Will the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment go ahead?

[OnSong]

Ill let you know what we decide.

Very gracious of you RC. Although, it would not surprise if SACA Members decided to firmly plant their collective heads up their collective arses and not give one flying **** about the rest of us.

Strange though, I didnt picture you as a tweed jacket wearing, stiff upper lip, pompous arse.

Drew a pretty clear one now. Although the tweed jacket is optional.

[Wedgie]

Other way around, if they vote in favour they'll be screwing us. BIG TIME!

I implore any SACA member to vote against it for the good of us footy fans. Footy fans like myself will be eternally grateful. Stick to your guns RC and try to get as many of your fellow members onside for the good of all sports in this state.

The only people who screwed us footy fans so far were those who voted the current government back in.

[Reddeer]

Other way around, if they vote in favour they'll be screwing us. BIG TIME!

I implore any SACA member to vote against it for the good of us footy fans. Footy fans like myself will be eternally grateful. Stick to your guns RC and try to get as many of your fellow members onside for the good of all sports in this state.

The only people who screwed us footy fans so far were those who voted the current government back in.

Agreed

[AFLflyer]

Other way around, if they vote in favour they'll be screwing us. BIG TIME!

I implore any SACA member to vote against it for the good of us footy fans. Footy fans like myself will be eternally grateful. Stick to your guns RC and try to get as many of your fellow members onside for the good of all sports in this state.

The only people who screwed us footy fans so far were those who voted the current government back in.

whatever wedgie, your'e the one calling us a backward state!! no wonder we are backwards here, when people have opinions like that
your probably casting the bait though? you cant really think like that, purely based on SPITE.

[AFLflyer]

Other way around, if they vote in favour they'll be screwing us. BIG TIME!

I implore any SACA member to vote against it for the good of us footy fans. Footy fans like myself will be eternally grateful. Stick to your guns RC and try to get as many of your fellow members onside for the good of all sports in this state.

The only people who screwed us footy fans so far were those who voted the current government back in.

Agreed

how is that for the good of footy fans, please explain?

[Booney]

All along Wedgie, where I have said this wont go ahead, was not my personal opinion but in fact information I am privvy to suggested that was the case.

My personal view was that it should go ahead, but not because I want it to as I'd rather ( for my own purposes ) see the status quo remain, but that would be far too selfish of a stance to take.

For my own good? Keep Footy at Footy Park, 10 minutes from home and I have no problems with it.

For the good of all? ( In my view ) Move it to the city and to a modern stadium built for the now and the future.

[Hondo]

The only people who screwed us footy fans so far were those who voted the current government back in.

You mean the majority of people who voted? (albiet by a small margin)

There wasn't a tick box in the election to indicate if you were a footy fan or not so we can't say footy fans were disproportionately represented in the Labor or Liberal vote.

I think the Northern and Western suburbs based footy fans are unlikely to be mostly Liberal voters, for example.

That's why this can't now be decided by 20,000 SACA members with a conflict of interest. And that's why it won't be. There's no way that, after all that work, the AFL, SANFL, SACA, ACC and the State Govt will just quietly walk away saying "oh well, bad luck we gave it our best shot".

RoyalUKFCity is dreaming

[Dutchy]

Other way around, if they vote in favour they'll be screwing us. BIG TIME!

I implore any SACA member to vote against it for the good of us footy fans. Footy fans like myself will be eternally grateful. Stick to your guns RC and try to get as many of your fellow members onside for the good of all sports in this state.

The only people who screwed us footy fans so far were those who voted the current government back in.

Agreed

how is that for the good of footy fans, please explain?

People are presuming SACA members are all footy fans....

[White Line Fever]

What other option is there?
Stay at AAMI....
It is dead down there.. Joke of a ground

Wedgie what is your preferred solution?

Out of all the options that are currently being proposed and have previously been proposed the Adelaide Oval redevelopment would be last for me.
I'm a Melbourne member of Geelong and watch all of my AFL at the MCG or the dome anyway.

Fair call as I too have seen more AFL games in Melbourne than in Adelaide and I've lived here my whole life.

BUT i'm a Crows supporter and I want to see them in the city.

[Gravel]

I have been advised that the State Government have the power to overturn a SACA No vote on the basis of whats is in the best interests of the State?
Hopefully it won't come to this as the majority of SACA members will see the big picture and not have personal agendas that cloud their vision.

[Royal City]

The only people who screwed us footy fans so far were those who voted the current government back in.

You mean the majority of people who voted? (albiet by a small margin)

There wasn't a tick box in the election to indicate if you were a footy fan or not so we can't say footy fans were disproportionately represented in the Labor or Liberal vote.

I think the Northern and Western suburbs based footy fans are unlikely to be mostly Liberal voters, for example.

That's why this can't now be decided by 20,000 SACA members with a conflict of interest. And that's why it won't be. There's no way that, after all that work, the AFL, SANFL, SACA, ACC and the State Govt will just quietly walk away saying "oh well, bad luck we gave it our best shot".

RoyalUKFCity is dreaming

I'm dreaming ???

If the saca vote is irrelevant and can Be overruled. Why are they taking on the cost of holding the vote.

Maybe because it's in sacas constitution.

Yet again if the saca board attempts to overrule that. I'd bet a vote of no confidence in the board wouldn't be to far behind from the members.

Personally If I was saca. I would thought the easiest thing would of been to change the 75% majority rule in readiness for this vote. But they obviously haven't had enough time to plan that far ahead. Although according to some this second stage has been planned for years.

Anyway enough arguing I know how I and other members will be voting.

[Royal City]

Any chance you could explain the contradiction ???

here's one

PAFC have bank debt facilities that are ongoing as do the SACA. On one you are very defensive justifying ongoing financial viability on the basis that why else would the bank grant them a loan. On the other hand, where a bank has also granted a loan, it is evidence of why it is about to fall over. Both organisations have or will receive assistance to deal with the repayments of these debts (SACA have $85m granted to them under the AO deal remember).

They are generalisations I know and the current financial position of the two organisations is very different but if you use a certain argument on one why not keep an open mind on the other.

saca and pafc in the same financial situation.

Laughable generalisation IMHO.

[Hondo]

saca and pafc in the same financial situation.

Laughable generalisation IMHO.

sorry mate you're right. I was confused. I work with a business banker and he said if you have a bank loan you are doing really well. So, as you say, the SACA are doing 17 times as well as PAFC.

I got myself confused trying to compare a $5m grant from the SANFL to a $85m grant from the taxpayers of South Australia

SACA members please note: I don't actually believe the SACA are in financial trouble. Just baiting my old mate here ..

[Royal City]

saca and pafc in the same financial situation.

Laughable generalisation IMHO.

sorry mate you're right. I was confused. I work with a business banker and he said if you have a bank loan you are doing really well. So, as you say, the SACA are doing 17 times as well as PAFC.

I got myself confused trying to compare a $5m grant from the SANFL to a $85m grant from the taxpayers of South Australia

SACA members please note: I don't actually believe the SACA are in financial trouble. Just baiting my old mate here ..

don't be a stalker hondo

[smac]

saca and pafc in the same financial situation.

Laughable generalisation IMHO.

Yeah, it's like saying Royal City and rational debate in the same sentence!

SACA members should also realise that they are not just responsible to themselves, they are supposed to act responsibly as custodians of cricket in South Australia. A little more important than any issue you have raised so far, IMO.

[Royal City]

saca and pafc in the same financial situation.

Laughable generalisation IMHO.

Yeah, it's like saying Royal City and rational debate in the same sentence!

SACA members should also realise that they are not just responsible to themselves, they are supposed to act responsibly as custodians of cricket in South Australia. A little more important than any issue you have raised so far, IMO.

I thought presenting sacas actual financial situation was quite rational smac. Amazing what actual figures can provide to a debate.

Yet again I respect your opinion.

Mine simply differs from yours on this subject.

Personally I can't understand why so many people are against the second stadium. It's clearly the best way for all south Australians. And I will be voting accordingly

[Psyber]

The whole thing was a Rann beat up to be able to offer an alternative to the Liberal proposal last state election anyway, and they don't want it to get up NOW either.
Free promises are better for governments than those that require actually delivering the money, after you've bought the votes.

That's why John Rau is undermining it, while pretending to support it, by pointedly avoiding committing the government to covering any cost overruns.
That will make private investors, who are also supposed to be part of it, nervous and encourage it to fall over.

[White Line Fever]

Personally I can't understand why so many people are against the second stadium. It's clearly the best way for all south Australians. And I will be voting accordingly

Absolutely RC.

But will it happen?

When would SA be in a position to spend 1 billion dollars on a new stadium.

Not in the next 10 years at least.
Liberal don't have the money.

So the next option is redevelop what we have.
So simple why is everyone making it a issue.

[Royal City]

Personally I can't understand why so many people are against the second stadium. It's clearly the best way for all south Australians. And I will be voting accordingly

Absolutely RC.

But will it happen?

When would SA be in a position to spend 1 billion dollars on a new stadium.

Not in the next 10 years at least.
Liberal don't have the money.

So the next option is redevelop what we have.
So simple why is everyone making it a issue.

the re-developement costs $800 mill. An extra $200 mill would be easily made up by the sale of the land at west lakes plus you could sell a naming right sponsor for the oval which you cant now. Personally a city stadium is one election away not 10 years.

Wasting $500 mill on poorly thought out stop gap measure will only put the second city stadium a further 20 years away.

[Royal City]

YAWN!!! another AFL fan thinking they are more important than everyone else.

Fact is if your fans kept rocking up. YOu wouldnt be at the mercy of SACA members vote.

Not SACAs fault you guys decided to jump off 5 years ago and damage the strength of the afl brands in this state so dramatically.

You're the only one on here with an inflated view of your own importance as far as I can see.

This stadium redevelopment isn't about which sport is more important than the other, or about one sporting association asserting it's dominance over the other - it's about how the Adelaide Oval can best cater to the people of South Australia, regardless of which sport they prefer.

Can't we all just get along and share? It's a pretty simple concept.

Would love to share. But we arent .

I tell you what Giner you vote your way (if you get a voite that is)

And Ill vote mine. Deal.

All I can say is if you guys are trying to sway saca voters to in favour of the re-deveopement.

YOu are doing an increbily bad job.

Well, you're passionate RC, I'll give you that.

I still don't see what about this proposal is bad for the SACA though. Lay it out for me clearly and without the bullshit RC
- why don't you want this? Try to refrain from the personal attacks mate and just lay out some dot points. I'm a reasonable man, I'll give cudos to a good argument. But TBH at the moment all I'm hearing is the tantrum of a little boy who doesn't want to share his playpen.

As a Crows fan I'm quite happy to trek out to AAMI still, don't have a problem with it. Love my seats, love the footy express, very comfortable. But to have it all at one ground, a sporting hub like the MCG in Melbourne, what a prospect that is. Would be a real shame if it didn't happen.

You lay it out for me ginger. So you can prove to all you have your finger on the pulse and are really doing the best thing for all. Not just running your own agenda


Lay out for me what you crows/ power fans pay for your membership now . Pointing out all the benefits that come with the memberships currently.

Then run me thru what you'll pay under the new sma agreement. And do a comparison on the benefits for me.

Cos i'm sure you'd know that before blindly committing yourself to this deveopement for the good of all.

I look forward to your response .

Got to love the personal agenda calls from you boys!!!