Sensational-Adelaide.com

Fair point, mattblack. I don't know a lot about the other codes and what you say makes sense, so I withdraw the point about AFL monopoly, although Demetriou can't be unhappy about the result with respect to strengthening the Crows and Power. Neither am I, btw.

I'm still uncomfortable about the way this is being done. If you believe that the ends always justify the means, you won't have a problem, but I continue to have two big problems with this project.

First, is the gift of $535 (+) million of taxpayers money to two private sporting bodies to be managed by a private corporate board which answers only to the two private clubs. There's a problem of proper use of money. What about the option of an 80 year mortgage to go with the 80 year lease? Why the permanent rates holiday? Why so damned generous to SACA and SANFL when schools and hospitals are crying out for funds?

Second, is the process. Look at the number of statutes, advisory bodies etc that have had to be pushed aside by ministerial fiat in order to get this up. It's like martial law.

I'm well in favour of AFL in the city, and I don't even mind losing the historic Adelaide Oval to get it, but I question the unbelievable generosity to wealthy private sports bodies, the process and the accountability of the money once given. SMA ripped through $12 million in no time without producing much or having to account for a cent of it and I have the idea that once the millions start raining down on them they won't be very careful about how they spend it. Expect overruns, perhaps on a biblical scale.

Pants wrote:
AO's current capacity is about 36,000. Not big enough for AFL in the city, unless it's Port only, which is pointless.

Pants, the average AFL attendance for the first 37 matches of 2011 was 38,000. The Crows' average attendance is 36,500, and Port's is 27,000.

So I wonder how many people are going to turn out on a cold, wet, windy, crapy day like today at the Adelaide Oval?? The Collingwood/Crows game on now in Melbournes Etihad Stadium is being played in near perfect conditions under a closed roof... Once the novelty wears off, watch the fickle Adelaide crowds (especially for Port Adelaide) fall off too.. The Adelaide Oval redevelopment will always be a poor compromise to a new stadium on a typical Adelaide winters day like today. It's just a pity it'll be too late ($535 Million of Tax Payers money later) to turn back time by then...

I'm 100% for Footy in the city but anyone who thinks this is our best option should step outside NOW?!!! For those of you not in Adelaide, here's today's forecast (22 May 2011). We can't control the weather but we sure as hell can build for it. I know I wont be sitting out in the rain when I can be home watching the same game on TV! I'm sure a lot of other people will feel the same, especially the elderly and those families with young kids.

http://www.bom.gov.au/sa/forecasts/adelaide.shtml

shuuuuuuuddddddduuuuupp . Time to get over it. Its going ahead and IMO the best option by far.

Why dont we pose what the crowd would be today if were at the MCG, prob 10,000 more atleast. They do have roofs over outdoor grandstands too. And its football

Paulns wrote:So I wonder how many people are going to turn out on a cold, wet, windy, crapy day like today at the Adelaide Oval??

A similar amount of people that would turn out on a cold, wet, windy, crapy day like today at the MCG, AAMI Park, SCG, ANZ Stadium, Gabba, Suncorp Stadium, Subiaco or the WACA?

Aren't the vast majority of seats going to be undercover anyway?

There's 1 venue in the entire league/country that has a roof. Time for people to get over this fanciful 'new covered stadium' crap - it's not going to happen.

SJ, wise words and rational arguments are wasted on this lot. They are unable to see beyond their own personal wants and will believe anything or anyone who talks up what they want, shooting down anyone who dares to challenge their opinions. Real schoolyard stuff most of the time.
However, its interesting that the legislation could allow tiered structuring on Montefiere Hill to accommodate parking, but what the heck - it's only an empty paddock that nobody uses and footy and its future fund must come first.

wow i just have to do an Aidan-style response to your post Paulns

typical Adelaide winters day like today

It is not winter yet

So I wonder how many people are going to turn out on a cold, wet, windy, crapy day like today at the Adelaide Oval??

