Opinion New AFC HQ: Stalled Indefinitely

[relapse]

lol. Have you actually read his posts? You couldn’t write more bullshit if you tried. So either he’s politically motivated, major SANFL paranoia or he’s a nutter, which do you think it is?

Given your level of SANFL paranoia I’m guessing which one you won’t vote for.

I’ve criticised Olsen for the Nicks extension, keep reading. When you provide some legitimate examples of what else he should be criticised about I’ll do that too.

But what I won’t do is criticise him for stuff he had no involvement in like 1990crow suggested and that’s bring in Adam Kelly considering Olsen got there a year later! Refer to my opening comments and you might change your opinion now of his post.

I agree that there was no secret plan with Kelly being appointed.

As for "paranoia" with the SANFL, the facts are that they've been a financial parasite on this club and erroded our competitive advantage for years/decades.

Their perception has always been that we're a cash cow that solely exists to generate revenue to support their league.

They've never given zero shits about success on the field, just as long as we were successful enough to ensure the SANFL coffers were being filled the SANFL were happy and that mentality has permeated through our club like a cancer.

Ultimately I don't want any clowns from the SANFL anywhere near this club, they've already played their hands before and shown what they think of our club.

So when Olsen made that comment about bringing the SANFL back closer to the AFC then yes it does worry me.

 

[relapse]

Not sure why you focus so heavily on Olsen when he’s a single vote at a board meeting. There’s zero chance he’s making these decisions unilaterally. Your and 1990’s fixation on him is the only political projection going on here.

So why we were against Chapman given he was also as you put it "just a single vote at a board meeting"?

Surely the same standards apply, I'm certainly not the one applying double standards here from my stance with Chapman.

He's been in the chair now for four years and if the only card to play to deflect is to minimise his role and play the political angle shows that there clearly hasn't been a lot to celebrate during his tenure.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Not sure why you focus so heavily on Olsen when he’s a single vote at a board meeting. There’s zero chance he’s making these decisions unilaterally. Your and 1990’s fixation on him is the only political projection going on here.

I get the logic but how many people on the board will vote against something the ex premier of SA wants? As an experienced politician and board member he also will not vote for anything that could reflect badly on him and he would likely sway most of the board to align with his thinking every step of the way.

We are a PR club right now and that can be purely attributed to two ex politicians. Who do you think silenced Roo? He spoke at length on everything to do with the AFC since 2014, and now since Olsens appointment, we hear bubkis.

Get the logic, I just think this board has some explaining to do and Silvers isn't cutting the mustard.

 

[kirky]

Lots of horses are named after strippers these days.

A few names missing tho . Crystal?

Not that I would know.

 

[AFC3000]

It will cost $300M by then though.

Also has the SANFL got first rights? I can’t imagine the council kicking out the SANFL without a home in favour of us

I don't actually think it's a good idea and agree on the cost blowing out.

But out of interest I looked it up and the council not wanting to renew the SANFL lease beyond 2031 is at least the line the SANFL are using in their submission to the Charles Sturt council.

"SANFL was informally approached by the Adelaide Football Club in October 2020 regarding the possibility of co-locating at Thebarton Oval, which SANFL was willing to consider on the basis there was access to two ovals (Thebarton Oval and King Reserve). The Adelaide Football Club at the time were considering several options.

At this time, SANFL had its project fully funded and ready to proceed. It had begun negotiations with the City of West Torrens Council on a new 21+21-year lease at Thebarton Oval, to replace the current lease, which is due to expire in 2031.

In early 2022, the City of West Torrens Council resolved it would not consider a new long-term lease for the SANFL at Thebarton Oval, as its priority was to allow the Adelaide Football Club to establish its headquarters at Thebarton Oval."

https://hdp-au-prod-app-ccs-yoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/5516/9853/6962/SANFL_Formal_Licence_Request_to_Council_for_use_of_Football_Park.pdf

 

[Cap]

Ultimately I don't want any clowns from the SANFL anywhere near this club, they've already played their hands before and shown what they think of our club.

How do we get people involved that havent been involved in the Crows or the SANFL though?

 

[Sanders]

Rich retirees run this town.

You can see why it's so hard to have things like music festivals and car races too. The organisers always end up getting fined due to noise complaints.

I was at Hyde Park 10 years ago when Westminster Council pulled the plug on Paul McCartney when he was a surprise guest joining Bruce Springsteen on stage for an encore

The time? 22:02 against a 22:00 curfew

Number of complaints? 2

And I mean pulled the plug. Literally shut off the power mid song in front of 70,000 people

This s**t happens everywhere

 

[Sanders]

Your and 1990’s fixation on him is the only political projection going on here.

It’s bizarre

 

[Sanders]

A few names missing tho . Crystal?

