SMA - the lies now start to surface

[RustyCage]

To be honest I think McLachlans comments are completely irrelevant to anything in the scheme of things. I doubt anyone's vote was swayed by that one comment.

[bulldogproud2]

I had hoped not to make any more comments on this issue but I will make a few final ones:

Firstly, apologies to UKFan for letting things get personal. I can tell that you are very passionate about your cricket and that is great to see.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that Adelaide Oval will even 'miss out' on the test in 2014/15. This is a certainty according to only one person I can see (UKFan). Even Richard Earle stated it as an opinion, not a certainty. I still believe there will be a test held in Adelaide in that season.

Third, if there is a test held then this argument even becomes irrelevant and there is no way anyone can say that Ian McLachlan has lied about it then. No matter your view of the word 'lose', if we have a test, then, as I have said many times, we have not lost a test match.

Fourth, having spoken to a lawyer at school today, even if Adelaide does not host a test next season, Ian McLachlan cannot be held by law to have lied with his statement. As my lawyer friend said, for Ian to have lied, he would have had to make a statement along the lines of "Adelaide Oval will host a test in 2014/15". Then, yes, I would agree with UKFan that this was a false statement of Mr. McLachlan's.

Fifth, no matter what the semantics of the argument are, we need to look behind the wording to look at intent. As defined in the Oxford Dictionary, a lie is an 'intentional false statement'.
Did Mr McLachlan attempt to provide a false statement intentionally?? I would believe that the answer to this is 'no'. He was simply trying to state (and I think we can all accept this) that the chances of Adelaide Oval being granted a test are improved, not hindered, by the redevelopment. Did he carelessly forget that sometimes there are less than five tests held in a summer and one of the usual test venues would have to miss out? Yes, but having had five tests per year for many years, I believe he can be forgiven this.

Sixth, did UKFan lie by stating that Ian McLachlan lied?? No, I don't believe so. His intent was never to give a deliberately false impression. Like Mr McLachlan, he let emotion ride in his argument and gave his heartfelt opinion.

Seventh, is UKFan a good bloke?? HELL YES, and he barracks for the right football team!!

Eighth, do UKFan and I sometimes let our passions run a bit too freely?? You betcha!!

Ninth, are we prepared to bury the hatchet, shake the olive branch and be friends again? I hope so

You betcha bdp !!!

For the record I have never stated we would lose the test. I like Richard Earl are talking "if" we lose the test. But I do believe GABBA is a tough opponent. I like others was surprised to see WACA listed as third but the ratings argument makes sense. Thus proving ultimately it will be potential ratings from the billion strong audience in India that will dictate the answer not population/potential crowds IMHO!! A sad reality of modern day sport. As BDP2 has stated we have missed out before.

As for Mclachlan statement clearly should of been " with the redevelopment our chances are enhanced/improved to always maintain a test in Adelaide" IMHO!!! I'd he did we wouldn't of wasted two days on this crap. But his statement is very clear. As for intent that's up to individual interpretation. With a room full of voters to sway to vote for a $600 mill Cheque im not convinced my old mate Ian would of said anything. But that's just my opinion.

Youll also note im not that only poster who thinks Mclachlan lied btw.

UKFan, if you have never stated we would lose the test, then how can you call McLachlan a lier on that point?? He can only be a 'lier', even in your definition, if we do in fact lose the test
Until Adelaide loses a test, his statement of 'Adelaide will never lose the test' cannot be proven as false, can it???

Apart from that minor point, an excellent response though, and, yes, it would have been great if he did say what you said he should have!!

Anyway, time to shake, kiss and make up, and support the real thing that counts - the mighty Doggies!!!!

[Dutchy]

When was the last time their wasn't 5 tests in a Summer in Australia?

[Hondo]

I can't remember now you ask Dutchy

When we had the World Cup at the end of the 91/92 summer we didn't shorten the Test Series.

[bulldogproud2]

A long long time ago. It is possible you may have to go back to the period 1939 - 1945 when there were no test matches held at all, for obvious reasons.

Cheers

[UK Fan]

IF we lose the test bdp2. If !!!

