Sensational-Adelaide.com

FFS they've already won the election

may as well fix the mess now then in 4 years it'll be forgotten

A few comparisons of recently built stadia (adjusted to 2010 $AUD):

Adelaide 50K $623M (so far)
ANZ, Sydney 83K (part enclosed) $460M
Munich (part enclosed) 69K $410M
Sapporo Dome (fully enclosed) 42K $406M

Stadium Australia, now known as ANZ Stadium, was built for 690 million AUD. The Australian Dollar has gotten stronger, not weaker since 1999 when it opened.
The Olympiastadion in Munich, if that's the one you are referring to, was built over 30 years ago.

Furthermore you've made these silly comparisons before, and have been told building costs/materials/etc, vary in different places.
It is illogical to say for example, that because one city built a 50,000 seat stadium for 500 million, that Adelaide too, should be able to build a 50,000 seat stadium for 500 million.
There are too many factors that need to be taken into account which affect the cost. Are you going to take the time to figure out how much it costs to import such and such materials? Or never mind importing, how much this or that materials cost in each city? How about labor costs? Machinery hire costs? and so on and so forth..you get the picture.

The comparisons are pointless.

stumpjumper wrote:Adelaide Oval viability - go to SACA's website and download the most recent annual report. The oval pays its way and makes between 1 and 2 million surplus, although depending whom you believe the famous '$85 million debt' is in there somewhere.

Personally, I've given up.

I've just spoken to a senior Labor staffer.

Why don't you just leave AO at the Western Grandstand stage for current uses and use the $450 mill to build a nice new multipurpose lit stadium and get both FIFA compliance and federal subsidy?

'We can't do that,' the staffer said.

'Why not? It would be a popular move and it would save a lot of money we could spend elsewhere,' I said.

'Yes it would, but it would be too much of a backflip,' was the answer.

That left me feeling that the present government has completely lost sight of what it is there to do.

Hold on, you keep going round in circles, complaining about the cost of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and now you have just stated your opinion which in reality would cost much, much more.

So we should spend the $85 million on the western grandstand at AO just for 2 days of the year when the stadium is sold out. $450 million for a rectangular stadium which the reds will probably never fill to capacity and for a potential tournament Australia has little chance of securing. Not to mention the potential for cost-blowouts. And what about AAMI stadium? Do you honestly think that in the year 2010, AAMI stadium, a relic of the 70's is good enough?

So that is $85 million + $450 million + $? million to fix AAMI. Not to mention the future costs of maintaining 3 separate stadiums. The future is multi-purpose arenas, not this backward idea of multiple arenas for every sport and team.

Will wrote:Hold on, you keep going round in circles, complaining about the cost of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and now you have just stated your opinion which in reality would cost much, much more.

So we should spend the $85 million on the western grandstand at AO just for 2 days of the year when the stadium is sold out. $450 million for a rectangular stadium which the reds will probably never fill to capacity and for a potential tournament Australia has little chance of securing. Not to mention the potential for cost-blowouts. And what about AAMI stadium? Do you honestly think that in the year 2010, AAMI stadium, a relic of the 70's is good enough?

So that is $85 million + $450 million + $? million to fix AAMI. Not to mention the future costs of maintaining 3 separate stadiums. The future is multi-purpose arenas, not this backward idea of multiple arenas for every sport and team.

I think his suggestion is to build a new multipurpose stadium for AFL and football. Didn't read anything about retaining AAMI...

They decided to build the western grandstand long before plans were drawn up to have AFL there. I think that was even before the government announced a plan to rebuild AAMI (remember that, anyone?)

stumpjumper wrote: PS - Rann announced earlier this year that 'he' had given AOSMA $5 million to initiate work on whatever the project is. It may be a coincidence, but on page 35 of SACA's annual report for 2008-9 there is a cash flow entry: 'Donation from federal government $5,500,000'. That looks like $5 mill plus GST. What's that all about?

Basic accounting knows that you don't put an amount inclusive of GST on your balance sheet. GST received is remitted to the ATO or they get a bit annoyed at you. Plus federal government != state government.

