Sensational-Adelaide.com

Now I hope that Australia doesn't get to host the World Cup - spare South Australians the embarrassment.

Splashmo wrote:Now I hope that Australia doesn't get to host the World Cup - spare South Australians the embarrassment.

spare Australia the embarrasment...Germany in 2006 set the standard for a Sensational World Cup, imo the 2010 world cup in South Africa will be terrible the following one 2014 in Brazil should be awesome.

best world cup ever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup

cruel_world00 wrote:I have stated this time and time again, and most forumers who are pro-stadium have also agreed.... so I'm gonna try caps lock cos that seems to be the way to go with getting your point across:

Look I fully agree with you, I want a inner city stadium, id pay more money, id go to more games, i realise that most reasonable people aren't asking for it now, I dont particularly like the location of the Marge and yes id like Adelaide have a more focused agenda on alot of issues including a stadium, parklands and general infrastucture.

One question though, what the hell is the point of putting a 'Vision' forward like MHS did about the railyard, when, it doent have a hope of happening because of the issues with the SANFL, AFL and A-league all having to come together on this. Its not going to happen unless all the codes are singing from the same page, until then it seems a bit whimsical and reeks a little of political opportunism.

Anyway, enough.

Cheers

Well, I'm quietly hoping that in light of the hospital saga - if the truth be told that it's not going ahead now, that the goverment will see to common sense and reserve the land for the inner city stadium in a few years time.

Knowing Media Mike, I think it'll become an election ploy. Martin Hamilton Smith did brainstorm the idea first, but Rann suffers a very severe case of 'me too' and probably will use it to his leverage to win the election. It worked for Kevin Rudd did it not?

mattblack wrote:

cruel_world00 wrote:I have stated this time and time again, and most forumers who are pro-stadium have also agreed.... so I'm gonna try caps lock cos that seems to be the way to go with getting your point across:

Look I fully agree with you, I want a inner city stadium, id pay more money, id go to more games, i realise that most reasonable people aren't asking for it now, I dont particularly like the location of the Marge and yes id like Adelaide have a more focused agenda on alot of issues including a stadium, parklands and general infrastucture.

One question though, what the hell is the point of putting a 'Vision' forward like MHS did about the railyard, when, it doent have a hope of happening because of the issues with the SANFL, AFL and A-league all having to come together on this. Its not going to happen unless all the codes are singing from the same page, until then it seems a bit whimsical and reeks a little of political opportunism.

Anyway, enough.

Cheers

Sure we need the sporting codes on board, but handing over $100 mill is hardly going to convince them to move to the city. I say cut 'em off, if they want to stick with AAMI, let them persevere on their own.

^

i agree.

no money should be given to the SANFL to stay where they are. its money wasted. it wont make a difference to their bottom line unless they bank it. that money doesnt even include that which is being spent on the pointless rail extension spur to West Lakes.

just let them be at AAMI and the State should save it for a rectangular stadium in the city.

Pointless rail extension?

Irrespective of AAMI Stadiums existence - I don't know if you know that there is quite some investment for high-rise development in West Lakes at the moment, which would improve its population density, therefore warranting an increased need for expanded infrastructure and goods and services delivered to the area that would certainly benefit from a light rail spur to the region.

• Westfield is expanding their premises - 30 new stores I believe?
  West Lakes Twin Towers
  Infinity Towers
  West Lakes Community Hub

I'm really intrigued to know whats going on behind the scenes with the Governments plan for the railyards - the potential site for a new stadium. There's talk of the hospital not proceeding anymore, yet they're still spending money on AAMI Stadium? Its a bit confusing because the pieces don't fit together.

i agree with the post above. the govt seem to be in 2 minds about the whole situation.

AAMI stadium is mainly used for AFL. occasionally it hosts the odd concert but there has to be one huge performer in adelaide (which rarely happens) for AAMI to be considered. so basically it's 100% AFL. How can the government justify "giving" $100m to the AFL alone? That's what they're doing.

The SA Gov is saying, "hey, you, SANFL, how would you like $100000000? here you go. spend it on your stadium. Tell all the other sports that they can use it if they want. they wont, cos it's not gonna be suitable for them, but you know, tell them you'll do your best. I'm the government, and i like AFL (more than wog-ball - but you didn't hear it from me."

