Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Dutchy]

Can I ask why you wouldnt be a SACA member then?

Hondo, voting has been open for over a week, so time is up for the SMA to answer questions...

[Hondo]

Hondo, voting has been open for over a week, so time is up for the SMA to answer questions...

Well, maybe you guys were too late then? Maybe the SACA feel it's all in the information they have already provided?

I dunno. I agree they should have responded so I am not defending them.

I expect we will end up at a plan B of some kind because I'd be very surprised if 75% vote yes TBH. Whether that plan B is as simple as a second vote (as a caller to 5AA and a poster on BF claim they were told would happen by a SACA official) or something more substantial we'll have to find out.

[Hondo]

I also feel the SACA could have opened the door more for Greg Howe as the leader of the no vote to try to work some compromises into the deal so that Greg's efforts didn't stop it altogether but achieved a better deal for cricket (at least in his eyes). That's assuming Greg Howe was open to that approach.

It feels like the SACA have gone to seige against the no vote camp and it's ended up in a war. Maybe it was always going to be a war regardless. A poster on the no vote site guest book said he had found out how many votes it would take to attempt to throw out the existing Board altogether. I don't think the SACA eating itself is an ideal outcome. I also don't think the no vote has gone out of it's way to find answers, moreso just throw endless questions out there.

Who knows, we'll see.

[Bulls forever]

I also feel the SACA could have opened the door more for Greg Howe as the leader of the no vote to try to work some compromises into the deal so that Greg's efforts didn't stop it altogether but achieved a better deal for cricket (at least in his eyes). That's assuming Greg Howe was open to that approach.

It feels like the SACA have gone to seige against the no vote camp and it's ended up in a war. Maybe it was always going to be a war regardless. A poster on the no vote site guest book said he had found out how many votes it would take to attempt to throw out the existing Board altogether. I don't think the SACA eating itself is an ideal outcome. I also don't think the no vote has gone out of it's way to find answers, moreso just throw endless questions out there.

Who knows, we'll see.

Hondo, you are fighting a battle here and getting no where. Why would the SACA engage Greg Howe, the no vote tried to engage Rob Gerard - didn't want a thing to do with it, Glen Cooper - again bailed. So it ended up with Greg Howe - who, a lawyer that no one has heard of prior to this vote, he has now had his 15 minutes or more of fame, disappear back into the jungles of lawyer speak - seriously has he ever played cricket, certainly not on the hallowed turf.

As to removing the board, shows you what sort of arguments they have thrown up and the conspiracy theories they have espoused. Seriously this is a multi million dollar business, are we to entrust it to Pipers and MZ, give me a break.

As to the assertion made previously that cricket is voting no and footy yes. He must have polled his mates at the pub on a Friday night who told him they were members. In the general cricket community the feelings are positive to the development.

If this mob want answers, go to the information sessions and ask questions, not hard really. Or even next Wednesday night at AO when they address the general cricket community.

By the way, although I refuse to speak to the theorists, I haven't seen a response by Labor to the 15 questions that they gave Liberal a chance to answer. Perhaps we will hear about it in another leaked email from Hamilton-Smith, obviously protected by Parliament priveledge.

Hondo, please give up answering these blokes.

[ca]

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...

Wrong, again

[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...

Wrong, again

Guess we will know for sure on May 2, Im guessing Ill be right

[ca]

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...

Wrong, again

Guess we will know for sure on May 2, Im guessing Ill be right

Has nothing to do with the vote, I think we all know that it wont get up, Your comment was that only football people are pushing the yes vote. Plenty of cricket people are as well. It wont be the 75% needed but there are SACA members who love their cricket who will vote yes because it is in the best interests of the SACA.

[redandblack]

This thread has given a new definition of the term 'undecided'

[heater31]

Hondo, you are fighting a battle here and getting no where. Why would the SACA engage Greg Howe, the no vote tried to engage Rob Gerard - didn't want a thing to do with it, Glen Cooper - again bailed. So it ended up with Greg Howe - who, a lawyer that no one has heard of prior to this vote, he has now had his 15 minutes or more of fame, disappear back into the jungles of lawyer speak - seriously has he ever played cricket, certainly not on the hallowed turf.

As to removing the board, shows you what sort of arguments they have thrown up and the conspiracy theories they have espoused. Seriously this is a multi million dollar business, are we to entrust it to Pipers and MZ, give me a break.

As to the assertion made previously that cricket is voting no and footy yes. He must have polled his mates at the pub on a Friday night who told him they were members. In the general cricket community the feelings are positive to the development.

If this mob want answers, go to the information sessions and ask questions, not hard really. Or even next Wednesday night at AO when they address the general cricket community.

By the way, although I refuse to speak to the theorists, I haven't seen a response by Labor to the 15 questions that they gave Liberal a chance to answer. Perhaps we will hear about it in another leaked email from Hamilton-Smith, obviously protected by Parliament priveledge.

Hondo, please give up answering these blokes.

I have spoken to both Cricket and Football people and the reaction is mixed. Some footy people want it others don't, same with cricket. I don't think the Yes vote will get the majority required to be successful.


I have sent a labor politician a list of questions well over 9 days ago. STILL NO RESPONSE or acknowledgement of my email sent on 13/4/2011. I haven't bothered with SACA as they still haven't responded to my email of complaint I sent in over another separate issue from the summer of cricket.


I was prepared to listen to both sides of this argument but as I have dived deeper into the spin I get more questions and less answers. I have listened to Cricket people who are all for it and those against they both make valid points. But as to my serious concerns I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone.

