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

[ChilliP]

I believe it is literally just the land the building sits on. Not the oval.or land around it.

I recall the SANFL gave a parcel of land to us and Port in the late 2000s. We built our new building on it. I think Port negotiated cash relief in lieu of theirs. Remember that idea their CEO Haysman had to create a shopping centre.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/spor...t/news-story/3f79341e75fff3df4caf198bd1e3bc18


I guess the question is do we really own that parcel of land. Or SANFL let us use it and it forms part of the overall land package and the developers already own it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

My understanding is when the lease is up everything gets demolished and we get nothing. The 30year free lease is payment for any land we may have owned.

 

[Geoffa32]

My understanding is when the lease is up everything gets demolished and we get nothing. The 30year free lease is payment for any land we may have owned.

And if they break it early?

The push to move may be coming from the developers wanting to use that land to expand the housing development instead of having us there for 20 or so years.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[ChilliP]

And if they break it early?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

They can try sort out an agreement with the developer. It's a benefit to the developer to have early access, but what it is worth to them in terms of dollars is up to them to negotiate.

 

[Mismatched]

I do wonder if the developers who own West Lakes really want that land and are wanting to pay us to leave.

Have heard some whispers some money around womans footy could be explored as well.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Agreed, the other one is whether the SANFL want to be stuck maintaining the oval for us for the next 30 odd years and instead are going to help fund new facilities. The SANFL could then as you say on sell football park to developers.

I think one of the key drivers behind us going hard for a women’s team, SANFL team and baseball team +/- esports, was the ability to draw community money to fund such projects.

 

[brucetiki]

And if they break it early?

The push to move may be coming from the developers wanting to use that land to expand the housing development instead of having us there for 20 or so years.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

If they break it early, show us the money?

 

[Next Gen Rookie]

(2) Word is they're looking to spend $60mill to build a centre of excellence

A Centre of Excellence? I was hoping for a Centre of Wickedness, because everyone already has a CoE, and this sounds cooler. Also, $60m? I reckon he flat-out guessed that number. Freo was $110m... but we can do it for half-price? No way. Made it up.

Be it against my best judgement to back up Rooch, but maybe the club is looking to spend $60m and the remainder of the money to come from developers/ACC/Fed Gov Grants?

 

[relapse]

I believe it is literally just the land the building sits on. Not the oval.or land around it.

I recall the SANFL gave a parcel of land to us and Port in the late 2000s. We built our new building on it. I think Port negotiated cash relief in lieu of theirs. Remember that idea their CEO Haysman had to create a shopping centre.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/spor...t/news-story/3f79341e75fff3df4caf198bd1e3bc18


I guess the question is do we really own that parcel of land. Or SANFL let us use it and it forms part of the overall land package and the developers already own it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

We don't own any of the land, we just have a 30 year lease.

Once we decide to leave Footy Park, we can either continue to use that facility in some capacity or vacate it.

From what I am aware the lease agreement that was made when the SANFL sold Footy Park prevents us from commercially sub-leasing our facility.

The building itself already been written off financially as an asset ie depreciated down to $0.

 

[Geoffa32]

We don't own any of the land, we just have a 30 year lease.

Once we decide to leave Footy Park, we can either continue to use that facility in some capacity or vacate it.

From what I am aware the lease agreement that was made when the SANFL sold Footy Park prevents us from commercially sub-leasing our facility.

The building itself already been written off financially as an asset ie depreciated down to $0.

The land I thought we may kwn and building was a tiny amount if the funds I thought we may get.

The real value is breaking the 30 year lease.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[azza77]

I'm sure Rowey mentioned demolition of the Aquatic Centre when he read it but I wasn't listening closely enough to know if he had more info than just that Tweet from Frank Pangallo.

If true, it will be interesting to see if we've partnered up with someone (council, government, education) to fund this like many of the bigger developments at other AFL clubs over the last few years, or if we'd go it alone, the latest lot of AFL club training facilities are not cheap.

I think Fremantle's new training centre is an Aquatic Centre type partnership as well, costing well over 100 million, while West Coast have recently spent about $60 million on their own facility, a project that I think would look pretty appropriate in the Park Lands.

The new Eagles base at Laithlan is awesome, they've done a great job. Still some work to be done, but there's a small strip of really nice cafe's and restaurants too, which I'm sure they will expand on soon. Decent setup

 

[Tex Danger]

Its a good facility, not a great one. Plenty of clubs have gone past us now but we were ahead of the game.

The one thing I am perhaps overthinking is why do we need a city base ?? Plenty of good clubs train and are based a reasonable distance from their home grounds.

could it be that we are concerned about what happens at the end of our current lease? The closer it gets to the end, the more we can get shafted in next negotiations as unless alternative plans are advanced then its not like we can say well we won't pay that we will just go to another site.

On the flip side, the earlier in the lease we negotiate, the stronger our position to be bought out of our current position as those who would profit from regaining it will be happy to pay for that ability 20years away from otherwise having access but not so much 5 years from that date.

