Ross Pelligra reveals three sites still in the mix for the Crows
The developer working to find a new home for the Adelaide Crows has revealed Thebarton Oval isn’t the only option being considered.
Business
Don't miss out on the headlines from Business. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Property developer Ross Pelligra has vowed to push ahead in the search for a new home for the Adelaide Crows, revealing there are three sites still in the mix for the club’s new base.
While “disappointed” with the state government’s decision to engage Victorian developer MAB Corporation to redevelop the former Brompton Gasworks site, Mr Pelligra said his company would continue to work with the Crows on alternative options.
“We’re now working on other locations that we had shortlisted earlier, and we’re going to put the proposal together and work on another outcome,” he said.
“The main reason we wanted the Brompton site was because of the challenges it had, and as a group we love to take on projects like that.
“But we’ve got three other properties at the moment that we’re working on – I can’t say where.
“Exactly what our masterplan is, is what we’re now going to locate on another site. We’ve worked out what the best surrounds for the grounds are, and the facilities needed, the outcomes for businesses and the size of the training facility. We have a very good mud map and now it’s site selection to fit that map.”
Mr Pelligra’s comments contrast with those of Crows chairman John Olsen, who has said the club’s attention would now focus on setting up its new base at Thebarton Oval.
The developer said he would visit Adelaide next week to tour two alternative sites - one privately-owned and one overseen by Renewal SA.
It is understood Renewal SA on Thursday told Mr Pelligra that the two other sites were available, after informing him of the unsuccessful gasworks bid.
The Advertiser, in November 2020, revealed the Crows were zeroing in on Thebarton Oval but also were investigating sites including the Adelaide Showground and a former SA Water site opposite Thebarton’s Ice Arena.
The latter is now an Adelaide City Council park and, therefore, would be out of contention after the council last March blocked the club’s bid for any new headquarters in the parklands.
The Bowden site plans, developed by Melbourne-based Pelligra and the Crows, included a new oval with public access, as well as a running track and community plaza surrounded by commercial and residential development.
However the government, on the advice of Renewal SA, opted for MAB Corporation’s plan for the 6ha site, which includes a 120-room hotel as well as a commercial and retail zone incorporating a piazza surrounded by cafes, restaurants and bars.
The $459m development will house an estimated 2200 residents once completed, including a mix of townhouses and apartments.
It is the first project in South Australia for MAB Corporation – a company run by rich listers Andrew and Michael Buxton.
The Buxton family dynasty is very much part of Victoria’s establishment, with business roots dating back to 1861, when the brothers’ great-grandfather J.R. Buxton founded a real estate agency that still operates today.
According to The Australian’s latest Richest 250 list, published last year, Andrew and older brother Michael are now among the richest businesspeople in Australia with a combined wealth of $710m.
Until now, their $11bn worth of completed and planned commercial, residential and apartment projects have been located in areas in and around Melbourne, including at the Docklands precinct and in the city’s northern fringes.
In an ironic twist, it was revealed in 2019 that Andrew Buxton is a major investor in former Crow James Podsiadly’s AFL Max venture, alongside other investors including Crows board members Mark Ricciuto and Richard Fennell, forward Taylor Walker and Darren Thomas, whose Thomas Foods is a major sponsor of the football club.
Mr Pelligra said he hadn’t seen MAB Corporation’s plans for the Brompton Gasworks site, but wished the company well.
“I’m disappointed but at the end of the day I respect the decision,” he said.
“With development every developer has their own ideas – what the other group had put forward was probably something that the government wanted more than what we were proposing and that’s the reason why we weren’t successful.”