Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Gyfox from the start our main weakness has been the stadium situation. Adelaide was always going to do an Adelaide Oval redevelopment over rectangular venue. It was an argument that can not be won when you look at the crowds Adelaide United have and the lack of interest of Union and League even when you compare it to fellow Aussie Rules mad state WA.
The other aspect that bewilders me is that Dimwit thinks Football Park will remain able to host AFL when the World Cup is on
Surely other than Adelaide Crows headquarters it will be largely sold off as real estate? It will be the biggest white elephant for the SANFL and I see no reason why Dimwit would expect it to stay open, other than the AFL are going to pay the SANFL to keep it in good condition for the World Cup.
Egan wrote:
I don't know how true this is, because when I was in Adelaide they were pushing the stand forward to actually make the venue more intimate. So it will be less than 124m.
The documents on the SACA site show the venue as 132m wide.
Egan wrote:Gyfox from the start our main weakness has been the stadium situation. Adelaide was always going to do an Adelaide Oval redevelopment over rectangular venue. It was an argument that can not be won when you look at the crowds Adelaide United have and the lack of interest of Union and League even when you compare it to fellow Aussie Rules mad state WA.
I understand the shortage of cities to host is a problem but if we put forward stadiums that are not designed for football then we don't do our bid any good at all. What has been made available so far are images of an AFL/Cricket venue. If that is how it is to stay then it should not be included in our bid. If that means we do not have enough stadiums to continue with our bid we should withdraw. Submitting non football stadiums would not do us any good in fact it would make us the laughing stock of world football.
I don't think Adelaide Oval as an option becomes the death warrant of our bid.
If we don't have the perfect venues its the fault of both the FFA and Federal Government of misjudging the costs of the bid and its the fault of all.
In SA they don't have rectangular venues of over 40,000 because there isn't the demand.
Should they be compensated over the top of other states, I have suggested before that this belief that all states should contribute the same is misguided.
The reality is the SA Government are presenting a bid that will have benefits to all and within the capabilities of their budget commitments. They still have diesel trains, lower wages than the rest of the country, huge water issues and have prioritised the World Cup bid lower.
We won't win on the best venues in the southern states, but in my mind its not essentially South Australia's fault that this doesn't happen.
I don't think Adelaide Oval as an option becomes the death warrant of our bid.
If we don't have the perfect venues its the fault of both the FFA and Federal Government of misjudging the costs of the bid and its the fault of all.
In SA they don't have rectangular venues of over 40,000 because there isn't the demand.
Should they be compensated over the top of other states, I have suggested before that this belief that all states should contribute the same is misguided.
The reality is the SA Government are presenting a bid that will have benefits to all and within the capabilities of their budget commitments. They still have diesel trains, lower wages than the rest of the country, huge water issues and have prioritised the World Cup bid lower.
We won't win on the best venues in the southern states, but in my mind its not essentially South Australia's fault that this doesn't happen.
My opinion is that the Feds should ensure that all stadium proposals are compliant before the bid goes in. If they need to fund the extra, as the SA Government is suggesting in their press release, then they should do it.
Putting in non compliant stadiums is a waste of time when you are bidding against the likes of Russia, England, USA, Spain/Portugal, Holland/Belgium etc because they won't.
Yes this venue will be compliant, but will be less suitable than other 60,000 seat venues in other nations.
Was there any doubt that because the major sport is Aussie Rules that in Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne that we will have venues that are not as good as what England and the States can deliver.
Its common sense, we recognise the weakness in our bid and we move on.
Next time we host a World Cup the demand in Adelaide and Perth may warrant 40,000 seat rectangular venues.
Egan wrote:Yes this venue will be compliant, but will be less suitable than other 60,000 seat venues in other nations.
Was there any doubt that because the major sport is Aussie Rules that in Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne that we will have venues that are not as good as what England and the States can deliver.
Its common sense, we recognise the weakness in our bid and we move on.
Next time we host a World Cup the demand in Adelaide and Perth may warrant 40,000 seat rectangular venues.
I'm not too worried about the capacity of our stadiums. We have a good spread of capacities. MCG - 95,000, ANZ - 85,000, WA - 70,000 (or Subiaco - 45,000), Suncorp - 60,000, Etihad - 55,000, SFS - 50,000, Adelaide Oval - 50,000, and the rest 45,000. We just need to make sure we submit compliant stadiums so that our bid stands or falls on issues that are not technical.
Other than the grass hill, which makes it look a bit amateur (and arguably dangerous when packed), it looks to be brilliant. They even seem to have done away with the odd shape of the ground on favour of an actual oval (which was kind of ironic given it was called Adelaide Oval).
Rob wrote:Other than the grass hill, which makes it look a bit amateur (and arguably dangerous when packed), it looks to be brilliant. They even seem to have done away with the odd shape of the ground on favour of an actual oval (which was kind of ironic given it was called Adelaide Oval).
Yes , it always looked like a rectangular stadium with corners .
Bit of a strange decision , well no - a compromise , just not the best option .
You'd think by pooling resources that they could have come up with a better plan that didn't include heritage listing constraints . The Libs plan was much better , but then this is cheaper .So they will eventually knock down Westlakes with a much greater potential capacity and eventually this new oval when they see the need for one larger . It's like Subiaco and the WACA revisited .WTF can't governments get it right in the first place and stop wasting money over the long term .
Jeffles wrote:It looks like Memorial Drive has a roof over the main courts or that is a new building meaning tennis is gone. Probably the former.
Temp seating at the northern end for a FIFA WC and SACA/SANFL members retain the view of the cathedral beyond the scoreboard.
Yep, Memorial Drive gets a roof and will double as a post match venue for supporters ala the Crows 'shed'. This would probably have been a requirement to get Crows to agree to shift. Good result for tennis too actually.
I think retaining the hill actually helps to make the stadium suitable for the World Cup. For the Cup I am convinced that a temporary stand should be erected at the Northern end, but 20-30m within the oval joining the end of the east and west stands. This would bring the stand much closer to the football pitch, perhaps even allowing an East/West config of the pitch?
Also FFA have been involved in the preliminary deisgn process, so hopefully there is some sort of plan in place already which does not compromise the bid too much.
Overall, the stadium is a great result for AFL and cricket and really the only viable solution in SA. Perhaps one day a rectangular stadium will be viable but for now Hindmarsh will have to do.
AAMI Stadium will remain the training home for the Crows and host NAB Cup matches. The surrounding land is being rezoned as residential and sold off, with SANFL keeping the profits- very sweet deal for them but I guess it had to be to entice them to move into the city......
