Reasons to Vote "NO"

[dedja]

This is riveting stuff ... I can't wait for the after the vote thread!

FFS, hurry up May 2 ...

[redandblack]

The vote might not solve anything.

The most likely result might be a good majority, but falling short of 75%.

[MAY-Z]

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?

if you cant see the crap we have been spouted from the saca and govt then you have issues

i was undecided when this process started but im not anymore

[dedja]

Why not, there's been a recent history of well hung* ballots ...

[Gingernuts]

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!

All I got out of it was....

[Ecky]

A few comments from me

1) I don't think the response to the information booklet was very well written on the saveadelaideoval site - they could run this thing much better by keeping their points more succinct.

2) Surely we deserve a response to our email questions regardless of whether we have decided on our vote or not? Surely that is common courtesy. I want the answers so that when I speak to other members (who may be undecided) I have as many facts as possible, and I don't have to make assumptions about the various details that have been left out of the information booklet.

3) If anyone wants a laugh and see where their $10M of taxpayers money to fund the yes campaign has gone, have a look at the amateurish SACA youtube clips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYUk6hjice0

The girl says "don't let the oldies tell us what we can and can't do anymore, it's our club"

Who are these "oldies"? McLachlan? John Howard?

Seriously, some people might interpret this line as being insulting to
a) any older member who wants to see progress and votes yes
b) any younger member (and there are plenty of us ) who are voting no!

It is just divisive and gets more people off side

[Hondo]

if you cant see the crap we have been spouted from the saca and govt then you have issues

i was undecided when this process started but im not anymore

If you are definitely voting no why on earth are you wasting people's time with emails containing more questions?

No wonder no-one can answer emails because there's NO voters emailing long lists of questions the answers to which won't change their vote anyway.

[MAY-Z]

if you cant see the crap we have been spouted from the saca and govt then you have issues

i was undecided when this process started but im not anymore

If you are definitely voting no why on earth are you wasting people's time with emails containing more questions?

No wonder no-one can answer emails because there's NO voters emailing long lists of questions the answers to which won't change their vote anyway.

you idiot - i was undecided when i sent the qns, im not undecided now

why does that stop them from answering questions.

go back to my list of 15 qns and find any question on their that is not so unreasonable that it doesnt deserve an answer

[Dutchy]

Clutching at straws Hondo.

Seems majority of the cricket lovers are No voters, and the footy lovers are Yes voters. Which makes sense to me...

[Hondo]

you idiot - i was undecided when i sent the qns, im not undecided now

why does that stop them from answering questions.

go back to my list of 15 qns and find any question on their that is not so unreasonable that it doesnt deserve an answer

That's about the 3rd personal attack on me so far.

I never said your questions didn't deserve an answer. My question is what will you do with the answers? Change your vote? No. Paste the answers on here and on the no vote website and then dismiss them anyway?

Enough with the personal attacks mate, jebus.

[Hondo]

Clutching at straws Hondo.

Seems majority of the cricket lovers are No voters, and the footy lovers are Yes voters. Which makes sense to me...

Can you only be one or the other? I don't understand why self claimed cricket lovers make this assumption that every yes vote supporter is a footy lover who hates cricket. I love both.

What about you being a cricket lover who is undecided?

[Dutchy]

Thats why I said Majority, all the people pushing the Yes vote on here are footy people, not cricket or SACA members, if I was solely a footy fan Id be all for it so can understand that view...

[MAY-Z]

you idiot - i was undecided when i sent the qns, im not undecided now

why does that stop them from answering questions.

go back to my list of 15 qns and find any question on their that is not so unreasonable that it doesnt deserve an answer

That's about the 3rd personal attack on me so far.

I never said your questions didn't deserve an answer. My question is what will you do with the answers? Change your vote? No. Paste the answers on here and on the no vote website and then dismiss them anyway?

Enough with the personal attacks mate, jebus.

stop telling me what i would do, if i had received compliementary answers to my questions then i may have been inclined to vote yes as my concerns would have been reduced

if you didnt keep posting rubbish like the stands are worthless and that its only 2% of turnover when we are spending more than 100% of turnover already i wouldnt have an issue with you

[Hondo]

stop telling me what i would do, if i had received compliementary answers to my questions then i may have been inclined to vote yes as my concerns would have been reduced

Yet you still may receive these answers but have decided already? It doesn't make sense. You ask questions and then decide before you get the answers so I think that's enough for me to challenge me on your motives. Besides, I asked you what you would do I didn't tell you. Interestingly, you didn't answer me!

if you didnt keep posting rubbish like the stands are worthless and that its only 2% of turnover when we are spending more than 100% of turnover already i wouldnt have an issue with you

Go back and read my posts. I never said the stands are worthless and my point about the 2% was simply that - it's only 2% over future budget years, not this current one. Don't make the debate personal, I don't. Too many NO and YES voters are getting personal about this issue IMO. You challenge my opinions and I challenge yours. Dutchy and Ecky seem fine with that. I have no personal issue with any NO voter. I like to challenge their reasons but that's as far as it goes.

