1 Did you vote at the last election of SACA?
2 If you did, did you vote for any of the current board?
PS: As for you saying my last post was the worst post ever on the internet, thanks, I'm not sure that's the case, but I'll take the compliment

by redandblack » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:46 am
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:47 am
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:48 am
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:49 am
by Pottsy » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:15 am
by Lightning McQueen » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:26 am
Pottsy wrote:Good work MAY-Z.
Nice to see some solid questions and direct answers on this thread instead of to and fro opinions!
This is genuinely helpful in getting a fuller picture of what is occurring beyond the glossy brochure we were sent.
by redandblack » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:45 am
by Hondo » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:48 am
MAY-Z wrote:Again the SANFL are getting that massive advantage of being gifted a new higher income generating asset whilst keeping their old asset. Clearly not a fair deal for tax payers who are funding a lot of the proposed investment
by Hondo » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:53 am
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:57 am
redandblack wrote:MAY-Z, good work with the questions, but I'd make these brief comments:
1 I think I detected in your questions that there was a slight leaning towards getting answers justifying your position.
2 I may be wrong, but I got the feeling that, whatever the answer, it wouldn't change your attitude.
3 I'm not that surprised that Iain Evans would not be disagreeing with you.
4 I think Iain Evans would be getting a trickle of these sorts of questions. I think the SACA would be getting a lot, hence the delay in replying.
5 I'm not sure what to make of the 'No' voting SACA members thinking they're the Treasurer and Government of the state.
I'd also ask you the same questions about voting at the last election as I asked pipers.
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:00 am
Hondo wrote:MAY-Z wrote:Again the SANFL are getting that massive advantage of being gifted a new higher income generating asset whilst keeping their old asset. Clearly not a fair deal for tax payers who are funding a lot of the proposed investment
The SANFL are not getting an advantage out of this. While the SACA never had to purchase the AO the SANFL almost 40 years ago went out and spent their own money on land at West Lakes and built a stadium. I have asked you this before (or maybe someone else) but why should the SANFL now donate that asset back to the public? It's theirs. The SANFL took a big risk all that time ago and created their own asset which is theirs to keep. They get no greater access to the an income stream from the AO than the current tenant (SACA) get. They are simply using the oval in the time the SACA don't need it for cricket. The SACA are not contributing any money to the project either and, in fact, are getting $85m back.
If the SANFL should be contributing to the project then so should the SACA.
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:01 am
Hondo wrote:Yes, hardly surprising that Iain Evans was quick off the mark and how convenient that he throw in a lot of political commentary as well! Perhaps May-Z should send the questions to Greg Howe and post them on here.
In all seriousness, at least May-z is making an effort get information and some of Iain's responses I think are helpful. Some SACA members seem to have decided to vote NO 12 months ago and have had their heads in the sand ever since.
May-Z, can you post up the other responses when you get them?
by whufc » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:02 am
by redandblack » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:09 am
by Hondo » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:10 am
MAY-Z wrote:The SANFL is getting and advatage out of this. The latest projections were that it would equate to $16million per year.
the SACA are contributing over $100million in structured assets that the SANFL get to use.
by Dutchy » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:13 am
pipers wrote:Did you know that the model includes the takings from a Socceroos home match at the Oval EVERY YEAR!
by Dutchy » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:15 am
by White Line Fever » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:42 am
by Dirko » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:53 am
by whufc » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:53 am
White Line Fever wrote:Interesting may-z
My first preference would be to leave AO and build new roof stadium in west pArklands.
Do you believe if the opposition was elected they could come through with a new stadium?
I don't so guess I'm looking for the band aid solution.
Something needs to change though the lower crowds is because AAMI is a hole.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |