Reasons to Vote "NO"

[whufc]

Whufc,

The AFL have been clear that they won't do it. Even if they thought about it the SANFL wouldn't agree to giving up catering revenue to the SACA even for one game. Why would they?

It's not going to happen.

Well when larger crowds to AFL gets used as 1 reason for the re-development its very hard for myself or other SACA members to know whether this will be the case or not.

[Hondo]

Well when larger crowds to AFL gets used as 1 reason for the re-development its very hard for myself or other SACA members to know whether this will be the case or not.

No-one has a crystal ball

But ask yourself this ... last week would 90,000 people on Monday and 80,000 people on Tuesday have gone to AFL games at Waverley, as they did to the G?

Maybe most would have made the extra trip, but not all. It's got to be in the CBD IMO.

[whufc]

Well when larger crowds to AFL gets used as 1 reason for the re-development its very hard for myself or other SACA members to know whether this will be the case or not.

No-one has a crystal ball

But ask yourself this ... last week would 90,000 people on Monday and 80,000 people on Tuesday have gone to AFL games at Waverley?

Maybe most would have made the extra trip, but not all. It's got to be in the CBD IMO.

Absolutley completely totally a different scenario.

Collingwood 57 408 members
Essendon 40 589
Hawthorn 53 978
Geelong 40 326

All those sides played the game in which the state their from is.

No matter where in SA a showdown or crows vs collingwood (because they attract big crowds) game gets played they wont get over 60K simply down to population and interest in this state.

Even if we did it would only be for 1 game every couple of years unlike the MCG which gets 90K to at very least 2 games a year and generally a few others plus Boxing day as well.

Should we be spending a 530 billion odd on a stadium re-development when Crows memberships are at a record LOW and Power attendences are terrible to say the least.

[Hondo]

You didn't answer my question

It wasn't the size of the crowd I was making the point about. My question was simply whether those crowds would have been as big if those games were at Waverley rather than the Melbourne CBD.

No way to ever know for sure ... but I doubt 170,000 people over 2 days would have travelled out to Waverley Park, if it existed. Maybe 150,000 would have.

[spell_check]

Waverley was 23ks away from the Melbourne CBD though.

[dedja]

and the last time I was at Waverley it took 2 hours to get back to Melbourne ...

Adelaide Oval to Football Park is 10kms.

[dedja]

Lets pour petrol on the argument ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/reso ... 6047591067


UP to 60 per cent of SACA members have given their support to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

They have done this through their proxy votes.

If the trend continues at tomorrow's general meeting, SACA will not get the 75 per cent support needed for AFL football and cricket to be played at the oval.

While cricket officials remain optimistic they will get more than 70 per cent support, the Sunday Mail understands SACA is preparing to invoke a loophole in its constitution to allow the redevelopment to proceed if support is strong enough.

Insiders consider the 75 per cent requirement "overly restrictive" but there are provisions in SACA's constitution to push ahead as long as there is a strong majority.

Clause 3.1 of the organisation's constitution allows the association to "promote and develop the game of cricket in South Australia" and to "continue the affiliation of the Association with, and its representation on, Cricket Australia and with such other body or bodies as may be thought fit."

[heater31]

Lets pour petrol on the argument ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/reso ... 6047591067


UP to 60 per cent of SACA members have given their support to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

They have done this through their proxy votes.

If the trend continues at tomorrow's general meeting, SACA will not get the 75 per cent support needed for AFL football and cricket to be played at the oval.

While cricket officials remain optimistic they will get more than 70 per cent support, the Sunday Mail understands SACA is preparing to invoke a loophole in its constitution to allow the redevelopment to proceed if support is strong enough.

Insiders consider the 75 per cent requirement "overly restrictive" but there are provisions in SACA's constitution to push ahead as long as there is a strong majority.

Clause 3.1 of the organisation's constitution allows the association to "promote and develop the game of cricket in South Australia" and to "continue the affiliation of the Association with, and its representation on, Cricket Australia and with such other body or bodies as may be thought fit."

what a crock of shite, The Vote has been outsourced to a 3rd party, who won't release the result until the Meeting on Monday night.

