Reasons to Vote "NO"

[whufc]

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?

Yet their population is over 4 times as big as us, so AO's capacity per population is actually bigger than MCG.

[Ecky]

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.

That is true - and if you spoke to 5 other no voters, they would probably have another different 5 crux issues. Everyone I have spoken to has seen it in a slightly different way, so we are definitely not a "consortium" or whatever was suggested at one stage here!

- MayZ's biggest one (I think) is what happens if it goes over budget
- One of Greg Howe's main points is the drop in pitches
- Dutchy has showed strong concerns about the lack of a guarantee for the Shield Final
- Others are adamant we need a new undercover stadium instead
- Others think it will happen anyway, so they will vote no as it may strengthen SACA's position when it does happen (like the rumour that the SANFL might lease the Oval from the SACA for 6 months)
- Others are simply fed up with constant bombardment of yes propaganda from the likes of Rucci in the media, and the condescending way he has been treating anyone who thinks for half a second about voting no, and don't even consider the other issues. A lot of controversial figures are spruiking this project (Rann, Demetriou, McLachlan, Rucci, Howard, Downer, PAFC, ...) and for some people all it takes is a deep distrust for one of these to make them sceptical enough to vote no.

[Dutchy]

Ive now had a read of the booklet sent to members, still not a lot of answers.

My main issues -

> $18m freed up cricket development - throughout the document it says "up to $18m" "approximately $18m" "some $18m", which one is it????
> Shield Final - still no guarantee it would be held at Adel Oval, we would have to negotiate with SANFL/AFL, I cant see that going well in early March leading into a footy season. This is a potential deal breaker IMO, why couldnt they agree that if SA qualified they could extend crickets rights to the oval for the 5 days required? This alone is likely to get many members offside.
> Major Events - It talks about AO allowing events such as Soccer WC, Rugby WC, Comm Games but we all know these events require full seated stadia which AO isnt, unless they get rid of the hill, which they say in the document will stay - Am I the only one who can see the issue here???! Sure it might not be an issue this decade but 20/30 years time?

The Yes vote or the SACA still cant answer these questions, so its No from me.


On the last point, lets say the SMA/government give a water tight guarantee that the Northern hill/scoreboard will never be developed. That would be great hoever its not beyond the realms of possibility that we will bid for another World Cup in 10-20 years time. So what happens? We cant use Adelaide Oval and AAMI is gone, we would have to build a new stadium!!!

These plans are fine for the immediate future but the sole reliance on one stadium in this city isnt sustainable long term.

[ca]

Ive now had a read of the booklet sent to members, still not a lot of answers.

My main issues -

> $18m freed up cricket development - throughout the document it says "up to $18m" "approximately $18m" "some $18m", which one is it????
> Shield Final - still no guarantee it would be held at Adel Oval, we would have to negotiate with SANFL/AFL, I cant see that going well in early March leading into a footy season. This is a potential deal breaker IMO, why couldnt they agree that if SA qualified they could extend crickets rights to the oval for the 5 days required? This alone is likely to get many members offside.
> Major Events - It talks about AO allowing events such as Soccer WC, Rugby WC, Comm Games but we all know these events require full seated stadia which AO isnt, unless they get rid of the hill, which they say in the document will stay - Am I the only one who can see the issue here???! Sure it might not be an issue this decade but 20/30 years time?

The Yes vote or the SACA still cant answer these questions, so its No from me.


On the last point, lets say the SMA/government give a water tight guarantee that the Northern hill/scoreboard will never be developed. That would be great hoever its not beyond the realms of possibility that we will bid for another World Cup in 10-20 years time. So what happens? We cant use Adelaide Oval and AAMI is gone, we would have to build a new stadium!!!

These plans are fine for the immediate future but the sole reliance on one stadium in this city isnt sustainable long term.

Very few organisations would commit too an exact figure, it is a projection after all. They have stuck with the $18m, its not like its $20m one day and $16m the next. I don't think they really need to answer your question anymore than they have put in the handouts.

As for the shield final you are entitled to your opinion but really it can't be that bigger deal. Worst case it didn't get played at Adelaide Oval the world won't stop. I beleive that they would be able to work something out but if not, life will go on for me.

I take your last point but really I don't see give some of the benefits that you could really vote no based on them. Adelaide Oval is far from perfect at the moment.

