[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Kal El]

That precinct is Canberra’s fourth option I think you will see that they will only end up with the rectangle stadium. 27K for Adelaide in rectangle form??

[stumpjumper]

Spot on. Latest news from Canberra (15/5/10: http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=9531 ) is that the ACT government has agreement in principle for the following:

If Australia wins World Cup hosting for either 2018 or 2022, then ACT govt will put up $100 mill and Commonwealth govt will put up $170 mill together being the total cost of a FIFA-compliant stadium seating 40,000 in WC form and 26,500 in post WC form, when it would be used for soccer, NRL and various entertainment events.

All seats are shaded, and the arena is lit.

Building a new stadium was seen as a less expensive choice than renovating the existing oval facilities which are inherently unsuitable.

Canberra's resolution of its oval/stadium question was easy, quick and cheap at $270 mill.

I believe that Adelaide's difficulties stem from the involvement of SACA's debt in the equation. That debt and the politics of it being paid off with state or even less palatably Commonwealth money are at the heart of our problems, and are the reason the affair has descended into the murky politics for which our little city is famous.

We should separate SACA's debt from WC 2018/22 and look at the question of what is the best and most rational choice for us.

That, I suggest, is for the state government to pay off SACA's creditors, sack their board, finish the Western Grandstand renovations and install some savvy managers to try to make money with the oval and pay back the government its principal over the next 100 years or so.

In the meantime, we do what Canberra has done - $100 up from us and the rest from Canberra for a 40K/26K rectangular arena.

Until we get rid of the local politics of the SACA debt, not even Member for Adelaide Kate Ellis will go near the topic, let alone agree to any funding.

[ricecrackers]

the only other problem to be solved is to find a suitable site

I dont think the railyards is it, as a hospital is going there so it should be forgotten once and for all
I really think this whole stadium debate should be separated from the hospital thing as that just clouds more important issues

[Professor]

Not sure we should seperate the hospital and oval thread.

With so many AFL playes getting caught on drugs others seeming to get injured every fortnight, an underground tunnel direct from the AFL team rooms into the new hospital ER or to the rehab ward could work quite well.

[crawf]

Despite the typical scaremongering crap from our local rag, the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment is still going ahead.

From the article posted.

Deputy Premier Kevin Foley issued a statement, saying Ms Redmond "should stop fighting the State election campaign and accept that plans for the Adelaide Oval are continuing to be developed".

Mr Foley says nothing has changed in terms of plans to redevelop the Adelaide Oval.

"There is a Stadium Management Authority that is overseeing the future development and operation of Adelaide Oval.

"The SMA comprises the peak bodies of the States two major sporting codes football and cricket chaired by the SA Cricket Associations Ian McLachlan with the SANFLs Chief Executive, Leigh Whicker.

"The SMA has engaged a project initiation team that includes architectural firms, engineering firms and specialists in cost management and planning and urban design.

"Until such time that their work is finalised, the Government position remains the same.

"Ms Redmond did not win the election, and her idea to build a billion dollar stadium on the site of the new RAH will not happen.

"It is time for her to accept the reality of her situation and to move on," Mr Foley said.

[Stubbo]

@ Professor, good work!!

The players can then run drug rehab groups and reformed addicts can use the sports ground for exercise...

Seriously though, the Canberra proposal is exactly what I think is needed. From memory, one of the main stadiums being erected in South Africa is exactly the same just larger capacity, 60k now, 40k afterwards. Makes good sense, just like the main stadium in Sydney for the Olympics, over 100k reduced back down to a more manageable level.

In terms of location, keeping it relatively close is preferable to keep a sports focus, what about the area of land west of the southern railway lines heading out of the CBD in Mile End? Bordering the south side of Port Road as it heads out of town and before the new road rail underpass for Henly Bch Rd. Rail is there already, and the Tram runs along Port Road.....

I think this location was proposed by someone already to house a stadium, cant remember what thread exactly, it was before the election.

[Pants]

Why have a cookie-cutter, soulless, cheap concrete mass of a stadium that won’t be needed after the World Cup, when we can have a multi-purpose, modern adaptation on one of the world’s great grounds in the middle of the city that also solves the current problem of having AFL in the suburbs?

Out of all the stadiums proposed for Australia’s bid, I, as objectively as possible, only like Perth’s more than ours and that includes the MCG. Have a look around for some of the proposed stadiums for the Russia, Portugal-Spain and Qatar bids. Some of the Australian stadiums absolutely pale in comparison. The proposed upgraded Adelaide Oval is no architectural masterpiece, but at least the ground has a history, tells a story and will have the three individual stands and the hill (which either won’t be used or filled with temporary seats)/scoreboard as a point of difference.

