Reasons to Vote "NO"

[MAY-Z]

Just vote on facts

i have tried to get some facts from both SACA and the SMA and their replies have been non-existent

that tells me that these entities either dont want the facts to be voted on havent decided on any facts

[Dutchy]

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.

Discounted?

If the members arent the SACA who is? Like saying the peolpe of SA arent South Australian!

Its footy that want to quit their oval, make the state shrink into one stadium and play at AO and quite correctly the controlling body of AO gets the decide, whats flawed in that?

BTW has anyone heard back from the SACA with questions they have asked?

[MAY-Z]

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.

Discounted?

If the members arent the SACA who is? Like saying the peolpe of SA arent South Australian!

Its footy that want to quit their oval, make the state shrink into one stadium and play at AO and quite correctly the controlling body of AO gets the decide, whats flawed in that?

BTW has anyone heard back from the SACA with questions they have asked?

see my post above NO i havent

[Dutchy]

me too, would have thought they would be itching at the chance to respond to members who will decide the fate of this...

[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?

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

Thanks for your honesty...pity some of the others on here havent responded...

[smac]

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.

Discounted?

If the members arent the SACA who is? Like saying the peolpe of SA arent South Australian!

Its footy that want to quit their oval, make the state shrink into one stadium and play at AO and quite correctly the controlling body of AO gets the decide, whats flawed in that?

BTW has anyone heard back from the SACA with questions they have asked?

Discounted, quite substantially - ever tried to buy a ticket to each individual day of cricket and compare the cost to a membership?

SACA is an incorporated association, the members are the membership of that association.

Cricket asked them in. No one has actually responded to that fact yet. SACA are recommending the members vote 'yes'. It's good for the game.

[MAY-Z]

me too, would have thought they would be itching at the chance to respond to members who will decide the fate of this...

like i have said the only reason that they wouldnt release this info is becuase it will be harmful to their case. ie we are getting a raw deal and they know it and are trying to stop other people form knowing it

[whufc]

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.

Discounted?

If the members arent the SACA who is? Like saying the peolpe of SA arent South Australian!

Its footy that want to quit their oval, make the state shrink into one stadium and play at AO and quite correctly the controlling body of AO gets the decide, whats flawed in that?

BTW has anyone heard back from the SACA with questions they have asked?

Discounted, quite substantially - ever tried to buy a ticket to each individual day of cricket and compare the cost to a membership?

SACA is an incorporated association, the members are the membership of that association.

Cricket asked them in. No one has actually responded to that fact yet. SACA are recommending the members vote 'yes'. It's good for the game.

Did cricket ask them in for the better of the game or because of the financial benifits?

Does anyone in the SACA have lots to gain by the wealth this would generate?

[Hondo]

Discounted?

If the members arent the SACA who is? Like saying the peolpe of SA arent South Australian!

Its footy that want to quit their oval, make the state shrink into one stadium and play at AO and quite correctly the controlling body of AO gets the decide, whats flawed in that?

"Discounted" - do you pay less to attend every game your SACA membership entitles you to than if I went and paid general admission on the day? You buy an annual access ticket.

The SACA is the SACA. The ANZ Bank is the ANZ Bank. The shareholders of the ANZ Bank are not the ANZ Bank. They are the ANZ's shareholders. The SACA is an organisation, an entity of itself. It has a management and Board of Directors that have decided they want this development to go ahead.

On your last point ... FFS, YOUR organisation wanted this and started the process. That's right, the SACA wanted footy at their Oval. Not the other way around. Footy had to be convinced. Don't spin it around to be a footy takeover. If anything, it's an SMA takeover. The controlling body of the SACA HAVE decided. They only need a members' vote because the Constitution has to be changed. If it didn't have to be changed, the SACA members would have had no say in this just the same as they have had no direct say in any previous development at the Oval. It's a quirk that you now have this vote so the rest of us hope you use it wisely.

[Hondo]

me too, would have thought they would be itching at the chance to respond to members who will decide the fate of this...

like i have said the only reason that they wouldnt release this info is becuase it will be harmful to their case. ie we are getting a raw deal and they know it and are trying to stop other people form knowing it

Across the threads on this board so far several posters have given us the SACA's responses to their questions in recent times.

Guess what? Maybe, just maybe, there's no conspiracy and they are getting flooded with emails since the vote was announced and so they will pool them up and address them at your information session?

Option B- it's a conspiratorial cover up of a secret agenda to destroy the rights of SACA members

[smac]

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.

Discounted?

If the members arent the SACA who is? Like saying the peolpe of SA arent South Australian!

Its footy that want to quit their oval, make the state shrink into one stadium and play at AO and quite correctly the controlling body of AO gets the decide, whats flawed in that?

BTW has anyone heard back from the SACA with questions they have asked?

Discounted, quite substantially - ever tried to buy a ticket to each individual day of cricket and compare the cost to a membership?

SACA is an incorporated association, the members are the membership of that association.

Cricket asked them in. No one has actually responded to that fact yet. SACA are recommending the members vote 'yes'. It's good for the game.

Did cricket ask them in for the better of the game or because of the financial benifits?

Does anyone in the SACA have lots to gain by the wealth this would generate?

For the better of the game - it's number one object of the association. No individual within SACA stands to benefit financially from this.

[whufc]

No probs, good to know.

[Dutchy]

so you would prefer that the SACA board just makes the decision on behalf of the members?

[Hondo]

I could understand the fear campaign better if footy did actually start this process and against the SACA's will came into the AO demanding to take over the ground themselves (possibly arm in arm with the AFL and the Govt). The SACA are against it and now we have this last minute chance for the SACA members to save the day.

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theory, the SACA themselves started this process, have wanted AFL at their ground for years and are promoting it to members.

[MAY-Z]

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.

Discounted?

If the members arent the SACA who is? Like saying the peolpe of SA arent South Australian!

Its footy that want to quit their oval, make the state shrink into one stadium and play at AO and quite correctly the controlling body of AO gets the decide, whats flawed in that?

BTW has anyone heard back from the SACA with questions they have asked?

Discounted, quite substantially - ever tried to buy a ticket to each individual day of cricket and compare the cost to a membership?

SACA is an incorporated association, the members are the membership of that association.

Cricket asked them in. No one has actually responded to that fact yet. SACA are recommending the members vote 'yes'. It's good for the game.

Did cricket ask them in for the better of the game or because of the financial benifits?

Does anyone in the SACA have lots to gain by the wealth this would generate?[/quote]
For the better of the game - it's number one object of the association. No individual within SACA stands to benefit financially from this.[/quote]

what about the guys that are on both the saca board and the sma board? do they get 2 pay cheques?

[MAY-Z]

me too, would have thought they would be itching at the chance to respond to members who will decide the fate of this...

like i have said the only reason that they wouldnt release this info is becuase it will be harmful to their case. ie we are getting a raw deal and they know it and are trying to stop other people form knowing it

Across the threads on this board so far several posters have given us the SACA's responses to their questions in recent times.

Guess what? Maybe, just maybe, there's no conspiracy and they are getting flooded with emails since the vote was announced and so they will pool them up and address them at your information session?

Option B- it's a conspiratorial cover up of a secret agenda to destroy the rights of SACA members

dont be so niave, i have been in contact with and also been contacted by some members of the media, both local and national, and they have been directed that NO articles containing any negative or even nuetral persuasion are to be printed. i would like to know who has ordered this and why

[Hondo]

so you would prefer that the SACA board just makes the decision on behalf of the members?

These sort of decisions are normally left with Boards of directors, yes. I am sure you know this from your line of work.

If every decision like this one was put to entity members or shareholders to decide then honestly nothing would get done. That's why organisations appoint Directors who are experienced and highly skilled in their chosen field to decide what is best for their organisation. It's perfectly normal. This situation we have at the AO is perfectly abnormal.

[Dutchy]

The SACA is the SACA. The ANZ Bank is the ANZ Bank. The shareholders of the ANZ Bank are not the ANZ Bank. They are the ANZ's shareholders. The SACA is an organisation, an entity of itself. It has a management and Board of Directors that have decided they want this development to go ahead.

And the ANZ Board is responsible to who? Shareholders who own the bank. Same thing here.

You expect us just to agree with all board recommendations? One of them recently made a deal with the media in this town to keep his name out of the papers during a recent court case, not exactly open and honest...

[Dutchy]

Guess what? Maybe, just maybe, there's no conspiracy and they are getting flooded with emails since the vote was announced and so they will pool them up and address them at your information session?

Option B- it's a conspiratorial cover up of a secret agenda to destroy the rights of SACA members

Fair enough if thats the case but at least respond saying there will be a delay, that wouldnt be hard at all...

[Hondo]

No, it wouldn't be I agree

But that's not grounds to go off listening to X-Files music