Reasons to Vote "NO"

[MAY-Z]

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

just posted it

[MAY-Z]

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

Time moved on more and they announced they would knock down the southern stand and build a new stand, named after Don Bradman. Disgraceful, I thought, it would break up the feeling of the ground and ruin it.

i was only young at the time but my memory is that the old stand had become unsafe though.

[Dutchy]

Can I ask the non SACA members who want this to happen, how many cricket games at AO have you been to in the past 5 years?

[AFLflyer]

Can I ask the non SACA members who want this to happen, how many cricket games at AO have you been to in the past 5 years?

i go to one test match day a year, the occasional one dayer and most 20/20's over the last few years - why?

[wycbloods]

Can I ask the non SACA members who want this to happen, how many cricket games at AO have you been to in the past 5 years?

I go to as many as i can physically get to.

Generally that includes the one-dayers most days of the test match except the saturday as my association plays that day and most big bash games.

[White Line Fever]

Can I ask the non SACA members who want this to happen, how many cricket games at AO have you been to in the past 5 years?

None cause I find cricket boring.
I want AFL footy there.
No political correctness here

[cripple]

Can I ask the non SACA members who want this to happen, how many cricket games at AO have you been to in the past 5 years?

Before i moved interstate last year i had attended,

3-4 state one day matches a year (including boofs last ton against WA, my best adelaide oval moment ever)
at least one day of all test matches, usually two.
was able to drive back for the England V Aus T20 this year.
most of the big bash games when i was still in adelaide.
even popped into a grade final between sturt and kensington one year, i still dont know why.

That as well as rugby 7's and the occasional sanfl game. just enjoy sport at the oval and would have become a member last year but moved interstate and it didn't make sense at the time. that and i had just finished studying and didn't have the dosh for it.

[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?

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

MAY-Z, my story had two themes. The main one was my love of the Adelaide Oval. The second, of course, was that change had been beneficial.

With respect, the fact that your main comment is a just a question over a small point that confirms your view might lead some to think your mind isn't as open as it might be. To that point, though, my answer is that at the time I would have preferred no stands there at all as I agree with you that the temporary stands were terrible.

As for the changes I mentioned being merely cosmetic, I'm not sure I see how that is true. I mentioned new grandstands, new lights and a Western stand complex. I don't see those as cosmetic and IMO I'm not sure many would.

[pipers]

Interesting that none of the YES contingent have acknowledged the validity of my rental analogy.

Actually, it's not interesting. It's just as expected as none of them can truly appreciate the position of the 18,000 or so SACA members.

In fact, I just said it was interesting because everyone else seems to be saying that the failure to respond to their posts is "interesting", and I felt it was my turn.

[redandblack]

pipers, I found it interesting that you were able to libel in detail the board of the SMA, when you had no idea who they were.

We all make mistakes, so I didn't pursue that topic, but I didn't take much notice of the thread (or the validity of your analogies) for a while after that, so my apologies.

[pipers]

pipers, I found it interesting that you were able to libel in detail the board of the SMA, when you had no idea who they were.

We all make mistakes, so I didn't pursue that topic, but I didn't take much notice of the thread (or the validity of your analogies) for a while after that, so my apologies.

Not sure how I libeled them. Merely said that the governance structure and method by which replacement appointees can be made has not yet made its way into the public domain.

I made a mistake regarding the intial split of the 10,000 super memberships, and I'm still following up on my source regarding the alledged abolition of one of the levels of junior grade cricket (which is not overly relevant to the debate anyway).

Aside from that, I think I'm in the clear.

[pipers]

Oh, and this was interesting from the Independant today...

With $18M to spare SACA could buy three of them! Perhaps that is why improved public transport was mentioned as a benefit to members. One stop at the Ridings gate, one at the bottom of the Western Stand escaltators and one at the Clarrie Grimmet gate?


Health gave $6m for tram stop
KEVIN NAUGHTON

MORE than $6 million was paid from Health Department grants funding to pay for part of the tram extension along North Terrace in anticipation of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

No other money was sought from businesses or institutions on the route.

Shadow Health minister Duncan McFetridge said the payment reflected the wrong priorities.

“If the government believes Health should pay because a tram line is built outside its new hospital location, then why hasn’t it asked the Casino, Rundle Mall and Uni SA for similar contributions?” he said.

“It’s $6 million that would have been better spent on health care.”

No reasons are given for the tram payment.

When the question was first raised in Budget hearings last October 11, Health Minister John Hill said he would respond after taking advice.

“We are not precisely sure, but we will get some advice,” Mr Hill said.

“I am assuming it was work that was being done by them for us, but I will get some advice for you.

“The tram project is not a Health Department project.”

Mr McFetridge asked again why the money was paid from the Health budget?

Mr Hill: “I am not trying to be difficult, but I am not aware of the detail. I will happily get some advice.”

Indaily also asked the Minister’s office last Friday for a reason why the Health money had been diverted to pay for a tram extension. No response was received.

