AFL at Adelaide Oval - it will never happen (Part 5)

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yes, because Cricket NSW have been financially compensated in the deal. Cricket won't leave the AO unless the SACA are financially compensated.

The difference here is that Cricket NSW are nothing to do with the Sydney Cricket Ground. It doesn't bother them where the matches are played. The ground is run by a separate body.

Here SACA runs the oval. Essentially they are a venue manager and a cricket association.

This is a fundamental difference between cricket in SA and in most other states.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If we ever hosted another shield final (optimistic I know) I'd be pretty pissed if it's not at Adelaide Oval.

Definitely.

I think this will be one of the big concerns of the members.

I wonder though if drop in pitches would allow the Shield Final to be played on AO, even after a few NAB Cup and practice games had been played?

A bit of irony if it does given that drop in pitches is likely to be the major negative when it comes to a vote. I reckon that if they announce prior to the vote that the SANFL has conceded on the drop in pitch issue then the vote will go through.

How much does the SANFL want to move to AO? Would they be prepared to give this up?

Les Burdett has spoken in favour of drop in wickets and their development/improvement over the years. If he hasn't been able to convince the SACA members no one will.

 

[jo172]

Now that we've given up on the Soccer World Cup why are the SANFL still insisting on drop-in pitches? Or are the two not linked?

Or is it as Carl suggests, a bargaining tool so football still has a concession to make?

 

[NTRabbit]

Now that we've given up on the Soccer World Cup why are the SANFL still insisting on drop-in pitches? Or are the two not linked?

Or is it as Carl suggests, a bargaining tool so football still has a concession to make?

The Lions have been bitching loud and hard about the pitch at the Gabba for a few years now - the Lions vehemently insist the hard ground of the pitch square causes excessive injuries in their squad, and that the Gabba should be forced to switch to drop ins, while in response the Gabba has essentially said 'not in a million years'.

So yes, I think the drop in pitches are a genuine concern of the two AFL clubs via the SANFL, not just a bargaining chip.

 

[aneale]

The Lions have been bitching loud and hard about the pitch at the Gabba for a few years now - the Lions vehemently insist the hard ground of the pitch square causes excessive injuries in their squad, and that the Gabba should be forced to switch to drop ins, while in response the Gabba has essentially said 'not in a million years'.

So yes, I think the drop in pitches are a genuine concern of the two AFL clubs via the SANFL, not just a bargaining chip.

They're not the only ones. I think its a genuine cause for concern. Certainly a number of Clubs have expressed concerns about the state of the GABBA prior to AFL games.

 

[jo172]

It's interesting how people have been arguing that because football and cricket have shared around the country for 100s of years cricket should accomodate football but not vice versa.

Football's been played on real cricket pitches since the sport started.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's interesting how people have been arguing that because football and cricket have shared around the country for 100s of years cricket should accomodate football but not vice versa.

Football's been played on real cricket pitches since the sport started.

It has but now we have the technology that means it doesn't have to.

There is a stigma attached to drop in pitches because the first few years they were used the pitches were average. Grey, dour slabs that didn't bounce much or come on to the bat. The standard of cricket was poor. And people remember.

The technology has improved (the MCG pitch is fine now) and will only get better but first impressions count. Anyone who has played footy will know how crap it is having pitches in the middle of the ground. Rock hard, slippery... you put up with it because you have to.

 

[jo172]

Anyone who has played footy will know how crap it is having pitches in the middle of the ground. Rock hard, slippery... you put up with it because you have to.

Or better yet a total mud bath come the first rains of the season.

Let these AFL show ponies play on a few concrete pitches covered with sand, that'll sort the men from the boys.

 

[NTRabbit]

It has but now we have the technology that means it doesn't have to.

There is a stigma attached to drop in pitches because the first few years they were used the pitches were average. Grey, dour slabs that didn't bounce much or come on to the bat. The standard of cricket was poor. And people remember.

The technology has improved (the MCG pitch is fine now) and will only get better but first impressions count. Anyone who has played footy will know how crap it is having pitches in the middle of the ground. Rock hard, slippery... you put up with it because you have to.

Whether it's because they still can't, or because they can but don't, the MCG pitch is not fine - it's still a rubbish deck.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Whether it's because they still can't, or because they can but don't, the MCG pitch is not fine - it's still a rubbish deck.

No.

No it isn't.

 

[feenix67]

Football's been played on real cricket pitches since the sport started.

Difference now is the overlap between the two seasons, which is progressively larger year and will continue as the AFL comp now has to accomodate 18 teams.

 

[Nick30]

Looks like Michaelangelo Rucci has started his sales pitch to the SACA members:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ls-grand-designs/story-e6frecj3-1226014434224

There is the ambience of the precinct, in particular the northern mound, the Moreton Bay trees and the view of the cathedral, all of which give Adelaide Oval the lustre as one of the world's most beautiful cricket grounds.
None of this is challenged by the architectural designs for the new 50,000-seat Adelaide Oval that would become one of the best stadia in Australian sport with some features valued ahead of those at the MCG.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ls-grand-designs/story-e6frecj3-1226014434224

 

[crowman86]

Are the detailed plans meant to be released today?

 

[Nick30]

Are the detailed plans meant to be released today?

