Reasons to Vote "NO"

[whufc]

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?

The ability to go watch cricket at the greatest 'cricket' ground in the world!!!

[Ecky]

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.

But Wedgie has never lost a debate in his life so surely the no vote is going to win now!
Hooray! Let's get 'em Wedgie! Moderate out all the yes propaganda in the media please!

[redandblack]

For any who are interested, I've written a piece in the SAFooty Journal about the Oval.

Relax, it's not too political, just for all of us who love the Oval


viewtopic.php?f=47&t=32355

[Hondo]

4) Where the additional funding will come from if the project costs more than the estimates.

Smac can't answer this and neither can the SACA can they? The Government is about to award a fixed price construction contract to the successful tenderer. Until that happens then an accurate cost can't be given by anyone. Everyone is aware of the budget so the tenderer will have to provide a quote within the that budget or they won't win the work. After that the risk on a fixed price project rests with the construction contractor.

The Liberals keep raising the cost issue (in terms of asking what it will be) because they know full well the contract hasn't been awarded to anyone yet so all anyone can give is the original estimated cost. In the meantime it's a question that creates of lot of noise which is what they want.

Nowhere has it been stated that I have seen that an overrun, if it happens, comes out of SACA funds.

Why would a construction company submit a tender for $700m (say) if they want to win the work? As said, if costs go above estimates it's the contractor's issue unless it's a valid variation to the original contract.

These sort of questions loop round in circles. I prefer your question about the legalities of the SMA. At least it's something the SACA can answer.

[Dirko]

Another hurdle for Adelaide Oval is the ACC.

They are mob of peanuts of the highest order.

Read this to see what a mob of idiots they are.

To think of the crappy dirt and weeds getting driven over

[MAY-Z]

4) Where the additional funding will come from if the project costs more than the estimates.

Smac can't answer this and neither can the SACA can they? The Government is about to award a fixed price construction contract to the successful tenderer. Until that happens then an accurate cost can't be given by anyone. Everyone is aware of the budget so the tenderer will have to provide a quote within the that budget or they won't win the work. After that the risk on a fixed price project rests with the construction contractor.

The Liberals keep raising the cost issue (in terms of asking what it will be) because they know full well the contract hasn't been awarded to anyone yet so all anyone can give is the original estimated cost. In the meantime it's a question that creates of lot of noise which is what they want.

Nowhere has it been stated that I have seen that an overrun, if it happens, comes out of SACA funds.

Why would a construction company submit a tender for $700m (say) if they want to win the work? As said, if costs go above estimates it's the contractor's issue unless it's a valid variation to the original contract.

This is the exact reason that anyone who votes yes is being extremely irresponsible at this stage

there is no indication what the project will cost and no indication who bears teh overun.

so the overun is other the responsibility of the saca which will be bad for cricket and possibly leaving us in a worse position or the responsibility of the govt which is bad for the state

the saca/sma/govt would have estimates of costs and clearly these estimates are much larger than the available $535million otherwise this would be a crucial selling point for teh yes vote

[dedja]

I can't wait for this vote to be over and done with ...

[Bulls forever]

I can't wait for this vote to be over and done with ...

I'm with you Dedja, I have already voted "Yes", had some moderator delete my posts as well, all I did was point out that there were some very stupid conspiracy theories being posted. But for all those that think they haven't voted on this, you had your chance at the last election, Labor was the new Stadium, Liberal was a roof somewhere else at double the cost. Gee imagine if they got up, you wouldn't even get to vote no for double the cost.

Get over it, vote yes, move on.

[heater31]

I can't wait for this vote to be over and done with ...

I'm with you Dedja, I have already voted "Yes", had some moderator delete my posts as well, all I did was point out that there were some very stupid conspiracy theories being posted. But for all those that think they haven't voted on this, you had your chance at the last election, Labor was the new Stadium, Liberal was a roof somewhere else at double the cost. Gee imagine if they got up, you wouldn't even get to vote no for double the cost.

Get over it, vote yes, move on.

With all due respect to your vote Bulls, This Yes or No vote not only affects the SACA Membership but it affects the whole state through the State Government funding of the project. As it has been pointed out earlier in previous posts if there are cost blow-outs who provides the funds? SACA, The SANFL/AFL or the State wallet?

Putting as a Cricket person yes the numbers do look very favourable to the development of the sport in this state, At the last election the incumbents put a hospital on the table first and this is a far more important project than propping up a sinking AFL franchise because they are hated by the South Australian Football public.


Does SA need both? probably yes it would be good for spectator comfort in terms of getting there and getting home again. Are there other possible solutions to the current Football problem? maybe build proper transport links to the current venue and things might improve.

Can the State of South Australia afford both? At this stage no. Reports of cost over-runs and with current form of corner cutting in the latest major project for SA Water one could only imagine what is going to happen if the money pit runs dry.

[Hondo]

This is the exact reason that anyone who votes yes is being extremely irresponsible at this stage

there is no indication what the project will cost and no indication who bears teh overun.

so the overun is other the responsibility of the saca which will be bad for cricket and possibly leaving us in a worse position or the responsibility of the govt which is bad for the state

the saca/sma/govt would have estimates of costs and clearly these estimates are much larger than the available $535million otherwise this would be a crucial selling point for teh yes vote

It's a Govt project (1) and a fixed price contract for the contractor (2). So cost overruns on the original contract are therefore covered by the contractor. Variations to the contract would be up to the Government to cover, but they would have to agree to them first and if they don't fit the budget then they won't do them. You can't get an absolute final cost until they award the tender at which point they can pick the one that fits the budget. The construction companies all would know the price they need to fit into so your laste sentence is alarmist speculation.

