SANFL Grounds

howthewestwaswon wrote: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 personally think that norwood oval is over rated.

Unless you can get into the stand on the wing.

Probably too late mate - it costs a considerable amount to relocate and it would appear that unless the SANFL foots the bill that on face value Sturt do not presently have those funds (sadly).

An issue I do not think many consider is that were a team to relocate would their existing supporters transfer to the new ground and there is a significant time gap to generate new local support - factors that again I am not sure that Sturt have the time to deal with.

Question for south supporters - when you transferred south were your experiences as per above?

what about just 4 ovals? one to the north, one to the south, to the east & the west?

All options are open and should be discussed however I have great problems with loss of identity.

For the discussion if I understand you correctly

• there are two oval to east - Norwood & Unley.

• Two ovals to west Woodvile & Richmond .

• Three ovals to north - Prospect, Alberton & Elizabeth

• Two ovals to south - Glenelg, Noarlunga.

• Unassigned Ovals = Adelaide Oval, Wayville Show grounds and potentially Mount Barker Thebarton & Football Park also?

Which club loses their oval or do we move all teams in the local to a new head quarters entirely - I am not sure if this is workable for the long term future of the game to be honest

Its not just match day about ovals - most clubs train 4/5 nights a week and to find a local oval with public excluded to allow safe training sessions is problematical.

Why would clubs need to find a new training venue?

Many communities would have difficulties in accepting or supporting that a football club could make their local oval unavailable for training needs only - local councils tend to follow what their constituent want and in most cases locals want 24/7 access to local facilities.

Using that argument, how do amateur and southern league clubs train on their grounds?

North are not training at a fully fenced and 'secure' location, and won't be for at least another week or 2.

Sturt train at unley with no fences.

Port were banished to ethelton.

Sometimes sanfl clubs are just a little too precious and think they are more important than they are.

To be frank I suspect that amateur and southern league clubs have more community support than SANFL clubs as that is where their kids play within their junior grades?

In terms of training without the public being on the oval becomes an issue where locals insist on walking their dogs or playing with their kids on the oval during training - it does happen and if anyone is ever injured then all hell will break loose - its a pure OHS issue

WHS has nothing to do with the general public.

I'm sure people are smart enough to see 40 men running around playing footy, and would keep off

Higglytown Hero wrote:WHS has nothing to do with the general public.

I'm sure people are smart enough to see 40 men running around playing footy, and would keep off

I havent been to Eagles training this year .but I've seen in the past at thebarton dogs let to run around the ground when the eagles were training !! Not to mention work and vehicles on the oval when the light towers were being built and holes covered with chipboard!!
People arent smart HTH I will say again I over heard an unley local arguing with a SANFL red coat . That as it was a Sunday Sturt could not be playing footy .And he was determined to walk his dog on the oval!!
Meanwhile 36 seconds players were playing at the time .If he was'nt stopped would he have gone on the oval!!!

The residents around unley don't want sturt there and enjoy making life hard.

How do you expect new lights to be installed with no holes or vehicles on and around the oval?

It's good enough for the biggest football team in the state to train on an oval with no fencing, then I'm sure it's ok for sanfl clubs

Higglytown Hero wrote:The residents around unley don't want sturt there and enjoy making life hard.

How do you expect new lights to be installed with no holes or vehicles on and around the oval?

It's good enough for the biggest football team in the state to train on an oval with no fencing, then I'm sure it's ok for sanfl clubs

So every one should train at unley and experiance an oval covered in dog droppings ?
No offence to sturt by the way

Yep that's exactly what I said

Sturt put up signs around the ground during training times that I think state they have exclusive use of the ground under the terms of their lease. These come with safety warnings to the public. It hasn't always worked 100% effectively and errant dog walkers have been asked to desist for their own safety on a few occasions.

I would imagine any ground fenced or not, if it is open to the public for viewing during most training sessions, would find the odd recalcitrant individual (with or wothout dog) who may not observe or respect the club's use of the ground.

At Unley, the residents do make sure they stake their claim back when the club is not using the oval. Incidentally I have assisted on match days a number of times with preparing the ground over a 2 hour span early in the morning when the dog walkers are still permitted to use the ground. They have been polite and respectful of footy operations (whilst maintaining their rights), but I have never seen any dog droppings' infractions during this time. That is not to say it doesn't happen occasionally. But this one has been a bit overblown of late.

The main issue facing Sturt and its use of Unley Oval, is simply the cost of preparing each game day. That is mainly the fencing.

If you read the latest minutes and activities being deliberated by the Council, there have been quite a few postives in recent times, with hopefully more to follow once the overall Unley Oval Precinct plan is determined.

