Reasons to Vote "NO"

[MAY-Z]

May-Z

.... and what if there's a one in 10,000 year tornado and the AO is blown away? I mean how many "I think everything that will happen in the future will turn out worse" reasons do SACA members need?

What if the world ends tomorrow? Should we all stay in bed?

I would think the matter of the budget would be a very important one.

as with most people who favour the yes vote you seem to have very few cold hard facts in repsonse to many genuine concerns

[Hondo]

I would think the matter of the budget would be a very important one.

as with most people who favour the yes vote you seem to have very few cold hard facts in repsonse to many genuine concerns

And, while we are generalising, like most people who want to vote no you have very few cold hard facts on which you base most of your concerns.

Ís the glass half full or half empty? If they gave you the successful bidder's quote you'd just turn it around and say you don't believe it or it will end up more and so on. What you call "genuine concerns" I, with respect, call a lot of them excuses to vote no.

[heater31]

Putting as a Cricket person yes the numbers do look very favourable to the development of the sport in this state, At the last election the incumbents put a hospital on the table first and this is a far more important project than propping up a sinking AFL franchise because they are hated by the South Australian Football public.

This is far bigger than the PAFC. If the Govt's sole purpose was propping up the PAFC then they could just grant them $5m. Even $10m. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than $535m! I hope to hell no SACA member votes NO out of spite towards the PAFC. There's a bigger picture surely. If they do vote on those sort of grounds then no wonder non-SACA members are so alarmed.

I consider a Hospital far more important piece of infrastructure than a 50,000 seat sports stadium that is only being built because Football spat the dummy 40 years ago and left the very ground they are trying to force an underhanded takeover of. They chose to go it alone and vacated now they want back in without forking out a cent when most of what is already there has been funded by members.

[RustyCage]

I still fail to realise what rights the members will lose if the development goes ahead. Apart from voting for the board, when is the last time the members had to vote on something?

1) Did you have to vote for the new members stand to go ahead?
2) Did you have to vote for the Chappell and Clem Hill stands to be built?
3) Did you have to vote for the lights to be put in?

What does SACA membership get you apart from voting for the board, a seat at events at the oval and as shown on here the right to assume you are better and more important than every one else?

Can anyone answer these three questions?

[Hondo]

I consider a Hospital far more important piece of infrastructure than a 50,000 seat sports stadium that is only being built because Football spat the dummy 40 years ago and left the very ground they are trying to force an underhanded takeover of. They chose to go it alone and vacated now they want back in without forking out a cent when most of what is already there has been funded by members.

The SACA wanted footy back, not the other way around. The Govt facilitated footy's return, not footy.

You talk like footy is twisting the SACA's arm. This theory of an AFL takeover doesn't wash when we all know this was a SACA driven development.

[MAY-Z]

I would think the matter of the budget would be a very important one.

as with most people who favour the yes vote you seem to have very few cold hard facts in repsonse to many genuine concerns

And, while we are generalising, like most people who want to vote no you have very few cold hard facts on which you base most of your concerns.

Ís the glass half full or half empty? If they gave you the successful bidder's quote you'd just turn it around and say you don't believe it or it will end up more and so on. What you call "genuine concerns" I, with respect, call a lot of them excuses to vote no.

of course we have very few facts - thas because no important facts are being released hence a lot of scepticism on a lot of peoples behalf

if teh successful bidders quote was released as a fixed price contract then that would be beleiveable

[redandblack]

To those intending to vote 'No'.

Did you read my article mentioned above and, if so, do you feel my experience of change at the Oval over the years is applicable to the current situation?

Presumably if not, with respect, why do you think that?

[AFLflyer]

Great article RandB. great to see such a long time fan of the oval accepting change and enjoying the process!

[Hondo]

of course we have very few facts - thas because no important facts are being released hence a lot of scepticism on a lot of peoples behalf

if teh successful bidders quote was released as a fixed price contract then that would be beleiveable

It's whether the no voters have a quenchable thirst here!

If you got 10 more solid facts I fear the no compaign would find 10 new "areas of genuine concern". Throwing stones at plans for change is an easier task for the no side than justifying it is for the yes side. It's why referendums rarely get up. If in doubt, better the devil you know.

[MAY-Z]

of course we have very few facts - thas because no important facts are being released hence a lot of scepticism on a lot of peoples behalf

if teh successful bidders quote was released as a fixed price contract then that would be beleiveable

It's whether the no voters have a quenchable thirst here!

