[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[flavze]

And for those people still asking for a roof, f*cking hell, last time I checked, footy was an outdoor sport. If you want a roof over your head when you're watching it, stay at home. If Docklands didn't have a roof this would be a non-issue. How many existing or proposed English Premier League stadiums have a roof? I can't think of any European soccer stadiums for that matter and it's about a billion times colder over there in their football seasons than it is here.

It's a ridiculous argument and for people to still be holding it up as a reason to vote down this proposal, especially at the same time as complaining about the cost of the AO redevelopment, is just stupid and typical of this city where everyone seemingly wants everything handed to them on a plate and to be as pampered and comfortable as humanly possible, but doesn't want to pay for it.

There's a few in Germany that have closeable roofs, but to use soccer or NFL stadiums as examples is just wrong. All they have to do is cover an area 100m x 50m, an AFL oval is 150m+ long and near 100m wide, to cover that you end up with a retarded design like docklands that leads to a crap surface.


people who think Docklands is world class are fools, the place has had a shocking playing surface wine the day it opened. imo it's a failure, as having a top class playing surface is paramount to plannig and building a new stadium. AO will avoid this with it's current plan by leaving the North end open and allowing large amounts of sunlight onto the pitch.

[Waewick]

What about an SAW party? Huge membership potential there

no we want anti wingers

seriously I reckon if we started up something targeting the 18=40 bracket we would win a seats.

[Ho Really]

There's a few in Germany that have closeable roofs, but to use soccer or NFL stadiums as examples is just wrong. All they have to do is cover an area 100m x 50m, an AFL oval is 150m+ long and near 100m wide, to cover that you end up with a retarded design like docklands that leads to a crap surface.

Dutch side Ajax Amsterdam has had a retractable roof on their stadium for many years now. I haven't checked, but there should be others besides Germany. The actual size of a soccer pitch is more likely to be around 105m x 70m to 110m x 75m in size. Retractable roofs if not managed properly can damage the pitch surface. It would be like trying to grow grass under a tree.

People who think Docklands is world class are fools, the place has had a shocking playing surface wine the day it opened. imo it's a failure, as having a top class playing surface is paramount to plannig and building a new stadium. AO will avoid this with it's current plan by leaving the North end open and allowing large amounts of sunlight onto the pitch.

Docklands is not world-class. It's Aussie-class, like many other stadiums in this country including the (Telstra) Sydney Olympic Stadium. You want world-class go to Europe and in Asia where they are light-years ahead in design. Adelaide Oval will not be world-class. It will be a good compromise considering what they'll have to build on, so all it is going to be is three non-matching stands put together (an asymmetrical design). As for the north end, it will remain open not because of the sunshine, but because of its historical significance with its Moreton Bay figs, the hill and the scoreboard. The oval itself is so large the main playing area will always get plenty of sun even in winter (unless it pours down for months on end and its ripped up by the footy, then that's another story).

Cheers

[Prince George]

The govt. doesn't give away money for nothing. $100m + per year is the estimated worth of the increased activity in the city. Even if that is reduced to take away what is not being spent at West Lakes, sooner than later, it will more than pay for itself. ... More money in the city and in turn the govt's coffers will then mean more money in the suburbs and the country.

The economics of stadium developments are almost always a losing proposition; history says that whatever else may happen, we can be just about certain that it will not "pay for itself" in the simple sense. Now, I'm no economist, but my limited understanding does tell me:

1. The extra activity in the city isn't interesting if it comes at the expense of activity elsewhere in the state (not just West Lakes). If we say "at AO, I can have a meal before the game and a drink after; at AAMI I can't do that", we have to recognise whether we'd buy that meal and drink at the expense of a meal you would have bought somewhere else in town. Or if spending extra money on that meal means you can't buy a magazine, or a shirt, or whatever. Basically, the money has to come from somewhere, and if it comes at the expense of something else in the state, then the state hasn't gained anything (or as much).
2. Even if we take that $100M as brand new money, the State only collects a fraction of that back in revenues. And, more importantly, only a portion of that comes directly to the State, the rest comes via the Federal governments taxes. This is important: in many ways the state government gains as much revenue from increased economic activity in Queensland as it does increased activity in SA. So if the $100M of extra spending came at the expense of spending interstate, we're still not going to gain that full amount.
3. Even once you've done all that, you have to allow for the changing value of money. Giving you a dollar in a year's time is worth less than giving you a dollar today. If we suppose that the state gets an extra $20M/yr in revenue, a $500M stadium isn't actually paid for in 25 years; even if inflation stayed at just 2%, it would take 35 years (and I believe that the real rate you should use for this calculation is higher than inflation, which puts us looking at a significantly longer time than that).
4. And the longer that it takes to pay for the work, the more likely that, before you have finished paying, you decide that the place is looking a shabby and needs further money spent on it.

