[COM] Adelaide Oval Hotel

[Algernon]

Stadiums all around the world have integrated hotels.

[rev]

There is nothing wrong with access to it.
The issues I see are
1)does a commericial hotel fit within the parklands intended use.

2)is it fair to other businesses
a)that paid for their building from money they got from traditional funding methods.
b)Consider advantages of being exclusive attached to a public icon. I am sure a private company could make a killing inside the Botanic garden or attached to the art gallery.
c)is staff such as concierge and security already on-site and paid for and funded by the running of the oval
d)that pay rates and taxes.

3)security of the oval.
This is actually the biggest concern that needs to be clearly explained how it will be controlled.
We closed/removed the drop off ramp and an entire carpark at the airport due to risks of being able to bring large things such as cars too close to somewhere with a mass of people. These rooms will provide a private holding area that something much larger than a car could be assembled over any length of time required very close to a significant structure with masses of people on it. Plus televised to the world live.
Adelaide oval put in temp concrete barriers that are now replaced with permanent bollards as they are scared someone might try to run people over.
A single incident would dwarf any potential win this idea could ever dream of building.
Security of the attached oval needs to be guaranteed.

Perhaps if it’s built the hotel won’t have direct access to the stadium from within the confines of the hotel?
Perhaps it will but on game/match days it will be closed off?
Perhaps it will be built with a certain level of reinforcement between the stadium and the hotel, to prevent anything from impacting the crowds inside the stadium?
Perhaps they’ll implement increased security specifically for the hotel on game/match days?

Who knows, it’s just a hotel proposal at this stage. I’m sure that the issue of security and safety will be or has been considered.

[rev]

My mail is that the parklands preservation group aren't too happy about the hotel being built in that location.

The grass in the north east was ripped up during the redevelopment as was the grass on the north side of the oval on Pennington terrace. It was replaced.

The hotel isn’t going to be built on parklands anyway.
That location wasn’t even grass before the redevelopment, it was a bitumen path.

[bits]

This isn't a proposal it is approved.
Statebank, which I thought was bankrupt from the last time the government owned bank agreed to risky loans other banks would not take, has agreed to loan the $42 million based on the proposal.
The loan is also a clear indication the government has approved the proposal.

So where is the details? It is a tax payer owned venue and tax payers loan so where is the info.

The airport pushed public cars, carpark and hotel back because of international best practice based on its risk.
It seems the airport and stadium have different ideas of what is safe and that really should be fleshed out more why there is such a difference in safety.

[SBD]

This isn't a proposal it is approved.
Statebank, which I thought was bankrupt from the last time the government owned bank agreed to risky loans other banks would not take, has agreed to loan the $42 million based on the proposal.
The loan is also a clear indication the government has approved the proposal.

So where is the details? It is a tax payer owned venue and tax payers loan so where is the info.

The airport pushed public cars, carpark and hotel back because of international best practice based on its risk.
It seems the airport and stadium have different ideas of what is safe and that really should be fleshed out more why there is such a difference in safety.

Perhaps the risk profile is different.

Perhaps we should not be discussing in a public forum all the ways that we thinks "someone" could create terror or mass disruption and injury. It could be "one of us".

[crawf]

This isn't a proposal it is approved.
Statebank, which I thought was bankrupt from the last time the government owned bank agreed to risky loans other banks would not take, has agreed to loan the $42 million based on the proposal.
The loan is also a clear indication the government has approved the proposal.

So where is the details? It is a tax payer owned venue and tax payers loan so where is the info.

The airport pushed public cars, carpark and hotel back because of international best practice based on its risk.
It seems the airport and stadium have different ideas of what is safe and that really should be fleshed out more why there is such a difference in safety.

This hasn't got approval yet.

[Nathan]

My concern is that this the SMA venturing further into commercial endeavours that compete directly against other businesses in the CBD — whilst they enjoy the luxury of not paying any tax on their land, or any rates to the council. If they want to compete in that space, then they should be doing it on a level playing field. Remove those exemptions, and earmark the revenue generated to flow back into improving and maintaining the parklands.

[how good is he]

Some key points below & one that should be highlighted is at the end of the lease the hotel becomes owned by us [the taxpayers of SA] as its on Crown land. So it's an asset that we as South Australians will own, just like the Adelaide Oval.

But the Premier declared there were already hotels in the parklands, such as North Tce’s Intercontinental.
“Commercial operations already exist, not only at Adelaide Oval but in many other precincts within the Adelaide parklands and this is not infringing at all beyond the boundaries of the existing development,” Mr Marshall said.
Mr Marshall accused Labor of exploiting confusion over a State Government commercial loan of up to $42 million for the hotel. “I make it very clear there is no grant being handed over. There is no taxpayer money being given to the Adelaide Oval,” he said.
“Whilst we didn't propose it, we do support the SMA’s continual push for diversified revenue, so that they can make sure that they have a sustainable income to further invest in maintaining that as a world-class facility.”
“This is not a grant, it is a loan with interest payable that will benefit all South Australians,” she said.

[bits]

The lease is 80 years.
People in Canberra consider 99 year lease of crown land as ownership.

[SRW]

Both SANFL and (especially) SACA have had large debts forgiven by state governments in the past, so I think people have reason to be cynical that this money will ever be fully paid back by SMA.

[Nort]

The lease is 80 years.
People in Canberra consider 99 year lease of crown land as ownership.

Yeah, a lease that expires at the start of the 22nd century is ownership for most practical purposes. Not to mention it's very unlikely the hotel will even still be there in its original form after that length of time.

[how good is he]

Yes all fair points but do you concede that all profits from the hotel [further to paying interest on the loan] will go back to the SMA to fund the on-going maintenance & investment into the stadium?

[bits]

Yes all fair points but do you concede that all profits from the hotel [further to paying interest on the loan] will go back to the SMA to fund the on-going maintenance & investment into the stadium?

I never said the hotel only had negatives.
Do you concede the hotel doesn't only have positives, not that you ever claimed that.

[how good is he]

Absolutely and was trying to put forward as much information to bring a balanced argument to what appeared to be only the negative points.

[Waewick]

Both SANFL and (especially) SACA have had large debts forgiven by state governments in the past, so I think people have reason to be cynical that this money will ever be fully paid back by SMA.

are you sure about that? how past are you talking about?