Sensational-Adelaide.com

you have to remember the AO is still designated parklands

I don't believe they pay "council rates"

one interesting thing from last night is John Harden once again said - they will enter agreements with the Government/Council

like silverscreen has said, the state government aren't invovled in the lease.

despite John saying there is no plan b, I reckon there is a doomsday position.

like silverscreen has said, the state government aren't invovled in the lease.

Waewick, how do you explain this then? I post again the excerpt from p 14 of SACA's information booklet:

"The State Government will grant a priority use licence to each of SACA and SANFL to unrestrictedly and exclusively use Adelaide Oval for cricket and football purposes during their respective seasons subject only to the right of the State Government to stage international events..."

What legal status has the government to 'grant a priority use licence'? To grant a licence - and to reserve usage rights for yourself - it seems to me (a non-lawyer) you must be an owner/lessee or occupant or have some equivalent status. What's the answer to that? I can't get one.

Nor can I get an answer to the question of who underwrites any cost blowout, other than the mantra that 'The government's commitment is absolutely capped at $535 million'.

I believe - now this is only a wild guess

perhaps the Government can overlap the agreements to lease with legislation to prioritise the use which is why any WC or Olympics would also take precedence.

but I'm sure they have no involvement in the actual lease between SACA and ACC.

Waewick, please don't interrupt SJ while he's jumping to conclusions and boxing at shadows.

Thanks.

sorry!

just trying to get the best possible outcome for the yes vote!

First glimmer of any journalistic opposition. Excerpt from Matt Abraham in the Messenger:

"Stadium plans, from A to B

IF THE vote goes down “there will be no plan B” to use $500m in taxpayers money to finance a new city sports stadium.
The SA Government is offering $535m of taxpayers money to redevelop Adelaide Oval into an inner-city stadium for the Crows, the Power and the SA Cricket Association.

All the revenue from the new stadium will accrue to the private bodies running cricket and football, SACA and SANFL.

It is not clear who carries the liability in the unlikely, but potential, case of the stadium going bust, but it seems that this might also rest with taxpayers.

This is Plan A.

The members of SACA will vote on Plan A on May 2. It is being billed as the most important vote since federation.

Up until recently, the government had, in effect, ruled out any Plan B.

Premier Mike Rann first warned that if the deadline was not met the deal would be off and he would spend the $535m elsewhere. Since then the deadline has been extended and then abandoned completely.

Now his new Treasurer Jack Snelling is hinting that if the SACA members reject Plan A, the government may have a Plan B in its back pocket, so to speak.

We have also been told that rejecting the “once in a lifetime” stadium deal will brand Adelaide as a city stuffed with parochial, small-minded whingers.

This argument is the ultimate in parochialism.

The stadium proposal is big enough and pretty enough to stand on its own merits without this sort of white noise.

Both major parties went to the polls last year promising their own version of an inner-city stadium, although this vote was held largely in ignorance of the so-called horror budget just around the corner, a budget which cut jobs and services and re-ordered priorities.

We are not alone in wanting to have a say in how we spend public dollars on sporting facilities, especially when the revenue stream flows to private clubs."

Now we just need the Advertiser to show some guts and provide readers with BOTH sides of the argument.

When have the Advertiser ever provided both sides to any argument? Why should they start now?

Maybe this is why:

From the Advertiser web-site:

"We present the news with a local focus but a global outlook - unafraid to campaign on the issues that matter to our readers but also recognising the value of humour in the news.

Whether you're after travel tips, sport results, financial advice, movie times, upcoming gigs or a new home, AdelaideNow has your needs covered.

Our readers are our "eyes and ears" - we encourage spirited debate on stories and provide a platform for readers to share their news photos, videos and opinions with the world.

THE ADVERTISER

The Advertiser is deeply engrained in the roots of South Australia and its residents, having recently celebrated its 150th anniversary; it was founded a mere 22 years after the settlement of the state.

But by the same token, it has remained relevant, recently undergoing a refresh, including a change to a more modern masthead. It has grown with the state and continues to provide an impactful and insightful read.

