Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Gingernuts]

There's one fatal flaw with this analogy Ecky. Dale Kerrigan owned his home, it wasn't built on leased public land.

I think even Bud Tingwell would have trouble with that one.

That doesn't matter Chief - we are still being asked to give up something we don't want to. Of course the analogy isn't exactly the same.

Sprung!

Very true - but my point is that when it comes to the crunch the AO is not yours to give up in the first place. The SACA are custodians, not owners.

This vote is purely about whether the project gets done the easy way or the hard way IMO. Either way it will be done I'm afraid.

[Dutchy]

This vote is purely about whether the project gets done the easy way or the hard way IMO. Either way it will be done I'm afraid.

Tell me how that will happen.

[Dutchy]

So do I believe 5AA or the official SACA members information document that we are basing our decision on?

John Harndon said it, not 5AA. He said it during an interview ON 5AA. Ask him at the members' info night. I assume someone will if you don't. I am just telling you what he said.

Does the info document say specifially there is no guarantee or you assume that because it doesn't say it? If that makes sense.

Either way, I am sure it will come up at your info session.

The booklet clearly states there is no agreement on the Shield Final and it would be negotiated at the time, thats not a guarantee...

[AFLflyer]

This vote is purely about whether the project gets done the easy way or the hard way IMO. Either way it will be done I'm afraid.

Tell me how that will happen.

we don't know.
I believe it will too, you dont think they planning for this now, of coarse they are.
you saca members aren't as good and powerful as you think you are

[ca]

I'll be voting yes, It's a no-brainer from my perspective. Forgetting the AFL and politics, its what's best for cricket and the SACA.

[AFLflyer]

I'll be voting yes, It's a no-brainer from my perspective. Forgetting the AFL and politics, its what's best for cricket and the SACA.

ANother member that can see sense!
good to see you're out there, just hope there's 14999 more of ya!

[Hondo]

The booklet clearly states there is no agreement on the Shield Final and it would be negotiated at the time, thats not a guarantee...

So it's whether you are prepared to keep the faith or not

Remember too that CA are talking about possibly reducing the Shield season by 2 rounds and there was even speculation about cancelling the Shield final altogether

So the final could be scheduled before 15 March in future or not at all so to vote NO on this basis seems to me like you are looking for an excuse to vote no.

[MAY-Z]

below is a quote of teh saveadelaideoval.com website, i dont suppose anyone has read the book?

When looking at the Adelaide Oval debate, the US experience of the past 20 years is instructive and this has been reviewed by two sociologists, Kevin Delaney and Rick Eckstein in their book Public Dollars, Private Stadiums, a scenario that matches that proposed for Adelaide Oval today.

Their summary was that after the rash of stadium building in America since the mid-90s, in almost every case these stadiums involved huge sums of public money, and they all cost significantly more than they were budgeted at. At the start of the boom, the reason given was economic, but that reasoning came under attack. Stadiums didn’t give people more money to spend, it only caused them to move their spending from one location to another, with no net gain. The only real gains could come from tourism, but the sports tourism case was bad too.

[heater31]

I'll be voting yes, It's a no-brainer from my perspective. Forgetting the AFL and politics, its what's best for cricket and the SACA.

It might be best for cricket and the SACA but in reading today's paper it might not be best for the state.

I have been leaning towards no since beginning but with a glance over the SACA numbers it brought it back. With the RAH debacle I'm going to have to reconsider again.

[Hondo]

This vote is purely about whether the project gets done the easy way or the hard way IMO. Either way it will be done I'm afraid.

Tell me how that will happen.

Compulsory acquisition of the AO is the most common method I have heard. There is precedent for this sort of action to get infrastructure projects off the ground.

The Govt is the law-maker ultimately so really they can do what they want to get it done. I am convinced such a major CBD development will not be held up by 20,000 x 25.1% of people (5,020) voting against something their own organisation wants to happen. Without trying to belittle your membership, it's really just an annual ticket to events at the AO and discounted drinks at the bar or whatever. I don't think anyone intended it be a right to hold up major infrastructure projects that benefit everyone.

[Ecky]

So it's whether you are prepared to keep the faith or not

I agree that is what a lot of it comes down to - do we trust that this awkward marriage will succeed?

The unfortunate thing is that we can't sign a pre-nup, once we vote yes, we are stuck with the decision forever, which is why many of us are being overly cautious with it all, asking lots of questions, and trying to see through all the waffle and spin in the SACA booklet (of which there is plenty ) so that we can make an informed decision on our vote.

[Hondo]

below is a quote of teh saveadelaideoval.com website, i dont suppose anyone has read the book?

I haven't read the book but we know that the US has a range of economic problems mainly driven by the global financial crisis so it may not be the best time period over which to judge whether a new stadium has justified it's economic promises.