Id imagine there was always a plan to explore moves from the moment our current deal was negotiated, the term of it just provided us with a timeframe without pressure.

 

[AFC3000]

could it be that we are concerned about what happens at the end of our current lease? The closer it gets to the end, the more we can get shafted in next negotiations as unless alternative plans are advanced then its not like we can say well we won't pay that we will just go to another site.

On the flip side, the earlier in the lease we negotiate, the stronger our position to be bought out of our current position as those who would profit from regaining it will be happy to pay for that ability 20years away from otherwise having access but not so much 5 years from that date.

Id imagine there was always a plan to explore moves from the moment our current deal was negotiated, the term of it just provided us with a timeframe without pressure.

I'd also think there is some benefit to moving us on from West Lakes before construction is finished, maybe there are alternate plans where the oval isn't retained, and you are right, no point in the developers paying us say 5 years out, they might as well just wait at that point.

Plus wherever we want to go, would know we need them, right now it's "we don't need you, but if you can give us all of these things we can help with this, this and this".

Whatever it is, I'm sure we won't hear about it from the club until deals are done. We won't be committing to a city base publicly and THEN trying to negotiate compensation for leaving our West Lakes lease early.

 

[Tex Danger]

I'd also think there is some benefit to moving us on from West Lakes before construction is finished, maybe there are alternate plans where the oval isn't retained, and you are right, no point in the developers paying us say 5 years out, they might as well just wait at that point.

Plus wherever we want to go, would know we need them, right now it's "we don't need you, but if you can give us all of these things we can help with this, this and this".

Whatever it is, I'm sure we won't hear about it from the club until deals are done. We won't be committing to a city base publicly and THEN trying to negotiate compensation for leaving our West Lakes lease early.

IF we were really smart and a move was always in the forward planning, the existing clause may already be set in stone. Eg what we get paid at different intervals to leave is already set with a clause that we can choose to enact that at any time so we aren't actually having to negotiate now.

Its not my area of expertise but if it was always the developers preference to have us gone, possibly the SANFL preference too, but we were in a position we had to stay but understood there would be an end date it could have been set up this way so we had plenty of time to find a suitable location but all parties knew the plan and were each set up to benefit accordingly.

 

[Geoffa32]

I'd also think there is some benefit to moving us on from West Lakes before construction is finished, maybe there are alternate plans where the oval isn't retained, and you are right, no point in the developers paying us say 5 years out, they might as well just wait at that point.

Plus wherever we want to go, would know we need them, right now it's "we don't need you, but if you can give us all of these things we can help with this, this and this".

Whatever it is, I'm sure we won't hear about it from the club until deals are done. We won't be committing to a city base publicly and THEN trying to negotiate compensation for leaving our West Lakes lease early.

The club wont say anything untill we are about to break ground on a new site and it is finalised.




Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[GrommoT]

Nope and it’s a great facility. We also have a 30-odd year lease at Footy Park. There’s no need to blow it up just yet.

That puts AFC in a great position to make a move that suits them. Wouldn't want to wait until the lease is nearly up to then start looking at where to go as options may not be many and be forced to accept something less than ideal.

The Aqua site has an adjacent oval (which I hadn't known about) already there so we wouldn't be removing any current parkland features, and there's enough space to create an MCG sized oval there easily. The site is a relatively short distance down Jeffcott street to Adelaide Oval.

So much going for it to be new Crows home - it might be the only viable near CBD location for this.

 

[Tex Danger]

That's kind of what i think. Anne did say they hadn't got a proposal for that site but had been in discussions (another site in particular that was ruled out).

So this is clearly option 2. I guess it's up to the club to see if it still works.

you'd have to assume the other site was the Uni Loop ovals area yeah?
That'd probably appear to be the number 1 option in terms of location with existing space to use. Was a bit of smoke similar to that currently surrounding the aquatic centre (some joint venture with one of the Unis from memory)

I had wondered whether with the W&C hospital to be moved, whether there could be an option to have the club move into that area as part of its redevelopment. Occupying office space, gym, cafe/bar etc within the hospital building and being able to utilise the ovals. Although they aren't directly connected they're close but its probably better somewhere with direct access.

An ideal situation may have been being able to build training hub nearer the ovals and have office hub (and arguably a commercial space as a cafe/bar that could be somewhat multipurpose) in the hospital building

 

[Legz]

you'd have to assume the other site was the Uni Loop ovals area yeah?
That'd probably appear to be the number 1 option in terms of location with existing space to use. Was a bit of smoke similar to that currently surrounding the aquatic centre (some joint venture with one of the Unis from memory)

The only real option around there would be the ACC Nursery area.

No chance they would be able to build anywhere else with the current "no increased footprint" requirements.

 

[Grenville]

I've been out of the country 15 years - whats gone wrong with the aquatic center? Spent a lot of time there back in the day & always felt it was a good facility. Is it a quality/maintenance issue, or financial/utilisation?

