[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:52 pm
According to Ten News there is a strong chance of both the SANFL and SACA coming to an agreement within the deadline.
Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3335
Although it's not clear from this what the discussions were about - the "concerns" will certainly include the question of what the parking structure would actually be and their location in the parklands.THE Stadium Management Authority won't negotiate the contentious issue of car parking for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment until after the Adelaide City Council elections in November, SANFL boss Leigh Whicker has said.
Mr Whicker met the Council behind closed doors this evening, where he moved to assure it the SMA was taking the parking concerns very seriously.
Numbers add up for AFL at Adelaide Oval
Michelangelo Rucci From: The Advertiser August 10, 2010 11:12pm 16 comments
HERE are the numbers that have sealed the deal to return elite football back to Adelaide Oval in 2014:
$8.1 MILLION uplift in revenue.
$6.2 MILLION return after $1.9m is allocated for the upkeep of AAMI Stadium as a back-up AFL and SANFL venue.
70 PER CENT INCREASE in Port Adelaide season-ticket sales (from 13,600 to 23,000).
27 PER CENT INCREASE in Power crowds (from average of 24,300 to 31,000).
12 PER CENT INCREASE in Adelaide season-ticket sales (24,700 to 27,600).
8 PER CENT INCREASE in Crows crowds (39,000 to 42,000).
These financials - delivered by the SANFL to its AFL clubs and key stakeholders in a six-hour workshop at AAMI Stadium yesterday - prove football cannot pass up its part in the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.
The numbers, in contrast to the upbeat figures delivered by AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou last week, are based on the SANFL's extensive market research. They are also the so-called "lean" or conservative projections.
"All involved have embraced what they have seen today with a great deal of enthusiasm," said SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker yesterday.
"We have made significant ground today - and the SANFL clubs now have great confidence to move forward (on the Adelaide Oval project).
"Both the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs are way behind in stadium yield compared to other AFL clubs. With new memberships, new facilities and new corporate options in the city, the gross uplift is around $8 million.
"And that takes into account the loss of naming rights at AAMI Stadium ($1 m a year).
"Our two AFL clubs are very buoyed by the numbers they have seen today. And the SANFL clubs see their future underpinned by the asset we have at AAMI Stadium.
"We would be better off moving to Adelaide Oval."
Here are the outstanding issues that will linger beyond the SANFL reaching an in-principle agreement with the SA Cricket Association at the end of the month, the deadline set by the State Government which has committed $535 m to the new 50,00-seat Oval:
A LEGAL partnership - dubbed "the promoters' agreement" - setting the terms of the SANFL-SACA joint venture at Adelaide Oval.
A CARPARK centre, with 1200 spots, on the western side of Adelaide Oval. This $45 m project could still become a joint venture with the city council or a private investor.
CONTROL of the parklands in the Adelaide Oval precinct with the Stadium Management Authority wanting statutory administration of the area transferred from the Adelaide City Council to the State Government.
"Adelaide Oval is cited on parklands - and we respect that," said Whicker.
FEDERAL Government funding, with Whicker vowing to hit Canberra after the August 21 election.
"That is an option," said Whicker. "It is well known the Federal Government wants a FIFA-complaint venue in Adelaide. We are delivering on two key components with a laser-flat surface costing $6 million and FIFA-complaint lights."
Not negotiable with the SANFL are:
DROP-IN pitches at Adelaide Oval.
"That is resolved with cricket, way back - there will be lift-in, lift-out pitches," said Whicker.
NO funding by the SANFL of potential cost blow-outs.
"We are very clear on two issues," said Whicker. "The State Government will not put in more money - and categorically the SANFL will not contribute one cent to this project.
"Any gaps is a matter the Stadium Management Authority will have to work through, perhaps with private investors in commercial ventures such as the carpark. But we will not compromise football in this project."
Agreed, Pants, ACC is also interested in the alleged encroachment of the construction into Creswell Gardens. ACC is also the landlord (they are the 'managers' of the Park Lands under the Park Lands Act) and they also administer planning and building code approvals. As a result, ACC councillors are sensitive to voters. Technically, ACC also has to approve 'commercial use' of the Park Lands, although there are now plenty of precedents for that.I'm just going off the top of my head here, but isn't the ACC's influence on this development limited to the issue of using the surrounding parklands for parking?
Figures like these are often provided by promoters of the project to support their own case, and are notoriously unreliable. I'd like to know if anyone is prepared to put their name to these figures. Why, for example, will footy at AO attract more Power supporters than at AAMI? Remember that the National Wine Centre was supposed to attract 3,000 visitors per week. The estimate was out by a factor of ten and the government gave the $100-million-plus building to Adelaide Uni.HERE are the numbers that have sealed the deal to return elite football back to Adelaide Oval in 2014:
$8.1 MILLION uplift in revenue.
$6.2 MILLION return after $1.9m is allocated for the upkeep of AAMI Stadium as a back-up AFL and SANFL venue.
70 PER CENT INCREASE in Port Adelaide season-ticket sales (from 13,600 to 23,000).
27 PER CENT INCREASE in Power crowds (from average of 24,300 to 31,000).
12 PER CENT INCREASE in Adelaide season-ticket sales (24,700 to 27,600).
8 PER CENT INCREASE in Crows crowds (39,000 to 42,000).
So if the horse is a dud, hire a new jockey, regardless of cost. This project is a poor solution to the problem of providing Adelaide with up to date sporting facility. So far it's been a textbook case of how to waste money. There has been no proper analysis at any stage of SA's sporting needs with regard to stadiums and no analysis of what our options might be to achieve them. All we get is post-justification from those involved. IMHO, we should have a moratorium on this dysfunctionally and amateurly managed 'eastern development' and have a serious look at our needs and options before it's too late. Remember that once we've spent almost a billion, we will have almost the same number of seats and venues as we do now. What a waste of an opportunity.The Government Steering Committee and the Stadium Management Authority, which are key elements of the project, will be replaced by a new structure being drawn up by Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon.
Mr Conlon said the overwhelming mood between parties was one of optimism and he was buoyant about how the project was going.
That's what I mean - our dysfunctional brand of politics has intervened. If either Liberals or Labor had the ability to agree on something instead of having to 'differentiate' their 'brands' on every issue including a revamped hospital, and if Rann and co didn't have to mark their time in power by a massive public project at a city gateway, then long-suffering punters of SA might be spared the waste and inefficiency of projects where decisions are made according to politics instead of in response to the site or client needs or economics.sounds like a good plan, but it's all a fantasy with the new RAH being built there.