Reasons to Vote "NO"

[MAY-Z]

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

these are all great articles and im not surprised that the yes campaigners havent commented on them

the first article especially shows that the SACA with the following quotes

Then there as Harnden’s extraordinary claim (as reported in Indaily) that “Well, the western grandstand was finished; it was finished on time; it was finished within the budget; it was ready for the Ashes.”

Well no John. The Western Grandstand went $25m over budget, a 30% blow out in costs. This blow out has been admitted to SACA members by its President, Ian McLachlan as well as to the Parliament. Yet, the SACA has never told its members just where and why the cost blow outs occurred.

It was also revealed in Indaily today that the costs of this campaign, printing, country trips etc, are being met by the State Government through its $10m grant to the SMA to further advance the proposal. Just why the taxpayers are paying the SACA to do their dirty work is not clear. We don’t see the Minister or Premier attending and spruiking it. Nor for that matter SANFL bosses (other than in their puff pieces in the Advertiser) nor the AFL.

Further, McLachlan said that if there was a cost over-run, perhaps they would have to cut back on some features, though none could be specified. This is the same man who told that assembly and the Parliament sub-committee that one will never know what the total cost will be until tenders are in and indeed the thing is actually built.

so within this there are lies from SACA officials re the last grandstand, questions rasied about additional public money being spent on the campaign and the fact that they have no real idea what anything will cost

[Hondo]

So you are prepared to send the State of South Australia back to the late 1980's/early 1990's as a financial basket case as it has over committed itself to win votes from the people.

Now that is Selfish IMO.

Come on Heater. I thought we were trying to stick to facts rather than alarmist doomsday predictions. As generous an act you are making a no vote sound on behalf of the state it does sound like not much more than a politically correct way of justifying a no vote. I am guessing it's not your number 1 reason for voting no (assuming you are voting no).

Do you really know the financial position of the State and whether or not $535m will send the state in a 1990 style recession? The Gallipoli underpass cost $150m and that's just a bridge and a below ground underpass. The state collects and spends about $15 billion every year.

I am not an expert on the State's finance but I'd hazard a guess and say neither are you yet you are making big claims about what impact this $535m will have on the state budget. By all means vote on these public interest grounds but at least peruse these documents first:
http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budge ... eviews.jsp

[Hondo]

sigh the only thing that is non-sensical is your continual denial that the grandstand has a value, of course it has a value as it is at adelaide oval as that is where it needs to be

the grandstand isnt getting knocked down but, if as you say it has no value i presume there would be no cost to rebuild it

I am not saying it doesn't have a value. I am saying it's misleading to say this value represents a financial commitment the SACA are making to the project and, by extension, claiming the SACA are contributing value while the SANFL aren't. This is spin. Letting someone else use the stands when you aren't does not mean you are making a financial contribution and therefore reducing the commitment being made by the taxpayers, as you and others claim the SANFL should be doing.

I think I have asked you 3 times now - how much actual money are the SACA putting into the project (or getting out of it)? I know you know I know the answer but at least acknowledge the question.

[pipers]

I am not saying it doesn't have a value. I am saying it's misleading to say this value represents a financial commitment the SACA are making to the project and, by extension, claiming the SACA are contributing value while the SANFL aren't. This is spin. Letting someone else use the stands when you aren't does not mean you are making a financial contribution and therefore reducing the commitment being made by the taxpayers, as you and others claim the SANFL should be doing

Back to my rental analogy... say you are renting a house, and you decide to let someone else live in it for six months each year rent free so long as they help pay the gas bills and buy some bread and milk, then surely this is a subsidy equivalent to a certain monetary value.

I'd argue that a subsidy is a finanial contribution.

[pipers]

People will want to actually visit Adelaide, instead of laughing at our city from a far. Those who can't see the riverside potential are blind.

Agree - it would be nice to develop the Torrens Lake precinct. But that isn't dependant on this vote... and nor is all of it included in the $535M bill.

[pipers]

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

Just bend over and breathe in. It hurts less...

[pipers]

It was also revealed in Indaily today that the costs of this campaign, printing, country trips etc, are being met by the State Government through its $10m grant to the SMA to further advance the proposal. Just why the taxpayers are paying the SACA to do their dirty work is not clear. We don’t see the Minister or Premier attending and spruiking it. Nor for that matter SANFL bosses (other than in their puff pieces in the Advertiser) nor the AFL.

$10M spent, yet they chose not to use any of that on drafting a terms of reference or charter for the SMA, or some draft lease/licence agreements between the SMA and the SACA/SANFL.

On that second point, I have found it odd that it has only been SACA members who seem concerned about getting formally documented assurances about the ongoing access of cricket to the oval. I'd have thought that the SANFL members would be equally concerned about the nature of these lease arrangements with the SMA to ensure that their use of the facility is also assured.

There was a letter in Wednesday's Tiser from a Crows supporter expressing concern about the potential that a move to the oval might result in less seats for Crows fans (due to 5,000, or possibly more, Super AO memberships being made available to SACA members).

That is the first time I have seen anyone from the football side express this sort of concern. Which is exactly the same as one of our concerns.

Basically, the problem is that two does not go into one!

[pipers]

Where will the Crows/Power pre-season games be played?

Where will the Crows do their pre-season training?

Why should 5,000 SACA members get access to the Showdowns, ahead of some supporters from the two clubs?

I've had a season ticket on centre-wing for nearly two decades. Will I get a similar seat at Adelaide Oval? Will some of us have to stand on the Northern Hill?

Will the SANFL season be shortened to bring the GF forward so it doesn't clash with the opening of the cricket season?

Not concerns for SACA members, but something for the footy crowd to consider perhaps...

[pipers]

smac, reading back on some of thse posts i just want to pull you up on a few points in your first response to my initial post.

To be completely independent of the funding of their national bodies is something everyone has dreamed of, isn't it? Or have I been reading a different SAFooty forum?.

No idea as I only returned here recently, however why any state-based cricket body would want financial independence from its cashed-up parent body is beyond me. share the wealth CA!

As far as accountability of SMA goes, the body itself is yet to formally exist – it cannot do so until SACA members vote to allow it to exist! I am sure if you wished to contact SACA that someone there could explain this in greater detail..

This vote does not allow for the formalisation of the SMA at all. That could happend today - totally independant of the vote. The vote simply allows SACA to engage with another party, or as part of a JV, in regards to the management of the facility. It just so happens that the entity in the frame at the moment is the SMA, which does exist... What is lacking, as you suggest is a formalisation of this entity and its charter, rules of association, whatever... but this is NOT dependant on the vote. Give me details of the legal, operational and financial structures of the SMA and I might be more prepared to give up this control.

Then there are the extended benefits – how would Mylor Cricket Club like to dip their toe in the facilities fund that SACA will have? Need new nets? Turf pitch? Improve clubrooms? What about training at the new facility at [insert regional location here] that SACA will be able to build?.

Pure speculation. The financial benefits (which I have now read to be $18M over TWO years) are based on a whole heap of income projections which are becoming more and more questionable with every passing day...

Read the material produced by SACA before deciding, so at least you are deciding on facts instead of assumptions.

I have read it. I like the soft facts such as "a better quality experience for spectators will encourage more people to come more often, building crowds and revenue over time". I'm less sure about the extremely soft facts suggesting that we will have Rugby Sevens and Football Internationals at the Oval every year... Hmmm... they sound like assumptions... and pretty bad ones at that.

[Wedgie]

Well, we've now lost the Rugby Sevens tournament, I wonder if that loss of millions of dollars of revenue was written into their estimate?

[AFLflyer]

People will want to actually visit Adelaide, instead of laughing at our city from a far. Those who can't see the riverside potential are blind.

Agree - it would be nice to develop the Torrens Lake precinct. But that isn't dependant on this vote... and nor is all of it included in the $535M bill.

I don't think you get it. One is unlikely to happen without the other.
For example the Casino (skycity)have gone on record as saying that they will take their 250million for renovations (through to the river banks) elsewhere in Australia, if this falls over.
The Government wont be able to justify spending the money on revamping the area as they wont get any returns from the 100's of thouseands of extra vistors to the area per year.
The spinoff's from the this both financially and asthetically are undeniable.

[heater31]

So you are prepared to send the State of South Australia back to the late 1980's/early 1990's as a financial basket case as it has over committed itself to win votes from the people.

Now that is Selfish IMO.

Come on Heater. I thought we were trying to stick to facts rather than alarmist doomsday predictions. As generous an act you are making a no vote sound on behalf of the state it does sound like not much more than a politically correct way of justifying a no vote. I am guessing it's not your number 1 reason for voting no (assuming you are voting no).

Do you really know the financial position of the State and whether or not $535m will send the state in a 1990 style recession? The Gallipoli underpass cost $150m and that's just a bridge and a below ground underpass. The state collects and spends about $15 billion every year.

I am not an expert on the State's finance but I'd hazard a guess and say neither are you yet you are making big claims about what impact this $535m will have on the state budget. By all means vote on these public interest grounds but at least peruse these documents first:
http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budge ... eviews.jsp

Did you not read May-Z's email from Iain Evans??? The State of South Australia is borrowing money to pay its staff One major project nearly completed has had millions of dollars thrown at it to complete it. Now there are media reports that the next major project is alreay gone over inital cost estimates. The State Treasuerer is on record saying that if the No gets up the job of balancing the budget will be much easier than if a Yes vote goes through. That to me sets off Alarm bells that we as a State can't not afford any cost blowout.

Hospitals and Sports Stadiums are possibly two of the most complicatied buildings you can build and I seriously doubt that the what is proposed will come under that budget.

Lets just focus on getting one major project completed before trying to start the next one then finding out that we have over commited ourselves to the finanacial baskete case stakes again.

