If ....
If it's < 50% voting yes then the Govt have a tougher argument for pushing ahead. But even then do the wider community want 3000 or so SACA members deciding things for them?
Reasons to Vote "NO"
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by Hondo » Mon May 02, 2011 11:32 am
He is going to have trouble with the Govt, SACA, SANFL respecting the wishes of the SACA members if a majority of them vote yes! < 75% but not < 50% means the Govt is working against the majority of SACA members if they stop the project, as would be Greg Howe. He is meant to be representing them. Or is he just representing a faction?
If ....
If it's < 50% voting yes then the Govt have a tougher argument for pushing ahead. But even then do the wider community want 3000 or so SACA members deciding things for them?
If ....
If it's < 50% voting yes then the Govt have a tougher argument for pushing ahead. But even then do the wider community want 3000 or so SACA members deciding things for them?
In between signatures .....
-
Hondo - Coach
-
- Posts: 7927
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:19 pm
- Location: Glandore, Adelaide
- Has liked: 70 times
- Been liked: 32 times
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by Ecky » Mon May 02, 2011 12:09 pm
That Matthew May guy who was interviewed in today's paper sounds like a top bloke! 
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by mal » Mon May 02, 2011 1:27 pm
Ecky wrote:That Matthew May guy who was interviewed in today's paper sounds like a top bloke!
When he sorts out the Adelaide oval issues , he can then start on Globe Derby
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by Pumba » Mon May 02, 2011 5:54 pm
is not voting at all counted as a NO vote?
- Pumba
- Rookie
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:11 pm
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 0 time
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by RustyCage » Mon May 02, 2011 6:01 pm
Pumba wrote:is not voting at all counted as a NO vote?
Doesn't count as anything.
I'm gonna break my rusty cage and run
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by cripple » Mon May 02, 2011 6:32 pm
how many non votes are we expecting out of the 20,000 tonight. I would see anything over 5000 as an impression that not enough SACA members actually care about the proposal and would be happy to let the board do what they see fit, which in this case is a redeveloped oval. With such a high percentage needed for the vote to pass I would have thought the saca would have taken care of this by making non voted or votes by proxy somewhere along the line.
- cripple
- League Bench Warmer
-
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:21 am
- Location: Mexico
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 0 time
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by dedja » Mon May 02, 2011 10:56 pm
no updates yet?
Dunno, I’m just an idiot.
I’m only the administrator of the estate of dedja
I’m only the administrator of the estate of dedja
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by Ecky » Mon May 02, 2011 11:01 pm
Not unless you believe the made up "results" FatAlberton posted on twitter that got retweeted around the world as facts. 
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by matt » Mon May 02, 2011 11:08 pm
Was quite a low key kind of night.
Expected it to be a little more fiery.
Oak trees and Cathedral views. Please.
Expected it to be a little more fiery.
Oak trees and Cathedral views. Please.
- matt
- Under 16s
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:49 pm
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 0 time
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by PhilH » Mon May 02, 2011 11:10 pm
Well they said there would be a result by 10pm ... now 10 past.
Have to put up with Bob Francis but fiveaa will cross live for the result so will put up with it.
Have to put up with Bob Francis but fiveaa will cross live for the result so will put up with it.
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by Hondo » Mon May 02, 2011 11:13 pm
So if 8000 voted by proxy and only 2300 turned up tonight does that mean only half the members even bothered to vote?
In between signatures .....
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by ca » Mon May 02, 2011 11:16 pm
Hondo wrote:So if 8000 voted by proxy and only 2300 turned up tonight does that mean only half the members even bothered to vote?
Yeah, if the rumours that the proxy vote was about 60% yes, then more that 2300 would have had to have turned up to get this across the line. Am I right?
- matt
- Under 16s
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:49 pm
- Has liked: 0 time
- Been liked: 0 time
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by zipzap » Mon May 02, 2011 11:21 pm
Wow, amazing stuff. Didn't think we had it in us
"A no vote from any club means there is some sort of risk involved in our entry into the competition not working," Steven Trigg.
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by Aerie » Mon May 02, 2011 11:21 pm
Dutchy wrote:YES vote wins
Great news! Would've been mad to vote NO.
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by the joker » Mon May 02, 2011 11:22 pm
Great news for footy great news for cricket awesome news for SA
I love vegatarian food. It goes great with steak.
Re: Reasons to Vote "NO"
by dedja » Mon May 02, 2011 11:23 pm
why is everyone shouting?
Dunno, I’m just an idiot.
I’m only the administrator of the estate of dedja
I’m only the administrator of the estate of dedja
Board index
Other Sports Cricket
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests
Advertisements by Advertisement Management