Will the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment go ahead?

[AFLflyer]

How many SACA members are there?

Why is the future of our state in their hands?

They might only represent a miniscule percentage of entire population.

AFL football MUST be in the CBD for Adelaide to grow.
There should be no argument. Just get on with it, the longer it gets discussed the further it is away.
It will happen.

This town is so dam backwards it drives me crazy.

exactly, why the power is with them is beyond me. Each have their own agenda, lets just hope the SACA sell it to them well! (this could be the difference IMO)
Again, the minority have the power to DELAY DELAY DELAY.
20K members i think

[Gingernuts]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I didn't think the SACA owned the Adelaide Oval. I thought the govt owned it as a part of the parklands and the SACA managed it on a (very) long term lease arrangement.

Given that this is the case then I'm guessing the State Govt has the most power in the current situation regardless of how the SACA membership votes.

Everyone involved seems extremely confident, which suggests to me that there may already be a back up plan to still get this through should the SACA vote not be in favour of the redevelopment.

[smac]

It is a constitutional matter, requiring SACA members to vote on any decision by the Board to alter the lease on Adelaide Oval to anything but "SACA for 12 months per year, every year".

The SMA will be the leaseholder which is a partnership of SACA & SANFL. Footy can move games elsewhere but they would still be up for the same costs of stadium ownership via the SMA so I doubt they would move.

[Wedgie]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I didn't think the SACA owned the Adelaide Oval. I thought the govt owned it as a part of the parklands and the SACA managed it on a (very) long term lease arrangement..

I'll correct you as the government doesnt own the parklands or the Adelaide Oval.
The City of Adelaide does.

[Royal City]

Nope no proof mate, just going from the reports I've read and information I've garnered myself ... Could well be wrong, but I really don't think there's any doubt that the SACA are in the Red .. Doesn't mean though as SMAC suggested they wouldn't have a strategic plan to address the debt and continue trading, whether that plan would ultimately be successful would be unknown to all I would imagine.

http://helium.saca.com.au/helium/librar ... 009-10.pdf

I think youll find these figures interesting CP. BTW this result doesnt not include Ashes takings.

So wait until next years result.

Fair to say $90 mill wont be a problem. Yet again banks/gov dont give approval to $90 mill re-developements to companies about to go bankrupt.

[Royal City]

Royal City, did you hear Ian McLachlan on the radio last night?
The SACA want and need this..
Our state Needs this. It's a positive for everyone (including you!) think of the Spin offs in the CBD, tourism etc!
SACA members wait for your information that is coming in the mail, read it, and then make an informed vote. Don;t get ahead of yourself and miss the point! (the bigger picture)

Yep he struggled big time.

Biggest sign of hey members dont worry that your getting screwed. Is when they use the line "think of the bigger picture/future generations of sa" line.

As a member. Are the future generations/bigger picture going to pay my $400 saca membership for the next 10 years.

No.

Then guess what I and other mebers will not be considering.

YOu needed to make this agreement good for SACA members as we are voting on it.

You havent. And no lame guilt trip on us to consider AFL needs over ours will change my or other SACA members opinion. YOur just going to have to accept that.

Yet again do you want to know why 7000 people travelled from the Uk to Aelaide in December.And how much our local business/bigger picture loved that.

Any chance you could answer some of these question instead of just regurgitating your own personal point of view AFLflyer.

[AFLflyer]

Royal City, did you hear Ian McLachlan on the radio last night?
The SACA want and need this..
Our state Needs this. It's a positive for everyone (including you!) think of the Spin offs in the CBD, tourism etc!
SACA members wait for your information that is coming in the mail, read it, and then make an informed vote. Don;t get ahead of yourself and miss the point! (the bigger picture)

Yep he struggled big time.

Biggest sign of hey members dont worry that your getting screwed. Is when they use the line "think of the bigger picture/future generations of sa" line.

As a member. Are the future generations/bigger picture going to pay my $400 saca membership for the next 10 years.

No.

Then guess what I and other mebers will not be considering.