Based on the below article from yesterdays Advertiser they are, but I can't find any details on the SANFL, SACA or AdelaideNow web sites, so I'm not sure how they are releasing the information.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/cabinet-signs-off-on-oval-deal/story-e6frea6u-1226013830003

Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon said a formal announcement about the details of the agreement, including previews of the proposed stadium, would be announced tomorrow.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/cabinet-signs-off-on-oval-deal/story-e6frea6u-1226013830003

 

[Cap]

I will be disappointed if I don't get an email from the SANFL or SACA being a member of both organisations.

 

[jo172]

That Rucci article is ****ing dreadful. Does the man even re-read them before he sends them to the printer?

Apparently there needs to be a 75% no vote for no to succeed. Think than type BigHawk!

 

[Nick30]

From memory, at the last AGM they tried to amend the Constitution to allow amendments to be voted on by proxies (an obvious strategic precursor to an AO vote) and it failed dismally.

Jo based on the below link the proxy vote did get through:

www.cricketsa.com.au/content.aspx?p=889

Which as stated in the article you posted earlier is how:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434

'Another prominent South Australian businessman is also understood to be organising significant opposition to the $535 venue upgrade, canvassing a 1000-strong voting bloc.'

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434

I'm not sure which site of the argument the proxy vote will help.

 

[jo172]

Jo based on the below link the proxy vote did get through:

www.cricketsa.com.au/content.aspx?p=889

Which as stated in the article you posted earlier is how:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434

'Another prominent South Australian businessman is also understood to be organising significant opposition to the $535 venue upgrade, canvassing a 1000-strong voting bloc.'

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434

I'm not sure which site of the argument the proxy vote will help.

Fair enough, that's what I get for not going to SGMs!

Certainly makes me alot more likely to vote!

I also enjoy the fact that it'll take about 15 yes votes to offset my family.

 

[Cap]

I hate to say it Jo - but I reckon your 15 votes are pretty well covered by the board members who would likely hold around 50% of the vote via proxy IMO.

 

[Gough]

Only in Adelaide could twenty odd thousand people, of which I happen to be one will decide the fate of a project that has the potential to change the city forever. I feel like Rob Oakeshott or Tony Windsor. But what I would really like is some information from the SACA. I thought I might get an email this morning but Rucci pretty much stated their case in this morning's Addy. But I would like some details, not rhethoric. I'm not anti-development, I think the thought of AFL in at the Adelaide Oval is brilliant. My only real concern is drop in pitches, that is something that will change the Adelaide Oval more than any pile of bricks and mortar. Both the SCG and the GABBA have maintained their pitch squares and I'd just like to see the SACA show some balls on this one.

 

[Nick30]

Looks like an early May vote then.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...elaide-oval-deal/story-e6frea83-1226013550676

SACA members, who hold the key to the future of the $535 million Adelaide Oval redevelopment will vote early in May on whether or not to accept the deal.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...elaide-oval-deal/story-e6frea83-1226013550676

I have a feeling the next several weeks will be like a election campaign as both camps try to gather the votes.

Ian sounds a little smug in the article so I wonder what trick he has up his sleeve...

 

[Elite Crow]

1 test match, 2 one dayers and maybe 1 20-20 game plus some low interest state games. Why would anyone pay a SACA memebership for such little return and why is the fate of the project in their hands? Its ridiculous.

 

[Nick30]

Only in Adelaide could twenty odd thousand people, of which I happen to be one will decide the fate of a project that has the potential to change the city forever. I feel like Rob Oakeshott or Tony Windsor. But what I would really like is some information from the SACA. I thought I might get an email this morning but Rucci pretty much stated their case in this morning's Addy. But I would like some details, not rhethoric. I'm not anti-development, I think the thought of AFL in at the Adelaide Oval is brilliant. My only real concern is drop in pitches, that is something that will change the Adelaide Oval more than any pile of bricks and mortar. Both the SCG and the GABBA have maintained their pitch squares and I'd just like to see the SACA show some balls on this one.

Gough based on the below the drop-in pitch was one of the first things the SACA gave in to:

http://www.adelaideovalredevelopment.com.au/faqs
Will there be drop-in pitches?
If Adelaide Oval is to operate as a multi-purpose stadium then drop-in pitches will be necessary to ensure that cricket is provided with the best possible playing surface for the entire summer.
Maintaining the reputation of the pitch at Adelaide Oval is not negotiable. The Oval's drop-in pitch will be prepared in-ground by the SACA grounds team led by Damien Hough in consultation with Les Burdett using the current pitch materials with extensive trials of this system before any installation occurs.

http://www.adelaideovalredevelopment.com.au/faqs

Talking to the members I know the drop-in pitch is the single biggest issue of the redevelopment and could be the thing that sinks the yes vote.

 

[jo172]

I hate to say it Jo - but I reckon your 15 votes are pretty well covered by the board members who would likely hold around 50% of the vote via proxy IMO.

My understanding (of that little SACA quote) and the Associations Incorporation Act is that you can direct the Chairman of the meeting on how you wish your proxy to be used, as in it's not necessarily at their discretion.

Therefore the Chairman might cast 5,000 yes votes and 6,000 no votes etc.

 

[n4sir]

Are the detailed plans meant to be released today?

The ABC website has a photo of a seating model of the development and what looks to be some more detailed plans in the background, which is at least a little better than the usual 'artist impressions' we've been bombarded with the last year or so - by the look of it, there seems to be a media conference going on that will probably be on the news tonight, and maybe some more thorough plans are (hopefully) on the way:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/02/3152774.htm

Ps. One of the reader's comments on the ragvertiser said not only does the design in the previous artist impressions resemble a horseshoe, it also looks a lot like a toilet seat - seems strangely appropriate if you ask me.