Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Footy Smart]

Who went to the Sturt v Norwood game at AO last friday night?

What did you think of the atmosphere with the new stand etc?

I personally thought it was average, and the proposed new stands would destroy SANFL footy at AO.

[AFLflyer]

Point is, this will never happen in Adelaide. It's update AO or nothing People!!!!!!!!

with that attitude your right it will never happen...

just think of what might occur with a No vote

yeah nothing will, that is my point
look at the history here with failed projects.

[AFLflyer]

Who went to the Sturt v Norwood game at AO last friday night?

What did you think of the atmosphere with the new stand etc?

I personally thought it was average, and the proposed new stands would destroy SANFL footy at AO.

AO is no place (with or without upgrade) for SANFL. except for grand finals

[MAY-Z]

Point is, this will never happen in Adelaide. It's update AO or nothing People!!!!!!!!

with that attitude your right it will never happen...

just think of what might occur with a No vote

yeah nothing will, that is my point
look at the history here with failed projects.

nothing wrong with living in adelaide.

do some research on the states you have these fanciful desires about and go and find out how much it costs to live in Melbourne or Sydney compared to Adelaide.

what would you prefer? a hybrid stadium or a state were people can afford to live

[AFLflyer]

When did I say I don't appreciate and like Adelaide MAY-Z? quite the opposite.
I'm not asking for a 100,000 enclosed stadium and city skyscrapers, just a tasteful river development and a world class city stadium to watch my cricket and footy. These city inclusions would inject some life and energy into what is now an average river side location, this will also create plenty of economic spin off's.

People will want to actually visit Adelaide, instead of laughing at our city from a far. Those who can't see the riverside potential are blind.

[spell_check]

And in other news.....

Looks like Perths new stadium is back on the agenda;

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/burswood-site-for-new-60000-seat-stadium/comments-e6frg13u-1226038101779

Look at all the comments in there - very similar kinds of remarks of "typical WA(SA)" "it won't happen" etc. We are not the only state to supposedly do everything wrong!

[spell_check]

Who went to the Sturt v Norwood game at AO last friday night?

What did you think of the atmosphere with the new stand etc?

I personally thought it was average, and the proposed new stands would destroy SANFL footy at AO.

AO is no place (with or without upgrade) for SANFL. except for grand finals

No, Football Park is no place for SANFL nowadays. Except for Grand Finals.

[Bulls forever]

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

That is because you are getting older and can't drink as much MAL. You are not seriously telling me you spend all day sitting in the Bradman, unless in Corporate Box up the top i find that hard to believe, although it might have been the bees knees in its day, it is seriously the worse designed stand I have seen, with the worse use of space ever. Sir don deserves something a lot more grander than that.

Problem with that stand is that SACA wanted it for the main purpose of housing its office staff with holding spectators 2nd. That stand has now outgrown its intended use and should be replaced next what ever happens after this vote. Weather SACA goes it alone or this other mob....

H31, the only way it will go is with the Yes vote, SACA are currently servicing 85mil loan which will disappear if this all goes ahead. Otherwise, it is the Langley Room for Grade Launches for some time.

[heater31]

H31, the only way it will go is with the Yes vote, SACA are currently servicing 85mil loan which will disappear if this all goes ahead. Otherwise, it is the Langley Room for Grade Launches for some time.

Slight problem though Bulls, SACA or the Public Purse has to be able to afford to redevelop it before we can get rid of it....

[Bulls forever]

These are some thoughts that I have based upon his responses.