[Hondo]

Well, there was ONE no voter I had a slight personal issue with but it wasn't may-z. Even with that one no voter I felt I could have held a decent enough conversation with him if I met him in real life.

Anyway, back to the debate ...

[MAY-Z]

stop telling me what i would do, if i had received compliementary answers to my questions then i may have been inclined to vote yes as my concerns would have been reduced

Yet you still may receive these answers but have decided already? It doesn't make sense. You ask questions and then decide before you get the answers so I think that's enough for me to challenge me on your motives. Besides, I asked you what you would do I didn't tell you. Interestingly, you didn't answer me!

if you didnt keep posting rubbish like the stands are worthless and that its only 2% of turnover when we are spending more than 100% of turnover already i wouldnt have an issue with you

Go back and read my posts. I never said the stands are worthless and my point about the 2% was simply that - it's only 2% over future budget years, not this current one. Don't make the debate personal, I don't. Too many NO and YES voters are getting personal about this issue IMO. You challenge my opinions and I challenge yours. Dutchy and Ecky seem fine with that. I have no personal issue with any NO voter. I like to challenge their reasons but that's as far as it goes.

you did say the stands were worthless as when it was suggested that they were a contribution the saca were making you said it wasnt a contribution.

the 2% is still over and above the money that sa has. in the document that you linked us to on the treasury website it actually told us that the NET DEBT of south australia was going to be $72 million more than pricted in the budget, so regardless of you pointing to a possible cash surplus in 4 -5 years we will be further in debt than anticipated and that is hoping that all projects stay on budget

[Hondo]

you did say the stands were worthless as when it was suggested that they were a contribution the saca were making you said it wasnt a contribution.

Letting someone use assets when you aren't using them (and maintaining those assets at their cost) is NOT a contribution to the AO redevelopment. Getting $85m back from the Govt to reimburse you for the last stand IS a contribution but it's back to the SACA.

It doesn't mean those stands are worthless and I didn't say they were. Their value comes from being used to produce revenue. The SACA still get to use these assets to generate revenue.

I think I have made this point to you 3 times now why are we doing this again?

Your point about the budget is (1) not why I raised the 2% figure, it was simply to put the $535m in context of an annual turnover of $15b as a response to those predicing a 1990 style recession because of this and (2) a good sign that you actually read it (and that's genuine). Note, $72m is 0.5% of the annual revenue. All I am trying to do with these figures is give a contex to contrast the alarmist talk.

[MAY-Z]

you did say the stands were worthless as when it was suggested that they were a contribution the saca were making you said it wasnt a contribution.

Letting someone use assets when you aren't using them (and maintaining those assets at their cost) is NOT a contribution to the AO redevelopment. Getting $85m back from the Govt to reimburse you for the last stand IS a contribution but it's back to the SACA.

It doesn't mean those stands are worthless and I didn't say they were. Their value comes from being used to produce revenue. The SACA still get to use these assets to generate revenue.

I think I have made this point to you 3 times now why are we doing this again?

Your point about the budget is (1) not why I raised the 2% figure (it was simply to put the $535m in context of an annual turnover of $15b as a response to those predicing a 1990 style recession because of this and (2) a good sign that you actually read it (and that's genuine). Note, $72m is 0.5% of the annual revenue.

and the sanfl/crows/power are getting this revenue produicing asset for free - it is a contribution of value by the saca to the project which is not being matched by the sanfl

my point re the budget is that it doesnt matter what % of turnover it is if you are already spending over 100% of your turnover

you mention that is proof that it avoids a recession - i dont think it is as the recession and the gfc etc didnt happen because people one day decided to spend 200% of their turnover - it was a gradual overstretching of their resources, which is what we are doing here a factor that may contribute to more severe repercussions

[Hondo]

and the sanfl/crows/power are getting this revenue produicing asset for free - it is a contribution of value by the saca to the project which is not being matched by the sanfl

There is NO financial contribution being made to this project by the SANFL or the SACA, period. The SACA are in fact getting their $85m they spent on the latest stand back in full. Neither the SACA or the SANFL are doing better or worse out of this. The SANFL went out and took a risk in investing their money into West Lakes. Had the SACA held an investment of some kind they would not be expected to kick that back into this redevelopment. Just because they don't have an alternative investment of their own is not the SANFL's fault.

The SANFL don't "get" this asset anyway, for free or otherwise. They get to use it for which they pick up corresponding expenses and presumably paying some sort of rental back to the SMA.

You tell me in monetary terms what the SACA are giving up with this development?

The SACA do not use those stands for the most of the time period in which the SANFL will use them. They sit idle. The SANFL are in fact effectively picking up the operational costs of those stands in that time further releasing money into SACA coffers.

[redandblack]

Thats why I said Majority, all the people pushing the Yes vote on here are footy people, not cricket or SACA members, if I was solely a footy fan Id be all for it so can understand that view...

Sorry Dutchy, but I've been a cricket person first, footy second.