Sensational-Adelaide.com

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 10:43 am**

lets face it

for $535m...the State governmnet has won the naming rights for the oval for 20 years!

good deal

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 11:09 am**

Waewick wrote:lets face it

for $535m...the State governmnet has won the naming rights for the oval for 20 years!

good deal

Margery Jackson-Nelson Oval?

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 11:25 am**

Now that the votes done and dusted. What now? Is anyone able to provide a timeline of the next sequence of events in the lead up to its construction?

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 12:00 pm**

IIRC, Ian McLachlan mentioned a target of starting construction after next year's test against India (Australia Day?). But that was just a fleeting comment at the end of an interview.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 12:00 pm**

Pikey wrote:Got it in one Adam.

SJ, it's done now, give your conspiracy theories a rest ok? First the hospital, now this. Yes, I too am a Liberal voter, and would have loved a new stand alone stadium, and a redeveloped RAH, but the Libs lost. This is what we've got, and I like it, so do the SACA members, and do the wide majority of the SA public. Surely you have to agree that the ramifications of this development on the rest of Adelaide are massive, with a re-generation that none of us would have experienced before about to occur.

It's here, it's done, it's happening, move on.

+1

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 12:54 pm**

Thanks Pants. As one of "The two-three nuisances in this thread (who) are a great personification of what's wrong with this state" I'd like to make a few points.

1. It's a great learning exercise to take responsibility for a construction project, even a small one, and get it up as designed, on time, on budget and then see it perform structurally and economically as expected. I've had that 'pleasure' numerous times and I can assure you, rev, that proper control, especially cost control, and effective processes are a necessity (unless you have access to a bottomless wallet, preferably someone else's, and your career doesn't depend on success). Development is a serious business, not a game. Mistakes are expensive and often can't be undone easily. Each step should be considered, and risks minimised.

2. "the majority of South Australians want this redevelopment to occur" How do you know that, rev? People vote Labor for a lot of reasons, so the last election can't be called a referendum on this. So you can hardly accuse me of turning 'don't knows' into facts.

3. I accept the the development will go ahead. I consider that the way that decision was made - 20,000 members of a private limited membership sports club effectively voting to decide on whether the government spends of half a billion of taxpayers' money along with paying out the sporting club's probably unsupportable self-induced debt - to be akin to Monty Python's 'if a woman weighs the same as a duck she's a witch', but the deed is done. The fact that recently signed SACA members may unknowingly providing a yes proxy vote even if they abstained doesn't make it any less Pythonesque, but we are going to get our horseshoe semi-stadium.

4. If it is going ahead, certain standard practices of project management should be used, especially since public money is involved and the procurement model is unorthodox. Specifically, transparency and accountability must be top of the heap.

As far as I can find out, SMA is in charge of the project, and our $535 million. So far SMA has not been noted for either transparency or accountability. SMA is a private corporate body, not responsible to parliament and its deliberations and records are confidential. It comprises a board of directors including a lawyer, a grazier, a caterer/sports administrator and a couple of ex-premiers one of whom it must be said nearly sent the state broke by being unaware, apparently, as Treasurer of how the state's bank was travelling.

SMA's website is quite sparse, offering no physical address, no names or contact details other than '[email protected]' which provides only the information that Natasha Wade is out of the office. There is also a mobile number with a similar recorded message. I'm still waiting to hear from Natasha Wade.

As a taxpayer, I'm interested in how SMA will manage the project and who will be watching over the expenditure of the public funds. SMA has spent the $10 million it was given for preliminary work and has to show for it design drawings (not detailed), some computer images and a model. No breakdown of SMA's expenditure is available to the public. 'SMA is a private body etc....'

This does not look too good for transparency and accountability. It's early days and things may change. I hope they do.

The cost of Perth Arena blew out from $160 million to $500 million under the control of their equivalent of SMA. The new government has installed professional project managers and the cash-burning has slowed.

Call me a mad conspiracy theorist for wanting some efficiency in procuring this publicly funded project, but I think my concerns are valid and shared by a lot of South Australians who are somewhat confused by the flow of events.

