Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Hondo]

How about this last post in the guestbook http://www.saveadelaideoval.com/guest-book. Note: no post of mine shows in the guestbook since my 3 or so posts from about 20 March were deleted. I never used the name "Hondo" and I am definitely not "Happy" who posted before this one. 2 guesses who ""Ian" who posted this is??

Happy/Hondo

We lose all control of our oval. If we want to build new indoor nets at Adelaide Oval sometime in the future and that is whats best for SA cricket. This is will have to be approved by a sub-committee(SMA) with no guarantee of approval despite your inevtiable positive spin on this scenario. .

Let me guess Happy your just another non-SACA member who really likes AFL ???????

And you honestly think your here to do the best thing/protect all South Australians. Which just happen to coincide with your own personal agenda!!!!! fancy that!!!!

Got to love these ALP voters.

[Hondo]

He thinks I am "Happy". Classic! If anyone knows Royal City they should let him know it's not me. Whoever "Happy" is said they were a SACA member so they will no doubt correct "Ian" and ask him WTF does "Hondo" mean. "Happy" has been fighting for the YES vote on that guestbook for a while now. RC thinks it's me = I'm flattered

Well, I am 98% sure that's Royal City. Sure sounds like him!

[Hondo]

"Happy" has now responded pretty well and he will have the edge here because "Ian" thinks "Happy" is me. Let's see how far "Ian" goes until the penny drops.

Note: the editor has now taken out all of Ian's personal attacks which of course made up half of his post.

[Bulls forever]

Nice try, pipers, concentrating on one person.

You said that about the whole board, which includes Ian McLachlan, John Bannon, etc.

I'm pleased to see you're so confident about your argument that you stand by all your comments you made about people you didn't even know when you made them.

Clever, although lacking a little credibility

R&B, you are flogging a dead horse, unless you are enjoying taking the p..s out of the man. I have spoken to quite a few SACA members and they are all voting "a big Yes". SACA also did a survey through consultant from NSW and I received a call, couldn't say "Yes" quick enough.

[pipers]

Your source is wrong, stop following them up and just look at the grade cricket fixture here: http://www.cricketsa.com.au/content.aspx?p=428

You also stated "5. Quite simply I expect that it will cost me more to go to the cricket in future and on top of that my membership priviledges will be considerably watered down... in exhange for nothing. Zero. Zilch" which is incorrect. Costs are kept the same, membershipi priviledges are retained and there will be enhanced member facilities (do we count that as three errors or one?)

My source was indeed wrong. I will have them hung immediately.

On your second point, how can you say I am wrong when I say "I expect that it will cost me more to go to the cricket in future".

Are you saying I don't know what I expect?

My sources may be unreliable, but I do trust my own judgement.

[Bulls forever]

The more constructions that are made the less often I go to Adelaide Oval

Adelaide Oval WAS the most beautiful oval Ive ever watched sport from
I loved the outers, I loved the old stands that had not changed since near inception of cricket in SA
I enjoyed being at a complex that reminded me of history
Unfortunately one of the only things that remains is the Scoreboard
Sitting in the Don Bradman stand I have to eye strain past that ridicolous looking Chappell Stand, you know the one with Madonna Bras on the roof

Adelaide oval is now becoming a stadium, call it progress if you want
If it attracts the bigger crowds, good luck to em

But from my perspective the oval has lost its feng shuitism and I dont enjoy my days there as I once did

That is because you are getting older and can't drink as much MAL. You are not seriously telling me you spend all day sitting in the Bradman, unless in Corporate Box up the top i find that hard to believe, although it might have been the bees knees in its day, it is seriously the worse designed stand I have seen, with the worse use of space ever. Sir don deserves something a lot more grander than that.

[Bulls forever]

Yet we have Richard Earle from the Advertiser who has written a series of what I think are neutral & factual articles

For example, this one is more negative than positive from 28 March 2011:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaide-oval-co ... 6029084016

If this is a trump card then it needs some more meat on the bones.

The gag was placed after that article appeared.

Honestly, we're getting into farce now

R&B, you are wrong, the conspiracy theorists started from page 1, has been a farce since then, driven my Pipers and MayZ.

[pipers]

If the members arent the SACA who is?

Yeah, I don't know either Dutchy. I'm having a crisis of faith right now.

I'm not sure I even exist.

Jean-Paul Sartre eat your heart out.

[Bulls forever]

If the members arent the SACA who is?

Yeah, I don't know either Dutchy. I'm having a crisis of faith right now.

I'm not sure I even exist.

Jean-Paul Sartre eat your heart out.

If you read the Constitution that, if you are a member, you would have been sent, you would know, but sorry preaching to converted who has read everything and thinKs conspiracies abound from the hallowed halls of SACA.

