Sensational-Adelaide.com

You have already been called out on your “uneven stands” call – it is ridiculous

You have also chose to disregard that Burswood is basically a green fields site (being an old Golf Course – understanding that there is some re mediation due) where as AO is in the middle of the city in a park with significant existing stands to be demolished.

So in reality it appears your only issue is that they will get 10,000 more seats. I’m interested to know who you think will fill these seats – even at peak the Crows only averaged 45k – the Power about 38k.

Given the undeniable evidence that live against the gate and Foxtel has had an impact on Crowds I see only 2 games per year in which it could be a problem being the showdowns – even then, they hardly get 40k any more.

Personally, I’ would be stoked if AO could got 5 years of complete sell outs for us to start complaining about lack of additional seats , but realistiacally it just isn’t going to happen.

Also, I don’t want you to mistake me for some Labor fanboi, I was against the AO redevelopment from the Start, would have preferred a green fields site – where the RAH is now would have been excellent.

But that stopped being an option, when the people of SA re-elected Labor and the result is still going to be a very attractive first class stadium comparable to anything else in the country.

Which given we are a city of 1.5M is a pretty reasonable outcome.

Waewick wrote:You have already been called out on your “uneven stands” call – it is ridiculous

You have also chose to disregard that Burswood is basically a green fields site (being an old Golf Course – understanding that there is some re mediation due) where as AO is in the middle of the city in a park with significant existing stands to be demolished.

So in reality it appears your only issue is that they will get 10,000 more seats. I’m interested to know who you think will fill these seats – even at peak the Crows only averaged 45k – the Power about 38k.

Given the undeniable evidence that live against the gate and Foxtel has had an impact on Crowds I see only 2 games per year in which it could be a problem being the showdowns – even then, they hardly get 40k any more.

Personally, I’ would be stoked if AO could got 5 years of complete sell outs for us to start complaining about lack of additional seats , but realistiacally it just isn’t going to happen.

Also, I don’t want you to mistake me for some Labor fanboi, I was against the AO redevelopment from the Start, would have preferred a green fields site – where the RAH is now would have been excellent.

But that stopped being an option, when the people of SA re-elected Labor and the result is still going to be a very attractive first class stadium comparable to anything else in the country.

Which given we are a city of 1.5M is a pretty reasonable outcome.

are you high or something? i was the one who said it was a greenfields site. you're quoting me and now you're saying i'm disregarding a fact that i brought attention to.

where did these extra 300,000 people come from by the way? population of Adelaide is 1.2mil

mutt wrote:

Waewick wrote:You have already been called out on your “uneven stands” call – it is ridiculous

You have also chose to disregard that Burswood is basically a green fields site (being an old Golf Course – understanding that there is some re mediation due) where as AO is in the middle of the city in a park with significant existing stands to be demolished.

So in reality it appears your only issue is that they will get 10,000 more seats. I’m interested to know who you think will fill these seats – even at peak the Crows only averaged 45k – the Power about 38k.

Given the undeniable evidence that live against the gate and Foxtel has had an impact on Crowds I see only 2 games per year in which it could be a problem being the showdowns – even then, they hardly get 40k any more.

Personally, I’ would be stoked if AO could got 5 years of complete sell outs for us to start complaining about lack of additional seats , but realistiacally it just isn’t going to happen.

Also, I don’t want you to mistake me for some Labor fanboi, I was against the AO redevelopment from the Start, would have preferred a green fields site – where the RAH is now would have been excellent.

But that stopped being an option, when the people of SA re-elected Labor and the result is still going to be a very attractive first class stadium comparable to anything else in the country.

Which given we are a city of 1.5M is a pretty reasonable outcome.

are you high or something? i was the one who said it was a greenfields site. you're quoting me and now you're saying i'm disregarding a fact that i brought attention to.

where did these extra 300,000 people come from by the way? population of Adelaide is 1.2mil

I take your point re population, for some reason I thought it was higher..so a city with the population of 1.2M it is an even better result.

I Know you said it was, which makes it even more amazing you can't reconcile the costs

Waewick wrote:

mutt wrote:

Waewick wrote:You have already been called out on your “uneven stands” call – it is ridiculous

You have also chose to disregard that Burswood is basically a green fields site (being an old Golf Course – understanding that there is some re mediation due) where as AO is in the middle of the city in a park with significant existing stands to be demolished.

So in reality it appears your only issue is that they will get 10,000 more seats. I’m interested to know who you think will fill these seats – even at peak the Crows only averaged 45k – the Power about 38k.

Given the undeniable evidence that live against the gate and Foxtel has had an impact on Crowds I see only 2 games per year in which it could be a problem being the showdowns – even then, they hardly get 40k any more.