It's one thing for members of this board to applaud wildly and indiscriminately every time anyone places on brick on top of another, but in the real world building projects involve risks, about the biggest of which is cost blowout.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:06 pm**

stumpjumper wrote:I accept the the development will go ahead. I consider that the way that decision was made - 20,000 members of a private limited membership sports club voting to decide on whether the government spends of half a billion of taxpayers' money along with paying out the sporting club's probably unsupportable self-induced debt - to be akin to Monty Python's 'if a woman weighs the same as a duck she's a witch', but the deed is done. The fact that recently signed SACA members may unknowingly providing a yes proxy vote even if they abstained doesn't make it any less Pythonesque, but we are going to get our horseshoe semi-stadium.

But the 20,000 SACA members were't voting on whether the government spends half a billion dollars. That had already been decided. They were voting on a amendment to the SACA constitution, which was just one step (admittedly a big one) required for things to move ahead as planned.

Yes, people voted Labor for a variety of reasons, but the oval was part of their platform and they were voted in. You can't have a referendum on each separate policy, so for better or worse, that's the next best thing.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:12 pm**

Well said, that.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:12 pm**

While you were typing, Nathan, I was inserting the word 'effectively' before the word 'voting'. I understand what the vote was about. Changing the constitution enabled the project to go ahead, including wiping SACA's debt.

I agree that you can't have a referendum on every issue. My point was that you can't say on the other hand that if Party A is elected to government, then everyone who voted for Party A must agree with all Party A's policies. I think the best you could say is that someone voting for Party A would be prepared to accept all of its policies - sometimes accepting disagreeable policies in order to get the better ones. Not all Greens voters would be in favour of unilaterally ending ANZUS and removing all foreign military installations and personnel from Australia, yet that is Greens policy. Don't look under 'Defence' on the Greens website - look under 'Peace'.

I can now report that SMA does have a physical office, to which DTEI has directed my enquiries. It's on level 2 at 88 King William St but it is unattended, as is its phone 8231 2281. Perhaps the office will be running when SMA has some work to do.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:14 pm**

From the Advertiser:

Adelaide Oval upgrade gets big green light, paving way for footy in city

Daniel Wills Political Reporter From: The Advertiser May 04, 2011 12:00AM

Aspiring footballers Billy Stretch (right) and Sam McGill are the new generation excited about AFL coming to Adelaide Oval. Picture: Calum Robertson Source: The Advertiser

SOUTH Australians will feel their city is alive with an upgraded Adelaide Oval and a more vibrant, active city centre, psychologists and business experts say.

They say South Australia's reputation - here and interstate - as the backwater state where nothing happens also will fade when the Adelaide Oval and riverbank redevelopment goes ahead.

Widespread relief over Monday night's historic vote of South Australian Cricket Association members was tempered late yesterday when the State Government warned plans for AFL matches to begin at Adelaide Oval in 2014 would be placed in jeopardy if Parliament refused to play ball on landmark legislation to guarantee the project's long-term viability.

Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon has revealed he will introduce legislation within weeks to guarantee football and cricket permanent rights to use the stadium and grant them a long-term lease over the site.

Mr Conlon yesterday also foreshadowed free public transport for all football fans heading to matches at the Oval in an attempt to reduce the demand for carparking.

The Government expects to begin construction after the next cricket season but has warned the project will become costlier and the start of football games delayed if landmark legislation is held up in the Upper House.

"It's difficult for us to go to that process with surety if, by then, we haven't got the legislation taken care of. And that's why we'd really like to do it quickly and get it through before we go on the mid-year break," Mr Conlon said.

"That's not going to happen if the Liberals oppose it. And it's going to make it very hard for us to keep timelines.

"The Legislative Council could stuff this around forever.

"The issue is whether they think it will proceed, and want it on time and in the cheapest fashion."

Family First and The Greens have expressed a willingness to support the changes.

However, the Opposition's support would guarantee speedy success. Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond said she would have to see what legislation was introduced.

Mr Conlon said one of the major complaints over the project - carparking capacity - could be solved by including the cost of public transport in a football ticket.

Organisational psychologist Dr Darryl Cross said the new major arena in the city centre would lead to people seeing their city in a different light.

