[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[stumpjumper]

an AFL proposal to redevelop AO, when it's been clear from the start that it was the state government behind the proposal.

I think it was a hasty election-time proposal by the government in which the AFL saw a good opportunity. Remember the flow of events at the time.

As to voting no - the people aren't mindless idiots any more than the yes voters are. Some will say no automatically, agreed, but many yes voters will vote yes equally unthinkingly.

'We get a free development and our debt paid off - vote yes!" - why not?

"We lose control over a place that once was all ours - vote no!" - why not?

It's a complex proposition, and not only the building component should be considered. SACA will have to be 'bedmates' with SANFL forever. How will that work?

What about the economics of it all - will it work?

Etc.

That's why I'm in favour of getting into this gradually, even if it costs a bit more.

[stumpjumper]

rev...

You say:

I'm still mystified by how you thought it was an AFL proposal to redevelop AO, when it's been clear from the start that it was the state government behind the proposal.

This is what really happened:

Mike Rann's media adviser Jill Bottrall has stated: ""The Government will help where it can but it's not really our responsibility. They're the ones who came to us and said that they wanted to do this. We're helping, but we're not the parties involved because they're not our assets. We're just there to facilitate."

Kevin Foley's media adviser Rik Morris follows up with: "The AFL came to us. They worked closely with the SANFL and SACA and came to us with a plan … and said it could be done for $450 million … and nobody has told us otherwise.”

And originally, it was SACA's plan that Labor dusted off and presented to neutralise the Libs' stadium proposal at the 2010 election:

ACA CEO Mike Deare was sacked in August 2009 for revealing that there was a $350 million plan to enlarge the Bradman Stand and make other alterations in addition to the $50 million Western Grandstand redevelopment to bring the oval up to 45,000 seats, enough for AFL matches.

The "Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority" was registered as a company on Dec 23rd 2009 following the re-announcement of the plan (now $450 million) by Mike Rann, in time for the March 2010 election.

So to say "it's been clear from the start that it was the state government behind the proposal" is way off the mark.

[rev]

Sorry, I've been reading your posts for too long.

It's interesting you point that out, now, considering it's been you who has been ranting about Labor and how the AO redev. is only a reaction to the Libs plan for a new stadium before the last election.

Why the change of heart suddenly?

Here's what you said...

I think it was a hasty election-time proposal by the government

[stumpjumper]

I think it was a hasty election-time proposal by the government

It was, rev, and it wasn't. The idea existed - I think it probably came originally from SACA, maybe Ian McLachlan. SACA had a plan in 2009 to renovate the Bradman Stand and redevelop the Chappell Stand. It was costed at about $350 million and Mike Deare was sacked for revealing it. That's all common knowledge.

Then two things happened: an election, and the AFL's proposal to go further than the SACA proposal with a $450 million plan.

I'm not sure of the timing here as it was done with little transparency, but during the election campaign, Government funding for the AFL proposal was announced - but only after the Libs had promised a general purpose stadium.

The decision to fund the AFL proposal was the hasty election-time move by the government. I'm sorry if it read another way. I haven't changed my mind. In fact, I was quoting my own post, the second in this thread. I still agree 100% with what I said then. Note that in my quote, the $135 million western grandstand is still quoted at $50 million. It took a long time before McLachlan switched from 'SACA has no debt' to 'SACA has an $85 million debt but we are very comfortable with it'. My information is that SACA's debt is paralysing the club.

Anyway, I'm not saying you're trying to mislead, rev, just that you're off the mark.

[rhino]

I think it was a hasty election-time proposal by the government

It was, rev, and it wasn't. The idea existed - I think it probably came originally from SACA, maybe Ian McLachlan. SACA had a plan in 2009 to renovate the Bradman Stand and redevelop the Chappell Stand. It was costed at about $350 million and Mike Deare was sacked for revealing it. That's all common knowledge.

Then two things happened: an election, and the AFL's proposal to go further than the SACA proposal with a $450 million plan.

I'm not sure of the timing here as it was done with little transparency, but during the election campaign, Government funding for the AFL proposal was announced - but only after the Libs had promised a general purpose stadium.

The decision to fund the AFL proposal was the hasty election-time move by the government. I'm sorry if it read another way. I haven't changed my mind. (I was quoting my own post, the second in this thread. I still agree 100% with what I said then)

I'm not saying you're trying to mislead, just that you're off the mark.

wow.

[silverscreen]

SJ quoted:

Mike Rann's media adviser Jill Bottrall has stated: ""The Government will help where it can but it's not really our responsibility. They're the ones who came to us and said that they wanted to do this. We're helping, but we're not the parties involved because they're not our assets. We're just there to facilitate."

Kevin Foley's media adviser Rik Morris follows up with: "The AFL came to us. They worked closely with the SANFL and SACA and came to us with a plan … and said it could be done for $450 million … and nobody has told us otherwise.”


I agree it's muddy SJ but I still think the Govt was pulling the strings. I 've learned to take anything from Bottrall's office with a big grain of salt. It's Spin Central.

As for $30m from the AFL - has Demetriou announced this or just Rucci? And is it a core or non-core promise?

[rev]

You ask for an intelligent debate, yet you do not provide the rest of us with anything intelligent to debate you on.
You can't even make up your minds on who is behind the redevelopment.

It's all just speculation, assumptions, hearsay and rumour.

[Prince George]

Well, I'm rather fond of intelligent debate and I don't feel like either side has really offered much. Instead most everything collapses into "he said, she said" rubbish and bickering over daft minutia. Honestly, the shape of the oval, whose idea it was, where it is, none of these questions are the really big ones.

The state proposes to spend $535,000,000 for the more-or-less direct benefit of five organisations (the SACA, the SANFL, the AFL, the two clubs): the benefits that they receive hugely out-weigh the value of their own contributions (particularly considering how much of the money won't be used to actually build anything of value to the city, but instead is just paying the debts of one of these organisations). The proponents of this plan argue that the rest of the state will benefit in various indirect ways.

• Is this a suitable use of public money? Is it appropriate that the people receiving the greatest benefit contribute little beyond agreeing to receive public gifts? Bear in mind that the AFLs contribution is as yet unknown, but the $30M figure that's getting bandied about is only 5% of this project's cost.
• There are other times that public money is spent for the benefit of comparatively few people; for example, parks, libraries, and train-lines are generally only used by people living near them. Would it make sense to compare building the stadium to these other kinds of works?
• If your objective was to make the city centre a more vibrant location and you had $500m to throw at the problem, would Adelaide Oval be the most effective way of acheiving this? There is a list of other places that you might choose to put the money: Victoria Square, Rundle Mall, the Central Markets, Fred Hansen's Grenfell St, Hindley St. Is there another combination of places that you could spend this money for greater effect?
• If your objective was to improve employment in Adelaide and you had $500m to throw at the problem, would Adelaide Oval be the most effective way of acheiving this? What other options might we pursue to that end, and what effect might they have on the city's image?
• If the project didn't go ahead and we saw the SACA and/or Port Adelaide going into a crisis with their debt obligations, what effect would that have on the state? Is that worth $500M?
• The state doesn't have a good track record of meeting their cost predictions. Who should wear the cost of an overrun?

[Wayno]

Another 'benefit' of proceeding with the AO redevelopment is SkyCity's contingent offer of spending $250m on the riverbank precinct.

[Nathan]

Another 'benefit' of proceeding with the AO redevelopment is SkyCity's contingent offer of spending $250m on the riverbank precinct.

I was about to suggest the same thing. Looking past the oval itself, it would appear the development of the oval would be the catalyst for private investment along the riverbank and likely along North Tce and further.

[crawf]

You spin me right round.........

[Hooligan]

I havent checked this shit thread in about 3 weeks and i see 9 new pages of the same shit.

Please people, Agree to disagree for the good of humanity.

[Hooligan]

Correction, It's only been 2 weeks.


fuck me sideways.......

[stumpjumper]

rev, I don't want to start a pointless argument, but to say

You ask for an intelligent debate, yet you do not provide the rest of us with anything intelligent to debate you on.
You can't even make up your minds on who is behind the redevelopment.

It's all just speculation, assumptions, hearsay and rumour.

is a bit rich. Any solid facts I have, I've provided. One of the problems with the AO business is that so much isn't clear. So much the worse for the Yes case - would you invest in an enterprise if the prospectus offered as few facts as SACA etc is offering?

What if the $535 million blows out? What happens if the SACA vote is no? Who will be SACA's ultimate landlord? Who will fund and build the carparks and who will collect the money from them? If SMA runs AO, to whom does SMA answer? Is it he who pays the piper call the tune, ie will the government ultimately be in charge, despite Rann's office denying responsibility for the land? Where does ACC sit, and will it receive compensation if control of the land is taken from it?

I think the obsession with secrecy here is a good topic for intelligent debate. No answers to the above questions are publicly available from the various parties, yet the project is to be publicly funded!

Wayno wrote: Another 'benefit' of proceeding with the AO redevelopment is SkyCity's contingent offer of spending $250m on the riverbank precinct.

Unfortunately, the benefit to the state may be subsidised by the state. SkyCity currently enjoys a 'differential taxation arrangement' with the state government. Casinos generally pay a turnover tax, but the Rann government gave SkyCity a tax holiday when SkyCity took over the casino. The tax break is due to end this year. I understand that SkyCity's offer to expand the casino is contingent on the tax concession continuing, to the extent of the new expenditure, and provided that the proposed footbridge ends at the casino's door. This way, the expansion won't actually cost the casino anything. It will be paid for by the tax foregone by the government.

Hooligan, spending of half a billion dollars of public money is a very serious thing. When the object of expenditure is as unclear as this is, and is the subject of wide debate - not just here - then if the number and content of posts annoy you, I suggest you stop reading.

There are arguments for and against this project, and the background to the debate changes as more information becomes available. So on it goes.

You are clearly in favour of the proposal - if your way of defending your position in an argument is to say 'We've talked long enough. Now you must accept my view', then I suggest you google 'debate' and see what it means.

[silverscreen]

We didnt miss you Hooligan. Were running an expletive- free thread here. It means you need a reasonable vocab and a few original ideas.