[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[rhino]

LAWYER Greg Howe called on SACA to ensure a case against the proposed agreement was put to members as well as a case for the redevelopment.

I think this is worthwhile. Will be good to read a balanced perspective, hopefully (mostly) divorced of politics.

[Vee]

Vote against Oval plan, Adelaide MP tells SACA
State Editor Greg Kelton From: The Advertiser March 09, 2011 12:00AM

RACHEL Sanderson is leading a counterattack against the proposed redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.

The Liberal backbencher is calling on SACA members in the key seat of Adelaide to vote against it.

Ms Sanderson, who won Adelaide in the biggest upset of the state election in March last year, says the redevelopment will turn the parklands into a bog and turn North Adelaide into gridlock.

"On behalf of my constituents, I would say 95 per cent of people in my electorate are against this use of money at this time," Ms Sanderson said."I don't think it's the right priority. There is no urgency to spend the money now."

Thanks, Rhino for highlighting this.

This redevelopment of Adelaide Oval must go ahead to revitalize the city, boost the economy and move us forward. Where does Ms Sanderson pull her 95% opposition in her electorate statistic from? This redevelopment must be beyond petty political party squabbles and should not be decided by the current SACA members or the residents of one electorate.

I hope Ms Redmond will display a more common sense approach.
I am sick of politicians who say 'No' just for opposition's sake. Why can't they display some bipartisanship on some significant issues/developments? It's ironic that politicians often bask in the glory of, or take credit for, something they originally opposed which is then completed and opened after a change of government.

This redevelopment, in conjunction with the Riverbank precinct and Convention Centre extension, has the potential to transform the city, increase its appeal, add to state pride and benefit our economy. Delays will add to cost blowouts and risk cancellation of a golden opportunity.

[Benski81]

How ridiculous, well here's the article on the National's side match at Adelaide Oval in June. Really highlights how it would be a backward step to block the redevelopment:

Socceroos back at the Adelaide Oval after 53 years Val Migliaccio From: The Advertiser March 09, 2011 12:00AM

THE Socceroos are set to return to Adelaide Oval for the first time in more than 50 years.

The Advertiser understands that Australia will play World Cup nemesis Serbia in an international friendly in June and the match will almost certainly be in Adelaide, as Melbourne cannot host the game because of clashes with other football codes.

Harry Kewell, Tim Cahill and Mark Schwarzer are likely to play in the match, which would generate millions of dollars for SA.

Football Federation Australia chief executive Ben Buckley refused to confirm or deny the June friendly would be played in Adelaide, saying "Adelaide is a very strong football city".

Hindmarsh Stadium, which can only hold 16,500 fans, and AAMI Stadium, have both been ruled out, leaving Adelaide Oval as the only viable venue.

"It is our aim to continue to take the Qantas Socceroos to all of our major cities and Adelaide is a very strong football city," Mr Buckley said yesterday.

"It is true we have not played there for some time but I am hopeful that will change in the near future.

"It is fair to say that South Australians are great supporters of football and they deserve to see their national team."

It is understood Melbourne was offered to host Serbia for either June 3 or June 7 but a clash of other football codes' fixtures has ruled out the city's three football-ready stadiums.

But Adelaide Oval has no other sports fixtures pencilled in during the available dates.

Mr Buckley has promised to deliver the strongest Socceroos side available for the two matches in June.

Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium has been targeted to host the Socceroos verses Chile friendly, also in June.

The full-strength Socceroos have not played in Adelaide since 2004, when the nation claimed the Oceania Nations Cup with matches at Hindmarsh and Marden Stadium when part of the Oceania Football Confederation.

At the time, the Socceroos squad featured current legends Everton's Cahill and Fulham's Schwarzer.

The pair is expected to be called up for duty in Adelaide alongside Turkey-based Adelaide-born James Troisi and former Adelaide United attacker Nathan Burns. Serbia has also vowed to deliver a full-strength side, which includes Manchester United's Nemanja Vidic, Juventus's Milos Krasic and Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic.

Mr Buckley earlier this year declared Adelaide could be in the running to host matches during the prestigious 2015 Asian Cup if it met requirements.

SA was initially written off when the FFA presented its bid book to Asian Football Confederation chiefs for the 2015 tournament but only a reasonable turnout - suggested to be more than 30,000 - may sway the governing body to pencil regular Socceroos internationals in Adelaide.

"We know all of the Socceroos are keen to play for their country and for those that play overseas it is always a special opportunity to play at home in front of an Australian crowd," Mr Buckley said.

Adelaide Oval last hosted the national team in 1958 when Australia played England's Blackpool.

[King]

I think the Liberals would be blowing a very different trumpet regarding AO if it was actually an enclosed 'roofed' stadium, much akin to the the stadiums of Liberal policies, past and present.

The Labor Government has backflipped on the issue from a redevelopment of AAMI, to Adelaide Oval, as opposed to the consistentency of the Liberal's policy line, which has always been for an 'enclosed' multipurpose inner-city stadium of larger seating capacity than AAMI.