The other difference is they are special purpose stadiums built for one sport (used in half a year) and in a lot of cases were a straight swap from an older stadium that already existed. What we have here is an upgrade (less cost than new) of a stadium to be used 12 months of the year.

A better analogy would be building a new CBD stadium for football to replace AAMI which many are advocating in time including that web-site you refer to.

[Gingernuts]

This vote is purely about whether the project gets done the easy way or the hard way IMO. Either way it will be done I'm afraid.

Tell me how that will happen.

Compulsory acquisition of the AO is the most common method I have heard. There is precedent for this sort of action to get infrastructure projects off the ground.

The Govt is the law-maker ultimately so really they can do what they want to get it done. I am convinced such a major CBD development will not be held up by 20,000 x 25.1% of people (5,020) voting against something their own organisation wants to happen. Without trying to belittle your membership, it's really just an annual ticket to events at the AO and discounted drinks at the bar or whatever. I don't think anyone intended it be a right to hold up major infrastructure projects that benefit everyone.

Exactly.

If it comes to the crunch I think the govt will exercise it's ownership rights over the AO, removing custody rights from the SACA and handing them to the SMA.

The only difference this vote will make is that a YES will see the project go ahead amicably, and a NO will see it go ahead via the judicial system. At best a NO vote might delay the development so that it is still on the political landscape by the time the next State Govt election rolls around.

I'm not trying to influence anyone's vote either way, it's just the situation as I see it.

[AFLflyer]

just read the booklet.
so, you actually get CHEAPER memberships if it goes ahead + a choice of the best seats in the southern or your normal western stand seats.
what are you crazy!!!

[MAY-Z]

below is a quote of teh saveadelaideoval.com website, i dont suppose anyone has read the book?

I haven't read the book but we know that the US has a range of economic problems mainly driven by the global financial crisis so it may not be the best time period over which to judge whether a new stadium has justified it's economic promises.

The other difference is they are special purpose stadiums built for one sport (used in half a year) and in a lot of cases were a straight swap from an older stadium that already existed. What we have here is an upgrade (less cost than new) of a stadium to be used 12 months of the year.

A better analogy would be building a new CBD stadium for football to replace AAMI which many are advocating in time including that web-site you refer to.

this book is based on the mid 90s through to some time later though so it shouldnt be all doom and gloom because of the global financial crisis.

[MAY-Z]

just read the booklet.
so, you actually get CHEAPER memberships if it goes ahead + a choice of the best seats in the southern or your normal western stand seats.
what are you crazy!!!

not everything is about money.

[MAY-Z]

So it's whether you are prepared to keep the faith or not

I agree that is what a lot of it comes down to - do we trust that this awkward marriage will succeed?

The unfortunate thing is that we can't sign a pre-nup, once we vote yes, we are stuck with the decision forever, which is why many of us are being overly cautious with it all, asking lots of questions, and trying to see through all the waffle and spin in the SACA booklet (of which there is plenty ) so that we can make an informed decision on our vote.

that is eactly it - you only get one vote

i have sent the saca the following questions - who knows what response i will get but tehse are all more importnat issus that what was in teh glossy magazine

1 - What is the estimated total budget for the estimated entire budget for the project?

2 - How was this budget determined, and how confident are the projections?

3 - What exactly does the above budget include? Does it include all of the oval upgrade, River
Torrens crossings and precinct areas etc?

4 - What happens if the budget exceeds the money that the state government have offered for the
project, especially as they have said that they will contribute no more than the $535 million I
believe

5 - If in point 3 the answer is private funds how is the repayment of funds going to be managed?
Do the private investors get precedence on funds over the the SMA/SACA/SANFL?

6 - How much say will the private investors have in the running of the oval? If it is their money
being used they will want a reasonable return on their investment so can they enforce more
profitable oval use age/design?

7 - It is said numerous times that the savings on the loan repayments will be spent on cricket
development in South Australia. How much of the $18 million will be spent on game development
and in what areas will it be spent?

[Ecky]

just read the booklet.
so, you actually get CHEAPER memberships if it goes ahead + a choice of the best seats in the southern or your normal western stand seats.
what are you crazy!!!

not everything is about money.

HEAR HEAR!

[MAY-Z]

just read the booklet.
so, you actually get CHEAPER memberships if it goes ahead + a choice of the best seats in the southern or your normal western stand seats.
what are you crazy!!!

and we alo already get a choice of sitting in teh western stand or teh bradman stand so that isnt an incentive

[whufc]

just read the booklet.
so, you actually get CHEAPER memberships if it goes ahead + a choice of the best seats in the southern or your normal western stand seats.
what are you crazy!!!

not everything is about money.

HEAR HEAR!

thats its,

in my case i dont care about a seat as i generally float around between General Admission and the members.

slightly cheaper but lose all power! no thanks.