Reasons to Vote "NO"

[heater31]

When does voting close and when will we find out the result?

Proxy votes close tomorrow at 5pm, Special General Meeting is on Monday

[Hondo]

Take it easy, Hondo, they still seem undecided to me, although they haven't said anything positive about any of the answers at all:?

I was wondering why, after hourly updates about how the SACA hadn't responded to their email, when the SACA did respond, it took a week for them to post that fact on here and only after someone else had to prompt them.

Oh that's right ... May-Z was away

sorry guys

[heater31]

Take it easy, Hondo, they still seem undecided to me, although they haven't said anything positive about any of the answers at all:?

I was wondering why, after hourly updates about how the SACA hadn't responded to their email, when the SACA did respond, it took a week for them to post that fact on here and only after someone else had to prompt them.

Oh that's right ... May-Z was away

sorry guys

if it makes you feel any better Hondo I'm still waiting for Labor's response. I saw the MP I sent them to at my Local ANZAC service on Monday, should have went to the RSL to wait for them and line them up

[MAY-Z]

Your argument is falling flat so now you are re-writing the rules on how construction contracts are awarded when you don't even really know and I am teling you where I work does these sort of contracts.

Contractually agreed variations can and do occur but these need to be signed off by the Govt, and have good reasons to justify them.

You are making up your own story anyway so just keep going I reckon. It will be easier on all of us!

just looking at the marion swimming centre - ended up costing $100m, $50m was the original budget so again your fixed price contract is missing

i havent made anything up - you seem to be the one making things up by saying that a fixed price contract will be adhered to when noone involved in the project has mentioned this despite being asked numerous times and a very similar project in wa wanted a fixed price contract but there were no takers.

[MAY-Z]

ok just to put these 2 statements together the first quote is treasurer snelling on abc radio the second is the saca.

snelling clearly states that the saca/sanfl will have to find any money over $535m themselves. the saca clearly think that the govt has it covered

[D Bevan] And if there are any other costs, then both the
SACA and SANFL have to find it themselves?

[J Snelling] That’s right. That’s my … that’s ah … that’s
… that’s the position of the Government. We’e only
putting in $535 million.

4 - What happens if the budget exceeds the money that the state government have offered for the project, especially as they have said that they will contribute no more than the $535 million I believe and the SACA and SANFL have said they will not contribute any more funds to the project.
(The State Government is not only funding the project but is undertaking the build itself and therefore will ultimately control the final budget.)

[dedja]

I suspect the project, if it goes ahead, will be de-scoped if the costs look like rising above $535M, so to that end, it is essentially capped.

[MAY-Z]

I suspect the project, if it goes ahead, will be de-scoped if the costs look like rising above $535M, so to that end, it is essentially capped.

so not only would we get the second best option - we would get a scaled down 2nd best option

[dedja]

Dunno about 2nd best option (not biting on that one), but we would most probably get some scaled down version ... whether it makes any noticable difference is impossible to tell at this stage.

[Hondo]

i havent made anything up - you seem to be the one making things up by saying that a fixed price contract will be adhered to when noone involved in the project has mentioned this despite being asked numerous times and a very similar project in wa wanted a fixed price contract but there were no takers.

Do you have any mates who work in engineering, architecture or construction who may be able to help explain these concepts to you if you don't believe me? Did you specifically ask about whether the contract would be fixed price in your famous email?

There's 2 separate issues here:

- items that are included or excluded from the original scope. The Government has set their cap at $450m so the SMA comes up with a project scope that fits or make a convincing case for why more should be spent. If more should be spent then private enterprise can fund specific parts of the scope such as the carpark. Whether forcing the project to fit within $450m that means the project is second rate or not depends on how good a knowledge you have of what $450m buys you these days. I suspect you don't have this knowledge, just your usual pessimistic attitude about anything to do with this project. Note that an original estimate may be different from the final fixed price contract given it is only an estimate. It's like having a budget to buy a car for $10,000. it's your estimate and until you actually sign your contract it remains an estimate.

- contractual variations that may occur over the life of the construction contract. These can come from scope changes but have to be submitted to the contractee (the Govt) and approved by them before works are started. Cost overruns that are not to do with the Govt or the SMA are the responsibility of the contractor. It's the risk they take.

You are confusing these two issues. The Marion swimming centre may have had an initial estimate of $50m but that doesn't mean they signed anyone up to a fixed price contract for $50m that has now overrun. More likely their estimates were wrong. Now we don't yet know if the SMA's estimates are wrong but I think a safe assumption is that all parties will work to the budget the Govt has allowed for the project.

Either way, the SACA have told you it's a Government project, not theirs.

[smac]

Did you get to an info session, May-z? Speak to Harnden about value engineering and his record on projects such as this one.

[smac]

Can anyone tell me (1) what have they gained from 'control' of the precinct in the past and (2) what they lose (and why this matters to them) by handing this to the SMA and (3) why they are a member of SACA?

[The Sleeping Giant]

Put my yes vote in today Dutchy. Hopefully the vote gets up for all us football and cricket lovers.

[GWW]

John Halbert and Wayne Phillips are on the YES side.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sporting- ... 6045890110

[Dutchy]

Put my yes vote in today Dutchy. Hopefully the vote gets up for all us football and cricket lovers.

In you opinion of course...

In my opinion a No vote will give more to cricket and football in this state, might take longer but we got plenty of time...

[Dutchy]

BTW if you are a SACA member TSG you would know its not a YES/NO vote

[The Sleeping Giant]

From the email Dutchy "It's vital that Members take part in the vote and with such a great opportunity before us, vote yes."

[Dutchy]

More mistruths from the SACA

[ca]

I would presume the SACA would know the proxy numbers and how many have nominated the chair? That would give them a fairly good idea already wouldn't it?

[smac]

More mistruths from the SACA

What is?

[smac]

I would presume the SACA would know the proxy numbers and how many have nominated the chair? That would give them a fairly good idea already wouldn't it?

No, it is being managed externally by Computershare.