Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Dirko]

Change the flight paths to come in over sea.

No worries Mr Aviation who understands the direction in which Aircraft must land......

[White Line Fever]

Settle down lads just a suggestion.

Another interesting article page 38 advertiser today by miles kemp.

All other capital cities have heavily invested in entertainment precinct developments which in turn leads to stronger economies due to tourism.

The argument that the money could be spent elsewhere doesn't hold up as it's an investment which will make the state money to spend on schools, hospitals, roads etc

Great opportunity for SA

[spell_check]

Good idea. Lets do the entertainment precinct, and leave Adelaide Oval as is.

[smac]

Why not improve the facilities at AO, spelly?

[spell_check]

Do they need improving?

[daysofourlives]

Surely we as members vote in the board to make these decisions on behalf of us members. So for all of us uneducated members both for and against the proposal, who are we to say wether its good for the SACA or not.
The board is all over the issues more than us so i trust their decision to fully support the upgrade and i will be voting yes and i urge all members to do the same, i fear that this will not get up because the no voters are more likely to vote.

A quick question for anyone out there who may know.

There are 20 000 members, do we need 15 000 yes votes to get 75% or do we need 75% of those who choose to vote?

[wycbloods]

Surely we as members vote in the board to make these decisions on behalf of us members. So for all of us uneducated members both for and against the proposal, who are we to say wether its good for the SACA or not.
The board is all over the issues more than us so i trust their decision to fully support the upgrade and i will be voting yes and i urge all members to do the same, i fear that this will not get up because the no voters are more likely to vote.

A quick question for anyone out there who may know.

There are 20 000 members, do we need 15 000 yes votes to get 75% or do we need 75% of those who choose to vote?

75% of those who cast a vote as i understand it.

[pipers]

Yes, Pipers original post did contain some inaccuracies because he hadn't read his information properly yet, I'm not excusing that...

Hang on! It had one innacuaracy.

One!

And that was a technicality.

Still voting NO by the way...

[smac]

Yes, Pipers original post did contain some inaccuracies because he hadn't read his information properly yet, I'm not excusing that...

Hang on! It had one innacuaracy.

One!

And that was a technicality.

Still voting NO by the way...

By my recollection, there were two innacuracies. Vote how you want, but base it on facts, not crap. Mylor cricket club thanks you for your interest.

[pipers]

This was evidenced by the extremely disappointing decision this year to cut one of the junior grades

Again, incorrect. There was reduction in teams at grade clubs, in fact there was an increase via the U12 and U14 statewide carnivals.

But am not incorrect! When I claimed that a grade was dropped you appear to confirm that - though your poor grammar (bolded) makes your response confusing. My maths was bad, but my understanding is that this occurred both in U14 & U16, so it is in fact two teams per club, so more like 250-300 kids. But even if it was 100-150 kids, it is a bad result! And those statewide carnivals didn't bring anyone new to the game. They probably just meant the development officers only had to visit a couple of grounds to see the best available talent in those grades, rather than visiting the individual associations and clubs.

Anyway, regardless of the numbers, this was really just used to demonstrate the scant regard paid to cricket outside the grade structure. I seriously doubt that my association, let alone my club will see any benefit from this "$18M".

I seriously doubt that there will be $18M.

[pipers]

By my recollection, there were two innacuracies.

By going back and reading the post you will see it is only one. Point 2. And in reality there will end up being an uneven split amongst those 10,000 in favour of the football.

And as Ecky asked, is that fair that SANFL members will get priority over people on the SACA waiting list, and will seemingly not have to pay the initial $299 joining fee.

I respect that you need to toe the party line (as I would if commenting about my employer), and in fact I'm sure you are genuinely in favour of the proposal. That's fine. It's your choice, but please don't suggest I am wrong or talking crap.

Simple fact is that I have not been given the informaton that satisfies the questons and concerns that I have, and until I get that information I am not voting in favour of the proposal.

[smac]

This was evidenced by the extremely disappointing decision this year to cut one of the junior grades

Again, incorrect. There was reduction in teams at grade clubs, in fact there was an increase via the U12 and U14 statewide carnivals.

But am not incorrect! When I claimed that a grade was dropped you appear to confirm that - though your poor grammar (bolded) makes your response confusing. My maths was bad, but my understanding is that this occurred both in U14 & U16, so it is in fact two teams per club, so more like 250-300 kids. But even if it was 100-150 kids, it is a bad result! And those statewide carnivals didn't bring anyone new to the game. They probably just meant the development officers only had to visit a couple of grounds to see the best available talent in those grades, rather thanisiting the individual associations and clubs.

Anyway, regardless of the numbers, this was really just used to demonstrate the scant regard paid to cricket outside the grade structure. I seriously doubt that my association, let alone my club will see any benefit from this "$18M".

