SANFL Grounds

Can't disagree with much of that.

Brucetiki did great work with this and at some stage I think we might have another look, by increasing the weighting of the important scores and decreasing the less important ones and see if that changes things much.

Also, the assessments of some parts of the ground can be quite dynamic and changeable based on either upgrades that happen to the grounds from time to time or parts of grounds that have since been either neglected or changed for the worse.

Iv'e been told that the SANFL will do an audit on all grounds that use lights for night games. I was told lights will be turned on at a reasonable time when its dark and all sections of the ground/s will be checked. Norwood should be ok, Richmond, Norlunga, Elizabeth and especially the bay might have some concerns.

And what will they do if a ground's lights fail the test?

Given that all those grounds have hosted games and continue to do so, hopefully they would work with the clubs whose grounds have some lighting deficiencies, to improve them.

With the investments made by those clubs, it would be too severe to drop their night fixtures altogether.

redandblack wrote:And what will they do if a ground's lights fail the test?

I think they are worried that there might be few darker spots on grounds that are a concern and lighting will have to be adjusted to a reasonable level. ( i think )

recently we went to the Port Pirie trots & basically next door there is a footy oval (i think it's called 'Memorial Oval') anyway as we left the track there was a Baseball match going, so we popped in & had a look for 10 minutes or so, the lighting there which covered the whole ground (not just the baseball part) was great, it is a lot better than all suburban SANFL grounds

bayman wrote:recently we went to the Port Pirie trots & basically next door there is a footy oval (i think it's called 'Memorial Oval') anyway as we left the track there was a Baseball match going, so we popped in & had a look for 10 minutes or so, the lighting there which covered the whole ground (not just the baseball part) was great, it is a lot better than all suburban SANFL grounds

I wonder how many towns have memorial ovals ?

For every footy patron that thinks Unley Oval could do with a shot in the arm, the Council is conducting a Masterplan Review in relation to upgrades to the Oval precinct. The info below takes you to a web site survey where you can have your say. I encourage you all to do so.

Sturt Football Club Inc.
Unley Oval Precinct Masterplan – conducted by the City of Unley
Following the appointment of consultants 180SLS by the Council in October 2012, the Sturt Football Club has been involved in several activities relating to the consultation process prior to the preparation of the first draft of the Masterplan.

The Sturt Football Club is a leading sporting club that utilizes the Unley Oval and its immediate surrounds as its primary venue, and as an active member of the Unley Oval Advisors Group, the Club has also been involved in direct liaison with Council as well as meetings with the Consultants - 180SLS.

... The Club has been emphasising our immediate need for upgraded match day/training facilities for seniors and juniors; improved fencing arrangements and lighting for safe training purposes; and shared social clubroom facilities for combined users and the community.

An important part of the process includes community consultation, and the City of Unley is quite rightly encouraging the community to input into the process so that the views of the wider community and other sporting users of Unley oval are heard.

The Club encourages its Members to do the same and access to a short survey can be obtained from the City of Unley web site - http://yoursay.unley.sa.gov.au/unley-oval-precinct-master-plan - The Club values your input as members and we want to represent the common view from our membership base.

No reason it can't be done from outside our membership base either!

I remember being scoffed at several years ago on SA Footy and told I was living in the past, when I tried to explain that the issues facing the Sturt Football Club with Unley Oval will sooner or later confront other inner city clubs. With continuing pressure for higher density living in areas close to the CBD, suburban ovals will come to be seen for what they really are in a crowded city. Valuable patches of rare open space, that will come under increasing pressure to be shared by a wide range of community groups. Not just football clubs. Ovals like Norwood, Prospect, Richmond, Thebarton, even Woodville are within a few kilometers of the city centre and have few other alternative open spaces around them. Also their surrounding areas are prime candidates for high density living. I think lessons can be learnt from Sturt's experience and clubs would be wise to be proactive in dealing with councils over future development issues. A mistake we made by not looking far enough ahead and which has caused us so much grief and put us on the back foot now that push has come to shove. As it was always going to. Ah what a wonderful thing is 20/20 hindsight.

Good post CC --- In the case of Richmond Oval the local council has already undertaken a rationalization review of all oval within their area and (thankfully) I understand that Richmond Oval is not on the list for possible change of use.

AT THIS TIME

Sturts biggest mistake was leaving the oval for Adelaide Oval in the first place - at westies we had management (long gone) that wanted us to do the same, thank god we voted them out before it happened or we would be in the same position.

Technically we never left. It was always used for training and of course the admin. Only left for home match days. However, that was enough for the Council to expand its uses to other community users.

The sins of the past are still with us, however, I do believe in what I read in Council minutes etc that our place at Unley is well recognised, and even though improving our facilities and access is a long term solution.

Sharing the use of the precinct is not something that Sturt is necessarily against and probably would be supportive, as long as its tenure is secured under a better long term deal and with improved facilities.