From Monday through to Saturday, The Advertiser provides the best coverage of local, national and global news, while creating a consistent and reliable environment that allows advertisers the opportunity to reach a large, diverse and economically powerful market in South Australia."

jumping to conclusions and boxing at shadows

Wha??? Hey, they're coming in the windows!

I've been looking for a business plan for the redeveloped AO.

This is about as good as there is at: http://www.adelaideovalredevelopment.com.au/news

28/03/2011: Adelaide Oval study reveals $100m boost for City's economy

The Adelaide Oval redevelopment will generate a $111 million annual increase in economic activity in the City of Adelaide according to a new report commissioned by the Stadium Management Authority (SMA).

The report, compiled by The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (Adelaide & Flinders universities), found that a redeveloped Adelaide Oval will:

- Generate a direct impact of an extra $72 million per annum in spending within the City of Adelaide;?- Generate an additional impact of $39 million per annum in flow-on spending; and?- Create 405 full-time equivalent jobs associated with the total increase in expenditure of $111 million.

The SMA lease will be expressly subject to the use licences to be granted by the State to the SANFL and SACA.??

The licences will embody the following hierarchy of user rights:??

International Events?
These events have unfettered priority use over all other uses. Some of the better known international events envisaged under this group if ever attracted to Adelaide include the Olympics, World Cup Soccer and Commonwealth Games.??

Prescribed Football and Cricket Events
?Prescribed events (such as AFL matches, SANFL finals and Test matches, first class matches and limited over international cricket games) will have priority over all other events other than international events.

??'Ad-Hoc' Events?
‘Ad-hoc' events, which are primarily not cricket or football related (eg concerts), could be staged by the SMA as long as they do not clash with prescribed football or cricket events and can be accommodated with the SACA and SANFL during their respective periods.?The parties have also agreed that the Government will be able to schedule up to three events a year at cost. It is envisaged these events will be promoted by Events SA and endorsed by the Government.

A couple of comments:

This clearly gives the government priority over use of the oval, including the right to run three events per year at no profit to the oval management. It appears that the government is going to have a lot of involvement in the redeveloped oval. Just as the govt has made extensive use of the facilities at the former wine centre, it will probably use the function facilities at the oval in a similar way. Among other issues, the use at cost of the oval by Events SA (Tour Down Under etc) and the potential for government use of a handily-located entertainment and function venue makes the government an interested party rather than a neutral potential backer who 'doesn't care if the project goes ahead or not.'

The definition of 'international events': This would include government-sponsored events such as Tour Down Under etc.

I wonder how good the figures are. The National Wine Centre was supposed to provide employment and income and didn't, as were Newport Quays, the Scrimber plant, the Government Frozen Food Factory, the Port Adelaide Flower Farm and a long list of other government-sponsored projects which have failed to deliver the promised benefits.

stumpjumper wrote:

jumping to conclusions and boxing at shadows

Wha??? Hey, they're coming in the windows!

SJ - Can you provide us with a business model for your 3 stadium policy?

Will wrote:SJ - Can you provide us with a business model for your 3 stadium policy?

^ i'll be honest, i spent a few seconds trying to click that like button

More from Kryztoff Raw - because we all love it:

RAW: City Council Confirms Current Position Does Not Match SACA’s

Apr 12th

Posted by Peter in News

1 comment

Further to our article ‘SA Government Prepares to Blast City Council off Adelaide Oval Parklands’, (www.kryztoff.com/RAW/?p=2705), Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor, Stephen Yarwood has confirmed to Kryztoff today the current Council position as being that the Council voted unanimously on 8th March in favour of providing in-principle support for a governance arrangement for Adelaide Oval based upon a lease to a new independent entity (the SMA), upon terms and conditions to be agreed, subject to Council retaining management and control of the precinct, including revenues from car parking. All of these new arrangements would be subject to full consultation with the public before finalisation.

Lord Mayor Yarwood also makes it known that the full resolution was made available to the State Government, SACA and SANFL and it is available on the Council’s website.

Notwithstanding, the SACA Information Booklet (the IB), issued a month later, states that it is the State Government that will granting the lease to the SMA and priority licenses to the SACA and the SANFL and that the SMA will be collecting the car parking revenues.

