Reasons to Vote "NO"

[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.

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

Agree - that bit was purely a subjective view expressed by me...

But perhaps no less "hyperbolic" than this...

"A better quality experience for spectators will encourage more people to come more often, building crowds and revenue over time"

It is statements like this, unverifiable and based upon a host of unsupported assumptions, that we are being asked to use as a basis for our decision.

So please excuse me for slipping into the languague and tone of the matrial that i have been provided...

[pipers]

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

Sure will.

Great!

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

Oh for ****'s sake.

The debt is serviceable!


Allegedly.

[pipers]

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

No, I don't trust them at all. I make my own decisions, irrespective of the views put to me by any board or representative body of which I am a member.

It's called free-will.

You should try it some time.

If the debt is not serviceable then they will be held to account.

[redandblack]

If the debt is not serviceable, the SACA is bust, bankrupt, kaput, insolvent.

A dead parrot.

But pipers will chip in, won't you mate

[pipers]

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

Language is a dynamic beast... that was an ironic use of the increasingly common Americani(z)ed spelling to show that I'm not anti-progressive.

[pipers]

If the debt is not serviceable, the SACA is bust, bankrupt, kaput, insolvent.

A dead parrot.

But pipers will chip in, won't you mate

Of course I won't. I'm not a friggin idiot.

[redandblack]

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

Language is a dynamic beast... that was an ironic use of the increasingly common Americani(z)ed spelling to show that I'm not anti-progressive.

Thanks pipers, but that was a rhetorical question.

[redandblack]

If the debt is not serviceable, the SACA is bust, bankrupt, kaput, insolvent.

A dead parrot.

But pipers will chip in, won't you mate

Of course I won't. I'm not a friggin idiot.

Where's the proof of that

[smac]

So far, this has been a good debate on an important topic that has a lot of passion attached to it. Let's all make sure we continue to discuss the issue and not attack the poster.

[redandblack]

We're having fun, mate, there's no malice.

[dedja]

Yeah, just some friendly banter ... mano-a-mano

[smac]

I know that, just making sure newcomers join in with that intent as well.

[MAY-Z]

If 500M has to be handed out and it HAS to be spent on Sport i would rather see each of the SANFL clubs and grade cricket clubs handed 1Million each to spend on junior development in their area.

I would rather see the money be spent on securing the future of amatuer/country football/cricket clubs (especially ones which have juniors)

etc etc,

This is what will happen, with a yes vote. Both sports become peak bodies instead of stadium managers - all of their funds will go into development activities. Forever, instead of once off.

is that FACT? ALL!

of course that is not a fact that is an outright lie, a yes vote will not see $500million spent on sports development

What? How is that a lie?

SACA will have nothing other than cricket to spend their money on. I am referring to future revenue, not the development costs.

I await your apology for calling me a liar, thanks.[/quote]
i presume all staff have be trained in the spin then if you are not telling lies

whufc said if $500 million has to be spent on sport he said he would prefer that money be given out directly

you then said that is what will happen with a yes vote, that is not what will happen with a yes vote at all

[MAY-Z]

has there been an official decision on what will happen to AAMI if the redevelpoment goes ahead.

My biggest fear is that they will keep AAMI as a reduced capacity stadium like 25K and then essentially all you have done is reverse the 2 stadiums capacities and its cost 500M to do so.

For me if the redevelopment goes ahead then AAMI should be completely knocked down and sold for land to help fund the redevelopment, things such as the big screen could then be used at AO,

Based on plans released by the SANFL, AAMI Stadium will be all but knocked down and turned into parklands. To protect the investment the SANFL made in the early 70s (using their own money) the property will be put to commercial use as a future fund for footy in this state. That's completely reasonable IMO. The SANFL need the money (this helps all SANFL clubs including your own CDFC) and there's no sensible reason I can see why they have to now donate that entire asset they worked so hard for back to the government.

TBH, I would have preferred that a smaller stadium be retained out there to help with the cricket/footy season cross-over time.

this is where your arguement breaks down, you have said that the saca members should vote yes for teh good of the state

if the sanfl sell aami stadium for teh quoted figure of $200million that would mean teh government would only have to put in $335million

what is better for teh state? a $535 spend or a a $235million spend?

as with most arguements on teh topic footy is giving up nothing

[MAY-Z]

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.

not sure iof this has been answered anywhere but what happens if the $535million budget is blown? the state govt previously said that they would contribute no more so who has to foot the bill?

[MAY-Z]

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

Sure will.

Great!

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

the y/e 30 June 2010 accounts showed a profit of $22.5million and net assets of $70.6million (this only incluides $35m of the $85m loan)

assuming saca has to give control of its assets to the sma that is over $106million of property, plant & equipment - hardly an insignificant amount as suggested by hondo earlier

[RustyCage]

http://www.cricketsa.com.au/content.aspx?p=973

So this is lies?

[Bulls forever]

I've skipped a few pages because the same old arguments seemed to be tossed up about why not. Conspiracy theories abound on this forum.

If you have received your package, like I have and have read it carefully, like I have, and believe the speak in the package, like I do, although you always have to be sceptical, there is no reason to vote NO. I have already cast my vote and it was a resounding YES.

If you believe what Mylor is saying, something like, he can't see his house in the hills from Level 4, seat B6 and so we should vote No, then so be it.

The Government have to spend money on something and apart from a 2 billion dollar hospital, that will be built, irrespective of whether the stadium goes ahead or not, major development plans are not on the radar. The casino is going to spend 250 mil, if the development goes ahead. Lets not be so negative, lets get something Adelaide can be really proud of. A vibrant part of Adelaide that has major national level sporting events all year round.

Otherwise, get Mylor to lend you a horse and lets bring back the horse and buggy on King William St.

VOTE YES FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENTIRE STATE, NOT THE 20,000 SACA MEMBERS THAT DON'T WATCH HALF THE CRICKET ANYWAY, SIPPING CHARDONNAY OUT THE BACK. AND YES I HAVE DONE THAT, JUST RECENTLY IN FACT, BUT STILL NO REASON TO HOLD OUR STATE BACK.

[Bulls forever]

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?

Take your tunnel vision glasses off.

It's not about 14000 more seats its about an entire precinct in the city, footbridges, lifestyle, going to dinner, more people through the doors.
Did Melbourne not re-do the Southern stand @MCG & build Etihad at the same time?
Look bigger MAY-Z.

While I agree it is highly unlikely as we can't even get one off the ground but we should always be going forward, developing, improving not just sit on our hands and say let's do nothing and IF we can do something in 5-10 years lets do it then.

[MAY-Z]

If you believe what Mylor is saying, something like, he can't see his house in the hills from Level 4, seat B6 and so we should vote No, then so be it.
VOTE YES FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENTIRE STATE, NOT THE 20,000 SACA MEMBERS THAT DON'T WATCH HALF THE CRICKET ANYWAY, SIPPING CHARDONNAY OUT THE BACK. AND YES I HAVE DONE THAT, JUST RECENTLY IN FACT, BUT STILL NO REASON TO HOLD OUR STATE BACK.

where has that arguement be used

all of the against posts have been well thought out and with substance but plenty of people like yourself throw in lazy comments like that, most woth genuine concerns not so much about teh ground moving forward but the way in which control is divvied up and what is being given up by some parties compared to others