That hardly seems fair.
Unless of course they hand out a bit of money to all the other sports around (which they're not). But to be fair, AFL is the biggest sport is Aus! so then i ask do they really need help from the government? i mean they make more money than any other sport, so why give them a handout? Seems to me very similar to giving rich people tax-cuts.

If the government's feeling so generous, why not hand out money to all the other sports too? not $100m obviously, but give other sports a deserved price. eg: if the Adelaide United is, say, only 10% as popular as the AFL teams in SA, give them $10m! I'm sure they would say "thank you very much" and upgrade Hindmarsh Stadium to maybe a 25,000 capacity stadium.
If Grid Iron is 0.5% as popular compared to AFL, give them $500,000 to do with as they please! and everything in between.

Alternatively they could be FAIR, and say, "ok, if Adelaide wants a city stadium, the only way it's gonna be viable is if everyone is in this together. Sorry SANFL, but you've had a good run. Now it's time to SHARE. Can you say 'share', SANFL? Good boy"

I agree with Shuz. The light rail link to West Lakes is a good investment regardless of AAMI. The government isn't silly enough to spend all that money for something that is used once a week. It's an investment in West Lakes in general.

The location for a major sporting precinct or venue, though, is atrocious, regardless of better PT. It's a wasted opportunity to pump life into the CBD.

Australia will not host the world cup in 2018, so who cares really about Football Park being FIFA standard

Cruise wrote:Australia will not host the world cup in 2018, so who cares really about Football Park being FIFA standard

IMO, the fact that it is not of FIFA standards is just one of the smaller reasons that AAMI Stadium should be demolished. Yes, it is true that Hindmarsh and AO are not big enough and that you can barely watch a football match from the Northern Grandstand of AAMI and they expect us to watch soccer matches from it (PUH-LEASE!), however, there are at least 2 other big reasons that AAMI needs to be rebuilt.
The first is the economic benefits. With a stadium in the CBD, many, MANY people would go to see a match and the SANFL would gain a lot of money (FAR MORE MONEY THAN WHAT THEY EARN WHILST HAVING THAT PIECE OF JUNK UP AT WEST LAKES). Another group that would have an economic benefit would be the businesses in the CBD -AND BOY ARE THERE MANY!!!
The second is the convenience. With a stadium in the city, not only would supporters go to see a match, but so would tourists, etc. that happen to be exploring the city. For example, when I went for a school trip to Melbourne during May of this year, we decided that we would go to see the Kangaroos play the Bulldogs at Telstra Dome despite the fact that none of the 40-50odd students supported for either of the teams. If Kennet hadn't come in and built Telstra Dome, Melbourne would have still been stuck with Waverley Park (which is similar to AAMI and Subiaco -Subiaco is getting knocked down...) and not only would we have not gone to the match, but neither would the business people and other tourists that I could see all around the place.
The third reason is that AAMI Stadium is outdated. AS I mentioned above, you can barely watch a football match from the northern grandstand, and somehow we're expected to watch soccer matches. Don't anyone start that pathetic whinge that Australia isn't going to host the World Cup, because according to Rann and Whicker during March or April or whenever it was, the main reason that they were upgrading AAMI was so that it could be suitable for World-Class Soccer matches. AAMI is also outdated because it was built in the 70's when Aussie Rules itself was played in a different style. It was during a time when stadiums were built to have a lot of standing room and that is precisely what AAMI and Subiaco have -and that is precisely the reason that Subiaco is going to get knocked down. Now PLEASE don't anyone start that argument that we don't have enough money and it therefore does not justify to build a $1billion Stadium, because the 'billion dollar figure' is just another pie in the sky number that Media Mike and Furious Foley have been throwing into the papers, into the radio and onto the television screens. If it apparently costs $1billion AUD, could they explain why:
• For the 2006 World Cup in Germany, 3.7 billion euros (currently equivalent to $A6.5bn) was spent to build and modernise 12 venues? That averages on about $500million for each stadium.
• In November of 2006, the estimated cost for the now abandoned concept of Stadium New Zealand was (at a maximum) $650 million?
• The cost for the actual Stadium WA is in fact priced at $800 million. That ‘$1.1billion’ figure is also made up by about $300 million worth of property acquisition, associated infrastructure, escalation, transport infrastructure and other costs??? All that we want in Adelaide is a sole stadium on a place like the rail yards site, which is on top of a public transport interchange, is not currently under the ownership of private households, etc. and DOES NOT REQUIRE CONVENTION CENTRES, HOTELS, ETC. BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NEXT DOOR AND/OR JUST ACROSS THE ROAD!
Just on that Stadium WA issue, why can’t Rann go down the path that his Labor counterparts in WA did and ‘choose not to go down that path’ of renovating Subiaco? AND WHY IS IT THAT ANDREW DEMETRIOU PERSONALLY INTERVENED AND CONVINCED THE WAFC TO MOVE?!?!? YET FOR WHATEVER STUPID REASON, HE IS SUPPORTING THE SANFL IN STAYING AT AAMI STADIUM!!!!!

