SA Footy • View topic

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:29 pm

Ecky wrote:Yep, a farcical decision by the SACA or whoever has ordered the gag. They need members to trust them (and their spin) to win over the yes vote, but decisions like this just make the members more sceptical that they are hiding something and not telling us the full story.

Pretty sure the directive for positive only coverage would have come from the powers that be at the paper's parent company, not SACA... a corporation that is pro-AFL of course!

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:31 pm

redandblack wrote:There's no conspiracy.

Of course there isn't. This is state politics after all!

Possibly the single most naive thing I have EVER EVER EVER seen on this, or any website. EVER.

In the history of the internet.

by **smac** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:32 pm

pipers wrote:
smac wrote: 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?

Because the remaining objects are believed to be more important and better aligned with the change.

by **heater31** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:33 pm

pipers wrote:
Hondo wrote: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.

Exactly, coupled with the New Hospital It is one of the very reasons I am seriously considering the NO vote. South Australia can not afford it if it goes horribly wrong cost wise. Cost Estimates of the current major project on the go at the moment if media reports are to be believed are over budget of the total Adelaide Oval budget cost. Could possibly be more and the recent track record of this current government isn't too flash either. They have poured money down the drain to complete it with probably the worst safety record of any South Australian Construction Site in recent memory.

If it all goes pear shaped Labor will be voted out and leave the Libs to fix the mess left behind again.

Yes a project like this would be good for the State but We have to be able to afford it first before throwing money at it.

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:33 pm

redandblack wrote:Wonderfully misleading 'before and after' photos on that site

Yes, worst photoshpo EVER EVER EVER in the history of everness. On the whole internet. EVER.

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:35 pm

Hondo wrote:2 guesses who ""Ian" who posted this is??

Dunno.

I'm guessing it isn't Ian MacLachlan, so it must be Ian Chappell.

by **smac** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:36 pm

pipers wrote:
smac wrote: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.

And I was responding to you/dutchy, not in reference to the ANZ analogy.

And why would the board be unable to recommend a proposal?

Edit. No venom spat, apologies if you felt some.

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:38 pm

Bulls forever wrote: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.

I don't even know what the **** you are on about...

by **Hondo** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:40 pm

pipers wrote: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.

Settle down mate

It's just a debate

Tell us what you learned today

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:42 pm

smac wrote:And Pipers... When you expect wrongly, you are correct?

That remains to be seen.

I have my doubts about the projected income streams.

Did you know that the model includes the takings from a Socceroos home match at the Oval EVERY YEAR!

How realistic is that?

I wonder what other assumptions are in that modelling?

Worst modelling since Kate Moss walked down the catwalk with annorexia

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:44 pm

smac wrote:Because the remaining objects are believed to be more important and better aligned with the change.

With what change?

The change that I'm voting on?

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:46 pm

smac wrote:And I was responding to you/dutchy, not in reference to the ANZ analogy.

And why would the board be unable to recommend a proposal?

Edit. No venom spat, apologies if you felt some.

Board can recommend anything they like. Need our support though.

None taken btw.

by **pipers** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:47 pm

Hondo wrote:Tell us what you learned today

Can't.

I've been gagged.

by **smac** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:50 pm

pipers wrote:
smac wrote:Because the remaining objects are believed to be more important and better aligned with the change.

With what change?

The change that I'm voting on?

Yep, that's the one.

by **Hondo** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:06 pm

Pipers you say a YES vote from you is now "less likely"

Does that mean you are undecided?

by **pipers** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:36 am

smac wrote:
pipers wrote:
smac wrote:Because the remaining objects are believed to be more important and better aligned with the change.

With what change?

The change that I'm voting on?

Yep, that's the one.

So you want us to vote in favour of a change to the objectives of the Association so they are more aligned with the changes that can't actually be effected unless we vote in favour of a change to those objectives ...

Right! Got it.

I think.

by **pipers** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:40 am

Hondo wrote:Pipers you say a YES vote from you is now "less likely"

Does that mean you are undecided?

Yep, I believe I have until May 2 to make my decision.

In my opinion that gives SACA sufficient time to respond to the raft of 15 questions that May-Z has drawn up.

Then dependant on those answers I will make my final decision.

Anyone who casts their vote prior to May 2 is an idiot. Regardless of whether it is YES or NO.

AND LOL that SACA yesterday offered us the chance to vote online, now.

I guess that gives them a chance to review how the electorate is leaning so they can do more gagging/spin as required.

I wonder how the beer for votes function went tonight?

by **Hondo** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:52 am

May-Z can you post your 15 questions on here for discussion?

I seem to recall a couple were statements and not questions but lets have a look

by **smac** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:20 am

pipers wrote:
Hondo wrote:Pipers you say a YES vote from you is now "less likely"

Does that mean you are undecided?

Yep, I believe I have until May 2 to make my decision.

In my opinion that gives SACA sufficient time to respond to the raft of 15 questions that May-Z has drawn up.

Then dependant on those answers I will make my final decision.

Anyone who casts their vote prior to May 2 is an idiot. Regardless of whether it is YES or NO.

AND LOL that SACA yesterday offered us the chance to vote online, now.

I guess that gives them a chance to review how the electorate is leaning so they can do more gagging/spin as required.

I wonder how the beer for votes function went tonight?

As opposed to your definitive NO vote that you posted about when starting this thread?

I'm completely baffled as to why you would be a member of such an evil organisation.