Reasons to Vote "NO"

[pipers]

I'm not anti-progressive at all.

It is just the wrong solution.

In my view the "big picture" or "way forward" is to wait and find a suitable place for a specially built multi-purpose stadium elsewhere in/near the CBD. then sell AAMI and fund development that way.

Then Adelaide Oval is retained as your "boutique" venue.

[pipers]

Please also remember that SACA members are not being asked to vote for the re-development.

We are being asked to vote in favour of changes to the SACA constitution to allow the (as yet unincorporated) SMA to take over the management of the facility.

Firstly, why would I do this?

Secondly, consider the potential that these changes are passed and then for some unforseen reason the development does not occur (eg. an incoming Lib govt decides the money is better spent on a hospital, or schools, or a grand prix!, the SMA proves to be a cumbersome and ineffective body unable to deliver the plans, the SANFL/AFL changes its mind or sells one of the SA licences to New Zealand).

Not totally out of the realms of possibility. And we would have handed over power for nothing to an as yet unidentified and unaccountable entity.

[Drop Bear]

If the State Government (Mike Rann) can build a billion dollar desalanation plant without asking the people what they want, I don't think SACA members voting no will stop this development happening.

[Hondo]

The $535m is different from spending on health which is essentially a black hole in which you could sink $1b in a year and still have the same number of sick people at the end of it. As part of a redevelopment of that whole riverfront area, $535m is not a sunk cost from which the state will never get a return. It's an investment same as the Victorian Govt invested into the MCG and Ethiad Stadium. If every time we went to develop something we diverted back into health we'd never do anything other than build hospitals. There's a balance.

The Gallipoli underpass cost $150m as a comparison. The proposed AAMI Stadium redevelopment including a spur line on the train was at least $150m from memory. If you don't spend $535m now how much will AAMI need spent on it in the next 10 years and how much more money will the SACA and SANFL lose from having to maintain a stadium each.

[Hondo]

We are being asked to vote in favour of changes to the SACA constitution to allow the (as yet unincorporated) SMA to take over the management of the facility.

Firstly, why would I do this?

If you are speaking as though you are the SACA (given that as a member you don't control the ground now anyway - the best you can do is write letters to the CEO or sack board members at elections) then the answer is:

- To get your $85m you borrowed recently on the new stand
- To get AFL footy at your ground so it's used regularly in the approx 7 months you don't currently do much with it anyway
- To get your ground upgraded to the value of $450m of free money

When you say you "give up control" to the SMA what actually is the problem other than the principle of giving up control? It's the main point Greg Howe is making yet all he comes up with is doomsday style fear inducing scenarios like the scoreboard disappearing.

[Ecky]

all he comes up with is doomsday style fear inducing scenarios like the scoreboard disappearing.

But is this that far-fetched?
The role of the SMA will be to maximise attendances and revenue for the ground, not to act in the best interests of cricket or the heritage of the ground. So they would be crazy not to consider building a grandstand in front of the scoreboard (assuming it can't be moved).

[Hondo]

I'm not anti-progressive at all.

It is just the wrong solution.

In my view the "big picture" or "way forward" is to wait and find a suitable place for a specially built multi-purpose stadium elsewhere in/near the CBD. then sell AAMI and fund development that way.

Then Adelaide Oval is retained as your "boutique" venue.

Since the last state election we've had the new RAH now committed to. It was an either/or at the last election. New RAH/redev AO v New stadium/redev RAH. At the federal level we then had the natural disasters in QLD that the Federal Govt has to pay a lot for. So I think the reality is that the second brand new CBD Stadium is a fair way off regardless of whether AO gets redeveloped and in that time AAMI Stadium will need large amounts of money spent on it. Why not spend it on the AO instead when the AO is already in the prime CBD location to have a stadium.

Secondly, it's easy to just say "sell AAMI" yet that means the SANFL have to give up everything they own to take up a < 50% stake in a new stadium. Estimates of the value of AAMI to sell it are no larger than $200m and even that figure is disputed by the SANFL. So they sell that and become 20% owners in a new stadium? That also means $800m at least of taxpayers money has to go into it and then we come back to the arguments in this thread about how even $535m is a luxury when there are other needs.