I'm not saying you are doing this but I think people need to accept there are always going to be some benefits and some possible draw backs but it is what overall is best for the SACA and not just a vote to stick it up Rann and Co.

[Dutchy]

If its no big deal then why cant footy agree to play it on AO if SA earn the right to host it?

[Hondo]

On the last point, lets say the SMA/government give a water tight guarantee that the Northern hill/scoreboard will never be developed. That would be great hoever its not beyond the realms of possibility that we will bid for another World Cup in 10-20 years time. So what happens? We cant use Adelaide Oval and AAMI is gone, we would have to build a new stadium!!!

These plans are fine for the immediate future but the sole reliance on one stadium in this city isnt sustainable long term.

So, in 20 years time we build the second stadium. At least then we have our prime stadium (AO) upgraded so maybe the next one becomes the secondary boutique option rather than the other way around (ie, maybe smaller capacity, more custom built for soccer) The population is forecast to reach 2.0m in 2050 so in 2030 it might be the right time to do it. Maybe we have a 3rd AFL team in town to justify the use.

At some point I believe AO, being the prime CBD location, needs to be upgraded properly regardless of whether AAMI is retained or a new stadium is built somewhere else.

I don't see why we need to force the SACA and the SANFL to swallow up all these cost savings for the next 20 years while we wait and I don't see why the AO has to stay as it is while we wait.

[AFLflyer]

On the last point, lets say the SMA/government give a water tight guarantee that the Northern hill/scoreboard will never be developed. That would be great hoever its not beyond the realms of possibility that we will bid for another World Cup in 10-20 years time. So what happens? We cant use Adelaide Oval and AAMI is gone, we would have to build a new stadium!!!

These plans are fine for the immediate future but the sole reliance on one stadium in this city isnt sustainable long term.

So, in 20 years time we build the second stadium. At least then we have our prime stadium (AO) upgraded so maybe the next one becomes the secondary boutique option rather than the other way around (ie, maybe smaller capacity, more custom built for soccer) The population is forecast to reach 2.0m in 2050 so in 2030 it might be the right time to do it. Maybe we have a 3rd AFL team in town to justify the use.

At some point I believe AO, being the prime CBD location, needs to be upgraded properly regardless of whether AAMI is retained or a new stadium is built somewhere else.

I don't see why we need to force the SACA and the SANFL to swallow up all these cost savings for the next 20 years while we wait and I don't see why the AO has to stay as it is while we wait.

EXACTLY!

[Dutchy]

On the last point, lets say the SMA/government give a water tight guarantee that the Northern hill/scoreboard will never be developed. That would be great hoever its not beyond the realms of possibility that we will bid for another World Cup in 10-20 years time. So what happens? We cant use Adelaide Oval and AAMI is gone, we would have to build a new stadium!!!

These plans are fine for the immediate future but the sole reliance on one stadium in this city isnt sustainable long term.

So, in 20 years time we build the second stadium. At least then we have our prime stadium (AO) upgraded so maybe the next one becomes the secondary boutique option rather than the other way around (ie, maybe smaller capacity, more custom built for soccer) The population is forecast to reach 2.0m in 2050 so in 2030 it might be the right time to do it. Maybe we have a 3rd AFL team in town to justify the use.

At some point I believe AO, being the prime CBD location, needs to be upgraded properly regardless of whether AAMI is retained or a new stadium is built somewhere else.

I don't see why we need to force the SACA and the SANFL to swallow up all these cost savings for the next 20 years while we wait and I don't see why the AO has to stay as it is while we wait.

So why not build a new stadium now and leave AO alone

[AFLflyer]

On the last point, lets say the SMA/government give a water tight guarantee that the Northern hill/scoreboard will never be developed. That would be great hoever its not beyond the realms of possibility that we will bid for another World Cup in 10-20 years time. So what happens? We cant use Adelaide Oval and AAMI is gone, we would have to build a new stadium!!!

These plans are fine for the immediate future but the sole reliance on one stadium in this city isnt sustainable long term.

So, in 20 years time we build the second stadium. At least then we have our prime stadium (AO) upgraded so maybe the next one becomes the secondary boutique option rather than the other way around (ie, maybe smaller capacity, more custom built for soccer) The population is forecast to reach 2.0m in 2050 so in 2030 it might be the right time to do it. Maybe we have a 3rd AFL team in town to justify the use.

