Opinion New AFC HQ: We're on like Donkey Kong!

[maxlilly]

Brompton's a lot bigger than the Urrbrae building though, and the SA Gov would probably be paying for the Urrbrae shift if it happens.

My guess would be that the big building stays were it is and the two smaller buildings are relocated to give room for the two oval dimensions ?

But the development looks exciting, especially now that the requirement for so much open space really limits any real commercial development.
There maybe an opportunity to buy an adjacent block if need be to get exactly what the AFC need ?

 

[mistylake]

Nah. Even triple glazing, which costs a fortune, has half the thermal resistance of a minimum standard wall that has R2 batts in it. They will still be hot boxes without external shading.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Values of R8 are possible.

 

[Cap]

we have no relationship with C&G. We have a lease with the SANFL and they won't be paying us a cent for early exit. This is rudimentary stuff.

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

SPACE: By the lease, the Crows’ property rights are clearly defined. The Adelaide Football Club maintains control of the main playing field at Football Park and the buildings that make up its administration office and “The Shed” for the next 33 years.

FACILITIES: The SANFL no longer commands Football Park.

“We can be here until 2048 with our rights to the oval, car parks and our facility cut and dried,” Fagan said. “Commercial and General is comfortable with the club being here.

But I'm not convinced it is as cut and dry as you seem to hope it is.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

we have no relationship with C&G. We have a lease with the SANFL and they won't be paying us a cent for early exit. This is rudimentary stuff.

If we have a sub lease then part of that sub lease gives us exclusive rights to that land for another 20 years. If someone wants to take it away from us, they compensate us.

I agree. Rudimentary.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

If SANFL could have sold Footy Park for $40m and turfed us so they don’t need to maintain our grounds, they would have done it years ago. Use your brain.

 

[Cap]

If SANFL could have sold Footy Park for $40m and turfed us so they don’t need to maintain our grounds, they would have done it years ago. Use your brain.

I mean, there's some excellent advice for you in this post.

 

[1970crow]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

But I'm not convinced it is as cut and dry as you seem to hope it is.

There was an article posted previously where it was made clear that we are sub-leasing from the SANFL. I'd love there to be a financial benefit from exiting early, but I just can't see how the SANFL would have assigned that benefit to us when providing us a rent free space that they partially maintain. Has the club ever mentioned anything about a financial windfall for handing back the lease?

 

[AFC3000]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

Melbourne-based developer Pelligra has become a financial partner with the Crows, helping co-ordinate plans for a commercial/residential development at the 6ha disused gasworks site.

It is understood Pelligra also has been charged with selling the Crows’ West Lakes training and office complex, where the club has been based since it was founded in 1990.


My take is the SANFL have got all they planned to ever get from it, there was never planned a period between us using it and the developers getting it, the SANFL have said to us, we've screwed you over by selling West Lakes, just after you've built a training facility, we've managed to get you access until 2038, we now say to the developers, hey we can stay here until 2038, but you probably want to get on with it? OR we sell our access rights until 2038.

If we're not getting something out of it, keep it as a second training venue and make them maintain Footy Park as an AFL quality training ground which they probably don't want to do.

 

[MarcusP2]

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Values of R8 are possible.

Yes, for ultra-expensive triple glazed argon glass that no apartment building is ever going to use.

I would think a standard wall with R2.5 insulation would be close to a total value of 5 at least because it also have sarking and air gap.

 

[1970crow]

If we have a sub lease then part of that sub lease gives us exclusive rights to that land for another 20 years. If someone wants to take it away from us, they compensate us.

I agree. Rudimentary.

No, the terms would be defined in the sub-lease agreement. The SANFL would never sign away the rights to financial benefit from early termination by us to us. Why would they? Seeing as you haven't seen the lease in question, it's weird that you could speak to the terms so resolutely. I haven't seen the lease either, but logically, given we were gifted an effectively free sub-lease from the SANFL, they'd have retained all rights in terms of financial benefit from returning the land to developers. And it's not like we held the whip hand shen negotiating.

 

[Cap]

There was an article posted previously where it was made clear that we are sub-leasing from the SANFL. I'd love there to be a financial benefit from exiting early, but I just can't see how the SANFL would have assigned that benefit to us when providing us a rent free space that they partially maintain. Has the club ever mentioned anything about a financial windfall for handing back the lease?

Would love get one of the sports shows to ask.

They got the benefit of having the price paid for the land over a number of years I guess?

The buyer probably wanted to deal with the Crows directly target rather than having a third party in between?

All speculation until someone can get an answer.

 

[Geoffa32]

we have no relationship with C&G. We have a lease with the SANFL and they won't be paying us a cent for early exit. This is rudimentary stuff.

Technically you are correct.


But C&G are leaning on both SANFL and us to move us on since the West precinct current stages are near completion. I have been told this by someone involved in the project.


No doubt as part of this there is a financial incentive for us to move. Otherwise why would we. Once all those houses are built it will be a nice area. A great oval and a building we own.


There is also the possibility there is a "buyout" clause to leave early


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Cap]

The SANFL would never sign away the rights to financial benefit from early termination by us to us. Why would they? Seeing as you haven't seen the lease in question, it's weird that you could speak to the terms so resolutely. I haven't seen the lease either, but logically, given we were gifted an effectively free sub-lease from the SANFL, they'd have retained all rights in terms of financial benefit from returning the land to developers. And it's not like we held the whip hand shen negotiating.

You keep talking as if the benefit the Crows may have was the only thing in play.

As you said, it's a negotiation, we don't even know the terms the Crows had before they sold the land.

