Reasons to Vote "NO"

[MAY-Z]

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.

you may be reading the vies but clearly you dont understand anything i have said

have you read the 15 questions i have asked?
have you read any of the articels that ecky and i have posted?
have you listened to the interview treasurer snelling gave?

how anyone can can have already committed to a yes vote with all those issues oustanding is just mind-boggling

also re plan b saca have said in all their info sessions there is no plan b and there wont be a plan b - just another lie it seems

[redandblack]

MAY-Z, that article would have to be the most one-sided view of a constitution I've read for a long time.

The same comments could be said about nearly any company constitution.

Dare I say it, but it looks like a lot of spin to me.

[MAY-Z]

MAY-Z, that article would have to be the most one-sided view of a constitution I've read for a long time.

The same comments could be said about nearly any company constitution.

Dare I say it, but it looks like a lot of spin to me.

how many views of constitutiions do you read?

typical response form the yes brigade though - just dismiss the issues without providing any actual facts and reasons

what about teh other articles on that site? what about snelling?

[redandblack]

Well, I have read many company constitutions and given advice about them, so no need to attack, mate.

[MAY-Z]

Well, I have read many company constitutions and given advice about them, so no need to attack, mate.

i asked it with a question mark as i wanted to know

but again no facts from any issues

[MAY-Z]

and this seems to be in direct opposition to smac's statements earlier that no individuals would benefit financially form the deal going through

Still, for dealing with these matters, all directors may be well remunerated. The constitution provides for not only payment for services but the amount of such payments will be guided by such organisations as the Australian Institute of Company Directors. In the general business community, directors’ fees for managing an organisation with assets of around $500m may well be between $20,000 and $100,000 each. (It is to be noted that at least to 30 June 2010, no director had received any payments.)

This is unlike the current position for example on the SACA board where no payments (other than to reimburse expenses) are made.

What’s more, the amounts shall be ultimately determined by the directors of the SMA themselves.

[redandblack]

That's exactly what I meant, MAY-Z.

It's normal for such a constitution to allow for directors' remuneration, so the article quotes 'the general business' community and says they might get up to $100,000 each. ie: $800,000 as a group. $800,000!!!

Note that the facts you're keen on are in brackets as an afterthought.

"as at 30th June, 2010, NO DIRECTOR HAD RECEIVED ANY PAYMENTS."

You can have the last word, I'm joining those who don't see any point in going any further, so I'll just wait for the vote too.

[MAY-Z]

just an opinion i found from people who asre living in the country

http://www.borderwatch.com.au/archives/9045

[Dutchy]

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.

Whats John Howard and Downer got to do with the State libs?

[MAY-Z]

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.

Whats John Howard and Downer got to do with the State libs?

especially when they are only giving opinions, not reporting facts that had been presented to parliament

[Ecky]

11 days and still no response from the SACA to the two questions I emailed them.

[Ecky]

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.

You love to stir, don't you Bulls...!

So if this plan B is in place of leasing the oval to the SANFL, then surely it makes sense for all SACA members to vote no, as then the SACA doesn't give up control of the Oval but presumably the development will still go ahead with the government money and all the other perks.
So if you believe Mr Bulls..., then you are an idiot to vote yes!

[Hondo]

Whats John Howard and Downer got to do with the State libs?

especially when they are only giving opinions, not reporting facts that had been presented to parliament

Is that like their opinions about the RAH costs?

If we emailed Iain Evans, opposition treasury spokesman, about the RAH costings will he reply as quickly as he did about the AO?

He says we are selling forests to pay for the AO upgrade. Do we take him at his word?

[Hondo]

Ecky, would you be for the development if the SACA didn't have to give up control of the Oval?

Giving up control of the ground seemed to be Greg Howe's main issue when I heard him interviewed.

Then all these public interest / I am now the state treasurer arguments came up about the $535m. I wonder if control of the ground wasn't lost whether a most SACA members would take the money and run and let the Government balance up their own books?

[Ecky]

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.

I don't understand why it is so bad for us to
1) Question the board members decisions. Just like members of parliament (quite rightly) come under public scrutiny, even though they were elected too.
2) Consider the state's finances when making our decision. Shouldn't we be applauded for looking at the bigger picture and the impact of this on all taxpayers rather than just thinking selfishly about what would benefit us - remember we are being promised lower membership fees with the proposal!

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.

Isn't that a sign that there are many, many good arguments both for and against the proposal? Can't you acknowledge this?

[Ecky]

Ecky, would you be for the development if the SACA didn't have to give up control of the Oval?

Giving up control of the ground seemed to be Greg Howe's main issue when I heard him interviewed.

Then all these public interest / I am now the state treasurer arguments came up about the $535m. I wonder if control of the ground wasn't lost whether a most SACA members would take the money and run and let the Government balance up their own books?

If the SACA didn't have to give up control of the oval, then there would be no need for this vote, so my opinion wouldn't count. But I would still be very reluctant to see the development go ahead, as I am happy with the oval as it is now, the capacity is large enough for any cricket game, and the more new stands are built, the more the character of the oval comes under threat, and the atmosphere at SANFL games and cricket games with lower crowds becomes worse. So it would then come down to the money issue and whether this government handout can be justified, and whether the benefits it would give cricket outweigh the negatives, which I still have my doubts about.

[Aerie]

But I would still be very reluctant to see the development go ahead, as I am happy with the oval as it is now, the capacity is large enough for any cricket game, and the more new stands are built, the more the character of the oval comes under threat, and the atmosphere at SANFL games and cricket games with lower crowds becomes worse.

I'm surprised at this. I would have thought that the character of the Oval was knocked down with the old members stand. Given that the new plans will keep the northern mound with scoreboard and moreton bay figs - does the Chappell Stands, Bradman Stand and Clem Hill Stand hold enough character? I'd suggest no, and would go as far as saying I think those stands now look quite unattractive with the Western Stand in place. Particularly when you're in the outer looking in as opposed to up in the Members. Unfortunately as it is now a small crowd (as witnessed last Fri night) has a poor atmosphere, unlike before the stand was built where you could have no one there and it looked a picture.

Adelaide Oval has history and should be the place where generations to come witness our state's great sporting moments. That's only going to happen if this redevelopment goes ahead. But please, no more blue seats.

[scoob]

Ecky, would you be for the development if the SACA didn't have to give up control of the Oval?

Giving up control of the ground seemed to be Greg Howe's main issue when I heard him interviewed.

Then all these public interest / I am now the state treasurer arguments came up about the $535m. I wonder if control of the ground wasn't lost whether a most SACA members would take the money and run and let the Government balance up their own books?

If the SACA didn't have to give up control of the oval, then there would be no need for this vote, so my opinion wouldn't count. But I would still be very reluctant to see the development go ahead, as I am happy with the oval as it is now, the capacity is large enough for any cricket game, and the more new stands are built, the more the character of the oval comes under threat, and the atmosphere at SANFL games and cricket games with lower crowds becomes worse. So it would then come down to the money issue and whether this government handout can be justified, and whether the benefits it would give cricket outweigh the negatives, which I still have my doubts about.

Except Ashes test and Australia day every year - you cannot move on the hill, takes 40mins + to get a drink etc. but being members you possibly don't get to experience this.

[Hondo]

How much character or beauty is there in those eastern stands?

It's many good things but I am not sure the AO is as picturesque in the cold hard light of day as it might have been 60 years ago and if SACA members force the SACA to upgrade one stand every 15 years as happens now will it ever catch up to what it could be?

[Ecky]

does the Chappell Stands, Bradman Stand and Clem Hill Stand hold enough character? I'd suggest no, and would go as far as saying I think those stands now look quite unattractive with the Western Stand in place.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on this, there is nothing special about any of them. The Bradman Stand was poorly designed and has very few seats in the shade.
But the southern grassed area will disappear (which nobody has mentioned yet) and the new stands will be larger than the existing ones, giving the ground more of a stadium feel and even less atmosphere at SANFL games, which doesn't appeal to me. Plus there will be more pressure in 10-20(?) years time to ditch the scoreboard and northern mounds if the development goes ahead, and a fully seated stadium is needed for World Cups etc.

Also, the footy crowd probably doesn't realise that the new Western Stand isn't perfect either. The roof doesn't extend out that far, so if the wind is blowing in any direction other than westerly (luckily that is the most common direction for Adelaide at least) a significant number of supposedly undercover seats will get wet. MayZ had a good whinge about this on the site somewhere if someone can be bothered finding the quote.