Wasn't Sturt's move to Adelaide Oval as part of an SANFL wish for ground rationalisation?

oldfella wrote:Good post CC --- In the case of Richmond Oval the local council has already undertaken a rationalization review of all oval within their area and (thankfully) I understand that Richmond Oval is not on the list for possible change of use.

AT THIS TIME

Sturts biggest mistake was leaving the oval for Adelaide Oval in the first place - at westies we had management (long gone) that wanted us to do the same, thank god we voted them out before it happened or we would be in the same position.

Housing density has greatly increased even in my short time being a nieghbour of richmond oval .My landlord is building 64 units around the corner from me and richmond oval !!

And way back in 2006 once the eagles won the flag .Charles sturt council put its hand out and almost made it impossible for the eagles to be based at oval ave .Until West Torrens council stepped in and offered thebbie oval at a cheaper rate.Charle sturt backed down and the Ammos moved in to thebbie .

With the coming of the AFL back in 1991 and the demise of the sanfl in popularity, I think most Councils tended (and still do to some degree) to underestimate the worth of a footy club to the ground they call home. Some more than others perhaps.

For example how much do the patrons (both supporters and opposition) contribute to a community, who spend money in local pubs, cafes and businesses on or near main roads.
Eg Glenelg, Unley, Norwood, Prospect etc.
This is even true for other grounds within more residential localities.

Not only from this aspect, but the existence of a footy club who require suppliers of all types promotes trade in that local area and beyond.

Sometimes I do wonder if all of this indirect benefit to a local area is considered by Councils (or Councillors) who may not fully look at the big picture and only focus on what their 'asset' returns in dollars.

Sure there is a need to share that asset more equitably amongst the residents and community, but I am sure footy clubs are amenable to that. When you look at the green space being used for footy as a percentage of the week, it is fairly small.

Without wishing to disparage the enjoyment of the Unley Oval dog walkers (as plentiful as they are), the greater footballing public has a much higher presence and impact on the community in the use of that space.

In a nutshell, the indirect community benefits of a local footy club are just as important and definitely greater than what is just returned in rent, or other uses by a select few.

Off the soapbox now!

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:With the coming of the AFL back in 1991 and the demise of the sanfl in popularity, I think most Councils tended (and still do to some degree) to underestimate the worth of a footy club to the ground they call home. Some more than others perhaps.

For example how much do the patrons (both supporters and opposition) contribute to a community, who spend money in local pubs, cafes and businesses on or near main roads.
Eg Glenelg, Unley, Norwood, Prospect etc.
This is even true for other grounds within more residential localities.

Not only from this aspect, but the existence of a footy club who require suppliers of all types promotes trade in that local area and beyond.

Sometimes I do wonder if all of this indirect benefit to a local area is considered by Councils (or Councillors) who may not fully look at the big picture and only focus on what their 'asset' returns in dollars.

Sure there is a need to share that asset more equitably amongst the residents and community, but I am sure footy clubs are amenable to that. When you look at the green space being used for footy as a percentage of the week, it is fairly small.

Without wishing to disparage the enjoyment of the Unley Oval dog walkers (as plentiful as they are), the greater footballing public has a much higher presence and impact on the community in the use of that space.

In a nutshell, the indirect community benefits of a local footy club are just as important and definitely greater than what is just returned in rent, or other uses by a select few.

Off the soapbox now!

I do recall one a Sunday game while going to the toilet I heard one local going off at a SANFL offical .No Sturt dont play footy on sundays I wanna walk my dog NOW !!!

howthewestwaswon wrote:Wasn't Sturt's move to Adelaide Oval as part of an SANFL wish for ground rationalisation?

Yes it was and as oldfella said about West, it was by no means a unanimous decision at Sturt either. Unfortunately in our case, those who wanted to buy into the moonshine the SANFL was selling won the day. The rest, as they say, is history. And the Sturt Football Club very nearly became history too, as a consequence.

mickyj wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:With the coming of the AFL back in 1991 and the demise of the sanfl in popularity, I think most Councils tended (and still do to some degree) to underestimate the worth of a footy club to the ground they call home. Some more than others perhaps.

For example how much do the patrons (both supporters and opposition) contribute to a community, who spend money in local pubs, cafes and businesses on or near main roads.
Eg Glenelg, Unley, Norwood, Prospect etc.
This is even true for other grounds within more residential localities.

Not only from this aspect, but the existence of a footy club who require suppliers of all types promotes trade in that local area and beyond.

Sometimes I do wonder if all of this indirect benefit to a local area is considered by Councils (or Councillors) who may not fully look at the big picture and only focus on what their 'asset' returns in dollars.

Sure there is a need to share that asset more equitably amongst the residents and community, but I am sure footy clubs are amenable to that. When you look at the green space being used for footy as a percentage of the week, it is fairly small.

Without wishing to disparage the enjoyment of the Unley Oval dog walkers (as plentiful as they are), the greater footballing public has a much higher presence and impact on the community in the use of that space.

In a nutshell, the indirect community benefits of a local footy club are just as important and definitely greater than what is just returned in rent, or other uses by a select few.

Off the soapbox now!

I do recall one a Sunday game while going to the toilet I heard one local going off at a SANFL offical .No Sturt dont play footy on sundays I wanna walk my dog NOW !!!

well Mickyj,
that dog walker must have a labrador, sunglasses & a white kane because there are signs around the oval saying no dogs allowed on oval when organized sport is being played

bayman wrote:

mickyj wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:With the coming of the AFL back in 1991 and the demise of the sanfl in popularity, I think most Councils tended (and still do to some degree) to underestimate the worth of a footy club to the ground they call home. Some more than others perhaps.

For example how much do the patrons (both supporters and opposition) contribute to a community, who spend money in local pubs, cafes and businesses on or near main roads.
Eg Glenelg, Unley, Norwood, Prospect etc.
This is even true for other grounds within more residential localities.

Not only from this aspect, but the existence of a footy club who require suppliers of all types promotes trade in that local area and beyond.

Sometimes I do wonder if all of this indirect benefit to a local area is considered by Councils (or Councillors) who may not fully look at the big picture and only focus on what their 'asset' returns in dollars.

Sure there is a need to share that asset more equitably amongst the residents and community, but I am sure footy clubs are amenable to that. When you look at the green space being used for footy as a percentage of the week, it is fairly small.

Without wishing to disparage the enjoyment of the Unley Oval dog walkers (as plentiful as they are), the greater footballing public has a much higher presence and impact on the community in the use of that space.

In a nutshell, the indirect community benefits of a local footy club are just as important and definitely greater than what is just returned in rent, or other uses by a select few.

Off the soapbox now!

I do recall one a Sunday game while going to the toilet I heard one local going off at a SANFL offical .No Sturt dont play footy on sundays I wanna walk my dog NOW !!!

well Mickyj,
that dog walker must have a labrador, sunglasses & a white kane because there are signs around the oval saying no dogs allowed on oval when organized sport is being played

lmao he was quite upset bayman so funny imho

mickyj wrote:

bayman wrote:

mickyj wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:With the coming of the AFL back in 1991 and the demise of the sanfl in popularity, I think most Councils tended (and still do to some degree) to underestimate the worth of a footy club to the ground they call home. Some more than others perhaps.

For example how much do the patrons (both supporters and opposition) contribute to a community, who spend money in local pubs, cafes and businesses on or near main roads.
Eg Glenelg, Unley, Norwood, Prospect etc.
This is even true for other grounds within more residential localities.

Not only from this aspect, but the existence of a footy club who require suppliers of all types promotes trade in that local area and beyond.

Sometimes I do wonder if all of this indirect benefit to a local area is considered by Councils (or Councillors) who may not fully look at the big picture and only focus on what their 'asset' returns in dollars.

Sure there is a need to share that asset more equitably amongst the residents and community, but I am sure footy clubs are amenable to that. When you look at the green space being used for footy as a percentage of the week, it is fairly small.

Without wishing to disparage the enjoyment of the Unley Oval dog walkers (as plentiful as they are), the greater footballing public has a much higher presence and impact on the community in the use of that space.

In a nutshell, the indirect community benefits of a local footy club are just as important and definitely greater than what is just returned in rent, or other uses by a select few.

Off the soapbox now!

I do recall one a Sunday game while going to the toilet I heard one local going off at a SANFL offical .No Sturt dont play footy on sundays I wanna walk my dog NOW !!!

well Mickyj,
that dog walker must have a labrador, sunglasses & a white kane because there are signs around the oval saying no dogs allowed on oval when organized sport is being played

lmao he was quite upset bayman so funny imho

Fortunately most people in the area are pretty sensible about these matters, but you always get the few who think the world was made for them alone. There have been a couple of occasions when some fool has strolled across the oval with their dog, through the middle of training. Not a smart idea with 30 or 40 footballers racing around and the lights aren't all that great. Must have a taste for hospital cuisine.

Just to throw a spanner in the works - would ground rationalisation have worked if all clubs went for it? How would it have looked if the only ovals on offer were Adelaide, Footy Park and maybe Norwood?

I mean people complain a lot about the trips to Elizabeth and Noarlunga. They even complain about the trip to West Lakes!

I think ground rationalisation has to happen, maybe Sturt should just walk away from Unley, to save their own skins.

maybe they can "borrow" other teams' ovals during the season, when that side isn't playing there or their reserves, of course.

I am not in support of ground rationalization - once you leave your home ground you lose your identity.

As I posted earlier - a lot of Sturts present position can (IMO) be directly translated to when they let the door at Unley be opened by playing else where -- if Westies had left then they would not have the present level of support from council.

The one thing that has changed in modern times and shows at Unley but is a factor at all ground with possible exception of Elizabeth is that most of the local community does not realy care if there is a SANFL team in the area - more interested in 24/7 green space and council rates.

Teams who leave their home ground do it at great long term risk IMO.

so, if no-one wants them there, they need to leave, before it's too late. Mount Barker is probably out of the question now.