SA Footy

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!

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.

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.

Exactly, how is moving from two stadiums to one anyway a step forward?

Far better to wait, get rid of this arrogant government (and I've been Labor all my life!) let the dust settle and then re-assess if we need a CBD stadium in 5 or 10 years. By then the AFL/Power will be broke and they will be coming cap-in-hand for any assistance that SACA might be able to offer. Apparently the $80M debt currently held by SACA is servicable (and if not then they've been pedalling lies for 3 years).

I'm happy to wait. Why give something up for nothing?

Hopefully you blokes are the only ones voting no but in this town i highly doubt it

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!

exactly and when you consider what the state government is doing just to keep afloat financially how can they justify this spending

Testify!!!

This member is voting no too

And it won't take me much to convince teh missus to vote no too who is a member.

For the reasons listed above and as a member of a SANFL club I think footy park should be redeveloped along with a rail spur puit out to Westlakes to ease the traffic congestion.

Should develop a model like Homebush, Subiaco, Gabba, SCG where there is an out of city centre stadium well support by rail/light rail infrastructure, so people can go abck into the city centre to "make a day out of it"

Footy still owns Footy park which provides the asset base to financially support football in this state.

The thing I liked most about the proposed plan is making the Adelaide Oval a whole precinct. Developing a "federation square feel" to it as I think it's a good move forward (strange word for some people) for Adelaide. As far as footy to the oval is concerned, I don't see why Demetriou/AFL can't fork out the cash if they want it so badly. For what it's worth, I would like to see it go ahead.

Unfortunately some very short sighted views. This city cannot support two stadiums. Footy park cost both AFL clubs and they are slipping back in terms of dollars. And cricket needs this too. quite simple really.

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?

This is about more than sport at the elite level, it is about financially securing the future of both sports in this state. 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?

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.

Apparently? Incorrect. There are 10,000 ‘super memberships’, half each available to footy and cricket to sell to their membership bases.

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!

Cricket wants to be in the cricket business, not the stadium management business. All resources and focus will be on cricket, from Mylor Cricket Club up to the Redbacks.
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.

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?

SACA Board are also recommending a yes vote, not just the parties you list above. There is no ar$e rodgering occurring, it really is good for cricket.

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.

Again, incorrect. Memberships will not cost more and your privileges will not be changed – you will still get to go to SANFL matches, you will still have a full summer of cricket. You will even get back your building levy of $120.
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?

pipers wrote:Vote No in MAY!

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

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.

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.

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.

my problem is with a decision that effects the entire state, it shouldn't come down to the priviliged few. we have seen with the victoria park debacle and many other things in adelaide's CBD recently that the opinions of a few determine the outcomes for so many.

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

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.

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

that is the stupidist comment i have read from anyone about this topic

so you are proposing that 535 million dollars get spent on 14,000 seats then in a few years tim you want another probably $600-$700,000 spent on a brand new stadium?

I've been pretty solid on the idea of voting no.

Now that I've got the info pack and have the opportunity to send the voting form off I'm not so sure.

I think I'm going to have to head in to the meeting on the night and make up my mind then, after having read up and listened to as much as I can about it. There are some real positives and negatives. It's certainly not a no brainer.

Hear Hear Pipers!

As a SACA member (full since 2002 and associate since 1995) I will be definitely be voting no.
We have the best CRICKET GROUND in the world (not stadium) and there is no way I will be voting yes to a deal that jeopardises that and throws away all our rights as SACA members, for basically just a lump sum payment.

Plus as a lover of the SANFL, I don't really want to see the AFL, Crows and Port become more powerful. Apparently the only thing stopping the Port and Crows having Reserves teams in the SANFL is money so this proposal might well allow them to do this, which would really ruin the SANFL competition.

There is no way I want to have blood on my hands for ruining the Adelaide Oval AND the SANFL competition.

Vote NO!!!

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.

Well said MC.

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.

The problem with the whole vote is the members already have their shiny new stand. If their new stand was a part of the deal they would vote yes to it because as by the "no" comments here its all me me me. They don't care what is best for the state. They don't care that the organisation that they freely chose to support want it. They don't care that it is obviously of a huge benefit for the state. They just care whats in it for them. I always thought the idea of being a member was to be able to vote for what is in the best interests of the organisation they were a member of. In this case thats obviously not going to happen.

pafc1870 wrote:They don't care that it is obviously of a huge benefit for the state.

But it isn't obvious at all that this deal would benefit the state overall. How can you be sure that this money wouldn't be better off spent on hospitals or other projects?
I love sport more than most people, but in the scheme of things there are other things much more important in life.

Plus I don't need to have the most modern facilities to enjoy sport - if everyone looks back at their favourite sport-watching moments, how many of these have been in the outer in the rain or from a 100 year old grandstand at a suburban SANFL oval with dodgy seats. A fancy new stadium isn't what makes sport great to me.