Perhaps the benefit the Crows have now, they had prior to the sale. Let's not forget, AFC went to a Bank to fund its development.

Now we all know your irrational dislike of Bankers, but one thing is for sure, no Banker is funding anything without absolute clear understanding of where the security position is.so we might be talking about a benefit the club had prior, that's been taken over as part of the sale.

 

[StonesThrow]

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Values of R8 are possible.
View attachment 1185308

Mate they're US imperial units. You divide by 5.68 to get metric. That means those super expensive triple glazed examples you posted are around R1.3 in Australian terms. Most decent double glazed (still expensive) are around R0.5 with standard single glazed at R0.17.

It doesn't mean anything anyway. Developers aren't going to fit out an apartment building with high performance windows. They will use cheap single glazed shit and the residents will rack up huge electricity bills.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

No, the terms would be defined in the sub-lease agreement. The SANFL would never sign away the rights to financial benefit from early termination by us to us. Why would they? Seeing as you haven't seen the lease in question, it's weird that you could speak to the terms so resolutely. I haven't seen the lease either, but logically, given we were gifted an effectively free sub-lease from the SANFL, they'd have retained all rights in terms of financial benefit from returning the land to developers. And it's not like we held the whip hand shen negotiating.

I remember reading that after the crows lease ends the land vests with C&G. Of course we held a strong hand in negotiations. We had agreements with the SANFL to use football park that would have blocked the C&G bid which is why we could negotiate free rent.

Again, if it were the way you think it is, the land would have been sold long ago. What benefit is it to the SANFL to keep us there?

 

[Cap]

I remember reading that after the crows lease ends the land vests with C&G. Of course we held a strong hand in negotiations. We had agreements with the SANFL to use football park that would have blocked the C&G bid which is why we could negotiate free rent.

Again, if it were the way you think it is, the land would have been sold long ago. What benefit is it to the SANFL to keep us there?

It's a negotiation, obviously they got something or didn't have to give something else.

 

[1970crow]

I remember reading that after the crows lease ends the land vests with C&G. Of course we held a strong hand in negotiations. We had agreements with the SANFL to use football park that would have blocked the C&G bid which is why we could negotiate free rent.

Again, if it were the way you think it is, the land would have been sold long ago. What benefit is it to the SANFL to keep us there?

We never had effective control. We were wholly owned by the SANFL and all deals done would be to our owner's benefit. There is no pot of gold for us, if written into a lease, it will be the Head lease between SANFL and developer. Not our sub-lease.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

We never had effective control. We were wholly owned by the SANFL and all deals done would be to our owner's benefit. There is no pot of gold for us, if written into a lease, it will be the Head lease between SANFL and developer. Not our sub-lease.

The sub lease would not allow the head lease to be terminated during our term and would ensure we are compensated if that’s done. That head lease would have been negotiated at the sale so it would be consistent.

You do this with small $500 a week sub tenancies, let alone football park and the Adelaide crows.

 

[Cap]

The sub lease would not allow the head lease to be terminated during our term and would ensure we are compensated if that’s done. That head lease would have been negotiated at the sale so it would be consistent.

You do this with small $500 a week sub tenancies, let alone football park and the Adelaide crows.

I really don't think we are dealing with the SANFL any more.

I don't know 100% but I seems we've negotiated the SANFL out.

 

[mistylake]

Mate they're US imperial units. You divide by 5.68 to get metric. That means those super expensive triple glazed examples you posted are around R1.3 in Australian terms. Most decent double glazed (still expensive) are around R0.5 with standard single glazed at R0.17.

It doesn't mean anything anyway. Developers aren't going to fit out an apartment building with high performance windows. They will use cheap single glazed sh*t and the residents will rack up huge electricity bills.

So why the hell would anyone use double glazed windows if they are not much better. I did just look it up and its because of kelvins/feet v metres

 

[StonesThrow]

So why the hell would anyone use double glazed windows if they are not much better. I did just look it up and its because of kelvins/feet v metres

Another reason I don't like the US. Their stupid imperial system.

They're still about 3-4 times better than single glazed. They do make a significant difference but nothing really helps when you've got the hot afternoon sun directly hitting windows. That's why design is really important, yet we let developers almost do whatever they want.

 

[mistylake]

Another reason I don't like the US. Their stupid imperial system.

They're still about 3-4 times better than single glazed. They do make a significant difference but nothing really helps when you've got the hot afternoon sun directly hitting windows. That's why design is really important, yet we let developers almost do whatever they want.

I’m assuming the double and tripe glazing is way more effective at keeping a house warm inside, in a cold climate. I guess shading is the only effective way of keeping the suns heating rays out. I’m assuming ambient heat will be kept out though.

 

[ad victoriam]

Thebarton will be no good, South Rd is taking part of the site based on the released plans, and will be a construction site for 5-10 years

Don't believe they are touching the Oval. the South Road construction area is planned for King reserve
If it is Thebarton they will not get the second oval planned for Kings reserve until the tunnels have been completed.
They will still have a reconfigured Thebby oval and new club facities,

 

[glengowan]

So I guess the question is, do we lease the double glaze windows from the SANFL or buy them ourselves?

 

[Red mist]

Brompton is the clear frontrunner going by that presser. Thebarton doesn't tick any of the key criteria he mentioned (accessibility, ownership etc.).

It sounds a much better option than Thebarton. Just one train stop or a quick tram from AO.

The recent article suggests that although preferable it is going to be intricacies with the amount of ground needed and future projected worth outcomes.