Reasons to Vote "NO"

[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.

Can I ask why you think it's a hole??

I'm a true fan but I have a life.
I can't fit a trip to aami in around playing footy, prezzos, 21sts, engagements, weddings, catching up with mates etc
I'd have to catch two buses if I wanted a frothy and fork out top dollar for rank food at aami.

However in city I could catch games on my way to events, go out for dinner, drink and get home easily.
How exciting is it in Melbourne going to pub for a countery & beer then walking through city to grounds.
The whole appeal is the before and after.
Unless i get free tickets I have no motivation to go to aami.
The city stadium would stop the giant rush of everyone leaving at same time as people kick on for dinner etc and lots more ways out of city.
Even catching tram back to bay after a game would be appealing.

West lakes is isolated, too hard to get to and overpriced as in no value for money

[Hondo]

Labor havent considered other options and a No vote would make them do this, cant tell me AAMI cant be used for another 10/15 years while we make the right decision not just a knee jerk one.

No, I don't it can be used for that long. Look at the crowd figures declining for both Crows and Port games. The way people take in their sport has changed from 20 years ago and I don't think we can hope just the sport itself at a stadium anywhere will be enough. I think it needs to be part of an experience within the CBD rather than out at West Lakes.

At least you have put a time frame on how far away a new CBD stadium really is. I agree it's at least that long.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

Can I ask why you think it's a hole??

I'm a true fan but I have a life.
I can't fit a trip to aami in around playing footy, prezzos, 21sts, engagements, weddings, catching up with mates etc
I'd have to catch two buses if I wanted a frothy and fork out top dollar for rank food at aami.

However in city I could catch games on my way to events, go out for dinner, drink and get home easily.
How exciting is it in Melbourne going to pub for a countery & beer then walking through city to grounds.
The whole appeal is the before and after.
Unless i get free tickets I have no motivation to go to aami.
The city stadium would stop the giant rush of everyone leaving at same time as people kick on for dinner etc and lots more ways out of city.
Even catching tram back to bay after a game would be appealing.

West lakes is isolated, too hard to get to and overpriced as in no value for money

OK, I mis-interpreted you then, I took "hole" as in run-down etc. I think it's a picturesque venue but I totally agree with your reasoning for not wanting to commute there.

[Dutchy]

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

Terrible umpire though.

[pipers]

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

1) Definitely. As I have every year since I have been a full member.
2) Each year we are asked to nominate three candidates from a list of approximately 6-8. This is to fill the three available places that are rotated every four years (12 member board). This time I supported Sally Niehuus (elected), Neil Gillespie (not elected) and another gentleman whose name escapes me (not elected).

Of the current Board I recall voting for Griffiths and Sincock in the past, and I think I stopped voting for MacLachlan about 2 rotations ago. I do not recall voting for the others, but perhaps may have voted for Sellers in my early years as a member. I definitely did not vote for Bannon.

[pipers]

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

More modelling down the toliet!

Perhaps appropriate given my earlier Kate Moss quip...

[MatteeG]

Why not just move Power to Adelaide Oval without major renovation. Leave the cows at aami with their facility. 2 stadiums, 2 home grounds.

[pipers]

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.

I assume you are referring to some of us! The questions May-Z asked were drafted jointly with a few other members after lenghty discussion on what information we felt was important to our decision. No point having 5 or 10 of us send one or two questions each. Better to put it all in one submission.

The lack of response from SACA is ever more curious.

You kind of get the feeling they might not have those answers...

[pipers]

This debate to me is about how a public facility can be best used to maximise community and economic benefit. Unfortunately this overall aim frequently get's lost in a black hole of historical differences, conservatism, and scaremongering.

So we should vote yes, because of "the vibe" ?

Thankyou so much Denis Denuto...

[Hondo]

I assume you are referring to some of us! The questions May-Z asked were drafted jointly with a few other members after lenghty discussion on what information we felt was important to our decision. No point having 5 or 10 of us send one or two questions each. Better to put it all in one submission.

The lack of response from SACA is ever more curious.

You kind of get the feeling they might not have those answers...

OK, that's good that it's a joint effort. Even better, in fact. In the past I haven't got the impression that some SACA members were willing to get out and ask their questions directly instead taking the more pointless route of posting questions on public forums.

I think 6 days in the current rush towards 2 May is not yet enough time to make a conclusion. Have any of you tried ringing the SMA or the SACA to follow up or even find someone to talk to directly with over the phone?

[pipers]

OK, that's good that it's a joint effort. Even better, in fact. In the past I haven't got the impression that some SACA members were willing to get out and ask their questions directly instead taking the more pointless route of posting questions on public forums.

I think 6 days in the current rush towards 2 May is not yet enough time to make a conclusion. Have any of you tried ringing the SMA or the SACA to follow up or even find someone to talk to directly with over the phone?

Mate, you can't get much more direct than this...

On September 2009, 16 of us put our names at the bottom of a formal letter, addressed to MacLachlan, expressing our displeasure at the justification of the $60 building levy.

His response?

Nothing.

Not even a polite acknowledgement of our concerns.

Here is the letter in full...


29 September 2009


The Hon Ian McLachlan AO
C/- The South Australian Cricket Association
Adelaide Oval
War Memorial Drive
NORTH ADELAIDE SA 5006


Dear Mr McLachlan,

We, the under-signed SACA members, wish to express our displeasure at the “Building Levy” imposed on memberships for the 2009-10 summer.

For well over three years now, the communication from yourself and the recently departed Mr Deare through member publications and correspondence has provided assurances that the project will be carefully managed and mindful of both aesthetic and financial considerations. Granted, this was all predicated on the ability of SACA to secure a considerable portion of the required funding from state and federal grants, however the $50M eventually sourced via those avenues was heralded as being significant enough that the original design could be reviewed and improved upon.

When unveiling the new design in the January 2009 edition of Long Boundary you suggested that “the design, the aesthetics and most importantly the financing of the project have been carefully assessed and overriding all of these considerations has been the ability of the SACA to pay off the capital and interest in a timely fashion”. It seemed then that SACA members had little to worry about, aside from some inconvenience through the 2009-10 summer.

Little wonder then that the Building Levy has come as something of a rude surprise.

The additional funds garnered via this levy (which will amount to less than $1M in total) will not make a material contribution towards meeting the overall development costs of $90M. As such, the description of “Building Levy” is a misnomer. In effect it is no more than an indirect manner by which to increase the annual membership subscription, and is well in excess of the CPI-type of increase which could be reasonably expected.

In addition, the justification for an increase of this magnitude is highly questionable. In 2007-08 you reported a surplus of $2M and revenue from membership in excess of $5M. In 2008-09 you announced a $1.2M surplus and revenue from membership in excess of $4.8M. Presumably the intake of new members immediately following the completion of the project will also provide significant cash inflow by way of the “Entrance Fees” payable when first obtaining SACA membership. We are hopeful that this will be considered when setting membership fees for 2010/11, but we have significant doubts.

However, the fact that there is no option for members to simply defer their membership means we had little option than to pay this ill-conceived and unjustifiable levy, or surrender our membership and rejoin the waiting list (an option which would incur an equally questionable $35 fee).

We feel that the Building Levy is a shameful exploitation of the captive market SACA has created and demonstrates a lamentable lack of appreciation of the significant support provided by its patient and far-too-tolerant members over the years.

Sincerely,

[Dirko]

And in other news.....

Looks like Perths new stadium is back on the agenda;

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/burswood-site-for-new-60000-seat-stadium/comments-e6frg13u-1226038101779

[AFLflyer]

And in other news.....

Looks like Perths new stadium is back on the agenda;

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/burswood-site-for-new-60000-seat-stadium/comments-e6frg13u-1226038101779

We are so far behind Perth as a city and they have been trying for years to get this stadium..
Point is, this will never happen in Adelaide. It's update AO or nothing People!!!!!!!!

[Gingernuts]

This debate to me is about how a public facility can be best used to maximise community and economic benefit. Unfortunately this overall aim frequently get's lost in a black hole of historical differences, conservatism, and scaremongering.

So we should vote yes, because of "the vibe" ?

Thankyou so much Denis Denuto...

That's an incredibly skewed interpretation of my post. In fact I'm not sure where I've said anything about any type of 'vibe'??

I'm not trying to influence you vote in anyway either.

I was merely stating that this project, in my opinion, is about maximising the community and economic benefits of a public facility. This will be done by:

a) the facility being managed by an even representation of the major recreational pursuits of this state administering it (ie the SMA),

and

b) by the stadium being as close to capacity as possible as often as possible.

As it's name suggests Adelaide Oval is just that, it's Adelaide's Oval. It is a public facility on public land and as such it should be used for the maximum benefit (recreational, social, economic) of the public of South Australia.

By public I mean - cricket lovers, football lovers, sporting associations, concert goers, business owners, catering companies, transport companies, the list is endless.

In short I believe Adelaide Oval should be the stadium for all South Australians.

[the joker]

Why vote no???. if the vote is no the Government will take over the project and it will happen anyway. just vote yes so it happens quicker

[Ecky]

If members aren't sceptical about the spin put out by the SACA yet, they should be now.

Heaps of valid points in these articles

http://www.kryztoff.com/RAW/?p=2744

http://www.kryztoff.com/RAW/?p=2736

http://city-messenger.whereilive.com.au/blogs/story/stadium-plans-from-a-to-b/

[AFLflyer]

Why vote no???. if the vote is no the Government will take over the project and it will happen anyway. just vote yes so it happens quicker

good point. imagine how long this will draaaaaag on with a "No Vote" this thread will become 100 pages and we would have got nowhere . Move forward, not sideways

[Ecky]

Why vote no???. if the vote is no the Government will take over the project and it will happen anyway. just vote yes so it happens quicker

good point. imagine how long this will draaaaaag on with a "No Vote" this thread will become 100 pages and we would have got nowhere . Move forward, not sideways

You guys should research some basic facts before posting. Even Mike Rann admitted on Friday that he doesn't have the numbers to get it through parliament.
You are entitled to your opinion that this could possibly happen some time in the future, but to state this as a fact is incredibly fanciful.

[AFLflyer]

Why vote no???. if the vote is no the Government will take over the project and it will happen anyway. just vote yes so it happens quicker

good point. imagine how long this will draaaaaag on with a "No Vote" this thread will become 100 pages and we would have got nowhere . Move forward, not sideways

You guys should research some basic facts before posting. Even Mike Rann admitted on Friday that he doesn't have the numbers to get it through parliament.
You are entitled to your opinion that this could possibly happen some time in the future, but to state this as a fact is incredibly fanciful.

which makes your NO vote all the more damaging for this state.

[Dutchy]

Point is, this will never happen in Adelaide. It's update AO or nothing People!!!!!!!!

with that attitude your right it will never happen...

just think of what might occur with a No vote