While the Lord Mayor does state that the Council 8th March resolution ‘doesn’t preclude a new independent entity from granting the various leases and licences that SACA refer to, the exact nature of these arrangements, including arrangements for the control of car parking are yet to be finalised.’ He goes on to say that ‘Council are currently pursuing an MOU with the State Government as a mechanism for resolving these outstanding issues.’

‘Not yet finalised’!

Kryztoff understands that these negotiations around a MOU have not even commenced, let alone reached any sort of basic understanding that could underpin SACA’s statements and that the ACC wrote to the SACA a ‘please explain letter’ after the release of its IB on the governance issues, to which only an acknowledgment has been received by the ACC.

Questions posed to both the SACA and Minister Conlon on this issue by Kryztoff in recent days have gone without response.

The ability of the State Government to deliver on the SACA stated position is also weakened by the acknowledgment in Saturday’s Advertiser by the Premier that his government does not have the numbers to legislate this matter through both Houses of the SA Parliament.

Mark Parnell from the Greens confirms this position from his party’s perspective stating to Kryztoff that although his party supports the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, the Greens will not support the expenditure of $535m of State money on the project. Says Mr Parnell, ‘that money can be better spent on education, health, disability services, the environment and countless other projects crying out for support. Cricket and AFL should be well placed to attract the investments we have been told are needed to facilitate the proposed upgrade without such a demand on the public purse.’

He goes onto say that the Greens would not (as they have not previously on similar issues) support the transfer of the ACC’s custodian role to the State Government as the IB implies is going to happen.

Clearly then the question must be asked whether the IB is misleading on at least this issue. (The repeated images of the proposed footbridge across the Torrens are another as this walkway is not the subject of the proposed $535m redevelopment spend on the oval.)

Given, the legal arrangements between the parties are fundamental to this redevelopment proposal, content presented as definitive on this question must be regarded as a serious affront to the Information Booklet’s and SACA’s credibility. This is especially so as the IB admits there is no other agreement between the parties involved beyond ‘a term sheet to record the in-principle arrangements proposed by’ the SACA and the SANFL of November 2009, now 16 months old.

At that time, the expected and announced cost was in the order of $450m (now $535m), there have been numerous changes to designs and concepts (the costs and details of which have not been made public) and the SACA and SANFL have still never reached mutual arrangements about their own relationship (including the impact on their members) let alone met either of the Government’s May 2010 or August 2010 deadlines for doing so.

Greg Howe, spokesperson for the No case at www.saveadelaideoval.com, agrees saying the SACA needs to correct its IB on this issue and what he describes as ‘a number of other errors and omissions.’

The question posed by Kryztoff prior to the release of the IB as to why SACA members are being asked to vote on this proposal when so many matters – designs, costs, legal arrangements, agreements with SANFL etc – are simply unresolved remains.

Presenting its collective wishes as definitive facts in a document like this is not something the SACA could get away with were they a company and subject to the requirements of the Corporations Act on such transactions. For starters on that, the SACA would be obliged to present an independent expert’s report that said the deal for members was ‘fair and reasonable’. This may be a stretch given the IB states the value of the assets SACA is selling into this transaction is some $55-65m less than the $85m in debt repayment it will be receiving for them.

Yet another reason why the SACA needs to withdraw its IB and start this process again to ensure its members are properly informed with facts and not hopes.

PS Kryztoff is grateful to a reader who queries whether a reason the State Government et al wish the ACC removed from its historic role on the land relates to the potential rent and rates it may charge the SANFL for its use. Presently, the SACA pays only $30,000 per annum (plus CPI increases.)

However, the 1998 case of SANFL v Charles Sturt Council establishes that the SANFL’s use of its land at West Lakes is for a commercial purpose and thus can be rated on that basis and not as a recreational area (being a much lower rate). Judging by this case, there are no reasons why the SANFL’s use of the Adelaide Oval would change the nature of its use relative to that at West Lakes. Further, the SACA may well find that its use also triggers a reassessment of its own rates and rent status.

Informed estimates place likely commercial rent at hundreds of thousands of dollars, around 10 or more times the SACA’s current rent.

If nothing else, this poses again the question why forcing a vote on the redevelopment on SACA members while these matters remain unresolved is appropriate.