Andy Collins calls for Ground Rationalisation and the closure of Unley Oval.

Clearly the Senior Coach of the West Adelaide Football Club is not backwards in coming forward about his views, I do wonder what other venues along with Unley he thinks should be rationalized out of the SANFL?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/phase-out-unley-collins/story-e6freckc-1226615530422

That's an old story now .

This is Sturts reply and Collins put back in his box.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sturt-ceo-matt-benson-hits-back-at-unley-oval-move-talks/story-e6frea83-1226620513539

"FRIDAY'S landmark ground-sharing agreement which saw Sturt play a home match at The Parade should become more common and smaller ovals like Unley should be phased out of the competition, West Adelaide coach Andrew Collins says."

He doesn't seem to be singling Unley out completely.

Norwood, Unley and Glenelg are almost the same dimensions.
Glenelg - 160m x 110m
Unley - 160m x 115m
Norwood 165m x 110m

But it is confusing if he is saying Norwood is ok because it isn't a small ground, or is it too up for grabs as being ripe to be phased out?

I don't subscribe to this theory at all.

Maybe Andy hasn't grown up on sanfl traditions, but you can't take the suburban aspect out of the sanfl, otherwise it will be a soulless beast, a bit like the contrivances of big AFL stadiums. I hate AAMI as I think it is a big soulless place (maybe not on Sunday when there was 40,000 bums on seats yelling). But I am hoping that the final look of Adelaide Oval won't rob it of its historic place in Adelaide sporting tradition.

I love the suburban grounds (no not all of them) and like everyone else have my preferences, but without these venues and what they have stood for all these years, you rip the heart out of the essence of sanfl footy in my opinion.

I don't agree with Andy Collins either if I take his words literally, but maybe he is just hinting that Sturt should look at a groundsharing option with Norwood or West to save the club some coin.

howthewestwaswon wrote:I don't agree with Andy Collins either if I take his words literally, but maybe he is just hinting that Sturt should look at a groundsharing option with Norwood or West to save the club some coin.

That was the impression I got, that Andy was looking at ground rationalisation so that clubs share ovals, The benefits would be to improve the facilities and/or lessen the cost per club for maintenance.
I hope we do not go down the path of a few large grounds. Nothing is worse then a stadium with a couple of thousand people in it and the players have to jump the fence to get the footy back.

I feel the smaller grounds have character that some of the paddocks lack and having different sized grounds add to the complexity of the game. You need to adjust to the conditions.

The only problem is that Sturt is the only club with a ground that is used as a public park during the week, so they are singled out in this argument.

I think I've suggested before that Sturt could probably look at Goodwood Oval or Edwardstown Oval as a ground share option. Hell, they might even be able to look at Panther Park.

howthewestwaswon wrote:I don't agree with Andy Collins either if I take his words literally, but maybe he is just hinting that Sturt should look at a groundsharing option with Norwood or West to save the club some coin.

This was precisely how I took his comments because of Sturts financial problems, I don't want to see grounds disappearing either and don't see any need for this to happen.

Didn't work for Sturt 1st time with Adelaide Oval.

Didn't work with Fitzroy when they left Brusnwick Street. Became nomads with no home to build a base with.

if Sturt 'were' to move surely Wayville would be the way to go for these reasons

close to city
plenty of public transport
plenty of car parking
LIGHTS already there

hell they could use one of the halls as a nightclub & clubrooms after matches

howthewestwaswon wrote:I think I've suggested before that Sturt could probably look at Goodwood Oval or Edwardstown Oval as a ground share option. Hell, they might even be able to look at Panther Park.

The problem with Panther Park is the council and local residents are opposed to SANFL football being played there, that is why South were never able to develop it as our home ground.

There are some good amatuer ovals around I do agree, yet in several cases they need to have mounds all the way around which is one of the problems at Unley Oval where the mounds on the eastern and north eastern sides have been removed. Also there is the fact that the SAAFL club would have to be willing to have their ground taken over and redeveloped which is pretty unlikely to happen.

