Reasons to Vote "NO"

[pipers]

You're a giggle. Care to answer anything asked of you or just feign intelligence and ask more questions?

What has anyone asked of me?

[smac]

The cost of membership will be reduced for 2 years. But beyond that? CPI allegedly.

Is that the same "SACA CPI" that has traditionally been at least 2-3 times the national rate of CPI?

Seriously? We're up to that are we?

What, seeking an assurance beyond two years? Jesus, even the federal electoral process provides more than that!

Compare the facility membership around Australia to Adelaide Oval and tell me where it lies.

I'm not 100% sure what your question is, but if it's about the quality/value I get from my current membership, then I'm reasonably comfortable with that. I don't feel I need more facilities, so perhaps my concern about paying more for things I don't need is reasonable.

Vote how you want, as I've said numerous times. Just don't carry on like a yes vote is a chore. Hand in your membership if it's that rough.

By voting YES I effectively would be handing it in.

1. You said you read the member info booklet. Pay an assured rate for either outcome over the next 3-4 years. Does that suit?
2. It wasn't a question, they have one of these "?" at the end.
3. Why? What do you lose by voting yes? No one has told me that yet..

[smac]

The cost of membership will be reduced for 2 years. But beyond that? CPI allegedly.

Is that the same "SACA CPI" that has traditionally been at least 2-3 times the national rate of CPI?

Seriously? We're up to that are we?

Compare the facility membership around Australia to Adelaide Oval and tell me where it lies.

Vote how you want, as I've said numerous times. Just don't carry on like a yes vote is a chore. Hand in your membership if it's that rough.

There's a question in there, regarding facility membership. There's a start.

[pipers]

What people tend to be forgetting here is my intense dislike/distrust of the AFL (and by extension the SANFL, who are completely conflicted).

If this was a $585M "free-hit" for cricket, and was to be 100% managed by the association of which I am a member, then I'd probably be in favour.

Plain and simple I am extremely skeptical (sceptical) of the motives and intentions of those behind this deal.

Rann wants a legacy. This will be his "magnus opus" so to speak.
Power want anything that might buy them some time. They are dead in the water.
AFL want to be able to flog corporate suites etc
SACA want someone to pay their debts.
Crows don't really want this, but are being led into it by the desperate SANFL.

I just want to sit in my usual place at next years test match.

[smac]

What people tend to be forgetting here is my intense dislike/distrust of the AFL (and by extension the SANFL, who are completely conflicted).

If this was a $585M "free-hit" for cricket, and was to be 100% managed by the association of which I am a member, then I'd probably be in favour.

Plain and simple I am extremely skeptical (sceptical) of the motives and intentions of those behind this deal.

Rann wants a legacy. This will be his "magnus opus" so to speak.
Power want anything that might buy them some time. They are dead in the water.
AFL want to be able to flog corporate suites etc
SACA want someone to pay their debts.
Crows don't really want this, but are being led into it by the desperate SANFL.

I just want to sit in my usual place at next years test match.

What you tend to be forgetting is you're vote helps Port, Crows, AFL, SANFL and SACA achieve their aims. Most importantly, you also achieve your aims. Your seat stays where it was and you can run for it at 8am on day one of next years test match and every day/year after that. Do you want to piss someone off by voting no or is there a real reason to vote no?

All I am doing is trying to work out where your mind is. So far, all I can work out is that it isn't anywhere near the rest of the people in South Australia. I'm guessing Guadelajara.

[pipers]

1. You said you read the member info booklet. Pay an assured rate for either outcome over the next 3-4 years. Does that suit?
2. It wasn't a question, they have one of these "?" at the end.
3. Why? What do you lose by voting yes? No one has told me that yet..

1. The model goes for 4 years, correct. But models aint worth a dime when the assumptions are not robust. I question what occurs in the case of budget over-run.
2. It wasn't a question, but it was a request to "tell me where that lies". And I still don't know what you meant.
3. A yes vote removes the SACAs exclusive accountabilty to its members in respect to how the ground is used, maintained, developed. It means thos decisions are in the hands of the SMA - the governance structure of which no-one is prepared to divulge.

[pipers]

There's a question in there, regarding facility membership. There's a start.

Hang on, you just said it wasn't a question! It doesn't have one of these "?" remember.

[pipers]

What you tend to be forgetting is you're vote helps Port, Crows, AFL, SANFL and SACA achieve their aims. Most importantly, you also achieve your aims. Your seat stays where it was and you can run for it at 8am on day one of next years test match and every day/year after that. Do you want to piss someone off by voting no or is there a real reason to vote no?

All I am doing is trying to work out where your mind is. So far, all I can work out is that it isn't anywhere near the rest of the people in South Australia. I'm guessing Guadelajara.

Why do I care if Port, Crows, AFL or SANFL acheive their aims?

SACAs objectives are set out in Section 3 of the constitution, and football isn't mentioned anywhere.

And that's the way I like it.

[smac]

1. You said you read the member info booklet. Pay an assured rate for either outcome over the next 3-4 years. Does that suit?
2. It wasn't a question, they have one of these "?" at the end.
3. Why? What do you lose by voting yes? No one has told me that yet..

1. The model goes for 4 years, correct. But models aint worth a dime when the assumptions are not robust. I question what occurs in the case of budget over-run.
2. It wasn't a question, but it was a request to "tell me where that lies". And I still don't know what you meant.
3. A yes vote removes the SACAs exclusive accountabilty to its members in respect to how the ground is used, maintained, developed. It means thos decisions are in the hands of the SMA - the governance structure of which no-one is prepared to divulge.

1. You said 'aint'. You're funny. Don't ask SACA for answers if they aren't going to satisfy you.
2. Where what lies? I reckon you're more confusing than I am. I've posted nothing but facts. You've posted a lot of shit.
3. No it doesn't. SACA still appoint 50% of the SMA via the Board. A stalemate at SMA = no change. Unless you didn't like what they have done over many years (which would mean you want to change the system, which it sounds like you don't) then you should be OK with that.

As an addendum, have you asked anyone what the governance structure is or just bleated here about it? Go on, ask. Better still, head to a member information session and listen. Careful not to learn something though. Might realise your beliefs are based on bullshit though, so be careful.

[smac]

What you tend to be forgetting is you're vote helps Port, Crows, AFL, SANFL and SACA achieve their aims. Most importantly, you also achieve your aims. Your seat stays where it was and you can run for it at 8am on day one of next years test match and every day/year after that. Do you want to piss someone off by voting no or is there a real reason to vote no?

All I am doing is trying to work out where your mind is. So far, all I can work out is that it isn't anywhere near the rest of the people in South Australia. I'm guessing Guadelajara.

Why do I care if Port, Crows, AFL or SANFL acheive their aims?

SACAs objectives are set out in Section 3 of the constitution, and football isn't mentioned anywhere.

And that's the way I like it.

There we go. You raised other parties, not me. However; obviously you have read the constitution? What is wrong with the mark ups in the proposed changes?

What is lost? What is gained? By anyone?

[pipers]

1. You said 'aint'. You're funny. Don't ask SACA for answers if they aren't going to satisfy you.

It provides part of the answer, but how definitive is that if the project blows out?

2. Where what lies? I reckon you're more confusing than I am. I've posted nothing but facts. You've posted a lot of ****.

I don't know either, they're your words!!! Something about "facility membership" I think it was.
I'm still trying to work out if it was a question or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

3. No it doesn't. SACA still appoint 50% of the SMA via the Board. A stalemate at SMA = no change. Unless you didn't like what they have done over many years (which would mean you want to change the system, which it sounds like you don't) then you should be OK with that.

Now, that is what I assume would be the case, but is that set down anywhere, or is it just the initial appointments that were determined that way? So if Bannon steps aside in 2014, is it only SACA members (via our Board) who can determine who replaces him, or do the SANFL members have a vote too?)

As an addendum, have you asked anyone what the governance structure is or just bleated here about it? Go on, ask. Better still, head to a member information session and listen. Careful not to learn something though. Might realise your beliefs are based on bullshit though, so be careful.