1. this seems that more than the $535 million will need to be spent, somewhere around the $650million is the current best estimate. I presume that the tram line will be ceased if a yes vote occurs but it is interesting that labour are yet to state that- I presume there would be some additional break costs involved in cancelling the tram project.
Again the SANFL are getting that massive advantage of being gifted a new higher income generating asset whilst keeping their old asset. Clearly not a fair deal for tax payers who are funding a lot of the proposed investment

2. seems reasonable, but not concrete

3. as above

4. this is a massive worry for all South Australians. The question has been asked many times by many people and no-one will answer it? Does SACA have to foot the bill? Will the SANFL give some proceeds? Or will the taxpayers have to fund even more of the project and create more debt for all South Australians
I hadn’t thought of this but if the project isn’t successful then someone will be out of pocket with a hefty sum but hopefully this would never be an issue

5 & 6. seems fine for now but if private funds are needed for the stadium then an issue could arise – some clarification would be handy

7, 8 & 9. SACA issues

10. there is nothing assured here which is very disappointing

11. this economic modelling seems flawed, 1 international soccer game per year is completely unrealistic since there aren’t many games played in Australia and Melb/Syd always get first go at them.
There was talk of the Rugby being moved from Adelaide but I thought the attendances were ok so I assume that this would stay in Adelaide, but what about the timing of this? With football matches starting around feb with NAB cup, cricket still going at that time it cant be played then and once the footy season starts there will be matches played every week so I cant see this fitting into the schedule
This has been discussed previously in a few outlets but whilst it looks nice the piece of paper has no real value

12. a lot of wasted money of this goes ahead

13. would be nice to see a test run, after all $600million+ is a big outlay when there is no immediate necessity for the costs

14. more of an observation than a qn

15. surely this should be extremely worrying for all South Australians, SA is not currently in a position to do this and being this far in debt cannot be a good thing especially when we are running at a deficit each year.

Perhaps you can now send all your questions to a Labor Politician and you will get 15 different answers. Give me a break MZ, you are trusting a politician. You know full well, if you ask Libs they will tell you the colour is black and Labour White. So to give us a balance, send it to labour and give us their reply. I await the response.

[Bulls forever]

Interesting may-z

My first preference would be to leave AO and build new roof stadium in west pArklands.

Do you believe if the opposition was elected they could come through with a new stadium?

I don't so guess I'm looking for the band aid solution.
Something needs to change though the lower crowds is because AAMI is a hole.

Go ahead with AO and we wont get another shot at a 2nd stadium, we will be stuck with one and this will ensure we miss major events.

Say No to Adel Oval and other options will be looked at...

Yeah great, at a cost of 1.2 billion for the libs plan. Destroys all the arguments about cost in here re education, health, etc. etc.

[Bulls forever]

thats it - tehre has been so much money spent improving the satdium becuase teh crowds kept saying tis is what they wanted
the bucket seats, the northern stand the replay screens, better and free public transport links and depsite this teh crowds have still fallen

who is to say that the footy fans wont feel the same at adelaide?

Do you think prices, the economy and playing times might have something to do with the attendance drops, oh, perhaps the fact that both Adelaide teams have had moderate success in the past few seasons might play a part too.

Your probably right,

the exact same things will be a factor with a re-developed adelaide oval.

A re-developed Adelaide Oval does not automatically mean larger football crowds.

Exactly, and currentl public transport goes right to the gate of AAAMII i cant see that happening straight away at AO. Still if you catch the bus/train to the city its a fair walk to the oval.

No, but it might mean Port only have to get 15K to turn a profit from a game instead of 28k because of the cost of presentation at the two venues. And FS, the walk will get some of that baggage off.

[Bulls forever]

H31, the only way it will go is with the Yes vote, SACA are currently servicing 85mil loan which will disappear if this all goes ahead. Otherwise, it is the Langley Room for Grade Launches for some time.

Slight problem though Bulls, SACA or the Public Purse has to be able to afford to redevelop it before we can get rid of it....

Correct H31, I pay money in my taxes every year to fund all the museums, I pay taxes to fund the desal plant, I pay money so the museum can purchase a 10 mil dollar peice of art that I will never see, I pay taxes so I can fund 2 Pandas on display at the Adel Zoo that I will not see. Why because they don't interest me. Now is my time to get something I pay taxes for and that is somewhere I love going and love watching whatever sport they play. The river development does not concern me, but I love what it will do to revilatilise the riverbank precinct that has grown bigger than Popeye, although that will remain. Call me selfish, but if I don't get my wish for AO upgrade I will be peeved because I have paid a lot of taxes for a lot of things that I don't use, but I understand they are entirely necessary for the continued development of this state. Now is my time to get something for me and if the rest of the members want something for themselves, they won't get it with a no vote.