[whufc]

You didn't answer my question

It wasn't the size of the crowd I was making the point about. My question was simply whether those crowds would have been as big if those games were at Waverley rather than the Melbourne CBD.

No way to ever know for sure ... but I doubt 170,000 people over 2 days would have travelled out to Waverley Park, if it existed. Maybe 150,000 would have.

Just a quick question Hondo

You have accused all NO Voters of having pre-conceived ideas and only ever going to vote NO no matter what argument is presented.

Well going back through this thread it seems you have a case of the same disease,

What points could change your mind to vote NO!

[spell_check]

Not to mention the title "Resounding yes vote for Oval" Written by Jesper Fjelstad, hardly surprising.

[Hondo]

Whufc, nothing from the no vote camp will make me change my mind. It's a chance to properly develop our CBD stadium which is badly underdeveloped compared to the equivalent stadium in every other city except maybe the WACA. I reckon footy there will be great. I think the no voters have turned a simple issue into a very complicated one.

I have never wavered from my opinion since the start and I stand by that. I don't have a vote so my opinion counts for zilch anyway.

I can't accuse someone of having their mind made up from the start. If they did they did. That's fine by me.

I was moreso after those pretending they were undecided who were never, ever, ever, ever in 1000000 years going to vote yes. I was particularly after them if they were pretenting to be undecided AND clearly campaigning for a no vote. Some gave themselves away by using their SAFooty name on the NO web-site guest book

[whufc]

Whufc, nothing from the no vote camp will make me change my mind. It's a chance to properly develop our CBD stadium which is badly underdeveloped compared to the equivalent stadium in every other city except maybe the WACA. I reckon footy there will be great. I think the no voters have turned a simple issue into a very complicated one.

I have never wavered from my opinion since the start and I stand by that. I don't have a vote so my opinion counts for zilch anyway.

I can't accuse someone of having their mind made up from the start. If they did they did. That's fine by me.

I was moreso after those pretending they were undecided who were never, ever, ever, ever in 1000000 years going to vote yes. I was particularly after them if they were pretenting to be undecided AND clearly campaigning for a no vote. Some gave themselves away by using their SAFooty name on the NO web-site guest book

So its only NO voters who are ignorant, irresponsible and naive when they choose to not see the other side.

No probs.

[Hondo]

I haven't used any of those words to describe anyone in this thread, that I can recall.

In fact, I have been called 2 of those 3 words by no voters in this very thread!

[Dutchy]

So what our guess of the YES vote?

Ill go 59%

[Hondo]

65%

I would have said 51% if not for that article dedja posted

Dutchy, I am surprised you think 6 out of 10 SACA members are for it. Why that high?

[Dutchy]

65%

I would have said 51% if not for that article dedja posted

Dutchy, I am surprised you think 6 out of 10 SACA members are for it. Why that high?

Read the article closely - up to 60%

I know some members that are Crows fans that hate AAMI so want the change from a footbal perspective, I also know some that have been seduced by the SMA's glossy brochure...

[Hondo]

On the forums around the place I get the impression there's a silent yes vote out there. There's a bunch of noisy NO and YES voters that keep posting and then someone will chime in with their one post on the issue and say they are voting yes.

Just my impression.

[Hondo]

Read the article closely - up to 60%

Yeah, I read that

The fact that it is even close to 60% (if it is) surprises me

There's no way the redevelopment will be stopped if only 40% of SACA members vote no, even though technically it needed to be < 25%.

Anyway, the article sounds like it could be speculation anyway so I'll wait and see.

[ca]

So what our guess of the YES vote?

Ill go 59%

I'll go about 55%, I think anything over 60% is a fairly good result for the board. The 75% was always going to be tough.

Be interesting to see what the Liberals will do, they won't be able to offer up a new billion dollar stadium without a huge amount of scrutiny. Given the way the Rann Government is performing I think they will be trying their best to do nothing that will result in a debate on their own policies.

[Dutchy]

Greg Howe spoke very well on 5AA this morning, very impressive.

Key point was he will respect the Yes vote if it gets up and he expects the SACA/SANFL/SMA/Government to do the same if it doesnt.