[Hondo]

So UK you did an Ian MacLachlan

You made a statement "he's a liar" but left it to us to assume the rest being "IF we lose an AO test".

Just like he said "we won't lose a test" .... but left off "provided it's a 5 test series".

[bulldogproud2]

IF we lose the test bdp2. If !!!

I know, but you did call him a lier over his statement 'Adelaide Oval will not lose the Adelaide Test'.
Thus, he can only be a lier if there is no test in Adelaide. He can't be called a lier yet over this point, can he??

However, I love you, UKFan, and we are only playing around with semantics. Let's just hope that Mr McLachlan can never be proven as a lier over this point, not for his sake, but for the sake of us always having a test at Adelaide Oval.
I think we can both agree with that

[UK Fan]

So UK you did an Ian MacLachlan

You made a statement "he's a liar" but left it to us to assume the rest being "IF we lose an AO test".

Just like he said "we won't lose a test" .... but left off "provided it's a 5 test series".

No I stated if we do lose the test it will make his claim of "with the redevelopment we will never a lose a test" a lie.
The fact it's even being discussed shows the redevelopment hasn't changed anything.

Then I had some other people try to make the argument "that's not actually what Mclachlan said" "if i get invited to a party" when Mclachlans statement couldn't be clearer . Then they started going about stadium designs/crowds etc when the original article stated ratings will decide who gets the 4th test.

I certainly believe a theory that the president of saca wasn't aware of sacas future schedule when sprooking his 600 mill redevelopment to its members . Is an interesting one.

[bulldogproud2]

I Thought we were promises we wouldn't miss a test.

Was that another lie ??

I think that you can take it that it was a promise that we would not miss a test due to the Stadium upgrade. If we do miss a test next summer, it is one we would have missed irregardless of the upgrade.

Cheers

"We will never lose the Adelaide Test if we have this development," said McLachlan during the SACA's "roadshow" briefing to country members in Berri.
"We want to put Adelaide in the No. 3 position on the Test calendar (behind Melbourne and Sydney, but ahead of Brisbane). That is the only way to keep Adelaide in a guaranteed position (for Test matches).
"This is business for Cricket Australia - and if you don't have the facilities, you lose their business."



Keep guessing!!!!

Just another lie!!!!

Unfortunately, you did call Mr McLachlan a lier over this statement, UKFan. There is nothing there about making an allowance for him if Adelaide does hold a test in 2014/15. Just simply that he was a lier because of his statement.

[bulldogproud2]

So UK you did an Ian MacLachlan

You made a statement "he's a liar" but left it to us to assume the rest being "IF we lose an AO test".

Just like he said "we won't lose a test" .... but left off "provided it's a 5 test series".

No I stated if we do lose the test it will make his claim of "with the redevelopment we will never a lose a test" a lie.
The fact it's even being discussed shows the redevelopment hasn't changed anything.

Then I had some other people try to make the argument "that's not actually what Mclachlan said" "if i get invited to a party" when Mclachlans statement couldn't be clearer . Then they started going about stadium designs/crowds etc when the original article stated ratings will decide who gets the 4th test.

I certainly believe a theory that the president of saca wasn't aware of sacas future schedule when sprooking his 600 mill redevelopment to its members . Is an interesting one.

Until Cricket Australia release the schedule at the end of this year, absolutely NO ONE is aware of SACA's future schedule. Not he, nor anyone at SACA, can be sure of what Cricket Australia will decide.

Cheers

[Ecky]

I think it is a pity that this thread has descended from an important discussion about serious concerns to a pedantic debate about wording, especially when I believe it is highly unlikely that Brisbane would be awarded a test ahead of us in the foreseeable future, regardless of the redevelopment.

Let's move on and keep to the REAL stuffups!

[heater31]

Well said Ecky, I think the failure of the Ultimate ticket and the resulting squabble of how the Football side of it should be distributed is a far more important issue than if we get a Test Match or not in a 50 Over World Cup year.

[bulldogproud2]

I think it is a pity that this thread has descended from an important discussion about serious concerns to a pedantic debate about wording, especially when I believe it is highly unlikely that Brisbane would be awarded a test ahead of us in the foreseeable future, regardless of the redevelopment.

Let's move on and keep to the REAL stuffups!

Ecky, you are right. Sorry about that.
I guess that UKFan and I have a lot in common that took over this thread. We both are stubborn and don't like being told that we are wrong.
It would be nice though to have a thread title that was different though - 'the lies now start to surface' does make a few of us cringe as it presents a very one sided biased outlook.
My last comment on this thread... I promise.

[Ecky]

I guess that UKFan and I have a lot in common that took over this thread. We both are stubborn and don't like being told that we are wrong.

I reckon that is probably the only thing you will both agree on!

[Trader]

My last comment on this thread... I promise.

Waits for this lie to surface.

[Armytank]

Can someone please inform me with the issues with the Adelaide Oval and the SMA

I am not a member of the Crows
I am not a member of the Power
I am not a member of the SANFL
I am not a member of the SACA

I paid $75 to put my name down for an Ultimate membership. This was an attractive proposition because I would be able go to the football and the cricket, at the same ground, in a convenient location, for a relatively good price.

I actually love Football Park, but it is bloody $hit to get to.

I love sitting on the hill at the cricket but with the ever expanding seating, the hill I grew up on as a kid and is shrinking fast.

So I thought, **** it, this Adelaide Oval development is actually pretty good as it will give me an opportunity to go to the football and the cricket. I thought that the idea is to get people like me, who would not normally attend, to go to the football and cricket.

The way I understand it is that the SACA don't want the Ultimates to be transferable, the SANFL, Crows and Power do?

My question to the SACA - would there be an Adelaide Oval in the future if the state government invested in a multi purpose stadium instead of building a hospital? My guess is that Adelaide Oval would end up like the WACA, being used for a total of 30 something days in the year with the only real attendance being during the Test and ODI's. The SACA would be on life support if it did not die a slow, painful death.

My question to the SANFL - why do the memberships need to be transferable? Is this to ensure that the stadium looks full on the TV? Once you have the memberships paid for, you have the money whether people show up or not. I can't see a lot of money being made on cold pies and warm beer.

My message to the SACA is - pull your frigging tweed cap wearing heads in and realise you are a dying bunch of old boys club farts who will stagnate without the influx of fresh blood and money.

My message to football is - pull your frigging heads in too because you would most probably be in a worse position if you either remained at Football Park or signed up with some other bullshit operation designed to manage a multi purpose stadium.

I really don't see why this model can't work, people just need to get over themselves and realise they probably wouldn't have a prosperous future without each other.

[daysofourlives]

IF we lose the test bdp2. If !!!

I know, but you did call him a lier over his statement 'Adelaide Oval will not lose the Adelaide Test'.
Thus, he can only be a lier if there is no test in Adelaide. He can't be called a lier yet over this point, can he??

However, I love you, UKFan, and we are only playing around with semantics. Let's just hope that Mr McLachlan can never be proven as a lier over this point, not for his sake, but for the sake of us always having a test at Adelaide Oval.
I think we can both agree with that

This statement is infact very true, I cant see the Adelaide Test being played at Footy Park or Glenelg

[MAY-Z]

Can someone please inform me with the issues with the Adelaide Oval and the SMA

I am not a member of the Crows
I am not a member of the Power
I am not a member of the SANFL
I am not a member of the SACA

I paid $75 to put my name down for an Ultimate membership. This was an attractive proposition because I would be able go to the football and the cricket, at the same ground, in a convenient location, for a relatively good price.

I actually love Football Park, but it is bloody $hit to get to.

I love sitting on the hill at the cricket but with the ever expanding seating, the hill I grew up on as a kid and is shrinking fast.

So I thought, **** it, this Adelaide Oval development is actually pretty good as it will give me an opportunity to go to the football and the cricket. I thought that the idea is to get people like me, who would not normally attend, to go to the football and cricket.

The way I understand it is that the SACA don't want the Ultimates to be transferable, the SANFL, Crows and Power do?

