Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Ecky]

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.

Point taken, I should have said that the capacity is large enough for almost all cricket games, I thought about that after I wrote it. I don't believe that the 1-2 days a year that you might be able to get more people to attend is worth justifying the huge cost of increasing the capacity though, if you just look at it from a cricket point of view.

[MAY-Z]

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.

the chappell/clem hill stands dont invade teh picturesque scenery in teh same way that a copy of the western stand would and teh grass infront the clem hill looks good.

and the re has been continual pressure by various elements to get the govt to put something legally binding in about never replacing teh northern mound but they continually refuse and jut want people to take their word for it

found it and i didnt include issues re the length of time people took to get to a bar as i hardly ever drink at the cricket

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30601

[Hondo]

Ecky these are the reasons some of us are supportive of taking the Govt's investment grant and getting the stadium closer to what it should be while the money is on the table. When you dive into the detail what we have now isn't ideal and even cricket people acknowledge it's shortcomings. Granted, it won't be the same as it is now but, as I said, are those eastern stands anything other than a fair bit behind world class standard seating.

The MCG has been able to upgrade while still maintaining it's appeal and character. It's not what it was but it still has the history behind it that Ethiad lacks. Ethiad will be bulldozed in the next 20 years for a newer stadium. It's throwaway. The G will never be bulldozed.

[Hondo]

Point taken, I should have said that the capacity is large enough for almost all cricket games, I thought about that after I wrote it. I don't believe that the 1-2 days a year that you might be able to get more people to attend is worth justifying the huge cost of increasing the capacity though, if you just look at it from a cricket point of view.

If it can't even take the biggest cricket crowd (even if it's only 2 days per year) then it's ability to attact world class events is limited isn't it?

On the point about spending public money on stadiums, I think the Victorian Govt have kicked in over $100m to Kardinia Park over the last 5 or so years and I couldn't even guess what they have spent on the MCG. Sporting stadiums need capital investment ongoing. If we don't do this now could we end up spending the same amount over the next 10 years on AAMI and AO anyway? I feel like you guys are delaying for the sake of delaying and hoping that the world will stop turning and your cricket ground will stay as it is forever.

[MAY-Z]

Point taken, I should have said that the capacity is large enough for almost all cricket games, I thought about that after I wrote it. I don't believe that the 1-2 days a year that you might be able to get more people to attend is worth justifying the huge cost of increasing the capacity though, if you just look at it from a cricket point of view.

If it can't even take the biggest cricket crowd (even if it's only 2 days per year) then it's ability to attact world class events is limited isn't it?

On the point about spending public money on stadiums, I think the Victorian Govt have kicked in over $100m to Kardinia Park over the last 5 or so years and I couldn't even guess what they have spent on the MCG. Sporting stadiums need capital investment ongoing. If we don't do this now could we end up spending the same amount over the next 10 years on AAMI and AO anyway? I feel like you guys are delaying for the sake of delaying and hoping that the world will stop turning and your cricket ground will stay as it is forever.

MCG cant take teh biggest crowd it wants either, plenty of events sell out there, ANZAC day tickets were sold out about a month ago
grand finals always sell out, boxing day sells out regularly

you seem to want to keep spending and hope that SA suddenly gets a couple of billion dollars out of nowhere to bail us out

[MAY-Z]

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?

do you have any idea about finances?
the RAH issue was a debate against capital investment vs. repayments - teh hospital will cost around 1.7billion to build, as teh money is borrowed by teh time it is all repaid the amount will be about 2.7billion.

he hasnt said we are selling the forests to pay for the oval - we are selling them to keep our credit rating repsectable right now - not to do finance future spending

teh same issue of capital vs repayments in evidenced here, 535m + precint in cpaital will probably get up to around a billion with repayments

just look at a home loan, you take out a loan for 300k, buy the house for 300k, you dont spend 300k in repayments you will spend a stack more

[Hondo]

MCG cant take teh biggest crowd it wants either, plenty of events sell out there, ANZAC day tickets were sold out about a month ago
grand finals always sell out, boxing day sells out regularly

you seem to want to keep spending and hope that SA suddenly gets a couple of billion dollars out of nowhere to bail us out

It can take 3 x the crowd that the AO can.