As i think about it, I watched the crows win our first final against Hawthorn in 93 after a game of canoe polo.

 

[SaltPeter]

I've been out of the country 15 years - whats gone wrong with the aquatic center? Spent a lot of time there back in the day & always felt it was a good facility. Is it a quality/maintenance issue, or financial/utilisation?

As i think about it, I watched the crows win our first final against Hawthorn in 93 after a game of canoe polo.

The new aquatic centre at Marion is enclosed and has become the premier swimming centre in Adelaide.

North Adelaide problems relate to dwindling use and rising maintenance costs for the ACC

 

[Tex Danger]

I've been out of the country 15 years - whats gone wrong with the aquatic center? Spent a lot of time there back in the day & always felt it was a good facility. Is it a quality/maintenance issue, or financial/utilisation?

As i think about it, I watched the crows win our first final against Hawthorn in 93 after a game of canoe polo.

New Aquatic centre built at Marion has become the training facility for swimming etc and venue for any events so it no longer is the Nth Adelaide one the one that gets the funding or usage for that.

 

[SaltPeter]

I've been out of the country 15 years - whats gone wrong with the aquatic center? Spent a lot of time there back in the day & always felt it was a good facility. Is it a quality/maintenance issue, or financial/utilisation?

As i think about it, I watched the crows win our first final against Hawthorn in 93 after a game of canoe polo.

Just on that point, the North Adelaide centre is becoming a burden to the ACC from the perspective of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs. They have been quietly looking for a private entity to take it over for a few years now. There was talk if AFC were to take over that section of the parklands for a training and administration base that it would also involve taking over the management and operation of the swimming centre.

 

[Golumless]

Its a good facility, not a great one. Plenty of clubs have gone past us now but we were ahead of the game.

The one thing I am perhaps overthinking is why do we need a city base ?? Plenty of good clubs train and are based a reasonable distance from their home grounds.

The answer is we don't need a city base at all. The idea of it is most likely a poisoned chalice.

Like all clubs, we need as much space as we can get, for as cheap as we can get. On that I highly doubt we'll get either of those conditions just on the outskirts of the CBD.

 

[hey shorty]

The answer is we don't need a city base at all. The idea of it is most likely a poisoned chalice.

Like all clubs, we need as much space as we can get, for as cheap as we can get. On that I highly doubt we'll get either of those conditions just on the outskirts of the CBD.

Maybe, if the Aquatic Centre is as big a drain as many are saying then it's not a bad idea.

 

[Elite Crow]

The answer is we don't need a city base at all. The idea of it is most likely a poisoned chalice.

Like all clubs, we need as much space as we can get, for as cheap as we can get. On that I highly doubt we'll get either of those conditions just on the outskirts of the CBD.

To some we didn’t need a city stadium either.

The club is obviously looking at it and they won’t do it if it doesn’t make sense.

If it comes off, it will be a massive and a huge success.

 

[ChilliP]

A problem we will have as time goes on with our 30 yr lease is that upgrades have a dwindling return. It's fine to build something if you know it will get 30years of use but knowing we plan on leaving early, we will not want to do major upgrades and our facilities will become outdated. Or if we stay and as we get closer and closer to the end of lease we won't want to make upgrades due to the lease ending.
So we need to move so we can make infrastructure upgrades knowing we will get a full life out of the upgrade. We can spend millions of dollars on things knowing they will potentially be useful for 50+ years.

 

[Stiffy_18]

The answer is we don't need a city base at all. The idea of it is most likely a poisoned chalice.

Like all clubs, we need as much space as we can get, for as cheap as we can get. On that I highly doubt we'll get either of those conditions just on the outskirts of the CBD.

In that case why don't we move to the Simpson desert? Have all the space we need and its dirt cheap!

Seriously, a city base (depending on what the development actually includes) would be a sensational strategic move that would allow the club to grow and become a powerhouse off the field which would allow it to invest into becoming one on the field.

While the Aquatic Centre is not the greatest located in the CBD, it is as good as you can realistically get that is a walking distance from the Adelaide Oval. Ideally, you would want the area by the river on War Memorial Drive where all the Adelaide Uni sport fields are located but that is extremely unlikely to happen.

The Aquatic Centre site could be excellent but that depends on what the plans are. If its only a training facility with AFC offices then, its good but its not a home run. However, if you turn it into more than that where it can generate the revenue even in off-peak periods then you truly have a great opportunity to great things for the club itself and supporters.

It seems to be a constant thing it Adelaide where you have a group of people constantly complaining about EVERYTHING that is proposed. Anything that will require building, or improving Adelaide as a city gets the loud group complaining about. Anyone remember how the same group complained when there was a talk of the inner city stadium? That even intensified when the choice was to redevelop Adelaide Oval and not build a new stadium. Guess what?! Redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval has been the best thing for Adelaide in the last 50 years.