[Pottsy]

An interesting article by a clearly passionate cricket supporter...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 12432.html

[Ecky]

An interesting article by a clearly passionate cricket supporter...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 12432.html

Yes, that is pretty much my view.
We are told to look at the bigger picture, and you can't get much bigger than the international cricket community, of which I doubt anyone would be in favour of this, as they don't give a stuff about the AFL, members fees, and whether Adelaide has a "precinct" or inferiority complex with other Australian cities or not!

[heater31]

Any one also read the letters to the editor in today's Advertiser.

A whole page of them raising various concerns including ones mentioned in this thread.

[redandblack]

I thought the media were vetoing any 'No' publicity

[GWW]

Any one also read the letters to the editor in today's Advertiser.

A whole page of them raising various concerns including ones mentioned in this thread.

Yes, including the suggestion Port and the Crows should merge

[Hondo]

We are told to look at the bigger picture, and you can't get much bigger than the international cricket community, of which I doubt anyone would be in favour of this, as they don't give a stuff about the AFL, members fees, and whether Adelaide has a "precinct" or inferiority complex with other Australian cities or not!

An "international" cricket fan would unlikely know about any other the other issues you mention so how can they know what might be best for our city? Do you want some overseas based sports fan making decisions for the residents of our state? I don't.

That said, if watching cricket is their priority would they really care about this redevelopment either way? Do they get on an International Flight and come all the way here to watch cricket or to gaze at the Adelaide Hills?

Sorry, I think this is another no-vote clutch.

[Pottsy]

That said, if watching cricket is their priority would they really care about this redevelopment either way? Do they get on an International Flight and come all the way here to watch cricket or to gaze at the Adelaide Hills?

Sorry, I think this is another no-vote clutch.

Yes, they would care about it either way. The Adelaide Oval is world renowned for being a beautiful place to come to the cricket. The ambience (not a quantifiable thing) is loved. Speak to cricket visitors to our shores and they invariably wax lyrical about the place.

Not that this will change anyone's voting ideas, but there is no doubt the change from an Oval to a Stadium will shift the feel of the place from an almost olde world charm to a modern stadium. Which is either a good or bad thing, depending on if you are Ecky or Hondo.

[Hondo]

Pottsy both the current level of "ambience" and the predicted future level are matters of opinion one of which is based on an assumption that if it is upgraded it will lose it's character. Does the MCG still have character after all the renovations over the years?

I keep hearing how visitors "wax lyrical" about the ground but I am not sure how much of that is real. I mean let's be honest - the stands don't match and there are temporary stands on the Eastern side (are they meant to be permanent?). Was it more beautiful before or after the new stand? Is it the view to the cathedral (which will stay) or is it the view to the hills (which will go)?

In any event, my point was would those overseas visitors stop coming here just because they percieved the ground wasn't as beautiful as it once was or is the actual cricket match their main priority? Can it be redeveloped in a way which captures the spirit of it as it is now.

I fear that this line of debate almost leads us to looking at the AO as a heritage building, which I don't think it should be (and certainly hasn't been treated as such by the SACA over the years).

[whufc]

Pottsy both the current level of "ambience" and the predicted future level are matters of opinion one of which is based on an assumption that if it is upgraded it will lose it's character. Does the MCG still have character after all the renovations over the years?

I keep hearing how visitors "wax lyrical" about the ground but I am not sure how much of that is real. I mean let's be honest - the stands don't match and there are temporary stands on the Eastern side (are they meant to be permanent?). Was it more beautiful before or after the new stand? Is it the view to the cathedral (which will stay) or is it the view to the hills (which will go)?

In any event, my point was would those overseas visitors stop coming here just because they percieved the ground wasn't as beautiful as it once was or is the actual cricket match their main priority? Can it be redeveloped in a way which captures the spirit of it as it is now.

I fear that this line of debate almost leads us to looking at the AO as a heritage building, which I don't think it should be (and certainly hasn't been treated as such by the SACA over the years).

When it comes to a three or five game series i think it does come down to the stadium more than the game.

Imho Adelaide is the best ground in Australia to watch cricket from with both the grass and seats to choose from. I could go the boxing day test match every year but i dont actually enjoy watching cricket from there, the atmosphere is great but i hate being restricted to a seat for the whole day.

I know plenty of people who live in Melbourne and come to the Adelaide Oval test match and sit on the hills every year rather than sit in the same seat for 6 hours at the MCG.

[Dutchy]

I keep hearing how visitors "wax lyrical" about the ground but I am not sure how much of that is real. I mean let's be honest - the stands don't match and there are temporary stands on the Eastern side (are they meant to be permanent?). Was it more beautiful before or after the new stand? Is it the view to the cathedral (which will stay) or is it the view to the hills (which will go)?

The Chappell stands are permanent stands for a start!

There are no guarantees the Northern end will stay unenclosed, in fact the SMA contradict themselves by saying it will stay open but then say they will use the oval for major events such as World Cups, Commonwealth games that require a fully seated stadium!!!!

You cant have both and I dont understand why others cant see this!!!!

[Hondo]

Wouldn't they just put up temporary seating for events that need to be fully seated? How many times will the world cup or the Cwth games be here in the next 50 years? Why would they bash down the scoreboard just for those 2 events we may not even win the right to hold?

I assume there are more events needing full seating.

On the current stands I mean the stands on eastern side. Are they permanent? They look like temporary seats that have just stayed there. Are they beautiful or any less beautiful than the proposed stands that will replace them?