Have any federal money used towards giving the Oval retractable seats so the World Cup’s Adelaide legacy can be that we are also left with a major rectangular stadium and we’ve got something that covers all bases.

We don’t need two stadiums.

Hindmarsh is of a sufficient standard and capacity for most A-League games. Adelaide Oval can be used for marquee games, internationals or more generally if interest spikes following any World Cup. It can also be used for sufficiently big rugby games etc.

What some people seem to be forgetting is that NSW, Qld and the ACT are rugby towns, so they have a more pressing need for rectangular stadiums. The Victorian and WA (and Gold Coast because there’s a current need) proposals are all AFL grounds. We don’t have the same need for a rectangular stadium and FIFA or Football Australia (if they care) won’t want to leave a white elephant as its legacy in this city.

[Pants]

Perth:




Russia:










Qatar










(Portugal-)Spain:






Here's the venue of the 2010 final for good measure:

[Kal El]

Those stadiums all look nicce in render but some of them won't happen IMO.

I watched the doco on the New Dallas Cowboys stadium..... now that is a stadium, granted it cost 1.2 Billion plus but some of the things they put in could easily be adapted to an AO development that would ahve people going WOW.

[ricecrackers]

Why have a cookie-cutter, soulless, cheap concrete mass of a stadium that won’t be needed after the World Cup, when we can have a multi-purpose, modern adaptation on one of the world’s great grounds in the middle of the city that also solves the current problem of having AFL in the suburbs?

Out of all the stadiums proposed for Australia’s bid, I, as objectively as possible, only like Perth’s more than ours and that includes the MCG. Have a look around for some of the proposed stadiums for the Russia, Portugal-Spain and Qatar bids. Some of the Australian stadiums absolutely pale in comparison. The proposed upgraded Adelaide Oval is no architectural masterpiece, but at least the ground has a history, tells a story and will have the three individual stands and the hill (which either won’t be used or filled with temporary seats)/scoreboard as a point of difference.

Have any federal money used towards giving the Oval retractable seats so the World Cup’s Adelaide legacy can be that we are also left with a major rectangular stadium and we’ve got something that covers all bases.

We don’t need two stadiums.

Hindmarsh is of a sufficient standard and capacity for most A-League games. Adelaide Oval can be used for marquee games, internationals or more generally if interest spikes following any World Cup. It can also be used for sufficiently big rugby games etc.

What some people seem to be forgetting is that NSW, Qld and the ACT are rugby towns, so they have a more pressing need for rectangular stadiums. The Victorian and WA (and Gold Coast because there’s a current need) proposals are all AFL grounds. We don’t have the same need for a rectangular stadium and FIFA or Football Australia (if they care) won’t want to leave a white elephant as its legacy in this city.

I doubt you know much about soccer, but I can tell you that cricket pitches and soccer does not mix. They dont play soccer at Lords and for good reason.
Even AFL and cricket isnt great mix when you look at the issues they're having up at the Gabba, but that can be partially solved with drop in pitches...which is no use for soccer as thats played here in summer for the HAL.

What is being proposed for Adelaide Oval, to me is a mess and will be a weak link in our bid for the World Cup. Add to that I can see there is going to be a massive cost blowout to try and satisfy 3 different sports and the result will be, it will satisfy none sufficiently. So we'll have an overpriced stadium, that I'm sure the electorate will not be happy about, that will be ongoing headache for years to come with surface quality issues.

[Pants]

For what it's worth, I know plenty about soccer.

They don't play cricket at Lords etc because football's the national game over there and each club has a need or economic rationale for its own ground.

We don't have a need for more than Hindmarsh plus a larger mixed-use stadium for occasional games, such as World Cup group to QF games, marquee A-League games (there are two slated for the 10/11 season) and the rare international we'd get.

No, Adelaide Oval's not an ideal soccer venue, but the MCG's past use as a venue for qualifiers and major internationals or the 2018/2022 bid hasn't been questioned to this extent. Nor should it, it's an occasional engagement, just as it would be for any rectangular stadium with a 12k plus capacity in a small AFL/Cricket town such as Adelaide.

Maybe you should come up with a real world economic rationale for anything more than a mixed-use stadium before you start suggesting that others don't know what they're talking about.

[ricecrackers]

For what it's worth, I know plenty about soccer.

They don't play cricket at Lords etc because football's the national game over there and each club has a need or economic rationale for its own ground.

We don't have a need for more than Hindmarsh plus a larger mixed-use stadium for occasional games, such as World Cup group to QF games, marquee A-League games (there are two slated for the 10/11 season) and the rare international we'd get.

