Reasons to Vote "NO"

[smac]

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

No, because the current constitution dictates otherwise. But they have been through every detail, with the objects of the Association at top of mind, and have recommended this go ahead.

[MAY-Z]

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

No, because the current constitution dictates otherwise. But they have been through every detail, with the objects of the Association at top of mind, and have recommended this go ahead.

so let the voters know these details and stop hiding things

[Ecky]

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 neutral persuasion are to be printed. I would like to know who has ordered this and why.

Now you have decided to play one of your trump cards I thought I would repeat that...

[smac]

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...

SACA members do not own SACA! We are members, we have no financial interest or share in SACA.

[Ecky]

SACA members do not own SACA! We are members, we have no financial interest or share in SACA.

Others may think differently, but to me this debate is a side issue. Rightly or wrongly, the members are in an unique situation to have a say in the future of Adelaide Oval (and the whole state if you believe the doomsayers on the yes side!) so why can't we use this vote we have been given as wisely as possible? A bit like how you could argue that jurors are in a powerful position that they don't deserve to be in to decide the fate of someone on a murder charge...

[Hondo]

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 neutral persuasion are to be printed. I would like to know who has ordered this and why.

Now you have decided to play one of your trump cards I thought I would repeat that...

Yet we have Richard Earle from the Advertiser who has written a series of what I think are neutral & factual articles

For example, this one is more negative than positive from 28 March 2011:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaide-oval-co ... 6029084016

If this is a trump card then it needs some more meat on the bones.

[mal]

The more constructions that are made the less often I go to Adelaide Oval

Adelaide Oval WAS the most beautiful oval Ive ever watched sport from
I loved the outers, I loved the old stands that had not changed since near inception of cricket in SA
I enjoyed being at a complex that reminded me of history
Unfortunately one of the only things that remains is the Scoreboard
Sitting in the Don Bradman stand I have to eye strain past that ridicolous looking Chappell Stand, you know the one with Madonna Bras on the roof

Adelaide oval is now becoming a stadium, call it progress if you want
If it attracts the bigger crowds, good luck to em

But from my perspective the oval has lost its feng shuitism and I dont enjoy my days there as I once did

[Ecky]

Yet we have Richard Earle from the Advertiser who has written a series of what I think are neutral & factual articles

For example, this one is more negative than positive from 28 March 2011:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaide-oval-co ... 6029084016

If this is a trump card then it needs some more meat on the bones.

The gag was placed after that article appeared.

[Hondo]

SACA members do not own SACA! We are members, we have no financial interest or share in SACA.

Others may think differently, but to me this debate is a side issue. Rightly or wrongly, the members are in an unique situation to have a say in the future of Adelaide Oval (and the whole state if you believe the doomsayers on the yes side!) so why can't we use this vote we have been given as wisely as possible? A bit like how you could argue that jurors are in a powerful position that they don't deserve to be in to decide the fate of someone on a murder charge...

I think you are right here. Regardless of whether we think SACA members should have this power or not, the fact is that you do. Rightly or wrongly, you do.

However, the question about whether 20000 SACA members can in reality hold up a $1.5b CBD redevelopment (of which the AO is a part) is worthwhile when we come back to debate after the likely inevitable next step of the Government overriding a no vote, if a no vote happens.

[redandblack]

Yet we have Richard Earle from the Advertiser who has written a series of what I think are neutral & factual articles

For example, this one is more negative than positive from 28 March 2011:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaide-oval-co ... 6029084016

If this is a trump card then it needs some more meat on the bones.

The gag was placed after that article appeared.

Honestly, we're getting into farce now

[MAY-Z]

Yet we have Richard Earle from the Advertiser who has written a series of what I think are neutral & factual articles

For example, this one is more negative than positive from 28 March 2011:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaide-oval-co ... 6029084016

If this is a trump card then it needs some more meat on the bones.

The gag was placed after that article appeared.

Honestly, we're getting into farce now

sure is, when teh media arent allowed to cover an issue without bias i think a farce is a good term for it

[Ecky]

Yet we have Richard Earle from the Advertiser who has written a series of what I think are neutral & factual articles

For example, this one is more negative than positive from 28 March 2011:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaide-oval-co ... 6029084016

If this is a trump card then it needs some more meat on the bones.

The gag was placed after that article appeared.

Honestly, we're getting into farce now

Yep, a farcical decision by the SACA or whoever has ordered the gag. They need members to trust them (and their spin) to win over the yes vote, but decisions like this just make the members more sceptical that they are hiding something and not telling us the full story.

[redandblack]

Surely when we get into conspiracy theories, the 'yes' argument starts to unravel.

I'll accept Ecky's word that a journalist is compromised, but that says more about his paper than anything else.

There's no conspiracy.

[Dutchy]

However, the question about whether 20000 SACA members can in reality hold up a $1.5b CBD redevelopment (of which the AO is a part) is worthwhile when we come back to debate after the likely inevitable next step of the Government overriding a no vote, if a no vote happens.

Again if they couldnt over ride the stand in Vic Park how are they going to over ride this?

[Gingernuts]

However, the question about whether 20000 SACA members can in reality hold up a $1.5b CBD redevelopment (of which the AO is a part) is worthwhile when we come back to debate after the likely inevitable next step of the Government overriding a no vote, if a no vote happens.

Again if they couldnt over ride the stand in Vic Park how are they going to over ride this?

Some significant legislation passed as a result of that failed project. Now the State Govt can bypass Local Government planning depts and guidelines by simply giving it 'major project' status. When this happens planning applications go through the State Govt Dev Assessment Panel rather than the local council's planning dept/panel. See LeCornu site in Nth Adelaide as an example (not that Makris has done anything with that yet!).

Not saying this would work for the Oval, just suggesting that the landscape for major projects has changed since then.

[Lightning McQueen]

The more constructions that are made the less often I go to Adelaide Oval

Adelaide Oval WAS the most beautiful oval Ive ever watched sport from
I loved the outers, I loved the old stands that had not changed since near inception of cricket in SA
I enjoyed being at a complex that reminded me of history
Unfortunately one of the only things that remains is the Scoreboard
Sitting in the Don Bradman stand I have to eye strain past that ridicolous looking Chappell Stand, you know the one with Madonna Bras on the roof

Adelaide oval is now becoming a stadium, call it progress if you want
If it attracts the bigger crowds, good luck to em

But from my perspective the oval has lost its feng shuitism and I dont enjoy my days there as I once did

Must've been a fair fling, it's a long way up there from where her stage was.

[GWW]

I think i read in the Tiser on Saturday that media Mike said that because they don't have the numbers in the Upper House, their options are restricted as far as what futher options they could look at if the vote is voted down. Not that I would generally believe anything Rann says however.

[Lightning McQueen]

It would make sense to me to utilise the oval all year round, times are changing, population is rising, I'd like to see it have a decent capacity and see Adelaide play thier home games there and Port play at West Lakes.
I agree with mal, the Chappell stands look ridiculous, it would be good if we could keep to a scheme when we redevelop, that one was totally out of left field.

[Hondo]

Dutchy was that you who posted the link back to this thread on the guestbook of the "Save Adelaide Oval" web-site?

Talking about gags, whoever runs that site was deleting YES vote posts in the guestbook in the early days but obviously yielded to pressure once it became obvious what he was doing. Now it's OK.

I know because he was deleting mine. It became a game to me as to how long it took him to zap my posts. The first time took 24 hours and then he was onto it more closely. It looked pretty blatant for a while when there was only 6 posts and they were all saying how great a job Greg Howe was doing.

Gag city!

[redandblack]

Wonderfully misleading 'before and after' photos on that site