Sensational-Adelaide.com

iTouch(myself) wrote:whens the completion due?

got to be done before the Ashes Test in Dec, I believe

I wish politicians would keep their grubby hands off sport.

What we are witnessing now at Adelaide Oval is the necessarily illogical, messy tail end of a 'shoot from the hip' electoral pledge cobbled together in the face of the Lib's stadiumIFA timelines and the idea to get the unpopular Rann government closer to the line. It's a mess because all there ever was a facade for the election.

That's why things don't add up - the June 30th timeline was always ridiculous considering the December date for the World Cup host decision of FIFA.

If I were FIFA, I'd have a question mark next to Adelaide anyway, with the word 'wankers' written next to it, underlined.

Now, after $5,000,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent (untendered) with consultants (identities secret - commercial-in-confidence) who have prepared - what - concepts? sketch designs? scopes? briefs? (unknown - commercial-in-confidence) the taxpayers will be expected to fork out hundreds of millions to pay for what? No-one's really sure.

With Parliament actually sitting for a few minutes this week (37 sitting days this year, with Foley complaining that more government business should be done behind closed doors), we will have the spectacle in Question Time of the government's quota comprising Dorothy Dixers about the superb performance of Rann and his henchmen while the Opposition will try to grill Rann on the Oval topic. Rann will either not answer at all and let Foley speak fpr him - a spineless tactic the weasel-like Rann has used before, or he will rant and rave about investing in the future of the state and how paying off a near $90,000,000 debt is actually an asset purchase.

I'd respond, if I were in parliament, by asking how you can purchase an asset which you already own? SACA leases the oval from the ACC - it doesn't own it. In fact a couple of years ago when SACA auctioned off to its members only fixtures from the now demolished members' stand I asked the ACC how under its lease SACA could sell fixtures, which surely were owned by the landlord, ACC.

I was told to shut up, as the stuff was old anyway, and that SACA really needed the money.

Ian MacLachlan says SACA isn't broke. No? An organisation whose only asset is a lease, with an income of a few million a year, owes $90,000,000. For years it has boasted that it has a waiting list years long. Hmm.

What really annoys me is that the 600,000 odd taxpayers have to pay out this bunch of besuited, ruddy-faced free lunchers. That's, let's see, about $1500 per taxpayer, which still doesn't get you a beer in the members bar.

one has to wonder why the SACA are getting gifted $85 million dollars and a $400 million asset and soccer gets sweet nothing

stumpjumper wrote:I wish politicians would keep their grubby hands off sport.

Aren't you also complaining that the government isn't helping soccer out?
pffft, liberal desk jockeys

I wish politicians would keep their grubby hands off sport.

Perhaps the shorthand is a little short.

I'm certainly in favour of the government supporting whatever sports the community plays, generally pro rata, but also with an eye to growth sports (eg soccer) or special events (eg World Cup). There's also a role for governments in supporting elite sportspeople.

But politicians should not try to use sport for political advantage, although this area becomes a bit grey. Is the opening by a government MP of a government-funded sports facility in a marginal seat pork-barelling, or is it a legitimate response to a community need?

They should also stay out of 'sports politics' - they should not for example become financially involved in battles between codes for market share.

On another point - I've heard twice from different sources that costs for the Western Grandstand redevelopment are blowing out. The original funding was $16 million plus $9 million from the SA government matched with $25 million from the federal government. If this is true, then SACA is looking for cash.

As to Ian McLachlan indignantly saying 'SACA isn't broke', I'd like to know how, with a profit of about $1 million per year and admitted debts of $85 million, SACA is ever going to get out of debt.

It's interesting to see that in the 2008-9 annual report, there is a $5,500,000 'Contribution received from Federal Government' entered as cash flow on page 35. which looks like the $5 million + GST amount for preliminary work on the '$450 million' development. I seem to remember Foley taking the credit for that.

The $85 million of admitted debt doesn't actually appear in the financials - at least I couldn't find it.

According to The Advertiser this project has gone over by $30 million.

If the project isn't complete for the Ashes test match in December then it will
be very embarrassing for all parties involved.

stumpjumper wrote: politicians should not try to use sport for political advantage

Politicians will try to use everything - everything - for poiltical advantage. Always have, always will. Deal with it.

rhino wrote:

stumpjumper wrote: politicians should not try to use sport for political advantage

Politicians will try to use everything - everything - for poiltical advantage. Always have, always will. Deal with it.

I read that and thought exactly the same thing.

And just to add, we as voters create that behaviour BTW. We judge everything politicians do/say or don't do/don't say, criticise, beat them up through the media, praise them and then tear them down with the next breath, get involved in their personal lives and paste it across news papers and the internet and after all that we scratch our heads in indignant disgust and wonder why they use everthing they can for political advantage. Seriously.

On another point - I've heard twice from different sources that costs for the Western Grandstand redevelopment are blowing out. The original funding was $16 million plus $9 million from the SA government matched with $25 million from the federal government. If this is true, then SACA is looking for cash.

Since you like to share information with the rest of the forum, I'm sure you don't have a problem telling us who your sources are.
Specifics.

SJ, just out curiosity... the research that you do, reading reports, making phone calls etc, is it part of your job description or are you doing it as a concerned citizen looking to hold the government/other relevant authority to account? If it's the latter, how the hell do you find the time?

Pants wrote:If it's the latter, how the hell do you find the time?

classic!

As perverse as it seems, i like SJs posts. Be they a mix of fact & fiction - they get me thinking!

Me too, whether you disagree with the tenet of his or her posts, SJ's an excellent contributer to the forum, who's obviously passionate about the topics he or she writes about.

In case it came across this way, my question wasn't meant to be sarcastic or disrespectful. I remember SJ posting about his or her profession a while back and given that, I'm genuinely curious as to how he or she gets the time to look into things to the nth degree and write about them at length.

On reflection, it's probably not a question for an open forum, so I don't expect an answer, but it was just something I was curious about.

Pants wrote:Me too, whether you disagree with the tenet of his or her posts, SJ's an excellent contributer to the forum, who's obviously passionate about the topics he or she writes about.

In case it came across this way, my question wasn't meant to be sarcastic or disrespectful. I remember SJ posting about his or her profession a while back and given that, I'm genuinely curious as to how he or she gets the time to look into things to the nth degree and write about them at length.

On reflection, it's probably not a question for an open forum, so I don't expect an answer, but it was just something I was curious about.

pretty safe to assume he is a he given the sausage party nature of this forum to begin with...not to mention the aspergerish nature of this thread

Now it's $535m Oval upgrade
Michelangelo Rucci From: The Advertiser May 25, 2010 12:39PM

THE State Government's commitment to a new Adelaide Oval - with AFL football - will increase by $85 million today.
This would take the government funding for the project from the $450m announced in December to $535m. It would also substantiate concerns the quantative survey reports declare a suitable, multi-sport stadium cannot be built for $450m, more so after $85m is taken up in paying off the SA Cricket Association's current redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.
State Treasurer Kevin Foley put the additional funding before Premier Mike Rann's Cabinet this morning.
The Stadium Management Authority - the joint venture group between the SACA and the SANFL - is meeting today.
This group has a government-imposed deadline of July 1 by when to decide if football and cricket can reunite at Adelaide Oval.
If the reunion is viable, AFL football would be played at the new 50,000-seat Adelaide Oval from 2014.
While the Crows are concerned by the finer details of the project, the Port Adelaide Football Club has confirmed its desire to return to Adelaide Oval where it last played home games in the mid-1970s.
"The Premier (Mike Rann) has come out strongly saying he needs a decision (on July 1) and we will abide by those decisions," said Power president Brett Duncanson.
"We're positive on July 1 we will have a decision - and a positive decision."

ricecrackers wrote:

Pants wrote:Me too, whether you disagree with the tenet of his or her posts, SJ's an excellent contributer to the forum, who's obviously passionate about the topics he or she writes about.

In case it came across this way, my question wasn't meant to be sarcastic or disrespectful. I remember SJ posting about his or her profession a while back and given that, I'm genuinely curious as to how he or she gets the time to look into things to the nth degree and write about them at length.

On reflection, it's probably not a question for an open forum, so I don't expect an answer, but it was just something I was curious about.

pretty safe to assume he is a he given the sausage party nature of this forum to begin with...not to mention the aspergerish nature of this thread

Asperger's reference aside...

Yeah, that's what I first thought, but if it's true, there's someone on Adelaide Now copy-pasting his posts from here under a lady's name.

Anyway, we should get back to the subject matter of the thread* as it's probably getting a bit too focused on SJ personally.




*Do you still think I know nothing about soccer?