Reasons to Vote "NO"

[redandblack]

pipers, this may have already been covered, but if not, may I ask:

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

[MAY-Z]

Ok, here is the email I have sent to SACA and the SMA. Since getting no response from them I also sent it to Iain Evans who had the decency to reply within 36 hours.

Dear Iain

I am sending you this email in the hope that you can help myself and some fellow SACA members
out as you seem to be one of the few public figures able to give some presence on this issue.

I know around 30 SACA members and most of us have the same questions so I presume that we
are not the only ones who feel similarly. These queries/concerns are not addressed in the glossy
brochure which is unfortunately full of dot points and large pictures.

I have tried to get an answer from SACA officials on out concerns but have so far been unable to
get a response.

1 - What is the estimated total budget for the estimated entire budget for the project?

2 - How was this budget determined, and how confident are the projections?

3 - What exactly does the above budget include? Does it include all of the oval upgrade, River
Torrens crossings and precinct areas etc?

4 - What happens if the budget exceeds the money that the state government have offered for the
project, especially as they have said that they will contribute no more than the $535 million I
believe and the SACA and SANFL have said they will not contribute any more funds to the project.

5 - If in point 3 the answer is private funds how is the repayment of funds going to be managed?
Do the private investors get precedence on funds over the SMA/SACA/SANFL? For instance last
season The Kings of Leon concert clashed with a domestic game of cricket and the concert was
moved. Would this happen with private investors involved who would clearly see a bigger return in
having the concert as opposed to the domestic cricket?

6 - How much say will the private investors have in the running of the oval? If it is their money
being used they will want a reasonable return on their investment so can they enforce more
profitable oval use age/design by altering grandstands or pushing for more development on the
northern mound?

7 - It is said numerous times that the savings on the loan repayments will be spent on cricket
development in South Australia. How much of the $18 million will be spent on game development
and in what areas will it be spent?

8 - Does our membership in the new world entitle us to entry into the next cricket world cup or will
we simply get priority booking options?
9 - Whether it is fair that 5000 SANFL members will be able to purchase these ultimate AO
memberships and gain admittance to the members area during cricket season
1) ahead of any people on the SACA members waiting list and
2) without paying the SACA joining fee (currently $299)

10 - Shield Final - still no guarantee it would be held at Adel Oval, we would have to negotiate with
SANFL/AFL, I cant see that going well in early March leading into a footy season. This is a potential
deal breaker IMO, why couldnt they agree that if SA qualified they could extend crickets rights to
the oval for the 5 days required? This alone is likely to get many members offside.

11 - Major Events - It talks about AO allowing events such as Soccer WC, Rugby WC,
Commonwealth Games but we all know these events require a full seated stadium which AO isn't,
unless they get rid of the hill, which they say in the document will stay - Am I the only one who can
see the issue here???! Sure it might not be an issue this decade but 20/30 years time?

12 - How much has been spent on both Football Park and Adelaide Oval over the last ten years that
this proposed plan(s) wipe out - the bus lane and terminal at Footy Park, the 7,000 seat northern
stand built in 2000/01, the bucket seats, the second video screen at the southern end; Adelaide
Ovals' Chappell Stands, the Clem Hill stand and relocation of the Victor Richardson Gates. All will
have proven to be just band-aids. How will we know this is the most responsible way to spend a
vast sum of money when all of these projects are quickly superseded?

13 - Why not leave the Oval as is, and do the other things in the precinct to "brighten the scene
up". There seems to be no test to see if Port can get more to Adelaide Oval by scheduling three
matches for each of the next three years. The first couple will be a novelty, but when the novelty
wears off, what will the crowds be like?

14- As per point 13, Since 2006, both clubs have had sliding attendances at AAMI Stadium. Crows
home attendances have fallen every year, from an average of 42,455 in 2006 to 35,766 last
season. Power home crowds have not averaged more than 30,000 since 2006 and fell to a record
low of 23,044 last year. So all this development seems a bit wasteful with no proof that enough
people want to attend AFL matches.

15- Finally there seems to be a lot of public money at stake for 14,000 extra seats, surely the
government could use this money better at a time when they are cutting public service jobs and
selling forests etc.