No, Adelaide Oval's not an ideal soccer venue, but the MCG's past use as a venue for qualifiers and major internationals or the 2018/2022 bid hasn't been questioned to this extent. Nor should it, it's an occasional engagement, just as it would be for any rectangular stadium with a 12k plus capacity in a small AFL/Cricket town such as Adelaide.

Maybe you should come up with a real world economic rationale for anything more than a mixed-use stadium before you start suggesting that others don't know what they're talking about.

you dont think that staging a World Cup in this place would have a flow on effect to the general interest in the game?
you think it'll just be as you were after such an event?

the whole point of staging a World Cup here is to leave a legacy for the game. Even now in the US, the MLS resultant from the '94 World Cup has meant that many clubs are now building or have already constructed purpose built grounds for the sport.

seriously, if we're just going to be concerned about whether AFL or Cricket can utilize the venue afterward then there really is no point in bidding in the first place.

I still doubt your knowledge on the sport.

[Pants]

Build a stadium that we don't currently and are unlikely in future to need on the basis that we'll get a World Cup group game or so, a round of 16 game and perhaps a quarter final and the assumption that the game will take off sufficiently from there to warrant that stadium being used in the long term by a club who've had to be bailed out and whose average crowd is far less than its current home holds? Excellent logic.

I'm fully aware of the flow on effect that occured in the US and in South Korea and Japan (although their leagues were reasonably well established), and am fully aware that the success of the Socceroos in 2006 had a flow on effect to the A-League's first few seasons, as I am the fact that actually hosting the World Cup will naturally have a much greater effect. Saying that though, the A-League is played over summer, Adelaide Oval's still used pretty sparingly over summer and if the game takes off to the point that a ground with a greater capacity than Hindmarsh is needed on a regular basis, and can be sustained by the FFA, I'm sure something will be capable of being worked out in the short term so that if needed, as was the case with the MLS, something purpose-built can go up.

Do you think the FFA or Adelaide United would want to commit now to the upkeep and other ongoing costs associated with the stadium on the off chance they'll be able to afford it in 2022? I'm sure the State or Federal Governments aren't going to sign up to assuming those costs after the stadium's handed over to its ultimate tenant(s).

Also, the point isn't whether the AFL and SACA can use the stadium afterwards, they'll have their own stadium(s) regardless. It's whether soccer and rugby etc will need it.

Do you have any better arguments? Do you also have any basis for questioning what I know about the game? You're not coming across as intelligent as I imagine you think you are.

[ricecrackers]

Build a stadium that we don't currently and are unlikely in future to need on the basis that we'll get a World Cup group game or so, a round of 16 game and perhaps a quarter final and the assumption that the game will take off sufficiently from there to warrant that stadium being used in the long term by a club who've had to be bailed out and whose average crowd is far less than its current home holds. Excellent logic.

I'm fully aware of the flow on effect that occured in the US and in South Korea and Japan (although their leagues were reasonably well established), and am fully aware that the success of the Socceroos in 2006 had a flow on effect to the A-League's first few seasons, as I am the fact that actually hosting the World Cup will naturally have a much greater effect. Saying that though, the A-League is played over summer, Adelaide Oval's still used pretty sparingly over summer and if the game takes off to the point that a ground with a greater capacity than Hindmarsh is needed on a regular basis, I'm sure something will be capable of being worked out in the short term so that if needed, as was the case with the MLS, something purpose-built can go up.

The point isn't whether the AFL and SACA can use the stadium afterwards, they'll have their own stadium(s) regardless. It's whether soccer and rugby etc will need it.

Do you have any better arguments? Do you also have any basis for questioning what I know about the game? You're not coming across as intelligent as I imagine you think you are.

your language here suggests a bias. if you believe that playing soccer on a cricket pitch is an acceptable outcome for the sport then clearly you have no understanding of it.

that is my basis and your response is to insult my intelligence. I suggest you stick to skyscrapers or economics or whatever it is your expertise is.

at the end of the day here we have a state government spending upwards of $450 million on a ground that neither soccer or the Crows want to use. the Power want to use it but they cannot even get half a full gate at the ground they're currently at.

we have another X million dollars of Federal govt assistance required on top of that just to make the place compliant for soccer for a world cup, yet:
1. how can it be while we have a grassy knoll at one end?
2. it wont be compliant afterward as the cricket pitch goes back in in any case
3. the Socceroos will never again play in Adelaide because we wont have a compliant venue

now can you explain the business case for spending ~$600 million on a ground that is no use to anyone when $250 million would suffice for a world cup as well as any legacy for the game that brought it here?

[jk1237]

so does that mean that the socceroos will never play in Melbourne since they only have an oval cricket stadium thats large enough