[heater31]

The more constructions that are made the less often I go to Adelaide Oval

Adelaide Oval WAS the most beautiful oval Ive ever watched sport from
I loved the outers, I loved the old stands that had not changed since near inception of cricket in SA
I enjoyed being at a complex that reminded me of history
Unfortunately one of the only things that remains is the Scoreboard
Sitting in the Don Bradman stand I have to eye strain past that ridicolous looking Chappell Stand, you know the one with Madonna Bras on the roof

Adelaide oval is now becoming a stadium, call it progress if you want
If it attracts the bigger crowds, good luck to em

But from my perspective the oval has lost its feng shuitism and I dont enjoy my days there as I once did

That is because you are getting older and can't drink as much MAL. You are not seriously telling me you spend all day sitting in the Bradman, unless in Corporate Box up the top i find that hard to believe, although it might have been the bees knees in its day, it is seriously the worse designed stand I have seen, with the worse use of space ever. Sir don deserves something a lot more grander than that.

Problem with that stand is that SACA wanted it for the main purpose of housing its office staff with holding spectators 2nd. That stand has now outgrown its intended use and should be replaced next what ever happens after this vote. Weather SACA goes it alone or this other mob....

[smac]

And it will be replaced in approximately 2035, should this proposal not proceed.

And Pipers... When you expect wrongly, you are correct?

[MAY-Z]

Yet we have Richard Earle from the Advertiser who has written a series of what I think are neutral & factual articles

For example, this one is more negative than positive from 28 March 2011:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaide-oval-co ... 6029084016

If this is a trump card then it needs some more meat on the bones.

The gag was placed after that article appeared.

Honestly, we're getting into farce now

R&B, you are wrong, the conspiracy theorists started from page 1, has been a farce since then, driven my Pipers and MayZ.

find me anywhere where i have said anything at all that is not a fact. just because some people believe everything they are told is not my fault. often what people dont say is worth much more than what they do say.

i will repeat again - if they have nothing to hide why are they hiding it

[pipers]

If anything, it's an SMA takeover. The controlling body of the SACA HAVE decided. They only need a members' vote because the Constitution has to be changed. If it didn't have to be changed, the SACA members would have had no say in this just the same as they have had no direct say in any previous development at the Oval. It's a quirk that you now have this vote so the rest of us hope you use it wisely.

Correct re the SMA "takeover". That is my issue in one.

And how is this a quirk? Like most constitutions, any changes require a vote by the membership.

[pipers]

Option B- it's a conspiratorial cover up of a secret agenda to destroy the rights of SACA members

Well, if it is Option B, then it's the worst cover-up since Watergate

[pipers]

These sort of decisions are normally left with Boards of directors, yes. I am sure you know this from your line of work.

If every decision like this one was put to entity members or shareholders to decide then honestly nothing would get done. That's why organisations appoint Directors who are experienced and highly skilled in their chosen field to decide what is best for their organisation. It's perfectly normal. This situation we have at the AO is perfectly abnormal.

It is NOT abnormal! To use your shareholder analogy then any decision to divest or otherwise diminish the value in those shareholdings is put to the vote.

And equally, certain decisions by the board of directors can also be challenged via a certain number of shareholders requestng that an EGM be convened.

This is NOT abnormal.

What IS abnormal is the extraordinary level of interference from media and other interested parties in what sholud be due process.

Let us make our vote before you stick the knives in!

I'm liking you all less and less with every inane post on here, and certain things I found out today make a YES vote from me even less likely.

[pipers]

But they have been through every detail, with the objects of the Association at top of mind, and have recommended this go ahead.

Really???

So if that is the case, why are we being asked to vote to change the objectives of the Association?

[pipers]

SACA members do not own SACA! We are members, we have no financial interest or share in SACA.

Correct - and that's where the ANZ shareholder analogy falls flat. It was a pro-YES poster who brought that one up, so spit your venom elsewhere...

We are members of an incorporated association, and one of the requirements of that is that the executive/board (whatever) act on the wishes of it's membership.

[pipers]

However, the question about whether 20000 SACA members can in reality hold up a $1.5b CBD redevelopment (of which the AO is a part) is worthwhile when we come back to debate after the likely inevitable next step of the Government overriding a no vote, if a no vote happens.

Costly exercise.

[pipers]

However, the question about whether 20000 SACA members can in reality hold up a $1.5b CBD redevelopment (of which the AO is a part) is worthwhile...

Actually we dont have the right to hold up a development. We have the right to decide if we want the SACA to be solely responsible for managing the venue or whether they should share that via representation on a new entity.

This development could actually go ahead without this vote.

Granted that would mean that the $535M would be then have to be given to SACA rather than the SMA, and granted that is not likely.

Not my fault.

[pipers]

The gag was placed after that article appeared.

Honestly, we're getting into farce now

Are we???

I'd suggest that what we are seeing now is a manifestation of our concerns about the lack of transparency of this entire debate.

The things I have learned today are simply astounding.