#VIS: Inner-City Stadium/Riverbank Precinct

[muzzamo]

People here seem to be missing the concept of Cost/Benefit. A billion dollar stadium that will be not used for either cricket or footy is a little hard to justify

[JamesXander]

AFL (Port and Crows) + another team (NRL, A league even Super 14's) and the venue will be viable.

[monotonehell]

People here seem to be missing the concept of Cost/Benefit. A billion dollar stadium that will be not used for either cricket or footy is a little hard to justify

People here have a vision of a CBD stadium. They have a want for a CBD stadium. But they can't seem to get past this initial stage.

If you want something you need to move it from imagination to reality. Screaming "WANT WANT WANT!" and chucking a tanty when faced with a barrier wont get it there. You need to examine the facts and see how it can be possible. There's the physical; like function, appearance, location. But there's also the intangible; like economics and stakeholders.

We've all thrown ideas into the ring, FIFA, AFL, Multi-use, Commonwealth Games (any more?)
How many of these are a likelihood?
Out of those that are likely, what facilities would be required? From this we can get a real picture of what we need. (Instead of this wishy-washy Cerberus of a fantasy that we currently have) We REALLY need to nail down this idea to be taken seriously.


So come on - let's move past the tanty throwing, 4 year old "I WANT" stage and really WORK toward something tangible.
We're on the 23rd page of this discussion and I say it's time to put a stop to running in tighter and tighter circles and move forward.

[rogue]

I do believe a multi-purpose CBD venue is the only real option and the use of public funds would be appropriate in such a case. Unfortunately the SANFL, in what can only be called greed, are not willing to be involved. The AUFC soccer venue proposal (with the undoubted help of a Federal Government FIFA World Cup grant), although nice doesn’t maximise the positives a multi-purpose stadium would provide the city. Frankly this debate is as much about revitalising the city as it is about any particular sporting code. It is more than a bit rich that the SANFL would hold the development of the CBD to ransom, yet still hold out their cap for Government funding to increase their own asset base. If the SANFL wish to be so protective of their little empire let them fund a redevelopment of AAMI themselves.

Well said Disillusioned. Welcome to the forum.

[Ho Really]

Some recently built stadiums allow for retractable seating and stands either on the sides or at each end of the ground. For example, when a game on a small rectangular area is played the retractable seating is moved into place, and when a game on a larger round ground is played the seating is retracted back usually underneath other stands. The mechanics behind some of these systems that some stadiums employ is amazing!

Yes I know this, but is this done on grass or on an artificial surface that can be removed.

Cheers

i could only find examples (mainly in the US) that rely on perfectly flat "astro-turf" style surfaces...

Thanks Wayno, that's a point I've being trying to make to a few here. Moving stands can only be done on hard surfaces or where the artificial turf can be removed (in a short space of time). Grass is not suitable for such operations. Football (soccer), Rugby Union and League are not played on artificial surfaces here in Oz. It is also not looked on favourably by FIFA (soccer's world body) and would rather avoid it completely.

Cheers

[Ho Really]

The MCG is a cricket/AFL oval and has been used for major football (soccer) matches, as has Telstra Dome. Perth's new ground will be also oval. You would think that all three stadiums would be used for any World Cup games held in Australia.

Whilst it might be ideal to have the old English-style rectangular football stadiums where the front rows are only a few metres from the playing field, it's not the modern way. It's also not the way in many of the older major football stadiums around the world that have doubled up as Olympic athletics stadiums e.g. Rome.

Rome is an exception because it is owned by the local council. Many other stadiums in Italy including Turin, Verona, Udine, Bologna, Naples and Bari have running tracks. They all staged the World Cup in 1990. The trend though has been to move away from oval or Olympic track stadiums. Juventus of Turin were never happy with the Turin Stadium and would have opted for the traditional rectangular-shaped stadium if it weren't a government decision.

How could there be bad viewing "angles" in an oval stadium anyway? The only complaint you could have is being too far away from the pitch, but modern stadiums should be engineered/designed to rule that out.

Oval's are perfect for viewing, I'm referring to the incline angle and then the distance. AAMI Stadium would have the worst angle of any stadium worldwide. You need to be on the top tier to have a decent angle, but then you are going even further away. Football (soccer) has a smaller field and you need to be closer. With Aussie Rules you have no option because of the size of the oval. FIFA will look at these points and others (covered seating, exits, etc...).

As for FIFA's point of view, most major modern international football stadiums have a fair distance between the stands and the pitch regardless of the fact that the stands are designed around a rectangle. Assuming we'd build a 60-70,000 capacity stadium, there's no way the people in the upper rows would have a worse view than say those in the upper sections of the Nou Camp or probably even the New Wembley (I haven't been to the new Wembley though so can't be sure on that one).