Seems your trying anyway possible to see reds under every bed.


mgb

Splashmo wrote:

Will wrote:Hold on, you keep going round in circles, complaining about the cost of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and now you have just stated your opinion which in reality would cost much, much more.

So we should spend the $85 million on the western grandstand at AO just for 2 days of the year when the stadium is sold out. $450 million for a rectangular stadium which the reds will probably never fill to capacity and for a potential tournament Australia has little chance of securing. Not to mention the potential for cost-blowouts. And what about AAMI stadium? Do you honestly think that in the year 2010, AAMI stadium, a relic of the 70's is good enough?

So that is $85 million + $450 million + $? million to fix AAMI. Not to mention the future costs of maintaining 3 separate stadiums. The future is multi-purpose arenas, not this backward idea of multiple arenas for every sport and team.

I think his suggestion is to build a new multipurpose stadium for AFL and football. Didn't read anything about retaining AAMI...

They decided to build the western grandstand long before plans were drawn up to have AFL there. I think that was even before the government announced a plan to rebuild AAMI (remember that, anyone?)

Well that makes no sense, because building a joint stadium for AFL and soccer, would still result in the problem of an oval arena.

mgb wrote:Basic accounting knows that you don't put an amount inclusive of GST on your balance sheet. GST received is remitted to the ATO or they get a bit annoyed at you. Plus federal government != state government.
Seems your trying anyway possible to see reds under every bed.

To be fair, ALL of Stumpy's OTHER statements aside, the phrase "$x plus GST," just means 10% more than the round number and isn't an actual reference to GST.

I'm getting deja view all over again reading this thread, apologies to our newer members.

Rev, I took my figures from the Wembley stadium site. They were prime cost (ie construction only costs). ANZ Stadium's figures in 2010 AUD are construction $460m, all fees etc $545, inc landscaping, roadworks etc $670. I reduced the figures to prime construction costs for a true comparison. But as you say, any comparison is of limited use, although cost per seat finished is still a well-accepted and handy measure.

As to the $5,500,000 in cash flow for 2009, it's there on page 35 - 'donation of federal government'. The figure would not include GST, you are quite correct. SAA posted a donation from the SA government in 2006 of $17,600,000 and a donation from the SA government of $9,900,000 in 2007 for a total from the SA government of $27,500,000.

Here's our bid to FIFA:

http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/au ... -oval.aspx

It's made very clear that the oval will not be FIFA compliant beyond quarter finals (semis and finals will mostly be played in Sydney or Melbourne).

I've just come to a startling realisation. I think old Ian McLachlan has just finessed $85 million out of the state government. It may have gone like this: I think that SACA really is financially healthy, but were demanding a contribution from SANFL of perhaps $85 million because SACA was bringing to the table a spanking new Western Grandstand. SANFL was probably very reluctant to pay anything like that, so Foley, desperate to show that the government's grandstand proposal was a goer not just an electoral feint, agreed that the taxpayer would pay the $85 million.

I've read the last seven or eight years of SACA annual reports, and there is no evidence of a debt of $85 million dimensions, or much debt at all. In fact, the SA govt gave SACA $17,600,000 in 2006, $9,900,000 in 2007. At the same time, SACA had a business loan facility with Westpac for $67 million, which they didn't touch.

I suggest that SACA never had any such debt.

It appears from Foley's statements that the SA govt is prepared to put up the whole $450 million, plus the $85 million, even if Australia doesn't get a World Cup and there is no federal help (although in that case a back-room deal between Rudd and Rann would not be out of the question. I'd be looking for it if I were Rann.

Foley in Advertiser 22/5/10

Available funds to redevelop Adelaide Oval are set to be restricted at $365 million with cricket requiring an $85m pay-off. State Treasurer Kevin Foley last night indicated that the $85m was considered a SACA debt retirement by government.

