Reasons to Vote "NO"

[RustyCage]

Well, how about a $135m spend? Why can't the SACA cough up $200m too? Why? Because it would cripple it as would the SANFL donating everything it owns to the State Govt. That's why Govts spend on infrastructure like this. It's normal government behaviour which the no vote campaign is trying to spin to be a free ticket for football.

but the sanfl owning aami stadium doesnt generatre them revenue that wont be generated at adelaide oval during the winter so how would that cripple them? the sanfl should be saving money by only upkeeping the adelaide oval for their 6 months as opposed to aami for a full year.

the sanfl should be muchg better of revenue wise at adelaide cos of the forecasts are to be believed tehre will be thousands more people going so this should generate the sanfl a lot more money and only paying upkeep expenses for 6 months not 12

According to the SACA website the cost of upkeep will be met by the SMA, not the SACA

[pipers]

Are you over 35yo?
I bet you are.

I am older than time itself!

Young people today. No respect. I bet you don't stand up for the elderly on the bus.

[Hondo]

What i do find funny on SAFooty is that 90 odd per cent of football first people who arent SACA members are adament the re-development MUST go ahead, while 90 odd per cent of cricket first people who ARE SACA members are certain to vote NO!

There is no doubt without a shadow that this move suits the AFL alot more than it suit South Australian cricket.

Well, this is a SACA driven project. They have been courting the AFL for years if anything it was the SANFL that had to be convinced. It suits the SACA beautifully. For some reason it's own members think differently from the organisation they are members of.

Also, don't be swayed by the noisy no vote into thinking it's 90% one way. I'd say there's a large chunk of SACA members who are undecided. You, yourself have admitted to having doubts about which way to vote. You seem to be swinging with whatever poster fires you up the most one way or the other.

The fact that 90% of non-SACA members are for it should tell you something about what the wider community, who are free from these issues SACA members are bogged down with, want.

[White Line Fever]

Careful with the age comments, WLF.

I'm well over 35

I have not found a single person my age generation (anywhere from 18yo to 35yo) that is opposing this development.

While I don't mean any disrespect for my elders, and I appreciate there are genuine exceptions, I feel as though this NO vote is being generated & orchestrated from some of the more mature members (probably as most SACA members are 'older) of our society and I have a burning desire to voice up for us younger guys.

These facts being quoted are relevant but we need to look at this simply.
Do we want AFL footy in the city sooner rather than later?

Wrong - Mayz and I are under 35, as are a number of other members I have spoken to who will be voting no.

You lads are the genuine exceptions
It's interesting that this topic has such opposing strong views.
Realistically once the real cost of the Desal is revealed and the real budget of hospital is formal the 535million we can all kiss goodbye.

[Ecky]

I don't think this situation is too dissimilar to the iconic Castle movie.

We are being asked to give up something we love "for the greater good" and are being dangled quite a lot of money as compensation. But what if we prefer things the way they are, or don't like the way the authorities are going about playing this game, or don't care about the people who want to move into our house? Don't we have the right to say no?

In the movie, all viewers would have been on the side of the Kerrigans, so why can't all the non-SACA members respect the right we have to vote whichever way we choose for whatever reasons we might have?

[Dutchy]

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?

SANFL and this pathetic excuse for a government came to the SACA and knew what the process was, so dont blame the process.

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

Sigh...

SACA members have been repeatedly assured by our Board (through a number of public statements by our President Mr McLachlan) that if the proposal does not proceed “the SACA Board is completely comfortable with the level of debt SACA will be carrying at the end of the construction of the new 14,000 seat Western grandstand” (see SACA member update 21/5/10). Accordingly, SACA members can be reassured that there is no financial imperative to support the proposal.

[White Line Fever]

Are you over 35yo?
I bet you are.

I am older than time itself!

Young people today. No respect. I bet you don't stand up for the elderly on the bus.

1. I don't catch buses
2. Old people love me
3. Respect is a 2way street

Moving on..

[Dutchy]

We want to change the direction Adelaide is going to bring it forward.
we want people to come here more than 5 days a year in November.

Try December, there isnt even a test programmed in 2011

You are the sheep as you resist change, don't want to step out on a lmb and take a chance.

They arent building this with Lego blocks, you want us to take a "chance" that this might work without facts/assurances or looking at genuine reasons for a 2 stadium city like every other capital city?

It's a lifestyle watching AFL in the city.

Again what has this got to do with a member who just loves watching cricket?

[spell_check]

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.

Exactly. Why not leave the Oval as is, and do the other things in the precinct to "brighten the scene up". There seems to be no test to see if Port can get more to Adelaide Oval by scheduling three matches for each of the next three years. The first couple will be a novelty, but when the novelty wears off, what will the crowds be like?

How much has been spent on both Football Park and Adelaide Oval over the last ten years that this proprosed plan(s) wipe out - the bus lane and terminal at Footy Park, the 7,000 seat northern stand built in 2000/01, the bucket seats, the second video screen at the southern end; Adelaide Ovals' Chappell Stands, the Clem Hill stand and relocation of the Victor Richardson Gates. All will have proven to be just band-aids.

Be better to spend the remaining money after the "precinct" on roads, hospitals, and public transport.

P.S: I'm not over 35, nor am I a SACA member.

[whufc]

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.

Exactly. Why not leave the Oval as is, and do the other things in the precinct to "brighten the scene up". There seems to be no test to see if Port can get more to Adelaide Oval by scheduling three matches for each of the next three years. The first couple will be a novelty, but when the novelty wears off, what will the crowds be like?

How much has been spent on both Football Park and Adelaide Oval over the last ten years that this proprosed plan(s) wipe out - the bus lane and terminal at Footy Park, the 7,000 seat northern stand built in 2000/01, the bucket seats, the second video screen at the southern end; Adelaide Ovals' Chappell Stands, the Clem Hill stand and relocation of the Victor Richardson Gates. All will have proven to be just band-aids.

Be better to spend the remaining money after the "precinct" on roads, hospitals, and public transport.

P.S: I'm not over 35, nor am I a SACA member.

Great post spelly, thats pretty much how i feel about the upgrade.

Love the analogy Ecky!!!

[Hondo]

but the sanfl owning aami stadium doesnt generatre them revenue that wont be generated at adelaide oval during the winter so how would that cripple them? the sanfl should be saving money by only upkeeping the adelaide oval for their 6 months as opposed to aami for a full year.

the sanfl should be muchg better of revenue wise at adelaide cos of the forecasts are to be believed tehre will be thousands more people going so this should generate the sanfl a lot more money and only paying upkeep expenses for 6 months not 12

As it should save the SACA from the upkeep for 6 months of the year. But you don't want either organisation to save this money apparently. Losing a $200m (if that's the true value) asset from your balance sheet would be a blow for any organisation I would have thought. A crippling blow from what profits it could have generated on that asset. In this case, an asset the SANFL bought with it's own money.

Anyway, you are avoiding my question. The SANFL are dismantling their stands at AAMI for scrap value. The SACA are giving theirs to the SMA. It's equal so far. Then you want the SANFL to kick in $200m to the redevelopment but not the SACA. Why?

Governments everywhere invest in public interest infrastructure projects like this one which is part of a larger redevelopment of that entire riverfront precinct. Why are you so determined that the SANFL need to pay for half of it?

[redandblack]

Some of the SACA members have some delusions of grandeur, IMO.

They're members of a cricket organisation which leases, yes leases, part of the parklands.

The parklands belong to the people of the state, not to the SACA members. By all means be like WHUFC who sees nothing wrong with self interest, but I've yet to read any compelling reason why the Oval should be left to such a small number of people who only attend a few days a year.

You don't go to Shield matches and the SACA have been trying to court the AFL for years.

If the vote is 'no', I'll look forward to the government doing it anyway.

If they don't, I look forward to the SACA trying to pay the bank with leasehold equipment.



"That new internal combustion motor car will never catch on!"

[whufc]

The other argument i dont buy into is the whole 'you have a responsibility to the people of the state etc etc etc' does that include the people of SA who hate sport have never been to either stadium.

[Hondo]

There seems to be no test to see if Port can get more to Adelaide Oval by scheduling three matches for each of the next three years. The first couple will be a novelty, but when the novelty wears off, what will the crowds be like?

I think the Port Power specific crowds issue is a small part of the puzzle here. I don't think the Govt is intending to spend $1.5b in that part of the city just to save the PAFC or to increase their crowds.

From what I have read, Port's crowds could almost stay as they are and still the SANFL would be far better off.

I think it's the saving of upkeep on an entire stadium that's the main source of the financial uplift for both the SANFL and the SACA.

I do believe however that crowds will increase for Power and Crows games however it sounds like that will just be cream on the top.

[pipers]

PS: The SMA members are:

PROJECT DIRECTORS
There are eight unpaid Directors of the SMA, with cricket and football represented equally. The
Directors are:
CHAIRMAN
Hon Ian McLachlan AO
CEO
Leigh Whicker
‐ Ian McLachlan (Chairman)
‐ Leigh Whicker (CEO)
‐ Creagh O'Connor
‐ John Bannon
‐ John Harnden
‐ Rod Payze
‐ James Coppins
‐ Phil Gallagher

Cheers R&B - I had not seen that list previously.

[pipers]

A sheep is a follower.

what BF wants is change.
We want to change the direction Adelaide is going to bring it forward.
we want people to come here more than 5 days a year in November.

You are the sheep as you resist change, don't want to step out on a lmb and take a chance.

Are you over 35yo?
I bet you are.

Have you thought of Gen Y and the next gen of people enjoying sporting in Adelaide?
It's a lifestyle watching AFL in the city.
I just cannot grasp this small-minded vision.
Look at the big picture not how much a membership will be or who owes what or what government will spend!!

Thanks Ms Gillard.

Big picture for the umpteenth time is putting $535M in the hands of a group of individuals with their own agendas and limited accountabilty...

Odds on the first dispute will see both the SACA and SANFL reps blaming the membership of each others organisations for something...

[Hondo]

I wrote to Minister Pat Conlon asking whether there was a plan B in case of a no vote from SACA members.

It took a few weeks but he replied today. I didn't expect a confirmation of a plan B because he couldn't then control who I would tell obviously.

What he did say was that tenders for the project are about to be let out and that consultants are about to start on design plans are on the entire riverfront development, among other things including a fair bit of positive spin.

He didn't sound like someone hanging on this members vote hoping it will fall his way (which it won't I expect).

So I honestly believe these debates, as challenging and entertaining as they are, are a lot of hot air and this thing will happen one way or another.

[redandblack]

No worries, pipers. but in that case I'm sure you won't mind me asking you how you came to this conclusion (or have I misunderstood who you were referring to?)

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]

I don't think this situation is too dissimilar to the iconic Castle movie.
...
In the movie, all viewers would have been on the side of the Kerrigans, so why can't all the non-SACA members respect the right we have to vote whichever way we choose for whatever reasons we might have?

I'm Dale Kerrigan, and this is my story.

I hope McLachlan has his trunk up.

[pipers]

1. I don't catch buses
2. Old people love me
3. Respect is a 2way street

Moving on..

LOL. So the improved public transport is wasted on you then.

Actually I love that improved public transport is listed as one of the benefits to SACA members from this proposal.

"Excuse me, are you a SACA Member?"

"No."

"Well, get off my **** tram. I was on a waiting list for 8 years to get this tram. You footy people think you can just jump on our trams. We have rights you know!"