Not that I would know.

Sure you don’t

 

[Dirty Bird]

No disrespect bigman, but I think we are on plan C already, we’d be looking at plan D.
And I don’t think we have one.

Actually, keep going

Plan A - University Oval
Plan B - That area around Park 10 behind the archery range
Plan C - Aquatic Centre
Plan D - Brompton
Plan E - Thebby
Plan F - ???????

 

[adelaidecrows]

From what I understood Theberton was considered the 'its there if we want it' option. As such the state government never stepped in. I don't think the state government ever expected the the Sanfl to be hamstrung by their move to West Lakes and for the Crows to be hampered in every attempt to move.

I suspect this latest move to hamper the Sanfl move will prompt the state government to get involved. I think this will happen and the councils will be pulled into line.

 

[feenix67]

Come on, you don’t expect anyone to believe that?

We are in a mess because of the SANFL? Not because of councils, Labor Govt and numpties, but because of the SANFL?

Where else do you think we could have moved to?

We are not a real club because of being an arm of the SANFL? Thats a new one, when did you make that up?

Kelly joined the Crows a year before Olsen so that’s a bit embarrassing for you. Oh by the way where did Chris Davies come from?

All that is true, but being apparently blindsided by the issue of SANFL not being able to find an alternative site, when our deal was contingent on them moving, is an amateur fail.

 

[kirky]

All that is true, but being apparently blindsided by the issue of SANFL not being able to find an alternative site, when our deal was contingent on them moving, is an amateur fail.

The issue is the parties probably approached Charles Sturt Council with a proposal and see what their thoughts were about if and were probably given the impression that it seemed plausible etc.

The issue then becomes once the proposal is actually formally presented to council, a few NIMBYs hear about it and they get in the ears of some councillors and you then end up with this mess as it stands.

Developers face this sort of problem all the time. It is why it takes so long for anything ever to happen.

You are dealing with people in jobs at councils who all probably previously worked in government jobs (never ever worked in the real world) and wouldn’t know their heads from the arse.

 

[George Kramer]

All that is true, but being apparently blindsided by the issue of SANFL not being able to find an alternative site, when our deal was contingent on them moving, is an amateur fail.

Agree and that’s a legitimate criticism not pinned by irrational paranoid delusions.

1990crow so you liked a post where he agrees with me regarding your delusional ramblings, cool

 

[feenix67]

The issue is the parties probably approached Charles Sturt Council with a proposal and see what their thoughts were about if and were probably given the impression that it seemed plausible etc.

The issue then becomes once the proposal is actually formally presented to council, a few NIMBYs hear about it and they get in the ears of some councillors and you then end up with this mess as it stands.

Developers face this sort of problem all the time. It is why it takes so long for anything ever to happen.

You are dealing with people in jobs at councils who all probably previously worked in government jobs (never ever worked in the real world) and wouldn’t know their heads from the arse.

Sure, get all of that. But we've already spent a fair bit of cash on this project, yet it seems we were arrogant enough to think that paying the SANFL out of their lease was enough, without one person saying "umm what if they can't find an alternative?".

 

[flashcrow]

Lots of horses are named after strippers these days.

Not only these days

 

[George Kramer]

Sure, get all of that. But we've already spent a fair bit of cash on this project, yet it seems we were arrogant enough to think that paying the SANFL out of their lease was enough, without one person saying "umm what if they can't find an alternative?".

Where do you propose is an alternative?

 

[feenix67]

Where do you propose is an alternative?

That's the point. We assumed the SANFL would be able to relocate, without asking that very question.

And, to be frank, that feeds in to 1990's narrative, because it seems that the plan, all along, was for them to move back to West Lakes, pocketing a nice chunk of change for break lease remediaton in the process.

I'm not saying thats the case, but it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw.

 

[George Kramer]

That's the point. We assumed the SANFL would be able to relocate, without asking that very question.

And, to be frank, that feeds in to 1990's narrative, because it seems that the plan, all along, was for them to move back to West Lakes, pocketing a nice chunk of change for break lease remediaton in the process.

I'm not saying thats the case, but it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw.

I mean, if it wasn’t Thebby, where was the alternative that wouldn’t see us subject to being outbid by developers or involve councils and nimbys?

You don’t know we didn’t ask. Clearly they thought the SANFL would be able to get their development through just as we thought we’d get our thebby development through.

Nick Champion just last week said he spoke to the council on behalf, expected them to pass it only for them to change their position.

Given we’ve kicked them out of Thebby, of course they would only do it if they were compensated. Are you going to sell your house if someone wanted to buy it without being compensated accordingly?

 

[GreyCrow]

Sure, get all of that. But we've already spent a fair bit of cash on this project, yet it seems we were arrogant enough to think that paying the SANFL out of their lease was enough, without one person saying "umm what if they can't find an alternative?".