Ground Rationalisation is an interesting subject though, they seem to manage it at Leederville in WA without to many problems. If the Magpies were still trying to go it alone without the Power that is one area they may have been interested in at Woodville or Thebarton oval. Some may not be aware that Port also went to Adelaide Oval for home matches for a time, along with Sturt.

bayman wrote:if Sturt 'were' to move surely Wayville would be the way to go for these reasons

close to city
plenty of public transport
plenty of car parking
LIGHTS already there

hell they could use one of the halls as a nightclub & clubrooms after matches

This is where I would like to hear a comment from Mike Hudson if he would support Sturt playing at a redeveloped Wayville Oval for night matches?

In the short term there is no way that Sturt can leave Unley Oval, yet as the club readilly acknowledges they do need to be able to access night football, hence the discussions with West and Norwood and the agreement that was reached with Norwood which was not the success they had hoped.

Its my opinion that a redeveloped Wayville Oval might do well in terms of crowd numbers for night matches for Sturt, its got very good and efficient public transport - buses, express buses, trams and trains in the immediate vicinity, its local to the club in an area where the club is well supported.

The issue is the running rail around the ground. For those that do not know, Speedway and motorbike racing events are now banned at Wayville because those events can only be run in a pug hole where the track is at least one meter below the spectators and has two fences an outer and an inner fence to protect spectators. Hence like the Gaza Eagles on North East Rd, the track needs to be removed from Wayville and the oval redeveloped. A good opportunity for Mike Hudson and co to help the Sturt FC into night footy if they are actually serious about being supportive of the Sturt FC.

Matt Benson must wonder what language he has to speak to make everyone understand.

Hudson? Just an annoying political wannabe who has no credibility.

hey Chambo, for the good of the discussion i had my 2c worth, i also used the words
''if''
''were''

Yeah no worries, but we grow tired of defending the desire to stay put.
Nobody within the club wants to move from Unley.
There is hope for better facilities, Mr Hudson notwithstanding.

People outside perceive other positives in moving, but most are just unfeasible and in my opinion (and a great many Sturt supporters) would not deliver the beneficial results the club would demand before even considering them seriously.

Unless some unforeseen tragedy were to occur, at Unley we shall happily remain. Pondering a move is other people's agenda not Sturts.

Lets see if I can be clear

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. STURT DONT WANT TO MOVE. THE COUNCIL WANT STURT AT UNLEY. NO STURT WONT MOVE TO MOUNT BARKER OR WAYVILLE.

NO ,IF, WERE, BUTS, MAYBE ,WHAT ABOUT .

IT SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Never say never. You can't predict what the future will bring...

Big Phil wrote:Never say never. You can't predict what the future will bring...

No you can't Phil.

Oh dear.

I support Sturt staying at Unley. The connection supporters have with their home ground is irreplaceable.

So, of all those that support the club staying at Unley, what are your thoughts on Sturt moving those two matches to be night matches at Norwood Oval?

Should Sturt not participate in night football because they cannot access it at Unley Oval? What is the difference between playing those night games at Norwood as opposed to playing at Wayville?

I work near Unley Oval and often walk around it and I often wonder why there is not a permanent fence round it with gates open to allow people in. Surely that would be a big cost saving each year rather than putting them up and down each game.

Ben W wrote:So, of all those that support the club staying at Unley, what are your thoughts on Sturt moving those two matches to be night matches at Norwood Oval?

Should Sturt not participate in night football because they cannot access it at Unley Oval? What is the difference between playing those night games at Norwood as opposed to playing at Wayville?

Moving 2 matches to Norwood to play at night is ok.
I would prefer not to see any more than that, but that is just me.
Norwood is a ready made option right now and 2 games is not leaving Unley.

But, quite simply the cost to bring Wayville up to speed would not be advantageous in the current climate.
It wouldn't matter to me if those 2 night games were at Wayville if it could be done without expense.

Our first option if it were possible, would be to play night footy at Unley.
However, given the problems the Bays had in getting their facility across the line with residents, I am under no illusion that it won't be anything but an uphill battle.