There is a big difference between building a Stadium in a new location and simply rebuilding one. The land would already have been suitable in terms of levelling, land quality (our Railyards are contaminated), access and parking.

Upgrading would have been even cheaper.

First, I love the idea of Adelaide getting a FIFA quality stadium for the Beautiful Game, and perhaps watch Adelaide United in a final of the Asian Champions League (even if a world cup never came to Oz). But the recurrent theme that there should be a stadium in the downtown area seems misguided to me. Would someone please resolve this little puzzle for me:

cruel_world00 wrote:The government isn't silly enough to spend all that money for something that is used once a week. ... The location for a major sporting precinct or venue, though, is atrocious ... It's a wasted opportunity to pump life into the CBD.

Basically, if you were given the hundreds of millions of dollars that a stadium would cost and were told "Pump some life into the CBD", would you really build a stadium that would be used just once a week?

For six months of the year.

With maybe the occasional concert.

Looking at the question a different way: AAMI draws 40,000 odd people to West Lakes on gamedays - has it pumped any life down there?

Ive got it, build the stadium on top of the new hospital!

Prince George wrote:First, I love the idea of Adelaide getting a FIFA quality stadium for the Beautiful Game, and perhaps watch Adelaide United in a final of the Asian Champions League (even if a world cup never came to Oz). But the recurrent theme that there should be a stadium in the downtown area seems misguided to me. Would someone please resolve this little puzzle for me:

cruel_world00 wrote:The government isn't silly enough to spend all that money for something that is used once a week. ... The location for a major sporting precinct or venue, though, is atrocious ... It's a wasted opportunity to pump life into the CBD.

Basically, if you were given the hundreds of millions of dollars that a stadium would cost and were told "Pump some life into the CBD", would you really build a stadium that would be used just once a week?

For six months of the year.

With maybe the occasional concert.

Looking at the question a different way: AAMI draws 40,000 odd people to West Lakes on gamedays - has it pumped any life down there?

The idea of building a new stadium, in the cbd(or downtown area), is to build one that is a multipurpose venue.
Such a stadium would have retractable seating, which would come into play when A-League matches are held there or other sports which require a rectangular playing field.
It could also have a running track on the outside, temporarily covered by grass during AFL season or whatever. Athletics could be held there as well.
Rugby 7's too. Wasn't the NRL(or Union?) talking about an Adelaide based team?
It would definately be used year round, and around this time of year, when the A League starts and AFL finishes, it could be used on more then one occasion during the week for two major sporting codes.
They could even have a removable center square/cricket pitch for the cricket.

I don't think there is a question of what will the stadium be used for, as there are many possibilities, but a question of providing a suitable, modern venue.

The argument used though, of it will only be used once a week for 6 months a year, actually applies to AAMI far more then it would/could to a new stadium in the CBD.
So why spend 100 million dollars upgrading a stadium that is used once a week for barely half a year?

Also, on the issue of location of a new stadium, I believe the Adelaide United proposal was for a stadium in the Parklands, not on the rail yards. Near Bonython Park I think, not sure.
Although that proposal was purely for soccer, not a multipurpose stadium, and included a hotel. Didn't they end up securing part of the funding for it? Whatever happened with that whole idea anyway? Was in the paper once or twice with the President and a model of the proposal, and that was it.