The same number that turn up to football games at stadiums with 60-70,000 seat capacity in Europe, they get more rain than us yet not every one of their stadiums is completly enclosed, they only have a few, and Australia has ONE! Like dsriggs said, it is the same story at the MCG, AAMI Park, SCG, ANZ Stadium etc etc..

perfect conditions under a closed roof...

it's not as perfect as you think, Melbourne does have issues with leaking rooves: Southern Cross Station, AAMI park etc.. and i've heard a lot of players criticizing the poor quality of the turf

The Adelaide Oval redevelopment will always be a poor compromise to a new stadium on a. It's just a pity it'll be too late ($535 Million of Tax Payers money later) to turn back time by then...

If it was a poor compromise the stadium would not be costing half a billion$$$$, $535mil will give us an amazing stadium right in the heart of the city, and just a few minutes walk from Rundle Mall. The stadium will give us better facilities than what we have at AAMI Stadium and what we have at the present Adelaide Oval, it will also bring thousands of people and a massive amount of investment into an area of the city that is now dead.

We can't control the weather but we sure as hell can build for it.

right, so lets build a roof over everything? haha those stupid Germans, they didnt give their flagship world cup stadium, the Allianz Arena a retractable roof, who'd want to go there to watch a game?

I'm sure a lot of other people will feel the same, especially the elderly and those families with young kids.

i can recall many times in my childhood, my parents and grandparents taking me out to sporting events in the rain and freezing cold, and we didnt complain.

I know I wont be sitting out in the rain when I can be home watching the same game on TV!

Fine, you do that, stay home and be anti-social

dsriggs wrote:

Paulns wrote:So I wonder how many people are going to turn out on a cold, wet, windy, crapy day like today at the Adelaide Oval??

A similar amount of people that would turn out on a cold, wet, windy, crapy day like today at the MCG, AAMI Park, SCG, ANZ Stadium, Gabba, Suncorp Stadium, Subiaco or the WACA?

post of the week !

stumpjumper wrote:Fair point, mattblack. I don't know a lot about the other codes and what you say makes sense, so I withdraw the point about AFL monopoly, although Demetriou can't be unhappy about the result with respect to strengthening the Crows and Power. Neither am I, btw.

I'm still uncomfortable about the way this is being done. If you believe that the ends always justify the means, you won't have a problem, but I continue to have two big problems with this project.

First, is the gift of $535 (+) million of taxpayers money to two private sporting bodies to be managed by a private corporate board which answers only to the two private clubs. There's a problem of proper use of money. What about the option of an 80 year mortgage to go with the 80 year lease? Why the permanent rates holiday? Why so damned generous to SACA and SANFL when schools and hospitals are crying out for funds?

Second, is the process. Look at the number of statutes, advisory bodies etc that have had to be pushed aside by ministerial fiat in order to get this up. It's like martial law.

I'm well in favour of AFL in the city, and I don't even mind losing the historic Adelaide Oval to get it, but I question the unbelievable generosity to wealthy private sports bodies, the process and the accountability of the money once given. SMA ripped through $12 million in no time without producing much or having to account for a cent of it and I have the idea that once the millions start raining down on them they won't be very careful about how they spend it. Expect overruns, perhaps on a biblical scale.

Pants wrote:
AO's current capacity is about 36,000. Not big enough for AFL in the city, unless it's Port only, which is pointless.

Pants, the average AFL attendance for the first 37 matches of 2011 was 38,000. The Crows' average attendance is 36,500, and Port's is 27,000.

I know mate, but I'd expect there to be some uplift from coming to the CBD. If the Crows are averaging 36,500 at AAMI when support's on the wane, you wouldn't leave there for 500 less capacity than that average.

I know mate, but I'd expect there to be some uplift from coming to the CBD. If the Crows are averaging 36,500 at AAMI when support's on the wane, you wouldn't leave there for 500 less capacity than that average.

Agreed.

I was looking further into this Bill. It contains some absolutely unprecedented planning provisions.

One way to ensure that your development is approved is to give it approval before it's even been designed and make it illegal to object to it.

The following clauses relate first to the main oval area then to the oval precinct.

Until December 2015:

6—Development authorisation - Adelaide Oval Core Area (ie main oval area)
(1) Any development undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Core Area associated (directly or indirectly) with the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, its stands and other facilities is, by force of this section, authorised.