[Bulls forever]

Who went to the Sturt v Norwood game at AO last friday night?

What did you think of the atmosphere with the new stand etc?

I personally thought it was average, and the proposed new stands would destroy SANFL footy at AO.

FS, you obviously haven't been to one at AAMI with 3k in the ground if you think AO is poor. Poor analogy I think, only big SANFL games will get the AO.

[heater31]

H31, the only way it will go is with the Yes vote, SACA are currently servicing 85mil loan which will disappear if this all goes ahead. Otherwise, it is the Langley Room for Grade Launches for some time.

Slight problem though Bulls, SACA or the Public Purse has to be able to afford to redevelop it before we can get rid of it....

Correct H31, I pay money in my taxes every year to fund all the museums, I pay taxes to fund the desal plant, I pay money so the museum can purchase a 10 mil dollar peice of art that I will never see, I pay taxes so I can fund 2 Pandas on display at the Adel Zoo that I will not see. Why because they don't interest me. Now is my time to get something I pay taxes for and that is somewhere I love going and love watching whatever sport they play. The river development does not concern me, but I love what it will do to revilatilise the riverbank precinct that has grown bigger than Popeye, although that will remain. Call me selfish, but if I don't get my wish for AO upgrade I will be peeved because I have paid a lot of taxes for a lot of things that I don't use, but I understand they are entirely necessary for the continued development of this state. Now is my time to get something for me and if the rest of the members want something for themselves, they won't get it with a no vote.

So you are prepared to send the State of South Australia back to the late 1980's/early 1990's as a financial basket case as it has over committed itself to win votes from the people.

Now that is Selfish IMO.

[MAY-Z]

These are some thoughts that I have based upon his responses.

1. this seems that more than the $535 million will need to be spent, somewhere around the $650million is the current best estimate. I presume that the tram line will be ceased if a yes vote occurs but it is interesting that labour are yet to state that- I presume there would be some additional break costs involved in cancelling the tram project.
Again the SANFL are getting that massive advantage of being gifted a new higher income generating asset whilst keeping their old asset. Clearly not a fair deal for tax payers who are funding a lot of the proposed investment

2. seems reasonable, but not concrete

3. as above

4. this is a massive worry for all South Australians. The question has been asked many times by many people and no-one will answer it? Does SACA have to foot the bill? Will the SANFL give some proceeds? Or will the taxpayers have to fund even more of the project and create more debt for all South Australians
I hadn’t thought of this but if the project isn’t successful then someone will be out of pocket with a hefty sum but hopefully this would never be an issue

5 & 6. seems fine for now but if private funds are needed for the stadium then an issue could arise – some clarification would be handy

7, 8 & 9. SACA issues

10. there is nothing assured here which is very disappointing

11. this economic modelling seems flawed, 1 international soccer game per year is completely unrealistic since there aren’t many games played in Australia and Melb/Syd always get first go at them.
There was talk of the Rugby being moved from Adelaide but I thought the attendances were ok so I assume that this would stay in Adelaide, but what about the timing of this? With football matches starting around feb with NAB cup, cricket still going at that time it cant be played then and once the footy season starts there will be matches played every week so I cant see this fitting into the schedule
This has been discussed previously in a few outlets but whilst it looks nice the piece of paper has no real value

12. a lot of wasted money of this goes ahead

13. would be nice to see a test run, after all $600million+ is a big outlay when there is no immediate necessity for the costs

14. more of an observation than a qn

15. surely this should be extremely worrying for all South Australians, SA is not currently in a position to do this and being this far in debt cannot be a good thing especially when we are running at a deficit each year.

