[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[believesinadsy]

Also, you want to know preferences in a yes/no referendum?? There's no preferences. There's yes & no.

10,078 people voted "Yes"
2,461 people voted "No"
6,844 people did not vote, and thus were not counted in the final ballot

Sums it up. Let's enjoy this a little yeah

Danke

[iTouch]

Note, 'took part in the vote', not 'voted'.

Why can't we have some detail on the effect of preference votes, especially undirected ones?

If this project is to proceed without battles every inch of the way, there must be transparency. If right at the start, a major player won't provide basic, uncontroversial information about votes, it doesn't look good for the future of communication in this 100% publicly funded project.

This vote business should be dealt with quickly and openly, now. Maintaining public trust in the way the public funds are being spent is very important.

This is a perfect case of what I mean about this thing needing expert project management, about the whole project, not just the bricks and mortar. With all respect to their ability to run a sports club, MacLachlan and Whicker may be out of their depth running a $500 million construction project.

Underestimating, right at the start, the value of public trust is not a good omen.

Yep, I totally agree. The whole vote was rigged. The members were paid to vote yes and those who didn't were shot. A selected portion were allowed to vote "no" because they wanted to make it look believable.

[AtD]

Questioning the validity of the count is pretty low.

[dsriggs]

WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE??

[Pikey]

Got it in one Adam.

SJ, it's done now, give your conspiracy theories a rest ok? First the hospital, now this. Yes, I too am a Liberal voter, and would have loved a new stand alone stadium, and a redeveloped RAH, but the Libs lost. This is what we've got, and I like it, so do the SACA members, and do the wide majority of the SA public. Surely you have to agree that the ramifications of this development on the rest of Adelaide are massive, with a re-generation that none of us would have experienced before about to occur.

It's here, it's done, it's happening, move on.

[stumpjumper]

I'm not buying into, nor suggesting a conspiracy, only suggesting that making things as open as possible will deprive conspiracy theories etc of the uncertainty they breed on.

I've accepted the result, but I still say that openness is the best way to 'move forward'.

[adam73837]

I have to say that even I, formerly one of the biggest anti-Rann whingers on S-A (now just plain cynical about arguments presented on most sides of a debate ) support this Adelaide Oval Redevelopment. While I originally would have preferred a new stadium and a redeveloped RAH, I have come to accept that this is the reality. And tbh, I'm quite happy with it, for once. At least we're getting football in the city (which is something I wanted from whichever Government was in power) and a modern hospital (can't go wrong there).
I think that what's really pleased me is that when faced with a decision of something new or retaining the old, Adelaidians actually chose the former for once. Sorry, couldn't resist; old habits die hard, I suppose.

People who are continuing to whinge about this situation need to get over it and look to the future positively. That is something I didn't do between for the last three or so years and I'm fairly sure that clouded my judgement. Liberal voter, or Labor voter; accept that this is what will happen, and embrace it.

That's my

(Yes, I realise it's hard to take this post seriously, but just give it a shot. Mmkay? )

[stumpjumper]

Agreed, Adam, but you don't have to stop the anti-Rann rants.

[adam73837]

Cheers stumpjumper.

[ricecrackers]

Hey ricecrackers...

FOCUS has turned to the flow and use of proxy votes in Monday's critical Adelaide Oval verdict.

The South Australian Cricket Association has said it will not release details of the vote that saw 80 per cent of its members vote in favour of the $535 million upgrade of Adelaide oval.

The Advertiser understands "undirected" proxy votes were automatically counted as a yes vote for the upgrade at SACA's special general meeting at the Wayville Showgrounds.

This clause was stated on proxy voting information for members.

Former federal MP for Port Adelaide Rod Sawford was surprised by the 80 per cent member support for the Adelaide Oval proposal and said transparency was critical in any voting process.

"There are some basic principles on how democratic results ought to be undertaken," Mr Sawford said, noting undirected votes were in many cases ruled invalid or in the negative. "You should be able to show your results and they should be accountable and in this case there is half a billion taxpayer dollars involved so it should be explained how 80 per cent was obtained," he said.

"An abstention is part of democracy too."

SACA secured the 75 per cent member approval required to change its constitution to give up control of Adelaide Oval to football in the watershed vote at Wayville.

The yes vote attracted a significant 80 per cent majority. Media outlets had reported insiders as saying the no vote was running at 40 per cent ahead of Monday's special general meeting.

Some have asked how this information became available while political veteran Mr Sawford, a key figure in exposing the SA Jockey Club vote controversy, noted how difficult it is to achieve an 80 per cent majority.

"I do find it a very surprising result and probably requires some analysis," he said.

"Not making how the voting was calculated available to the public, when it is the public who are funding (the project) is probably not acceptable."

SACA last night confirmed "it would not be releasing a breakdown of the figures" or say if it had been privy to proxy vote results ahead of Monday's special general meeting. Votes cast, however, will not be destroyed for six months.

