by pipers » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:27 pm
by pipers » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:34 pm
by Drop Bear » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:00 pm
by Hondo » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:01 pm
by Hondo » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:08 pm
pipers wrote: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?
by Ecky » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:17 pm
Hondo wrote: all he comes up with is doomsday style fear inducing scenarios like the scoreboard disappearing.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
by Hondo » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:24 pm
pipers wrote: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.
by Hondo » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Ecky wrote:Hondo wrote: 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).
by Ecky » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:28 pm
Hondo wrote:Ecky wrote:Hondo wrote: 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
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
by Hondo » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:35 pm
by smac » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:35 pm
pipers wrote: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.
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:08 pm
smac wrote: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).
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:11 pm
Hondo wrote: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.
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:14 pm
pafc1870 wrote: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.
by Hondo » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:17 pm
MAY-Z wrote: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?
by whufc » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:23 pm
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:28 pm
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.
by Ecky » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:28 pm
Hondo wrote: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?
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
by Pottsy » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:30 pm
Hondo wrote:The SACA are not giving up anything you can put a value on. What is the $ value of control of the stadium?
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:31 pm
Pottsy wrote:Hondo wrote: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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |