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.
yob wrote:On decibels, I've been crushed on the front rail of a Metallica show for 2 hours and if the Seahawks can get within 30 decibels of that then they've got my respect.
Couldn't hear sh*t for 48 hours.
Centre front row is the quietest place for most arena/stadium gigs due to the usual location of speakers at the sides of stage. All you hear is reflected sound. Generally speaking the pub rock gigs of the late 70s and early 80s were the most damaging - The Angels/Rose Tattoo/Midnight Oil/Cold Chisel/etc. Ridiculously over-powered PAs in too small venues with little regulation and enforcement of health and safety issues. Gigs these days don't compare.
THOSE were the days...
Maybe they don't compare on the ear scale, but how about on the bleeding shins and "15 year old dick head landed on my head" scale
Some good points. I think the most damage I've ever done would've been The Living End in a uni bar. I'm not sure what was scarier - the walls being that close, or the ceiling
Looking at the SANFL ladder at the moment, the largest and third largest clubs are heading the ladder. I'm quite interested to see what crowd Port v Sturt would get if the Adelaide Oval Effect holds true. If the Port Paaa win the AFL premiership this year, and Magpies play in the GF the week after, then they'll shake the AFL era crowd record.
*edit* well crap, they've now moved the SANFL GF to before the AFL. Wow, the SANFL is the AFL's total bitch these days.
Norwood are through to the GF and Port Adelaide get a second chance. Looks likely to be a good old Port/Norwood grand final. More candy for Adelaide Oval.
Apart from the Australian cricket team, in 2014 the Crows averaged the highest home crowd of any side, in any sport, in the country.
The club would like to see its share of revenue at Adelaide Oval reflect that status.
"The review is certainly not complete, the result of the move to Adelaide Oval hasn't delivered what we'd expect … it's not an acceptable outcome as it is," he said.
Apart from the Australian cricket team, in 2014 the Crows averaged the highest home crowd of any side, in any sport, in the country.
The club would like to see its share of revenue at Adelaide Oval reflect that status.
"The review is certainly not complete, the result of the move to Adelaide Oval hasn't delivered what we'd expect … it's not an acceptable outcome as it is," he said.
So in other words, the clubs didn't negotiate well enough and are now whinging after the event.
It's all about risk. The deal for Port would've been structured to protect Port's downside risk, and the venue is rewarded for it with any up side. Both would've thought they got a good deal. Port hadn't anticipated the surge in support, hence why the deal didn't go their way. I don't have any problem with a board being conservative in this manner. But the complaining at the end is just wanting two swings. We'd all like that.
The tax payer, who owns the venue, put up 500 million for its construction. So it's absolutely fair that we achieve a return. Unless the 40 players want to put up 12.5 million each.
My recollection of the Act is that the SMA has to put an agreed amount into a sinking fund to cover future maintenance and updating and pays the Dept of Sport an annual "lease" that ramps up over 4 years to $1m pa that is distributed to other sports. There is no other dividend to the Government. Profit is split between SACA and SANFL as I recollect.
gyfox wrote:My recollection of the Act is that the SMA has to put an agreed amount into a sinking fund to cover future maintenance and updating and pays the Dept of Sport an annual "lease" that ramps up over 4 years to $1m pa that is distributed to other sports. There is no other dividend to the Government. Profit is split between SACA and SANFL as I recollect.
The ground is leased to SMA but not owned by them. The asset's value is ours.
gyfox wrote:My recollection of the Act is that the SMA has to put an agreed amount into a sinking fund to cover future maintenance and updating and pays the Dept of Sport an annual "lease" that ramps up over 4 years to $1m pa that is distributed to other sports. There is no other dividend to the Government. Profit is split between SACA and SANFL as I recollect.
The ground is leased to SMA but not owned by them. The asset's value is ours.
So it might be but the Government/taxpayer don't get any return from it.
My personal opinion of cricket aside, it's a welcome addition to the sporting landscape. The sport culture of the city was heavily skewed to winter when it was The Crow Show. Now with United earning its spot, Port going "empire strikes backi" and cricket diversifying itself, it's all adding to the "always on" activity you demand from a city.
