Sensational-Adelaide.com

adam_stuckey wrote:

Brando wrote:How often do you see that in football...? Hardly ever, that would probably be the first time i have ever seen such studidty at a football game.

That's right soccer, i will never call soccer football as long as i am a proud Australian, no matter what you so called 'soccer' supporters may argue....

I didn't realise it's Australian to call something the wrong name, if you are going to say it please do it in an American accent since they’re the only ones dumb enough to still call it that as a majority

adam_stuckey wrote:

Brando wrote:How often do you see that in football...? Hardly ever, that would probably be the first time i have ever seen such studidty at a football game.

That's right soccer, i will never call soccer football as long as i am a proud Australian, no matter what you so called 'soccer' supporters may argue....

I didn't realise it's Australian to call something the wrong name, if you are going to say it please do it in an American accent since they’re the only ones dumb enough to still call it that as a majority

The FFA has commissioned plans for a series of boutique 25,000 seat stadiums that, with temporary seating for the Cup, lifts capacity to 45,000.
Stadiums - costing about $250 million each - would be built around the country off the same plan.

adam_stuckey wrote:According to David Riccio at the Sunday telegraph the World Cup bid is all over because Tim Cahill got a little too drunk at a Sydney night club.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the anti-football media since we qualified for the World Cup? I honestly think its coming from the areas that have an invested interest in AFL or NRL, I think they can start to see some of their money slipping away!

Cruise wrote:Seems our team in the world's post popular ball game can't even get a major sponsor. If they were really were well supportered sponsors would be lining up for them.
New kit:


Now don't give me the OMFG GFC!!111!!! arguement, If a sponsor was asured their business would get alot of exposer on AUFC's jumper they would be lining up.

Prince George wrote:Winding the clock waaaayyyyyy back to garys_power's post, did anyone else notice:

The FFA has commissioned plans for a series of boutique 25,000 seat stadiums that, with temporary seating for the Cup, lifts capacity to 45,000.
Stadiums - costing about $250 million each - would be built around the country off the same plan.

So a bunch of places are going to get identical stadiums? So much for being an icon for a city.

World Cup to boost trade

The Australian Government will use next year’s FIFA World Cup as a platform to expand trade links with Africa, according to one of the government’s top economists.

Tim Harcourt, chief economist with the Australian Trade Commission, has told an audience in New York that the 2010 World Cup would bring trade benefits to Australia providing previously difficult opportunities to engage economically with Africa.

“I will be in South Africa next year for the World Cup because obviously that is the world game and with Australia’s strong links now with Asia and Africa we are going to do as much as we can,” Harcourt said. “We want to help South Africa put on a good World Cup and build on that if we can. Africa is the fastest growing continent in terms of trade with Australia.”

Amid the hullabaloo generated by World Cup qualification, increased trade opportunities around the world on the back of the Socceroos’ success is often overlooked.

Harcourt said last year’s Beijing Olympics in China had created many opportunities in the region for Australian companies – and not just big name comapnies. Facilities and infrastructure in Beijing and Shanghai had been designed and built by small and medium-sized Australian companies, Harcourt said, piggybacking on the back of sporting events.

“When I joined Austrade in 2000, China was moving up the ranks and most people were saying it would overtake Japan as out major trading partner in 2015,” Harcourt said. “It happened a lot quicker than we thought.

“You saw it last year at the Beijing Olympics. You saw the Water Cube which was done by an Australian architect that was very visible during the Olympic Games; You also saw it when you looked at the traffic system around Beijing that was done by an Australian; And when you looked at the hockey stadium, that was by a small Australian company; then you go to the aquarium in Shanghai, that was by an Australian company, too.”

Cruise wrote:I never said the AFL clubs are going great guns.

But do you see supporters of struggling Melbourne AFL clubs saying they need there own individual swanky new stadiums?

I only see AUFC supporters doing that.


For the record i'm an AUFC member and a PAFC member, are you an AUFC or even an AFC member? I didn't think so.

flavze wrote:

Cruise wrote:I never said the AFL clubs are going great guns.

But do you see supporters of struggling Melbourne AFL clubs saying they need there own individual swanky new stadiums?

I only see AUFC supporters doing that.