[pipers]

Are there other possible solutions to the current Football problem?

Yes. Hand the second unviable licence back to the AFL...

btw, well done Heater - you are the first poster on here to acknowledge that the problem is currently with footy in this state, and NOT cricket...

[pipers]

It's a Govt project (1) and a fixed price contract for the contractor (2). So cost overruns on the original contract are therefore covered by the contractor. Variations to the contract would be up to the Government to cover, but they would have to agree to them first and if they don't fit the budget then they won't do them. You can't get an absolute final cost until they award the tender at which point they can pick the one that fits the budget. The construction companies all would know the price they need to fit into so your laste sentence is alarmist speculation.

So, one contractor is building the new stands, the footbridge, the "precinct", the car-parking and the public transport links?

Really???

I'll bet it isn't one contract.

I'll bet the SMA will engage some firm to "project manage" all the contracts. and I'll wager a bet that it will be these management costs that will be the source of any cost over-runs.

[Hondo]

Putting as a Cricket person yes the numbers do look very favourable to the development of the sport in this state, At the last election the incumbents put a hospital on the table first and this is a far more important project than propping up a sinking AFL franchise because they are hated by the South Australian Football public.

This is far bigger than the PAFC. If the Govt's sole purpose was propping up the PAFC then they could just grant them $5m. Even $10m. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than $535m! I hope to hell no SACA member votes NO out of spite towards the PAFC. There's a bigger picture surely. If they do vote on those sort of grounds then no wonder non-SACA members are so alarmed.

[Hondo]

So, one contractor is building the new stands, the footbridge, the "precinct", the car-parking and the public transport links?

Really???

I'll bet it isn't one contract.

I'll bet the SMA will engage some firm to "project manage" all the contracts. and I'll wager a bet that it will be these management costs that will be the source of any cost over-runs.

My point isn't one or 100 contractors it's about (1) the tenders not being submitted and awarded yet and (2) fixed price contracts by their nature pass the risk of cost overruns onto those 1 or 100 contractors.

How much of a cost overrun are you predicting there to be on project management time? How many hours roughly on a say an 18 month project?

[pipers]

How much of a cost overrun are you predicting there to be on project management time? How many hours roughly on a say an 18 month project?

No idea.

Maybe $18M, dunno... just a random figure that seems to ring a bell.

[Hondo]

Pipers, I am not going to respond to that because you have something in mind and I don't know what it is! As tempting as the bait looks I sense a trap somewhere

I'll ask you or Heater a different question. What sort of cost increase over the $535m is tolerable and what isn't? $1m over? $10m? $18m?

I get the impression Heater is thinking $100s of millions, not $18m.

[MAY-Z]

It's a Govt project (1) and a fixed price contract for the contractor (2). So cost overruns on the original contract are therefore covered by the contractor. Variations to the contract would be up to the Government to cover, but they would have to agree to them first and if they don't fit the budget then they won't do them. You can't get an absolute final cost until they award the tender at which point they can pick the one that fits the budget. The construction companies all would know the price they need to fit into so your laste sentence is alarmist speculation.

1- The government have said they are providing no more than $535million. that was a fact/promise at the last election so what happens if all tenders come in at more that that figure? no one knows because no one will say anything.
2- Where has it ever been said its a fixed price contract? I dont remember seeing that written anywhere, and i would doubt that any contract firm would commit to such a project when there are so many variables in the construction.

[Hondo]

Pat Conlon has said several times on radio I have heard that the final contract that is awarded to the successful tenderer will be a fixed priced contract so they will wear the risk.
'
This is very common for public and private infrastructure contracts. The company I work for do a lot of fixed price work for the Government. If you overrun your costs because you got your estimate wrong it's your issue, not theirs. It's no different if you build a house, for example. You don't leave it to the builder to charge whatever they think as they go. You fix it up front.

Construction companies do this all the time and have very sophisticated cost estimation systems so they know what it will cost them and therefore what they will charge the State Government and will be prepared to fix the price.

So, with a $450m budget why would the Govt take the more expensive quote that blows the budget? And why would a tenderer in a competitive process submit a quote that blows the budget? They just wouldn't tender in the first place. Somehow I think the competitive bid process will get the price close to what everyone wants.

[MAY-Z]

[quote="Hondo"]Pat Conlon has said several times on radio I have heard that the final contract that is awarded to the successful tenderer will be a fixed priced contract so they will wear the risk.
'
This is very common for public infrastructure contracts. The company I work for do a lot of fixed price work for the Government. If you overrun your costs because you got your estimate wrong it's your issue, not theirs.

So, to fit into the $450m the Govt will pick the tender that fits I would have thought. Why would they take the more expensive quote that blows the budget?[/quote]

and what if no contracts do come in under that budget? obviously with fixed price tenders of this magnitude the tenders will all be on the higher side to protect their project viability

[Hondo]

May-Z

.... and what if there's a one in 10,000 year tornado and the AO is blown away? I mean how many "I think everything that will happen in the future will turn out worse" reasons do SACA members need?

If you want the job, and many construction companies will want this job because it will be high profile and great marketing, they won't go putting in a price $100m over the Government's budgets. The govt will send it straight back to them. I have seen that they do this. Governments always tell contractors that they have to fit the budget they have been given or they won't get the work.

Someone out there will want the work.