The returning officer, Ernst and Young's Mark Phelps, declined to discuss the handling of the count saying inquiries should go to SACA.

Interesting.

what can i say i am not surprised, especially with global movers and shakers like Olsen involved
whats done is done though, that is the lot of a corrupted democracy

it was my suspicion that they counted the abstainers as YES. very stinky indeed.

[Nort]

it was my suspicion that they counted the abstainers as YES. very stinky indeed.

I don't see why that's bad. if you abstain it's basically saying you don't care/don't have enough information to have an opinion, in which case it makes sense to automatically go with whatever the board thinks is the best option.

[Pants]

They didn't count abstainers as yes. They specifically said how many people didn't vote and were therefore not counted.

What they did do, after expressly saying that they would, was count improperly directed proxies as a yes. I see no problem with that if you say you're going to do it in advance. And besides, I can't imagine that too many people would have effed up ticking yes or no and those who did are too stupid to not have their vote directed in the way the chairman wants!

[rev]

Wow, just when you think they cant sink any lower, they do.

Some of you need to get a life, get a day job, some hobbies, get laid..whatever.
You are far too obsessed with bringing down this redevelopment, that you are starting to see thing's that aren't there.
Wouldn't surprise me if some of you actually woke up with a sticky mess after dreaming of stopping the redevelopment.

A rigged vote just because your side lost? (again)
Members being paid off to vote yes? That's probably an accusation of a crime..not a lawyer so I'm not sure(hey, I've got something in common with SJ, "i don't know" but I'll claim it as fact anyway)

At the last state election, your side lost.
At the SACA members vote, your side lost.

When the fuck are some of you going to get it through your heads, that the majority of South Australians want this redevelopment to occur?

Excuse my language, but enough of this bullshit.
The two-three nuisances in this thread are a great personification of what's wrong with this state, and the sort of mentalities and attitudes that have held this state and city back for so long.

[Pants]

Easy tiger, they're not all that bad and this forum would be much poorer without them.

If I can be so arrogant as to pass judgement (and make assumptions about who you're talking about) – SJ's pro development but wants it done properly and with due process, even though I disagree with his view about what due process is. Ricecrackers is cynical, but if it works for him, it works for him and to his credit, he's come out and congratulated those in favour of the yes vote. Silverscreen… well, I'm loathe to judge him because he's very precious about being pigeonholed and won't tell us what he stands for anyway. He is good at copying and pasting though.

The vote's been won and lost, so I'll be glad to see the back and forth about whether the development should proceed dissipate, but everyone's entitled to their opinions – and outrageous conspiracy theories!

[cruel_world00]

Hey ricecrackers...

FOCUS has turned to the flow and use of proxy votes in Monday's critical Adelaide Oval verdict.

The South Australian Cricket Association has said it will not release details of the vote that saw 80 per cent of its members vote in favour of the $535 million upgrade of Adelaide oval.

The Advertiser understands "undirected" proxy votes were automatically counted as a yes vote for the upgrade at SACA's special general meeting at the Wayville Showgrounds.

This clause was stated on proxy voting information for members.

Former federal MP for Port Adelaide Rod Sawford was surprised by the 80 per cent member support for the Adelaide Oval proposal and said transparency was critical in any voting process.

"There are some basic principles on how democratic results ought to be undertaken," Mr Sawford said, noting undirected votes were in many cases ruled invalid or in the negative. "You should be able to show your results and they should be accountable and in this case there is half a billion taxpayer dollars involved so it should be explained how 80 per cent was obtained," he said.

"An abstention is part of democracy too."

SACA secured the 75 per cent member approval required to change its constitution to give up control of Adelaide Oval to football in the watershed vote at Wayville.

The yes vote attracted a significant 80 per cent majority. Media outlets had reported insiders as saying the no vote was running at 40 per cent ahead of Monday's special general meeting.

Some have asked how this information became available while political veteran Mr Sawford, a key figure in exposing the SA Jockey Club vote controversy, noted how difficult it is to achieve an 80 per cent majority.

"I do find it a very surprising result and probably requires some analysis," he said.

"Not making how the voting was calculated available to the public, when it is the public who are funding (the project) is probably not acceptable."

SACA last night confirmed "it would not be releasing a breakdown of the figures" or say if it had been privy to proxy vote results ahead of Monday's special general meeting. Votes cast, however, will not be destroyed for six months.

The returning officer, Ernst and Young's Mark Phelps, declined to discuss the handling of the count saying inquiries should go to SACA.

Interesting.

Uhh, what about the ridiculous notion that 20,000 people can dictate how a government of 1.5million spends tax payer money? The South Australian public had the option to vote for Liberal or a Labor government promising two different options. They decided. Then they going to be held ransom by a very small portion of the community. Luckily common sense prevailed. How's that for the "basic principals of democracy"?