Well, I was expecting that it might be detailed in the "comprehensive information pack" provided to us last week.

I'll be going to a session, have no fear. But don't worry, I'm sure I wont learn anything.

[Wedgie]

Very well said Pipers, lets hope common sense prevails and this plan gets canned.
Hopefully the SACA members will do the right thing by this state and vote NO.
I can't believe some of the crap published and how many fall for it.

[pipers]

[There we go. You raised other parties, not me. However; obviously you have read the constitution? What is wrong with the mark ups in the proposed changes?

What is lost? What is gained? By anyone?

That's the irony of this whole debate. The consitutional changes do not actually guarantee that this will proceed. I will repeat that for the uninitiated.

The consitutional changes do not actually guarantee that this will proceed.

It merely allows SACA to "participate" in a joint venture or with any other entity in the management of the facility/grounds, rather than manage them exclusively.

Ah, now, that sounds like we might be giving up something! But that might be OK, if we understand who we are giving it to, and how we might be able to influence what they might do with it in the future...

But we don't!

And there's the rub!!!

VOTE NO.

[smac]

[There we go. You raised other parties, not me. However; obviously you have read the constitution? What is wrong with the mark ups in the proposed changes?

What is lost? What is gained? By anyone?

That's the irony of this whole debate. The consitutional changes do not actually guarantee that this will proceed. I will repeat that for the uninitiated.

The consitutional changes do not actually guarantee that this will proceed.

It merely allows SACA to "participate" in a joint venture or with any other entity in the management of the facility/grounds, rather than manage them exclusively.

Ah, now, that sounds like we might be giving up something! But that might be OK, if we understand who we are giving it to, and how we might be able to influence what they might do with it in the future...

But we don't!

And there's the rub!!!

VOTE NO.

Yes, what they really want to do is enter into a joint venture with the Adelaide Oval destruction society, based in Niger. And of course we all know that their charter is to destroy Mylor Cricket Club once Adelaide Oval is obliterated.

You should call Team America. **** yeah.

[smac]

Very well said Pipers, lets hope common sense prevails and this plan gets canned.
Hopefully the SACA members will do the right thing by this state and vote NO.
I can't believe some of the crap published and how many fall for it.

And there we go. You're on Wedgie's team, Pipers. I think that sums it up.

[pipers]

Ah, now, that sounds like we might be giving up something! But that might be OK, if we understand who we are giving it to, and how we might be able to influence what they might do with it in the future...

But we don't!

And there's the rub!!!

VOTE NO.

Yes, what they really want to do is enter into a joint venture with the Adelaide Oval destruction society, based in Niger. And of course we all know that their charter is to destroy Mylor Cricket Club once Adelaide Oval is obliterated.

You should call Team America. **** yeah.

I remember when I believed that verbal assurances were sufficient.

I was about 3 years old.

[pipers]

And there we go. You're on Wedgie's team, Pipers. I think that sums it up.

guffaw

you are ridiculous

[smac]

Ah, now, that sounds like we might be giving up something! But that might be OK, if we understand who we are giving it to, and how we might be able to influence what they might do with it in the future...

But we don't!

And there's the rub!!!

VOTE NO.

Yes, what they really want to do is enter into a joint venture with the Adelaide Oval destruction society, based in Niger. And of course we all know that their charter is to destroy Mylor Cricket Club once Adelaide Oval is obliterated.

You should call Team America. **** yeah.

I remember when I believed that verbal assurances were sufficient.

I was about 3 years old.

And that proves your vote has been decided prior to anyone telling you anything. Cheerio.

[smac]

And there we go. You're on Wedgie's team, Pipers. I think that sums it up.

guffaw

you are ridiculous

Gesundheit

[RustyCage]

I still fail to realise what rights the members will lose if the development goes ahead. Apart from voting for the board, when is the last time the members had to vote on something?

1) Did you have to vote for the new members stand to go ahead?
2) Did you have to vote for the Chappell and Clem Hill stands to be built?
3) Did you have to vote for the lights to be put in?

What does SACA membership get you apart from voting for the board, a seat at events at the oval and as shown on here the right to assume you are better and more important than every one else?