Reasons to Vote "NO"

[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!

I thought you might have missed this, mate

[Dutchy]

Right next door to AO we have 3 ordinary run down golf courses, why not use that land making a built for purpose footy/rugby/soccer stadium? Make one good quality golf course with the rest of the land and it ticks all the boxes that all the non SACA members want.

There is no doubt the Northern end will get filled in at some stage, if we won the World Cup it would of happened and many more world sporting bodies will insist of fully seated stadia to grant major events to cities.

[dedja]

You'll piss off these dudes ... http://www.adelaide-parklands.org/

[pipers]

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.

Of course it will.

I am under no illusion that my vote will do much more than buy some time and hopefully cause a bit of a revisitation of certain aspects of the plan.

I am not against a CBD stadium, but I just don't believe that:

a) Adelaide oval is the best site
b) The SMA is the best management/governance structure
c) The price tag is worth it

[Hondo]

Right next door to AO we have 3 ordinary run down golf courses, why not use that land making a built for purpose footy/rugby/soccer stadium? Make one good quality golf course with the rest of the land and it ticks all the boxes that all the non SACA members want.

There is no doubt the Northern end will get filled in at some stage, if we won the World Cup it would of happened and many more world sporting bodies will insist of fully seated stadia to grant major events to cities.

What's the need for rugby?

Soccer has a stadium.

That's one of my key issues. You can't make a decent "purpose built" stadium that suits football AND Rugby/Soccer and there's not the crowd demand for those other sports.

Why not just build a special purpose soccer/rugby stadium in that spot and let footy and cricket use the bigger and better equiped redeveloped AO. They need an oval the same size. Rugby and soccer need a smaller field sized stadium.

The only reason Brisbane have 2 stadiums is because rugby is so popular it demands it's own stadium purpose built for rugby.

[Hondo]

You'll piss off these dudes ... http://www.adelaide-parklands.org/

lol, yes you're right

Imagine getting a stadium in the parklands up! We think 20,000 SACA members are high maintenance now ... jebus, they are pushovers compared to trying to build in the parklands.

[pipers]

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!

Fair question R&B. I did not know who the individuals were

But I was right in that the SACA and SANFL (and by extension the AFL) were going to be represented, and all three of these have demonstrated an arrogant attitude many, many times in the past.

Putting history aside though, I really just want an answer as to how the SMA will operate, who they are accountable to, and how the current members of the SMA can be replaced (eg. is it an elected body, and if so, by who, or is it by appointment by the government of the day. It has the potential to become a very politically charged entity, and therefore less than transparent and most probably inefficient.

Fair questions, I hope you agree...

[smac]

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.

What about a responsibility to the kids playing cricket at your cricket club? Or the club up the road? Don't want the game to thrive in SA?

[redandblack]

Indeed I do agree, pipers, but that is a much more reasonable and restrained response than your first statement about the SMA, which I think you'll agree is somewhat over the top and very inaccurate.

By the way, I just looked at the SACA's financials.

Take it from me, mate, vote Yes.

If you read this, MayZ, worry.

[Dutchy]

You'll piss off these dudes ... http://www.adelaide-parklands.org/

lol, yes you're right

Imagine getting a stadium in the parklands up! We think 20,000 SACA members are high maintenance now ... jebus, they are pushovers compared to trying to build in the parklands.

Yeah imagine having a 50,000 seat stadium in the parklands.....oh wait isnt that what you want?

[pipers]

Indeed I do agree, pipers, but that is a much more reasonable and restrained response than your first statement about the SMA, which I think you'll agree is somewhat over the top and very inaccurate.

By the way, I just looked at the SACA's financials.

Take it from me, mate, vote Yes.

Possibly a bit emotive. I'll concede that... but it's hard to stand objectively aside sometimes... I have spent over half my summers at the oval (no, I'm not as old as time) and you do kind of grow attached to its faded grandeur...

In respect to the finances, if you are correct then a NO vote is actually win-win...

An unsupported board recommendation often results in a spill.

An outright lie regarding the solvency of an organisation most certainly does.

But are you suggesting the E&Y missed something when making their assessment of SACAs ability to finance the debts??? That's a big call?

[dedja]

LOL, where there is a stadium already ... nice try

[pipers]

By the way, I just looked at the SACA's financials.

Take it from me, mate, vote Yes.

If SACA go bust I don't actually lose anything... I've put $170 to $360 into their coffers each year for over 20 years... that has bought me entry to many days of cricket in that time. I've been satisfied with the return on my investment.

In that scenario Cricket Australia step-in (and they are loaded - trust me!) and cricket continues, and the new board or whatever is put in place is subject to far greater scrutiny than the current autocrats ever were.

Good governance reigns supreme!

[pipers]

And smac, I've not really addressed your points about increased funding for country "grass-roots" cricket.

Simple fact is that SACA for the past 20 years or so that I've been involved in regional cricket admin have never really shown an interest in cricket beyond the grade structure. This was evidenced by the extremely disappointing decision this year to cut one of the junior grades (red/white - I can never remember which is which).

Their view was that by ditching this grade then those kids would return to country/turf cricket and the grass roots game would get a boost.

What this did in reality was leave a whole host of kids with nowhere to play. None of those country/turf clubs had sufficient finances, resources or volunteers to support those kids (as we had become accustomed to the grade club "development officers" visting once a year, and playing pied-piper by asking for a list of talented kids and their phone numbers, leaving us with just the toilers and no-hopers).

