[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[rev]

And the merry go round continues...

The liberal party must take South Australian's for idiots, if they think repeating the same political propaganda over and over will work..

[peas_and_corn]

And the merry go round continues...

The liberal party must take South Australian's for idiots, if they think repeating the same political propaganda over and over will work..

It works for the federal Liberal party.

[metro]

yeah that's only because the Federal Liberal opposition are up against a pretty crap Labor government..

[rogue]

Just to let you guys know, I reluctantly voted FOR the development.

Not so much for the oval, but for the precinct.

[Waewick]

don't worry it isn't getting up anyway.

[rev]

How much are you prepared to wager on that?
If you think a bunch of wankers, sorry members.. from SACA voting against changing SACA's constitution will stop the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, or the wider area, you are going to be extremely frustrated when you realize your SACA votes never counted when SACA/SANFL/AFL/SMA/State Government move ahead with the project.

[Waewick]

I voted yes, so don't get to upset at me.

to you really believe the Government is going to legislate anything to remove the AO from the parklands?

I agree that it is a shame that a few people can dictate to the rest of the state but that is the position the government got us into - well sorry that is the position the people of South Australia got us into by voting this plan in.

good or bad this plan revolved around SACA and it's members - we will find out in 3 days time.

[metro]

just to say it again, i will be shocked and amazed if it's a 75% yes vote..

and i wont be surprised if it's a 75% no vote

[Wayno]

My guesstimate is 64% in favor.

I wonder what happens if a couple of thousand SACA members don't vote? is the target 75% of ALL members, or 75% of those who vote?

[Pants]

The latter mate.

[Waewick]

75% of people who voted I believe.

[Pants]

...which makes it more difficult to get up because the people who are against it are more likely to be the ones who bother voting.

[Waewick]

that is right

[silverscreen]

More RAW:

And BTW (not that it's anybody's business but my own) I'm not a Liberal, Labor or Greens stooge or supporter. I dont belong to any political party even if they'd have me.

RAW: Did we hear you right, Mr McLachlan?
Apr 28th

In response to former SACA CEO Mick Deare’s comments reported in The Australian today that members were being sold down the river based on his notion of the true value of SACA’s assets, SACA President Ian McLachlan tonight on the ABC2 news said words to the effect that ‘Mr Deare had always held those views (about a high valuation) and I had to tell him he was wrong. We had the valuations and they were for much less than the figures he was talking about.’

The SACA had valuations back in 2009? Well that is news Mr McLachlan and it is now incumbent upon you to produce those valuations so members and the tax paying public can scrutinise them. And that needs to happen now.

Nowhere in the SACA Information booklet was there any reference made to independent valuations obtained other than a figure of $140m – $150m of assets being relinguished (p25) which quoted no authority for that amount and a bullet point in the Governance section (p30) which read ‘SACA’s valuation of its assets … has been reviewied by Ernst & Young’ but note, not undertaken by them.

If the SACA had internally formed a view about the value of assets, then it seems very reasonable for Mr Deare to hold a view consistent with that. However, any board worth its salt would have sought independent valuations to justify to itself and its members that the price being offered was reasonable. Further, such a valuation would rely very heavily on data and information and other input provided from the client (in this case SACA). From that position it would be odd for an executive to have much cause to question the outcome. If one was substantially concerned of an under valuation any board would have sought a second independent valuation. Indeed, Mr McLachlan’s comments suggest that indeed there were multiple valuations and all of them at odds to Mr Deare’s views.

If they were all at the low end of expectations, again it is odd that an Executive would persist with such a view given those valuations would always form the basis of negotiations with the Government as to the value to be paid for SACA’s assets.

Well Mr McLachlan, produce the valuations (along with the other documents referred to our earlier article today.) Let’s see what the independent experts said and why and let’s see whether Mr Deare is smoking something or the whether the SACA members are going to be ripped off by a board not prepared for to go into bat for them.

Already the gap is $55-65m over $85m (about a 40% discount to the value SACA says should apply). Well what did the experts say because even at 40% one has to wonder how many people would be prepared to sell their home for that kind of discount?

PS I'm still curious about the AFL's position on car parking revenue. I understood they wouldn't move to the Oval unless they could have it?????

[Waewick]

sorry the general public does not have the right to view anything to do with the SACA or the SANFL

heck they don't on most ocassions have the right to view stuff from the Governmnet (look at the Hospital)

I realise the people from RAW are trying to increase their readership but mimicking the Adevertiser is hardly the way.