"People often say there's not enough life in the city," Dr Cross said yesterday. "What they're talking about is movement and activity, which has often been described as dead. Bringing a stadium to life will have a fringe benefit."

Dr Cross said greater vibrancy in the area around Adelaide Oval would lead to more activity in the city, with people flocking to restaurants and shopping precincts.

"I think people will see (the redevelopment) as a step up."

Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said that proceeding with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment would be a green light for generational change.

He said a no vote would have reinforced the view that you couldn't get anything done in SA.

"I think what's been done is it has given a green light to anybody who is thinking of putting money into Adelaide; that with good, hard work and planning, people here are happy with new ideas and thoughts," he said.

"Young people or old, what keeps workers in the state is if there is sustainable employment. This will create activity, employment and entertainment."

Their comments come as the Federal Government pledges talks with state counterparts over extra funding for the planned 50,000- seat stadium, in the wake of the 80 per cent SACA vote for football in the city.

Final results also indicate the vote's fate was sealed last week - well before the Wayville Showgrounds meeting.

It is believed that about 85 per cent of participating members lodged early proxy or online votes.

Adelaide City Council has expressed support for extending the length of the Oval contract but is reluctant to give up the control of - and possible revenue from - parklands ownership to sporting heavyweights.

The Opposition yesterday launched a new attack on the Oval project and demanded that the Government provide final costs for the redevelopment, which it claims will lock taxpayers into a near $1 billion spend.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou yesterday reaffirmed the organisation would provide a "significant contribution" to the development, expected to be about $5 million for football-specific infrastructure.

Five expressions of interest have already been received for the construction project and the Government intends to select a preferred builder as early as July.

A total cost will be determined then, but Mr Conlon says early indications are $535 million may be enough to finish the build.

Billy Stretch, 14, son of Melbourne wingman Steven, has always dreamed of playing AFL and could be one of the first to play at a revamped Adelaide Oval in 2014.

"It would mean a lot to play at Adelaide Oval," said Stretch, who plays in the SANFL, with Glenelg's under-16s.

"It looks to be a fantastic oval, right in the heart of the city; but it will take a lot of hard work and commitment to get it to that stage."

Woodville-West Torrens under-15 player Sam McGill said he had always dreamed of playing a higher lever of footy.

"It would be new and exciting to play on a deck like this which is so pristine," he said after having a kick with Stretch at Adelaide Oval yesterday.

"Playing footy here will be bring everyone from all over the place, whereas at West Lakes, it would just be the people from the west."

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:28 pm**

An excellent article from Rex Jory. The sentences I have highlighted illustrate why a yes vote was so important.

The Adelaide Oval project had made the national news before, and did again on Monday night. A 'no' vote would have tarnished the reputation of this state further, and provided further fuel to the interstate reputation of SA as a backwards state.

I wonder whether the 'no' people have ever consdiered the benefits that will appear from the massive (probabaly the biggest one in my lifetime) boost to the state's psyche that the yes vote has deleivered. I have never seen so many young people express positive thoughts about Adelaide before. This has to be a good thing.

Jory: Why Adelaide needs a new Oval

Rex Jory From: The Advertiser May 01, 2011 11:30PM

I AM a member of a diminishing but privileged group who saw Don Bradman bat.

I was a child. A white-haired Sir Donald made 89 for the stockbrokers against the clerks at Railway Oval.

But I can legitimately say I saw Bradman bat. I also saw Gary Sobers make 250 against New South Wales on the Adelaide Oval and 254 against Australia in the World Series at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

I played one game of football with the legendary Ron Barassi. As an Essendon member I watched the Bombers' last appearance in a grand final at the MCG in 2001. And I once hit a six into the Coca Cola booth near the Victor Richardson gates at Adelaide Oval.

I recount those few random stories to establish some sort of dubious sporting credentials and - in the case of the six - to illustrate that spectator facilities at Adelaide Oval are set back in the past century.

I am not entitled to vote in tonight's members' ballot, which will decide whether Adelaide Oval is to be redeveloped as a world-class sporting facility or remain trapped in the nostalgia of another era - the era of the Coca Cola booth. If I did, I would vote for progress and change.