So, all in all, I simply don't believe that the economics are any good for stadium building. Now that's not to say that we don't do it, we just don't kid ourselves that we can do it for free.

[Ho Really]

Prince George, well said.

Cheers

[Pants]

The govt. doesn't give away money for nothing. $100m + per year is the estimated worth of the increased activity in the city. Even if that is reduced to take away what is not being spent at West Lakes, sooner than later, it will more than pay for itself. ... More money in the city and in turn the govt's coffers will then mean more money in the suburbs and the country.

The economics of stadium developments are almost always a losing proposition; history says that whatever else may happen, we can be just about certain that it will not "pay for itself" in the simple sense. Now, I'm no economist, but my limited understanding does tell me:

1. The extra activity in the city isn't interesting if it comes at the expense of activity elsewhere in the state (not just West Lakes). If we say "at AO, I can have a meal before the game and a drink after; at AAMI I can't do that", we have to recognise whether we'd buy that meal and drink at the expense of a meal you would have bought somewhere else in town. Or if spending extra money on that meal means you can't buy a magazine, or a shirt, or whatever. Basically, the money has to come from somewhere, and if it comes at the expense of something else in the state, then the state hasn't gained anything (or as much).
2. Even if we take that $100M as brand new money, the State only collects a fraction of that back in revenues. And, more importantly, only a portion of that comes directly to the State, the rest comes via the Federal governments taxes. This is important: in many ways the state government gains as much revenue from increased economic activity in Queensland as it does increased activity in SA. So if the $100M of extra spending came at the expense of spending interstate, we're still not going to gain that full amount.
3. Even once you've done all that, you have to allow for the changing value of money. Giving you a dollar in a year's time is worth less than giving you a dollar today. If we suppose that the state gets an extra $20M/yr in revenue, a $500M stadium isn't actually paid for in 25 years; even if inflation stayed at just 2%, it would take 35 years (and I believe that the real rate you should use for this calculation is higher than inflation, which puts us looking at a significantly longer time than that).
4. And the longer that it takes to pay for the work, the more likely that, before you have finished paying, you decide that the place is looking a shabby and needs further money spent on it.

So, all in all, I simply don't believe that the economics are any good for stadium building. Now that's not to say that we don't do it, we just don't kid ourselves that we can do it for free.

All good points Prince. I haven't read the report from which that $100m figure came and it might be too high an expectation, but I expect that it takes the kind of arguments you raise into consideration so that we're talking about a net effect.

Either way, we're talking about a regeneration/revitalisation of a whole precinct off the back of a sporting development here. Importantly, and not to put too high a burden on it, we're talking about a very tangible sign that the city is progressing, worth noticing and perhaps even visiting. I'm not saying that people will flock to Adelaide to see what's going on at AO or an extended casino, although some will, but if the city's mindset, feel and projection of self-worth changes off the back of progress, it can only have positive economic flow on effects.

If you take what Jeff Kennett did to Melbourne in the 90s as an example, a bit of belligerent public amenity development can be the catalyst for a growing, prospering city. I'm no economist either, but I'd be confident enough in saying that much of what he spent on such developments was a good investment.

[AtD]

The govt. doesn't give away money for nothing. $100m + per year is the estimated worth of the increased activity in the city. Even if that is reduced to take away what is not being spent at West Lakes, sooner than later, it will more than pay for itself. ... More money in the city and in turn the govt's coffers will then mean more money in the suburbs and the country.

The economics of stadium developments are almost always a losing proposition; history says that whatever else may happen, we can be just about certain that it will not "pay for itself" in the simple sense. Now, I'm no economist, but my limited understanding does tell me:

1. The extra activity in the city isn't interesting if it comes at the expense of activity elsewhere in the state (not just West Lakes). If we say "at AO, I can have a meal before the game and a drink after; at AAMI I can't do that", we have to recognise whether we'd buy that meal and drink at the expense of a meal you would have bought somewhere else in town. Or if spending extra money on that meal means you can't buy a magazine, or a shirt, or whatever. Basically, the money has to come from somewhere, and if it comes at the expense of something else in the state, then the state hasn't gained anything (or as much).
2. Even if we take that $100M as brand new money, the State only collects a fraction of that back in revenues. And, more importantly, only a portion of that comes directly to the State, the rest comes via the Federal governments taxes. This is important: in many ways the state government gains as much revenue from increased economic activity in Queensland as it does increased activity in SA. So if the $100M of extra spending came at the expense of spending interstate, we're still not going to gain that full amount.
3. Even once you've done all that, you have to allow for the changing value of money. Giving you a dollar in a year's time is worth less than giving you a dollar today. If we suppose that the state gets an extra $20M/yr in revenue, a $500M stadium isn't actually paid for in 25 years; even if inflation stayed at just 2%, it would take 35 years (and I believe that the real rate you should use for this calculation is higher than inflation, which puts us looking at a significantly longer time than that).
4. And the longer that it takes to pay for the work, the more likely that, before you have finished paying, you decide that the place is looking a shabby and needs further money spent on it.

So, all in all, I simply don't believe that the economics are any good for stadium building. Now that's not to say that we don't do it, we just don't kid ourselves that we can do it for free.

1. I would say the expectation is for spending by visitors, though both offering choice that West Lakes lacks those already making the trip and encouraging more visitors with a promise of a night or weekend at the city's attractions on top of the footy. AFL would be one of the biggest generators of interstate visitors for Adelaide, and unlike other events it's spread out over the season rather than all in one weekend. This sort of revenue stream is a lot easier to make a business case around if you're, for example, a private cafe owner looking to borrow for a business loan. And in your example, a meal in the city vs a magazine or a shirt, chances are the magazine is foreign owned and shirt is imported. It's not all black and white

2. Haven't read the report, can't comment. However not all taxes go via Canberra. Payroll taxes, for example, stay within the state.

3. You're correct. FWIW, the rate generally used is either a bank deposit rate (~6%) or the RBA cash rate (~4.75%) (ie if we just stuck the $500m in the bank, how much money would we have?). The private sector takes this into account in all capital projects (investors require it). I don't know if the public sector is so diligent.

That being said, revenue negative public projects is what government is for. We don't put the 'must pay for itself' on other niceties like freeways and public transport.

[jk1237]

If you take what Jeff Kennett did to Melbourne in the 90s as an example, a bit of belligerent public amenity development can be the catalyst for a growing, prospering city. I'm no economist either, but I'd be confident enough in saying that much of what he spent on such developments was a good investment.

someones on the money. The stadium itself prob wont make much money, but the economic development spin-offs from the change in the image of our city can be enormous. Spending money on public infrastructure projects in Victoria's case has turned Melbourne around, and has led to billions of further private investment in a city that seen as progressive, rather than our very poor image. Completely changed the image of Melb. Its time it happened here. Not every cent needs to be spent on hospitals or roads.

and correct AtD, the increased expenditure by us people in the city will be significantly due to Victorians coming over and spending money.

[mattblack]

There's a few in Germany that have closeable roofs, but to use soccer or NFL stadiums as examples is just wrong. All they have to do is cover an area 100m x 50m, an AFL oval is 150m+ long and near 100m wide, to cover that you end up with a retarded design like docklands that leads to a crap surface.

Dutch side Ajax Amsterdam has had a retractable roof on their stadium for many years now. I haven't checked, but there should be others besides Germany. The actual size of a soccer pitch is more likely to be around 105m x 70m to 110m x 75m in size. Retractable roofs if not managed properly can damage the pitch surface. It would be like trying to grow grass under a tree.

I actually went to the opening of that stadium back in the 90's. Pretty cool I must say. The pitch has had many, many issues over the years, much like Telstra and had to be relaid at least 4 times that I know of. The trend is not all about retractable roof on stadiums due to the massive $ cost on keeping the playing surface up to standard. Even in Europe, where you say world class stadiums are there is only a small percentage of stadiums with a roof, and this in a place that is alot colder and wetter.

People who think Docklands is world class are fools, the place has had a shocking playing surface wine the day it opened. imo it's a failure, as having a top class playing surface is paramount to plannig and building a new stadium. AO will avoid this with it's current plan by leaving the North end open and allowing large amounts of sunlight onto the pitch.

Docklands is not world-class. It's Aussie-class, like many other stadiums in this country including the (Telstra) Sydney Olympic Stadium. You want world-class go to Europe and in Asia where they are light-years ahead in design. Adelaide Oval will not be world-class. It will be a good compromise considering what they'll have to build on, so all it is going to be is three non-matching stands put together (an asymmetrical design). As for the north end, it will remain open not because of the sunshine, but because of its historical significance with its Moreton Bay figs, the hill and the scoreboard. The oval itself is so large the main playing area will always get plenty of sun even in winter (unless it pours down for months on end and its ripped up by the footy, then that's another story).

Stadiums are more and more about the facilities they offer to patrons and corporate clients and not entirely focused on the game being played. Your saying the AO is not going to be world class? I dont know how you can base this on architecture alone, just because its not going to be uniform (which was done on purpose to avoid the "Starility" of the GABBA). I dare say the the facilities that are being incorporated into the stands may be seen as being 'world class' or if not will be pretty close to it.

[metro]

The more i read about this, the more i fear that we will not get that 75% yes vote, it may go close, possibly 60%, but there are just too many of:
A) the conservative people like Mitch Williams State Liberal MP who thinks the upgrade is a waste of money,
B) the people who think the design isnt "good enough" and want something better and
C) the people who want the Liberal stadium and would rather screw Adelaide for 20+ years to try and get it.. also there is another group,
D) Stupid, idiot, wankers (they really are) who think it is a waste of money, not good enough and yet want the more expensive liberal stadium and are willing to screw the city over in the long run to get it

But still, miracle if we get the 75% yes vote

[spiller]

Went to AAMI today to watch the crows and aside from the obvious poor performance, the experience was terrible. Its going to be bloody painful attending there til 2014 if this does go ahead, and if it doesn't cancelling my Adelaide season tickets, the place is that substandard. Plus the experience was made worse having to hear idiots behind me discussing the AO development and whinging about not getting a brand new stadium and another moron saying he's against it because he can't have a BBQ in the car park. Mind you that guy was in his 70's...how ignorant and selfish can someone be?

[crawf]

The poor crowd numbers just shows SANFL's latest advertisement blitz is doing jack all. Around 33,000 for today's Crows vs Dockers match.

The weather was very average today, though AAMI Stadium needs to go.

[Alyx]

FORMER Liberal prime minister John Howard has backed the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.

The conservative elder statesman urged South Australian Cricket Association members to consider the next generation as they cast their vote at a special meeting on May 2.

Endorsement of the $535 million project by Mr Howard - one of the country's most prominent cricket purists - is a major blow to the State Liberals' opposition to the plan and was greeted with private delight by Labor officials.

He is the latest in a string of influential Liberals to publicly support the redevelopment, including former premier and SANFL president John Olsen, former foreign minister Alexander Downer, federal MP Christopher Pyne and SACA chairman Ian McLachlan.

However, the glowing support of the plan by Mr Howard easily carries the greatest weight - he is a noted fan of the Oval, is versed in cricket tradition, and is venerated by many SACA members whose vote will decide the issue.

His urging of members to vote yes "for the future" while giving strong praise to the State Government for a "world class stadium" leaves the State Opposition increasingly isolated in its criticism of the plan.

Liberal sources have privately told the Sunday Mail they are disappointed and frustrated at the parade of former Liberal MPs publicly undermining their position.

However Opposition treasury spokesman Iain Evans said Mr Howard was entitled to his views.

"I am not sure that he is aware the South Australian Labor Government intends to sell SA's forests to pay for the Oval upgrade, or that state debt is increasing from $4.5 billion to $7.5 billion over the next three years, and that SA is running a budget deficit of $300 million," Mr Evans said.

Writing from London last week, Mr Howard had cricket at the forefront as he dispatched his words of advice to the SACA board and members.

"It was a great pleasure to visit Adelaide Oval for the Test this summer and finally enjoy the new western grandstand," he wrote in a letter to Mr McLachlan to be circulated to SACA members and obtained by the Sunday Mail.

"I am even more delighted to hear that the South Australian Government is now looking to continue what we started together with further development so that Adelaide can enjoy all the benefits that a world class stadium in the city will bring."

A central theme in Mr Howard's message was to emphasise how Adelaide Oval - often referred to as one of international cricket's most picturesque ovals - would maintain its heritage while being significantly upgraded.

"SACA has been the custodian of Adelaide Oval for more than a century and during that time has completed a number of improvements but a respect for the history and ambience of the Oval has always prevailed and again, I see that the northern mound, heritage scoreboard and Moreton Bay Fig trees, as well as the famous Cathedral views are retained," he wrote.

"I fully endorse this redevelopment and I hope SACA Members will also."

Officials backing the Stadium Management Authority's upgrade plan are urging members who support the plan to ensure they vote.

No quorum is needed for a vote and other SACA issues requiring a vote usually see only several hundred people bother to cast a vote, out of more than 20,000 members.

With 75 per cent support needed for the upgrade to go ahead, officials are concerned a low turnout will benefit those opposed to the plan who are mobilising fellow members to maintain the status quo.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/former-pm ... 6036597063

[King]

Lots of talk going around town that Govt. are looking into compulsory acquisition of AO if the vote fails.

I'd rather this happen.

[harryjotter]

That would mean agreement from upper and lower house. Any guesses as to how that might go? I can't call it.