Personally, I’ would be stoked if AO could got 5 years of complete sell outs for us to start complaining about lack of additional seats , but realistiacally it just isn’t going to happen.

Also, I don’t want you to mistake me for some Labor fanboi, I was against the AO redevelopment from the Start, would have preferred a green fields site – where the RAH is now would have been excellent.

But that stopped being an option, when the people of SA re-elected Labor and the result is still going to be a very attractive first class stadium comparable to anything else in the country.

Which given we are a city of 1.5M is a pretty reasonable outcome.

are you high or something? i was the one who said it was a greenfields site. you're quoting me and now you're saying i'm disregarding a fact that i brought attention to.

where did these extra 300,000 people come from by the way? population of Adelaide is 1.2mil

I take your point re population, for some reason I thought it was higher..so a city with the population of 1.2M it is an even better result.

I Know you said it was, which makes it even more amazing you can't reconcile the costs

my point is the SA govt cocked up the design of Adelaide Oval and we probably didnt even need it in the first place. the business case is flimsy at best.
it seems the whole thing was rushed due to Foley's desire to watch Power in the city.

it is time to reign in such extravagant spending.

whats your point?

mutt wrote:

Waewick wrote:it is only 5kms from the Perth CBD and a 5 minute drive.

AO is 500m from the Adelaide CBD and a 5 minute Walk.

I know which one I prefer.

Will be interesting if we can ever upgrade it.

its not 5km. look at a map. its even closer than Subiaco.
its around the same distance as AO is to the CBD.

there's a lot of fact bending on this forum to suit agendas it seems

I did just look at a map, and by road, it's just under 5km. So Waewick isn't guilty of 'fact bending'.
What agendas would those be, out of curiosity..

mutt wrote: my point is the SA govt cocked up the design of Adelaide Oval and we probably didnt even need it in the first place. the business case is flimsy at best.
it seems the whole thing was rushed due to Foley's desire to watch Power in the city.

it is time to reign in such extravagant spending.

whats your point?

I don't see your point.
So one minute we have second rate infrastructure, and now our new infrastructure is not needed?

The business case is flimsy? Can I ask what qualifications and expertise you have to be making such statements? And, elaborate on why it is 'flimsy'.

It seems the whole thing was rushed so Foley can watch Port in the city? Really? And you base this assumption on.....?

I still don't see any valid or relevant point you have made..

rev wrote:

mutt wrote:

Waewick wrote:it is only 5kms from the Perth CBD and a 5 minute drive.

AO is 500m from the Adelaide CBD and a 5 minute Walk.

I know which one I prefer.

Will be interesting if we can ever upgrade it.

its not 5km. look at a map. its even closer than Subiaco.
its around the same distance as AO is to the CBD.

there's a lot of fact bending on this forum to suit agendas it seems

I did just look at a map, and by road, it's just under 5km. So Waewick isn't guilty of 'fact bending'.
What agendas would those be, out of curiosity..

mutt wrote: my point is the SA govt cocked up the design of Adelaide Oval and we probably didnt even need it in the first place. the business case is flimsy at best.
it seems the whole thing was rushed due to Foley's desire to watch Power in the city.

it is time to reign in such extravagant spending.

whats your point?

I don't see your point.
So one minute we have second rate infrastructure, and now our new infrastructure is not needed?

The business case is flimsy? Can I ask what qualifications and expertise you have to be making such statements? And, elaborate on why it is 'flimsy'.

It seems the whole thing was rushed so Foley can watch Port in the city? Really? And you base this assumption on.....?

I still don't see any valid or relevant point you have made..

i've looked at the map. its not even the shortest route to begin with, so its bent already. furthermore a new bridge will be built.
it seems you're butt hurt from earlier ownings. i suggest you not take matters so personally as you're starting to meltdown.

mutt wrote:

my point is the SA govt cocked up the design of Adelaide Oval and we probably didnt even need it in the first place. the business case is flimsy at best.
it seems the whole thing was rushed due to Foley's desire to watch Power in the city.

it is time to reign in such extravagant spending.

whats your point?

that you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

Although it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and these posts will probably be deleted...

Find me a more direct route from Victoria Park Drive(not the on ramp), along the freeway, left off the freeway at the first exit along Plain street till the first intersection with lights, then right till the CBD/Perth Royal Hospital...
Do take note that east of that is East Perth, not the CBD. And that is the area which NearMap lists as Perth CBD.
That is a key factor in your argument since we are talking about how close AO is to the CBD, not North Adelaide.

The distance is about 4.46km.
Hence, no that far off from 5km as Waewick said.

Meltdown? Oh trust me, I'm not in meltdown. I'm enjoying this because you are so easy.

Anyway, this is the last I'm saying on it. You are a waste of time.