Sensational-Adelaide.com

I think that there would have to be an open day - the first AFL games in 2014 would be played just before the next state election.

It's too good of an excuse for a PR opportunity.

Prince George wrote:So, the point of all this isn't to say that you get nothing back, just that you don't get back all the money that you put in. The way to figure out how much to spend is to think of it as a gift: assume that you're not going to get this money back again, how much are you willing to spend? And then manage the project so that it's a gift to the city, and not just a gift to the team owners.

One major difference to all of the above examples as far as I'm aware is that the situation here is a consolidation of sports arenas. We're going from two to one. So whereas with two stadiums the government has been contributing $50 mill here, $100 mill there, over the years to maintain and upgrade two stadiums, maintaining one is surely going to save potential upgrade costs over time. For example, the $100 mill that was to be given to AAMI Stadium has already been scrapped due to this project. Just another thing to consider.

rhino wrote:Because for as long as I can remember, if there was one club that had members everywhere, it was Port - I would say Port's fan base was the least localised of any of the SANFL clubs. You would find Port fans living right in the heartland of any other SANFL club you cared to mention.

Port Adelaide were the most successful team in the SANFL. They rarely had extended bad periods. It's no coincidence then that they had the most fans. They were a magnet for fickle types and are now being exposed as such.

The Adelaide Oval move won't fix that, but it might mean they can afford to have less fans.

I'm wondering: Is Port Power's geographical area the smallest in the AFL, or would it be Carlton or some inner Melbourne club? Do AFL clubs still have geographical areas, or is it all done via the draft?

Freo's pretty small

stumpjumper wrote:I'm wondering: Is Port Power's geographical area the smallest in the AFL, or would it be Carlton or some inner Melbourne club? Do AFL clubs still have geographical areas, or is it all done via the draft?

All done by draft these days.

Before having a go, I repeat that I accept the SACA decision.

However, the following indicates the manipulative style of politics in this town:

Since the SACA vote, SkyCity has announced that its $250 million expansion is on hold indefinitely. I wonder if their preferential tax arrangement was not extended.

A week after the SACA vote, the Rann government admits to a hole of $600 million in the state's economy. This shortfall was pointed out by various commentators (not the Liberal party) a week before the vote but ignored by the government.

SkyCity are just doing their DD in regards to the pokies & tax review. SkyCity have pointed out that Adelaide offers the greatest potential returns in regards to redevelopement. They have actively searched for a new location for some time now. The casino upgrade WILL go ahead, however I would imagine that the outcome of the reviews will determine how great those upgrades are.


BTW stumpjumper, I have barely visited this site in a year or so. Last time i looked you were posting about Adelaide Oval very often...i come back and your the first name to the thread haha. I don't even want to think how many posts you have written over the last year?!


FWIW my quick thoughts, this being a forum after all, this project is fantastic. The flow on effects from this will be tremendus!

stumpjumper wrote:I'm wondering: Is Port Power's geographical area the smallest in the AFL, or would it be Carlton or some inner Melbourne club? Do AFL clubs still have geographical areas, or is it all done via the draft?

Are you serious? Zones were abolished 20 years ago. I thought you said you were a fan of Port Power. Wait a minute... it makes sense now.

JamesXander wrote:BTW stumpjumper, I have barely visited this site in a year or so. Last time i looked you were posting about Adelaide Oval very often...i come back and your the first name to the thread haha. I don't even want to think how many posts you have written over the last year?!

If you've read one, you've read them all.

stumpjumper wrote:I'm wondering: Is Port Power's geographical area the smallest in the AFL, or would it be Carlton or some inner Melbourne club? Do AFL clubs still have geographical areas, or is it all done via the draft?

The club with the smallest defined geographical base (in historical context) was and is North Melbourne, and before that Fitzroy. What you'll find with the VFL clubs these days is once they expanded beyond their home territory they took on certain social characteristics that weren't pinned to a specific geography. For instance Irish, prods, working class, non working class to Collingwood, catholics and italians to Carlton, the upper middle class to Melbourne, the working class to North Melbourne, trendy hipster pinko losers to St Kilda. This is what allowed the likes of Collingwood to grow like they did, when geographically they were jammed up against Fitzroy, Carlton and to a lesser extent Hawthorn and Richmond in the east.

Port does remain the club with the smallest known supporter base along with North Melbourne. 10 years ago the figures bandied about for each were around the 170,000 mark for port and north melbourne, whereas a club like St Kilda was around the 300,000 mark and Adelaide, Collingwood, Essendon et al over a million.

Any idea we ever had of geography in aussie rules though is slowly being eroded by the draft system. Before the draft club development zones codified supporter boundaries. This remains in the SANFL however with each club having an Adelaide zone and country zone, and hence why you'll find strong core support for a West Adelaide in the riverland or Port on the Eyre peninsula. But overall the idea of a geography for aussie rules clubs is somehwat limited to city first (for non Vic clubs) and demography for Victorian clubs.

Thanks for appreciating my consistency.

If you've read one, you've read them all.

That could apply equally to the 'just shut up and build it' specialists on here too. My name's on the thread because it was closed a while ago and I reposted because the AO project is so significant. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this project, good and bad, by a long shot. It has the capacity to do very good things for the city and the state, but it also has the capacity to become a running sore, depending on how accurate both the cheer squad and the doomsayers are.

I'm no better judge of the future than anyone else, but I strongly believe that the project has the best chance of success if it's well managed and if decisions around it - including whether to support it or not - are well-informed and that means transparency etc etc.

As to Port, I spent several years closely involved with the Magpies at Alberton, sponsoring players etc through the firm I worked for. I follow the Power's results and go to a few matches but I'm not that interested in AFL and how it works.

More often, I watch some real footy - Port District in SAAFL. It's free too.

The flow on effects from this will be tremendus!

I hope you're right T-D. I admire your confidence.

SJ you right - this project needs to be watched carefully - I doubt the average joe will be able to do that however with the secrecy that goes on at state government.

This is not really surprising...

From the City Messenger

SPECULATION is mounting the State Government will move to strip the City Council of its control over the parklands around Adelaide Oval and hand it to the Stadium Management Authority.

The City Messenger has been told Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon will likely seek to hand control of the parklands to the SMA when he meets with the City Council tonight to discuss the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

He is also expected to seek an 80-year “vanilla” lease for Adelaide Oval, which would ultimately strip the council of any power over the precinct.

Cr Anne Moran said any move to strip the council of its control over the parklands was “absolutely outrageous”.

“It’s so undemocratic, it’s unbelievable,” Cr Moran said.

“It’s the most aggressive act on the parklands ever seen by a government.

“They could chop down every tree and concrete the parklands and while there would be public outrage, there’s nothing we could do.”

Cr Moran said she, and other councillors, would “aggressively seek” to block the move.

“As soon as this is verified tonight, I’ll be going straight to the Upper House,” she said.

A spokesman for Minister Conlon would not confirm or deny reports the government was seeking to strip Town Hall of control of the parklands.

In an emailed statement, he said the government was optimistic of reaching an agreement with the City Council regarding the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

Moran is full of it.

it isn't undemocratic it has little or nothing to do with democracy - this governmnet was voted in via a democratic election, everything they do doesn't need to be in the best interest of the 12 people who voted Moran in however.

it is a massive attack on the tiered government that we are meant to have, so the ramifications maybe a lot larger than a few upset North Adelaide Residents.