Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Bulls forever]

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.

Pipers, do your research, do you even known who Creagh O'Connor is, doesn't have to be on the Board, when you look this up 4 - 4.

[smac]

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.

Yes, a former CA Chairman is certainly an unaligned person. There is challenging the SACA position and there is being obstreperous.

This is my final post of the thread as your mind is made up, as it was before your commencement of the thread.

Looking forward to reading your future posts, particularly your post in response to the information session you attend and the answers you receive to your questions.

[dedja]

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.

It's a blatant conspiracy ... better call the FBI.

[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?

9???

I waited 10!

Day after I was born my name went down, got it when I was 9, technically my tenth year

[redandblack]

pipers, I have to say your knowledge of the makeup of the SMA Board has not been good.

[Aerie]

The only reason I could imagine SACA members voting NO is if they think that amount of money shouldn't be spent on a sports stadium.

Now that the big western stand has been built the Bradman and Chappell Stands are in need of a complete makeover if talking appearance. The Bradman Stand looked magnificent when built next to the original members, but just looks odd now and the Chappell Stands are only marginally better than the temporary stands they had built there.

I think the plans are good and hope they go ahead. Will also be good to have more funding for local cricket.

[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.

Pipers, do your research, do you even known who Creagh O'Connor is, doesn't have to be on the Board, when you look this up 4 - 4.

No need to "do my research" - I know who he is. My point is that seemingly this "shared" SACA/SANFL management of the oval via the directors of the SMA is not guaranteed. This has been one of my main questions all along. How are the SMA appointments made, and what assurances are there that the views of SACA (and the SANFL) will be represented by those appointees into the future.

Fact is that the eight current members of the SMA are not there by dint of their current (or prior) representation on the board of either the SACA or the SANFL. They are acting as individuals. As such my question of accountabilty of the SMA directors to the membership of either SACA or SANFL is answered. There is none!

this is what makes me laugh about this whole situation. Someone posted that the fate of this proposal should not rest in the hands of the 18,000 or so SACA members, as it was an issue for all South Australians. Yet, seemingly some are happy to see this decision making rest totally with 8 individuals, who are answerable to no-one.

How can this concentration of power be anything but bad?

[pipers]

Yes, a former CA Chairman is certainly an unaligned person.

Yep, certainly is.

This is my final post of the thread as your mind is made up, as it was before your commencement of the thread.

And what information have I received that may have made me reconsider my position? Absolutely none. My doubts about the structure and operations of the SMA have pretty much been confirmed.

Looking forward to reading your future posts, particularly your post in response to the information session you attend and the answers you receive to your questions.

Don't hold your breath. I seriously doubt I will receive a satisfactory answer to my question - being "why would SACA members vote to effectively transfer the management of the facility from our elected board, to a group of individuals who have no accountability to the members of the SACA?"

I just makes no sense. I think in South Park this was referred to as the "Chewbacca Defence"

[pipers]

pipers, I have to say your knowledge of the makeup of the SMA Board has not been good.

I acknowledge that aside from Whicker and MacLachlan I did not know who the other members were until you posted their names. However I do know who each of them are. But what I do not know is a) on what basis they were appointed, b) on what basis and by whom they can be replaced, and c) to whom they are answerable?

There is seriously next to **** all information about this available anywhere.

Conspiracy? Well, I wouldn't go that far, but pretty dumb if you're trying to get SACA members to vote YES.

[smac]

I just makes no sense.

Sorry, one more post, just to quote that typo. Many thanks.

[pipers]

This is my final post of the thread as your mind is made up, as it was before your commencement of the thread.

Run out of answers form the glossy brochure have we?

For someone apparently so close to the action you are falling disappointingly short of providing any meaningful answers to what are legitimate and reasonable questions.

Harnden, Snelling and now smac... what a poor state of affairs...

[pipers]

I just makes no sense.

Sorry, one more post, just to quote that typo. Many thanks.

Happy to oblige.

[pipers]

The only reason I could imagine SACA members voting NO is if they think that amount of money shouldn't be spent on a sports stadium.

It is a lot of money, but I'm not voting to spend $535M. None of us are.

We are being asked to vote to change the SACA constitution to allow the SACA board to enter into a lease/licence agreement with another party and thereby have this other party manage the facility.

This other party might be the SMA. It might not.

This other party might enter into an arrangement with the SA Govt to fund the construction of new stands and "precinct". It might not.

In short, this whole project might fail irrespective of the SACA vote being Yes.

We are NOT voting for or against the development!!! We are voting on changes to a constitution. I don't like what potentially could arise from those changes (not specifically this development, though it is fair to say I do not believe the justification for it exists), but rather the fact that the changes put the future management and use of thefacility in the hands of a group of 8 individuals who seemingly have no accountability, other than in performing their duties as directors of the SMA. Duties which may be in conflict with the objectives/aims of the bodies which they supposedly represent.