So my estimate is that around 500 to 1000 semi-talented kids were lost to the game this summer alone.

Now $18M or whatever the estimate is might significantly address that, but having read the "Cricket Pathways" plan from 2009-10 I would not expect that much of that would ever find its way into strategies to attract coaches/volunteers at the grass roots level.

More likely it would be used to fund "elite squads" and junior state teams etc... all well and good, but hardly increasing participation in the game...

[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.

What about a responsibility to the kids playing cricket at your cricket club? Or the club up the road? Don't want the game to thrive in SA?

The kids up the road from me could do with alot more than help than with their cricket.

[redandblack]

I'm not saying the SACA is insolvent, pipers, but they will have to rely on continuing profits, not their asset backing.

[MAY-Z]

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?

i havent avoided your question - i have said for the greater good of the stetteh sanfl should reduce the govt contribution, as you seem to argue we should give our oval up for the greater good of the state

as for the losing of the balance sheet item - yes that makes your balance sheet look worse BUT you say that you are losing income generation from selling it - you are not you still have the income from the move to adelaide oval from matchdays and if the propagnda about teh increased crowds are to be believed you will actually be generating MORE income for less expenses so will be in a better position

[Dutchy]

Right next door to AO we have 3 ordinary run down golf courses, why not use that land making a built for purpose footy/rugby/soccer stadium? Make one good quality golf course with the rest of the land and it ticks all the boxes that all the non SACA members want.

There is no doubt the Northern end will get filled in at some stage, if we won the World Cup it would of happened and many more world sporting bodies will insist of fully seated stadia to grant major events to cities.

What's the need for rugby?

Soccer has a stadium.

Thats the problem with this whole thing, doing a half arsed job for what we need now not thinking about the future, who is to say that Adelaide wont have a Super Rugby side in the next 20 years? Adelaide United are already close to out growing Hindmarsh.

That's one of my key issues. You can't make a decent "purpose built" stadium that suits football AND Rugby/Soccer and there's not the crowd demand for those other sports.

Etihad? ANZ Stadium? and what about the European soccer stadiums that dont have movable seat but do have athletic tracks around them?

[smac]

And smac, I've not really addressed your points about increased funding for country "grass-roots" cricket.

Simple fact is that SACA for the past 20 years or so that I've been involved in regional cricket admin have never really shown an interest in cricket beyond the grade structure. This was evidenced by the extremely disappointing decision this year to cut one of the junior grades (red/white - I can never remember which is which).

Their view was that by ditching this grade then those kids would return to country/turf cricket and the grass roots game would get a boost.

What this did in reality was leave a whole host of kids with nowhere to play. None of those country/turf clubs had sufficient finances, resources or volunteers to support those kids (as we had become accustomed to the grade club "development officers" visting once a year, and playing pied-piper by asking for a list of talented kids and their phone numbers, leaving us with just the toilers and no-hopers).

So my estimate is that around 500 to 1000 semi-talented kids were lost to the game this summer alone.

Now $18M or whatever the estimate is might significantly address that, but having read the "Cricket Pathways" plan from 2009-10 I would not expect that much of that would ever find its way into strategies to attract coaches/volunteers at the grass roots level.

More likely it would be used to fund "elite squads" and junior state teams etc... all well and good, but hardly increasing participation in the game...

Again, incorrect. There was reduction in teams at grade clubs, in fact there was an increase via the U12 and U14 statewide carnivals. And your estimate would have been way off anyway - 12 clubs, losing 1 team would equate to 150 kids, max.

This season we had a participation increase of 7%, after 4% and 17% in the last two seasons and have actually led the country in game development. You can have your conspiracy theories and your incorrect beliefs on as much as you like, you have made up your mind and will just keep pon making up reasons to justify it - I'm done with that form of debate, it's quite tiresome.

If you want more facts, feel free to PM me and I can fill you in even further.

[MAY-Z]

Indeed I do agree, pipers, but that is a much more reasonable and restrained response than your first statement about the SMA, which I think you'll agree is somewhat over the top and very inaccurate.

By the way, I just looked at the SACA's financials.

Take it from me, mate, vote Yes.

If you read this, MayZ, worry.

absolute crap r&b

the saca have fully audited accounts and part of that audit is teh going concern principle, pitcher partners are independent auditors who have completed the audit on the saca accounts and they would not have signed off on the accounts if they didnt beleive that the saca could realistically service it debt levels

on top of that assurance a secondary independent report was completed by ernst & young, a big 4 accounting firm, with the sole purpose of determining the ability of the saca to pay its outstanding debts.

there is no way that these 2 reputable firms would put their professional reputations at stake by signing the reports they did if there was a chance that teh saca would default

furthermore the 2009/10 accounts accounted for a season in which matchday rvenue was signifucantly down on normal season for 2 reasons. 1 the touring side was teh west indies who are currently not a big drawcard and 2) the ground was only at around half capacity during teh season due to the western grandsatnd development.

due to the western grandstand development the saca now has around 6000 more members. this inturn produces around 2.2-2.3million in revenue on top of the 2009/10 membership revenue, plus teh fact that these peopl will spend more money at the ground would probably put a conservative value of 3-3.5million a year on the new membership base