There's an obvious difference. When it comes to Football (soccer) rectangular stadiums will always win hands down on Aussie Rules stadiums.

Cheers

[Ho Really]

Let Adelaide United go ahead with their plans for a 40,000 seater, $270m soccer only stadium over the old police barracks near Bonython park. They should negotiate with the SANFL to make sure that AAMI stays an aussie rules only stadium, significantly reducing the cost of the planned upgrade (eg they wouldn't have to make the pitch completely flat). The SANFL wouldn't need to ask the state government for so much money and instead the state government could help fund the soccer stadium. Everybody wins. It would then just be up to Adelaide United to secure the rest of the money. I'll be interested to see their business plan for the stadium which should be completed this month.

Adelaide United, Football Federation SA, FFA, State and Federal Governments should all work together on this option. It's the best one. AAMI should only be upgraded for Aussie Rules purposes or for a future Commonwealth Games (if it will ever happen). I think we should be looking at something bigger than a 40,000 seater, maybe 50-60,000. Football's (soccer's) popularity is getting bigger and bigger and a World Cup will make it skyrocket. Don't forget that most of the overseas students and immigrants we'll see over the next few years are soccer followers. A well built stadium could also be used for the Rugby codes and concerts. Hopefully it will encourage us to have a NRL team here and Wallaby test matches (Bledisloe Cup, Super 14s...).

Cheers

[Tyler_Durden]

Well i hope that when Australia eventually wins the bid for the world cup that FIFA gives
a big thumbs down to AAMI Stadium and thus allows no matches to be played in SA...
We will become the laughing stock of not only Australia but the whole world with such
a pig headed and stubborn State Government and an arrogant and selfish SANFL...

Don't be so petulant and childish. It's not the SANFL's responsibility to provide facilities for a competition that has nothing to do with them. Do you expect your neighbours to pay for your house too?

I'm yet to see or hear any offers by the soccer authorities to build venues for the SANFL.

And besides, Australia isn't a chance at getting the World Cup anyway. The venue situation is not even the biggest hurdle.

Let Adelaide United go ahead with their plans for a 40,000 seater, $270m soccer only stadium over the old police barracks near Bonython park. They should negotiate with the SANFL to make sure that AAMI stays an aussie rules only stadium, significantly reducing the cost of the planned upgrade (eg they wouldn't have to make the pitch completely flat). The SANFL wouldn't need to ask the state government for so much money and instead the state government could help fund the soccer stadium. Everybody wins. It would then just be up to Adelaide United to secure the rest of the money. I'll be interested to see their business plan for the stadium which should be completed this month.

Adelaide United, Football Federation SA, FFA, State and Federal Governments should all work together on this option. It's the best one. AAMI should only be upgraded for Aussie Rules purposes or for a future Commonwealth Games (if it will ever happen). I think we should be looking at something bigger than a 40,000 seater, maybe 50-60,000. Football's (soccer's) popularity is getting bigger and bigger and a World Cup will make it skyrocket. Don't forget that most of the overseas students and immigrants we'll see over the next few years are soccer followers. A well built stadium could also be used for the Rugby codes and concerts. Hopefully it will encourage us to have a NRL team here and Wallaby test matches (Bledisloe Cup, Super 14s...).

Cheers

I love soccer, I am an Adelaide United member. But let's be realistic, they don't get the crowds. Many fans like to think they can or they will, but let's see it happen first before we build anything because frankly we've been hearing this for years. You have to put the horse before the cart, so to speak. Soccer simply can't afford the cost to run a 40,000 seat stadium, let alone a 50,000-60,000 seater. Only the absolute cream of European teams have stadiums of that size. Most, even in the top leagues, do not.

What Adelaide United could perhaps sustain is something in the 20,000-25,000 range, with provision for an increase later with new stands if, and only if, justified.

As for these immigrants, they don't fill Hindmarsh now, and in their homelands throughout East Asia their soccer leagues don't draw big crowds either, Japan excluded. So don't go pinning your hopes on that.

[Ho Really]

[...]

And besides, Australia isn't a chance at getting the World Cup anyway. The venue situation is not even the biggest hurdle.

So what are the hurdles? Please list them.

I love soccer, I am an Adelaide United member. But let's be realistic, they don't get the crowds. Many fans like to think they can or they will, but let's see it happen first before we build anything because frankly we've been hearing this for years. You have to put the horse before the cart, so to speak. Soccer simply can't afford the cost to run a 40,000 seat stadium, let alone a 50,000-60,000 seater. Only the absolute cream of European teams have stadiums of that size. Most, even in the top leagues, do not.