6—Development authorisation - Adelaide Licence Area (associated land)
Any development—
(a) undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area associated (directly or indirectly) with development within the ambit of section 6; or
(b) undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area in connection with a licence or sub-licence, being development undertaken by, or with the consent of, the Minister is, by force of this section, authorised.

An authorisation under this section will have effect as if it were a development authorisation under the Development Act 1993 (without the need for any other consent, approval or other authorisation or certificate and subject to any conditions specified under this section).

Wow. ACC will love this. Especially considering that this Bill extinguishes all their Oval leases 'without compensation or relief'. Meanwhile SACA, despite saying again and again that they were comfortable with their debt of $81 million or whatever, has their debt paid off at public expense even though they were fine with it, and then is excused from paying rates at the oval forever!

There's more. At the moment, what's left of the original structures and trees at Adelaide Oval are covered by a comprehensive Conservation Management Plan which guides maintenance and restoration. That management plan will become toilet paper as a result of:

A management plan under Part 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 will not apply to land within the Adelaide Oval Core Area or within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area.

To give at least some form of protection to the former Park Lands (now 'park lands') around AO and the public access etc to them, under s 10

'the Minister should, in managing any part of the Adelaide Oval Licence Area, seek to protect and enhance the area as park lands for the use and enjoyment of members of the public.'

Note 'seek' only, not 'ensure' or 'as far as possible'.

The Bill gives SAM every advantage while removing from ACC and the public any rights over the land which they once had.

Effectively, SMA is a private, amateur developer subsidiary of AFL and SANFL which has been given unprecedented rights to develop this site in whatever way they like, with no need for approval of any sort and using not one cent of their own but using 100% public funding; responsible only to the boards of SACA and SANFL (of which the members of SMA are already members), with the public to fully fund any cost overrun and SACA and SANFL to occupy the site rate free and probably rent-free for 80 years.

Whatever you think of the project, you have to agree that this is jackboot stuff. But is it the deal of the century, or a recipe for disaster?

RAW: The Adelaide Oval Legislation – More Than About Carparking

May 24th

In the classic style of an organ of public opinion that will allow no views other than its own to prevail, The Advertiser has relegated issues relating to the proposed Adelaide Oval / SMA legislation to just one matter – who controls car parking.

As expected and predicted far more sinister aims actually exist.

First and foremost, the legislation proposes that the Adelaide Oval area be under the sole control of the Minister. This is the first break with the historic role the Adelaide City Council has played under the Parklands Act since it was first past 150 years ago. What’s more the Minister gets to act without fetter from such annoying constraints on his design wishes by either the Park Lands Act, the Development Act or the City of Adelaide Development Plan.

This may not be so bad, replacing one democratically elected body with another, except that what is then proposed is an 80 year lease to the SMA, a privately owned body of people associated with football and cricket which has no taxpayer representatives on it and has a board that is not even answerable to its own shareholders for its performance.

That means the SMA can do anything it likes to the land and it has to jump no planning or other regulatory hurdles – none – in doing so. So, when it suits, good bye the northern mound, scoreboard and Cathedral views. Indeed this is already contemplated with the legislation providing for the (temporary) erection of stands on the northern mounds – all amendable by the Government of the day.

Then, in its revenge attack on the City Council for its Victoria Square recalcitrance, the Government proposes this land is made exempt from being rated by the ACC. This deals with the potential issues previously identified by Kryztoff of the ACC lifting rates dramatically (as it was already intending to do in a couple of years) and multiplies the ACC’s losses on top of lost car parking.

So, the parklands bounded by King William Rd, Montefiore Hill, Pennington Terrace and the river under this legislation will be no longer parklands. Effective title will pass to an unaccountable private body that has to meet no planning or other regulations. And this right under Light’s nose!

In a low point for Advertiser editorials (and that is saying something), last Friday the rationale for supporting this was put forward as:

‘The Parklands are not a museum. They must also make temporary way for vehicle access for leisure activities. This already occurs for cricket and the Royal Show.
‘Surely Colonel Light’s vision for a workable city would not have meant that the Adelaide City Council, with a mandate delivered by only 6300 voters, should be allowed to override the modest needs of the football-going public, which would outnumber that figure by a factor of three even at the worst attended AFL game.’

The fact that this 3:1 ratio did not even hold up for the Port game the following day is of no great moment when one considers where this logic of course leads and that is to the uncomfortable question to The Advertiser of why 10,000 SACA members who purportedly voted in favour of the spending of $535m on their stadium are allowed to prevail when 1.2m taxpayers are the ones who are actually paying for it.

Sadly little logic is coming from those who ought to be standing up for the public interest. The Liberal Party still has no view and the Lord Mayor, as is the new habit of politicians in this State when faced with a monumental cock-up, has conveniently buggered off overseas for three weeks at the very time his Council faces the greatest threat to its autonomy and relevance in its history.

However, one trick up its sleeve is the fact its approval for the controversial leases to facilitate the new RAH is only conditional. These provide a series of nine year and 364 day leases to more parklands to allow the hospital development to proceed without parliamentary scrutiny.

Now the City Council has its cash flows and relevance threatened by the Adelaide Oval legislation, now might be a good time for the Council to show some spine and respond in kind to Government. Now is especially a good time with its main appeaser, Lord Mayor Yarwood happily out of contact in Europe on some study mission.

stumpjumper wrote:

I know mate, but I'd expect there to be some uplift from coming to the CBD. If the Crows are averaging 36,500 at AAMI when support's on the wane, you wouldn't leave there for 500 less capacity than that average.

Agreed.

I was looking further into this Bill. It contains some absolutely unprecedented planning provisions.

One way to ensure that your development is approved is to give it approval before it's even been designed and make it illegal to object to it.

The following clauses relate first to the main oval area then to the oval precinct.

Until December 2015:

6—Development authorisation - Adelaide Oval Core Area (ie main oval area)
(1) Any development undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Core Area associated (directly or indirectly) with the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, its stands and other facilities is, by force of this section, authorised.

6—Development authorisation - Adelaide Licence Area (associated land)
Any development—
(a) undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area associated (directly or indirectly) with development within the ambit of section 6; or
(b) undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area in connection with a licence or sub-licence, being development undertaken by, or with the consent of, the Minister is, by force of this section, authorised.

An authorisation under this section will have effect as if it were a development authorisation under the Development Act 1993 (without the need for any other consent, approval or other authorisation or certificate and subject to any conditions specified under this section).

Wow. ACC will love this. Especially considering that this Bill extinguishes all their Oval leases 'without compensation or relief'. Meanwhile SACA, despite saying again and again that they were comfortable with their debt of $81 million or whatever, has their debt paid off at public expense even though they were fine with it, and then is excused from paying rates at the oval forever!

There's more. At the moment, what's left of the original structures and trees at Adelaide Oval are covered by a comprehensive Conservation Management Plan which guides maintenance and restoration. That management plan will become toilet paper as a result of:

A management plan under Part 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 will not apply to land within the Adelaide Oval Core Area or within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area.

To give at least some form of protection to the former Park Lands (now 'park lands') around AO and the public access etc to them, under s 10

'the Minister should, in managing any part of the Adelaide Oval Licence Area, seek to protect and enhance the area as park lands for the use and enjoyment of members of the public.'

Note 'seek' only, not 'ensure' or 'as far as possible'.

The Bill gives SAM every advantage while removing from ACC and the public any rights over the land which they once had.

Effectively, SMA is a private, amateur developer subsidiary of AFL and SANFL which has been given unprecedented rights to develop this site in whatever way they like, with no need for approval of any sort and using not one cent of their own but using 100% public funding; responsible only to the boards of SACA and SANFL (of which the members of SMA are already members), with the public to fully fund any cost overrun and SACA and SANFL to occupy the site rate free and probably rent-free for 80 years.

Whatever you think of the project, you have to agree that this is jackboot stuff. But is it the deal of the century, or a recipe for disaster?

Wow, they're really trying to steamroll this through in time for the photo op. before the next election, huh?

While there are definite grounds for concern there, I'd expect and hope it's largely a case of the govt. using the old negotiating trick of asking for 200% so that it appears reasonable when it ends up settling for about 90%.