They're challenging the Labor Government towards an all-or-nothing concept, rather than this toilet-bowl half-baked idea of a redevelopment which was initiated only as a counterattack to the Liberal's plan circa election time.

Rachel Sanderson should be stressing this point more clearly. It's not so much the issue of redeveloping Adelaide Oval, or building a new stadium - I think she'd find a majority of her consituents would support either notion. It's the issue of how and when it is done, as per party policy.

[ricecrackers]

This redevelopment of Adelaide Oval must go ahead to revitalize the city, boost the economy and move us forward. Where does Ms Sanderson pull her 95% opposition in her electorate statistic from? This redevelopment must be beyond petty political party squabbles and should not be decided by the current SACA members or the residents of one electorate.

how and why?

[Pants]

This redevelopment of Adelaide Oval must go ahead to revitalize the city, boost the economy and move us forward. Where does Ms Sanderson pull her 95% opposition in her electorate statistic from? This redevelopment must be beyond petty political party squabbles and should not be decided by the current SACA members or the residents of one electorate.

how and why?

Haven't done the maths, I have a life to lead, but I'd expect that bringing people into the city and having them spend money would benefit the receivers of that money, who would on-spend at least a portion of it and on it goes - with the Government taking its cut all the way through and re-investing at least a portion of it into things that benefit the average South Australian taxpayer.

I'm sure you know that dollars spent on sport, entertainment and tourism don't just benefit the initial users/receivers.

[rev]

I think the Liberals would be blowing a very different trumpet regarding AO if it was actually an enclosed 'roofed' stadium, much akin to the the stadiums of Liberal policies, past and present.

The Labor Government has backflipped on the issue from a redevelopment of AAMI, to Adelaide Oval, as opposed to the consistentency of the Liberal's policy line, which has always been for an 'enclosed' multipurpose inner-city stadium of larger seating capacity than AAMI.

They're challenging the Labor Government towards an all-or-nothing concept, rather than this toilet-bowl half-baked idea of a redevelopment which was initiated only as a counterattack to the Liberal's plan circa election time.

Rachel Sanderson should be stressing this point more clearly. It's not so much the issue of redeveloping Adelaide Oval, or building a new stadium - I think she'd find a majority of her consituents would support either notion. It's the issue of how and when it is done, as per party policy.

Um, what? Maybe read the following line from your party member..

"On behalf of my constituents, I would say 95 per cent of people in my electorate are against this use of money at this time," Ms Sanderson said."I don't think it's the right priority. There is no urgency to spend the money now."

They aren't challenging the government to build a roofed stadium with bigger seating capacity, they are now saying they don't think it's necessary to spend money on a new, or redeveloped stadium at this time because it's not a priority.

So much for your theory that the Liberals have been consistent.

[King]

It's the issue of how and when it is done, as per party policy.

When, being, funds permitting.

Had the Liberals won the last election, that they would have merely continued with the relocation of the Adelaide Railyards, and initiated site preparation work for the new city stadium in the first term, and then gone on to build the actual structure, if re-elected into a second term of government, simply because, funds permitting.

But seeing as the situation has changed and they have been robbed of governance by a flawed system of political representation.

[rhino]

they have been robbed of governance by a flawed system of political representation.

Yeah, right! It's only flawed when it works against them. Still, my question is Where did Rachael Sanderson pull her 95% figure from?. I suspect she polled herself and her cat. Tell she's dreamin'!

[metro]

8,956 people voted for Rachel Sanderson, 6,710 voted for Jane Lomax Smith, and about 4,454 people voted for other parties...exactly how did Rachel Sanderson get 95% out of 44%?

maybe she should have read the Wikipedia article a bit more carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... f_Adelaide

[Tyler_Durden]

I think the Liberals would be blowing a very different trumpet regarding AO if it was actually an enclosed 'roofed' stadium, much akin to the the stadiums of Liberal policies, past and present.

That's funny.

So a fully enclosed stadium, which adds little value, makes little sense and costs twice as much is somehow a priority for that magical 95%? Are the people of Adelaide really that concerned about whether footballers get their hair wet by a bit of rain? You are hilarious.

But seeing as the situation has changed and they have been robbed of governance by a flawed system of political representation.

Congrats. You just outdid yourself.

[believesinadsy]

within reason... you've got to spend money to make money!! i feel it's adelaide's best chance to increase investment in business and just have more interest in the city over the middle period of the year. this better get through, otherwise i really will be be bitterly disappointed.

[Pants]

you've got to spend money to make money.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

[spiller]

I really wish people could put their stupid political opinions aside and just embrace this development for what it is!

[ricecrackers]

I really wish people could put their stupid political opinions aside and just embrace this development for what it is!

no
thats $400 for every man woman and child in this state

FU mods, if you're going to delete my comments then also delete stupid comments like this above