Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Hondo]

thats most definatly not the stupidest idea i have heard in a long time, off the top of my head would think Norwood/Glenelg would be the 2 most viable options.

Great! All sorted ...

So you are voting YES now?

[whufc]

thats most definatly not the stupidest idea i have heard in a long time, off the top of my head would think Norwood/Glenelg would be the 2 most viable options.

Great! All sorted ...

So you are voting YES now?

I think im voting NO BUT it wouldnt take alot to convince me that YES would be a good idea.

My biggest issue as a parent of one, with another on the way is where 500M for a stadium upgrade sits on the old priority list of where money should be spent in SA.

I understand that a NO vote doesnt neccessarily mean that money will be spent else where but encouraging the government to hand out 500M to sport isnt the way to go.

[Ecky]

im not a 100% for the G redevelopment only difference being is they have a world quality transport system in place already as well as inner city infrastructure that makes Adelaide look like we are still living in the 60's

and not upgrading the AO will help this how?

pretty obvious really - the government will have an extra $535million to spend on whatever else the city truly needs!

[whufc]

im not a 100% for the G redevelopment only difference being is they have a world quality transport system in place already as well as inner city infrastructure that makes Adelaide look like we are still living in the 60's

and not upgrading the AO will help this how?

pretty obvious really - the government will have an extra $535million to spend on whatever else the city truly needs!

thats pretty much my reason for being for the NO vote.

[Drop Bear]

thats most definatly not the stupidest idea i have heard in a long time, off the top of my head would think Norwood/Glenelg would be the 2 most viable options.

Great! All sorted ...

So you are voting YES now?

I think im voting NO BUT it wouldnt take alot to convince me that YES would be a good idea.

My biggest issue as a parent of one, with another on the way is where 500M for a stadium upgrade sits on the old priority list of where money should be spent in SA.

I understand that a NO vote doesnt neccessarily mean that money will be spent else where but encouraging the government to hand out 500M to sport isnt the way to go.

Neither was a desalination plant, but the powers that be don't listen.

[White Line Fever]

im not a 100% for the G redevelopment only difference being is they have a world quality transport system in place already as well as inner city infrastructure that makes Adelaide look like we are still living in the 60's

and not upgrading the AO will help this how?

pretty obvious really - the government will have an extra $535million to spend on whatever else the city truly needs!

thats pretty much my reason for being for the NO vote.

As Drop Bear said re the desal plant I would be very wary about leaving a decision to spend that money with the government if they can't get stadium committment.

It will probably disappear in a hole, we get some tax cuts and never hear a thing about it.

The whole debate is abit much, I'm just gonna stick to my yearly adventures to Melbourne.
Footy Park can wither and die as far as I'm concerned.

[Brucetiki]

so we are building a 50k stadium in the city so the crows fans can have a precinct to go to

No, we aren't building a new stadium. We are renovating an existing stadium in a prime CBD location. Same as has happened at Subiaco, the MCG, the SCG and the Gabba. We aren't breaking the seal on original ideas by renovating the AO here. On your reasoning why did the Vic Govt upgrade the MCG?

Were you against the many millions that were spent on the G and will be spent again soon replacing a stand they built only 20 years ago?

The Great Southern Stand isn't being replaced, it's just getting an upgrade. It is needed as the facilites there are on par with the Bradman Stand at Adelaide Oval

[Hondo]

Do SACA members have the right to decide what's best for the state or what the state truly needs? Is that what this SACA vote is about? If so, will a copy of the current state Govt operating and captial expenditure budgets be made available to SACA members so they can decide what the Govt should be spending their money on?

That all sounds cynical I know but if 20,000 people are going to second guess the last state election or the Government budget then they need to be armed with the right information.

What I am suggesting is (1) they shouldn't have the right to speak on behalf of the rest of the state on this issue and (2) even if they did have the right, unless they work for treasury or are an economist or accountant will they be able to make a balanced and knowledgable decision on the state's finances?

It's all well and good to make motherhood statements about health and eduction but who here knows what % $535m makes up of the annual spend on sport, capex, or the entire state budget, for example? I don't. If you are going to vote NO on these sort of grounds you probably should find these things out.

[whufc]

If 500M has to be handed out and it HAS to be spent on Sport i would rather see each of the SANFL clubs and grade cricket clubs handed 1Million each to spend on junior development in their area.

I would rather see the money be spent on securing the future of amatuer/country football/cricket clubs (especially ones which have juniors)

etc etc, like training/coaches/staffing

[smac]

If 500M has to be handed out and it HAS to be spent on Sport i would rather see each of the SANFL clubs and grade cricket clubs handed 1Million each to spend on junior development in their area.

I would rather see the money be spent on securing the future of amatuer/country football/cricket clubs (especially ones which have juniors)

etc etc,

This is what will happen, with a yes vote. Both sports become peak bodies instead of stadium managers - all of their funds will go into development activities. Forever, instead of once off.

[whufc]

Do SACA members have the right to decide what's best for the state or what the state truly needs? Is that what this SACA vote is about? If so, will a copy of the current state Govt operating and captial expenditure budgets be made available to SACA members so they can decide what the Govt should be spending their money on?

That all sounds cynical I know but if 20,000 people are going to second guess the last state election or the Government budget then they need to be armed with the right information.

