Sensational-Adelaide.com

SJ, I think you're giving Kryztoff too much credit.

It's scarcely an opinion. It's hysterical hyperbole based on ridiculous assumptions which tries to pass off worse than worst case scenarios as almost certainties.

I'm all for debate and as you know, I'm not one who wants this place to limit itself to talk of bricks, mortar and cranes, but this is just plain nonsense by someone trying too hard to make a name for themselves.

I've reread Krystoff's last piece, and I agree that he makes some fairly extreme, unsubstantiated statements, especially when he attributes motives (but then posters here have attributed motives to Krystoff probably quite speculatively) . He doesn't offer balance by giving any credit to opposing views.

Even so, he seems to have access to information that isn't generally available, so to dismiss his stuff out of hand could be to chuck the baby with the bathwater.

Sensational Adelaide itself is surprisingly widely read, and is even quoted as an authority in the Wiki article on the AO (faint praise perhaps) but I think one of S-A's strengths is its tolerance for a range of views, however much that might gripe a few regulars here. The willingness to allow different views increases the quality of the site and the value people put on the information in it.

I'm certainly glad of the tolerance of the mods here. I'm a beneficiary of it, and I hope the mods, for the sake of the standing of the forum, continue to allow 'robust debate', quite a different thing than tolerating or promoting flaming, pure bullsh*t or monomania.

So I welcome Krystoff's contribution. There's likely to be some truth in what he says, despite any faults in his style or arguments. As they say, it makes you think, and retesting one's opinions is no bad thing.

They're going to ruin the whole city of Adelaide!!!

It's going to be a ghost town or a slum after all these developments
What next? They demolish glenelg for office blocks? OH WAIT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT!!! Adelaide is on the verge of destruction due to Mike Rann and his goons.

was that a bit extreme?

There you are - robust, informed debate.

Another thing to remember is that 90% of the topics on S-A are not the subject of wild accusations, just as most construction is not controversial with regard to design, site, purpose or cost, and that's exactly as it should be.

Interesting to hear Jim Hancock, Deputy Director of the SA Centre for Economic Studies speaking on 891 this morning.
He reckons that of the predicted $110m (or so) in economic development to the City through the Oval development only about $33m will be "new money". The rest is simply a spend transfer from the old venue.
While most of us had worked that out already, I hadnt heard it put so bluntly before and it was good to hear it from him.

BTW - while we were all sleeping Kryztoff Raw had another serve. Go on read it - you know you want to.

The transfer of spending also gives the lie to the published claim that the taxpayer would receive a 20% dividend on the investment of $535 million.

I'll cast my vote in favour of the 'robust, informed debate' point of view with respect to the Krystoff article. I actually thought it was quite thought-provoking and interesting, if a little extreme.

The main deficiency I thought, though, was that the author doesn't propose any alternative solutions. You kind of get the feeling from the article that he thinks that the SANFL, specifically, and footy in SA, generally, is totally stuffed whatever happens. I would have liked to read what he thinks would be a better way for the whole thing to play out.

One way out of this could be Rob Gerard's solution - sell AAMI, add the proceeds to the $535 million and build a new stadium somewhere (Gerard suggests the West Park Lands).

The problem with that I suppose is that SACA would still have its 'comfortable' (or so it claims) debt and AFL seems to be saying that unless Port and the Crows are given a home ground which they can use rent-free and from which they can keep the carparking income, Port at least may not survive.

If that's the case, we should be looking at the whole project not just as a building development, but as a complex financial support system for the AFL national viewership enabling it to quote viewer numbers to substantiate $250 million pa in TV rights - the real business of the AFL.

The concept isn't as silly as it sounds when you think about it. I'm waiting for the AFL to play their blackmail card, either directly or indirectly: 'Approve AO or Port Power dies'.

What a tangled web of interests and subsidies!

The AFL and its offshoot Port Power are exotic species. Like a fly-by-wire aircraft that can't stay in the air without constant input from computers, the AFL can't stay in business without constant, serious cash flow. Just jetting players all over the country each week must cost millions, then there's the administration - to hammer out a deal for Port will take a face to face meeting in Melbourne of suits from all parties: no teleconference fort these guys; it will be business class airfares, high-end hotels and fancy feeds all round.

It's a strange setup - the core and most profitable business of the AFL is providing digital content for broadcasters. Demetriou has sold the next five years of this product for $1.25 billion to broadcasters, who in return are relying on support from major advertisers to recoup what the broadcasters have paid the AFL. The business model depends on having 18 teams each playing 22 games per year, with two teams from each of the non-Vic states. So Demetriou is hostage to that deal - if a team drops out, the business model is almost certain to be unworkable and disaster will follow. That's why the AFL has agreed to put up $9 million to prop up Port until AO is finished.

There's a lot of faith being put in the ability to deliver numbers, and dollars, of the redeveloped AO, especially in its ability to boost numbers at the Power's home games there.

IMHO, the option of immediately moving AFL games to AO is looking attractive. If nothing else, that move would show up strengths and weaknesses in the concept of AFL at AO. But what would SACA think of that? I suggest that it doesn't matter what SACA thinks - it is overburdened with debt and so has weak bargaining power. But there are legalities in the way, like SACA's rights under its existing leases...

With these changing relationships are we now looking at " absentee landlords" for the Oval. Didn't work for the Irish and certainly adds to a situation that gets curiouser by the day. And I dont like it any more than most of the posters here.

Morning, silverscreen.

I suspect you're right. The AFL will be effectively landlords of AO. Because the impetus for this project was political advantage for Labor and a debt resolution fort SACA rather than any pressing need, it was destined to end up in a tangled web like this. It reminds me of the Wine Centre - a solution for which there was no problem if ever there was one, and a project for which the only real supporters were the promoters.

I'd be interested to know who and where Sensational Adelaide readers/posters go for their info on the Oval and who they put their trust in.
Is it:

The Advertiser e.g Rucci, editorials, letters
The Australian (Michael Owen)
The Age
Messenger
Independent Weekly
Adelaide Now (often castigated on this site)
Save Adelaide Oval ( website no longer maintained)
Other posters
SMA website - not very informative
SA Centre for Economic Studies ( ditto)
ACC - many of their meetings, like the Govt's and the SMA's, are confidential
Parklands Protection Association (no comment)
Kyrstoff Raw (major irritant to some)
ICAC website ( lobbying for a Commission against corruption for SA)
Footy websites.
Govt websites (no comment)


I like to read around this topic & would welcome info on other sites/publications of interest.

Forgot to inlclue Radio & TV of course

stumpjumper wrote: But there are legalities in the way, like SACA's rights under its existing leases...

...and moving season ticket holders of the Crows in particular with allocated seats to a ground with with about 2/3 as many and the fact that the current capacity of the ground is less than the Crows' average attendance this year and the likelihood that the pre-match indoor warm up areas are not up to AFL standards and the catering contracts and perhaps even the small matter that from about next March, the ground will be a construction zone for the next 2-3 years and hold even less people...

The news that SA's finances are not what they could be seems to have got the Libs buzzing. Expect some questions about the AO deal when Parliament sits again.