You think stopping this particular stadium investment saves the state money. It does for 2011 and 2012. But I challenge you to think about what it will then need to spend on upgrades needed at both AO and AAMI over the next 10 years. I am not sure you will care as much about these later public capital works so long as this current proposal is knocked over? We'll have more piece meal upgrades with stands that don't match one another and it will never be done right unless we have a new stadium at 2 or maybe even 3 X the price and then we are back to the same arguments on spending public money.

As I said before, this spend is about 2% of the State's revenue over a 2 year build. Why will that send us broke as you suggest it will?

[Hondo]

do you have any idea about finances?

If you knew what I did for a living you wouldn't ask me that

Have you looked the state treasury documents I provided a link in here for Heater?

Besides, was the RAH debate about interest costs or running costs (in particular, electricity and who will pay for it)?\. Anyway, lets not sidetrack onto a RAH cost debate otherwise our discussion will become more obviously a political one than it is now.

[heater31]

do you have any idea about finances?

If you knew what I did for a living you wouldn't ask me that

Have you looked the state treasury documents I provided a link in here for Heater?

Besides, was the RAH debate about interest costs or running costs (in particular, electricity and who will pay for it)?\. Anyway, lets not sidetrack onto a RAH cost debate otherwise our discussion will become more obviously a political one than it is now.

back up for a second here. I found out yesterday that another major project is throwing money around like there is no tomorrow. South Rd super way is progressing at a great rate of knots that the design team can't keep up and designs are not being checked properly because there is no time. One would suspect that the Seaford Rail line is in a similar boat plus they have had the unforeseen circumstances of uncovering aboriginal remains which halt progress even more whilst the correct protocols are followed.


The State Finances are in serious trouble, It now makes perfect sense that they are trying to offload the Forestry assets for the next 100 years??? They need the cash The health budget is being slashed to bits to find extra cash that can go elsewhere.


Quite simply State finances are one of the major reasons why I will be voting No. We can't afford the costs. I have sent a list of the State Government relevant questions that may-z posted on here last week to my local labor MP. It has been nearly 5 working days since I emailed them and up to this point not even an acknowledgement that they have received my email and will respond in due course.

[pipers]

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.

For the umpteenth time, none of us voted for these people to represent SACA on the SMA. We voted for them to represent SACA via the SACA Board, which has a constitution that we are familiar and comfortable with. Regardless of who is appointed to the SMA, I have concerns about its governance structure, and am still no clearer on how an appointee can be replaced.

Secondly I have attributed no weight to any statements made by the State Liberals. Cleary Evans has an agenda, being as he is a member of The Opposition - Labor have an agenda too, and that is pretty damn evident... And despite claims to the contrary about my political alleigances, I only have the 1993 state election to admit to in respect to voting Liberal.

Thirdly, the crux of my argument has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the Treasurer is correct in making these funds available for this project. Though I do wonder about the wisdom in using so much money for a bit of window-dressing...

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 have one argument, and I'm yet to see it shot down.

[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.

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.

Far more comfortable with Plan B, don't worry about that...

But still voting no.

Otherwise, it is Plan A...

[pipers]

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?

Exactly. I ignore statements by Howard as a matter of course.

[pipers]

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?

I know I would.

The economy is **** anyway, so we may as well get a new stand and some precint vibe...

[Hondo]

This is just an observation and not a loaded criticism but it's interesting to see that the crux issue for voting no is so different for some of the main NO vote protaganists on here (Pipers - SMA control, Heater - state finances and Ecky - leave the oval as it is). May-Z I think has 5 crux issues (mate, I am just stirring you here).

It's one of the reasons I find this issue so intriguing.

@Heater - it feels like you have a lot of dots on a page and you are connecting them into the picture you were looking for before you started. I think we'd need to dive into the detail of treasury or other econcomic data rather than taking the word from your insider in major projects or wherever he or she is.

[pipers]

But please, no more blue seats.

Best statement on this whole thread.

[Hondo]

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?

I know I would.

The economy is **** anyway, so we may as well get a new stand and some precint vibe...

I wonder what the vote would have been had the issue of the control of the AO not been on the table? Greg Howe's opening shot in the earlier days was this issue. Even he admitted a lot of the other issues were sideline ones from his point of view.

His NO vote site then became (IMO) a jumble of other issues and his main point has been lost in all the noise. I think his main point is your main point. However I think he is happy to support the production of the other noise as it helps his cause.

[pipers]

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.

Point taken, I should have said that the capacity is large enough for almost all cricket games, I thought about that after I wrote it. I don't believe that the 1-2 days a year that you might be able to get more people to attend is worth justifying the huge cost of increasing the capacity though, if you just look at it from a cricket point of view.

You still need to have a realistic chance of reaching a "sell out".

If demand exceeds supply you create a market.

If supply exceeds demand you create a glut.

Look at the Power. No-one is a chance of missing out on tickets, no-one has to book in advance, so unless the weather is perfect or it is a block-buster then a certan % of the potential crowd simply don't turn up. If fans had to book in advance then, firstly they have paid their coin, and also are more likely to turn up, given they have already paid.

[heater31]

@Heater - it feels like you have a lot of dots on a page and you are connecting them into the picture you were looking for before you started. I think we'd need to dive into the detail of treasury or other econcomic data rather than taking the word from your insider in major projects or wherever he or she is.

Well if the government is cutting services left right and centre and selling assets like there is no tomorrow what does that tell you???? State Treasurer is on record that if the AO does not go ahead it makes his job much easier. When a project is rumoured to be 500 million plus over budget it does not sit very easy with me as where do we get that kind of cash???

So if the rumours are true that the RAH is 500 million short and the Government wants to spend another 500 million on a sports Stadium, throw in a maybe 200 million for the other projects on the go over running costs there is almost the entire budget for the original RAH cost again on top of the Election promise......


I have other reservations about the proposal as well in regards to SACA members rights which have been well covered by others here.


If it makes you feel any better I also know someone with far better access to treasury data than I have as he is involved with some of these major projects as he works for the DTEI and he is all for this development But I'm still not convinced that the cash is there.

[Hondo]

Heater, governments are always cutting services and raising taxes though aren't they?

There's a very public union campaign going on about the cuts to LSL perks previously enjoyed by public servants which isn't helping public perceptions of a crisis.

When I looked at the treasury papers available online I didn't feel the same sense of alarm you seem to feel.

As a % of revenue compared to someone earning $75,000 this $535m is the same as that person spending $2,500 over two years. Now I know there's other capital works going on as well however they are spanning several years.

[whufc]

Point taken, I should have said that the capacity is large enough for almost all cricket games, I thought about that after I wrote it. I don't believe that the 1-2 days a year that you might be able to get more people to attend is worth justifying the huge cost of increasing the capacity though, if you just look at it from a cricket point of view.

If it can't even take the biggest cricket crowd (even if it's only 2 days per year) then it's ability to attact world class events is limited isn't it?

On the point about spending public money on stadiums, I think the Victorian Govt have kicked in over $100m to Kardinia Park over the last 5 or so years and I couldn't even guess what they have spent on the MCG. Sporting stadiums need capital investment ongoing. If we don't do this now could we end up spending the same amount over the next 10 years on AAMI and AO anyway? I feel like you guys are delaying for the sake of delaying and hoping that the world will stop turning and your cricket ground will stay as it is forever.

People keep bringing this up.

What WORLD CLASS EVENTS will a re-develeped AO bring that the current AO couldnt already?

and even when we get given an event like the Socceroos vs Serbia(?) the people in charge stuff it up and we miss out.