Reasons to Vote "NO"

First Class Cricket Talk (International and State)

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Gingernuts » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:31 pm

Ecky wrote:
Gingernuts wrote: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! :lol:

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.
User avatar
Gingernuts
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:39 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Dutchy » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:05 pm

Gingernuts wrote:
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.
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46220
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2639 times
Been liked: 4302 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Dutchy » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:08 pm

Hondo wrote:
Dutchy wrote: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...
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 46220
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2639 times
Been liked: 4302 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby AFLflyer » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:25 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Gingernuts wrote:
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 :lol:
User avatar
AFLflyer
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:36 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby ca » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:29 pm

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.
User avatar
ca
Reserves
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:00 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby AFLflyer » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:33 pm

ca wrote: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! :D
good to see you're out there, just hope there's 14999 more of ya!
User avatar
AFLflyer
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:36 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Hondo » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:37 pm

Dutchy wrote: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.
In between signatures .....
User avatar
Hondo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7927
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Glandore, Adelaide
Has liked: 70 times
Been liked: 32 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby MAY-Z » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:42 pm

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.
MAY-Z
2008 Punting Comp Winner
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:07 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby heater31 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:43 pm

ca wrote: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.
User avatar
heater31
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 16677
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:42 am
Location: the back blocks
Has liked: 533 times
Been liked: 1292 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Hondo » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:44 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Gingernuts wrote:
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.
In between signatures .....
User avatar
Hondo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7927
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Glandore, Adelaide
Has liked: 70 times
Been liked: 32 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Ecky » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:45 pm

Hondo wrote: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 :roll: ) so that we can make an informed decision on our vote.
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
User avatar
Ecky
2022 SA Footy Punter of the Year
 
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Wherever the stats are
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 78 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide Lutheran

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Hondo » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:48 pm

MAY-Z wrote: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.
In between signatures .....
User avatar
Hondo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7927
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Glandore, Adelaide
Has liked: 70 times
Been liked: 32 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Gingernuts » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:49 pm

Hondo wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Gingernuts wrote:
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.
User avatar
Gingernuts
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:39 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
Grassroots Team: Langhorne Creek

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby AFLflyer » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:54 pm

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!!!
User avatar
AFLflyer
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:36 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby MAY-Z » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:54 pm

Hondo wrote:
MAY-Z wrote: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
2008 Punting Comp Winner
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:07 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby MAY-Z » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:55 pm

AFLflyer wrote: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
2008 Punting Comp Winner
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:07 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby MAY-Z » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:56 pm

Ecky wrote:
Hondo wrote: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 :roll: ) 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?
MAY-Z
2008 Punting Comp Winner
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:07 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby Ecky » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:57 pm

MAY-Z wrote:
AFLflyer wrote: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!
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
User avatar
Ecky
2022 SA Footy Punter of the Year
 
 
Posts: 2736
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Wherever the stats are
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 78 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide Lutheran

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby MAY-Z » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:57 pm

AFLflyer wrote: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
MAY-Z
2008 Punting Comp Winner
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:07 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"

Postby whufc » Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:00 pm

Ecky wrote:
MAY-Z wrote:
AFLflyer wrote: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.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28744
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5957 times
Been liked: 2846 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

PreviousNext

Board index   Other Sports  Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |