Reasons to Vote "NO"

[RustyCage]

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.

With the new change rooms in the members stand, is this still an issue?

[ca]

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...

I dont care what age you are this will not happen in your lifetime, we will be left with two ordinary stadiums. I vote Liberal and always have but not even I think this could happen under a liberal government.

[smac]

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...

I dont care what age you are this will not happen in your lifetime, we will be left with two ordinary stadiums. I vote Liberal and always have but not even I think this could happen under a liberal government.

And if it did, I'm sure the SACA members would be pleased about voting NO and then losing all international cricket!

[am Bays]

And if it did, I'm sure the SACA members would be pleased about voting NO and then losing all international cricket!

We will not lose international cricket. CA has contracts with TV for at least 35 days of international cricket. CA needs that money. We will always have international cricket at the Adelaide oval, irrespective of this decision.

If we lose international cricket (only possible if their is a decrease in international cricket played in Aust) cricket in this country is in HUGE trouble.

We have been relegated to fourth ranked test to appease TV, with the contracted test schedule TV stations don't have time to get the broadcast infrastructure from brisbane to perth in time. Hence it is now Brisbane, Adel and then Perth.

nothing to do with stadium size.

That is what is so frustrating about this debate the amount of mis-information by both sides but in particular from the SACA and news ltd.

[smac]

And if it did, I'm sure the SACA members would be pleased about voting NO and then losing all international cricket!

We will not lose international cricket. CA has contracts with TV for at least 35 days of international cricket. CA needs that money. We will always have international cricket at the Adelaide oval, irrespective of this decision.

If we lose international cricket (only possible if their is a decrease in international cricket played in Aust) cricket in this country is in HUGE trouble.

We have been relegated to fourth ranked test to appease TV, with the contracted test schedule TV stations don't have time to get the broadcast infrastructure from brisbane to perth in time. Hence it is now Brisbane, Adel and then Perth.

nothing to do with stadium size.

That is what is so frustrating about this debate the amount of mis-information by both sides but in particular from the SACA and news ltd.

I was linking to the point made by a previous poster, which was a shift of international cricket to a newly constructed stadium in Adelaide. Makes no difference to CA, because I am sure TV cameras will be able to get into a new stadium.

[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...

I dont care what age you are this will not happen in your lifetime, we will be left with two ordinary stadiums. I vote Liberal and always have but not even I think this could happen under a liberal government.

Maybe you are correct, just throwing it out there... Sometimes you progress to keep up or risk being left behind. Adelaide will never lose a test or big cricket matches, but maybe AO will if a new stadium is better suited, better facilities and more viable for CA to utilise.

[pipers]

I'd argue that your analogy is (still) flawed. If you had a group of representatives elected to act in the interests of the rest of the tenants then the situation changes completely, doesn't it?

Not if those representatives also have to act in the interests of the SMA. Which in this case, due to their role as SMA directors, the 8 members of the SMA are duty bound to do. When acting as SMA directors, they must consider what is in the interests of the SMA first and foremost. Otherwise they are failing in the directorial duties and could well be punished by ASIC.

So, when a dispute arises, over say the use of the premises on any given day then how are these individuals going to deal with the potential conflict...?

eg. Let's say SANFL grand-final day also happens to be on the preferred date for Pink or AC/DC to play a gig in Adelaide. Now, the SANFL grandfinal might be woth reasonable money, however I'd sugest that a world-class rock gig might provide more return... So how does Mr Whicker or Mr Payze or the other SANFL "appointed" SMA directors make their decision...???

Do they stand up for the rights of football, but in doing so run the risk of being prosecuted for failing to perform their directorial duties appropriately, or do they act in the best interests of the SMA, thereby leaving the body that "appointed" them to the SMA out in the cold.

This is the type of conflict that I was suspicious of that as I am finding more and more out about the SMA I believe will end up (sooner, rather than later) with an untenable conflict of either the four SACA or 4 SANFL reps on the SMA.

Mate, given my line of work I know a lot about poorly designed governance structures and the potential conflicts that can arise from them.

From what I know of the SMAs "constitution" the potential for conflict of this, or even greater this magnitude is very, very likely - inevitable even.

[pipers]

This vote does not allow for the formalisation of the SMA at all. That could happend today - totally independant of the vote. The vote simply allows SACA to engage with another party, or as part of a JV, in regards to the management of the facility. It just so happens that the entity in the frame at the moment is the SMA, which does exist... What is lacking, as you suggest is a formalisation of this entity and its charter, rules of association, whatever... but this is NOT dependant on the vote. Give me details of the legal, operational and financial structures of the SMA and I might be more prepared to give up this control.

We’ll agree to disagree on that point then.

If you wish...

But if you are correct (which you aren't) then the whole basis of this vote has been misrepresented. Not just in the media, but also in the information (including marked-up changes to the constitution) provided to SACA members.

[pipers]

Pure speculation. The financial benefits (which I have now read to be $18M over TWO years) are based on a whole heap of income projections which are becoming more and more questionable with every passing day...

If you read anywhere previously that it was $18M over anything but two years then I apologise for your dyslexia. This figure is the amount saved in interest payments on the current debt and not speculation at all.

What about the dyslexia (deliberate misrepresentaion?) by the people putting the material together and/or reporting on it...? Why the **** would you express the interest savings over a two-year period???

So, it is $9M a year in interest savings? Is that correct? Can you confirm, please?

Again, why the **** would you express an interest saving over a 24 month period - unless you are Harvey Norman!

[pipers]

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?

Consortium?

guffaw!

[pipers]

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?

9???

I waited 10!

And I used to get up before i went to bed, lick road, and lived in a matchbox... (apologies to Palin/Idle/Chapman)

[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.