If it's no to the AO redev then the next best plan would be to spend it on AAMI and the rail connection as am bays suggested. To then go off on a $1b spending spree on a brand new one and force the SANFL to sell everything is difficult to justify with our current population IMO. Melbourne has 3 x population and 5 x the number of AFL teams to justify Ethiad.

[Hondo]

all he comes up with is doomsday style fear inducing scenarios like the scoreboard disappearing.

But is this that far-fetched?
The role of the SMA will be to maximise attendances and revenue for the ground, not to act in the best interests of cricket or the heritage of the ground. So they would be crazy not to consider building a grandstand in front of the scoreboard (assuming it can't be moved).

The State Govt has guaranteed this won't happen

Ecky you've got to extend some faith in the system sometimes rather than always assuming the worst will happen. Greg Howe is a lawyer and I know they are trained to think like that but sometimes it's not helpful.

[Ecky]

all he comes up with is doomsday style fear inducing scenarios like the scoreboard disappearing.

But is this that far-fetched?
The role of the SMA will be to maximise attendances and revenue for the ground, not to act in the best interests of cricket or the heritage of the ground. So they would be crazy not to consider building a grandstand in front of the scoreboard (assuming it can't be moved).

The State Govt has guaranteed this won't happen

They are the mob I am least likely to trust in this whole thing (with Demetriou a close second)! How long will they be in power for anyway?

[Hondo]

Ecky, so what do you make of your own SACA Management and Board (who I assume you trust?) who have helped broker this deal?

Do you trust them?

PS: I thought I read that protection of the hill and scoreboard would be written into law somehow so the SMA couldn't do what you fear they will.

[smac]

Please also remember that SACA members are not being asked to vote for the re-development.

We are being asked to vote in favour of changes to the SACA constitution to allow the (as yet unincorporated) SMA to take over the management of the facility.

Firstly, why would I do this?

Secondly, consider the potential that these changes are passed and then for some unforseen reason the development does not occur (eg. an incoming Lib govt decides the money is better spent on a hospital, or schools, or a grand prix!, the SMA proves to be a cumbersome and ineffective body unable to deliver the plans, the SANFL/AFL changes its mind or sells one of the SA licences to New Zealand).

Not totally out of the realms of possibility. And we would have handed over power for nothing to an as yet unidentified and unaccountable entity.

However; the members need some reason to vote yes or no on those constitutional changes. SACA do not want to be in the stadium management business and are asking members to allow this. Why would you? For the long term benefit of cricket in this state. See my previous post for some of this, see your members pack for all of the info. The agreements are waiting on the vote - a yes vote will bind the SANFL to Adelaide Oval as well as the Govt funding (election is too far off for it to matter).

[MAY-Z]

However; the members need some reason to vote yes or no on those constitutional changes. SACA do not want to be in the stadium management business and are asking members to allow this. Why would you? For the long term benefit of cricket in this state. See my previous post for some of this, see your members pack for all of the info. The agreements are waiting on the vote - a yes vote will bind the SANFL to Adelaide Oval as well as the Govt funding (election is too far off for it to matter).

so you are saying that if teh members vote no there will be no cricket in this state?

i see the saca are saying they will save around $18 million a year in repayments and will spend this money on grass roots cricket, now if the saca gave each grade club $1 million per year of the $18million so that each club could basically employ full time grade cricketers and effectively have the best 150 or so grade cricketers available playing in our comp then that would be a massive benefit for sa cricket but we all know that wont happen.

[MAY-Z]

Since the last state election we've had the new RAH now committed to. It was an either/or at the last election. New RAH/redev AO v New stadium/redev RAH. At the federal level we then had the natural disasters in QLD that the Federal Govt has to pay a lot for. So I think the reality is that the second brand new CBD Stadium is a fair way off regardless of whether AO gets redeveloped and in that time AAMI Stadium will need large amounts of money spent on it. Why not spend it on the AO instead when the AO is already in the prime CBD location to have a stadium.

Secondly, it's easy to just say "sell AAMI" yet that means the SANFL have to give up everything they own to take up a < 50% stake in a new stadium. Estimates of the value of AAMI to sell it are no larger than $200m and even that figure is disputed by the SANFL. So they sell that and become 20% owners in a new stadium? That also means $800m at least of taxpayers money has to go into it and then we come back to the arguments in this thread about how even $535m is a luxury when there are other needs.If it's no to the AO redev then the next best plan would be to spend it on AAMI and the rail connection as am bays suggested. To then go off on a $1b spending spree on a brand new one and force the SANFL to sell everything is difficult to justify with our current population IMO. Melbourne has 3 x population and 5 x the number of AFL teams to justify Ethiad.

currently the saca are giving up more than a 50% stake in adelaide oval, in return for about $85million, whilst football is paying $0 and getting just over 50% in a developed stadium plus keeping a minimum of $200million dollar asset. how does that seem fair for both football and cricket?

[MAY-Z]

The problem with the whole vote is the members already have their shiny new stand. If their new stand was a part of the deal they would vote yes to it because as by the "no" comments here its all me me me. They don't care what is best for the state. They don't care that the organisation that they freely chose to support want it. They don't care that it is obviously of a huge benefit for the state. They just care whats in it for them. I always thought the idea of being a member was to be able to vote for what is in the best interests of the organisation they were a member of. In this case thats obviously not going to happen.

what is best for the state? if this were to proceed the selling aami stadium and pumping that money into the redevelopment so that the state government doesnt have to put as much in would be best for the state but taht doesnt seem to be happening so stop pretending that saca members are the ones who are acting unfairly - footbal doesnt seem to be doing its fair share of contribution to the state

[Hondo]

currently the saca are giving up more than a 50% stake in adelaide oval, in return for about $85million, whilst football is paying $0 and getting just over 50% in a developed stadium plus keeping a minimum of $200million dollar asset. how does that seem fair for both football and cricket?

The SACA never bought the land at AO and have had Govt assistance with the upgrades to the stands

30 years ago the SANFL bought their own land at West Lakes and built their own stadium. In equivalent 1970 dollars the SANFL have already spent their $200m so why should they now give that up.

The SACA are not giving up anything you can put a value on. What is the $ value of control of the stadium? Greg Howe says the SACA are contributing assets to the SMA and therefore that is a cost but those assets are the stands which have nothing other than scrap value when not attached to the ground and they still get to use both the stands and the ground to make revenue for the same period of time over which they make revenue now (ie, half the year).

Neither the SANFL or the SACA get 50% of the stadium. The SACA lease the stadium and use it when they need to. They still will get to use it over the cricket season.

You tell me what the SACA are putting into this redevelopment in $.

[whufc]

Ill be voting....................................................................NO!!

[MAY-Z]

Since 2006, both clubs have had sliding attendances at AAMI Stadium. Crows home attendances have fallen every year, from an average of 42,455 in 2006 to 35,766 last season. Power home crowds have not averaged more than 30,000 since 2006 and fell to a record low of 23,044 last year.

just to bring up the attnedances again

why do we need a 50,000+ seat stadium - based on last season the crows would need a 40% increase on the average crowd to get to 50,000 and the power a 116% increase.

surely these are not feasable targets thereofre all the financial modelling about how much money that will bring to the city is way out of line

[Ecky]

Ecky, so what do you make of your own SACA Management and Board (who I assume you trust?) who have helped broker this deal?

Do you trust them?

I obviously don't totally trust them, but at least I trust them not to ruin the scoreboard as they know they would get kicked off the board straight away by the members if this happened.

[Pottsy]

The SACA are not giving up anything you can put a value on. What is the $ value of control of the stadium?

A fair bit I would have thought.

[MAY-Z]

The SACA are not giving up anything you can put a value on. What is the $ value of control of the stadium?

A fair bit I would have thought.

if football say the is 0 that must be correct...