There have been many ideas floated about Wayville, Mt Barker and other sanfl grounds, but as I've said many times, Sturt don't want to leave Unley and the Council don't want them to leave either. The push to play 2 night games at Norwood was simply a means to tap into the more lucrative Night Footy market in the immediate future.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Sturt put up signs around the ground during training times that I think state they have exclusive use of the ground under the terms of their lease. These come with safety warnings to the public. It hasn't always worked 100% effectively and errant dog walkers have been asked to desist for their own safety on a few occasions.

I would imagine any ground fenced or not, if it is open to the public for viewing during most training sessions, would find the odd recalcitrant individual (with or wothout dog) who may not observe or respect the club's use of the ground.

At Unley, the residents do make sure they stake their claim back when the club is not using the oval. Incidentally I have assisted on match days a number of times with preparing the ground over a 2 hour span early in the morning when the dog walkers are still permitted to use the ground. They have been polite and respectful of footy operations (whilst maintaining their rights), but I have never seen any dog droppings' infractions during this time. That is not to say it doesn't happen occasionally. But this one has been a bit overblown of late.

The main issue facing Sturt and its use of Unley Oval, is simply the cost of preparing each game day. That is mainly the fencing.

If you read the latest minutes and activities being deliberated by the Council, there have been quite a few postives in recent times, with hopefully more to follow once the overall Unley Oval Precinct plan is determined.

There have been many ideas floated about Wayville, Mt Barker and other sanfl grounds, but as I've said many times, Sturt don't want to leave Unley and the Council don't want them to leave either. The push to play 2 night games at Norwood was simply a means to tap into the more lucrative Night Footy market in the immediate future.

Sorry Chambo I've heard former Eagles players complain about the dog droppings after matches at unley !!
I'll move on now

I remember reading once that Alistair Clarkson once scooped up dog manure from the Unley Oval surface prior to a Sturt v Centrals game in 2002.

It may have been an urban myth but I'm sure I read it in a newspaper article.

No I am not disputing that this has happened. And probably once is enough to put you off. But I think it has improved over recent years.

And how do I know? Not a bloody clue.

Just that on game day when us volunteers are on the oval backwards and forwards so often, I just haven't seen any. But this is only in the last 3 years.

Still, the possibility of an "occurrence" is still there, as long as our dog walkers do their morning laps.

Not sure what hapenned to my post ?

Anyway , what is your solution Mickey ?

I suppose there could be lots of interesting things on all ovals . Probably one of those things out of the control of clubs to a degree.
Is the poor lighting at all grounds except Norwood an issue as well and now that the noveltyy has worn off an issue ? I know many that no longer go to night games because of it .

waddayamean wrote:Not sure what hapenned to my post ?

Anyway , what is your solution Mickey ?

I suppose there could be lots of interesting things on all ovals . Probably one of those things out of the control of clubs to a degree.
Is the poor lighting at all grounds except Norwood an issue as well and now that the noveltyy has worn off an issue ? I know many that no longer go to night games because of it .

I have no idea of a solution waddyamean
But the idea of sturt playing night games at norwood or richmond has some merit IMHO.

I know this has probably been asked before, but when was the 1st official match for premiership points played at the Parade under lights?

howthewestwaswon wrote:I know this has probably been asked before, but when was the 1st official match for premiership points played at the Parade under lights?

Round 2 1997
Sturt 3.4 7.8 10.11 11.16 (82)
North 4.3 8.3 9.4 10.7 (67)
Norwood, 3368

spell_check wrote:

howthewestwaswon wrote:I know this has probably been asked before, but when was the 1st official match for premiership points played at the Parade under lights?

Round 2 1997
Sturt 3.4 7.8 10.11 11.16 (82)
North 4.3 8.3 9.4 10.7 (67)
Norwood, 3368

geez !!! i would have lost money there i would have thought the 1980's


ps, who remembers those Escort Cup (plus other sponsors throughout the years) matches against the teams from the WAFL & VFL ?

Hey Spelly - I can remember going to Norwood Oval as a kid and watching night games at Norwood Oval -- was not for premiership points but was either pre season night carnival or summer night football.

Recon I went there in 1955/6 - question how long ago was SANFL senior football first played under lights at Norwood Oval?

Thanks spelly. I didn't think it was too long ago. I remember as a kid, a lot of high school mates and myself would go to a Friday night game, just for the thrill of participating and experiencing the 'new' novelty, even if teams we didn't support were playing.

1954 was the first time that a night series competition was held at Norwood Oval. Adelaide Hawk would know the exact year, but I believe lights were installed at Norwood in 1952.