Sensational-Adelaide.com

mattblack wrote:For the first time ever I see wisdom in Alexander Downers words.

Interestingly, there has been quite a bit of wisdom in his words ever since he quit Federal Politics. Many thoughts that he was not allowed to voice publically while holding office, that make a lot of sense.

Also, on a personal and community-spirit level, he's a down-to-earth good bloke.

If it were up to me, for about the same price as the present hospital/oval deal, I would have renovated the RAH and built a new multi-sport stadium on the railyard site, keeping AO for cricket and having West Lakes as a second AFL oval and major venue for the western suburbs. SACA would be left with its new western grandstand and its $85 million debt, which Ian McLachlan says SACA can handle 'very comfortably'.

That seems a cheaper alternative with fewer problems and we end up with more facilities. In planning terms a public stadium is a better use of a major gateway site like the railyards than a utility like a hospital, and the site already has excellent transport connections.

What about the overall costs in maintaining the grounds in the long run as well as the financial cost to our sporting teams having to taken on bigger burdens to be at these stadiums(compared to sharing one major venue)?

Melbourne has 13 sporting teams from three major sporting codes using 2.5 stadiums(AAMI park having small capacity)

Adelaide with three teams from two major sporting codes(not including Adelaide United since their home ground is Hindmarsh), should be able to make do with one main venue, and even if it did include Adelaide United.
The Victorians manage perfectly fine and are better off for it.

And like Alexander Downer and others have said, this issue of whether to build a brand new stadium somewhere else, or redevelop Adelaide Oval was decided at the last state election when the Labor government was returned to power.
It's time people who are opposed to the redevelopment accept defeat because your constant attempts to sabotage the redevelopment are not damaging the Rann government or the redevelopment, but the reputation and image of Adelaide and South Australia. Something which this redevelopment and the wider riverbank redevelopment aims to change for the better.

I think a S-A protest against a "NO" vote on the steps of Parliarment House is called for

just got the email regarding new members

down to the oval fora walk through and update on proceedings - really looking forward to it.

On the amount of teams in Victoria - I strongly believe with the right structure SA could and should have been able to support 3 AFL teams, that will never happen now but it should have.

I also think the Reds are fast becoming the 3rd biggest team in town, hopefully with hte mooted upgrades to hindmarsh stadium that continues. (unless the redbacks or Adelaide strikers or whatever do something)

cus i can't be buggered looking, if this goes ahead when is it planned to be done by? I have 2015 in my head for some reason.

Only asking as Australia is hosting the 2015 WC and the ashes have been moved forward a year to fit the WC in, would be nice to have it all done before then.

I would like to have one single day without any news stories on Adelaide Oval.

they are talking about the 2015 season having half at AAMI and half at AO from memory.

I would like to have one single day without any news stories on Adelaide Oval.

Sadly, with both sides on the warpath, that's not going to happen.

The point above regarding maintenance costs is a good one. Costs-in-use are an important factor in 'cost of use', ultimately reflected in ticket prices and in hire rates. More hires = wider spread of the maintenance component of costs-in-use. There's a point of maximum return for minimum cost.

One point in favour of AO's former creaking old facilities was that they had been depreciated to zero long ago and only needed painting (more or less). That wasn't an argument for keeping the western grandstand, however quaintly historic it was, btw.

Also, on a personal and community-spirit level, he's a down-to-earth good bloke.

I agree (thread drift...). Even as foreign minister, Downer seemed refreshingly honest. I remember him being asked about some very difficult situation in Afghanistan or similar. The journo said accusingly 'It's a mess, isn't it, Minister - what are you going to do about it?' and expected like everyone else some rambling BS answer defending the government's actions. Instead, Downer answered something like: 'Yep, it's a big mess. I have no idea what to do about it.' He's also reputed to be good fun at parties.

Waewick wrote:they are talking about the 2015 season having half at AAMI and half at AO from memory.

I think it's half way through 2014.

Perhaps it's only the so-called morons, idiots and selfish who actually "get it". This redevelopment won't be the City's salavation. The situation is a mess and the elephants in the room are deafening. I'm still voting No and I know I wont be alone.
But my vote can be bought off. The design, heritage and politics aspects arent top of mind for me. Promise me a guaranteed and serious cash donation from football (and I don't mean a ludicrous $5m), a proper resolution to parking, and a guaranteed backer for a realistically sized underground carpark, (and perhaps hold the insults) and we're talking. Till then I'm still voting No.

Perhaps it's only the so-called morons, idiots and selfish who actually "get it". This redevelopment won't be the City's salavation. The situation is a mess and the elephants in the room are deafening. I'm still voting No and I know I wont be alone.
But my vote can be bought off. The design, heritage and politics aspects arent top of mind for me. Promise me a guaranteed and serious cash donation from football (and I don't mean a ludicrous $5m), a proper resolution to parking, and a guaranteed backer for a realistically sized underground carpark, (and perhaps hold the insults) and we're talking. Till then I'm still voting No.

unless you are Mike Rann or or someone else of importance, then I don't think anyone will be losing any sleep if you vote no silverscreen. This will be going ahead, now wake up.. and get with the program.

silverscreen wrote:Perhaps it's only the so-called morons, idiots and selfish who actually "get it". This redevelopment won't be the City's salavation. The situation is a mess and the elephants in the room are deafening. I'm still voting No and I know I wont be alone.
But my vote can be bought off. The design, heritage and politics aspects arent top of mind for me. Promise me a guaranteed and serious cash donation from football (and I don't mean a ludicrous $5m), a proper resolution to parking, and a guaranteed backer for a realistically sized underground carpark, (and perhaps hold the insults) and we're talking. Till then I'm still voting No.

well two of those three could be considered issues, but what are these elephants in the room you are talking about considering you've excluded politics, heritage and design?

the insults are not aimed at people voting no with considered thought process - it is aimed at the ones who are voting no for issues outside the actual development.

I'm pretty sure I didnt refer to any "issues outside the actual development" Waewick.

I know you didn't

that was my point

I was just curious of your major issues - I'm not attacking i am interested because if it is something I haven't considered I would like the opportunity to