Don't get me wrong. I love Adelaide Oval. But I was given a detailed briefing on the plans for the Oval from SANFL chief executive Leigh Wicker. To my untrained eye the plans are outstanding.

Most South Australians are accustomed to the facilities at Adelaide Oval and AAMI Stadium at West Lakes. We accept them as adequate, as good enough, perhaps we feel comfortable with them. That's the way they've always been.

The shortcomings of both venues are not obvious until they are compared with what could be. And what could be is magnificent.

This is not an argument about retaining the grace and elegance of a great cricket ground.

It is not about violating our heritage or upsetting the sporting ghosts of the past. Nor is it about tinkering with a corner of the Parklands, extending the tramline, obscuring the view of St Peter's Cathedral, building a bridge across the Torrens or cars parking in the streets of North Adelaide.

The Adelaide Oval debate transcends these issues. Tonight's vote is about proving that South Australia has the will, the imagination and the determination to build a world-class, multi-function stadium in the heart of the city.

It's about proving to ourselves and the rest of Australia this is a progressive, can-do state. It's about showing projects such as the stupid one-way Southern Expressway are an aberration, not a reflection of insular, bone-headed planning.

Not since the construction of the Festival Centre in the 1970s has SA been confronted with the challenge of building something iconic and of national significance.

If the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, in the form I have seen, goes ahead, SA - not only Adelaide - will leave a magnificent legacy for future generations. If the plan fails then, in the eyes of the rest of Australia, SA has failed.

SA will be left with an ageing and outdated football-only stadium at West Lakes and a half-built mish-mash of a cricket oval in the city.

Football attendances are falling, not because the Crows and the Power are struggling but because people today expect a full social experience - not just a pie and a Coke at half-time. They want comfort and choice.

The plans for Adelaide Oval embrace a superb viewing experience as well as bar and dining facilities - from restaurants to a barbecue. And not just for the privileged members. It's available to everyone.

Redevelopment of Adelaide Oval will change not only SA's sporting image, but its image as a dynamic, progressive and imaginative economic, sporting and cultural centre.

Build it and they will come. Scrap it and they will laugh

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:34 pm**

Nathan wrote:Yes, people voted Labor for a variety of reasons, but the oval was part of their platform and they were voted in.

That would be more compelling if the Liberal's weren't also running with a stadium proposal of their own.

That said, having a referendum on every large project is pretty close to my definition of hell. I think the ideal situation is when people don't feel the need for some kind of "everyone votes on everything" system, and I do think that transparency is the starting point for developing that trust. Secrecy, poor or misleading information, closed-door decisions, these create a climate where it's easy to distrust people's actions and words. If we can't be sure that what we are told is the full truth, that leaves space for people to project their own speculations and, generally, you can expect them to be wildly negative (since we expect the public information to be the best possible cases).

So, by all means, let's make our decisions promptly and act on them, but then lets also make public all of the relevant information so that, come the next election, people can judge our actions objectively.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 1:39 pm**

Not arguing against the proposal of course, but what if the politicians involved feel that their electorates are against the project?

Take a country member, for example (and liable to be a Liberal, but that's not the point). What if it came to one vote, that member's?

If the member feels that his/her electorate is against the proposal (the electorate Keith is in, for example) does the member vote to reflect the view of the majority in the electorate, or does the member ignore his/her electorate (and party policy perhaps) and vote for the project?

That said, having a referendum on every large project is pretty close to my definition of hell

- see 'The Rise And Rise Of Michael Rimmer'

and

Secrecy, poor or misleading information,

breeds bastards like me.

Build it and they will come. Scrap it and they will laugh

- see under 'psychological arguments' in 'Public Dollars, Private Stadiums'.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 2:40 pm**

VFL fanatics Australia wide wanted this to go ahead. for the most part, the rest could not care.

regardless, parliament still has to vote on this development. the Liberals have hinted they still have some concerns that need to be addressed.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2011 2:56 pm**

Hooligan wrote:
Waewick wrote:lets face it

for $535m...the State governmnet has won the naming rights for the oval for 20 years!

good deal
Margery Jackson-Nelson Oval?

Sensational-Adelaide.com

Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!

[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!