A cricket ground or a football stadium?

The business of ground sharing at the Adelaide Oval before 1973

Lionel Frost, Margaret Lightbody, Amanda Carter, Abdel Halabi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Before 1973, cricket and Australian Football used the Adelaide Oval for major games during their respective seasons. Football’s popularity as a spectator sport prompted its organising body to seek to build an improved stadium, but cricket authorities controlled the asset and acted to maintain its specialised character as a cricket ground. A case study of how the gains from a shared capital good are negotiated when asset controllers and users have different objectives is provided. A series of counterfactual scenarios based on football remaining at the Oval is constructed from archival sources and their outcomes projected based on data in financial reports.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1164-1182
Number of pages19
JournalBusiness History
Volume58
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Nov 2016

Keywords

  • Adelaide
  • Australia
  • cricket
  • football
  • Ground sharing

Cite this

Frost, Lionel ; Lightbody, Margaret ; Carter, Amanda ; Halabi, Abdel. / A cricket ground or a football stadium? The business of ground sharing at the Adelaide Oval before 1973. In: Business History. 2016 ; Vol. 58, No. 8. pp. 1164-1182.
@article{e4f96b579985408491f30195426813b6,
title = "A cricket ground or a football stadium?: The business of ground sharing at the Adelaide Oval before 1973",
abstract = "Before 1973, cricket and Australian Football used the Adelaide Oval for major games during their respective seasons. Football’s popularity as a spectator sport prompted its organising body to seek to build an improved stadium, but cricket authorities controlled the asset and acted to maintain its specialised character as a cricket ground. A case study of how the gains from a shared capital good are negotiated when asset controllers and users have different objectives is provided. A series of counterfactual scenarios based on football remaining at the Oval is constructed from archival sources and their outcomes projected based on data in financial reports.",
keywords = "Adelaide, Australia, cricket, football, Ground sharing",
author = "Lionel Frost and Margaret Lightbody and Amanda Carter and Abdel Halabi",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1080/00076791.2016.1167188",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "1164--1182",
journal = "Business History",
issn = "0007-6791",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "8",

}

A cricket ground or a football stadium? The business of ground sharing at the Adelaide Oval before 1973. / Frost, Lionel; Lightbody, Margaret; Carter, Amanda; Halabi, Abdel.

In: Business History, Vol. 58, No. 8, 16.11.2016, p. 1164-1182.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cricket ground or a football stadium?

T2 - The business of ground sharing at the Adelaide Oval before 1973

AU - Frost, Lionel

AU - Lightbody, Margaret

AU - Carter, Amanda

AU - Halabi, Abdel

PY - 2016/11/16

Y1 - 2016/11/16

N2 - Before 1973, cricket and Australian Football used the Adelaide Oval for major games during their respective seasons. Football’s popularity as a spectator sport prompted its organising body to seek to build an improved stadium, but cricket authorities controlled the asset and acted to maintain its specialised character as a cricket ground. A case study of how the gains from a shared capital good are negotiated when asset controllers and users have different objectives is provided. A series of counterfactual scenarios based on football remaining at the Oval is constructed from archival sources and their outcomes projected based on data in financial reports.

AB - Before 1973, cricket and Australian Football used the Adelaide Oval for major games during their respective seasons. Football’s popularity as a spectator sport prompted its organising body to seek to build an improved stadium, but cricket authorities controlled the asset and acted to maintain its specialised character as a cricket ground. A case study of how the gains from a shared capital good are negotiated when asset controllers and users have different objectives is provided. A series of counterfactual scenarios based on football remaining at the Oval is constructed from archival sources and their outcomes projected based on data in financial reports.

KW - Adelaide

KW - Australia

KW - cricket

KW - football

KW - Ground sharing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963614944&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00076791.2016.1167188

DO - 10.1080/00076791.2016.1167188

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 1164

EP - 1182

JO - Business History

JF - Business History

SN - 0007-6791

IS - 8

ER -