$450 Million Upgrade for Adelaide Oval - will host AFL/WC

beastjim · Post by **beastjim** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:34 am

Can any one else see Adelaide claiming the 4th Major Final spot within our bid with this stadium, that would mean a capacity over 66,000? Essentially claiming either a Semi Final or perhaps 3rd Play Off. Perth would seem very reluctant to commit to something of this size actually, and the best you can get out of redeveloping Subiaco was about 55,000 IIRC

nobleoz · Post by **nobleoz** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:47 am

There are 2 questions yet to be answered:
1. Are the SACA prepared to hand over control to SANFL for 6 months?
2. Will SACA members be allowed their privilge during the football season?

If the answer is "yes", then we have the same problems which led to SANFL building Fotball Park. And if SANFL & SACA members are catered for, that leaves just 10,000 seats for ordinary footy supporters!

Other issues yet to be addressed:
1. 50,000 is too small for future AFL needs.
2. Parking is hopeless.
3. If it is a venue for soccer WC they won't be able to use Westlakes for AFL according to the FIFA rules.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:16 am

beastjim wrote:Can any one else see Adelaide claiming the 4th Major Final spot within our bid with this stadium, that would mean a capacity over 66,000? Essentially claiming either a Semi Final or perhaps 3rd Play Off. Perth would seem very reluctant to commit to something of this size actually, and the best you can get out of redeveloping Subiaco was about 55,000 IIRC

Not sure whether Semi Final is 60 or 66,000

But a venue in the inner city of Adelaide means a venue of 66,000 is far more viable than had it been at Football Park. I went there three times this year, its an hour to get back into the city after the match...

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:37 am

nobleoz wrote:There are 2 questions yet to be answered:
1. Are the SACA prepared to hand over control to SANFL for 6 months?
2. Will SACA members be allowed their privilge during the football season?

If the answer is "yes", then we have the same problems which led to SANFL building Fotball Park. And if SANFL & SACA members are catered for, that leaves just 10,000 seats for ordinary footy supporters!

Other issues yet to be addressed:
1. 50,000 is too small for future AFL needs.
2. Parking is hopeless.
3. If it is a venue for soccer WC they won't be able to use Westlakes for AFL according to the FIFA rules.

I asked you whether you supported the World Cup bid? You said yes to me a few months ago.

The only way the AFL are getting a new stadium is because SA needs to show its commitment to a World Cup compliant venue. Football Park was never going to be able to be made football compliant...

Announce whether you no longer want the World Cup or not, because it seems all you are worried about is the AFL. This is for one misely season in 8 -12 years time. The amount of AFL focussed discussion about this venue would really question whether or not you are even worried that we get the World Cup now.

You want a World Cup, but on the AFL terms, its that your position?

gyfox · Post by **gyfox** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:58 am

jimmy wrote:
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.

Do you think that Cricket and AFL will buy the idea of a going without their stadium for the 12 months(?) it takes to construct and demolish the "Temporary" stand at the Hill end? Remember that FIFA does not allow temporary stands so that it would have to be permanent removable construction. FIFA has been very demanding in South Africa. Any "temporary" seating there has been required to fully satisfy their requirements for safety and spectator comfort including the same level of access to amenities.

East - West orientation is not normal for a football pitch. Orientation should be determined by a sun study taking into account the time of day for games. As a general rule 15 degrees west of north is best for football in winter.

I certainly hope that the FFA is insisting on the ground including retractable stands for it to be included in the bid otherwise it will be well out of spec for venues that are used for the World Cup. There doesn't seem to be any allowance in the design made available so far that includes any compromise to making it suitable for football.

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:26 am

jimmy wrote:
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.

Definitely.

jimmy · Post by **jimmy** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:41 am

nobleoz wrote:There are 2 questions yet to be answered:
1. Are the SACA prepared to hand over control to SANFL for 6 months?
2. Will SACA members be allowed their privilge during the football season?

If the answer is "yes", then we have the same problems which led to SANFL building Fotball Park. And if SANFL & SACA members are catered for, that leaves just 10,000 seats for ordinary footy supporters!

Other issues yet to be addressed:
1. 50,000 is too small for future AFL needs.
2. Parking is hopeless.
3. If it is a venue for soccer WC they won't be able to use Westlakes for AFL according to the FIFA rules.

In answer to your questions:
1- The ground will be controlled by a trust, so no problems with handover of control every year.
2- Yet to be determined- most likely there will be different tiers of membership to include just cricket, or just football, just crows or port, or the full range

and

1- Agreed, think it needs to be closer to 60, hopefully this will occur as they design is finalised
2- Talk of a new underground park as part of the redevelopment, plus it would be expected that most will now use public transport as everything leads to the city. remember Skilled Stadium on GC has no parking whatsoever.
3- During WC the AFL will continue and it could be at West Lakes. FIFA rules dont apply to a domestic competition like AFL, only major events like internationals etc

Also gyfox, there has been no talk of retractable seating and I doubt there will be. Govt is seeking $100m of Federal funds to make sure stadium is FIFA compliant so perhaps there is a chance there? Either way this will be the Adelaide Stadium put forward in the bid so someone needs to make it work somehow.....ill leave that to the experts!

gyfox · Post by **gyfox** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:58 am

jimmy wrote: Also gyfox, there has been no talk of retractable seating and I doubt there will be. Govt is seeking $100m of Federal funds to make sure stadium is FIFA compliant so perhaps there is a chance there? Either way this will be the Adelaide Stadium put forward in the bid so someone needs to make it work somehow.....ill leave that to the experts!

I accept that this is the option that will be put forward for inclusion in the bid but do you have any inkling as to whether the FFA will accept what is an unsatisfactory option for football. The design is first and last and everything in between an AFL/Cricket venue. It has nothing in it other than a grass surface, grandstands and lighting that make it suitable for football. The problem is the grass area is too big, the stands are too far away and the lighting is in the wrong place.

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:04 am

The design is first and last and everything in between an AFL/Cricket venue. It has nothing in it other than a grass surface, grandstands and lighting that make it suitable for football. The problem is the grass area is too big, the stands are too far away and the lighting is in the wrong place.

While I completely agree with most of what you say, why is the lighting in the wrong place for football?

It actually looks like the lighting is in the wrong place for cricket, being very end-centric, rather than on the sides. If I was a batsman facing up to Shaun Tait I'd be rather nervous with two giant floodlights shining directly into my eyes! [/code]

gyfox · Post by **gyfox** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:14 am

Boba Fett wrote:
The design is first and last and everything in between an AFL/Cricket venue. It has nothing in it other than a grass surface, grandstands and lighting that make it suitable for football. The problem is the grass area is too big, the stands are too far away and the lighting is in the wrong place.
While I completely agree with most of what you say, why is the lighting in the wrong place for football?

It actually looks like the lighting is in the wrong place for cricket, being very end-centric, rather than on the sides. If I was a batsman facing up to Shaun Tait I'd be rather nervous with two giant floodlights shining directly into my eyes! [/code]

1. A modern football stadium has the lighting under the roof along the sides. This is a huge energy saving and is part of FIFA's thrust towards green design.

2. Although 4 light towers can provide the required lux, for high quality broadcasting 6 towers are much better because the shadows can be controlled.

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:26 am

Ah... And yet the MRS went down that route as well...

dibo · Post by **dibo** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:37 am

Boba Fett wrote:
The design is first and last and everything in between an AFL/Cricket venue. It has nothing in it other than a grass surface, grandstands and lighting that make it suitable for football. The problem is the grass area is too big, the stands are too far away and the lighting is in the wrong place.
While I completely agree with most of what you say, why is the lighting in the wrong place for football?

It actually looks like the lighting is in the wrong place for cricket, being very end-centric, rather than on the sides. If I was a batsman facing up to Shaun Tait I'd be rather nervous with two giant floodlights shining directly into my eyes! [/code]

It's in the wrong place for football for much the same reason - a long bomb comes through and you're looking into a floodlight. They're also in a spot where a keeper rising to take a cross is going to be looking into them. Worst of both worlds.

Most modern grounds these days have something like a string of lights under the roof of the side stands - it's less dazzling if you look into any one bit of it, reduces shadows and gives a more even spread.

beastjim · Post by **beastjim** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:40 pm

Gyfox, how well do you think this stadium performs with the 190m rule? The stands appear to be of a reasonably steep nature, which helps in that regard.
Also It would appear the cricket wicket will not be a permanent fixture, if the pictures of it in AFL mode are correct, it appears to be 100 % grass.

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:42 pm

jimmy wrote: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......

It had to be a very sweet deal to entice the SANFL to give up an owned stadium and go back to be a tenant . The reason they left AO in the first place was because they couldn't get a reasonable deal .
The AFL were coaxed away from Waverley and are currently lamenting the fact , so I hope they did their homework .

.

gyfox · Post by **gyfox** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:57 pm

beastjim wrote:Gyfox, how well do you think this stadium performs with the 190m rule? The stands appear to be of a reasonably steep nature, which helps in that regard.
Also It would appear the cricket wicket will not be a permanent fixture, if the pictures of it in AFL mode are correct, it appears to be 100 % grass.

It is pretty hard to judge the 190m issue without a plan view. What I have seen from the SACA info on the western stand development is that they are sticking with the front concourse between the bottom bowl and the stands which pushed the tiers a further 8(?)m further back which is not positive for viewing distances in the stands.

I have done a rough calculation of the infield area based on an assumed length of 186m and it comes to 19,300 sm m or about 80% bigger than the FIFA recommended infield size. That is a lost opportunity of about 15,000 seats when compared to a rectangular stadium. Views at boundary distance would also be much better than proposed because they would be elevated about 6m above the pitch too. Just shows how much of a compromise an oval of this size is. 15,000 seats could be closer than the closest for the oval, every seat could be 20m closer to the edge of the pitch and every seat could have a much better view than a seat with equivalent viewing distance in an oval venue because of the rake of the stand.

EDIT: Working off Google Earth and the images on Adelaide Now it appears that the back of the stands in the 4 corners will be pushing if not slightly over the 190m maximum permissible viewing distance. I will need better drawings to be sure of if and how many seats are outside the limit. That a 50,000 seat even approaches the 190m maximum shows how poor it is for viewing football.