What I am suggesting is (1) they shouldn't have the right to speak on behalf of the rest of the state on this issue and (2) even if they did have the right, unless they work for treasury or are an economist or accountant will they be able to make a balanced and knowledgable decision on the state's finances?

It's all well and good to make motherhood statements about health and eduction but who here knows what % $535m makes up of the annual spend on sport, capex, or the entire state budget, for example? I don't. If you are going to vote NO on these sort of grounds you probably should find these things out.

My only counter argument to that is whatever we are spending on these things especially education is currently not enough, especially if you take a walk through the current state of schools such as Craigmore/Fremont/Gawler high.

[whufc]

If 500M has to be handed out and it HAS to be spent on Sport i would rather see each of the SANFL clubs and grade cricket clubs handed 1Million each to spend on junior development in their area.

I would rather see the money be spent on securing the future of amatuer/country football/cricket clubs (especially ones which have juniors)

etc etc,

This is what will happen, with a yes vote. Both sports become peak bodies instead of stadium managers - all of their funds will go into development activities. Forever, instead of once off.

is that FACT? ALL!

[Ecky]

Do SACA members have the right to decide what's best for the state or what the state truly needs? Is that what this SACA vote is about? If so, will a copy of the current state Govt operating and captial expenditure budgets be made available to SACA members so they can decide what the Govt should be spending their money on?

That all sounds cynical I know but if 20,000 people are going to second guess the last state election or the Government budget then they need to be armed with the right information.

What I am suggesting is (1) they shouldn't have the right to speak on behalf of the rest of the state on this issue and (2) even if they did have the right, unless they work for treasury or are an economist or accountant will they be able to make a balanced and knowledgable decision on the state's finances?

It's all well and good to make motherhood statements about health and eduction but who here knows what % $535m makes up of the annual spend on sport, capex, or the entire state budget, for example? I don't. If you are going to vote NO on these sort of grounds you probably should find these things out.

You make good points here Hondo, but ironically I believe this gives us a greater reason to vote NO! If there is a No vote, the proposal can always be changed or modified later and other options can be more thoroughly explored first, but a YES vote is far more dangerous as then we are stuck with the $535million spending on Adelaide Oval and us members have lost our rights over the oval which we can never get back! So surely if there is a lack of information or understanding the sensible thing to do is vote no.

[MAY-Z]

If 500M has to be handed out and it HAS to be spent on Sport i would rather see each of the SANFL clubs and grade cricket clubs handed 1Million each to spend on junior development in their area.

I would rather see the money be spent on securing the future of amatuer/country football/cricket clubs (especially ones which have juniors)

etc etc,

This is what will happen, with a yes vote. Both sports become peak bodies instead of stadium managers - all of their funds will go into development activities. Forever, instead of once off.

is that FACT? ALL!

of course that is not a fact that is an outright lie, a yes vote will not see $500million spent on sports development

[MAY-Z]

What I am suggesting is (1) they shouldn't have the right to speak on behalf of the rest of the state on this issue and (2) even if they did have the right, unless they work for treasury or are an economist or accountant will they be able to make a balanced and knowledgable decision on the state's finances?

hooray thank you for telling me my opinion is the one that counts

[dedja]

All SACA members can vote however they like ... it probably won't affect whether the development happens or not.

just hope it doesn't hurt ...

[Hondo]

Ecky they could spend $1b on a new stadium somewhere else and rip the money out of the health and educations budgets and you'd get no say in it.

It's just that this unique situation has come up where to release control of the ground the SACA members have to approve a change in the constitution.

So some members are taking this voting right to mean they can direct Govt spending one way or the other. yet, they can't really. All they can apparently control is whether $535m is spent on the AO. However, $535m knocked back here doesn't automatically mean the Govt will spend it on what you think they should. In fact, you'll probably never know what they did with the money instead if it doesn't happen.

[Hondo]

What I am suggesting is (1) they shouldn't have the right to speak on behalf of the rest of the state on this issue and (2) even if they did have the right, unless they work for treasury or are an economist or accountant will they be able to make a balanced and knowledgable decision on the state's finances?

hooray thank you for telling me my opinion is the one that counts

Mate, you're not Robinson Crusoe It's just that I am not a SACA member. However I am happy to advise SACA members as best I can and as impartially as I can

[smac]

If 500M has to be handed out and it HAS to be spent on Sport i would rather see each of the SANFL clubs and grade cricket clubs handed 1Million each to spend on junior development in their area.

I would rather see the money be spent on securing the future of amatuer/country football/cricket clubs (especially ones which have juniors)

etc etc,

This is what will happen, with a yes vote. Both sports become peak bodies instead of stadium managers - all of their funds will go into development activities. Forever, instead of once off.

is that FACT? ALL!

of course that is not a fact that is an outright lie, a yes vote will not see $500million spent on sports development

What? How is that a lie?

SACA will have nothing other than cricket to spend their money on. I am referring to future revenue, not the development costs.

I await your apology for calling me a liar, thanks.

[Gingernuts]

What? How is that a lie?

SACA will have nothing other than cricket to spend their money on. I am referring to future revenue, not the development costs.

I await your apology for calling me a liar, thanks.

This thread only has room for truth smac - like the scoreboard being bulldozed, the hill being developed, the view being obscured, membership fee's quadrupling, the AFL getting a sweet ride, the SANFL making no sacrifices, the govt having a hidden agenda, and building a second stadium being easy as.

It's all about truth smac, can't you see??? Don't cloud this debate with your lies!!!!