Reasons to Vote "NO"

[MAY-Z]

Ecky if it's a government funded project run by the government as part of a bigger $1.5b redevelopment of the riverfront area then why do you think the SACA would be responsible for an overrun?

I am not saying that won't be as I don't know for sure but what's the logic in the theory? Just because the Government publicly capped their contribution? They also publicly gave the SACA and the SANFL a deadline after which the deal was off and that was then extended by 1 year at least.

so you are now admitting that the government cant be trusted with anything tehy say re the project?

of their public capping of the development should be the main factor in saying that they wont provide anymore funds

also the fact that when john harnden was asked who would bear teh costs of overrun he said he didnt know - that gives no indication that this has been agreed to be taken on by the government

[Hondo]

Fair enough

I edited my post to add if you feel it's key to your vote why not ring/write to Pat Conlon's office as they are the ones putting up the money and letting the contract out.

I'd be surprised if it's their project and they overrun it that they would go cap in hand to the SACA. But let's see.

[MAY-Z]

Would the provider of the funds and the people that will let the contract out be the better ones to ask (ie, the State Govt)?

when asked by the australian for a comment re the project Pat Conlon said the government would not make any comment until after the vote

that is hardly going to inspire confidence for the voters

[smac]

I don't know either but that is why we have asked the SACA to clarify this!

And I'm sure that you and your consortium would take any opportunity to expediate the process of feedback, wouldn't you?

[Hondo]

so you are now admitting that the government cant be trusted with anything tehy say re the project?

of their public capping of the development should be the main factor in saying that they wont provide anymore funds

also the fact that when john harnden was asked who would bear teh costs of overrun he said he didnt know - that gives no indication that this has been agreed to be taken on by the government

No, I didn't say what you claim I said in the first sentence. You know I didn't.

It depends on what you call overruns. As we have discussed, whatever contract that will be signed will be a fixed price which can only be changed by variations contractually agreed to. If the Govt sign the contract with the contractor they will agree to pay whatever that fixed price is. So that's that. Contractually, the contractor takes the risk of the costs on the project meeting the budget. We covered this before. You claimed this could never happen and I said the company I work for contracts for fixed price work with the Govt all the time.

Then we come back to the original contract sum made up of the components that Iain Evans listed. I understand private investment and even the AFL will be contributing in part to the project so whether that's what you mean by on overrun I am not sure. Let's see what you guys find out. Ecky seems open minded on it. You seem less so.

[Hondo]

Would the provider of the funds and the people that will let the contract out be the better ones to ask (ie, the State Govt)?

when asked by the australian for a comment re the project Pat Conlon said the government would not make any comment until after the vote

that is hardly going to inspire confidence for the voters

Well, last week he responded to an email I sent him about the project

Try it

[Ecky]

Whatever happens, I reckon it will be interesting to "bump" this thread in 5 years time and see whether our concerns had any basis or not...

I reckon the most ironic (possible but unlikely) scenario would be if it all goes ahead and

- it all goes to budget so there is plenty of money for cricket that even makes its way down the tree to my little Adelaide Lutheran Cricket Club
- we are happy with our lower membership fees, new "precinct", and the old scoreboard and hill are still there and don't appear to be in any more danger

but the AFL fans who were so adamant that we vote "YES" are whinging as

- they have nowhere to park their cars as the ACC and the parklands mob blocked any new car park being built
- they have nowhere to play any preseason games as Footy Park has been knocked down
- they complain that SACA has too much say in the SMA and how all the SACA members have stolen their good seats on the wing and they have to stand on the hill in the rain for games
- the crowds don't improve and they keep losing money, but they are stuck with the situation as the government is broke and isn't going to spend any more money on stadiums, and they have lost the stadium they owned and just have this messy part-time lease


It is an interesting debate as there are so many possible scenarios and nobody really knows who are going to be the winners after all this...

[Ecky]

I don't know either but that is why we have asked the SACA to clarify this!

And I'm sure that you and your consortium would take any opportunity to expediate the process of feedback, wouldn't you?

We tried that by contacting a SACA employee directly who promised they would chase it up, but we have still received nothing.

[AFLflyer]

Whatever happens, I reckon it will be interesting to "bump" this thread in 5 years time and see whether our concerns had any basis or not...

I reckon the most ironic (possible but unlikely) scenario would be if it all goes ahead and

- it all goes to budget so there is plenty of money for cricket that even makes its way down the tree to my little Adelaide Lutheran Cricket Club
- we are happy with our lower membership fees, new "precinct", and the old scoreboard and hill are still there and don't appear to be in any more danger

but the AFL fans who were so adamant that we vote "YES" are whinging as

- they have nowhere to park their cars as the ACC and the parklands mob blocked any new car park being built
- they have nowhere to play any preseason games as Footy Park has been knocked down
- they complain that SACA has too much say in the SMA and how all the SACA members have stolen their good seats on the wing and they have to stand on the hill in the rain for games
- the crowds don't improve and they keep losing money, but they are stuck with the situation as the government is broke and isn't going to spend any more money on stadiums, and they have lost the stadium they owned and just have this messy part-time lease


It is an interesting debate as there are so many possible scenarios and nobody really knows who are going to be the winners after all this...

haha good post -
that's the thing though you SACA voters can't lose if it goes ahead but you can if it doesn't! financially being the biggest way! are you a definite NO Ecky?
I have 6 mates all around 30, who are definite YES, you just don't know what will happen yet. Have they ran any credible polls, they must have already?

[Hondo]

Ecky as per your crystal ball there's no doubt that there seems to be a love-hate relationship between footy and cricket at the MCG.

But, despite the AFL having their shiny new stadium with a roof up the road, the MCG remains the place where all the important cricket and footy games are played and it is a key part of Melbourne's CBD, used and enjoyed by the public all year round.