I seriously doubt that there will be $18M.

Your understanding is wrong. Pick on my grammer all you like, but there was not a single grade cricket team reduced this season. Whites, Reds, all existed.

If you doubt any increase, I couldn't give a frogs fat arse. It will happen because SACA are putting any increase in resource to country and community cricket. Ask any grade cricket club how they like the changes over the last 12 months and they will tell you that the action hs been in community cricket rather than grade crikcet.

But again, your opinion was arrived far before your initial post in this thread. Post an accurate slice of fact and I will start to debate. Until then, pretend you know what is goind on.

[pipers]

Oh, and I don't support putting the airport in St Vincent's Gulf either.

[smac]

By my recollection, there were two innacuracies.

By going back and reading the post you will see it is only one. Point 2. And in reality there will end up being an uneven split amongst those 10,000 in favour of the football.

And as Ecky asked, is that fair that SANFL members will get priority over people on the SACA waiting list, and will seemingly not have to pay the initial $299 joining fee.

I respect that you need to toe the party line (as I would if commenting about my As employer), and in fact I'm sure you are genuinely in favour of the proposal. That's fine. It's your choice, but please don't suggest I am wrong or talking crap.

Simple fact is that I have not been given the informaton that satisfies the questons and concerns that I have, and until I get that information I am not voting in favour of the proposal.

All I can do is comment on fact. Read anything I post and tell me otherwise.

There are two inaccurasies. 1 = split of ultimate memberships. 2 = cost of membership. There are other inaccuracies in other posts over the last 15 pages. Vote no, but don't talk crap. Re-read your posts and my replies without your preconceived ideals and you will notive there is not a post in this thread that I have done anything other than post facts in.

[smac]

Oh, and I don't support putting the airport in St Vincent's Gulf either.

That's great. I'm sure that means something to someone, but to me it means bugger all.

[pipers]

The cost of membership will be reduced for 2 years. But beyond that? CPI allegedly.

Is that the same "SACA CPI" that has traditionally been at least 2-3 times the national rate of CPI?

[smac]

The cost of membership will be reduced for 2 years. But beyond that? CPI allegedly.

Is that the same "SACA CPI" that has traditionally been at least 2-3 times the national rate of CPI?

Seriously? We're up to that are we?

Compare the facility membership around Australia to Adelaide Oval and tell me where it lies.

Vote how you want, as I've said numerous times. Just don't carry on like a yes vote is a chore. Hand in your membership if it's that rough.

[pipers]

Oh, great oracle of knowledge that seemingly is not worthy of providing to the membership, can you please explain:

1) Why no-one considered that the SACA membership may be interested in seeing draft legal docs for the terms of the licence/lease agreement between SACA and the SMA?
2) How the SMA will operate to ensure that the views of the SACA/SANFL membership are considered in their decision making?
4) What the process is by which members of the initial SMA board/committee are replaced should one stand down, die or is otherwise removed.
4) Where the additional funding will come from if the project costs more than the estimates.

These are pretty much my questions.

Answer these and I might vote YES.

[pipers]

The cost of membership will be reduced for 2 years. But beyond that? CPI allegedly.

Is that the same "SACA CPI" that has traditionally been at least 2-3 times the national rate of CPI?

Seriously? We're up to that are we?

What, seeking an assurance beyond two years? Jesus, even the federal electoral process provides more than that!

Compare the facility membership around Australia to Adelaide Oval and tell me where it lies.

I'm not 100% sure what your question is, but if it's about the quality/value I get from my current membership, then I'm reasonably comfortable with that. I don't feel I need more facilities, so perhaps my concern about paying more for things I don't need is reasonable.

Vote how you want, as I've said numerous times. Just don't carry on like a yes vote is a chore. Hand in your membership if it's that rough.

By voting YES I effectively would be handing it in.

[smac]

Oh, great oracle of knowledge that seemingly is not worthy of providing to the membership, can you please explain:

1) Why no-one considered that the SACA membership may be interested in seeing draft legal docs for the terms of the licence/lease agreement between SACA and the SMA?
2) How the SMA will operate to ensure that the views of the SACA/SANFL membership aryt considered in their decision making?
4) What the process is by which members of the initial SMA board/committee are replaced should one stand down, die or is otherwise removed.
4) Where the additional funding will come from if the project costs more than the estimates.

These are pretty much my questions.

Answer these and I might vote YES.

You're a giggle. Care to answer anything asked of you or just feign intelligence and ask more questions?

1. Ask SACA, that's what they're there for. Go to a member info session.
2. As above.
3. (or your first 4, whatever you decide) As above.
4. As above.

All I have done is prevent facts. If you wish to allocate the title of oracle to that then that is your choice. I have answered what I can, you have argued enough for ten men. Well above your capacity, so it seems.