Sensational-Adelaide.com

mattblack wrote:My opinion is that Adelaide cannot possibly support a independent sporting facility. It must be a multi use stadium with multiple sporting codes in mind for the most effective long term use. If AUFC went it alone it would stand more or less idle for more or less half the year. Financial russian roulette.

Ho Really wrote:

Wayno wrote:...also agree with Norman about concerts, etc...

Did you guys read my post earlier on? Open air in summer would be perfect. No need for air conditioning and other extra electricity expenses (besides those on stage). So if they plan it with that in mind and have all the extra facilities (extra restrooms, cafe/bars, restaurants, etc.) why should it not work.

Cheers

Tyler_Durden wrote:[...]

The World Cup bid that we are yet to win and realistically have no chance of winning? International matches that will come along once every couple of years? Like those World Cup Qualifiers that Adelaide have hosted in recent years with crowds as small as 2,000 for Australia games despite players the calibre of Cahill, Breciano, Grella, Emerton, Kalac and others coming from Europe to play in them?

Adelaide missed out on World Cup Qualifiers this year not because of any stadium issue (FFA have said AAMI fits their needs) but because Adelaide's public continually fail to turn up, while the cities that are getting games this year such as Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne do draw crowds. It's as simple as that unforunately. Adelaide had their chance in 2004 and showed a lack of interest.

Ho Really wrote:If Fontanarosa and United want a stadium let them build it and let's support them.

I do support them. I do it by attending AUFC games pretty much every time they play at home. Can everyone here saying we need a new stadium say the same?

Ho Really wrote:

Wayno wrote:...also agree with Norman about concerts, etc...

Did you guys read my post earlier on? Open air in summer would be perfect. No need for air conditioning and other extra electricity expenses (besides those on stage). So if they plan it with that in mind and have all the extra facilities (extra restrooms, cafe/bars, restaurants, etc.) why should it not work.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote: I'm one of those armchair supporters. I know a few others (many ex-Adelaide City and West Adelaide supporters). We would go, but only if they gave us the right facilities. We may even bring our families.

Cheers

City stadium for just $520m
A CONSULTANT'S report commissioned by the State Opposition estimates a sports stadium could be built in the city for about $520 million.

The costings, by an international property and construction consultants, and provided to the Sunday Mail by the Opposition, does not include GST, land costs or site remediation.
The estimate was immediately dismissed by the State Government, which accused the Opposition of "recklessness" for citing anonymous sources.

The Government has repeatedly ruled out any support for building a city stadium, putting its likely costs at more than $1 billion.

However, the Opposition claims the new estimate shows a stadium could be built at City West without being a burden on taxpayers.

Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said the estimate exposed the Government's $1 billion claim as a scare tactic.

"We can now debate this issue in a more sensible and rational light," he said yesterday.

"These numbers show how taxpayers won't be slugged a cent for the stadium.

"Firstly, it stacks up as an attractive private investment, and secondly, in the event it was government funded, savings made on rebuilding the RAH at its current site would exceed this figure. The ideal prospect would be to have private investment in the stadium and the other savings invested into additional health services.

"So the choice for taxpayers is either you have The Marj and nothing else at City West, or you have a new hospital and a new stadium, better health services and a much better use of the City West precinct." The estimate is based on:

A stadium for AFL football, soccer, rugby and cricket.

BUILT to FIFA World Cup standards.

ABILITY to close the roof.

CAPACITY of 50,000 seats.

CORPORATE facilities.

CAR parking for at least 2500 vehicles.

CONFERENCE facilities for at least 1000 people with the ability to reduce the size of rooms to accommodate 300-400 people.

CAPACITY for concerts.

USE of recycled water and solar panels.

The Opposition says the multi-national firm that prepared the costing wanted to remain anonymous for commercial reasons. The Sunday Mail has been given the firm's name.

But Treasurer Kevin Foley accused the Opposition of "gross recklessness" in citing such a report. "To trot out figures by an unnamed consultant shows they have no credibility and demonstrates how reckless they would be if they ever got their hands on the state's finances," he said.

"Telstra Dome cost more than that a decade ago, and the Perth stadium is costing upwards of $1.5 billion.

"To trot out an unverified figure by an unnamed consultant is gross recklessness. Labor will not be building a stadium in the city."

The SANFL, Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club all have backed an upgrade of AAMI Stadium rather than a new city stadium.

Wayno wrote:i wonder if this issue will linger til the next state election

CAPACITY of 50,000 seats.

Cruise wrote: also, can he provide a time line as for when they will build it?

Pistol wrote:

Cruise wrote: also, can he provide a time line as for when they will build it?

Probably not as all I see MHS doing is buying votes. He still says that upgrading AAMI is an option.

And I am with you Cruise, why build a brand new stadium with a lower capacity than the one we already have?

adam73837 wrote:What I really find frustrating about the current government is the fact that they a) are stubborn; b) cover up their own mistakes by criticising others (for example, if the government actually did things, Adelaidians wouldn't be a bunch of bloody whingers); c) try to make themselves look good despite the fact that they have not done anything iconic for the state.
When you have the chance to think about it, ask yourself: What has Mike Rann and his government done for our state that will truly have a positive impact on the future? Other than the tramline extension, what have they done? And to make a fair point, the tramline extension has done nothing other than create overcrowding in the trams, which has lead to fainting, which has lead to the government stating that people should wear lighter clothing despite the fact that there could be a storm outside. But that doesn't matter, we'll just sweep that under the rug so that we can build our hospital on a prime real estate site, rather than developing the area into a prime entertainment precinct which will attract people to the city and thus bring it alive. It isn't that what Rann's good mate Don Dunstan would have wanted (BTW, Media Mike has done hardly anything compared to Dunstan, at least he brought culture to the city. But anyway, that's another story. And as stated in this forum, build the hospital at the Keswick military barracks which can be connected to a train station with one of those skybridges and could then have an interchange for buses situated somewhere on the site... But wait! What am I thinking? National Trust would never approve of this!!!
The point is that if Rann wants to stay in office (which probably won't happen...) he needs to wake up and stop thinking on behalf of the Parklands Preservation Committee, the conservative minorities, the Retirement Home residents of Glenelg (who sit atop their skyscraper balconies situated 3m above the ground) and of course National Trust.
I'm not saying Martin Hamilton-Smith is perfect, but he's a heck of a lot better than the Media Mike.