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?

You are in fantasy land (still), if you think that labor will come back with same answers as Mr Evans. Great work again by the Libs in their Hospital costings this week, led by Mr Evans untouchable statements in Parliament, forgot to wake the rest of his mob before he made the statements. And you are believing what they say. I am a swinging voter, but seriously this liberal government has gone from email disasters to continous other disasters and you choose to believe what they tell you. Tells me where you and Pipers sit in the scheme of SA - vote Liberal.

[Bulls forever]

Well, we've now lost the Rugby Sevens tournament, I wonder if that loss of millions of dollars of revenue was written into their estimate?

Wedgie, I think I would look at the financials before saying this is a financial loss. Not a big follower myself, but SACA members got free access to outer on Saturday, so the 27k over two days would be reduced a bit. Not sure 25k paying people would cover the cost of putting the event on, once again i don't know, but probably look at the tourism and exposure that it gives Adelaide is the loss, not the actual financial side of putting the event on.

[Bulls forever]

It was also revealed in Indaily today that the costs of this campaign, printing, country trips etc, are being met by the State Government through its $10m grant to the SMA to further advance the proposal. Just why the taxpayers are paying the SACA to do their dirty work is not clear. We don’t see the Minister or Premier attending and spruiking it. Nor for that matter SANFL bosses (other than in their puff pieces in the Advertiser) nor the AFL.

$10M spent, yet they chose not to use any of that on drafting a terms of reference or charter for the SMA, or some draft lease/licence agreements between the SMA and the SACA/SANFL.

On that second point, I have found it odd that it has only been SACA members who seem concerned about getting formally documented assurances about the ongoing access of cricket to the oval. I'd have thought that the SANFL members would be equally concerned about the nature of these lease arrangements with the SMA to ensure that their use of the facility is also assured.

There was a letter in Wednesday's Tiser from a Crows supporter expressing concern about the potential that a move to the oval might result in less seats for Crows fans (due to 5,000, or possibly more, Super AO memberships being made available to SACA members).

That is the first time I have seen anyone from the football side express this sort of concern. Which is exactly the same as one of our concerns.

Basically, the problem is that two does not go into one!

You continue to raise arguements that basic commonsense will tell you the answer. Firstly cricket has for period, footy has for period, the two entities fit their requirements into their period, then if vacancies, they open up for other membership - not hard really. Based on your arguments, it amazes me how all the footy and cricket clubs survive together and have been for longer than living memory. Sure some have tension, but mostly governed by a Sporting Club, gee sounds like the current proposal and guess what it works in all clubs I have been involved with. Smaller picture - same argument.

[redandblack]

Whatever the arguments for and against, I just hope we don't lose the opportunity to walk from the City to a new stadium at AO.

It's a one-off chance to have something great, IMO.

[Ecky]

Tells me where you and Pipers sit in the scheme of SA - vote Liberal.

I don't think Pipers will agree with you on that one!

[MAY-Z]

You are in fantasy land (still), if you think that labor will come back with same answers as Mr Evans. Great work again by the Libs in their Hospital costings this week, led by Mr Evans untouchable statements in Parliament, forgot to wake the rest of his mob before he made the statements. And you are believing what they say. I am a swinging voter, but seriously this liberal government has gone from email disasters to continous other disasters and you choose to believe what they tell you. Tells me where you and Pipers sit in the scheme of SA - vote Liberal.

well will still dont have any other views to go on. the questions were also sent by a forum user to a labor politician and surprise suprise no answer

and if you want government incompetance on this issue go and get a transcript of the treasurer snellings interview on abc on friday morning. he has no idea about the costings and budget impact again said the the government will not spend more than $535m so again i ask who will pay if there is a budget overrun?

further more when it comes to lies go and read one of the articles linked by ecky a couple of days in which harden was caught out telling lies about the fact the western development came in on budget when it didnt.

[MAY-Z]

Well, we've now lost the Rugby Sevens tournament, I wonder if that loss of millions of dollars of revenue was written into their estimate?

Wedgie, I think I would look at the financials before saying this is a financial loss. Not a big follower myself, but SACA members got free access to outer on Saturday, so the 27k over two days would be reduced a bit. Not sure 25k paying people would cover the cost of putting the event on, once again i don't know, but probably look at the tourism and exposure that it gives Adelaide is the loss, not the actual financial side of putting the event on.

well if this is a finincial loss why were the current projections on the oval profitability based on a profit for this event?

either the budgets are wrong or you are.

[MAY-Z]

Pure speculation. The financial benefits (which I have now read to be $18M over TWO years) are based on a whole heap of income projections which are becoming more and more questionable with every passing day...

If you read anywhere previously that it was $18M over anything but two years then I apologise for your dyslexia. This figure is the amount saved in interest payments on the current debt and not speculation at all.

What about the dyslexia (deliberate misrepresentaion?) by the people putting the material together and/or reporting on it...? Why the **** would you express the interest savings over a two-year period???

So, it is $9M a year in interest savings? Is that correct? Can you confirm, please?

Again, why the **** would you express an interest saving over a 24 month period - unless you are Harvey Norman!

and considering the state governement has to borrow all the money for the project how much interest over 2 years will that cost teh state?

considering teh govt spend is probably around 600m, about 10% per year is what smac is saying will be saved so if we use that for the basis of the govt debt that will cost teh taxpayers an extra $120million on top of the capital outlay

[pipers]

Did I read above that Creagh O'Connor is one of the SACA reps?

He isn't even on the SACA board!

So the SMA is four SANFL reps, three SACA reps and one unaligned...

We haven't even voted and already the SACA influence on the future of the oval is reduced.