Perhaps you can now send all your questions to a Labor Politician and you will get 15 different answers. Give me a break MZ, you are trusting a politician. You know full well, if you ask Libs they will tell you the colour is black and Labour White. So to give us a balance, send it to labour and give us their reply. I await the response.

given his answers are from teh documents made available by labor to the opposition i doubt how we could get answers suggesting anything different.

or are you suggesting that labor have a seperate set of facts and figure sthat they wont share with anyone else? so the costs tehy have provided to parliamnet are incorrect? the state budget is in great shape? the financial modelling didnt include rugby and soccer matches? the govt have told people who will foot the overrun but noone can remember and labor cant repeat when asked again?

[MAY-Z]

Why vote no???. if the vote is no the Government will take over the project and it will happen anyway. just vote yes so it happens quicker

good point. imagine how long this will draaaaaag on with a "No Vote" this thread will become 100 pages and we would have got nowhere . Move forward, not sideways

You guys should research some basic facts before posting. Even Mike Rann admitted on Friday that he doesn't have the numbers to get it through parliament.
You are entitled to your opinion that this could possibly happen some time in the future, but to state this as a fact is incredibly fanciful.

exactly and the greens have said that they wont support any compulsory acquisitions or such like

[MAY-Z]

The SANFL is getting and advatage out of this. The latest projections were that it would equate to $16million per year.

the SACA are contributing over $100million in structured assets that the SANFL get to use.

It's only an advantage if the SACA don't get an uplift in yearly profit from this deal. But they do. $18m isn't it?

The SACA are contributing no money whatsoever. This argument that they are contributing assets to the deal is spin from Greg Howe's website. These assets have no value to the SACA unless they are attached to and used with the Oval. They still get the same use from the assets for the cricket season as they do now. They don't lose the right to use them. All that happens is that the SANFL will use them in winter. The SACA are also freed from maintaining the oval during cricket's off-season.
.

I think you have answered your own question here - if the assets contributed have no value whay do the SANFL want to use them? of course the assets are going to be built at the oval- why would they build them anywhere else?

if these assets dont have value contributed to the project i presume the government will have no issue if the stand gets knocked down and needs to be rebuilt.

[Hondo]

I think you have answered your own question here - if the assets contributed have no value whay do the SANFL want to use them? of course the assets are going to be built at the oval- why would they build them anywhere else?

if these assets dont have value contributed to the project i presume the government will have no issue if the stand gets knocked down and needs to be rebuilt.

You're spinning too hard you are a blur to me

Don't get hung up on the "contribution" of assets to a project. It's Greg Howe non-sensical spin.

Ask yourself how much money the SACA are putting in. Or, rather, how much are they getting back. The SACA still get to use the stands as they do now, don't they?

How much will the SACA get for a stand if they posted it on Ebay with the condition the purchaser had to come and pick it up?

Can you ask me your last question another way? I don't understand your point. I am not taking the p***. Why is the stand getting knocked down?

[MAY-Z]

I think you have answered your own question here - if the assets contributed have no value whay do the SANFL want to use them? of course the assets are going to be built at the oval- why would they build them anywhere else?

if these assets dont have value contributed to the project i presume the government will have no issue if the stand gets knocked down and needs to be rebuilt.

You're spinning too hard you are a blur to me

Don't get hung up on the "contribution" of assets to a project. It's Greg Howe non-sensical spin.

Ask yourself how much money the SACA are putting in. Or, rather, how much are they getting back. The SACA still get to use the stands as they do now, don't they?

How much will the SACA get for a stand if they posted it on Ebay with the condition the purchaser had to come and pick it up?

Can you ask me your last question another way? I don't understand your point. I am not taking the p***. Why is the stand getting knocked down?

sigh the only thing that is non-sensical is your continual denial that the grandstand has a value, of course it has a value as it is at adelaide oval as that is where it needs to be

the grandstand isnt getting knocked down but, if as you say it has no value i presume there would be no cost to rebuild it