If you got 10 more solid facts I fear the no compaign would find 10 new "areas of genuine concern". Throwing stones at plans for change is an easier task for the no side than the yes side. It's why referendums rarely get up.

People always jump at negative what if scenarios.

i tend to agree with that which is why as much information as possible should be made available for informed decisions to be made

[Ecky]

And if it was all so obvious and straight forward to vote yes, why haven't SACA responded yet to the email I sent them on Thursday asking a few questions?

[heater31]

And if it was all so obvious and straight forward to vote yes, why haven't SACA responded yet to the email I sent them on Thursday asking a few questions?

hey I'm still waiting for a response to my complaint of the enforcement the members dress code during the Twenty20 International. Take a ticket and get in line

[MAY-Z]

And if it was all so obvious and straight forward to vote yes, why haven't SACA responded yet to the email I sent them on Thursday asking a few questions?

or my list of questions that i have sent to both the saca and the sma

[RustyCage]

I'll post again...

I still fail to realise what rights the members will lose if the development goes ahead. Apart from voting for the board, when is the last time the members had to vote on something?

1) Did you have to vote for the new members stand to go ahead?
2) Did you have to vote for the Chappell and Clem Hill stands to be built?
3) Did you have to vote for the lights to be put in?

What does SACA membership get you apart from voting for the board, a seat at events at the oval and as shown on here the right to assume you are better and more important than every one else?

[Ecky]

What does SACA membership get you apart from voting for the board, a seat at events at the oval and as shown on here the right to assume you are better and more important than every one else?

Maybe if you didn't talk down to the members in this condescending way, you might actually get a response.

[pipers]

I'll post again...

I still fail to realise what rights the members will lose if the development goes ahead. Apart from voting for the board, when is the last time the members had to vote on something?

1) Did you have to vote for the new members stand to go ahead?
2) Did you have to vote for the Chappell and Clem Hill stands to be built?
3) Did you have to vote for the lights to be put in?

What does SACA membership get you apart from voting for the board, a seat at events at the oval and as shown on here the right to assume you are better and more important than every one else?

I didn't bother responding because your last line is just typical of the SACA Member-bashing we've been enduring of late. But since you have asked so rudely three times here are the answers:

1) Not directly, no.
2) Not directly, no.
3) Not directly, no.

However we did vote for the SACA board, who in every case listed above were 100% responsible for the management of those projects. Hence the decisions made were done so with full accountability to the members who voted them in. None of those projects came with the "kicker" of handing over half the decision-making power to an as yet undefined entity which has no direct accountability.

Imagine you have been renting a house. The landlord every now and then improves the property, and every now and then increases the rent. Then one day he says "I'm thinking of handing over the management of your lease to another party." Clearly as a tenant, who is paying considerable rent you would like to know who that party was and whether or not they will maintain it in the same way as your current landlord. I think you'd probably want to understand some of that detail before you agreed to it.

Well, at least I would.

[RustyCage]

What does SACA membership get you apart from voting for the board, a seat at events at the oval and as shown on here the right to assume you are better and more important than every one else?

Maybe if you didn't talk down to the members in this condescending way, you might actually get a response.

Maybe if members hadn't been so condescending in the way they spoke throughout this thread, more respect would be shown. How about I highlight the amount of times SACA members have used their membership status to talk down on others?

[pipers]

Maybe if members hadn't been so condescending in the way they spoke throughout this thread, more respect would be shown. How about I highlight the amount of times SACA members have used their membership status to talk down on others?

How about you do. I'd expect nothing less of you...

Oh look, there's one there...

Seriously this is not about "us and them". It is about ensuring that we have proper detail on how the licence agreement between SACA and the SMA will operate and what say SACA members will have in the ongoing management of a facility that we have become accustomed to having some say in.

That s all. The us/them stuff is predominantly coming from the non-member/football side of the argument, and frankly it is making us more resistant.

Do we really want to share the oval's facilities with such an agressive bunch?

[redandblack]

Interesting that none of the " No' voters have answered my question above

[MAY-Z]

To those intending to vote 'No'.

Did you read my article mentioned above and, if so, do you feel my experience of change at the Oval over the years is applicable to the current situation?

Presumably if not, with respect, why do you think that?

i hadnt read your post but i have now.

surely you were not feeling that way when teh chappell stands were built - anything had to be better than the "temporary" stands that were doing a very good impression of being permanent.

the main difference in your post compared to now is that the changes you have alluded to are essentially cosmetic and could be reversed (albeit at a fair cost) whereas if a yes vote is successful that is it forever everything goes to what the SMA want with noone having a say on future happenings