Steamrolled is the word. The Bill will get through the Lower House, but whether it gets through the Upper House depends on what members there think of the combination of the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill and the constitution of the SMA, which taken together hand over absolutely and without comeback or scrutiny for the next 80 years the publicly-funded development at AO and the land between King Wm Rd, Pennington Tce, Montefiore Rd and War Memorial Drive (less NextGen and the tennis club).

The Bill approves, from the moment it is passed any development at AO which is commenced (not necessarily physically commenced) by 15th December 2015, regardless of the Park Lands Act, the Development Act, the Local Government Act, Adelaide City Council, etc without the need for anyone other than the eight members of SMA even viewing the plans let alone commenting. The works possible are unlimited and include 'changing the form of the land'.

silverscreen is correct in saying that the board of SMA is not even responsible to the members or boards of SACA or SANFL. Perhaps it's all so cosy (minister/SACA/SANFL/SMA) that they feel that no formal ties are needed.

Here is the Bill:

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/B/C ... 02011.aspx

Here is the SMA constitution:

http://www.kryztoff.com/RAW/wp-content/ ... t-SMA1.pdf

Rumour has it that the $12 million of taxpayers' money 'SMA claims to have spent on sketch designs, fly-throughs, a model and lunches etc has already blown out and will hit $28 million before the project starts. SMA's books are private, so we may never know.

Correction to my earlier post: SMA is not responsible or answerable to SACA or SANFL. The sports clubs each merely provides an 'Appointor' each of whom appoints 4 members of the SMA. The SMA is legally a private not-for-profit corporate entity whose assets will include an 80 year lease on the $535 (+) million budget for the AO redevelopment and whose ability to pay its debts is guaranteed by the government. So there's the answer to who pays any cost blowouts at AO - we do.

Paulns wrote:So I wonder how many people are going to turn out on a cold, wet, windy, crapy day like today at the Adelaide Oval?? The Collingwood/Crows game on now in Melbournes Etihad Stadium is being played in near perfect conditions under a closed roof... Once the novelty wears off, watch the fickle Adelaide crowds (especially for Port Adelaide) fall off too.. The Adelaide Oval redevelopment will always be a poor compromise to a new stadium on a typical Adelaide winters day like today. It's just a pity it'll be too late ($535 Million of Tax Payers money later) to turn back time by then...

I'm 100% for Footy in the city but anyone who thinks this is our best option should step outside NOW?!!! For those of you not in Adelaide, here's today's forecast (22 May 2011). We can't control the weather but we sure as hell can build for it. I know I wont be sitting out in the rain when I can be home watching the same game on TV! I'm sure a lot of other people will feel the same, especially the elderly and those families with young kids.

http://www.bom.gov.au/sa/forecasts/adelaide.shtml

so you think it's worth spending a few hundred million more to put a retractable roof for the 2-3 times a year games are played in the rain?

I would have liked the drip line of the current design been to the fenceline tbh but it's not a dealbreaker.

Remember that for about $1.5 billion we could have had a renovated hospital and a brand spanking (open roofed) stadium next to mass transit and still had AO as is and still sold AAMI. The cost of the suite of new RAH and redeveloped AO plus ancillaries is likely to be many times $1.5 billion.

Sloping grass is not suitable for regular parking. The ability of SMA under the proposed Act to undertake any 'land forming' they want suggests terraced parking around the scarp from Montefiore Hill to Pennington Gardens along with parking on AO no 2. No doubt the hectares of asphalt will be attractively landscaped, but it's not quite what Minister Hill appeared to mean when he said as he introduced the Park Lands Act 2005 that

'Adelaide's iconic Park Lands are now better protected than at any time in their history.'

It's ironic rather than iconic that the with the passage of the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Bill the Rann government will have alienated more of the Park Lands than any SA government since proclamation of the state in 1836.

SACA's new western grandstand went over budget by 30% (to be bailed out by the taxpayer). SMA's budget for preliminary work has already blown out by a percentage well into two digits (to be paid by the taxpayer), and not a sod's been turned.