AFL games to be played at Adelaide Oval
By Steve Larkin, 3 Dec 2009 Steve Larkin is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Adelaide Oval, AFL, Mike Rann
South Australian Premier Mike Rann has dealt an election trump card, gifting the AFL a newly redeveloped Adelaide Oval where cricket and Australian Rules football will co-habit.
Mr Rann, facing a state election on March 20 next year, on Tuesday announced the government will fund most of a planned $450 million redevelopment of the historic Adelaide Oval.
In a deal which ends a 40-year standoff between the state’s cricket and football authorities, AFL games will be played at the oval in the city’s heart. International cricket will also remain at the oval.
The agreement also effectively trumps the Liberal opposition, which last week unveiled an election pledge of a new $1 billion multi-sports stadium in the city.
The issue of whether to build or redevelop a sporting stadium had loomed large on both parties’ election radar.
Mr Rann said the redeveloped Adelaide Oval, with a capacity of 50,000 spectators, will be completed within four years – if the federal government provides $100 million and local councils agree.
The redeveloped stadium will also ensure Adelaide is not overlooked to host soccer games should Australia be successful in a bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.
Mr Rann said the agreement was a “once off, once in a lifetime opportunity”.
“This is a historic day in South Australian sport,” Mr Rann said.
“Adelaide Oval is an icon of this city and this state.
“Rather than building yet another stadium at massive cost, the South Australian government will contribute significantly to this upgrade.
“We think this is going to be a fantastic development to bring life to the city.
“We have got more work to be done over the next six months, but what we have said as a government is that the $450 million commitment is there on the table for this development and nothing else.”
Mr Rann said the government would seek a legally binding agreement for the Adelaide Oval site by July next year from the SA Cricket Association (SACA) and SA National Football League (SANFL), which owns the state’s two AFL licences.
The SANFL had played games at Adelaide Oval since 1877, four years after the oval was built.
But the football body, angered by cricket’s control of the arena, bitterly split from the oval and built its own football stadium at West Lakes, about 30km west of the city, which opened in 1974.
From then, the two bodies remained at odds and resisted any co-habitation discussions.
But AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou played peacebroker last year, bringing the two SA organisations together and stressing a desire to play AFL games at Adelaide Oval.
The AFL boss said the announcement was a “day many believed wouldn’t happen”.
AAMI Stadium, which currently hosts all AFL games in Adelaide, will remain a venue for AFL preseason games.
The ground will also remain the headquarters and training base of the Adelaide Crows, and likely be used for AFL premiership season matches if Australia wins the right to host soccer’s World Cup, given any Cup games would be played at Adelaide Oval.
© AAP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (160)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (106)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (89)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (78)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (76)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Andrew Krakouer given four weeks leave from Collingwood
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (32)
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (32)
- AFL Tigers need to step up, says Cotchin
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (107)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (2)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (36)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Explore:
- Adelaide Oval, AFL, Mike Rann
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Steve Larkin – whomever you are – - how do you figure this to be ‘gifting’ the AFL???
$300 million of this package was already allocated towards the long overdue public transport link ($200 mill) to the SANFL owned AAMI stadium and the upgrade of the 51.5K capacity ($100 mill) stadium.
The redirection of these funds to the Adelaide Oval is hardly directing funds to a football asset as AAMI stadium is. Adelaide Oval has always been primarily a cricket ground and SACA controlled compared to funding that was to increase the value of a football asset – even if owned by the SANFL and not the AFL.
The fact here is that the actual football owned asset – AAMI stadium – is to be downgraded, reduced to 15K capacity and football loses off it’s bottom line net asset value. It’s hardly a glittering jewel in the crown for the AFL….however, and the critical question for AFL has got to be how much it’ll cost to hold games there….who will be the ‘landlord’, because, presently, we have the SANFL owning/operating AAMI stadium.
‘gifted’……sheesh…..gifted is the Swans St stadium in Melbourne where the codes walking in haven’t had to pay any price either directly or indirectly. In this Adelaide scenario – - football IS paying a price and making concessions that would see soccer folk whinging all the way to……the blogs of the SMH, TWG and 442!!!!
btw – note to ‘theRoar’ editors – - this is a perfect example of the hierarchy……”Australian Football” sitting above ‘AFL’ and ‘SANFL’. the ‘AFL’ tap is like using ‘NRL’ for Rugby League, ‘Super 15s’ for Rugby Union or ‘EPL’ for soccer. But, I doubt that logic alone can prevail!!!
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
*Thinking very dark, evil, vindictive thoughts*
Why isn’t the SA Govt looking at a rectangular mini-precinct in the model of Swan Street, or is that a little too big brother/little brother complex for Adelaide (pardon: South Australia) to handle. The multi-use stadium is a dying breed and it’s much more orderly IMO to have separate stadiums. It’s all very well to get angry at political malpractice but what/who’s stopping the current situation from continuing and a Rectangular stadium being built.
Hail Mary full of…
Hail Mary…
Hail…
Heil…and so on
Or there’s also Hindmarsh…why is that place getting no silver lining, you do seem to know a bit about the Adelaide scene don’t you MC?
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 5:10am | Report comment
who would fund a rectangular stadium in Adelaide???
there’s no justification,
there’s no conspiracy.
Jaredsbro said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
Maybe Adelaide United when or if they become a successful profit-making club. I don’t know MC, but it seems to me to be a good idea to have at least one rectangular stadium. Is Hindmarsh in the non-operable category? But even if the WC bid is unsuccessful, the world is maturing and so is Adelaide (slowly) with its sporting tastes. There’s no need for a new one but there’s probably need for a plus 25,000 Stadium for Rugby Internationals if nothing else. The Oval might do for the 7s, but some day I think Soccer and Rugby Internationals may have a legitimate stake in the Adelaide sporting calendar.
Freud of Football said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Have you ever been to Adelaide? Half the population wouldn’t know a thing about rugby, the other half wouldn’t care.
Adelaide will never become rugby territory just like Sydney will never become AFL territory. The difference is, Adelaide isn’t big enough to support any rugby team whereas Sydney can definately support the Swans and possibly – although I have my reservations – the West Sydney team.
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
and further to the stadium itself,
a 50,000 capacity,
are they kidding?!?!??!
the Crows 2009 had over 46,000 members……..
surely, surely the ultimate capacity must be able to expand to 60K or 70K.
Although, granted, some of the preliminary sketches show a retention of the northern end ‘hill’…….so, a full enclosed cauldron must be able to exceed 50K.
It’d be a shame to have a local derby in town and no one able to contemplate attending if they aren’t a paid up member with reserved seats.
This is the issue in Perth too as to why they need 60K minimum.
Demented thing is – fed funds might come just because a couple of international soccer matches (for all we know, Bulgaria vs Nigeria!!!) in 12 odd years time……and yet, for stuff that happens weekly, or, at least the twice annual showdowns – - every year,……not just once off…….seem unable to budge Canberra. It’s funny their definition of ‘national interest’.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Should have been 60,000. I suspect they would have been unable to keep one end open to retain aesthetics.
oikee said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
M.C, why do you keep saying that the swan st ground is gifted to 3 codes, ? have you any idea what 3 codes, and how much money, not just interstate, but around the world with avertising and free tourist avertising of melbourne is gifted to melbourne. ?
These codes are known internationally, the Storm, England, The kangaroos, England, France.,, the Wallibies, well at least 10 countries, and socceroos, and Melbourne victory, Asian and around the whole world. Now are you going to tell me that this is not going to make the Victorian Governments investment in this stadium worth while. ?
Please tell me you are not. This stadium will pay for itself in 5 years. Tourism dollars alone. Nobody travels to Melbourne to watch essedon play collingwood. It sounds good, but does nothing for your tourist dollar, why do you think the government invested this sort of money. ? I heard a reporter say that he had never seen so many QlDlanders and NSWwelshmen in Victoria when they held origin down their for the 1st time. And that alone pumps huge dollars into the economy. 1 origin game in Melbourne is like having a full round of support for codes in their states, its a huge investment,.
The new stadium also provides away fans to Melbourne games with alot more comfort than what they had in that broken down site next door. So expect more away fans for 3 codes. I will be popping in next year for a game or maybe 2.
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
Yeah you’ve now got a situation where the AFL’s blockbusters could no longer be deemed mega sporting events as there’s an 80,00 crowd at the MCG every other weekend or sometimes two times on the same weekend. Having one-off events which occur on a fairly regular/predictable cycle are much better at generating an ambience that a certain sports tourist likes, ie while the G in Collingwood/Carlton colours is an incredible site (or sight for that matter
) is actually quite banal…due to its perenial timing and the uncertainties about how financially profitable it is for other business around the G, tho the pubs are likely to always be overflowing
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 5:14am | Report comment
oh yes…..the world wide reach of RL that has turned Wigan into a global tourism Mecca.
…..away fans…….we’ll believe it when we see it on cold July nights……if a glittering roof encourages Sydney folk to travel……..mebbe……they like silly roof’s and huge curves…….mebbe.
Art Sapphire said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Michael C – Your team got a brand spanking new gym this week. The AFL get a modern football stadium in Adelaide.
Yet, you are still not satisfied.
I’ll send a reminder to Andrew Demetriou to make sure you get your 18 carat gold AFL approved dummy for Xmas.
You have certainly earned it
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Your walking a fine line to stalking there Art. Let it go
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
The SACA get a brand new stadium, and football via the SANFL are paying a hefty price in relation to what they are giving up with respect to AAMI stadium.
Nothing for free here.
Whilst it looks great – - we’ve heard AFL head office glib spin before around Docklands and found a nasty thorn in the tail (if ‘only’ for 25 years!!!). The devil is always in the detail – - if we find that it’s costing Power and Crows $200K more a week to play there then there’ll be questions to be asked given the SANFL own and operate AAMI stadium. Having 37,000 seats demolished……
If you can’t see that – then you’ve well and truely got your soccer blinkers on.
……and my team and the AFL and others have all contributed to the brand spanking new gym/community centre that the council owns.
BigAl said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
What advantage is tto be gained by demolishing 37,000 seats ??
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Big Al
big stadiums cost money to maintain – this is a point I make on here all the time – if you want a 100,000 capacity stadium, you better have a sport that fills it a few times per annum, because the maintenance costs of such a stadium are phenomenal.
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
exactly – - 37,000 seats that the SANFL owns outright.
btw – interesting to note the SA Govt blurb has the Ade Oval to be 50,000 capacity, with that northern hill retained,
but, the AFL blurb has it at 55,000 with far less of a ‘grassy’ feature at the Northern end.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
I accept MC’s logic – people are using poor language – this is not a gift to the AFL.
Adelaide Oval is a cricket oval first and foremost, owned and cotrolled by a cricket body.
The two AFL clubs play at another stadium with 52,000 capacity that is owned by the SANFL.
The two AFL clubs will now play at a stadium with a lesser capacity – but they will pay for the privilege – it will be aussie rules crowds that pay for a cricket facility – that’s the way it works in Australia.
So the AFL has been gifted zilch, nada, niente, niks.
oikee said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
I except it also, the codes pay for these stadium. The government are leaching the codes to make money off them, Imagine the fans that will be attracted to Aderlaide’s new ground, If they can get in, so maybe not a good investment after all.
Brett McKay said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
just on the plans themselves, it’s a pity that elements of the “traditional look” of the Adelaide Oval couldn’t be retained, like the long red roof of the George Giffen Stand. I know it’ll be a modern stadium and all, but this is the Adelaide Oval we’re talking about.
And what does this mean for the redevelopment works currently underway (which were to be completed by next summer’s Ashes series)??
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Yes – I’ve heard this from many people from Adelaide – it’s hard to argue with – it’s a very nice ground – but I guess the time must come from every stadium to consider whether it merely becomes a museum, or is actually going to be used regularly and to what extent.
Art Sapphire said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
AAMI Stadium is owned by the SANFL. As far as I am aware, they are a separate entity to the AFL.
So going by my logic. The AFL has never had a ground in Adelaide, but they would rather play there games in a modern taxpayer built stadium in the centre of Adelaide, rather an an outdated facility in the middle of the burbs that they do not even own.
Its a big win for the AFL, yet the AFL crusaders on this site would make us think otherwise. Figure that out.
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Port Adelaide are desperate to get to Adelaide oval irrespective because ironically the SANFL make it hard for Port at AAMI……groan!!!
The ‘win’ element for the AFL might be more over the SANFL than anyone else.
But, if that’s the case – then, is there a potential loss for ‘grass roots’ or at very least the SANFL proper (the league, not the admin) in SA??
We really need to see the operational plans for the stadium.
again though – on the taxpayer front – the SA govt was planning to spend their $300 million anyway towards access to and refurbishment of AAMI stadium….so, redirecting those funds is not that big a deal.
The $150 mill that MAY come from the Feds…….might be because of the potential to host FIFA WC matches, but, also, presumably because it’s an International cricket venue!!…….just waiting to see whether messers Buckley and Lowy will jump up and down and claim that other codes are ‘again’ benefitting from soccer instead of soccer itself.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
The redevelopment has to happen. AAMI is ancient like a suburban ground from the 1970s and too far out from the CBD.
Many South Aussies I know have been to Etihad with the close public transport, restuarants and bars and want a modern stadium right in the heart of Adelaide.
Yes Adelaide Oval is quaint but apart from the Members bar underneath the grandstand (party central
) it does not offer much in the way of entertainment quality.
it will modernise the look and feel of Adelaide considerably.
Redb
Art Sapphire said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
redb – As Victorians, we should rejoice that we will not have to venture out to purgatory again to watch a game of Aussie Rules. This is, as the stupid ad says, “priceless”
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Absolutely.
be a boon for cricket, particularly Twenty20, Friday Night after work,etc.
Adelaide Oval offers the same benefit as the MCG or Etihad, it is walking distance from the CBD.
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
definitely – - Adelaide is suddenly right on the domestic sports tourism radar with this……well, especially for Victorians.
You can see why Ade Utd will try to freeload off this venue……..go on Art!!!
Art Sapphire said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
I can only envisage the FFA and AU trying to freeload in the unlikely event of AU ever hosting a GF
Anyway, Hindmarsh is perfect for watching Adelaide Utd. Even though, its slightly out of town. Its a nice compact ground that is perfect for watching a game of football. Capacity is 17k which is just about right for a club their size as their attendance figures show. The crowd is quite close to the action, much like how it will be at the new Bubble in Melbourne.
Republican said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
What a beautiful ground to watch footy from.
I trust any development does not compromise the ambience too much
Cheers
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
No more compromise to ambience than will an additional 30,000 fans make……..and, the unknown ambience presently of AFL matches there anyway!!!,
now, for the SANFL Grand Final at such a venue…..that’ll be very interesting, …… 50K for a 2nd tier Aust Footy Grand Final anyone??
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
Yeah thanks Republican you’ve just reminded me of something really important I had to say
A potential good for any extension of the Oval is that the connection between cricket and footy (aesthetic and functional and cultural) is historic and it really is priceless. The MCG has that special zing and tho I’ve never been to a game of footy there (or even a cricket match for that matter) I have been to the game on game-day and the atmosphere; the confluence of all the good things about Aussie culture become quite clear (so no I don’t hate all things Ocker)
In a grand stadium which is big on volume, but not on experience the fans have to make their own experience which on a cold, tho that’s not usually a problem in Adelaide, day is much harder than watching on telly at home. And after all sport should be about the pilgrimage
tifosi said | December 3rd 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
What was interesting was that the labor party said the liberals couldnt afford their plan of a new inner city stadium, yet Labor somehow found 450 million dollars for this one !!
Isnt it only an election pledge though? It seems the people of adelaide would still prefer a new stadium
As for the size. The number of seats you want at a ground from a business perspective is 1 less than the number of tickets wanted.
That way ticket prices can be increased at will.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
I thought I read somewhere that a completely new stadium would cost $1 billion.
Freud of Football said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
I’m pissed off.
This is the Adelaide Oval. I’ve been to all the Test grounds in Aus bar Hobart and Adelaide is still my favourite, obviously I’m biased having grown up going to the cricket mostly in Adelaide there but that’s what it is, a cricket ground and one of the most serene grounds of any kind in the world and this redevelopment will kill it, having AFL on it is just going to spoil it, who knows how the pitch will hold up etc.
They have kept the hill because if they didn’t there would be a petition which the whole city would sign within 24 hours to not allow the redevelopment, it’s something that generations have grown up with, graduating from sitting there with family to partying under the scoreboard going back to the other parts of the hill with their own families. You can ask any Adelaide sports fan and they’ll have their own stories about the hill, the things they’ve seen.
I understand the AFL need a better ground in Adelaide but that CANNOT come at the expense of the Adelaide Oval. Tell Andrew to shell out some more of his TV money, the Crows will fill a 60,000 seater no problems and if they were to disband Port (which must happen) and found another neutral team (which must also happen) it would be full every week as Adelaide certainly has the capacity two support two AFL teams – as long as one of them isn’t called Port.
This is just a case of Demetriou not caring about anything other than his own agenda and using Rann’s political situation to his own benefit. He doesn’t care for cricket and while he might think this is a great solution it’s not, it’s perfect for the AFL and crap for cricket.
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
There is that point too. Tradition is always good (so long as its restricted by our changing social mores), progress often can be too but is still always controversial. What do the people of Adelaide want? It’s obvious the politicians are going to give the people what they think they want and the people of Adelaide do give off the impression of being footy fans first before all else. Personally, seeing as I’ve never been there I am sure I’ll be less likely to watch the cricket there (on T.V.) if they modernise the aesthetic
BigAl said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Could this be yet another sign that Test cricket is doomed ?!
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
Freud
I understand where you’re coming from, people in a city grow up with attachments to certain artifacts that can run generations.
Here in Melbourne, there was an uproar about 25 years ago when they temporarily replaced the old clocks at Flinders St station with electronic ones, and brought the old ones back pronto.
With the Adelaide Oval business, are you sure the AFL and Demetrious is driving it?
For starters, there has been this 40 year feud that led to the SANFL developing their own footy ground out in the sticks, and to this day they don’t get on with SA cricket (a story mirrored all over the Southern states, all for the same reason).
We’ve got the WC round the corner and the State government saying they’re not interested in a large rectangular stadium that would become a white elelphant.
Any large scale development in Adelaide needs the AFL as part of the solution. Adelaide Oval is in need of investment one way or the other – you could probably spend an equivalent amount of money simply restoring and maintaining what’s there.
People have got it in their heads that the AFL requests developments like the MCG and Adelaide Oval – but in fact there is an equivalent push, maybe stronger, from other parties, who see the AFL as a means of financing such developments (in the sense that AFL attendances are large enough to cover upkeep and return money back to the taxpayer, rather than the taxpayer being left to cover the cost in perpetuity).
How much has SA cricket lost out financially over the years by having been distanced from aussie rules for so long?
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
I definitely can sympathise with Aussie rules fans in the Aussie rules States in that Cricket’s administrators are still working by the old model of sport, the traditional one with Cricket at the top and footy a way for cricketers to keep fit. But maybe having a physical (and metaphysical?) connection to Cricket would preserve a better sporting experience for Adelaide footy-goers. It works for Sydney…
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro
there’s no doubt it can work all over Australia – we have gradually moved towards a workable model whereby cricket still own and control certain grounds, but where the AFL and clubs get a decent dollar being the major source of revenue for the cricket grounds.
However – as Big Al hints – 20/20 may one day swing the power back to cricket in the sense that cricket will be able to draw crowds of almost equivalent size.
What would it mean?
We could be positve and foresee that it would be good for anyone sharing ovals – becuase you could be assured that all year round – it was producing signifant revenues and the facilities would therefore be top-notch.
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
Doubt it. 20/20 will be about as popular (on avg) in attendance as Waratahs games are, big due to the contrast with the next level down but will not compare with the NRL or AFL for overall attendance: due to the one-off nature but also the fact that like the A-League is finding Cricket cannot (and will not) be able to keep everyone happy or even content over the summer time. Australia is made for the summer and you Aussies are not too bad yourselves. The landscape, the climate everything means that the summer has far more distractions than the winter.
I’d love to see 20/20 be as pop in these parts as in India with the IPL, but I’m not sure Aussie cricketers are suited for the format personally, which means it’ll only ever be hit and giggle (apart from when you play us in the Governor Bligh trophy (or whatever Beer is flavour of the month
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro
don’t be so rash with your predictions – the IPL has come out of nowhere to be one of the very biggest sporting comps in the world – don’t underestimate how influential this shortened game will eventually be, even Australia.
For starters, one can imagine a day when state cricket will actually draw crowds because of 20/20.
There may one day be the world’s first international club comp covering all continents because of 20/20.
Freud of Football said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
Pip,
as per usual – no idea. Footy park isn’t “out in the sticks”, it’s in West Adelaide whereas the Adelaide Oval is right in the heart of the city but in Adelaide that doesn’t matter, public transport is practically non-existant so everyone drives and getting to Footy Park was never a problem.
This was driven by the AFL, the SACA would love to keep the ground as it is but don’t get enough cricket money in to fund it and I don’t see what the problems with Footy Park are, not every stadium needs to be brand spanking new, it’s not like it’s crumbling or unsafe.
Before they went and looked at a joint venture they should have looked at making some more money via cricket and the AFL – rather than pushing this idea – should have kicked Port out and founded a new club, two well supported clubs in Adelaide would be able to fund a redevlopment of footy park to 60,000 without a problem, then we would never have had to have this discussion.
This is down to that pig-headed Demetriou trying to fix things that aren’t broken or don’t need fixing and Mike Rann’s current political situation which is of course, all his own doing.
The men at the SANFL and SACA would quite happily continue fueding for another few decades but neither of them will get a cent from the government if they do.