The arrogance would have been thinking it wasnt their (AFC) problem

 

[feenix67]

I mean, if it wasn’t Thebby, where was the alternative that wouldn’t see us subject to being outbid by developers or involve councils and nimbys?

You don’t know we didn’t ask. Clearly they thought the SANFL would be able to get their development through just as we thought we’d get our thebby development through.

Nick Champion just last week said he spoke to the council on behalf, expected them to pass it only for them to change their position.

Given we’ve kicked them out of Thebby, of course they would only do it if they were compensated. Are you going to sell your house if someone wanted to buy it without being compensated accordingly?

I wasn't talking about our alternative, so I don't know why you're bringing that up.

Again, you're missing the point. It's quite possible our dealings with the SANFL weren't at arms length, and the fact we didn't factor the contingency of the SANFL's relocation supports that.

 

[George Kramer]

I wasn't talking about our alternative, so I don't know why you're bringing that up.

Again, you're missing the point. It's quite possible our dealings with the SANFL weren't at arms length, and the fact we didn't factor the contingency of the SANFL's relocation supports that.

Because our alternative is the real issue. If we didn’t have an alternative option what other option did we have but go with this one and assume that the SANFL moving to West Lakes would go through? You said we didn’t even ask if they could move, you’re making that up, you don’t know.

No I am not missing the point, the SANFL are the ones with the negotiating power, we are the ones wanting to kick them out. Again what alternative did we have to but to expect they’d be able to move to West Lakes? Do we pull out of Thebby? Which brings me back to my main point, what alternative did we have?

None of you who are critical are able to come up with one that doesn’t see us being out bid by developers, having to deal with a council and NIMBYs.

In the end, the SANFL will get to move to West Lakes, we will get Thebby, unfortunately the delays have cost us a shitload, but again what are the alternatives besides wait it out?

 

[rocket18]

If thebbie falls through what is our plan B.

Area near airport on western side of tapleys hill road opposite Jayco is large and free

Could it be used or does it still contain too much contaminated soil from Glenelg

Not near any residents and in sporting precinct.

Close to airport for interstate sides playing in reserves and women’s competition

Near major road links for access

Thoughts???

My preference would be Adelaide parklands but that isn’t going to happen

That would be the end of Laird, he wouldn't be allowed to train.

 

[feenix67]

Because our alternative is the real issue. If we didn’t have an alternative option what other option did we have but go with this one and assume that the SANFL moving to West Lakes would go through? You said we didn’t even ask if they could move, you’re making that up, you don’t know.

No I am not missing the point, the SANFL are the ones with the negotiating power, we are the ones wanting to kick them out. Again what alternative did we have to but to expect they’d be able to move to West Lakes? Do we pull out of Thebby? Which brings me back to my main point, what alternative did we have?

None of you who are critical are able to come up with one that doesn’t see us being out bid by developers, having to deal with a council and NIMBYs.

In the end, the SANFL will get to move to West Lakes, we will get Thebby, unfortunately the delays have cost us a shitload, but again what are the alternatives besides wait it out?

Mate. You criticised 1990s perspective on Olsen's relationship with the SANFL and its impact on this deal. All I'm saying is that it's clearly plausible that it hasn't been an arms length negotiation. More likely than not, in my view.

As for the bigger question, unless we can do a deal to repurpose govt or council land, there is no way in hell we are getting within 10km of the CBD. Even 20km is a stretch, although you'd probably jag something at Gepps Cross.

As much as it blows my mind that a croquet club can have exclusive use to a piece of the parklands, rich farmers can park their horses in an inner urban parkland for reasons(?), SACA can build a structure on the parklands and turn part of it into a cricket ground, that netball SA can have a square kilometre of concrete down for courts, that a restaurant can have permanent structures on the parklands... yet the biggest sporting organisation in the state, that puts dollars into the ACC coffers and city businesses, can't get a slab of it to establish facilities that would be mostly open to the public... thebby really represents our final opportunity to get close to the CBD and, given how important that is to us, you would have thought we would have been far more diligent in covering off contingencies.

 

[arrowman]

I was at Hyde Park 10 years ago when Westminster Council pulled the plug on Paul McCartney when he was a surprise guest joining Bruce Springsteen on stage for an encore

The time? 22:02 against a 22:00 curfew

Number of complaints? 2

And I mean pulled the plug. Literally shut off the power mid song in front of 70,000 people

This s**t happens everywhere

I remember when that happened, what a joke. I think Bruce made a joke about it at a later Hyde Park concert- "Are we going to break another curfew, Stevie?"

You were there? Lucky man. I'm off in a few weeks to see him at the Stadium of Light in Sunderland.