We are bit disappointed that these details haven't been provided to us as we only get 1 vote if we
vote yes so all the facts should be made available to us

[MAY-Z]

Thank you for your email regarding Adelaide Oval. Not all the information you request is available to the State Opposition but I will try and answer all the questions you raise.

1. The Budget for the Oval is $535 million. This does not include:

a. Footbridge over Torrens $40 million
b. 1200-capacity car park $50 million
c. Transport and pedestrian related projects $15 million
d. Open air car park south of Morphett Bridge $11 million

The Labor Government have also committed to spending $220 million on putting trams to AAMI Stadium in 2018/19, after AFL football leaves AAMI Stadium. AAMI Stadium is to be redeveloped by the SANFL into apartments, retail and commercial buildings. ALL profit from this redevelopment will go to the SANFL.

2. The Budget was determined by the Stadium Management Authority using industry sources such as a quality surveyors and project managers. The SMA claim to be confident of the estimate based on this industry advice.

3. I think this is answered in answers 1 and 2 above.

4. No one has answered this question, even though it has been asked many times. Football and cricket say they won’t put in any money. The State Government say they won’t put in any more money.

It is unclear what will happen if there is a Budget overrun.

It is also unclear what happens if the business model fails and the business loses money through poor on field performance and lower attendance figures. So if the stadium loses money in five years time who pays – I assume football and cricket would have to fund the money from any reserves or increased borrowings.

5. I understand there was some talk of private money for car parks but not the stadium itself.

The Stadium Management Authority will be the venue manager however I understand football has total control (via lease) for six months and three weeks of the year, and SACA has total control for the remainder.

As I understand there is not yet private money going into the stadium.

6. Covered above

7. This is a claim made by SACA and only they can answer it.

8. I have no details of the ticketing arrangements.

9. This is a matter for the SMA and the sports, but I can understand why this may upset some people.

10. If there is an overlap with the Shield final or football season (a drawn SANFL grand final) then the two sports have to work through that issue. As I understands it if ‘the event’ falls into the lease period of one sport they will decide if they are prepared to allow it or not.

11. The economic modelling does include one international soccer game each year and the rugby to continue every year.

While the Government has written a letter regarding the Hill and scoreboard remaining it is only a letter and not in SACA’s lease or any legislation. Unless the presentation is legally protected, the letter is worthless and it is a political statement of intent rather than binding legislation. Your concerns are valid.

12. I am not sure how much has been spent on AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval since 2000/01 but it is a lot. Certainly there was $50 million of tax payer money ($25 million State, $25 million Federal) going into the last Adelaide Oval upgrade.

13. The concept of a Riverbank Redevelopment was first announced under the Olsen Government – without the AFL at Adelaide Oval. So it is possible to upgrade the area as you suggest without AFL at Adelaide Oval.

There was a suggestion of letting Port Power play at Adelaide Oval to ‘test’ the economic model knowing that this would mean that AAMI Stadium would need to be subsidised for a while to offset the loss – I think around $5 million a year. However SANFL and the Government don’t support this concept.

14. Your point on the attendances are well made. The attendances are a direct reflection of on field performance.

15. The Government intend to sell all the State owned forests to help pay for Adelaide Oval. The forests bring in over $40 million a year to the State Budget. The State debt is increasing to 75% in the next three years from $4500 million to $7500 million (2013/14) – this is the figure after selling the forest.

The State is currently borrowing money to pay wages of the public service and is running a Budget deficit of over $300 million this financial year.

Adelaide Oval currently seats 38,000 – it will seat 50,000, an extra 12,000 seats.

Other matters

There has been some discussion re ‘why is there no plan B’. There is the Opposition plan for a new inner city stadium, with a roof.

However what has not been reported publicly is that the SANFL have refused to negotiate any ‘plan B’ as they have ‘legal obligations’ to negotiate in good faith to deliver the Government project.

There can be no negotiation around Plan B because the SANFL’s agreement with the Government prevents it.



I hope this information can be of some assistance.



Yours sincerely,


Iain Evans MP

[MAY-Z]

These are some thoughts that I have based upon his responses.

1. this seems that more than the $535 million will need to be spent, somewhere around the $650million is the current best estimate. I presume that the tram line will be ceased if a yes vote occurs but it is interesting that labour are yet to state that- I presume there would be some additional break costs involved in cancelling the tram project.
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

2. seems reasonable, but not concrete

3. as above

4. this is a massive worry for all South Australians. The question has been asked many times by many people and no-one will answer it? Does SACA have to foot the bill? Will the SANFL give some proceeds? Or will the taxpayers have to fund even more of the project and create more debt for all South Australians
I hadn’t thought of this but if the project isn’t successful then someone will be out of pocket with a hefty sum but hopefully this would never be an issue

5 & 6. seems fine for now but if private funds are needed for the stadium then an issue could arise – some clarification would be handy

7, 8 & 9. SACA issues

10. there is nothing assured here which is very disappointing

11. this economic modelling seems flawed, 1 international soccer game per year is completely unrealistic since there aren’t many games played in Australia and Melb/Syd always get first go at them.
There was talk of the Rugby being moved from Adelaide but I thought the attendances were ok so I assume that this would stay in Adelaide, but what about the timing of this? With football matches starting around feb with NAB cup, cricket still going at that time it cant be played then and once the footy season starts there will be matches played every week so I cant see this fitting into the schedule
This has been discussed previously in a few outlets but whilst it looks nice the piece of paper has no real value

12. a lot of wasted money of this goes ahead

13. would be nice to see a test run, after all $600million+ is a big outlay when there is no immediate necessity for the costs

14. more of an observation than a qn

15. surely this should be extremely worrying for all South Australians, SA is not currently in a position to do this and being this far in debt cannot be a good thing especially when we are running at a deficit each year.

[Pottsy]

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.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

Fully agree, I'd picked up bits and pieces of the debate but got scared off at the length of some posts, I have a lot clearer perception of the situation now and the letter to Mr Evans was great.

[redandblack]

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.

[Hondo]

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.

[Hondo]

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?

[MAY-Z]

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.

1. i am getting answers to questions that havent been provided
2. not really i started tehprocess being slightly in favour of a no vote but not convinced
3. he is only going on what facts he has been provided
4. maybe but he has still answered them
5. they are facts the state is well in debt and getting worse

[MAY-Z]

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.

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.

[MAY-Z]

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?

i will post any responses i get

of course evans is going to place a few liberal views ins, but apart from maybe is his commenst about john olsen's reiver precinct most of tehm are factual comments

[whufc]

I will definatly be voting NO while there is no answer to who will pay the Budget overrun if there is one.

[redandblack]

MAY-Z, the SACA asked the SANFL to come to AO, not the other way around.

The SACA have been trying to get AFL to AO for years.

For someone who started the process being 'slightly in favor of a no vote', you've given a good impression of someone who wouldn't have voted yes whatever the answers were.

[Hondo]

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.

It's only an advantage if the SACA don't get an uplift in yearly profit from this deal. But they do. $18m isn't it?

The SACA are contributing no money whatsoever. This argument that they are contributing assets to the deal is spin from Greg Howe's website. These assets have no value to the SACA unless they are attached to and used with the Oval. They still get the same use from the assets for the cricket season as they do now. They don't lose the right to use them. All that happens is that the SANFL will use them in winter. The SACA are also freed from maintaining the oval during cricket's off-season.

The SACA also get $85m straight into their bank account to reimburse them for the latest stand.

Whether the commercial return from the West Lakes land is less than the return from AAMI Stadium we don't know.

I see that both organisations achieve financial advantages from this deal.

[Dutchy]

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

Which is governed by the same world body that insists on fully seated venues!

So we will either lose the Socceroos ever playing in Adelaide and the income or lose the Northern mound.

Iain Evans has cred in this debate being a huge cricket tragic and his son plays SANFL.

Nice work May-Z

[Dutchy]

The Shield final is one of my major concerns but Iain also raises the issue of a drawn SANFL grand final. We could have the scenario of Footy not allowing the Shield final to be play at AO and then 6 months leter the SACA not allowing a SANFL replay GFat AO...again I ask why couldnt these scenarios be built into the agreement????

[White Line Fever]

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.

[Dirko]

Well Adelaide has lost the Rugby 7's, to the Gold Coast......

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-loses-world-series-to-gold-coast/story-fn34oii8-1226038376199

[whufc]

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.

Really if your a true fan you will go watch your team play anywhere, and to be honest you spend the majority of your day in a seat, the seats arent that bad!!