by pipers » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:52 pm
by heater31 » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:10 pm
by pipers » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:18 pm
heater31 wrote:I agree totally.
I haven't been on this earth very long but I ain't stupid to see that the Membership is getting shafted in this deal. They want us to fork out and extra $600 so we can watch footy. They can shove that up their jumper. To every one that thinks Adelaide will be the laughing stock of the country for not allowing this to happen up we will be when we only have 1 venue whilst other cities have 2.
by auto » Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:11 am
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:41 am
pipers wrote:Apologies if there is already a thread on this, but I can't find it...
I am a SACA member of more than 10 years and have been attending as an Associate Member prior to that from as far back as 1986.
I am voting NO to the redevelopment proposal for a number of reasons:
1. First and foremost it is a truckload of money. A whole lot of uneccesary spending. Over half a billion dollars for about 14,000 seats. The Power got <24,000 to Footy Park last week for the "one club" event. A move to the CBD might bring in say 5,000 more, but not enough to warrant spending that much money on it. Cricket at Adelaide draws a maximum of about 32K to three possibly four days a year. Why does it need another 14,000 seats? Cricket Australia are unlikely to offer much more than perhaps one additional T20 international. Again, is that worth half a billion dollars?
2. As a SACA member, what is in it for me? Quite simply, nothing. Apparently up to 10,000 SANFL/Footy Park Members will get members access rights to the cricket, yet only 5,000 of us have a chance to get equitable treatment in respect to AFL. Why would we give the SANFL/AFL crowd a free kick? If we were moving cricket to Footy Park I can guarantee we would not get 10,000 admitted for nothing.
3. The SMA has no apparent accountability or formalised governance. It is a group of politically-motivated individuals with more conflicts than the US Army. At least the SACA Board has a degree of on-paper accountability, even though it is not often challenged due to the general apathy of its membership. Why as a SACA member would I effectively give away my voting rights on how the oval is used/mamaged in future? Three of the organisations represented on the SMA have repeatedly demonstrated intimidation of dissenting voices and abuse of power, general mismanagement and financial incompetence, and absolute denial of their own short-comings. They are also incredibly good at re-writing history as and when it suits them. NSW Labor were decimated in the polls only last week for these attitudes. Would you vote in the SMA??? I know I wont be!
4. The media campaign against the SACA membership which has been viscious and unrelenting. Apparently we are simply expected to roll over and let the AFL/SANFL/ALP rodger us up the ar$e for their own benefit and gratification, and if we don't we are labelled as conservative anti-progressives who will bring the state down. And we were expected to do this even before the vote was called, or before we received the required information to make our decisions. As a Port Magpies supporter, to have the SANFL accuse me of being stubborn and obstructionist is simply laughable. How progressive were your views in 1990 Mr Whicker?
5. Quite simply I expect that it will cost me more to go to the cricket in future and on top of that my membership priviledges will be considerably watered down... in exhange for nothing. Zero. Zilch.
Vote No in MAY!
by am Bays » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:19 am
by Drop Bear » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:33 am
by james07 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:37 am
by smac » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:49 am
pipers wrote:Apologies if there is already a thread on this, but I can't find it...
I am a SACA member of more than 10 years and have been attending as an Associate Member prior to that from as far back as 1986.
I am voting NO to the redevelopment proposal for a number of reasons:
1. First and foremost it is a truckload of money. A whole lot of uneccesary spending. Over half a billion dollars for about 14,000 seats. The Power got <24,000 to Footy Park last week for the "one club" event. A move to the CBD might bring in say 5,000 more, but not enough to warrant spending that much money on it. Cricket at Adelaide draws a maximum of about 32K to three possibly four days a year. Why does it need another 14,000 seats? Cricket Australia are unlikely to offer much more than perhaps one additional T20 international. Again, is that worth half a billion dollars?
pipers wrote:2. As a SACA member, what is in it for me? Quite simply, nothing. Apparently up to 10,000 SANFL/Footy Park Members will get members access rights to the cricket, yet only 5,000 of us have a chance to get equitable treatment in respect to AFL. Why would we give the SANFL/AFL crowd a free kick? If we were moving cricket to Footy Park I can guarantee we would not get 10,000 admitted for nothing.
