He was referring to some of the clearly politically motivated posts that preceded his.

As for the cost, what do you make of the whole - "you've got to spend money to make money" line? Before you answer that (if you choose to) make sure you factor in the broader economic benefit of the inevidable development at West Lakes once AAMI Stadium and its surrounds are no longer needed for AFL. Also, I can't be bothered checking so am going from memory, but weren't you advocating a more expensive, new stadium a few short months ago to cater for soccer too?

As for your well-wishes to mods, again, I'm not fussed by you, either way, but others are. I imagine that if you in any way care about being able to post on this site, you might want to play a bit nicer.

[Zills]

So, how about that AO redevelopment?

[stumpjumper]

Be fair to Rachel Sanderson - she has proposed deferring the full redevelopment of AO for 18 months to 2 years in order to see how the scheduling works.

I've heard that an application for redevelopment of AAMI is being discussed at Port Adelaide Enfield Council, supposedly for 1800 housing allotments. Even at $300K per allotment, that's a gross yield of $540 million for the owners of AAMI. It would be good to see footy pay a few dollars towards whatever happens at AO.

[shaun]

Be fair to Rachel Sanderson - she has proposed deferring the full redevelopment of AO for 18 months to 2 years in order to see how the scheduling works.

I've heard that an application for redevelopment of AAMI is being discussed at Port Adelaide Enfield Council, supposedly for 1800 housing allotments. Even at $300K per allotment, that's a gross yield of $540 million for the owners of AAMI. It would be good to see footy pay a few dollars towards whatever happens at AO.

http://weekly-times-messenger.whereiliv ... -overhaul/

The Weekly Times Messenger understands a major feature is an apartment building on the corner of West Lakes Blvd and Turner Drive, with shops and cafes on the ground floor and apartments in the above nine storeys. Under the master plan, land immediately west of Frederick Rd, including the former Crows Shed and part of Max Basheer Reserve, would be carved up for housing with buildings up to six storeys high, as part of a transit oriented development (TOD).

[stumpjumper]

Thanks, crawf. '1800 allotments' obviously refers to '1800 dwellings' (or some number...).

It is actually possible to propose a well-designed development without calling it a TOD, by the way. The TOD concept has been around for decades but politicians in SA seem to use the term as a magic talisman that, hopefully, deflects all criticism.

Significant transport connections do not automatically make a development good. There are plenty of other factors involved.

[AtD]

Stumps, In the interest of structure, the proposal for the AAMI site is being discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3309

[stumpjumper]

Thanks AtD. Back to AO then.

On ABC891 this afternoon, Olsen said quite clearly that

"As soon as there is approval to go ahead at AO, SACA will go from being a sporting body which owes $85 million, to one that owes zero."

At present, SACA owes $55 million to Westpac and $30 million to the state government, on which it pays $5.25 million annual interest and a further $4 million in capital repayments. These are the loans that SACA chair Ian MacLachlan is 'very comfortable' with. SACA has also received - on top of the just mentioned loans - a state government grant of $25 million and a federal government grant of $25 million. The grants and the loans have all been applied to the western grandstand redevelopment.

So, Olsen appears to be saying that SACA's $55 million debt to Westpac will be paid out, presumably by the state government, and its $30 million loan from the state government will be forgiven, on approval of the eastern redevelopment.

This must mean, if the $535 million cap is to be retained, that the funds available for the eastern redevelopment (not including the $40 million for the new footbridge which is now covered by the riverbank redevelopment project) are $450 million max (including the carpark? Or will that be financed by some sort of PPP?)

So, the total taxpayer contribution to the AO redevelopment without blowouts will be a minimum of $50 million grants, $35 million in forgiven loans, $50 million in paid out loans, $450 million in eastern redevelopment costs plus $40 million for the footbridge plus what, $40 million for the carpark.

Total: $665 million from Aust taxpayers, or $640 million from SA taxpayers.

[Pants]

For someone who's following all of this so closely, I would have thought you'd know that the $535m quite transparently includes $85m to pay off SACA's debt for the new members' stand. It was very widely reported a few months ago.

[silverscreen]

Read some posts this morning that have now disappeared. Why???
Is this a grown-ups forum or what?

[Pants]

Yep, that's why we don't talk about SJ's orifices on here.

[silverscreen]

Thought there ws a bit more to it than that Pants?

[Pants]

Nah, not in any that I deleted.

[King]

Seems to me like you guys are running some sort of autocracy of late, rather than a democracy.

-1

[Pants]

Never has been a democracy, it's a privately owned site.

I still think we're fair though, but of course I would say that.

[mattblack]

Total: $665 million from Aust taxpayers, or $640 million from SA taxpayers

Total tangible benifits to the state including increased tax receipts, business activity, tourism, carparking income, social benifits and so on ................... $Billions and $Billions. Good investment if you ask me, and being a SACA member they are asking me.