YOu needed to make this agreement good for SACA members as we are voting on it.

You havent. And no lame guilt trip on us to consider AFL needs over ours will change my or other SACA members opinion. YOur just going to have to accept that.

Yet again do you want to know why 7000 people travelled from the Uk to Aelaide in December.And howe much our local businesses loved that.

Answer . It wasnt to watch a crows/power game.

That's right, it's great that people flocked here for the cricket, with a better stadium more poeple will come! That's the point, it's not about Football Vs Cricket. It's about a better stadium for the people. Personally i love both sports and frequent both. Why do you have to make it about Us vs Them. The stadium wwill be great for all South Australian sport fans- not just only AFL fans. listen to you're board

[JK]

Nope no proof mate, just going from the reports I've read and information I've garnered myself ... Could well be wrong, but I really don't think there's any doubt that the SACA are in the Red .. Doesn't mean though as SMAC suggested they wouldn't have a strategic plan to address the debt and continue trading, whether that plan would ultimately be successful would be unknown to all I would imagine.

http://helium.saca.com.au/helium/librar ... 009-10.pdf

I think youll find these figures interesting CP. BTW this result doesnt not include Ashes takings.

So wait until next years result.

Fair to say $90 mill wont be a problem. Yet again banks/gov dont give approval to $90 mill re-developements to companies about to go bankrupt.

Thanks mate, Im only part way through it, but it does state that the SACA has a $30mil loan with the local government, and up to $55mil with WBC.

However it does also state that this effectively gets wiped via the sale of assets to the state government should the "merger" go ahead .. I would guess (and purely only guess) that the true value of the assets isn't $85mil, but it's a sum that both parties are happy to accept (Edit - Appears to be $70mil).

So effectively the SACA does owe $30-85mil, but also has some asset value.

Profit (Net) for 2010 was $22.5mil so Im not sure that a 5 day test against the Poms would be enough to wipe that out.

Regardless I think it's probably a moot point, I don't see too many people objecting (anywhere) against the new proposal.

[Gingernuts]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I didn't think the SACA owned the Adelaide Oval. I thought the govt owned it as a part of the parklands and the SACA managed it on a (very) long term lease arrangement..

I'll correct you as the government doesnt own the parklands or the Adelaide Oval.
The City of Adelaide does.

Who are government, albeit local.

My point is the oval is on public land reserved for the recreation of all Adelaidian's & Sth Australians, not just cricket loving ones.

[Royal City]

Nope no proof mate, just going from the reports I've read and information I've garnered myself ... Could well be wrong, but I really don't think there's any doubt that the SACA are in the Red .. Doesn't mean though as SMAC suggested they wouldn't have a strategic plan to address the debt and continue trading, whether that plan would ultimately be successful would be unknown to all I would imagine.

http://helium.saca.com.au/helium/librar ... 009-10.pdf

I think youll find these figures interesting CP. BTW this result doesnt not include Ashes takings.

So wait until next years result.

Fair to say $90 mill wont be a problem. Yet again banks/gov dont give approval to $90 mill re-developements to companies about to go bankrupt.

Thanks mate, Im only part way through it, but it does state that the SACA has a $30mil loan with the local government, and up to $55mil with WBC.

However it does also state that this effectively gets wiped via the sale of assets to the state government should the "merger" go ahead .. I would guess (and purely only guess) that the true value of the assets isn't $85mil, but it's a sum that both parties are happy to accept (Edit - Appears to be $70mil).

So effectively the SACA does owe $30-85mil, but also has some asset value.

Profit (Net) for 2010 was $22.5mil so Im not sure that a 5 day test against the Poms would be enough to wipe that out.

Regardless I think it's probably a moot point, I don't see too many people objecting (anywhere) against the new proposal.

Financial FACT CP.

A company making $22 mill a year.

Who has $85 mill in debt (Im allowing for worse case scenario).

Can not in any way be considered in "big trouble".

Agreed ????

Yet again wait until next years profit annoucement from saca re: ashes takings.

[Royal City]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I didn't think the SACA owned the Adelaide Oval. I thought the govt owned it as a part of the parklands and the SACA managed it on a (very) long term lease arrangement..

I'll correct you as the government doesnt own the parklands or the Adelaide Oval.
The City of Adelaide does.

Who are government, albeit local.

My point is the oval is on public land reserved for the recreation of all Adelaidian's & Sth Australians, not just cricket loving ones.

YAWN!!! another AFL fan thinking they are more important than everyone else.

Fact is if your fans kept rocking up. YOu wouldnt be at the mercy of SACA members vote.

Not SACAs fault you guys decided to jump off 5 years ago and damage the strength of the afl brands in this state so dramatically.

[Royal City]

Royal City, did you hear Ian McLachlan on the radio last night?
The SACA want and need this..
Our state Needs this. It's a positive for everyone (including you!) think of the Spin offs in the CBD, tourism etc!
SACA members wait for your information that is coming in the mail, read it, and then make an informed vote. Don;t get ahead of yourself and miss the point! (the bigger picture)

Yep he struggled big time.

Biggest sign of hey members dont worry that your getting screwed. Is when they use the line "think of the bigger picture/future generations of sa" line.

As a member. Are the future generations/bigger picture going to pay my $400 saca membership for the next 10 years.

No.

Then guess what I and other mebers will not be considering.

YOu needed to make this agreement good for SACA members as we are voting on it.

You havent. And no lame guilt trip on us to consider AFL needs over ours will change my or other SACA members opinion. YOur just going to have to accept that.

Yet again do you want to know why 7000 people travelled from the Uk to Aelaide in December.And howe much our local businesses loved that.

Answer . It wasnt to watch a crows/power game.

That's right, it's great that people flocked here for the cricket, with a better stadium more poeple will come! That's the point, it's not about Football Vs Cricket. It's about a better stadium for the people. Personally i love both sports and frequent both. Why do you have to make it about Us vs Them. The stadium wwill be great for all South Australian sport fans- not just only AFL fans. listen to you're board

Because you have done nothing but provide football arguments to us cricket fans.

Maybe if you discussed the advantages purely to us cricket fans (whilst dismissing soccer/rugby fans needs) we would understand.

But you have not made one case for a cricket fan to approve this.

Just more propaganda about bigger picture/good for local businesses.

[JK]

Nope no proof mate, just going from the reports I've read and information I've garnered myself ... Could well be wrong, but I really don't think there's any doubt that the SACA are in the Red .. Doesn't mean though as SMAC suggested they wouldn't have a strategic plan to address the debt and continue trading, whether that plan would ultimately be successful would be unknown to all I would imagine.

http://helium.saca.com.au/helium/librar ... 009-10.pdf

I think youll find these figures interesting CP. BTW this result doesnt not include Ashes takings.

So wait until next years result.

Fair to say $90 mill wont be a problem. Yet again banks/gov dont give approval to $90 mill re-developements to companies about to go bankrupt.

Thanks mate, Im only part way through it, but it does state that the SACA has a $30mil loan with the local government, and up to $55mil with WBC.

However it does also state that this effectively gets wiped via the sale of assets to the state government should the "merger" go ahead .. I would guess (and purely only guess) that the true value of the assets isn't $85mil, but it's a sum that both parties are happy to accept (Edit - Appears to be $70mil).

So effectively the SACA does owe $30-85mil, but also has some asset value.

Profit (Net) for 2010 was $22.5mil so Im not sure that a 5 day test against the Poms would be enough to wipe that out.

Regardless I think it's probably a moot point, I don't see too many people objecting (anywhere) against the new proposal.

Financial FACT CP.

A company making $22 mill a year.

Who has $85 mill in debt (Im allowing for worse case scenario).

Can not in any way be considered in "big trouble".

Agreed ????

Yet again wait until next years profit annoucement from saca re: ashes takings.