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
Of course it’s difficult now to see what will come of 20/20, but many seem to have this idea that 20/20 as a concept will save cricket from a slow death. Of course this may happen, but 20/20 has a niche which while being larger than Test Cricket’s will not be able to compete with the Footballs IMO. It seems unlikely it’ll sustain the same sport of the people ethos even in Australia. Also Indians tend to have a much less varied sporting diet: with maybe Soccer, Hockey (if they’re lucky) and Cricket.
Also I just want to point out that 20/20 is my co-equal favourite form of Cricket, but any form of Cricket will always be haunted by the old ex-colonial rhetoric so non-Commonwealth peoples may feel alienated from a culture that promotes it as a sport. Of course this is no excuse to do nothing.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:47pm | Report comment
Freud
I might have no idea but your response is full of inconsistencies.
Footy Park isn’t in the sticks – but Adelaide Oval sits directly behind Parliament House – in other words, relatively speaking, Footy Park is in the sticks.
There’s no public transport out to Footy park, i.e. it’s in the sticks.
Everyone has to drive out there, i.e. it’s in the sticks.
Do you understand the socio-economic imperative of a large stadium in walking distance of the CBD, railway station, restaurant strips (Nth and Sth)?
SACA want to keep the ground the way it is – fine – let them – who’s holding a gun to their head?
And your proposed solution to everything is to kick Port out of the comp!!!
Freud of Football said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
Footy park isn’t in the sticks for gods sake.
In Adelaide, there is no public transport at all, not just to footy park but you assume the entire city works in the CBD? No, people work all over the place and drive all over the place, I can’t imagine that there’d be large numbers of people walking to Adelaide oval for a game of AFL either (considering it’s played on the weekends when no-one is working or Friday nights but much later than “just after work”).
“Do you understand the socio-economic imperative of a large stadium in walking distance of the CBD, railway station, restaurant strips (Nth and Sth)?” – Do you understand Adelaide doesn’t really use a railway network, at least not like other cities? Or that there is as much action for restaurants in Glenelg or Brighton as the CBD?
You have no idea about Adelaide and you have no idea how good of an idea kicking Port out of the AFL would be. There is NO reason an AFL club should struggle in Adelaide but the AFL managed to make the one decision they could that would screw it up and that was giving Port a license.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
To give Port a license was a no brainer.
Why would a national comp turn its back on one of the oldest and most illustrious clubs in Australian sporting history?
Freud of Football said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Because Port is like Collingwood in more than just the guernsey.
Everyone hates Port, no matter which SANFL club you support, you have a rival and you hate Port so by giving them a license they effectively took the rest of the state who aren’t Port supporters and turned them against the club, Port Power didn’t take any Crows fans except some of those who were Magpies fans beforehand.
They made the Crows unaffiliated and look at their success, back-to-back flags within a decade and huge support, they were topping the membership numbers for a while from memory.
There is room for 2 AFL clubs in Adelaide and one football team although I’ve read on a few threads that supposedly the Cronulla Sharks might move there – good luck – but you can’t have Port, it would be the same if they made another AFL club now and based it around Sturt.
It needs to be a club that appeals to everyone, not just supporters of one SANFL club, that was obvious from the start.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Port is the sort fo club that can thrive under adversity – they’ll be all right – for starters, they need to get a few of the old Port die hards back to the club.
Freud of Football said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
Pip you just don’t get it.
Port are the best supported club in the SANFL, that is true but that doesn’t provide them with a big enough basis for an AFL club. They will never – I repeat, NEVER be able to get supporters from SA that support other clubs in the SANFL and I don’t even mean actively support an SANFL club, everyone follows one club or the other and as such, due to the hatred of Port they won’t turn these fans to their cause.
Further, their was animosity amongst their own ranks for having to “split” as the tradtionalists weren’t happy about the formation of a second club, many wanted the Power to be an extension of the Magpies, instead it was the Magpies in a new form and the Magpies had to be recreated.
Port won’t survive long term, the only reason they did so at the beginning was Allan Scott, he was a Port nut and a very wealthy man whose “sponsorship” more-or-less bankrolled the club.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
Freud
of course I get it – I’m not a moron!
But at the time that the AFL was handing out a 2nd SA license, there was no way anyone was ever going to win it ahead of Port – and on one viewpoint, one could argue good on the AFL for rewarding a traditional club with deserved entry to the national comp.
It’s done now – they just have to make it work.