Picket Fence

"Grumpy" from the UCC has had more to say on the picket fencing project at Unley Oval,

"Unley Oval ISN’T a pommie “village green.”
by cllrmikehudson
The last time I looked, Unley was part of Australia, a country renowned for distant horizons and wide open spaces.

Why, in heaven's name, should we therefore be trying to transform Unley Oval into a copy of a cosy, claustrophobic "English village green"? It's a nonsense. Especially as precious few of those actually exist...

But that's the depths of desperation to which supporters will stoop to legitimise of their dream of a picket fence around the playing area of the Double Blues' home ground.

The real reason for the whole idea rests more on finance than safety,which is what the pro-fence brigade would have you believe. Theirs is a non-existent issue. There is NO record of injuries being sustained because of the lack of fencing when the Oval is not being used for "structured sport" (i.e.Sturt home games and training).

Even more questionable is the efficacy of a fence, apparently designed to segregate differing users of the Oval, but which will have openings every 50 metres except when a match is in progress? It just doesn't make sense. The fence you are having when you don't having a fence...

The whole thing boils down to dollars.

A permanent fence would save Sturt the cost of erecting a fence for its home games. While that would obviously be to the club's advantage, it has to be pointed out that the Blues receive a handsome sponsorship handout for naming rights to a facility that the don't actually own.

Meanwhile, it is not what some people will try to portray, an anti-Sturt stance. It's not. I have fully supported the other proposals to improve the club's home facilities. They certainly deserve it for the turn-around on their on-field record. But the Oval was given to the PEOPLE of Unley, It should remain in the PUBLIC realm. Unfenced."

http://grumpyinunley.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/unley-oval-isnt-a-pommie-village-green/

Tool. It's great to say humbug just for the sake of it. I live in Thebarton and walk my dog every day down to Thebby Oval. While the ground itself is fenced off and locked the two playing fields are open to the public for multi use. Guess what! It's fenced off from South rd and Ashwin Pde. It's a great asset. It's a great area for people to let their dogs off the lead, for soccer training, a kick of the footy, personal training, to fly a radio controlled plane and for kids to run around all knowing that while not impossible for someone or something to run out into traffic it's highly unlikely.

Grumpy needs one of those pickets shoved right royally up his clacker.
This bloke is a good example of why local government is a dog's breakfast.
And people wonder why so much monetary waste occurs in local government.
Well, look no further. You have your answer.

I've prided myself in being a great problem solver
Was talking to an avid Sturt supporter recently 
I've come up with a solution that I informed him off

I've advocated that the Unley Oval fence be left up permanently
Then my brilliant , amazing, incredible solution would be :
Make gates in the fences

From a Rhodes Scholar, that is a brilliant  

The only extra costs would be for a few decent padlocks on match days.

Go to the top of the class.

When he is a self confessed 'Grumpy' he really should question why he is on council.

Not rocket science is it?

And much of the area that is intended to be fenced is difficult to access the ground from.

I think there are 4 logical points where gates would be considered and they are evenly spread around the ground to interface with surrounding streets. 90% of dog walkers would use these entry points right now. So what is the difficulty?

It must be a barrel of laughs at Council meetings.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:It must be a barrel of laughs at Council meetings.

As someone who works in Local Government, I can tell you there is nothing funny about Council Meetings from a staff perspective.

Sometimes you wonder why they even bother employing staff who are subject matter experts.

I might add, the temporary fence sighting is the highlight of a visit to Unley Oval now.

That's a typical bit of humbug from Councillor Hudson. He has done more than anyone else I can think of, to foster the "Village Green" mentality around Unley Oval. Trying to now make it sound like the Sturt Football Club's idea is ludicrous. All we've ever wanted is the type of modest conventional fencing that other suburban ovals have. Perhaps he has shares in the fencing company we have to hire the present eyesore from, for each home game.  

Depending on who you hear this from :
Is this correct ??????????????????????
It costs the SFC between $4000 to $7000 to have have these fences installed and removed per game ?

Given that Sturt play about 8-10 games a season at Unley Oval it would cost the club between $32000 to $70000 in costs per season

Can someone confirm that SFC pays this much ?

i've heard it is $5,000.00 but it doesn't matter who you talk too, the amount is always in that range you've posted Scrappy

Yep that's my understanding too.

The reason for the cost is that the fence has to be safety compliant and occupational health and safety has to be followed both for the fence whilst it is in place and whilst it is being put up and taken down. For this reason it cannot be done by volunteers making it an expensive exercise. When the Crows promised Sturt 4000+ at matches there I knew this was never going to happen and that it was likely that some of these games would actually be going into cost for the SFC, still I also figured that the President of Sturt would feel the same way and have factored that into their financial costing's and anticipated what they would do when the attendance fell below the break even figure - which I think is 3000 from memory.