"The Government's view is that the best outcome for the future of first-class cricket, and for football in SA, is a redeveloped, debt-free stadium, and that's why our commitment of up to $450m includes a provision of $85 million to retire SACA debt," a spokeswoman for Mr Foley said.

Foley on 5AA 26/5/10:

"The State Government's pledged another $85 million towards a new Adelaide Oval taking the project's cost up to $535 million. Premier Mike Rann confirmed the cost blow-out today saying a suitable, multi-use sport stadium cannot be built for $450 million."

SACA's debt:

From SACA's 2005-6 annual report: 'As you all know, the State Government has understood the importance of international sport to the State of South Australia and, in particular, the city of Adelaide, by giving the Cricket Association a one-off grant of $16 million and I have written to express our extreme gratitude to them for doing so. This reduced our net debt to about $5 million. Our budgets show this will be zero in about three years.'

"If the joint venture between the SANFL and the SACA goes ahead, it has been agreed by all parties that SACA will be paid approximately $85m of the State Government's $450m in recognition of the assets, including the new 14,000 seat western grandstand, that it will be providing to the joint venture," Mr McLachlan said.

It's been bugging me why SACA not the contractor would be responsible for overruns (ie incur debt) in the 'paid for' Western Grandstand at a stage too late for there to have been big changes in scope. The answer is that there has been no overrun (except a few dollars for holding up the heritage arches).

So if I'm right, the state and federal governments have paid at least $50,000,000 for the new Western Grandstand, the state government will pay $450,000,000 for the major redevelopment regardless of the World Cup, plus, the state government will pay SACA the $85,000,000 SACA was demanding from football for SACA having provided (at very little cost to themselves) the new Western Grandstand.

Touché, Mr McLachlan.

Sorry for the repetitive postings earlier.

Anyone wanting to see construction details of the Western Grandstand should go to

http://www.saca.com.au/library/New%20Bo ... 202009.pdf

It's called 'New Boundary". There are a few issues.

Try 'New Boundary".

Go to SACA's site and look under publications:

http://www.saca.com.au/library/New%20Bo ... 202009.pdf

stumpjumper wrote:Rev, I took my figures from the Wembley stadium site. They were prime cost (ie construction only costs). ANZ Stadium's figures in 2010 AUD are construction $460m, all fees etc $545, inc landscaping, roadworks etc $670. I reduced the figures to prime construction costs for a true comparison. But as you say, any comparison is of limited use, although cost per seat finished is still a well-accepted and handy measure.

I understand that, but that still doesn't alter the fact that costs vary from city to city. It may be a handy measure, but you also have to remember and take into account that things are different in different parts of the world.
It's like saying that it cost 5,000 to lease 1,000sqm a month in New Delhi, so it should cost that much in Mumbai, or Adelaide.

Kal El wrote:The reality is Labor is putting its money into AO therefore will not spend $535 million and then have to spend $125 million on a rectangular stadium. The dollar for dollar spend which is need for any WC federal money is in AO.

So if for unknown reason AO cannot be made FIFA compliant it will cost SA tax payers $125 million minimum for a sport that is nowhere near the attendance of AFL. Do you honestly think Soccer will be bigger than the AFL leading up to and after 2018/22 WC if we got one of them seriously?

We will not be saving $400 million of tax payers money as it is well known to the people who live in the real world that AAMI is past its used by date and Adelaide needs a new stadium for AFL.

Adelaide cannot afford to run two stadiums/oval of similar ilk hence why AO redevelopment for Cricket and AFL is a better outcome than staying with the status quo

As a soccer fan i'm quite happy for AO to be redeveloped for just AFL and Cricket tbh, as long as when/if the bid is won for Australia they try and grab money generated by a Soccer tournament to fund it. Foley has said that the feds will contribute $250 mill for a WC stadium, that leaves the state government needing to chuck up $20 mill for it going by the $270 mill plans used for Canbbera. Selling Hindmarsh stadium will help towards that as well.
You might not believe that soccer will ever be equal to AFL, and maybe it won't but it still doesn't mean it won't grow. Considering AUFC's crowds have risen every year since it's inception, and over the last few years both Crows an Power crowds have decreased or remained stagnent it would suggest that maybe soccer is more deserved of having money spent on it, especially money generated by a soccer tournament.

My trending says no that the crowds at United’s games are not increase but in fact dropping and they haven’t rise every year since the A League’s inception. Sorry but get some clarity of your facts before posting.

If they where trending up to the point in 8 – 12 years they would get around 20k plus on average to a game I would be all for a new city based rectangular stadium but until otherwise I stand by my comments all along that it is not the best economic outcome for this state.

AO is less in seating capacity all be it by 1,200 odd seats from AAMI and this is a figure that the AFL and SANFL have suggested so maybe this takes into consideration the decline in numbers at AAMI for both the Crows and Power to start building for 2014 onwards with a fresh start.

Should we have a legacy from soccer a 27K stadium that is only filled to 1/3rd capacity on average and one tenant or a stadium that will have 3 tenants, be use more often with an average of ¾ capacity used?

Not sure why we would have to put in $20 million as the state dollar for dollar will be tied up in AO ($535 million) and that is why we wouldn’t get $250 million for a rectangular stadium, actually it would cost the state $125 million. We will get rumoured $250 million from the feds to go to AO to make it FIFA compliant if we win the WC which as much as I would like to win I seriously doubt we will.

Interesting final photo of the city there! A good read however.

I thought the oval had a true 'oval' shape, but having been there only once, memory not a top reference point.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

Kal El wrote:
Should we have a legacy from soccer a 27K stadium that is only filled to 1/3rd capacity on average and one tenant or a stadium that will have 3 tenants, be use more often with an average of ¾ capacity used?

Considering one of the main reasons for moving AFL to the city center is to increase crowds, why wouldn't Soccer crowds increase as well in an inner city football stadium ? It would also have the corporate facilities to allow the club to meat demand and general amenities to meet expectations of todays spectators.

Kal El wrote: Not sure why we would have to put in $20 million as the state dollar for dollar will be tied up in AO ($535 million) and that is why we wouldn’t get $250 million for a rectangular stadium, actually it would cost the state $125 million. We will get rumoured $250 million from the feds to go to AO to make it FIFA compliant if we win the WC which as much as I would like to win I seriously doubt we will.

Every time i have heard Foley speak or read what he has said i haven't heard the dollar for dollar thing. He has just stated that there will $250 mill from the feds for a WC stadium if the bid is succesfull. Making AO meet FIFA WC acceptable, whilst will be great for a WC won't be that advantageous for AUFC. It will be to big and expensive for them to use for a full season and with the amount of money going to be spent on it i doubt there will be any upgrades to hindmarsh stadiumany time soon.

flavze wrote:

Kal El wrote:
Should we have a legacy from soccer a 27K stadium that is only filled to 1/3rd capacity on average and one tenant or a stadium that will have 3 tenants, be use more often with an average of ¾ capacity used?

Considering one of the main reasons for moving AFL to the city center is to increase crowds, why wouldn't Soccer crowds increase as well in an inner city football stadium ? It would also have the corporate facilities to allow the club to meat demand and general amenities to meet expectations of todays spectators.

Kal El wrote: Not sure why we would have to put in $20 million as the state dollar for dollar will be tied up in AO ($535 million) and that is why we wouldn’t get $250 million for a rectangular stadium, actually it would cost the state $125 million. We will get rumoured $250 million from the feds to go to AO to make it FIFA compliant if we win the WC which as much as I would like to win I seriously doubt we will.

Every time i have heard Foley speak or read what he has said i haven't heard the dollar for dollar thing. He has just stated that there will $250 mill from the feds for a WC stadium if the bid is succesfull. Making AO meet FIFA WC acceptable, whilst will be great for a WC won't be that advantageous for AUFC. It will be to big and expensive for them to use for a full season and with the amount of money going to be spent on it i doubt there will be any upgrades to hindmarsh stadiumany time soon.

they wont want to play too many games on a cricket pitch