For the record i'm an AUFC member and a PAFC member, are you an AUFC or even an AFC member? I didn't think so.

Not owning playing in there own stadium is a major reason as to why alot of AFL clubs are having financial trouble. If a footy club of any code owns and plays out of their own stadium they bank every dollar generated on match day from drinks, food, carparking, executive suites and so on.
Geelong play out of a 23k oval and bank around 400k a game due to having complete control over it. Imagine how much money teams like the crows would be making if the didn't have to give any money to the SANFL from gameday income.

I think it's up to the clubs to pay for them though, not rely on the government to pay for it.

monotonehell wrote:

adam_stuckey wrote:

Brando wrote:How often do you see that in football...? Hardly ever, that would probably be the first time i have ever seen such studidty at a football game.

That's right soccer, i will never call soccer football as long as i am a proud Australian, no matter what you so called 'soccer' supporters may argue....

I didn't realise it's Australian to call something the wrong name, if you are going to say it please do it in an American accent since they’re the only ones dumb enough to still call it that as a majority

Just before you take up the reigns of your respective high horses people; here's the truth...

All games where a ball is kicked or similar by foot are often called 'football'. The set of rules that govern a round ball game that some English people codified was dubbed 'Association Football' to distinguish it from all the other kinds of football games at the time (rugby etc). The term "Soccer" is a colloquial abbreviation or more specifically, contraction of the word "Association (Football)".

So "Soccer" is to "Association Football" as "Footy" is to "Australian Rules Football".

Now please carry on with your lame "my footy is betta then you're footy, is it. (sic)" game...

Briggzy_03 wrote:

flavze wrote:

Cruise wrote:I never said the AFL clubs are going great guns.

But do you see supporters of struggling Melbourne AFL clubs saying they need there own individual swanky new stadiums?

I only see AUFC supporters doing that.


For the record i'm an AUFC member and a PAFC member, are you an AUFC or even an AFC member? I didn't think so.

Not owning playing in there own stadium is a major reason as to why alot of AFL clubs are having financial trouble. If a footy club of any code owns and plays out of their own stadium they bank every dollar generated on match day from drinks, food, carparking, executive suites and so on.
Geelong play out of a 23k oval and bank around 400k a game due to having complete control over it. Imagine how much money teams like the crows would be making if the didn't have to give any money to the SANFL from gameday income.

I think it's up to the clubs to pay for them though, not rely on the government to pay for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the SANFL own the Adelaide Crows?

flavze wrote:

Cruise wrote:I never said the AFL clubs are going great guns.

But do you see supporters of struggling Melbourne AFL clubs saying they need there own individual swanky new stadiums?

I only see AUFC supporters doing that.


For the record i'm an AUFC member and a PAFC member, are you an AUFC or even an AFC member? I didn't think so.

Not owning playing in there own stadium is a major reason as to why alot of AFL clubs are having financial trouble. If a footy club of any code owns and plays out of their own stadium they bank every dollar generated on match day from drinks, food, carparking, executive suites and so on.
Geelong play out of a 23k oval and bank around 400k a game due to having complete control over it. Imagine how much money teams like the crows would be making if the didn't have to give any money to the SANFL from gameday income.

I think it's up to the clubs to pay for them though, not rely on the government to pay for it.

...at Skilled Stadium when you have a capacity of 25,000, we make a net profit in that game of $638,000 per game, which is $26 per head. If we have a crowd of 85,500 at the MCG, which we did have against Collingwood in 2007, we brought home $771,000, which was $9 a head. Importantly, Telstra, now Etihad Stadium, with a near capacity of 46,000, we brought home $293,000, which is $6 a head. So when you compare a crowd at Skilled of 25,000 compared to Telstra, which is nearly twice as much at 46, you at Skilled bring home to the club $638,000 out of all revenue sources per game and only $293,000 from Telstra. It is extremely important that if an AFL stadium is developed in Tasmania, the lease arrangements and the revenue attraction arrangements provide a high yield to ensure sustainability. It is pretty simple, really.

adam_stuckey wrote: Although i do agree i think a club like Adelaide United wouldn't be able to deal with $250 million of debt. I think the Government should pay for it because the stadium could be used for other things like big name concerts thats another thing that sucks about AAMI stadium!