A spokesman for Transport and Infrastructure minister Pat Conlon told Indaily: “Both extensions were entirely funded by the State Govt through DTEI with no contributions made or sought from private enterprise.”

[redandblack]

pipers, I found it interesting that you were able to libel in detail the board of the SMA, when you had no idea who they were.

We all make mistakes, so I didn't pursue that topic, but I didn't take much notice of the thread (or the validity of your analogies) for a while after that, so my apologies.

Not sure how I libeled them. Merely said that the governance structure and method by which replacement appointees can be made has not yet made its way into the public domain.

I made a mistake regarding the intial split of the 10,000 super memberships, and I'm still following up on my source regarding the alledged abolition of one of the levels of junior grade cricket (which is not overly relevant to the debate anyway).

Aside from that, I think I'm in the clear.

This is what you said about 4 members of your own SACA committee and 4 members of the SANFL.


3. 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!

Apart from the incorrect statement that 3 organisations were represented, your accusations about the individuals on the SMA board are either libellous. or at best, a reckless slur on people that you admit you didn't know were on the board when you wrote that.

I think that was irresponsible on your part.

Apart from that, you partly absolve the SACA Board and then say that their representatives are politically-motivated, etc, etc.

I'm sure you see the absurdity of that part of your argument.

[pipers]

This is what you said about 4 members of your own SACA committee and 4 members of the SANFL.


3. 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.

Apart from the incorrect statement that 3 organisations were represented, your accusations about the individuals on the SMA board are either libellous. or at best, a reckless slur on people that you admit you didn't know were on the board when you wrote that.

I think that was irresponsible on your part.

Apart from that, you partly absolve the SACA Board and then say that their representatives are politically-motivated, etc, etc.

I'm sure you see the absurdity of that part of your argument.

Not at all. I stand by every comment there.

If the SANFL are represented, then by extension so are the AFL. If Whicker is not conflicted then I'll eat my hat and everyone elses...

[redandblack]

Nice try, pipers, concentrating on one person.

You said that about the whole board, which includes Ian McLachlan, John Bannon, etc.

I'm pleased to see you're so confident about your argument that you stand by all your comments you made about people you didn't even know when you made them.

Clever, although lacking a little credibility

[Hondo]

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.

Because you said no-one had responded

It's a bad analogy. A tenant is completely exposed to changes in ownership of the house of the owner's deciding to do what they wish to the house. A tenant normally has no say in these things.

That said, if the lessess still gets to live in the house for lesser rent AND they get a renovated kitchen and bathroom they'd be pretty happy I would have thought?

If the owner was careless enough to leave in the rental contract a clause that gave the renter the right to stop a renovation or change in ownership of the house then he'll no doubt be stuck with the tenant forever!

[Hondo]

That said, SACA members aren't the lessee. The SACA is. The SACA wants to release control of the ground to the SMA. It's the members of the SACA that seem to be second guessing the tenant.

This is one of my fundamental points - SACA members seeing themselves as the SACA. You aren't. You buy an annual discounted gate ticket each year and get some mailouts. Now you think it means you can speak for everyone in this state who may use the AO.

[Ecky]

That said, if the lessess still gets to live in the house for lesser rent AND they get a renovated kitchen and bathroom they'd be pretty happy I would have thought?

But not if we already have a perfectly adequate kitchen and bathroom that are more than sufficient for our needs, and there will be long disruptions while it is under construction, when we are still getting over the last lot of renovations. We are told that the renovations are needed to benefit some other guy, who we have never got along with and don't trust, who is begging to move in with us.

Surely anyone in this situation would hold some reservations, even if there is a temporary drop in rent?

We are also told that this other guy will only use the house during the day when we are out at work, so it won't affect us, but we aren't given any real guarantees that his habits won't change in the future, and we hear he is more powerful than us, and so is likely to win any disputes we might have down the track...

[smac]

I thought the analogy was bollocks, largely because we are speaking about going to the cricket, not living anywhere.

[smac]

pipers, I found it interesting that you were able to libel in detail the board of the SMA, when you had no idea who they were.

We all make mistakes, so I didn't pursue that topic, but I didn't take much notice of the thread (or the validity of your analogies) for a while after that, so my apologies.

Not sure how I libeled them. Merely said that the governance structure and method by which replacement appointees can be made has not yet made its way into the public domain.

I made a mistake regarding the intial split of the 10,000 super memberships, and I'm still following up on my source regarding the alledged abolition of one of the levels of junior grade cricket (which is not overly relevant to the debate anyway).

Aside from that, I think I'm in the clear.

Your source is wrong, stop following them up and just look at the grade cricket fixture here: http://www.cricketsa.com.au/content.aspx?p=428

You also stated "5. Quite simply I expect that it will cost me more to go to the cricket in future and on top of that my membership priviledges will be considerably watered down... in exhange for nothing. Zero. Zilch" which is incorrect. Costs are kept the same, membershipi priviledges are retained and there will be enhanced member facilities (do we count that as three errors or one?)

As I've said before... Vote no, vote yes, whatever. Just vote on facts, not assumptions/errors.