I have seen them erect and take that fence down, at times I think those blokes missed the OH&S lesson, or they are volunteers.

I feel they are more interested in knocking off than carrying out safety procedures.

I tried very hard to get some of these answers from the guy from Adelaide that was communicating with supporters on SAFooty forum. I forget his name.
Many times I asked him about the 4000 crowd figure and that if they were so certain that this would happen why wouldn't Adelaide promise to cover Sturt's break even costs in good faith. Eventually I got a reply but it was one of disinterest and was told that it won't be an issue. Sturt voted for it and how they didn't work something more into the deal I don't know.
It just re-enforces my thoughts that it was always going to happen one way or another. I'd be interested to see what would've happened if all 8 clubs had voted no. You can be sure that the SANFL commission, Adelaide, Port and the AFL would've pulled out a killer blow.

Prowler,would you care to expand on your comments

Easy, The workers start to de-construct the fence while the supporters are still moving out of the ground.

At times the truck driver moves along the line with his yellow lights flashing clearing his way like a bulldozer in a rain forest.

Is that enough?

I must confess I don't really know the ins and outs of erecting and removing the fence at the moment. I do know that club volunteers have been involved in the past. Whether they still are I've no idea. What is plain, is that the sooner we can get a sensible resolution to this long standing pain in the butt the better. The negotiations with Council are at an advanced stage and the club is putting in a big push to get it through the public consultation phase. I urge any Sturt supporters on this forum to support our efforts. Contact the club for details on how you can assist. So long as we get a favourable response from this phase, we should be ready to proceed, but it's not cut and dried yet, by any means..

Perhaps not only Sturt supporters, but all supporters would be a help if you feel inclined to contact the Council to assist the community consultation process.

What every other club can fortunately take as a given, is not the case with the Blues.
If sanfl supporters in general were to get behind this, it would certainly put the good Councillor Hudson on notice that users of the ground are not just local people, or even Sturt supporters, but a much wider group too.

And for what it's worth, I have assisted a few times in putting up the fence in the last few years.

I like your thinking Chambo and would be happy to do my bit. Question though - Would anyone really care about the concerns from someone residing outside of the Council area?

Scrunch wrote:I like your thinking Chambo and would be happy to do my bit. Question though - Would anyone really care about the concerns from someone residing outside of the Council area?

I can tell you the club was certainly interested in some feedback regarding the warm welcome and then send off Port Adelaide received a week ago.

A family member, an elderly one, was quite intimidated by some of the goings on and spoke with the club on the Monday after. I believe the General Manager followed up with a return call and was quite concerned with the feedback she/he was given.

I see no reason why this issue would be any different.

Scrunch wrote:I like your thinking Chambo and would be happy to do my bit. Question though - Would anyone really care about the concerns from someone residing outside of the Council area?

I can't say.

But if the Unley Council want to promote people coming into their area and also spending money in their community and contributing positively to it, then perhaps they would or should care.

I guess you could call it a form of tourism. Not sure how much attention Councils across the metro area devote to that, but I do know the regional Councils are pretty focused on it.

Booney wrote:

Scrunch wrote:I like your thinking Chambo and would be happy to do my bit. Question though - Would anyone really care about the concerns from someone residing outside of the Council area?

I can tell you the club was certainly interested in some feedback regarding the warm welcome and then send off Port Adelaide received a week ago.

A family member, an elderly one, was quite intimidated by some of the goings on and spoke with the club on the Monday after. I believe the General Manager followed up with a return call and was quite concerned with the feedback she/he was given.

I see no reason why this issue would be any different.

Chambo has suggested contacting the council though, not the club

Scrunch wrote:

Booney wrote:

Scrunch wrote:I like your thinking Chambo and would be happy to do my bit. Question though - Would anyone really care about the concerns from someone residing outside of the Council area?

I can tell you the club was certainly interested in some feedback regarding the warm welcome and then send off Port Adelaide received a week ago.

A family member, an elderly one, was quite intimidated by some of the goings on and spoke with the club on the Monday after. I believe the General Manager followed up with a return call and was quite concerned with the feedback she/he was given.

I see no reason why this issue would be any different.

Chambo has suggested contacting the council though, not the club

Pretty sure the club (and any club for that matter) would be unhappy with supporters who don't behave appropriately.
I guess all clubs have a minority of supporters who make life hard and Sturt are no different.
Yes I believe it is the Council that is seeking comment on the fence proposal.
Hopefully they would consider any feedback that is offered, no matter where it is from.