[MAY-Z]

Well, we've now lost the Rugby Sevens tournament, I wonder if that loss of millions of dollars of revenue was written into their estimate?

the ongoing holding of tis tournament was part of their financially modelled income streams

[smac]

I am not saying it doesn't have a value. I am saying it's misleading to say this value represents a financial commitment the SACA are making to the project and, by extension, claiming the SACA are contributing value while the SANFL aren't. This is spin. Letting someone else use the stands when you aren't does not mean you are making a financial contribution and therefore reducing the commitment being made by the taxpayers, as you and others claim the SANFL should be doing

Back to my rental analogy... say you are renting a house, and you decide to let someone else live in it for six months each year rent free so long as they help pay the gas bills and buy some bread and milk, then surely this is a subsidy equivalent to a certain monetary value.

I'd argue that a subsidy is a finanial contribution.

I'd argue that your analogy is (still) flawed. If you had a group of representatives elected to act in the interests of the rest of the tenants then the situation changes completely, doesn't it?

[Hondo]

Heater, you dismiss anything from the Government or the SACA as spin yet you lap it up when it comes from Greg Howe, Krystoff or the Liberal Party.

I did read Iain Evans' email. He's happy to talk about the financial ills of this state and how we really can't afford this redevelopment. But then he spruiks the Liberals plan of a new CBD stadium so they will spend $1b out of the same revenue base that the current Government has when we can't afford the $535m. What does that tell you about what the state can or can't afford. If he was genuinely concerned for the state's finances he would be telling us that it isn't responsible to be spending money on any sports stadium at all.

$500m over 2 years is 2% of the state's revenue as I calculate it.

[smac]

smac, reading back on some of thse posts i just want to pull you up on a few points in your first response to my initial post.

To be completely independent of the funding of their national bodies is something everyone has dreamed of, isn't it? Or have I been reading a different SAFooty forum?.

No idea as I only returned here recently, however why any state-based cricket body would want financial independence from its cashed-up parent body is beyond me. share the wealth CA!

Not a matter of want, it’s a matter of need. Grants and funding would be available from CA/AFL; however SACA/SANFL would not be reliant upon it which means the retention of control of both sports in this state.

As far as accountability of SMA goes, the body itself is yet to formally exist – it cannot do so until SACA members vote to allow it to exist! I am sure if you wished to contact SACA that someone there could explain this in greater detail..

This vote does not allow for the formalisation of the SMA at all. That could happend today - totally independant of the vote. The vote simply allows SACA to engage with another party, or as part of a JV, in regards to the management of the facility. It just so happens that the entity in the frame at the moment is the SMA, which does exist... What is lacking, as you suggest is a formalisation of this entity and its charter, rules of association, whatever... but this is NOT dependant on the vote. Give me details of the legal, operational and financial structures of the SMA and I might be more prepared to give up this control.

We’ll agree to disagree on that point then.

Then there are the extended benefits – how would Mylor Cricket Club like to dip their toe in the facilities fund that SACA will have? Need new nets? Turf pitch? Improve clubrooms? What about training at the new facility at [insert regional location here] that SACA will be able to build?.

Pure speculation. The financial benefits (which I have now read to be $18M over TWO years) are based on a whole heap of income projections which are becoming more and more questionable with every passing day...

If you read anywhere previously that it was $18M over anything but two years then I apologise for your dyslexia. This figure is the amount saved in interest payments on the current debt and not speculation at all.

Read the material produced by SACA before deciding, so at least you are deciding on facts instead of assumptions.

I have read it. I like the soft facts such as "a better quality experience for spectators will encourage more people to come more often, building crowds and revenue over time". I'm less sure about the extremely soft facts suggesting that we will have Rugby Sevens and Football Internationals at the Oval every year... Hmmm... they sound like assumptions... and pretty bad ones at that.

I’m pleased you read it. Once again, vote as you please.

[mal]

I wouldnt build any new constructions until Shane Watt185OOO retires from cricket
Too many repair bills

[Ecky]

Pure speculation. The financial benefits (which I have now read to be $18M over TWO years) are based on a whole heap of income projections which are becoming more and more questionable with every passing day...

If you read anywhere previously that it was $18M over anything but two years then I apologise for your dyslexia. This figure is the amount saved in interest payments on the current debt and not speculation at all.

Of course it is speculation as it assumes the SACA won't accumulate any more debt as a result of this project, or anything else unexpected (like the loss of the Rugby 7s!). We are still waiting to hear our response from the SACA as to who will pay if the project goes over budget. (7 days now and counting...!) Surely if they suddenly have to fork out extra money this $18M will be reduced very quickly... That is our concern

[Hondo]

Ecky if it's a government funded project run by the government as part of a bigger $1.5b redevelopment of the riverfront area then why do you think the SACA would be responsible for an overrun?

I am not saying that won't be as I don't know for sure but what's the logic in the theory? Just because the Government publicly capped their contribution? They also publicly gave the SACA and the SANFL a deadline after which the deal was off and that was then extended by 1 year at least.

Would the provider of the funds and the people that will let the contract out be the better ones to ask (ie, the State Govt)?

[Ecky]

I don't know either but that is why we have asked the SACA to clarify this!