[Hondo]

We are NOT voting for or against the development!!! We are voting on changes to a constitution. I don't like what potentially could arise from those changes (not specifically this development, though it is fair to say I do not believe the justification for it exists), but rather the fact that the changes put the future management and use of thefacility in the hands of a group of 8 individuals who seemingly have no accountability, other than in performing their duties as directors of the SMA. Duties which may be in conflict with the objectives/aims of the bodies which they supposedly represent.

It seems there is a Plan B and it will alleviate your concerns. Redevelopment goes ahead / SACA lease AO to football for half the year. For this to proceed, the SACA and the Govt only need to see "strong support" for the redevelopment, not necessarially 75% of voting memebers.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/saca-cons ... 6040288591

Secondly, maybe you are voting on the grounds you say but you only need to read internet comments including on SAFooty that some SACA members ARE voting against the redevelopment regardless of whether control passes to the SMA.

[redandblack]

pipers, smac is correct that you made up your mind long ago. You admit you didn't know who was on the SMA, but you now say they aren't accountable.

Well, it's a joint venture between the SACA and the SANFL, with 4 members appointed by the SACA and 4 by the SANFL. I don't know how any other structure would be better or fairer than that and it's a structure that is successfully used throughout the world. Your difficulty is that those advocating a No vote allege all sorts of bad motives to those your members have voted to represent them, you put weight on statements by the State Liberals but ignore statements by John Howard and Alexander Downer and your argument relies in part on your fellow No voters deciding that they should usurp the Stte Treasury and Government in deciding where the State's funds should be spent, all the while ignoring the wishes of the wider community.

Whatever argument of yours is shot down, you'll always have another argument to take its place, so we'll just have to let the process take place and see what happens.

I hope if a 75% vote isn't achieved, another process will allow the development to take place, as Hondo refers to.

[MAY-Z]

would this be to appease the massive crowd of 33,00 that turn up to watch both teams play each other?

what a pathetic performance from the afl brigade who are saying they can continually get 50,000 if the game is played a few kilometres away

it was interesting hearing a couple of peole who i didnt know discuss the development last night and they were both very against it beacuse they said it would only be a couple of years before people say we cant go to adelaide oval becuase there is no roof.

basically sa afl followers continually find excuses not to support their teams as have been evidenced by articles by dale lewis, warren tredrea and chris mcdermott in the last week. also highlighting that attendances and tv ratings are dropping in sa - the only state in australia where that is the case

[MAY-Z]

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.

Yes, a former CA Chairman is certainly an unaligned person. There is challenging the SACA position and there is being obstreperous.

This is my final post of the thread as your mind is made up, as it was before your commencement of the thread.

Looking forward to reading your future posts, particularly your post in response to the information session you attend and the answers you receive to your questions.

an article on the SMA is here

http://www.kryztoff.com/RAW/?p=2770

[heater31]

basically sa afl followers continually find excuses not to support their teams as have been evidenced by articles by dale lewis, warren tredrea and chris mcdermott in the last week. also highlighting that attendances and tv ratings are dropping in sa - the only state in australia where that is the case

and the SANFL is increasing.....

[Bulls forever]

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.

Yes, a former CA Chairman is certainly an unaligned person. There is challenging the SACA position and there is being obstreperous.

This is my final post of the thread as your mind is made up, as it was before your commencement of the thread.

I'm with you SMAC, pretty sick of reading Pipers and Mayz view of this all, already voted anyway, but I must say I am pretty confident of success, even though we need 75%, could not imagine anyone after reading all these conspiracy theories actually believing them. Plus with Plan B now in place and leasing the oval to SANFL, they are wasting their time. Go you good thing.

[whufc]

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.

Yes, a former CA Chairman is certainly an unaligned person. There is challenging the SACA position and there is being obstreperous.

This is my final post of the thread as your mind is made up, as it was before your commencement of the thread.

I'm with you SMAC, pretty sick of reading Pipers and Mayz view of this all, already voted anyway, but I must say I am pretty confident of success, even though we need 75%, could not imagine anyone after reading all these conspiracy theories actually believing them. Plus with Plan B now in place and leasing the oval to SANFL, they are wasting their time. Go you good thing.

I think the re-development may go ahead but im pretty certain there wont be a 75% yes vote,

just having a look on the SAFooty poll and its 12-9 for the NO Vote from people who are members. From all my mates who are SACA members and not on SAFooty which is about 15 of them there 13-2 for the NO Vote.

obviously we wont know until the votes are cast but i think it will be about a 50-50 vote.