Yep agreed mate, sorry, I didn't know which of my points you were trying to help me with .. I agree with you on that no worries

[AFLflyer]

Ok Royal City here are some pro’s for the SACA member, off the top of my head.
Pro’s
Increased capacity and atmosphere for the cricket
NO More SACA debt
Fixing the members toilet situation
New combined membership / footy option
Walk way from train station.
Superior outer facilities (which you will have access too)
You will be a member of one of the best stadiums / grounds in the world.

think positive, l's too short to be negative

[Gingernuts]

YAWN!!! another AFL fan thinking they are more important than everyone else.

Fact is if your fans kept rocking up. YOu wouldnt be at the mercy of SACA members vote.

Not SACAs fault you guys decided to jump off 5 years ago and damage the strength of the afl brands in this state so dramatically.

You're the only one on here with an inflated view of your own importance as far as I can see.

This stadium redevelopment isn't about which sport is more important than the other, or about one sporting association asserting it's dominance over the other - it's about how the Adelaide Oval can best cater to the people of South Australia, regardless of which sport they prefer.

Can't we all just get along and share? It's a pretty simple concept.

[Royal City]

Ok Royal City here are some pro’s for the SACA member, off the top of my head.
Pro’s
Increased capacity and atmosphere for the cricket
NO More SACA debt
Fixing the members toilet situation
New combined membership / footy option
Walk way from train station.
Superior outer facilities (which you will have access too)
You will be a member of one of the best stadiums / grounds in the world.

think positive, l's too short to be negative

Laughable AFL flyer. Is all I can say.

[Royal City]

YAWN!!! another AFL fan thinking they are more important than everyone else.

Fact is if your fans kept rocking up. YOu wouldnt be at the mercy of SACA members vote.

Not SACAs fault you guys decided to jump off 5 years ago and damage the strength of the afl brands in this state so dramatically.

You're the only one on here with an inflated view of your own importance as far as I can see.

This stadium redevelopment isn't about which sport is more important than the other, or about one sporting association asserting it's dominance over the other - it's about how the Adelaide Oval can best cater to the people of South Australia, regardless of which sport they prefer.

Can't we all just get along and share? It's a pretty simple concept.

Would love to share. But we arent .

I tell you what Giner you vote your way (if you get a voite that is)

And Ill vote mine. Deal.

All I can say is if you guys are trying to sway saca voters to in favour of the re-deveopement.

YOu are doing an increbily bad job.

[Royal City]

Yep agreed mate, sorry, I didn't know which of my points you were trying to help me with .. I agree with you on that no worries[/quote]

just remember those figures when you hear rucci bleating on (and he will) about how much of dire financial situation saca is without AFl CP is all I can tell you.

And disregard statements like "That's another myth. SACA have a business plan that sees them continue to be profitable should this not go ahead."

Ill back them on current figures and so will every other business banker in the office I work is all I can say.

[Wedgie]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I didn't think the SACA owned the Adelaide Oval. I thought the govt owned it as a part of the parklands and the SACA managed it on a (very) long term lease arrangement..

I'll correct you as the government doesnt own the parklands or the Adelaide Oval.
The City of Adelaide does.

Who are government, albeit local.

Yes but your next sentence mentioned the stage government, not local government hence why I corrected you.

[Wedgie]

YAWN!!! another AFL fan thinking they are more important than everyone else.

Fact is if your fans kept rocking up. YOu wouldnt be at the mercy of SACA members vote.

Not SACAs fault you guys decided to jump off 5 years ago and damage the strength of the afl brands in this state so dramatically.

You're the only one on here with an inflated view of your own importance as far as I can see.

This stadium redevelopment isn't about which sport is more important than the other, or about one sporting association asserting it's dominance over the other - it's about how the Adelaide Oval can best cater to the people of South Australia, regardless of which sport they prefer.

Can't we all just get along and share? It's a pretty simple concept.

Adelaide Oval can't cater for 2000 people currently, how the hell would they cater for the people of South Australia?
State will go even further backwards if by some act of god this vote got up which I hope and implore it doesn't.

Don't blame me though, I voted Liberal.