As pictureesque as our own AO is, IMO it simply isn't utilised to what it should be given it's prime, perfect CBD location. It's time.

[Pottsy]

I have 6 mates all around 30, who are definite YES, you just don't know what will happen yet. Have they ran any credible polls, they must have already?

I've got a couple of mates and family as members voting yes. The handful of people I've spoken to at work are all yes voters. I get the feeling there is a strong majority yes vote sitting around, and a vocal no. Mind you, the no needs to be vocal because all the official stuff is yes biased.

Whether a strong majority is 75% is another thing though, that is a very high percentage.

[Ecky]

haha good post -
that's the thing though you SACA voters can't lose if it goes ahead but you can if it doesn't! financially being the biggest way! are you a definite NO Ecky?
I have 6 mates all around 30, who are definite YES, you just don't know what will happen yet. Have they ran any credible polls, they must have already?

Look, I admit there is a possibility that myself, cricket and the Adelaide Oval will be a winner with a YES vote, but I have to weigh this up against the probability that this ultimate best case scenario won't happen

i.e.
- the financial projections are full of holes (we have already found many such holes...) so all this promised money and lower fees never eventuates
- cricket isn't as enjoyable at the oval as the stadium becomes too big and ugly, the car park issues affect us too, and eventually the SMA is pressured into building a new stand in front of the scoreboard and northern mound so that we can host a game in the 2030 World Cup or whatever
and all the other many, many valid concerns that have been raised over the past 29 pages and in other blogs, websites, letters to the Advertiser etc etc etc.............

When I first looked into this seriously, the negatives far outweighed the positives in my mind, and as I have researched this more, the negatives have just seemed to become stronger. So I can't see myself changing from a NO vote.

[AFLflyer]

Ecky as per your crystal ball there's no doubt that there seems to be a love-hate relationship between footy and cricket at the MCG.

But, despite the AFL having their shiny new stadium with a roof up the road, the MCG remains the place where all the important cricket and footy games are played and it is a key part of Melbourne's CBD, used and enjoyed by the public all year round.

As pictureesque as our own AO is, IMO it simply isn't utilised to what it should be given it's prime, perfect CBD location. It's time.

correct! It really depends what way you look at this development, as my SACA member mates say, this will only be a benefit for them. Their memberships will become more exclusive in coming years, and decades (just look at the MCG memberships)
also the stadium, atmosphere and surrounds will all add to their enjoyment of the precint. imagine day 1 of an ashes test with 50k fans.

[AFLflyer]

despite all the spin and so called facts written here, there is a bigger picture.

[AFLflyer]

I have 6 mates all around 30, who are definite YES, you just don't know what will happen yet. Have they ran any credible polls, they must have already?

I've got a couple of mates and family as members voting yes. The handful of people I've spoken to at work are all yes voters. I get the feeling there is a strong majority yes vote sitting around, and a vocal no. Mind you, the no needs to be vocal because all the official stuff is yes biased.

Whether a strong majority is 75% is another thing though, that is a very high percentage.

why does it have to be that high? It seems ridiculous, shouldn't it just be a standard majority vote? 75% is almost impossible in any scenario.

[Dutchy]

Their memberships will become more exclusive in coming years, and decades (just look at the MCG memberships)

How will it become more exclusive? Will the waiting list become as long as the 9 years I had to wait to get in?

[whufc]

Ecky as per your crystal ball there's no doubt that there seems to be a love-hate relationship between footy and cricket at the MCG.

But, despite the AFL having their shiny new stadium with a roof up the road, the MCG remains the place where all the important cricket and footy games are played and it is a key part of Melbourne's CBD, used and enjoyed by the public all year round.

As pictureesque as our own AO is, IMO it simply isn't utilised to what it should be given it's prime, perfect CBD location. It's time.

What would you use it for that it currently doesnt already have?

Port games could already be moved to AO the way it currently stands.

So simply it would be using it for 10-12 Crows home games a year.

[smac]

I don't know either but that is why we have asked the SACA to clarify this!

And I'm sure that you and your consortium would take any opportunity to expediate the process of feedback, wouldn't you?

We tried that by contacting a SACA employee directly who promised they would chase it up, but we have still received nothing.

And my mail suggests he is trying to help but is getting nothing from your consortium!

That could mean:

1. You don't want the answers to come as it is far more fun to complain about not getting them
or
2. You don't care what the answers are as your collective minds are made up

Additionally, while conspiracy theories abound... Is it true that the NO vote campaign 'spam marketed' SACA info sessions? Why was there nothing about the case for the proposal on their material or website? And you reckon SACA are hiding something? At least they have presented two sides.

[Hondo]

whufc

No, apparently AO is not currently AFL compliant even for Port games. I recall 2 problems as the change rooms and the location of the TV broadcasting areas (cameras and so).

So you've got to spend money just to get Port there. I don't know how much this would be. But then if you go half-half with Port games at AO and Crows at AAMI you still have 2 stadiums to maintain and the revenue sharing between the SACA and SANFL would become an issue so you'd just stay at AAMI. AAMI itself needs capital investment and so the debate loops around back to where we are now.

Fact is, footy won't go to AO for a few games here or there and a few games here or there don't create the cost savings from sharing one stadium. It's all or nothing.

[scoob]

What would happen if the development didnt go ahead, a purpose build, modern facility is completed... state of the art, accomodating Football, Cricket, Soccer and it becomes more viable to hold all large sporting events there - due to the larger capacity, better facilities - including cricket, ODI's, Ashes test etc. - at the end of the day money talks and SACA/CA are no different. AO ends up with some SANFL, the redbacks and a few smaller international games...