My question to the SACA - would there be an Adelaide Oval in the future if the state government invested in a multi purpose stadium instead of building a hospital? My guess is that Adelaide Oval would end up like the WACA, being used for a total of 30 something days in the year with the only real attendance being during the Test and ODI's. The SACA would be on life support if it did not die a slow, painful death.

My question to the SANFL - why do the memberships need to be transferable? Is this to ensure that the stadium looks full on the TV? Once you have the memberships paid for, you have the money whether people show up or not. I can't see a lot of money being made on cold pies and warm beer.

My message to the SACA is - pull your frigging tweed cap wearing heads in and realise you are a dying bunch of old boys club farts who will stagnate without the influx of fresh blood and money.

My message to football is - pull your frigging heads in too because you would most probably be in a worse position if you either remained at Football Park or signed up with some other bullshit operation designed to manage a multi purpose stadium.

I really don't see why this model can't work, people just need to get over themselves and realise they probably wouldn't have a prosperous future without each other.

The problem with the ultimate memberships is the SMA, SACA, SANFL, AFC and PAFC expected these would sell like hot cakes and people would be left in a euphoric state about the oval from when the ticket sales opened through to the 2014 season. These tickets ended up not being very popular at all and only around 6000 of the 12,200 tickets sold.

Given this lack of popularity it makes better commercial sense for the SANFL, AFC and PAFC to market their own meberships to football people, and SACA to keep thier existing membership packages.

The fact that only 800 members of the public took up the offer after the cricket and footy people had their exclusive period says that their isnt the over-demand from the public that all the officals expected

[Dogmatic]

Can someone please inform me with the issues with the Adelaide Oval and the SMA

I am not a member of the Crows
I am not a member of the Power
I am not a member of the SANFL
I am not a member of the SACA

I paid $75 to put my name down for an Ultimate membership. This was an attractive proposition because I would be able go to the football and the cricket, at the same ground, in a convenient location, for a relatively good price.

I actually love Football Park, but it is bloody $hit to get to.

I love sitting on the hill at the cricket but with the ever expanding seating, the hill I grew up on as a kid and is shrinking fast.

So I thought, **** it, this Adelaide Oval development is actually pretty good as it will give me an opportunity to go to the football and the cricket. I thought that the idea is to get people like me, who would not normally attend, to go to the football and cricket.

The way I understand it is that the SACA don't want the Ultimates to be transferable, the SANFL, Crows and Power do?

My question to the SACA - would there be an Adelaide Oval in the future if the state government invested in a multi purpose stadium instead of building a hospital? My guess is that Adelaide Oval would end up like the WACA, being used for a total of 30 something days in the year with the only real attendance being during the Test and ODI's. The SACA would be on life support if it did not die a slow, painful death.

My question to the SANFL - why do the memberships need to be transferable? Is this to ensure that the stadium looks full on the TV? Once you have the memberships paid for, you have the money whether people show up or not. I can't see a lot of money being made on cold pies and warm beer.

My message to the SACA is - pull your frigging tweed cap wearing heads in and realise you are a dying bunch of old boys club farts who will stagnate without the influx of fresh blood and money.

My message to football is - pull your frigging heads in too because you would most probably be in a worse position if you either remained at Football Park or signed up with some other bullshit operation designed to manage a multi purpose stadium.

I really don't see why this model can't work, people just need to get over themselves and realise they probably wouldn't have a prosperous future without each other.

The problem with the ultimate memberships is the SMA, SACA, SANFL, AFC and PAFC expected these would sell like hot cakes and people would be left in a euphoric state about the oval from when the ticket sales opened through to the 2014 season. These tickets ended up not being very popular at all and only around 6000 of the 12,200 tickets sold.

Given this lack of popularity it makes better commercial sense for the SANFL, AFC and PAFC to market their own meberships to football people, and SACA to keep thier existing membership packages.

The fact that only 800 members of the public took up the offer after the cricket and footy people had their exclusive period says that their isnt the over-demand from the public that all the officals expected

Does this have any impact on a Football Park member to become a member of the SACA now it has been split again?