pipers wrote:3. The SMA has no apparent accountability or formalised governance. It is a group of politically-motivated individuals with more conflicts than the US Army. At least the SACA Board has a degree of on-paper accountability, even though it is not often challenged due to the general apathy of its membership. Why as a SACA member would I effectively give away my voting rights on how the oval is used/mamaged in future? Three of the organisations represented on the SMA have repeatedly demonstrated intimidation of dissenting voices and abuse of power, general mismanagement and financial incompetence, and absolute denial of their own short-comings. They are also incredibly good at re-writing history as and when it suits them. NSW Labor were decimated in the polls only last week for these attitudes. Would you vote in the SMA??? I know I wont be!
pipers wrote:4. The media campaign against the SACA membership which has been viscious and unrelenting. Apparently we are simply expected to roll over and let the AFL/SANFL/ALP rodger us up the ar$e for their own benefit and gratification, and if we don't we are labelled as conservative anti-progressives who will bring the state down. And we were expected to do this even before the vote was called, or before we received the required information to make our decisions. As a Port Magpies supporter, to have the SANFL accuse me of being stubborn and obstructionist is simply laughable. How progressive were your views in 1990 Mr Whicker?
pipers wrote:5. Quite simply I expect that it will cost me more to go to the cricket in future and on top of that my membership priviledges will be considerably watered down... in exhange for nothing. Zero. Zilch.
Read the material produced by SACA before deciding, so at least you are deciding on facts instead of assumptions.pipers wrote:Vote No in MAY!
by cripple » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:11 am
by Mythical Creature » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:16 am
cripple wrote:why to vote no???? because 5000 south aussies are happy with the way things are and couldn't be stuffed with the ridicule and criticism that will come their way for many years in the future. They also will be the first ones whinging when adelaide misses out on events that other states attract due to thier superior venues (imagine having the potential to host the cricket world cup semi final in 4 years time at a 50000 seat stadium instead of bangladesh v zimbabwe in front of 5000) . unfortunately what south aussies voted for at the last state election has the potential to be scuppered by 5000 know it all members who rightly or wrongly are more interested in themselves then they are in the bigger picture.
by cripple » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:25 am
Mythical Creature wrote:cripple wrote:why to vote no???? because 5000 south aussies are happy with the way things are and couldn't be stuffed with the ridicule and criticism that will come their way for many years in the future. They also will be the first ones whinging when adelaide misses out on events that other states attract due to thier superior venues (imagine having the potential to host the cricket world cup semi final in 4 years time at a 50000 seat stadium instead of bangladesh v zimbabwe in front of 5000) . unfortunately what south aussies voted for at the last state election has the potential to be scuppered by 5000 know it all members who rightly or wrongly are more interested in themselves then they are in the bigger picture.
But these members are the ones that have paid for the priveledge of being able to vote. I think that if you're not a member you shouldn't be telling them whats best. If you think members should vote either way how about spending your hard earned on buying a membership for yourself then you can vote however you like. My Opinion is if you are a member then you are fully entitled to vote however you want as you have paid for that priveledge.
by White Line Fever » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:32 am
by redandblack » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:32 am
by MAY-Z » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:40 am
White Line Fever wrote:The vote SACA makes will have no bearing in what eventually ends up happening.
It's just a consultation process to see where they stand.
Once the big guns weigh in ... Federal Government , State Government, AFL, SANFL & SACA ... who ALL want it, then it will happen.
Then in 5-10 years time we can decide if we want another second stadium.
SACA members come down from Cloud 9
by Pottsy » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:46 am
by Ecky » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:00 pm
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
by MatteeG » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:00 pm
Mythical Creature wrote:But these members are the ones that have paid for the priveledge of being able to vote. I think that if you're not a member you shouldn't be telling them whats best. If you think members should vote either way how about spending your hard earned on buying a membership for yourself then you can vote however you like. My Opinion is if you are a member then you are fully entitled to vote however you want as you have paid for that priveledge.
helicopterking wrote:Flaggies will choke. Always have.
by RustyCage » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:04 pm
redandblack wrote:If there is a no vote, hopefully the State Government will over-ride it on behalf of the rest of the population against the selfishness of a few SACA members.
Otherwise the SACA members can kick in to pay off the $85 million SACA debt, with no help from anyone else.
Has the State Govt ever kicked in funds for Adelaide Oval?
PS: I am a cricket and Adelaide Oval lover.
by Ecky » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:19 pm
pafc1870 wrote:They don't care that it is obviously of a huge benefit for the state.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |