Reasons to Vote "NO"

[The Jack]

After reading my info pack received yesterday, and the "reasons" for the no vote listed here, of which I certainly don't count "The money would be better spent elsewhere", I will most certainly be voting YES. I can't see how I will have less rights as a SACA member, I'll still be able to go to all the cricket and SANFL games there. It won't bother me if I don't get a chance to become an Ultimate AO member, being neither a Crows or Power supporter. As far as I can make out, if you want what's best for cricket in this state, with the SACA having more available funds for development of the game (which one day might lead to improved performances from the Redbacks ), the YES vote is the only option. IMHO (obviously).

[pipers]

That all sounds cynical I know but if 20,000 people are going to second guess the last state election or the Government budget then they need to be armed with the right information.

What I am suggesting is (1) they shouldn't have the right to speak on behalf of the rest of the state on this issue and (2) even if they did have the right, unless they work for treasury or are an economist or accountant will they be able to make a balanced and knowledgable decision on the state's finances?

We aren't speaking on behalf of the state. We are speaking on behalf of our our constitutional rights as SACA members. You want a say in this, then you should have signed up as a member. Too bad, so sad.

For me it is not about either of the issues you mentioned above. For me it is about what incentive there is for me to effectively hand-over the little influence I do exert over the future of the oval (via my voting rights as a SACA member) to a body that as yet does not even legally exist.

So far those arguments seem to be:
1) to help the SANFL/AFL correct several poor decisions they have made over the past 40 years, and particularly the last 15.
2) to build three stands that I will presumably never sit in.
3) to create a "precinct" - whatever that is...
4) to use $585M that otherwise will disappear into a "blackhole" (a blackhole presumably being funding for other more worthy infrastructure and investment)

No thanks.

[pipers]

So some members are taking this voting right to mean they can direct Govt spending one way or the other. yet, they can't really. All they can apparently control is whether $535m is spent on the AO. However, $535m knocked back here doesn't automatically mean the Govt will spend it on what you think they should. In fact, you'll probably never know what they did with the money instead if it doesn't happen.

I wont particularly care where the money "went" as it probably doesn't actually really exist at present...

[smac]

Nothing about the future of cricket in this state?

And why do you want to be in the stadium management business when SACA do not?

I do get a vote, by the way.

[pipers]

And why do you want to be in the stadium management business when SACA do not?

Who are SACA? The board, or the members? In most associations the board has to exercise the will of its members, which is generally determined via a vote.

How about we wait for that vote before we proclaim what "SACA" want?

[redandblack]

You have a right to vote, pipers, due to paying your membership fees.

I would hope you exercise that right by thinking outside your narrow self-interest and think what would best benefit the whole of SA.

Your Association, voted in by you(?), after long and exhaustive negotiations, have endorsed the upgrade. Over the years, the SA Government has put in millions of dollars into Adelaide Oval. It belongs to the people of SA, not just a miniscule percentage of the population who happen to be SACA members.

The Stadium Authority is made up of decent people who have the interests of SA sport at heart, IMO.

I have been going to Adelaide Oval for decades and love it. I was a bit alarmed when they said they were going to build new stands, but I went to the 20/20 final and loved it even more.

This is part of an overall precinct plan that will help revitalise Adelaide, but 25% of the SACA members can get a bee in their bonnet and stop it.

If the reasons you've just outlined are honestly held by you, then I despair.

1 To help the SANFL/AFL poor decisions.

Mate, it's the SACA who are in debt, not the financially OK SANFL, or the rich AFL.

2 To build 3 stands you'll probably never sit in.

To hell with the peasants who might want to see their sport in comfort. The SACA should build a "pipers only' stand for Your Highness's private use

3 To create a precinct, whatever that is?

Google it
.
4 To stop $585 million disappearing into a black hole!!

SACA, you're $85 million in debt, with no chance of repaying it.

Here's half a billion dollars.

No thanks, it might affect piper’s ambience.


Vote against it, mate, it wll make you feel better.

[pipers]

That all sounds cynical I know but if 20,000 people are going to second guess the last state election or the Government budget then they need to be armed with the right information.

Oh, how I'd love some of that...

eg.
1) the terms of the SMA's operating & management lease
2) the terms of each of the SACA and SANFL licences
3) the proposed appointees to the SMA committee, and how it's members can be replaced in future
4) the terms of reference and charter of the SMA committee
5) the relative weighting of the voting rights to that committee for SACA and AFL/SANFL members

I have now read the information material cover-to cover and none of that information is provided.

Answer those questions or I'm voting no.

[pipers]

The Stadium Authority is made up of decent people who have the interests of SA sport at heart, IMO.

Names please?

Vote against it, mate, it wll make you feel better.

Sure will.

[smac]

And why do you want to be in the stadium management business when SACA do not?

Who are SACA? The board, or the members? In most associations the board has to exercise the will of its members, which is generally determined via a vote.

How about we wait for that vote before we proclaim what "SACA" want?

In most Associations the Board are voted to represent the members, this vote is only occurring because of the constitution - the Board are a highly competent group of business people with the interests of the members and cricket in SA at the top of mind. I respect your right to vote as you wish, but I wish that you spend the time gathering all of the facts at hand instead of assuming information (such as your first post in this thread, see my reply for corrections).

[smac]

That all sounds cynical I know but if 20,000 people are going to second guess the last state election or the Government budget then they need to be armed with the right information.

Oh, how I'd love some of that...

eg.
1) the terms of the SMA's operating & management lease
2) the terms of each of the SACA and SANFL licences
3) the proposed appointees to the SMA committee, and how it's members can be replaced in future
4) the terms of reference and charter of the SMA committee
5) the relative weighting of the voting rights to that committee for SACA and AFL/SANFL members

I have now read the information material cover-to cover and none of that information is provided.

Answer those questions or I'm voting no.

There's a phone number in that material, is there not? Call it, if you want more information.

[dedja]

Vote against it, mate, it wll make you feel better.

Sure will.

Great!

Have fun finding $85M to bail yourself out ...

[pipers]

If the reasons you've just outlined are honestly held by you, then I despair.

1 To help the SANFL/AFL poor decisions.

Mate, it's the SACA who are in debt, not the financially OK SANFL, or the rich AFL.

How are the two SA licencees travelling? AFL is on a boom-bust cycle IMO. Gold Coast, Power, GWS and at least 2 VIC clubs will bring them down.

2 To build 3 stands you'll probably never sit in.

To hell with the peasants who might want to see their sport in comfort. The SACA should build a "pipers only' stand for Your Highness's private use .

Indeed! Although hell is probably a touch harsh, can I perhaps suggest West Lakes

3 To create a precinct, whatever that is?

Google it
.

A precinct is a space enclosed by the walls or other boundaries of a particular place or building, or by an arbitrary and imaginary line drawn around it. The term has several different uses.

4 To stop $585 million disappearing into a black hole!!

SACA, you're $85 million in debt, with no chance of repaying it.

We have been given repeated assurances that the current debt is servicable based on current income streams. E&Y also endorsed that view.

[RustyCage]

And why do you want to be in the stadium management business when SACA do not?

Who are SACA? The board, or the members? In most associations the board has to exercise the will of its members, which is generally determined via a vote.

How about we wait for that vote before we proclaim what "SACA" want?

Who are the SACA? If you don't know who they are, why the hell are you a member of them?

[dedja]

4 To stop $585 million disappearing into a black hole!!

SACA, you're $85 million in debt, with no chance of repaying it.

We have been given repeated assurances that the current debt is servicable based on current income streams. E&Y also endorsed that view.

So you trust your Board only sometimes?

We can repay $85M in debt by ourselves ... yah, we believe you.

We will be significantly better off with a $535M gift from the Government ... boo, all lies

[Q.]

If the reasons you've just outlined are honestly held by you, then I despair.

1 To help the SANFL/AFL poor decisions.

Mate, it's the SACA who are in debt, not the financially OK SANFL, or the rich AFL.

How are the two SA licencees travelling? AFL is on a boom-bust cycle IMO. Gold Coast, Power, GWS and at least 2 VIC clubs will bring them down.

There is no evidence to suggest this. More hyperbolic assumptions.

[dedja]

Perhaps even ...

[pipers]

How about we wait for that vote before we proclaim what "SACA" want?

In most Associations the Board are voted to represent the members, this vote is only occurring because of the constitution - the Board are a highly competent group of business people with the interests of the members and cricket in SA at the top of mind. I respect your right to vote as you wish, but I wish that you spend the time gathering all of the facts at hand instead of assuming information (such as your first post in this thread, see my reply for corrections).

I will concede it seems it was I mis-informed in respect to the initial allocation of AO super memberships, however it is true that any allocation not used by one party can be taken up by the other. So, given the underwhelming interest in uptake of those memberships by current SACA members, as evidenced in a recent survey, it is likely that more than 50% of those memberships will be taken up by SANFL members. Personally I don't have an issue with that, however the lack of interest in taking out full year memberships by SACA members indicates less SACA member enthusiasm for AFL footy at the oval than some would have us believe.

Your other points were not factual corrections - merely subjective speculation on things which remain to be seen.

I repeat that my major issue is not redevelopment of the oval, it is not about drop-in pitches, it is not about "ambience"...

It is merely that $585M of public money will be given to an as yet unidentified group of people body to undertake some work that is arguably not required, and that should be of concern to all tax payers...

how much more "big picture" can you get.

[pipers]

There's a phone number in that material, is there not? Call it, if you want more information.

Better still I will attend one of the meetings and ask it in person.

But the likely response is that none of that has been determined yet.

Aparently you can justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on artists impressions and 3-D modelling, DVDS and websites, but you can't engage a competent team of lawyers to draft some initial terms of reference for an entity that you hope will soon have over half a billion tax payer dollars to spend...

Any wonder I'm skeptical???

Ludicrous!

[pipers]

And why do you want to be in the stadium management business when SACA do not?

Who are SACA? The board, or the members? In most associations the board has to exercise the will of its members, which is generally determined via a vote.

How about we wait for that vote before we proclaim what "SACA" want?

Who are the SACA? If you don't know who they are, why the hell are you a member of them?

Doesn't anyone understand rhetorical questions anymore?

[redandblack]

I'm a taxpayer and I'm one of many who are all in favour of it.

The most over-used, irrelevant argument against anything like this is "the money would be better spent elsewhere".

As for the AFL's finances, I wonder how the billion dollar TV contact negotiations are going.

pipers, it seems you're a perfect example of an answer looking for a justification.

PS: Doesn't anyone know how to spell sceptical anymore?