Seems there is quite a long way to go to get the Chandelois Oval deal done if the list of SANFL requirements is anything to go by.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26446860-5006301,00.html

Interesting to see what happens if the deal falls over. The SA Government will already have guaranteed its funding to FIFA so if we are successful in our World Cup bid they would either have to build it anyway or build another venue for the World Cup. Somehow I think the Government will get its way because there will be no money for either the SANFL for AAMI or SACA for Adelaide Oval if the Government have to build a purpose built rectangular stadium unless there is more spare cash than they are letting on.

There is also a chance that the Rann Govt wont be in power come March 2010, so those plans could yet change again!

Rann is Labor right?
LABOR 1.16
LIBERAL 4.75
From Centrebet

Betting agencies rarely ever get it wrong with elections. TBH he is doing a great job in other areas of managing the state in South Australia, with Light Rail extensions, heavy rail conversion to Electric trains, he has a solid Hospital solution IIRC and ect. (I should point out this is from an outsiders perspective).

Interesting, I thought it may have been closer than that.

From what I understand there seems to be a bit of resentment towards Rann and his Govt, but there is no genuine opposition from the Libs which will probably see Labor stay in.

But the stadium designs have to be submitted by December 11th?

How can we have a new stadium design when FIFA are judging on our design we submit now. Not waiting for the next election. My view is that when you lock into a contract on that design, the opposition will be locked in?

This issue of design/funding - how it sticks is most confusing.

Does it? My understanding is that they just need to provide the financial commitments, not actual designs. Because as we've seen with Sth Africa and Brazil, these can change.

At this stage each party to the bid has to submit a signed Host City Contract and a Venue Specific Training Venue Cover Contract as well as a Stadium Agreement. What is actually required in these documents I am unsure, however, I understand that they include a firm commitment to provide and fund a compliant venue. I would find it most surprising if a Government signed these sorts of documents without having determined its stadium design at least to concept level and costed that design.

Milton Keynes got a legal opinion that it could rescind the agreement before signing off the final documentation with FIFA etc in 2013 but if it did so it would probably be liable for all costs of all parties to the stage at which they pulled out.

http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=28618

I wish the FIFA requirement documents were in the public domain but they aren't.

Edit:
I understand that the bid book that has to be submitted in May next year has to include designs.

Its better than Football Park.....

But not suitable for a World Cup venue because of excessive viewing distances.

it would be no worse than MCG / Etihad / Cararra / ANZ / WAAAAhhhhh

It certainly would not be worse than the MCG as it is now.

As for the others the design that has been made public is wider than Carrara in athletics track/football configuration. Unless it has retractable seating, which is not mentioned anywhere in the press release, it will have a significantly wider infield than Etihad, ANZ and WAAAAhhhh. EDIT: Unless WAAAhhh is Subiaco souped up.

Of course it would be better than all of them if they went to a rectangular venue.

I know Lowy said at that business lunch in Melbourne a few months ago that multipurpose venues is the way to go but I cannot believe that the FFA would adopt a 6 ovals, 6 rectangular venue strategy. Can't imagine that it would get past the first vote. In fact I think it is an insult to the world football community. Football fans world wide expect the World Cup to be played on quality football stadiums not large cow paddocks. There is still great mirth in football circles in South Africa and England about using cricket grounds. I can't imagine how they will react if we put 6 of them forward.

^ Rudd needs to fund the venues in SA/WA/VIC if he doesn't want to insult the world football community as you believe they will be by our venues we have submitted...

Rudd needs to help the states fund the stadiums. It is not his job to build state infrastructure.

If he wants the venues that you want he will have to fund 75% of them because in SA/WA/VIC Australian Rules Football is the dominant sport.

NSW/QLD have a competitive advantage in funding venues that will be of use post World Cup...

Not at all. Change the design of Adelaide Oval so that it includes retractable stands and you have a venue the equivalent of a stadium with an athletics track around it. FIFA allows 2 or 3 of them. The retractable stands will only cost about $50M. So for Adelaide Oval the state pays the total cost of what it needs for AFL and Cricket and the Feds pick up the $50M extra for the retractable stands. Rann has requested that the feds also pick up the extra cost for FIFA compliance and by this I assume he means the back of house stuff. Not sure what it will cost but the state is left with the $450M and the feds pick up $50M for retractable stands and another say $100m for the back of house stuff. Hey presto a $600M FIFA compliant stadium at a cost of $450M to the state and $150M to the feds. If the feds are feeling their normal generous self they often pick up 33% of state stadium costs so they might tip in another $150M which would result in a 50-50 split of the costs. The feds paying 75% in never going to happen unless it is for a stadium that the state doesn't need which is not the case in SA or WA.