At some point I believe AO, being the prime CBD location, needs to be upgraded properly regardless of whether AAMI is retained or a new stadium is built somewhere else.


I don't see why we need to force the SACA and the SANFL to swallow up all these cost savings for the next 20 years while we wait and I don't see why the AO has to stay as it is while we wait.

So why not build a new stadium now and leave AO alone

because there is no way we can aford it!!!!!!!!!
It will be VERY lucky to happen in 20 years!

[heater31]

On the last point, lets say the SMA/government give a water tight guarantee that the Northern hill/scoreboard will never be developed. That would be great hoever its not beyond the realms of possibility that we will bid for another World Cup in 10-20 years time. So what happens? We cant use Adelaide Oval and AAMI is gone, we would have to build a new stadium!!!

These plans are fine for the immediate future but the sole reliance on one stadium in this city isnt sustainable long term.

So, in 20 years time we build the second stadium. At least then we have our prime stadium (AO) upgraded so maybe the next one becomes the secondary boutique option rather than the other way around (ie, maybe smaller capacity, more custom built for soccer) The population is forecast to reach 2.0m in 2050 so in 2030 it might be the right time to do it. Maybe we have a 3rd AFL team in town to justify the use.

At some point I believe AO, being the prime CBD location, needs to be upgraded properly regardless of whether AAMI is retained or a new stadium is built somewhere else.


I don't see why we need to force the SACA and the SANFL to swallow up all these cost savings for the next 20 years while we wait and I don't see why the AO has to stay as it is while we wait.

So why not build a new stadium now and leave AO alone

because there is no way we can aford it!!!!!!!!!
It will be VERY lucky to happen in 20 years!

We probably can't afford this idea either yet people still want it to go ahead...

[Hondo]

So why not build a new stadium now and leave AO alone

My brief answer to your question is in my post that you quoted

[Dutchy]

Holes everywhere!

http://www.saveadelaideoval.com/blog/20 ... ponse.html

[AFLflyer]

Holes everywhere!

http://www.saveadelaideoval.com/blog/20 ... ponse.html

That was the most boring lot of mumbo jumbo rubbish i have ever read...... YAWN!

[redandblack]

I loved them accusing their opponents of indulging in semantics

Mumbo-jumbo x 2.

[Hondo]

That's the most hopeless article yet on that site

What a lot of semantics and scare tactics

1000 words and yet nothing I haven't heard before from the no voters

It's so completely one sided and biased yet one of the site's claims is that it is a factual rebuttal to the SACA's so called propoganda. Two propagandas don't make a right.

I used to think that site was all Greg Howe's doing but in fairness to him I think it's maintained by a 30ish year old SACA member with a lot of time on his hands.

[Dutchy]

So any news on why the SACA still refuse to return emails? 10 days....

[MAY-Z]

So any news on why the SACA still refuse to return emails? 10 days....

or teh SMA or the labor politicians

[Hondo]

Perhaps they can see through a bunch of no voters asking questions for the sake of asking questions?

You all seem very set in your no vote to me.

Note: I doubt that the SACA are not responding for that reason but given the speed in which you guys latch onto articles from the no web-site or Krystoff I get the impression whatever they respond with will be fuel for more no-vote noise rather than genuine grounds to reconsider your vote.

Agree/disagree?

[Dutchy]

Perhaps they can see through a bunch of no voters asking questions for the sake of asking questions?

You all seem very set in your no vote to me.

Note: I doubt that the SACA are not responding for that reason but given the speed in which you guys latch onto articles from the no web-site or Krystoff I get the impression whatever they respond with will be fuel for more no-vote noise rather than genuine grounds to reconsider your vote.

Agree/disagree?

When you make an offer to answer all questions then dont deliver? Yet we get an almost daily email from SACA imploring us to vote Yes, almost spamming...

Ive never said Im a deadset no voter, as with many others we could swing either way with the appropriate info

[Hondo]

When you make an offer to answer all questions then dont deliver? Yet we get an almost daily email from SACA imploring us to vote Yes, almost spamming...

Ive never said Im a deadset no voter, as with many others we could swing either way with the appropriate info

You have never said it but any doubt in my mind was erased when you yourself spammed almost by linking us to that biased propoganda piece from the no web-site

If you can't see that article for what it is then I think you are already decided

But, if you aren't and are waiting on these specific questions to decide then I have misjudged you.

Do you think May-Z is undecided?