Well, didn't Fontanarosa say they wanted a $250million 40,000 seat stadium? What would adding a further 10,000 seats cost? European clubs are not the only ones with stadiums of that size or bigger...see South America, USA, Mexico, many national stadiums in Africa, Asia, etc.

What Adelaide United could perhaps sustain is something in the 20,000-25,000 range, with provision for an increase later with new stands if, and only if, justified.

Quite true, but you won't get a World Cup with that sort of stadium unless you can assure FIFA you are going to upgrade it to their standards (or to the ones Fontanarosa suggested).

As for these immigrants, they don't fill Hindmarsh now, and in their homelands throughout East Asia their soccer leagues don't draw big crowds either, Japan excluded. So don't go pinning your hopes on that.

That's a job for the marketers so I would never exclude the possibility. Also don't exclude national team appearances.

Cheers

[Tyler_Durden]

[...]

And besides, Australia isn't a chance at getting the World Cup anyway. The venue situation is not even the biggest hurdle.

So what are the hurdles? Please list them.

1. The weather - June/July is the middle of winter in Australia. (I know it's a winter sport but they prefer good weather for the World Cup).
2. Time zones - The time that the games would be played in Australia are not ideal for the main TV markets in Europe and the Americas.
3. Australia's standing in world soccer. Quite simply it is a minnow.
4. Australia's population and economic standing.
5. Venue suitability. And not just in Adelaide.
6. Distance between cities/venues makes travel more difficult.
7. In 2018 Australia will be competing with such nations as England and China to name just two.

Some of these issues have affected past hosts, especially recent hosts such as Japan/Korea and USA. But those countries more than make up for it in other areas I've listed and are seen as being of important markets for soccer with their large populations and economies whereas Aus does not. Basically there is a benefit to soccer by growing those regions. Like it or not Australia doesn't have that importance. There is a lot of politics involved with selecting a World Cup host. Australia doesn't have much, if any, clout in the Soccer world.

[Ho Really]

[...]

And besides, Australia isn't a chance at getting the World Cup anyway. The venue situation is not even the biggest hurdle.

So what are the hurdles? Please list them.

1. The weather - June/July is the middle of winter in Australia. (I know it's a winter sport but they prefer good weather for the World Cup).
2. Time zones - The time that the games would be played in Australia are not ideal for the main TV markets in Europe and the Americas.
3. Australia's standing in world soccer. Quite simply it is a minnow.
4. Australia's population and economic standing.
5. Venue suitability. And not just in Adelaide.
6. Distance between cities/venues makes travel more difficult.
7. In 2018 Australia will be competing with such nations as England and China to name just two.

Some of these issues have affected past hosts, especially recent hosts such as Japan/Korea and USA. But those countries more than make up for it in other areas I've listed and are seen as being of important markets for soccer with their large populations and economies whereas Aus does not. Basically there is a benefit to soccer by growing those regions. Like it or not Australia doesn't have that importance. There is a lot of politics involved with selecting a World Cup host. Australia doesn't have much, if any, clout in the Soccer world.

You seem to forget that we've just recently held an Olympics. Surely we have the credentials.

Maybe you should send your list to Kevin Rudd, Brendan Nelson, the state premiers, opposition leaders and the FFA, and see what they think? You might convince them that we shouldn't bother.

Cheers

[Tyler_Durden]

You seem to forget that we've just recently held an Olympics. Surely we have the credentials.

I haven't forgotten at all but they are hardly the same thing. Those two events are so far removed from one another that I could go on all day listing the differences. Hosting the Olympics (which is isolated to one city) does not automatically make you a good candidate to host a World Cup.

Maybe you should send your list to Kevin Rudd, Brendan Nelson, the state premiers, opposition leaders and the FFA, and see what they think? You might convince them that we shouldn't bother.

Cheers

They'll come that realisation soon enough. Most of those guys wouldn't know the first thing about Soccer. And I'm no expert but I've followed the game long enough to know a little bit about how it works. And I'm sure the FFA would secretly admit that we have no chance and see this as little more than a trial attempt. It's just an opportunity to put themselves out there and try to get some exposure and respect in the soccer world aswell as generating some attention for the sport within Australia.

[Norman]

Just because we're not a shoe-in doesn't mean we can't at least give it a serious try.

[muzzamo]

... but it doesn't mean we should be bitching and moaning about building a 500million --> 1billion stadium though either

[Tyler_Durden]

Just because we're not a shoe-in doesn't mean we can't at least give it a serious try.

Hey, I'm supportive of us making a bid. I just don't think we're a realistic chance, that's all.